MigL

That would be Wilson of cloud chamber fame ( that picture, with names, is my new desktop on my work computer since we were aquired by Solvay ). I always get him mixed up with Max Planck ( on the other side ). Incidentally there is no 2015 conference. There was one in 2014, and they are three yearly events, I believe.

Sorry, I had thought he meant fixed wing drones as opposed to rotating airfoil types. For a rotating airfoil type ( helicopter ), the center of mass, for stability reasons, obviously has to be below the lifting surfaces ( or can you think of a helicopter that puts the rotor under the cabin ? )

Take a good look at an aircraft turning. It does not turn in an upright attitude with a deflection of its rudder. Rather, it banks in the direction of the turn and uses its 'pitch' to execute the turn ( pitch is easily available as all stable aircraft have their center of lift ahead of the center of gravity ). Most high performance jets have a high roll rate for just this reason.

Well, now that that's all over, lets move on... If a person had to apply to the local police department, who would do a background check, in order to obtain a firearm purchase permit, to be able to purchase handguns ( at least ), do you think that would have any effect on the handgun deaths statistics ? Once the background check has been done and the purchase permit issued, the applicant can purchase as many guns as he wishes, since we know he's not a criminal or a nutbar; he/she just can't do it immediately but has to wait a period of time. And the police have a record of which houses/individuals posses handguns, and can proceed accordingly when responding to a call from that house/individual. We have this system in Canada ( FAC ), while I hear that in the US you can buy guns 'on the spot', at gun shows, pawn shops, etc. Please inform me if otherwise, and, do any of you think it will partially alleviate the problem, or, trample your fundamental rights Waitforufo.

The math and physics of black hole formation is very well understood. When you have enough mass/energy localized in an extremely small radius, we know of no force that can stop gravitational collapse to a BH and possible singularity; Not electron degeneracy as in white dwarf stars, not neutron degeneracy as in pulsars/neutron stars. This mass/energy of the collapsed star doesn't go anywhere. It is still 'there', shrouded by an event horizon ( that which we call a BH ) and accounts for the gravitational interaction a BH exerts on surrounding masses. If it went 'somewhere else' would it not stop affecting nearby masses? The only way for a BH to evaporate and 'explode' as a highly energetic gamma ray burst, is if it happens to be extremely small, such that its 'temperature' is much higher than its surroundings ( CMB ). It will then evaporate via Hawking radiation, and when its localized mass/energy is low enough, it will 'burst out' of its event horizon as intense radiation. Large BHs are too big for this to happen ( order of 10^100 years ) as their temperature is too cold. Unfortunately, large BH are the only kind 'out there'. If there were any small primordial BHs ( from the Big Bang ), they would have evaporated already as they would have been microscopic. We don't see any gamma ray signatures for these exploding small BHs either, so there may not have been any. Now, I haven't included any math, but all these calculations are doable, and not very complicated as most don't even need the differential geometry of GR. A white hole on the other hand, I haven't seen any mathematical model for, nor do I know of a physical reason for one to come about. Perhaps you can tell us or show how a BH is limited to a size, beyond which, it will explode as a 'white hole'

It seems, Phi, that despite his rants and railings against conservatives, even Overtone has some conservative sympathies. He probably even agrees with that R Reagan quote posted earlier in the discussion. But seriously if we all agree on more ( sensible and enforceable ) government regulations, can we not start discussing what sort of regulations would do the most amount of good along with the least amount of harm ? ( are we being intenionally obtuse , Dimreeper ? )

I used to picture Swansont driving to work in his Aston Martin. Now I picture him doing a 3-point turn with a luggage cart and getting it stuck crossways in a hallway.

But that is not free will, is it Fiveworlds ? Everyone has free will and can choose to go to any school they want. Whether they are allowed to or not, i.e. the freedom to act as they will, is a totally different matter. We had a member on here a few weeks ago who wanted to destroy the world. He had decided he wanted to do this. Do you think he'll be able or allowed to ? Freedom of thought is a fundamental human right ( whatever that means ). You can think whatever you want. For everything else, there are laws and social norms that determine what we can and can't do. You can't even voice your thoughts indiscriminately, as there are speech laws.

I may be evil, but I'm certainly not bald !

I don't think you understood my meaning. Without free will you cannot be held responsible for decisions or actions so you cannot be prosecuted for those actions. Who said anything about lobotomies ? Please re-read my post.

I for one, wish to see Swansont go back to the Sean Connery/James bond avatar. I just can't take him seriously as a shag-a-delic Austin Powers.

OMG !!! DevilSolution is actually Mel Gibson !

