MigL

I see this as merely a difference in interpretation, so correct me if I'm wrong Skins. You interpret gravity as space-time 'flowing into massive objects, whereas the standard interpretation is a 'warping' of space-time by massive ( and energetic) objects. And as I've previously stated, this makes no difference as space-time is simply a co-ordinate system. Why wold you think there would be an energy loss if either the 'flow' was added to, or the 'curvature' was compounded ? And why poor Newton is accused of being wrong, I don't nderstand; None of this is Newtonian gravity. As to why you would want to model gravity on a 'flow' of space-time, yuo need to consider a 'source' for this space-time 'flowing' down a gradient into a 'sink'. This 'source' or divergence cannot be accounted for by space-time expansion ( dark/vacuum energy ) as that woldn't explain gravity within bound systems ( solar systems, galaxies, etc. ) where there is no expansion. So what I'm saying is, the standard GR interpretation works ( extremely well ) and has none of the 'downsides' of your model. And absoltely nothing abot boxes !

What, no Christmas presents for the rest of us, Studiot ? "Bah, Humbug !"

Thanks J.C., I should have made that clearer. The additional gravitational force generated by a spinning planetary system is, as others have told you ( and even given approximate vales for ) trivial compared to a non-spinning one. Whether they are spinning on a plane, retrograde or even on differing axis makes little difference to the trivially small contribtion.

You gotta watch those twisty, narrow, mountain roads Mike ( hope you and your passengers are OK ). I an well familiar with the area. ( beautiful though, ain't it ? )

Oh come on guys, cut him some slack... Up until last year we didn't know what gave the property of mass to leptons, and so we called it the 'God Particle'. Now we know ( reasonably ) and we call it the Higgs mechanism. Is that the example you were looking for John ? ( said with tongue firmly in cheek )

The original question asked about forces generated by spinning a rock about yourself, and I believe I included any "energy ( if sizeable ) associated with spinning". Planets in orbit are no different. The only way for this energy to be sizeable, I,e. non-trivial, is if the rock was being spun at relativistic speeds. It would then add enough energy to the whole system such as to generate 'extra' gravitational force. ( yes, energy gravitates )

The only two long range forces are gravity and electromagnetism. You didn't say the rock ( or anything else ) is charged, so the only force affecting you would be gravitational, combining the mass of the spinner, the rock and the energy ( if sizeable ) associated with spinning. Any other interaction would need contact and is just the Newtonian 'equal and opposite reaction', i.e. momentum conservation. You can deduce the answers to all your questions from that. Sorry, answered this before the split-off. Please move. Thank you.

Just putting this out there... The Iraqi army was 200,000 strong, when the US troops were withdrawn. They had an opposing ISIL army of approx. 30,000, i.e. at least six times smaller and far worse equipped. Yet they laid down their weapons and surrendered to ISIL as they did not want to fight their Sunny brothers. Some have blamed this on the US backing ( appointment ) of Maliki, who is Shia, and has ties to Iran. Would we have the ISIL problem today, or would it at least be more contained, if the US had backed a Sunny moderate instead of a former S. Hussein dissenter. Or would a better course of action been to let the Iraqi people sort it out, without backing anyone? ( or would this have caused a power struggle with external players like the Saudis and Iranians getting involved )

"Religion is what allows SOME PEOPLE to ASSIGN CAUSE TO things far beyond our current understanding" I.E. fill in the gaps. All of TJ MC's talk about higher dimensions and infinities are claptrap.

OK sorry for misinterpreting your post. In GR, space-time is simply a co-ordinate system, and as such, it doesn't flow, or move about. However we can introduce a 'distortion'' or a 'sink', with math, into the model. Whether you interpret this as a space-time curvature gradient or an actual flow of space-time into the 'sink' probably makes little difference.

Sorry Strange, been away sulking for a while. "Do we know they are ( were ) the same everywhere ?" Yes, we have a principle which takes advantage of this property ( isotropy ) to enable us to discuss Cosmology and the Universe.

Your model predicts a dependence on the size of the 'plug'. But gravity, and its associated space-time curvature, is dependent on mass-energy.

And you're still doing it Phy. I think your 'sensitivity' is reading way too much into a movie quote. "We'll be lucky not to die because Obama is a coward and NATO is doomed"...?????? That's an awfully big interpretational leap. If you think I'm judging you unfairly ( as you are doing to me ) message me and we'll straighten it out.

I assume you mean me as one of the 'conservatives'. Perhaps you'd care to explain in what way my response was 'conservative' ? Is it because I mentioned a failed Republican nominee ? Is it because my response was 'light-hearted' and you think I should be serious ? Is it because I've often offered a different viewpoint to some members of this forum who consider themselves liberal ? (and so by extension, if I present a differing view, I must be a 'conservative' ) The only serious assertion I made is that when you have many different players with different agendas, things are bound to get messy. And they have, as evidenced by the downing of the Russian plane. What more reasoning do you need ? If on the other hand, you're questioning the number of different players/different agendas, I can provide you with as many links as you need. So. other than a thinly veiled dismissal of my post as being "conservative', what exactly was the point of your post ? What concern did you show for informing the membership ? And if its a 'Liberal' vs 'Conservative' comment I suggest it is off topic in this thread. Wouldn't want a moderator to admonish you. P.S. Or is it just your bias showing through ?

