MigL

I think he's referring to frames by 'co-ordinate system', Strange. He's implying that a distant frame can be applied to any black hole. And that a local one cannot. I, myself, don't see why not.

Very good point John. If Joe Public doesn't pay his $20000 in taxes, it is serious but doesn't amount to much. If Mutt Rimney ( names changed to protect the innocent ) only pays five times that amount on say, a hundred million, that is a problem. The first step should be to eliminate the tax loopholes that Mutt's accountants and layers make available to him.

Just the fact that some of these subjects can distract you, means you have some interest in them. Science and math can be a little 'dry' at times, but some other subjects where we deal more with personal opinions can get real passionate.

Hey David Levy, welcome back. Haven't heard from you for over a year. I would have thought you'd take that time to learn Newton's law of gravity and Kepler's orbital laws.

Hey, don't blame me, it's Mr. Lagrange's fault. Throw a ball up in the air with a certain amount of kinetic energy. At some point the ball stops moving, having transformed all its kinetic energy to gravitational potential energy. It is motionless and possesses the maximum gravitational potential energy. Since the ball is not constrained, the force of gravity takes over and accelerates it back downwards. Once it reaches ground level it has regained its kinetic ( minus any lost due to drag ) at the expense of the previously gained gravitational potential energy. I don't see how it could be simpler than that. Alternatively, if you step off a roof, you invariably hit the ground with an amount of kinetic energy large enough to kill or at least break bones. Where does this energy come from if not from the gained potential energy provided by you climbing the stairs to get on the roof ?

That's a pretty dismal situation. You either have outside groups ( self interest ) making campaign contributions and influencing policy, or you have the filthy rich ( Mitt Romney ) running for the office of the president. Whatever happened to America, land of opportunity, where even a poor man can become president ? ( sure if he sells his morals to the highest bidder and is a puppet, president in name only )

Oh I see what you mean. You're right, it doesn't 'gain' energy. My wording is often not very accurate. The stationary airfoil has more potential in the moving fluid than a stationary airfoil in a non-moving fluid. Just like you would have more gravitational potential energy standing stationary on the roof of a building than stationary at ground level. You can demonstrate this by stepping off the roof and exchanging some of the gravitational potential for kinetic, such that when you have the same amount of potential as at ground level, you have quite a bit of kinetic and it'll probably hurt. Actually , now that I re-read it, I only say 'gains' in the case of an unconstrained flat plate, which gains energy at the expense of the moving fluid; kinetic in this case. Anything subjected to a force has an associated potential, if it is allowed to move, some/all potential is exchanged for kinetic. I thought this was simple mechanics.

So we have two particles E and P, say an electron and a positron, at a given separation, such that there is a measurable potential between them. The anti-particle of each, positron for the electron E, and electron for the positron P, are brought near, encapsulated in a Faraday cage, such that they do not disturb the pre-existing field. The electron E is allowed to annihilate with its antiparticle, and the positron P is allowed to annihilate with its antiparticle. This is done in a period of time which is much smaller than the propagation time for light between the positions of electron E and positron P. I realize that 'simultaneity' is not possible, but it shouldn't matter. Is this a plausible thought experiment elfmotat ? If not, why not ? If yes, then what happens to the field ?

Not another 'missing potential energy' question ?!?! The two systems are different. It takes a certain amount of energy to 'randomize' all the tiny magnetic domains in the single magnet. If a second magnet is present, its field will act on the first magnet to help keep the magnetic domains aligned, therefore more energy is required to randomize the domains. You do know that you can 'magnetize' a screwdriver by holding a magnet close to it ? And after enough time, the screwdriver will retain the magnetism even with the magnet removed. What do you think the magnet is doing to all the ferrous magnetic domains in the screwdriver ?

Again, read my post . If the medium is moving past the stationary airfoil, then there is a force acting on the airfoil, and if that airfoil is constrained, there is a potential associated with that force. Once the constraints are removed, the potential is exchanged for kinetic, i.e. remove the hold-downs and the airfoil moves backwards and upwards.

