Leaderboard

As of 2018, the Supreme Court had overruled more than 300 of its own cases. (ref. 1) Negative, there are no legal mandates to "balance the courts" by partisan boundaries. There are only three legal mandates, one mandate is an Act, one mandate is a congressional statute, and the other mandate is a constitutional article. By "even split", I presume you mean an even partisan (a strong supporter of a party, cause, or person; prejudiced in favor of a particular cause) boundary for the total number of justices. It is constitutionally possible, though improbable based upon the partisan affiliation of the nominating president. Although nominating Supreme Court justices based upon suspected partisan affiliation is in my opinion, constitutionally repugnant due to the "apolitical" constitutional design for judicial selection. In my opinion it would have the opposite effect of splitting the court down partisan lines and decide cases more on partisan politics than on case precedent merits. Only if the federal district courts or the Supreme Court ruled that the legislative acts that constructed the judiciary structure were illegal or unconstitutional (not in accordance with a political constitution, especially the United States Constitution, or with procedural rules). Affirmative, if the Supreme Court ruled that the addition of a new justice office was illegal by Act, statute or unconstitutional by established boundaries or with procedural rules. For example, a majority of congressional partisans wanted to "stack" the court with more than nine justices, without a presidential nomination and based upon suspected partisan affiliation for generating judicial bias for political gain regarding any existent de jure (by Right; according to law) legal precedent, in violation of the Judiciary Act of 1869 and Title 28 U.S.C. § 1 and the United States Constitution, Article II, Section 2, Clause 2. Constitutionally, the alteration of the judiciary branch of government requires a Act of Congress, which creates a law, or modifies an existing law, with a simple majority of both the House of Representatives, and the Senate. (> = 51%), (51 of 100). However, if the structural judiciary branch of government is already bounded within the constitution and therefore requires a modification or constitutional amendment, then to become an operative part of the United States Constitution, an amendment, whether proposed by Congress or a national constitutional convention, must be ratified by either: The legislatures of three-fourths (> = 75%) (at present 38) of the states; or State ratifying conventions in three-fourths (> = 75%) (at present 38) of the states. (ref. 6) Negative, the court has evolved to the nine members only by congressional Acts and statute, a constitutional power and boundary entrusted only to Congress. Article III of the United States Constitution sets neither the size of the Supreme Court nor any specific positions on it, though the existence of the office of the chief justice is tacitly acknowledged in Article I, Section 3, Clause 6. Instead, these powers are entrusted to Congress, which initially established a six-member Supreme Court composed of a chief justice and five associate justices through the Judiciary Act of 1789. The Judiciary Act of 1869 also called the Circuit Judges Act, and Title 28 U.S.C. § 1, returned the number of justices to nine, where it has since remained. (ref. 3, 4) Year - justice number, Congressional Act: 1789 - 6, Judiciary Act of 1789 1807 - 7, Seventh Circuit Act of 1807 1837 - 9, Eighth and Ninth Circuits Act of 1837 1863 - 10, Tenth Circuit Act of 1863 1866 - 9, Judicial Circuits Act of 1866 1869 - 9, Judiciary Act of 1869 1948 - 9, Title 28 U.S.C. § 1 2020 - 9, remained. U.S. Citizens do not have the Right to vote for a president, registered voters only have the constitutional Right to vote for an elector, under the United States Constitution Twelfth Amendment. (ref. 7) When people cast their vote, they are not actually voting for president, but for a group of people called electors. The number of electors each state gets is equal to its total number of Senators and Representatives in Congress. A total of 538 electors form the Electoral College. Each elector casts one vote following the general election. Only an elector has the constitutional Right to vote for a president. (ref. 7) In the United States, federal and state courts at all levels, both appellate and trial are able to review and declare the "constitutionality", or agreement with the Constitution, or unconstitutionality of legislation by a process of judicial interpretation that is relevant to any case properly within their jurisdiction. In American legal language, "judicial review" refers primarily to the adjudication of constitutionality of statutes, especially by the Supreme Court of the United States. This is commonly held to have been established in the case of Marbury v. Madison, which was argued before the Supreme Court in 1803. (ref. 8) Reference: Wikipedia - SCOTUS overruled decisions: (ref. 1) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_overruled_United_States_Supreme_Court_decisions Wikipedia - SCOTUS Nomination, confirmation, and appointment: (ref. 2) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supreme_Court_of_the_United_States#Nomination,_confirmation,_and_appointment Wikipedia - SCOTUS size: (ref. 3) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supreme_Court_of_the_United_States#Size_of_the_court Cornell University - 28 U.S.C. § 1: (ref. 4) https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/28/1 Wikipedia - Act of Congress: (ref. 5) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Act_of_Congress Wikipedia - United States constitutional amendment - federal constitution: (ref. 6) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constitutional_amendment#Federal_constitution Wikipedia - United States Constitution - Twelfth Amendment: (ref. 7) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Twelfth_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution Wikipedia - United States - Judicial Review: (ref. 8) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Judicial_review#Review_by_general_courts Wikipedia - United States - Marbury v. Madison (1803): (ref. 9) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marbury_v._Madison

