ydoaPs

Also, you'll need to explain why the gravitational force is dependent upon distance between the objects, as your version prima face indicates otherwise. Also, why do I weigh less on Luna than Earth?

But the Earth and I are entirely stationary. It is the galaxy that is moving. Let's start with a smaller system. Take, for a moment, an entire universe with all of the same laws of physics as ours, but containing nothing but 3 balls. These balls each have an invariant mass of 1kg. Balls 1 and 2 are at rest with respect to each other but not with ball 3. We can choose reference the reference frame of the balls 1 and 2 which we shall designate "reference frame A" or the reference frame of ball 3 which we shall designate "reference frame B". In reference frame A, we only have one ball moving. In reference frame B, we have two balls moving. In reference frame A, we see that ball 3 is approaching balls 1 and 2 at 100km/s. In reference frame B, we see that both balls 1 and 2 are approaching ball 3 at 100km/s. We can define a special reference frame C in which all of the balls are moving and balls 1 and 2 approach ball 3 at 50km/s while ball 3 approaches balls 1 and 2 at 50km/s. In frame A, what's the gravitational attraction between ball 1 and 3 when they are 1km apart (show your work)? In frame B, what's the gravitational attraction between ball 1 and 3 when they are 1km apart (show your work)? In frame C, what's the gravitational attraction between ball 1 and 3 when they are 1km apart? Hint: the amount of spacetime distortion based on velocity is given by the Lorentz transform: [math]x={x_0}\sqrt{1-\frac{v^2}{c^2}}[/math]

1) Education 2) Cut tax loopholes for the super rich 3) Universal healthcare 4) [cheating, yes, I know] Cut the scope and recruitment quota for the military to help pay for 1 and 3 Indeed

Let's see, they both want to raise your taxes by A LOT to pay for their own tax breaks, they both want to kill off grandma by repealing the Affordable Care Act and effectively killing Medicare, and Paul Ryan voted against all jobs bills and increasing minimum wage (which has actually fallen drastically when inflation is considered). So, if you consider making the rich richer and the poor poorer while trying to kill off the poor and the elderly "saving us", then yes.

No, the galaxy is moving 600km/sec relative to me! The Earth and I are stationary. Why am I pulled toward it? Also, plug 600 km/s into the SR equations and tell me if the effect is anywhere close to enough. Hint: it's not........unless you've fixed our equations for us.

Odd, because in the rest frame of the Earth, I'm still pulled down to the surface. You might want to fix the field equations for us while you're at it. Relative to what? P.S. The answer is the actual math doesn't work out. Try it for yourself. Again, feel free to correct our equations.

No, it's not. Look right over there. We have a whole forum for religious topics and most of them are Christian in nature. That's an excellent point. To quote myself from another thread:

Yes, yes he was. Now that we all agree the quotemined bit wasn't "bullshit", what should we talk about?

And it's still abundantly clear that his comment was based on complete shit analysis. If I'm wrong, show me the paper that did the analysis correctly. Show me the multivariable analysis on an infinite dimensional space. Until then, all you've got is argument from authority.

Then you shouldn't have said "fully loaded".

Yes. You have at least two extremely well trained former military marksmen telling you that you are advocating EXTREMELY reckless behaviour. You do not, in fact, seem to understand safety.

It would do more good there than in YOUR hands.

.....says the guy advocating sleeping with a loaded gun under his pillow

There's no reason to think there is such fine tuning, because all attempts to show that there was were based on shit analysis done by people who put ideology before science. I notice you've still not found a multivariate analysis in an infinite dimensional space. You can't do shit work, declare it to be the truth and then demand someone explain your faulty conclusions. Fine tuning is crackpottery.

You mean the George H W Bush who actually DID raise taxes and recently said "The circumstances change and you can’t be wedded to some formula by Grover Norquist. It’s -- who the hell is Grover Norquist, anyway?"? Or do you mean a different one? There's clearly orders of magnitude of difference in the amounts of BS coming from each side. Even fact checking sites that go out of their way to bend over backward to try to make it even can't do so.

I was just watching FOX where they were still harping on this quote mine. They brought on two children who made a lemonade business expecting them to cry or something when they played the clip. The girls agreed with Obama!

So, that's a "No"? Thanks. Let me know when you find one that actually does multivariate analysis in an infinite dimensional space.

It's kinda hard to argue that with the "well-regulated" bit in there.

Rigney about the Jews: Isn't taking things out of context fun?

So context is suddenly important? Make up your mind.

That is a good point. The very same people who want every crazy person to have a gun are the same people who want to keep the crazy people from getting help. How often are the perpetrators of violent crimes mentally ill and have no access to help? I'd like to see some numbers on that. edit: It seems that nearly 20% of violent offenders are in some way mentally ill.

So context is irrelevant? Listen to the video again and tell me what he said that was untrue. Tell me how success comes in a vacuum. Oh, and since you think context doesn't matter, I think I might put this in my sig:

It's kind of ironic that this bit is being taken out of context, since what he was saying is essentially that you need to put your success in context. There you go. I quoted your entire post. You took the only two seconds of his entirely reasonable and factual talking and tried to make him sound unreasonable. Context matters. Listen to the entire speech, not just the two seconds you want to hear.

I mean in the 56 seconds of extremely reasonable (and factual, btw) talking, his opponents take 2 seconds entirely out of the context and try to make him sound unreasonable.

Are you talking about the one saying you are 43 times more likely to kill a loved one or yourself than to kill an intruder? Well, it's not like it works anyway.