Because any signal we receive from a distant astronomical object is in the form of EM radiation, we need only consider that case. Any material we would 'see' collapsing or falling into a BH would be sending this information to us in the form of EM radiation. Now EMR can only move at c , it cannot accelerate. What it does is lengthen its wavelength as it climbs out of the steep gravitational well on its way to us. If the gravitational well is infinitely steep ( there, happy now ? ), then it is red-shifted to an infinitely long wavelength, or zero frequency, and therefore zero energy. In effect it disappears, or goes 'black', hence the name black holes. That is what we would expect to see, NOT stars 'frozen' at the event horizon, no longer collapsing and shining forever. And you do know that they have been indirectly observed/confirmed by their x-ray fingerprint and gravitational effects that are too large for neutron stars to explain.

This is how it usually works iNow you project your biases onto others ! I am not arguing that there is a difference in intelligence or aptitude, as one of my 'personal' heroes is Emmy Noether, perhaps one of the best and most underrated mathematicians of the 20th century. I am arguing that biological differences contribute to different 'preferences' between the sexes. So that whereas a male may like and prefer engineering, a female may prefer literature. That doesn't mean all females or all males either ( sometimes I generalize as you've pointed out previously ). And of course it doesn't mean there aren't other factors at work, such as discrimination and societal pressures. Note that these different preferences are manifest in many areas, and a lot of them have biological or evolutionary forces as partial cause. Sexual preference ( majority of men like women and vice versa ) Appearance and grooming ( more men are 'slobs', compared to women ) Diet and food preference ( men tend to eat more red meat ) Types of work-out ( men prefer building muscle, women prefer leanness ) Etc. etc. See where I'm going with this ? I'm not screaming preconception and ideological gender bias.

Why can it not gain potential energy compared to the case where both the airfoil and medium are stationary ? But seriously, so I don't have to repeat or use the quote function ( which I hate because it forces you to read posts several times ), why not just read what I wrote in post #19, page 1 ?

Let me see if I can explain it simply. Consider falling into a black hole. You are an astronaut who if falling and approaching the event horizon. Do you note any change in the passage of time ? .Of course not. You pass right through the ( mathematical demarcation ) horizon, and are never seen again. But say you have a flashlight with you on your journey, and every second, you shine that flashlight outwards to another astronaut on your far away spaceship. That spaceship is a different frame, and the light from the flashlight, or the flash per second signal ( information ) has to climb out of a steep gravitational well, which becomes infinitely curved. In effect, time increasingly dilates, becoming infinitely dilated at the event horizon. This doesn't mean that you, in your local frame, don't ever cross the event horizon. It means you do, but your signal/information/light, being viewed from a distant frame, cannot reach that distant observer anymore. The flashlight goes 'black' at the event horizon, because the light or signal or information can no longer get 'out'. So how does that prevent the formation of black holes ?

If you read the first line of my post it clearly states that we are considering the simplified case of STATIONARY airfoils in a MOVING medium ( air ? ) Its really not that hard to scroll up and re-read my post.

Having just read this entire thread from the beginning I think you guys are misinterpreting elfmotat's views. He can probably make his case better than I can for him, but what I got out of it is that he's of the opinion that there are several causes for the imbalance. One is societal pressures, another is hard-wired biology, and there are more. On the other hand iNow originally argued that there is no significant biological difference. That seems to me to be the crux of the argument, whether biological difference play a significant part in education and career choices. I for one, would think that the 'significant biological difference' part can be easily verified by looking at yourself and your heterosexual ( obviously ) partner in a mirror while in a state of undress. That being said, I'll also refer to the other thread mentioned earlier. Why is a gender imbalance a bad thing ? As has been mentioned by elfmotat there are other imbalances, some much more serious. The gender imbalance, by itself it is not a bad thing However, SOME of the causes of this imbalance ( like discrimination, and societal pressure ) can be. Some others ( like biological differences ) are actually quite nice A bit off topic, but it seems to be happening more and more, especially in this thread. The use of 'logical fallacy', 'red herring', 'strawman argument' and others, is being used to avoid doing the work of providing a counter-argument. Because someone thinks an argument is not pertinent to a discussion, doesn't mean that it actually isn't. He should still demonstrate where it isn't and where the logic fails. Especially in the case where we're dealing predominately with opinions. Otherwise it is being used solely as a 'tool' to shut down discussion.

