MigL

I'm Canadian also and you have no sense of humor. For shame.

I recently read a column in MaximumPC magazine by Tom Halfhill ( whose day job is as an analyst at Microprocessor Report and who I've read since Byte magazine in the 80s ) on the computer simulation of the whole universe. He had the rather naïve idea that since information is encoded as particle states in modern computers, and since just to encode all the information of a single particle would require a multitude of other particles, then by necessity a computer much larger than the whole universe is required to simulate the existing universe, But then he stated something which might make the simulation possible, and whichcaught my attention. In simulation games, like the Sim series, very little actual detail is provided. It is only when you examine or interact with a certain location, that the simulation provides added detail or information. This would then be a way that the whole universe could be simulated with limited computational information/storage. This bears a striking resemblance to Quantum mechanical effects, Local detail does not become apparent until it is observed or locally interacted with. That is when the probabilistic wave function collapses to a definite state. Could the universe actually be deterministic, then, and Quantum Mechanics just a 'trick' the universe uses to encode vast amounts of information ? Are we living in SimUniverse ?

Actually the city of Montreal here in Canada, has had 3 separate mass shootings at three different schools in the past 25 yrs, I don't know if that's a record for any one city You Americans don't wanna be compared to French-Canadians, do you ? ( nobody does )

Another one of America's big problems is people who can't make a simple point in 5 lines or less.

So I brought this up previously in this same thread, and now B. Obama seems to agree with me. What is it about Americans among the other advanced countries on Earth, that compels them to commit "these kinds of mass shootings every few months" ?

Well its a good thing I didn' t vote for it, then, isn't it iNow ? How about you ?

Don't mix up models. If you're using General Relativity, gravity doesn't have to 'get out'. Gravity is the curvature of space-time. (the same curvature which keeps light from 'getting out' ) Gravity is more than likely quantised.

Oh come on you guys ! I may not agree with Sunshaker's views, but ANY cop would have done his due diligence and erred on the side of the greater good. If that means one false arrest and confiscation ( an inconvenience ), as opposed to the killing and injuring of several young kids by a homemade bomb ( a tragedy ), I'm all for it. And saying " but Christians do it too " when someone brings up Muslim atrocities is no justification. They are both wrong ! I would not be concerned at all if a lot of these 'refugees' were aged or women and children, but a lot ( most ? ) seem to be young men. Like I've previously stated these are exactly what we westerners need, and I'm all for bringing them ( and their families ) into Canada, America or Europe. But surely a background security screening is justified ?

Now you've gone too far Overtone! A blatant attack on Clint Eastwood, ( post #52 ) ? An attack on an American icon ? Who's next on your hit list, John Wayne ?

The fun, science related hobby that I have is bugging and annoying others on this forum.

I second iNow's sentiments. Can we please steer this thread back towards sanity, and discuss gun rules and regulations that all can live with ?

Thanks again for taking the time to explain, timo ( and others ). I appreciate it.

Thanks for clarifying guys. But I have to ask. When we talk about electroweak unification at about 125 GeV, where the weak and EM forces unify and the intermediate gauge bosons ( W and Z ) become massless and indistinguishable from photons, do they not need to decouple from the Higgs field to become massless ? If that is the case, doesn't the W then become its own antiparticle, hence a majorana ? What 125 GeV energy are we talking about, then ?

The two are quite different. While an object accelerated to high enough speeds cannot become a BH as its mass is 'intrinsic' ( I don't know if that's the right word ) to its frame, its interaction with the Higgs field is 'extrinsic', i.e. it crosses frames. At electroweak energy levels ( with respect to the Higgs field frame ) would the interaction not cease and the fermion lose the property of 'rest' mass, along with a jump to lightspeed ? I'm not asserting this Strange, rather I'm asking if its a possibility or if my thinking is at fault.