It seems we all agree ( even through the squabbling ). And I quote from Overtone's post #373. On guns and related fatalities, "given the current lack of enforced responsibility in managing them. With reasonable regulation, it would likely become negligible." All we need to do now is determine what these 'reasonable regulations' are. Obviously Overtone and Waitforufo are of the opinion that the second amendment should not be modified, and we can respect that. But does a citizen's militia have the right ( just like government armies ) to refuse the membership of emotionally unstable or suicidal people ? In other words, can some people be denied the right to bear arms on the grounds that they might endanger themselves or others ? We have in Canada, the right to 'bear arms', but it is severely restricted to the person's criminal record and mental well being, time place and transport, as well as weapon type ( some restricted, some prohibited ). Would similar regulations in the US fly against the intent of the constitution ?

I don't see how your 'reforms' change anything, iNow. In the absence of 'free will', you are NOT responsible for your actions or decisions. They, then, warrant neither punishment, nor can the decision making process be rehabilitated or prevented. Our whole penal system is a sham, and I'm going to use that defense if I ever murder anyone, and you, as an expert witness. ( yes, I'm being sarcastic because I believe in free will on scientific grounds, not philosophical ones )

Just to add to Ten oz's car engine analogy... I remember what one guy used to say at the Gym where I worked-out. "If you put a 2 hp load on a 1 hp engine you end up with a blown engine, but, if you put a 2 hp load ( weights ) on a person ( organism ) you end up with a 2 hp person." Or are you going to refute that working out increases strength and muscle size ?

But we'd all be interested in knowing about the problems they were having with wine that prompted Navier and Stokes to come up with the viscous flow equations. I like science history, what can I say ?

I apologize if I mis-represented what you said, David. But did you have to go and give him another concept that he doesn't understand, and he's going to run with for another 5 pages ? The concept of 'cosmic time' applies to a 'fundamental observer'. It doesn't apply to you or me, Tar; It would only apply to another 'concept', like God. It is a useful concept for our understanding of the universe's evolution, but we can't interact in that 'now'. It is like imaginary numbers such as i, a concept which, although very useful, has no physical significance to you or me, as we can't interact with it.

Wow I didn't realize you two were that old, Tar and Strange ! ( actually I'm less than a decade younger ) You two old farts wanna start acting your ages ? ( I say 'old farts' with the greatest respect ) But seriously, Tar, you've admitted that you don't understand GR, why not ask for explanations and information from people like Strange or David345, who seem to have a grasp of GR, instead of always presenting your ( very verbose ) incorrect, and constantly changing theories, when they tell you your ideas are wrong ? I think back in post #92, David345 made the comment that a universal now has a problem because it would have to 'move through time'. I don't think its quite that simple. If we consider 2dimensional space, then time would add a third dimension, and we could easily put this 'block' of space-time in a slicer, and make a stack of 2dimensional surfaces, or foliations. If I remember correctly, these foliations are globally hyperbolic, to satisfy the time evolution conditions of these space-like slices or Cauchy surfaces. Unfortunately the problem is that globally hyperbolic foliations can only map locally, not globally. In effect there is no global 'now', only local approximations. ( of course AJB may now slap me upside the head and tell me I'm totally wrong )

Sure, but since we're both sticklers for accuracy, you did say "Who is actually wiping another COUNTRY off the map?".

Back to D. Trump... That blowhard has gone up in the polls to within 5 % points of H. Clinton the Democrat front-runner and has completely left behind his competitors for the Republican nomination such as J. Bush. He has gone from ralleys in venues seating thousands, to venues seating tens of thousands, and is on the cover of Time magazine. Thank goodness there are still 15 odd months to the election. Maybe this thread should be rolled into the "What is America's Biggest Problem" thread.

Palestine wasn't declared a country until 1988. By a government in exile. So your first three maps, while very pretty, aren't pertinent to your argument.

Really ? When was the last time you heard an Israeli politician say they wanted to wipe one of its neighbouring countries off the map ? And Israel is the only country in the area that COULD do it !

That's verifiably false DrP, many politicians make the same mistakes over and over , yet keep getting re-elected. Or were you talking about me. ( all this talk about things NOT said is getting me confsed ) All I'm going to say on the subject is that by saying people who agree with certain ideas are uneducated, you imply that those ideas are worthless because only unintelligent people support them. If the ideas are worthless it should be easy enough to demonstrate ( and they certainly are with D. Trump ). Why do you need to bring in people's station in life ( yes a lot of people can't afford higher education ).

If its a matter of 'who's job is more important to society', then why is Christiano Ronaldo making so much ? I'm not an engineer so I will never be upper management where I work. But I do make a comparable salary with a BSc in physics. And as I always tell the engineers that I work with... "All those little equations and formulas for stresses, strains, heat transfer, etc. that you use. I derive them from first principles."

You consider it 'spinning our wheels'; I consider it a valid point, iNow. There are tons of reasons to attack and discredit D. Trump's ideas and possible policies. The fact that his supporters aren't well educated is not one of them, nor should it be. And this is just an observation. Now I'm gonna join CharonY and have a cup of coffee.