MigL

Just like differences between types of conervatives and liberals, there is a huge difference between 'soft' and compassionate. The idea is not one extreme ideology, or the other opposite. It is a combination of the two which yield the most benefit for all people. Democracy does that much much better than authoritanianism/dictatorship.

Is this a wild guess, or do you have evidence ??? Science works with evidence, not guesses.

I know some very good people who consider themselves conservative ( Canadian, not Republican ), and resent the fact that they are being lumped in with this guy. In Canada, being conservative means not changing our true and tried ways, with new ideas like for-pay clinics or split cost health care. Or getting rid of our armed forces in favor of 'peace-keeping' forces. Or allowing armed citizens, and militias, to protect ourselves from our representative Government. These are just a few examples that indicate there are differences in 'conservatives' as well as differences in 'liberals'. And Greg has mentioned some instances ( Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot ) where left wing idealism has gone 'off the rails' and murdered more people than even fascists like A Hitler did.

So, a bunch of definitions strung together with an overactive imagination, and no model to speak of. Woo and WAG come to mind. To quote the Simpsons "You can't make friends with ( word ) salad"

I also said

And the very people he is defending are Russians and Chinese, both Communist, which is, by definition, left. Authoritarian governments ( dictatorships ) are authoritarian no matter their political leaning; extreme right, or extreme left.

From J A Wheeler's No-Hair Conjecture "Every isolated unstable black hole decays rapidly to a stable black hole; and (excepting quantum fluctuations) stable black holes can be completely described (in a Cartesian coordinate system) at any moment in time by these eleven numbers: mass–energy {\displaystyle M}, linear momentum {\displaystyle {\textbf {P}}} (three components), angular momentum {\displaystyle {\textbf {J}}} (three components), position {\displaystyle {\textbf {X}}} (three components), electric charge {\displaystyle Q}. These numbers represent the conserved attributes of an object which can be determined from a distance by examining its gravitational and electromagnetic fields. All other variations in the black hole will either escape to infinity or be swallowed up by the black hole. By changing the reference frame one can set the linear momentum and position to zero and orient the spin angular momentum along the positive z axis. This eliminates eight of the eleven numbers, leaving three which are independent of the reference frame: mass, angular momentum magnitude, and electric charge. Thus any black hole that has been isolated for a significant period of time can be described by the Kerr–Newman metric in an appropriately chosen reference frame." From No-hair theorem - Wikipedia That is all we can determine fom an external ( distant ) frame of reference. Internally, we know the laws of Physics nust apply until we get close to the predicted singularity, at which point we know our model is no longer applicable ( otherwise it would not predict a singularity of infinite density ). That being said, we know of no mechanism that can resist further collapse ( to infinite density ) once neutron degeneracy pressure ( as in a neutron star ) is overcome by gravity.

We have rules against referring to other members as 'stupid'. Maybe some disciplinary action is in order ?

Since there are not, and probably never been, any aliens on Earth, are you suggesting we do the same, and leave ?

By 'set' I mean set the model such that 'gravitational potential is equal in magnitude to the intrinsic energy', so that predictions such as the 'universe from nothing' can be made. I was not suggesting a 'creator' set the initial conditions in that way, as some have misinterpreted. My apologies for bad choice of wording.

It is the fact that you live in a democratic society that allows you to vomit garbage like this. If you like dictatorships so much, why do you have a problem with their MO, censorship ?

The lady does have resolve. ( didn't want to say 'balls' ) In a bright pink suit, yet ...

Apparently FlghtRadar24 , a site which tracks civilian and some military air traffic was 'down' for a couple of hours earlier today. It effectively suffered a 'denial of service' because of the most tracked flight in history; so many logged on to view N Pelosi's flight into Taiwan, that the site was swamped. Good for her; the world ( and dictatorships ) need to know that we will support nations like Ukraine and Taiwan against aggression from 'bully' nations

Gotta love it when someone comes in after 50 paes, and posts stuff that has already been discussed at length in those 50 pages. NATO is not an expansionist organzation. It was set up to counter Russian expansionism after WW2, as Eastern Europe ( eventually Warsaw Pact ) was already under their military control. And it seems to be working just fine, because every time Russia attempts expansion by annexing another independent state ( like Ukraine ), NATO membership tends to increase dramatically. Taiwan was liberated from the Japanese after WW2, and placed under the governance of the ROC ( Kuomintang ), the official ruling Government of China, at that time. A few years later ( 1949 ) the Kuomintang were defeated, on the mainland, by the Communist forces during the Chinese Civil War, and the Kuomintang, under Chang Kai Sheckretreated their forces, and ROC government to the island of Taiwan. See here History of Taiwan (1945–present) - Wikipedia Maybe you can explain to me how politicised Chinese citizens are occupying territory that China has the right to take back ???? Remember that North America was mostly British, until the Americans fought a Civil War against the British, to establish independence. The British then, retreated to Canada, where they have had their own Government for about 150 years longer than Taiwan has. Does that mean Canada rightfully belongs to Americans, and we canadians are 'politicised Americans' ? Learn some history ... The natural order is dictatorship ? You may be right. In nature pack animals usually compete for the dominant spot ( nature's way of selecting the strongest genes for reproduction ) but we seem to have evolved past our animal instincs.At least in some parts of the world. This is exemplified by your ability to post anti-social garbage without retribution. Try that in China. Better yet, go live with wolves. See how you make out ... Cross posted with Sensei

usually, what one does is set gravitational potential energy as negative, and since it somewhat matches the magnitude of the intrinsic energy of the universe, we can say the universe is net zero energy. This is the 'universe from nothing' pitched by L Krauss. See here Zero-energy universe - Wikipedia Whether a property can be positive or negative, or simply an 'accounting' trick, or whether it even makes sense to consider energy on a global scale, is for people with better minds than mine to consider.

