MigL

I find it hard not to be insulting of your intelligence. Do you think Photoshop has always been around ? There are hi altitude photographs and film taken from spy planes such as the U-2 and SR-71 from the late 50s/early 60s which SHOW a rotating spherical Earth. But I suppose you think Photoshop ran on vacuum tube mainframes in those days. Get a clue, then, get an opinion.

Happy New Year ! (shhhh... my head hurts)

"No one has convinced you" ???? "Is there no evidence" ???? Do you really need to be convinced in this day and age ? There are pictures and videos that SHOW a spinning spherical Earth, for frick's sake ! I find it hard to believe that you use a computer ( and can presumably feed and dress yourself ) yet need to be 'convinced' of these basic facts.

Maybe 'equivalent' wasn't the right choice of wording. The interaction/experiment/observatioin collapses the wave function. The wave function is common to both entangled particles. Collapsing it in one 'place' collapses it everywhere, including the second particle. The fact that we haven't formally 'observed' the state of the second particle doesn't make it any less true.

Assuming things worked as you say and the iron ball experienced a tangential force from the switching, alternating electric or magnetic fields such that attraction ALWAYS prevailed. And assuming the switching alternating fields represented a massive body ( like the Earth ), what exactly is switching/alternating on the earth to produce gravity? And we can measure the gravitational attraction of a small iron ball. Are there switching/alternating fields originating from the iron ball as well ? Because that makes your model a lot more complex. And don't forget that the separation of the fields relative to the size of the ball will have varying effects, how does your gravitational model take this in consideration ? How is the field switching frequency accounted for ? That also affects how quickly the iron ball reaches the 'prevailing' attractive state. Instead of wasting your time thinking about how all these conflicting effects can model gravity, you should instead consider how effectively curved space-time does it. The math defining the model may be complex, but the theory is essentially simple. ( unless you're considering this as a thought experiment to hone your thinking and math skills, which isn't useless at all )

So we have two entangled particles. We interact with particle 1 to determine its spin, yet you say it makes no sense to talk about when the spin of particle 2 becomes determinate until we actually measure it. Even though we know what it will be determined to be when we do measure. I don't want to speak for Swansont and Strange, but we seem to be in agreement that interacting with particle 1 is equivalent to interacting with particle 2, simply because that IS entanglement. P.S. Don't get angry, make a better argument !

I would agree, mental health issues are most likely a large contributor. Here we are, a few (supposedly ) sane people, trying to understand why a person who has a ( temporary ? ) bout of insanity, does what he does.

Big Bang nucleosynthesis that created all the Hydrogen and most of present day Helium, took place within minutes of the BB event, Airbrush. But at any time after the inflationary period, the mass energy of the Universe would have been incredibly smooth, such that even today, after 13.7 Bil yrs, the CMB is smooth to one part in ten thousand. It would have taken time for stars and galaxies to form. There would not have been a gravitational attractor strong enough to 'cause' an immediate Black Hole.

Take a coin and split it down the middle such that one half is the 'head' part and the other half, the 'tail' part. Place both halves in envelopes such that you don't know which went into which envelope. Can you say anything about the state of the half in either envelope, Eise ? Are their states not indeterminate ? Now move one envelope a great distance from the other ( M-31 in Andromeda if you so desire ). Now I perform an 'experiment' by opening the local envelope, and find the half coin to be in one particular state, 'heads' or 'tails'. I then know the state of the other non-local half, as it is the opposite of the local state. This is fully repeatable and implies no FTL communication. And I realize this is a simplification of entanglement. but it is an example of t a correlation that doesn't force you to choose between pre-determined variables and communication.

I say we give him the NOOBel prize !

My mistake Ten oz, apparently age has very little correlation to suicide rates. I had always assumed that it was younger people who commit suicide. There does seem to be a wide disparity between genders in the suicide rate though ( according to the CDC ), and although females think about suicide more often, males actually carry through at 4 times the rate.

Well Ten oz, you're the one who posted the chart. For you to then argue that observations about 'your' chart are invalid because it presents state-wide statistics which are at odds with those state's city statistics, begs the question; What was the purpose of posting it in the first place ? iNow's latest post attempts a more balanced/nuanced interpretation. I don't have time to research it, but what about the age of suicides ? Is it a predominantly 'young persons' affliction ? It seems reflected in their music genre of choice; Since the middle 90s white American teenagers started listening to music full of 'teenage angst'. I don't really know why as teens and young adults have it better than they've ever had ( and have the lowest levels of political interest ). If I have time I'll look for some age related stats this evening.

