MigL

But nowhere near the US, where almost 40% of the population was influenced, and continues to be influenced, by that idiot with orange hair, who used to be your head of Government.

Not much of a 'reading test'. It specifically mentions country level response, not individual/personal level. And lists several countries ( Japan, Singapore, Taiwan, Hong Kong, South Korea ) with successful outcomes, and other 'countries' without. Did you, or did your Government, influence the American response to the pandemic ?

I suggest you re-read the OP. Pay particular attention to the highlighted parts. My opinion on the matter can perhaps, be better expressed by a quote from the original link I provided previously "The problem is, no universal public health-care system is likely to survive the adoption of blameworthiness as a triage principle. The vast majority of us who wind up in the hospital, below a certain age at least, will likely regret having done something, or not having done the opposite, in order to avoid that outcome. There are people who think downhill skiing and cycling to work are so dangerous that they ought to come with special health-care premiums. We do not want those people influencing health-care policy. And it’s worth noting how quickly Legault’s logic could lead to denying health care outright to the reckless, unwise and unvaccinated." From Chris Selley: Quebec's anti-vax tax could lead us to some very dark places (msn.com)

I'm either doing a terrible job of explaining myself, or some of you are being willfully obtuse. I specifically said this was happening in Canada. Canada has Universal Health care, the US does not. Nor was there any questioning of vaccines in the 60s and 70s; I recall being vaccinated at school in the early 70s. Without parental approval, just notification, and here is also a mark on my left shoulder from vaccination in Italy in the 60s. Also, charonY, this is not a fine for non-compliance. It is an added fee, to be able to use what is supposed to be a Universal Health Care system, and there happen to be rules about imposing such 'fees' that affect federal transfer payments for health care. Then again, this is quebec, who regularlu flout federal rules, and even use the 'notwithstanding' clause in our Charter to get around those rules. This is also not related to tobacco or alcohol taxes, as those are levied on use, and not on failiure to protect oneself against lung cancer or alcoholism. The only one that comes close is fines for seatbelt non-use, but I am not against fines for not complying with vaccination orders; I am against ruining our universal health care, because some politicians, without the balls to do the right thing, are willing to ruin a good thing like our health care, in their zeal. Another that shares my opinion Harry Rakowski: If we tax the unvaccinated, what about the unhealthy who are also at higher risk of severe COVID-19? (msn.com) And the last page or soof this thread, dealing with the effects of the virus and/or the vaccines should not be in this thread. This is specifically about Government ( and not just American or British ) response to the pandemic. If my ideas still areen't clear, for whatever reason, I apologise. You guys carry on ...

This is not about whether I think people should be vaccinated; of course they should. But if the government thinks it is that important, they should make vaccination mandatory. ( never mind all the crap about the 'right' not to be vaccinated ) Like it was for us when we were kids; no one objected to mandatory vaccination to be able to attend school. Why the objections to Covid vaccines now ? The problem, as I see it, is the government subjecting a certain group to an additional tax, so as to be able to use what is supposed to be Universal Health Care. Does it not then become 'two- tier' health care ? What if you can't afford the additional tax ? Are you then denied care ? Maybe that is a strange concept to you Americans, but I would expect Stringy and other Brits, to understand. As for 'slippery slope', that is the very definition of taxation. Taxation has always increased, and once put in place are never removed, even if their original purpose is removed, they are simply 're-purposed'.

If you recall our past conversations, CharonY, you'll recall that I have also argued for stricter vaccination rules, and possible penalties for the willful unvaccinated. But it is always helpful, even necessary, to investigate both sides of an argument, so as to arrive at an equitable solution. ( no matter what Stringy thinks )

Always nice 'sparring' with you CharonY. Very well. What would your reaction have been if they taxed people who contracted HIV/AIDS by having unprotected, or much more risky sodomy ? Would that not target gay males ?

Really ? How do you know the temperature in hell ? Elton John's Rocket Man said so ... ( so did William Shatner's )

It's starting to happen in Canada. Not content with educating people ( or evidently, doing a really bad job at it ), Canadian Governments are vilifying unvaccinated people. This is especially true of the Quebec provincial government Chris Selley: Quebec's anti-vax tax could lead us to some very dark places (msn.com) and the federal Liberal government of J Trudeau Tasha Kheiriddin: The unvaccinated must be deterred from harming others (msn.com) I would assume the next group of people that will be taxed for 'stressing' the universal ( ? ) health care system, will be smokers, drinkers, overweight people, drug users, malnourished people, etc. Exactly the people who are disadvantaged/uneducated, and immigrants or indigenous. The same people who can least afford the extra taxation. I have always said ideologies are a dangerous thing.

As a physicist, I'm not overly concerned with the 'why' of a paradigm, or set of rules, only its 'function'. Math is simply a tool for describing/investigating the world around us. No differentthan a hammer, or a pen; but much, much more useful.

I hope you appreciate this ... I had to sift through about 27 pages of AJB's content to find it. halfway down page ten, we have this exchange ... All classical field theories are geometric. The usual way of understanding the gravitational field is as a metric on space-time; but there are other ways of understanding this.