Lots of opinions. Convoluted issue. Makes me long for the simple days when I didn't stray from the Physics forum.

I don't see how your post or link disproves my assertion. The corporation mentioned in your link, along with many others were set up by the government to provide jobs. Some of these corporations even provided money to other corporations, such as the state, or even at the local level, such as municipalities, to provide jobs for people. That is the difference, NO handouts were provided to people, jobs were. That's what fueled the recovery ! I made NO mention of tax cuts to anyone, rich or poor, in any of my posts, nor of the government giving money to rich people for the purpose of hiring. I said money was given to corporations like the one set up by the government mentioned in your link, or associations, like farmers and labour unions ( although most of these corporations/associations were run by comparatively rich people ) Maybe my understanding of economics is limited, but I do know some history. All money was provided from the top-down, and what actually filtered down to the people was JOBS. Organizations/corporations got money; people got jobs ! So since you seem to have a better grasp of economics, maybe you can explain to me how that's different from my ( limited ) understanding of 'trickle down'. As for the second half of your post ( not actually addressed to me ), where you mention how all the crap spouted by Republican 'talking heads' came back to bite them in the ass after GWB took office, I agree with you. But how is that different from Democrat promises of change, like shutting down Guantanamo, getting out of Iraq, restoring the economy to Clinton era levels, resolving immigration issues etc. How did that work out ? The realities of office are always different from the fantasy of campaign promises ! By yours ( and John's ) definition, are we, then, ALL insane for believing the things which get said during elections ( or by paid-for shills and 'talking heads' ) ?

You guys ????? First off, don't attribute arguments to me that I haven't made. Secondly, I am a Canadian and probably far more liberal than you'll ever be. I just have an aversion to calling others names or insulting their integrity/credibility. You on the other hand have no such aversion as you've demonstrated in every one of your posts. I believe everyone has a right to an opinion, and calling them names or 'labelling' then is an ignorant attempt at dismissing their opinion. And yes, President Obama could have re-negotiated or imposed further rules on the bail-out, unlike the war financing. You still seem to think that the government sent out cheques to people post the great depression, and 'hired' them individually to do work ( it was after all the people's own money they were re-distributing ). They did not ! They either set-up corporations or hired corporations to assign make work projects to. These corporations, in turn hired the people such that unemployment fell drastically, and as more and more people found work, increased confidence led to more spending. That's what turned around the economy! And don't spout any bullsh*t about Hitler or Mussolini. What do they have to do with anything ? Or do you think that by associating me with them you can de-value my argument ? Like you do with the namecalling ?

Why is the East side of any city always the most disadvantaged or run-down ? Has anyone else noted this correlation ?

Maybe you should look at a simple definition of 'trickle down' economics ( later re-christened ' supply side economics' for spin ), overtone. " Giving tax breaks to the wealthy and big business, as they supply the jobs which will improve the economy for all " Now you're right, tax breaks were not provided to the rich, but massive amounts of money were provided to big business, who then provided the jobs that turned around the great depression. The term 'trickle down economics' may not have been in use at the time , but that is essentially what it was ! And sure, the Troubled Asset Relief ( or is it Release ) program was initiated by GWB in 2008, and the first half of the bail out went out in Oct-Nov of that year. The second half did not get released until the spring of 2009, when BO was in office, meaning he also approved of the method of dealing with the situation ( again, not passing judgement, just statement of facts ). And if you go back to my post #241, you'll see that I had stated that it is not only conservatives, but also supposed liberals ( President BO ), that throw money at big business if the situation deems it necessary. Oh, and making a thinly veiled implication that my memory is failing me, I'm trying to re-write history or live in a fictional world, is simply an attack on me, not my argument. The only purpose of which is to discredit my ideas and opinions similarly to what the title of this thread attempts to do. I thought you were above that overtone. I must have been crazy !