Easy, Ten oz. ( I did say I wasn't serious ) But you'll notice the rate does start deviating from the norm, with the curves starting around Oregon/Oklahoma on the hi suicide/ lo pop. density end, and California/Connecticut on the low suicide/hi pop. density end. And yes, that is the first thing that struck me about the chart. ( making it immediately evident )

Immediately evident is an 'inverse' correlation with population density. Maybe you guys would see it also if you didn't have an axe to grind with political ideologies. But seriously, do you really think politics 'important' enough to warrant suicide ? ( also, please note I say correlation ) Loneliness, or feeling isolated, perhaps ? Maybe we've become more of a social animal than we thought. Or maybe its just the bad TV reception in remote areas.

At the risk of sounding religious... I want to wish everyone and their families a very merry Christmas. May the joy and good will of the season be with us all year round.

Whether the models make accurate predictions can be questioned, and you're right, the variables affecting climate change are not fully understood ( complicated interdependencies ). What CANNOT be questioned, and indeed can be verified in a laboratory experiment, Is that CO2 is a greenhouse gas, and CO2 levels ARE increasing in the atmosphere. The conclusions you draw from that are up to you.

What I find exceptionally amazing, is a person using an advanced piece of equipment like a personal computer to post this nonsense. How far removed is the average person's general knowledge from the technology we use on a day to day basis ? Civilization is doomed !

Consider that nit picked. ( or you could aggregate non-fusible material for another nit )

Just to be absolutely clear. Nothing is at absolute rest because there is no absolute frame in which to measure absolute motion ( or lack thereof ).

Meh ! Change the subject from an Italian idiot/buffoon, back to an American one ?

That's better ! ( After you read all of iNow's provided links, then you can give in and change your views. Thanks iNow. )

Read a history book and learn how to spell Mussolini. He was not a 'corporate' man, but an opportunist. For the first part of his life he was actually a Communist who wrote for a Communist paper, but when opportunity presented itself, he quickly changed his 'stripes' as a way to better his position and take advantage of others ( and rise in stature/power ). I realise 'fascism' has taken on a different meaning today, but originally it referenced the 'fasces' or bundles of wheat that you saw scattered about in wheat fields after the harvest ( an old Roman symbol ). He came to power before Hitler, and it is said Hitler was impressed by Mussolini's accomplishments, until he met him and realised what an idiot/buffoon he actually was. Of course it may have been the festering syphilis rotting away his mind

I don't understand why Ten oz thinks there should be a homogeneous culture in each 'country' as opposed to the present diversified arrangement. Iraq was previously diversified and they seemed to live together under the iron fist of S Hussein. Similarly Tito's Yugoslavia, and the former Russian republics under centralised Communist rule. And if your answer is that these were totalitarian regimes, multiculturalism also seems to work quite well in Canada, the US, Western Europe, some of south America, etc. If on the other hand, you'll claim that the problem in the middle East is religious diversity, I would be a rich person if I had a nickel for every time I've been told ( on this forum ) that the problems in the middle East are NOT religious. This is one of those times I agree with you Tar. The US is often blamed when they go into a situation and try to affect change, and they are also blamed when they don't do enough or anything. I guess that's your lot when you're seen as the leader of the free world, you've gotta have pretty big shoulders because you're damned if you do, and damned if you don't.

Now I'm disappointed Shelagh. Don't change your views or ideas simply because other people have expressed a dissatisfaction with them. Tell these Bozos ( I mean that in the nicest way possible, guys ) to provide you with evidence, and if that evidence is satisfactory, THEN you'll change your mind. ( that's what a discussion is, isn't it ? ) If you change your mind just because everyone is against your opinion, then you're just trying to 'fit in'.

What you just described is impossible airbrush. A star cannot become massive enough to immediately form a black hole. Nuclear fusion would start way before that point, and 'blow away' all gases/dust needed to make up the additional mass. All large scale black holes are the result of gravitational collapse of stars or 'merging' of neutron stars/black holes. I,E. stars come before Black Holes. Whether Black Holes come before spiral arm formation ( or not ) is open for discussion.