MigL

Conventional gasoline engines ( Otto cycle ) fire the plug before top dead centre. This is usually built in as an initial timing, plus a variable timing addition depending on rpm and load ( the old mechanical method used centrifugal weights under the distributor cap to vary the timing ). This is done because the flame front takes a certain amount of time to spread from the ignition plug through the combustion chamber. Engines with too much initial timing need an 'explosion' modifier to reduce pre-ignition that can 'blow' holes in the piston tops. This is usually done by adding an octane booster, like t-e-lead in the old days, or up to 20% ethanol these days. An HCCL engine may get around this problem of timing advance, because the flame front isn't localised, rather the whole combustion chamber ignites at a certain pressure. ( I was a bit of a gear head in my 20s and liked building/modifying engines )

The F-111 ( or MiG-23, Su-24, Tornado, etc ) were a product of their times. Computing advances have enabled the design of wings which are more efficient at both subsonic and supersonic without the weight penalty and complexity of variable sweep. The F-15e, for example can do the job the F-111 used to do, much better and sans variable geometry. The F-111 could however fly at 200 feet height and Mach 1.2. A squadron of F-111 could probably do more damage to a city, by flying at that speed and height just from the 'boom', than by actually dropping ordinance. In the 1950s. there was a requirement for an atomic powered bomber which cold stay aloft for extended periods of time. This was similar to the need for vertical take-off, to minimise the need for airfields. Convair won the contract for a bomber powered by engines using a reactor to heat/expand the air, and actually flew a reactor in a B-36 bomber test-bed. The design of the bomber and engines was finalised, but cancelled due to the impracticality of having a flight crew airborne for weeks at a time.

Are you done banging your head against the wall, Strange ? Whether you like it or not, Sorcerer, the laws of physics continue to apply near and inside the event horizon. It is only close to and at the possible singularity that our physics cannot make predictions anymore. A massive object is therefore constrained to always move subluminally. The only way it could reach light speed is if it started at infinity in an empty universe, and as you've stated, that is impossible. Outside the event horizon you will 'see' any photon move away from you, and towards the BH, at the SoL, but getting more and more red-shifted, until it goes totally black at the horizon ( infinite wavelength, zero frequency ). We cannot discuss anything from the frame of reference of the photon because there is no valid frame for massless particles that always move at the SoL. A third observer may 'see' the photon moving towards the BH ( still at the SoL ) and you, moving at an appreciable fraction of the SoL, right behind it. And since the photons coming back at the third observer from you are a signal, and therefore frequency/wavelength shifted, he will 'see' you moving slower and getting more red-shifted until you finally disappear at the event horizon. Make no mistake though, you have crossed the event horizon and are rushing towards the only thing in your fture, the possible singularity. Inside the horizon you will not be able to 'see' the photon which may be right in front of you, as the photon cannot move backwards towards your eyes. The only thing in its future is also the possible singularity. Similarly, if the third observer was foolish enough to follow you through the horizon, he will not be able to 'see' you, even if only a meter behind you. If you turn around as you fall towards the possible singularity though, you will 'see' the third observer's light signal, but blue-shifted to a much higher frequency/shorter wavelength. Because of this frame effect, you should be able to 'see' the future history of the universe unfold behind you, in the brief time it takes you to reach the possible singularity. An excellent 'layman' book is Kip Thorne's "Black Holes and Time Warps: Einstein's outrageous Legacy". It contains little math but is not prone to 'flights of fancy' like many other pop-sci books. Give it a read, Sorcerer.

Well then in the interest of communication and understanding, please explain to me what is the pertinence of their educational level ? Sometimes like in Jazz, the words that aren't spoken are the loudest.

Don't misunderstand. I think D. Trump would be the biggest mistake America has ever made. But its a series of very small steps from Willie saying Trump supporters are uneducated, to INow replying that they don't think ( I think he actually said do the calculus about him ), to someone else saying, well, maybe they shouldn't get a vote. Even uneducated Jeds have a right to an opinion and a vote in a democratic society. Pointing out their educational deficiencies, 'implies' that they don't know what they're talking about, and their thinking is in error. Trump has made a 'connection' with issues that are important, maybe not to you and me, but certainly to them. The other candidates so far, haven't. Nor have they explained why these issues may not be so important.

Seems simple enough to visualise Sorcerer... There is a hole in the ground 10 feet deep. You can easily fall in, so there is a path in. Getting out is a different matter. The path out takes a lot more energy, and is not just a matter of reversing direction. This is of course, a 3dimensional analogy. The 'hole' analogy of a space-time ( 4D ) BH takes an infinite amount of energy to get back out as it involves moving faster than the speed of light, and so, is impossible, i.e. there is no path out. And my apologies Strange, of course you are right ( I now see what you were saying ),space-time curvature is the proper way of looking at things. But the event horizon itself ( that which we call a black hole ) can be explained in terms of Newtonian gravity.

Not to nit-pick, as this is off topic anyway, but this is essentially the same thing. An 'object' which leaves the Earth's surface and falls back down, has a variable speed as it climbs , stops, and falls. Light does not. It always travels at c ( and follows geodesics ). In effect, it either escapes, or it doesn't. There is no in-between.

I hope you're not suggesting, Willie, that people without secondary education aren't allowed an opinion and a vote; And that those of us with higher education should 'decide' for them. Maybe these more educated people that you mentioned who made speeches at grade levels higher than 3 or 4 should be bright enough to figure out a way to appeal to Trump's supporters ( like he has ).

