Stosh

The assumption there,, is that an orbit is a single vector, a track of sorts , and if you ain't on the track , you ain't in orbit and ain't gonna get into orbit there. And that's a fine perspective as far as it goes. But in our mental exercise we have a proton that has to get into that orbit , from a vector which is not already the orbit, its coming from 'outside the orbit' . Any direction it goes or could go , is perfectly valid and abides by the curvature of space . So no matter what happens , we can consider it to be an ordinary event , quite predictable.. its just that half the events do not entirely enter the orbit and slingshot back out into space, and the other half are only retained in the orbit temporarily till they spin down or spin out , without any causal factor since all the possibilities were entirely valid at the same time. This equality of probabilities comes into play all over in physics , like the double slit experiment quantum spins , uncertainty principle , and so forth. It is not really bizarre , its just that we are taught to have an expectation that the consequence of any one event has one single outcome , since we rarely see events that are so finely balanced that multiple possibilities present themselves. For ex.. I might go out the garage , or out the front door ,,, but if I have to take out the garbage , I go out the garage. Neither choice is remarkable, but once the event happens either way , history proceeds from there on. Elementary particles themselves are unaffected by time , the million yr old hydrogen atom is essentially identical to the one year old hydrogen atom (assuming the same q-state) - it doesn't go forward nor backward in time , its already forward, and is still backwards 'in time' . ( but that's another issue )

Its just as likely to stay as leave , leave or stay . A 50-50 proposition for the entire circumference of the circle for as many revolutions as occur , So I am thinking , since leaving is a one way trip , and staying is not stable, they all leave eventually. This implies that light is not travelling along a predestined curvature though even under 'normal circumstances' ,,, at any point , the light is just as likely to be "deviating" along an equally straight and likely course of travel.. It could have gone elsewhere , and still have gone straight! in space time.

Interesting , Ok they can impart momentum,, somehow ,, it still leaves an issue , when the photon reaches the hypothetical circular orbit place , at the precise tangent , to allow it to enter the orbit ,,, along with its momentum .. , then it is exactly equivalent to a photon that was already zipping around the circle in space. Which I am thinking, means that there are at least two vectors from which can come photons into that point in space which could lead to a circular path around the anomaly ,, entirely consistent with the curvature of space-time. If this is so , then there is an equal probability that at any point on the circle , a photon could leave on a tangent OUT of the circle and yet still be entirely consistent in its trajectory and momentum in curved space. No photon sphere again.

Happy thought of the day. A bed of donuts.

Say the space is curved, introducing a photon from the outside means that the vector would pop it back out, if it is going to spiral in ,its not going to make a circular trip. To have the exact trajectory to make an exact circle the photon must originate on the circle , because it cannot have its momentum reduced to make it settle into that pattern, it has no momentum. Point two, how is it that you think the wavelength is going to get reduced , what is going to absorb the energy relinquished ... conservation of energy would apply I think , or am I going to learn that photons actually have mass momentum friction etc. What is literally going to become energized with the lost photonic energy? There is nothing at the event horizon. And finally, if there was an energy reduction related to wavelength that happened to light as it passes massive objects ... then there should be a frequency shift as well as lensing ... which I never read mentioned. Amplitude is the sum of photons where are all those photons disappearing to? So far youve got no where to insert the light from , to make it happen ,no way to change wavelength or frequency , no way to reduce amplitude ,or change direction relative to the shape of spacetime. There is no photon sphere. But lets say it is possible for light to hit that horizon so perfectly tangential that space forms a circular track , the photon goes round, as mass of the black hole increases the circuit immediately becomes imperfect relative to that ideal tangent and the photon is released from bondage.

Joe, what I am proposing is that one cannot add nor subtract from the energy content of a photon. Not that it isnt considered an energy. I think we,d agree on that. I am thinking it follows faithfully the curvature of space which it cannot deviate from. So one cannot have an energy expenditure which allows or doesnt allow entry or emergence from a supposed photon sphere. One cannot put enough gas in it to get it to emerge like a satelite. I figure it would bounce off or circumnavigate the anomaly to shoot off tangential to its initial trajectory just before presenting me with an image of my bald spot. I shave my head just in case though, and wonder why no shaver manufacturers recognize that theres a market for a special config head shaver.

A photon sphere? ... photons do not require an expenditure of energy to propagate, if they did, they would go dark before failing to escape ,so you couldnt see the back of your head , no?

The most negative thing we can get away with overlooking.

Ok , but again the faith bit is still moot and needs to remain so ,since paying attention to it either respects or infringes on behavior on religious grounds. Wisely generously humbly ,it was intended for gov to butt out ,and simply walk away from the destructive bias that besets nations around the globe. Its an example of Doing , by not Doing. One is thereby freed from the curse of moving to defend or prevail , for the low low price of minding ones own business.

Herb is in a space ship with a tinted window that always faces the sun. If he turns a knob to the left on his control panel to slow time shipboard ,does it get darker or lighter in the ship?

If all were like me , aside from gender, we would reside in Eden

I suppose thats a functional view.k In that bakery incident, the religious excuse is entirely moot. I dont respect their view is accurate to the teachings of jesus, its tremendously arrogant uncivil wrongheaded BUT the state should not get involved in compulsory morality, IMO Engage or not uncoerced , but abide by the contract.