Seems North Korea is tired of being upstaged by Russia and China. KJU wants his rank as the world's #1 bad guy back. The North Korean missile launch grounded all flights on the West Coast ( and Alaska ) for the duration of the missile's flight into the Sea of Japan. FAA orders 'full ground stop' at ALL west coast airports (msn.com) I guess it's been too long since anyone paid attention to him ...

Had that discussion with AJB a few years back. The question was whether Gravity requires a field model or a geometric model. His reply ... in GR, geometry is the field. ( thanks AJB )

Thanking SFN is a little self-serving. SFN is the membership, and all the various opinions/knowledge contribute to the experience here; even the Mods are simply members who have taken on ( much ) more responsibilities. When you joined, followed the rules, and respectfully shared your opinions/knowledge with the rest of us, you made the Forum a richer experience for us all.

I don't think so. Gravitational fields don't propagate, they are simply there. What propagates are 'changes' to the gravitational field, such as the gravitational waves you mentioned. The gravitational field, as Geordief correctly stated, is simply a curvature at each point in space-time, as described by the metric. This geometry is the field, and 'measurements in space and time' are the definition of the metric. Newtonian gravity was not 'final', but neither is GR. And I doubt Quantum gravity will be 'final' either.

Keeping in mind I'm a lot younger than you old timers ( 😄😄 ), and was in Uni 40 to 44 years ago, my only experience was when one 'affluent' Arab guy, who drove a brand new Datsun 280z, wanted to buy my lecture notes for $500. He never showed up to lectures, and since the offer was $500 Canadian I had to decline. This was 2nd year; he wasn't there for the 3rd. Back in those days , if you wanted to plagiarize, you actually had to do research through periodicals and research papers, not just type search words into google.

Even after overcoming electron degeneracy, a neutron star is composed of ordinary matter, and there is no need for an 'event horizon', at least until the Tolman-Oppenhimer-Volkoff limit, and it becomes a Black Hole. The 'black hole' is the event horizon. As for the magnetic fields, other than the increase due to collapse and conservation of angular momentum ( figure skater effect ), I don't think we have a viable explanation yet. "The origins of the strong magnetic field are as yet unclear.[31] One hypothesis is that of "flux freezing", or conservation of the original magnetic flux during the formation of the neutron star.[31] If an object has a certain magnetic flux over its surface area, and that area shrinks to a smaller area, but the magnetic flux is conserved, then the magnetic field would correspondingly increase. Likewise, a collapsing star begins with a much larger surface area than the resulting neutron star, and conservation of magnetic flux would result in a far stronger magnetic field. However, this simple explanation does not fully explain magnetic field strengths of neutron stars.[31]" From Neutron star - Wikipedia

The angle of the 'v' on opposed cylinder engines contributes to the 'smoothness' of the engine. Flat 4 or flat 6 configurations are popular, as is 90o for V8s and 60o for V6s. This has to do with the equal distribution of firing pulses in the 720o cycle. Lately manufacturers have been using balance shafts to smooth out engine vibrations, and coming up with all sorts of weird angles, in order to make the engine more compact. "Since 1991, Volkswagen has produced narrow angle VR6 engines with V-angles of 10.5 and 15 degrees. These engines use a single cylinder head shared by both banks of cylinders, in a design similar to the 1922-1976 Lancia V4 engine. The VR6 engines were used in transverse engine front-wheel drive cars which were originally designed for inline-four engines. Due to the minimal extra length and width of the VR6 engine, it could be fitted to the engine compartments relatively easily, in order to provide a displacement increase of 50 percent." From V6 engine - Wikipedia

Hoping for clear skies in London ? Unless you mean London, Ontario ( in Canada ), I'm afraid you're gonna have to move.

I'm fairly certain that C Rovelli, a proponent of LQG also shows that BHs can only collapse to a certain point, and then must 'bounce, to something similar to a White Hole, but in the past, also preserving information. This is similar to the 'bounce' that LQG predicts as the initiator of the Big Bang, but I cannot recall where I read this. The problem is that both String theory and LQG are 'theories in search of a universe to describe'. They are both getting more and more elaborate, but there is no experimental verification of even their most basic presumptions.

Study something you enjoy learning about. ( as Genady mentioned )

I wasn't familiar with this version of Zeno's paradox, Studiot. The only one I'm familiar with involves the arrow travelling successive half-distances. Thanks for the info.

Substitute Karl Marx for Jesus and Communism for Christianity, and you have the same results, but much more recent. Every institution can be perverted by unscrupulous people for their own ends.

If it is true that a lot of American Republicans take the Bible literally, I would guess that it is also true of some members of this forum. Why would anyone take any of these stories literally, and not as a 'mirror' of the morality of our civilization at the time they were written ? To believe these stories you also have to believe in an omnipotent/omniscient white bearded man who created the universe, and killed His Son, just to resurrect him three days later. Sounds like a bit of a 'stretch' to me.

Problem is, rocket fuel has to have a certain efficiency. The thrust provided by the mass of propellant has to be able to acheive orbit.