We use induction heaters at my work to convert liquid white/yellow phosphorus to red phosphorus at 270o C. The vessel is not enclosed by the induction heaters, as an agitator provides temperature and red phosphorus distribution, and thermocouples seem to work quite well in areas away from the heaters. Sorry I cannot ffer any help for your particular situation.

A new approach ??? I don't think so. Three times you've come back, posted a PDF against forum rules, and got repremanded. Seems like the exact same approach to me. You don't learn very quickly, do you 😄 ?

It's always 'under attack'. By its very definition, it is 'the will of the people'. And a lot of those people are going to have differing, and possibly self-serving, 'wills'. China has its own problems. It has lifted 800 million people out of extreme poverty ( $1.90 per day ) in the last 40 years, by providing manufacturing jobs for them. If western democracies fail because of trade balances, who are these people going to be manufacturing stuff for ? And once their standard of living goes up, their manufacturing will relocate to cheaper parts of the world, and it may be economical to manufacture in North America again. That is how a global economy works.

None of that is inconsistent with energy being a property of 'stuff'. A wave has ( the property of ) energy, yet can also be handled mathematically by a 'phonon'. Phonon - Wikipedia You use whichever model best suits the situation.

Where did you get the idea that democracy, once established, required no further upkeep, or defense ? 🙂

China is the biggest 'producer' in the world. North America and Europe ( all democracies ) are the biggest 'consumers' in the world. IIRC, China suffered economically worse than North America did, when we stopped'buying' in 2008-9. Mastering the use of the long bow is a lot simpler than carrier landings in bad weather/rough seas, with an engine out, with wreckage on the deck, etc. Here's an assessment by JayinKitsap on another forum I belong to ... "Logistics is the key, for example, an amphibious invasion of Taiwan would take a huge number of landing craft. If a 50 person landing craft is used, the first wave of 5,000 marines would take 100 craft, each added wave of 5,000 probably needs another 30 craft to cover a 30% loss. So getting 25,000 to shore the 1st day would gobble up 220 landing craft to execute the 1st day. These in turn would need 20 transports to get 25,000 to shore. Day 2 would be better but losses would consume 150 added landing craft and a 2nd batch of 20 transports. Likely 60 transports and like 500 landing craft to get 5K troops ashore each day. Supplies to the shore is minimal the 1st day, growing fast each day. How to transport all the men and equipment across the 100 mile Strait, then bring to shore would be a huge challenge. Each landing invasion in WWII really taxed the system, with huge lessons learned from every one. After several dozen landings they started to get the things to run smoothly." One idea which has been suggested is to park the aircraft carrier to the East of Taiwan, splitting Taiwan's coastal and AAM defenses between two opposing targets, but, as it is, their aircraft carrier is virtually useless in this situation. Sorry Dim. Don't know why forum software merged my answer with my previous post after you had already replied. Oh, I see ...

The only difference between China and Russia is that China actually has money to build things like their new aircraft carrier. It will however, take them some time to develop the skill set the Americans have with 80 years of operating carrier battle groups and the logistics involved in such operations. If you think Russia has failed miserably with the invasion of neighboring Ukraine, wait till you see the logistical disaster it would be, trying to invade Taiwan across 100 mi. of ocean. If China totally destroys the island, the world will turn against them. If they try to take it with as little destruction and bloodshed as possible, they will fail even worse than the Russians have fared.

People who are unconfortable with the notion of time always claim that time depends on the 'motion of something', because we can only measure it that way. They fail to realize that motion depends on time, and, without time you cannot define motion of anything ( including vibrations ). We have classical Galilean mechanics, which is highly effective where applicable, but sometimes its use becomes quite cumbersome. As Swansont pointed out with his 'ball thrown up in the air' example, we can use Lagrangian mechanics in a conservative gravitational field, to simplify our calculations, without taking things to the most fundamental level of x,y,z, and t. Lagrangian and Hamiltonian mechanics help simplify matters, but in applications where relativistic effects become dominant, energy treatments ( because energy is frame dependent ) also become untractable ( maybe not for Markus, but certainly for me ). There are many concepts, other than energy,we also use to 'simplify' our calculations; velocity, momentum, phase, etc. but fundamentally, they all depend on the configuration of x, y, z, and t.

As it is impossible to entangle six hunderd billion trillion molecules ( in one mole ) with the same wavefunction, self interaction must also be considered in the collapse, not just the surroundings.

It used to be the case that people ran for office based on their accomplishments, but since the advent of 'attack' ads during elections, more and more people are running for office based on the faults and 'warts' of their adversaries. Some of us are old enough to remember when being a 'populist' was a good thing. It meant you represented all people/constituents, even the rabble and 'deplorables', not just the elite who think they know beetter than others. The 'new' connotation is vastly different. If TheVat is correct ( usually is about American Politics and history ) that would mean D Trump governed in the Jeffersonian tradition by "exercising of leadership, offering people a broad vision and educating them on a range of issues so they can more clearly see" ... the craziness.