I read this one as being somewhat vague , I need to know what behavior is being considered exemplary of a 'religious belief'. If the the behavior is one that is in fact not religion specific ,( meaning that one may or may not hold to this behavior as being specific to a religion or group of religions ) then I don't see this as being specifically a protected religious observance. Christians might decide that the descendants of Ham are dark skinned folks and not feel that they are entitled the treatment of others ,, or they may feel that marriage may properly be between a man and small female child, slavery may be acceptable biblical-ly speaking but that doesn't mean that Christians need not observe the laws that other citizens are constrained by. It opens up a huge can of worms to say that any behavior which one believes is OK in their own faith , instantly trumps constitutional law , because it would essentially be respecting a particular religions practice , For ex. I could stone a whore to death with impunity, if I was baptized Christian, but an atheist would be held guilty.

Its a nice change - what is 'America the twelfth' ? the independence of the United States of America the twelfth. the twelfth day after the ratification?

.. the intellectual point where the paradigms do not extrapolate out to. ...( presuming the mass is a sphere in un-distorted space.)

Gravity as it may be measured , I figure , will be greatest at a point somewhere at or above the surface of the mass because of the directional proximity of the mass.

Yeah, I am not crazy about the 'convenient' fudge factors either , but at the edge of established fact , there's always as much unproven guesswork. It just comes with the territory. That which some might consider 'infallible' is often rightly held with suspended disbelief, unjustified faith though, is even worse. Science is simply a process by which one determines the most accurate mental paradigm to fit a scenario, its trying to be objective, I rightly think my car keys will not miraculously teleport to mars.. but it is possible some daydreaming co-worker may walk off with them.

Space-time is not uniform around the star , the light travels at the same rate of progression per 'mile of spacetime' so in that respect the velocity is constant and it is not lensed or bent. Space is. But if one presumes that space is an evenly distributed context , then it instead appears that the light is curved and slowed by the effect of gravity . The question science should ask , is if between gravitational bodies ,that spacetime is rarified ,so that when presuming a uniformly distributed context of space, c ends up being slower than the actual speed of light.

I think this excerpt addresses the point I have Two years later, the Fourteenth Amendment was ratified, but it was not until 1869 that the Supreme Court addressed the subject. In the case of Paul vs. Virginia, the court determined that the object of the clause was to give each citizen the following rights: To be free from discrimination or disability as a person coming from one state to another To be free from discriminating laws against them in other states To be free to come and go from state to state without restraint To be granted the same freedoms had by citizens of any state To be free to buy property in other states To be free in the pursuit of happiness To enjoy the same protections of law granted to citizens of other states That this is not to be understood as simply related to commerce. It hugely should be affecting the power of individual states. It sets up a situation of 'general citizenship' and pushes the states away from contesting one another with duties or tariffs against one another. Such a close look at constitutional law , provides a window on the way in which the natural conclusions that the actual wording may be ignored , or the meaning reconfigured entirely. Unfortunately it sets up a scenario in which the codification of LAWs is undermined by activism from either the judicial or legislative branches. This is what we have. For better or worse, however it leads me to feel that the body of legal opinion needs to be revisited in an ongoing matter , simplified , and corrected.

So is this differential taxation constitutional? It would seem to me not to be since out of stateers have a different tax burden. And if I could practice law in maine , that would also be a commercial privilege that should be valid in Texas..or a gay marriage in ca should be valid in ga. No?

I am satisfied if you see the problem and stopped saying that there was vagueness that doesnt actually EXist. Our gov is behaving unconstitutionally . But I am not expecting you to fix it.

Im just not seeing what is ambiguous. It says ALL immunities and privileges. Nobody voted on the Federalist papers , if they had ,then the understanding could be ambiguous , but ,that not being the case,... the thing voted on as the amendment is clear as a bell. What article casts doubt on the word All? I read the comments already and nothing in them impacts the reading of the words as written. .... I said hamilton instead of madison ..error but that doesnt change the point that its not constitutional , its opinion only , and unvoted on.

This leaves me confused, the Federalist papers are not part of the constitution. And only the wording which was amending the constitution is that which was agreed upon as being the constitution regardless of Hamiltons opinions on the matter. If it was to be read as only applying to the rights of slave holders then it could have Been written as such. This amendment hugely undermines states rights imposing a homogenaity. As long as slaves are property, this provision maintains the rights of ownership beyond a states border, but all the other privileges expressly are extended to the other ststes as well since there is no statement that the clause only applies to fundemental rights. A drug would be property , its use would be pursuit of a liberty related to possession, and so the protection would apply to drugs if it applies to slaves, anyway. This constitutional amendment has been unconstitutionally handled, or it was invalid to have been accepted. I wonder if a conservative justice rejects the amendment , or The laws proceeding from it.

This would seem to indicate that discriminating against- a license to practice law, do medicine , ,allow medical marijuana , ,carry a concealed weapon, abortion etc , should all be construed as unconstitutional . Essentially that the legal permissions of one state should apply in the others as well. Does that not seem a logical reading of the article? This would seem to enhance the freedoms of individuals in that they would only have to secure a judgement in one state for it to apply to all states. One could be allowed , say , recreational use of drugs in one state , and have the right to that same use everywhere! The citizens of each state shall be entitled to all privileges and immunities of citizens in the several states

You cook small fish delicately ,in a big batch, and you dont mess with it much , intending to eat them whole ,bones and all. If you think youre going to fillet them all individually its both a waste of time and food. Doesnt anybody cook anymore?