But we can also agree that a 'well regulated' militia doesn't include criminals, crazies and suicidals. So background checks to include these restrictions shouldn't violate the second amendment. Requiring that your guns are stored according to strict regulations also doesn't violate the second amendment. There are ways of improving regulation and enforcement without violation of the constitution. maybe we should just concentrate on those, and leave constitutional matters alone, as that seems a very sensitive subject. Overtone has argued FOR measures like the above ( for the last 10 pages or so ); He has a problem with how the discussion is being carried out ( on this forum also ) with people taking extreme positions. What exactly is the source of your confusion, Dimreepr ?

Nice Mordred, thanks. I'd never heard of Parker radiation.

If a fermion was accelerated to energy levels above electroweak symmetry breaking, would it stop interacting with the Higgs field and lose that property we call mass. Being a massless particle means it would then move at c , and possibly ( depending on other properties ) become its own antiparticle ?

Michel123456 ( and GR ) is saying that all events, past, present and future are 'fixed' in space-time. I don't understand how that equates to absolute time or absolute space. Please explain.

I think someone else has already mentioned it, but us 1st world countries don't have enough kids, we're not even at replacement level, and our populations are aging. Soon the cost to the small number of young working people will be too great to sustain the increased numbers of pensioned retired people. The only solution is immigration, and accepting refugees seems to 'kill two birds with one stone'. It provides working young people for us, and gives them a chance at a new life.

Again, Read people's posts before you answer them ! I was referring to my post #467 where I stated that in Overtone's example of Minnesota, gun fatalities are more closely correlated to population density. And your dismissive answer in post #468 was that you'd already 'corrected' me several times on that matter. I guess Overtone is right again, some of you guys seem to have a comprehension problem ( or is it intentional to simply ignore facts that don't fit your worldview ? ).

Never thought I'd say this, but Overtone seems to be the only one making a sensible argument here. The rest of you are only attacking him and accusing him of being a 'fence-sitter', when he has clearly spelled out his position and various proposals; and then patting each other on the back by +1ing yourselves and -1ing him. iNow, maybe if you actually read other people's posts you'd know if you've previously disproven their claims. Let's simplify ( I didn't like your condescending attitude either ). I didn't mention Switzerland, Japan, China or any other place when I said that population density correlates more closely with gun fatalities than gun prevalence does. I mentioned Overtone's example of Minnesota. Give me the statistics that disprove that ! Or are you finally going to start making arguments honestly, without taking quotes out of context ?

( don't mention that to iNow, or he'll be all over you ) Seems some people insist that the number of guns is the SOLE reason for the incidence of gun fatalities in the US.

Seems Overtone again has a point ( damn, I hate to agree with him; just kidding ). If you don't look at state by state statistics, but rather, at factors like gun availability by area ( rural versus urban, as in Overtone's Minnesota example ), it seems that gun homicide rates are lower in areas with less guns. That flies against Willie's common sense ( see his posts above ). Rather it seems to correlate more closely with population density than gun ownership. And maybe it implies that there's some truth to the old adage that "Guns don't kill people, people kill people".

I don't mean that it applies in any way to your case Ten oz, since you were clearly instructed that you were being tested only on what you know. But in many tests your reasoning is clearly on test. If you can use deductive reasoning to eliminate answers which are more wrong, then the one which is least wrong must be the correct one. Why should it be an issue, then ?

Seems to me this problem isn't new, the southern European countries like Italy and Greece have been dealing with it for a number of years. As far back as 20 yrs ago refugees/migrants from the break-up of Yugoslavia and Albania were flooding into neighboring countries, then came the influx from North Africa. When boatloads of people were being rescued at sea in the southern Mediterranean, or landing on southern European beaches, and Italy and Greece asked for help from the rest of the EU, they were told to 'suck it up' as it was their problem. Now that the economies of those countries are in trouble ( Italy ) or total shambles ( Greece ), such that even refugees don't wanna go there, and rather, are heading for places like Germany, France, England, etc. where they can have a future, NOW ( all of a sudden ) its a problem ?