Not wanting to speak for Zapatos as he makes an excellent argument on his own. But of your examples, one is punishment, or simply retribution through torture, while the other is the removal of a dangerous offender from society so that he/she will never be one again. Totally different, in intent as well.

I'm saying there's nothing 'insane' about people who have conservative values ( and probably also some liberal values ), That is what I have objected to right from the start of this thread. It is an attempt to label people and ideas as irrelevant and unworthy of discussion. But there obviously are people who could be considered insane. Also note that I did not claim that Pres. Obama caused the recession. rather, when he took office, he reacted to it by bailing out the banks ( not judging his actions, just stating what he did ). And you're right, American Democrats are not considered Liberal nor progressive in Europe or Canada. As for 'trickle down' or 'supply side' economics, they seem to have worked rather well in bringing the US out of the Great Depression. Poor people weren't given tax cuts nor were the rich taxed more heavily. The government injected massive amounts of money in make work projects ( with industry a.k.a. big business ), who then provided jobs to the common people.

Just noticed this, so here's my two cents. Penrose diagrams are basically two dimensional light cones such that the 45 deg line is c . Obviously speeds are constrained to be equal to or more vertical than 45 deg, and the horizon itself is at 45 deg since it denotes an escape velocity of c . In effect, atwo dimensional finite 'mapping' of an infinite space-time. Even in a regular Swartzchild ( non-charged, non-rotating ) BH Penrose diagram, there are two horizons, whether this has any physicality is open for debate, but obviously cannot be verified and settled. Similarily a Kerr BH ( or a Nordstrum BH ) Penrose diagram has more than one horizon and various other 'regions' which can be accessed by travelling slower than c , but again, they may not have any physical meaning such as different universes, different areas of the same universe, or absolutely nothing.

Since the two examples you brought up are easy to refute, that makes my job a lot easier. "Trickle down' economics, or the idea that giving tax breaks to big business or the wealthy, will stimulate the economy, is not just a Reagan Conservative policy. It is used in every State, in Canada, and even in England/Scotland/Ireland. Business Tax rates are always lower than personal Tax rates in order to attract and keep business and industry in a particular area, no matter if that area is governed by Liberals, Conservatives or even Socialists. And no 'person' has ever gotten a Government subsidy as businesses often do. As for Tax breaks to the wealthy, IIRC, it was President Obama, a Democrat, who bailed out the bankers and investors who caused the crash of 2008, so they could give themselves bonuses for a 'job well done', while the people who lost their homes are still suffering 6 yrs later ( yes, I know, a very 'simplistic' analysis ). I don't know how many Conservatives would claim that wealth inequality is a good thing. Probably just as many as the filthy rich Liberals ( Democrats ) who hold political office in the US. Or doo you know of any who have given away their fortunes to run for political office ? Here in Canada we have a former Liberal Prime Minister, who was a Finance Minister during the period of biggest spending cuts by a government ( 2003-2005 ), and who happens to own Canada Steamship Lines, every single ocean going vessel of which, is registered in Liberia to avoid Canadian taxes. But back to your original assertion ( A is a subset of B ), that is not my personal opinion of how things work. There is no such thing as a 'conservative' or a 'liberal'. We as individuals, pick and choose policies we like from the conservative or liberal menu. The labels we assign to each other do the harm. As an example, equal rights were first championed by Conservatives in the US, yet Liberals are always called 'progressive', never Conservatives. And is 'change' or 'progression' always a good thing ? I don't think anyone would disagree that running trillion dollar deficits is a bad thing, especially for your kids who will have to pay down that debt. And as Phi for All suggested previously, it is not a bad thing if your daughter dresses conservatively