The Black Hole itself is not made of anything. It is actually a mathematical construct describing a region of space around a gravitationally collapsed object where the escape velocity is greater than or equal to c ( the speed of light ), as a result no light, radiation of any kind, or any information whatsoever, can escape this region. This gives it an absolutely black appearance, hence the name 'black hole'. But there is nothing solid there, just a region of dark space. The only information or properties conserved by a Black Hole are mass, charge and momentum ( angular and linear ), all other information is lost. This is of course, according to classical General Relativity. Quantum theory, on the other hand, suggests that information cannot be lost, and so points to a quantum modification of classical GR, which would also help with the problem of determining if the gravitationally collapsed mass actually becomes singular ( dimensionless point ) or not.

Nothing you'll ever be able to get your hands on. Are you still going on about destroying the world ? If you are, its a good thing you're just an idiot and not a dangerous idiot. Seems you've taken the lack of attention your parents gave you as a child a little too far. Maybe this world would have a lot less suffering if people like you didn't cause so much of it, by trying to destroy other people's happiness and get their way. Maybe your parents should have given you more attention growing up... A good slap upside the head every once in a while might have helped.

Just sit back and wait about 3 billion yrs. The Sun will do it for you. Or are you in a rush ?

You wound me, John.

I'll have to agree with John. All of the mentioned Generals may have had misgivings about using the bombs, but so did Truman. If he were still alive today could he point to those misgivings and say that he opposed using the bombs ? The historical fact is that he did,and his Generals went along with it, Ten oz. Every time Manchester United loses a game, both me and John, can always say afterwards, what they should have done to win.

Trump may know squat about government policy and function. But he does know about publicity. He's not making gaffes; He's staying in the spotlight. He knows that name recognition is the biggest asset to getting elected. God help the Western world if we end up with Bozo the Clown in the White House. ( and now Overtone will correct me and say that it wouldn't be the first time )

That would certanly be a welcome development Ten oz. If Americans had to govern by coalition governments, it might teach their politicians to work together a little better.

Now who's moving goalposts John? Isuggest a re-reading of the origina lcomment made by DimaMazin ( I believe ), and the follow-up responses. Are you 'suggesting' I'm a conservative because I refuse to blinder myself to issues and don't blindly follow ideology Phi ? Capitalism and socialism can be regarded as off-shoots of conservatism and liberalism. I suggest that for a just and evolving sociey,both are needed. Sometimes more of one than the other. Capitalism rewards those who strive for success. Socialism makes sure everyone has equivalent opportunity to achieve that success. The two should never be mutually exclusive.

No, what I said was any book on the Cold War. Of course the defeat of Germany in WW2, and the Soviet Union can't be viewed as capitalist triumphs. But the standard of living during the Cold War for the Soviet controlled East Germans, as compared to the American ( and others ) assisted West Germans, can be.

"That we're like animals! It's in the blood! It's natural! Peace? That's an accident! It's what is! When you're pushed, killing's as easy as breathing. When the killing stops in one place, it starts in another, but that's okay... 'cause you're killing for your country. But it ain't your country who asks you, it's a few men up top who want it. Old men start it, young men fight it, nobody wins, everybody in the middle dies... and nobody tells the truth! God's gonna make all that go away?" RAMBO, 2008 ( Sylvester Stallone, deeper than you thought )

I assumed that was a given,Zapatos. No-one wants to stay in Alabama. I also made the unjustified assumption that since males of a given age are required to be in the military and 'house' their weapon, most homes would have a weapon in them. I just assumed the Swiss number was higher. My bad, iKnow. Its actually 50% higher in the US than Switzerland. ( what the he*l is the matter with the Swiss, don't they have any male kids ?)

Yeah, that's another popular political tactic. Always blame your predecessor.Not that there isn't reason to, sometimes. Just because I don't like to always pick on Americans... Our Liberals here in Canada, implemented the Kyoto Accord and signed Canada up as level 3 member of the F-35 development consortium by contributing $200 mil. They then did nothing about climate change for 14 yrs, as a matter of fact our CO2 emissions went up in that time period, For the last decade, while the Conservatives have been in power, the CO2 emissions have been steadily dropping, but liberals ( party, media, people ) have been protesting that the Government isn't doing enough because they're not signing on to intenational CO2 reduction programs. Butthe real hypocrasy is the claim that the Conservatives are buying the F-35, a much too expensive aeroplane, when the Liberals put us in the program to begin with. Without a tender. Now, before you go off on me, I'm not excusing the Conservative' behaviour; They have a lot to answer for also But the point is they both use the same tactics. And us dummies fall for itevery time.

I'm just examining other possible factors Zapatos, because the data available doesn't support more gun control. The availability of guns is HIGHER in Switzerland than in the US. Almost every home has a gun ! The gun numbers for the US are skewed by collectors who own hundreds of guns, but the number of homes where a gun is present is way lower. I'm just saying that if someone or something can hitch-hike across Europe and Canada with no incident, but after two weeks in the US, that person/thing comes to a violent end, maybe we don't have enough data for a pervasive study, but we can still draw some conclusions. #1- Don't hitch-hike in the US .

Gases like methane/ethane may be there, and are considered 'fossil' fuels, but I doubt very much you'd find oil and coal on a planet that's never supported life.

Again,it depends on your definition of 'uniform'. In any crystal, atoms/molecules are arranged in one specific pattern, ie.extremely ordered. It may be 'uniform'but certanly not a randomized distribution.

I certainly can iNow... Back on page #9 ( long time ago ), my post #166 was followed by your reply, #168. Go back and re-read them. This is where I originally made the comparison between the US and Switzerland. And Zapatos, by other people/cultures I obviously mean Europe and Canada, as hitcBOT hadn't travelled to any other continents. Obviously the 'data' doesn't support conclusions about Chad and Paraguay.

Who ? Putin or Sepp Blatter ?