OK, I'll take the bait. Suppose the universe was not finite but unbounded ( such as the surface of a sphere is ), so that it never folded back on itself. Also suppose that it was literally infinite, such that there is no outer edge, because that outer edge would make a 'mess' of things. And suppose that it has always been infinite , even at the time of the Big Bang. Well light and causality information only travels so fast. There would be a causality disconnect between various parts of this infinite universe and information could not be shared amongst all areas of the early universe. What would guarantee that all these areas are at the same temperature/energy ? Would all the symmetry breaks encountered on the way down of the vacuum energy all occur simultaneously ? Would all the inflation events occur at the same rate ? Or would all these domains, having evolved separately, give rise to 'domain walls' or discontinuities in the present universe ( and the resultant magnetic monopoles ) ? What happens to the isotropic principle ? So you see, an always infinite universe again gives rise to boundary problems and 'messes' things up. Does that mean we can eliminate it as a possibility ? I don't believe so. Sorry if my post has more questions than answers, but that's what happens when you speculate.

This whole business of 'joint' operations in Syria is bound to get messy as all the players have differing agendas. In the immortal words of Fred Thompson ( failed US presidential candidate, but good actor ) in ' the Hunt for Red October '... " This business will get out of control. It'll get out of control and we'll be lucky to live through it. " ( what, too dramatic ? )

What if it's... The BORG !

Work on your weaknesses when you're young. When you get old like me ( 50s ) you have only strengths, and don't need to work on anything. ( well, maybe my modesty )

Don't think it has anything to do with fear. Morals/ethics are very subjective. People have different opinions on how to best achieve the kind of life they want to have. It would be a very dull world if all people thought the same. ( although I sometimes wish for a little more dullness )

I thought I made it clear, CharonY, that I agree and try to live my life according to the guidelines set out by Ophiolite in post #181. That being said, I also recognize that there are people in this world who do not ( in the western world or the Islamic world ). And I apologize to all for the ( unintentional ) derailment. I would also add that the former members of the Ba'ath party may have used the fundamentalists to gain control, but I'm not sure if they are still in charge or if the fundamentalists are now running the show. They may themselves have created a 'monster' which they increasingly cannot control.

I don't often disagree with you Ophiolite, and generally I try to live my life as you advocate. ( started working out with weights in 1976 so I was always pretty solid and never bullied ) But what if the attacks had gone down in Texas, and when the half-dozen terrorists pulled out their AKs, 50 guns were pointed back at them ? Would you blame them for killing the terrorists and neglecting to "assure themselves of the facts and carefully weigh the consequences of any actions" ? Or do you think they should have done like the French civilians, and work to build an understanding and peace ( more likely plead for their lives ) That didn't work out too well for the French civilians.

Small guns would be impractical. Large guns, for anti-aircraft or anti-satellite, are being tested and evaluated. Look up railgun or coilgun.

This is a discussion forum. Not 'allowing' certain subjects to be discussed, smacks of censorship and pre-judgement. If you don't like the subject being discussed, don't engage. I sometimes laugh out loud when I see a thread go on and on for several pages, when a well-intentioned member tries to 'educate' a poster that makes an ignorant ( or wildly speculative, or even crazy ) assertion. ( I may have even been that 'ignorant poster' a few times ) The OP will quickly fade from the front page and, unless searched for, will become virtually invisible.

In the interest of discussion, I'm going to play devil's advocate ( again ), SwansonT. The argument being made is that Islam is just a religion, and isn't responsible for the evil perpetrated by people. Just like evil is done by Catholics, Jews, Hindus, etc. Now what if we were to replace Islam with the word 'gun' ? Would you give us the old NRA rant " guns don't kill people, people kill people'. Or, if you would say that guns facilitate the killing of people, so guns should be controlled; Would you then say that Islam facilitates evil, and should be controlled ? Or could you say that, since Islam doesn't have a single leader ( as the Pope is to the Catholic church ), it is subject to many different interpretations, some good, some misguided and some even evil ? In effect, since the Qur'an is interpreted at the local level by Imans ( often in very different ways than another Iman ), doesn't that make Islam, then, an extension of that particular Iman's ideology ? And if this ideology is evil ? I am no expert on Catholicism or Islam. These are at best, shallow views, so, if someone knows differently, I'm open to being schooled.

Now you're stretching the historical truth Overtone. The US did not encourage S. Hussein to invade Kuwait. ( no I will not write a post as excellent and leeeeengthy as CharonY ) And you contradict yourself... You say the US gave S. Hussein Chemical weapons AND the technology to make them. But since he destroyed all the ones we gave him he couldn't possibly have more. ( why not, he had the tech to make them himself ) But we're starting to go around in circles like the Israelis and Palestinians. We're looking to assign blame, and who did what first, instead of looking for a solution. All parties involved have some guilt; what's the way forward ?