Stick to painting.

That's right. The Northrop F-20 Tigershark, a development of the F-5 and T-38, was involved in two crashes during development/sales tours, which were effectively caused by aggressive maneuvering ( sustained 9g ). This caused the pilots, Cornell and Barnes, to gradually lose peripheral vision until blackout; neither of themsurvived the crashes. Cornell died during a demonstration in Taiwan. Barnes died practicing an air show routine here in Canada. https://nationalinterest.org/blog/buzz/video-alert-watch-unfortunate-f-20-tigershark-first-prototype-crash-68937 https://www.latimes.com/archives/la-xpm-1985-05-15-mn-8541-story.html

..in the hypothesis about infinite number of parallel Universes (or infinitely forever repeating, in the all possible ways), everybody which you know are molested in infinite number of Universes.. and there is infinite number of Universes in which you do not even exist.. and there is infinite number of Universes in which you are woman, man, heterosexual or homosexual, or transsexual etc... and you do the all jobs of the world.. you are homeless or being billionaire, businessman, actor, politician, king and queen, etc. etc.. and there is infinite number of Universes in which you are killed in every possible way, in accident or murder, in every second/millisecond/picosecond of your hypothetical existence.. It also means there is infinite number of Universes, in which you're not abused.. and infinite number of Universes in which you are happy.. Decide in which Universe you want to be now. Retrocausality has nothing to do with hypothesis about parallel Universes, or forever repeating Big Bang, in the all possible ways. The future (or parallel) has no influence on existing. If it would have influence, it could be experimentally detected.

You're half-way there, just stop imagining why it matters tomorrow. No-one can help you, if you're determined to destroy yourself, give yourself a break there's no coming back after. In the right context, there's nothing ridiculous about a god.

simply, I see the use of "de morgan" rules.

It is explained in detail in the document, especially the part where the truth table for both expressions are compared: Extract from http://watson.latech.edu/book/intelligence/intelligenceApproaches2b1.html (emphasis mine) Maybe you could give some more detail about with step that causes trouble. Without the "not" we have the expression "sunny_day ∨ garden_wedding" instead of the tutorial's "~ sunny_day ∨ garden_wedding" That implies that there could be sunny days with weddings not in the garden and that is not what the original sentence says. Expression "sunny_day ∨ garden_wedding" is more like "On sunny days weddings are sometimes held in the garden and sometimes not.”

I agree. Random thoughts, not much science below: IF (extremely big if) the far-fetched idea is correct I assume the current universe is not likely the the very first occurrence of the universe, there was many prior universes. I have no evidence that any events in any earlier universe affects us. So from a philosophical point of view; since I do not remember living the same life in an earlier universe I neglect the chance of remembering this universe if there is ever repetition. And if this is indeed the first version of the universe and memories from this universe will remain in the next one, then the next universe can't be an exact repetition. Just by having the first sentient beings basing their decisions on memories from earlier life, that would create some profound ripple effects, in addition to @joigus randomness?

I would suggest to try to concentrate on the here and now. The philosophy of living for the moment (also called mindfullness apparently : ref google). This technique has helped many people.

I think you know which one I meant: In both cases you are essentially asserting that Maxwell’s equations are not valid, so this is just a repeat of the same thing.

Yeah, who'd have thought? Nice to see a pope who doesn't think we are still in the 17th century. 😀

Please don’t lump me in with politicians

Surely, you are going too far. If we know that the average temperature of the Martian surface is -60C, how can that be "utterly useless" in our efforts to engineer a rover capable of surviving on Mars? On the contrary, it has enabled us to engineer numerous recent examples of rovers capable of operating in this low-temperature Martian environment.

! Moderator Note I looked at their Google scholar page, and while many of the publications are in Russian, it is pretty clear that this person is not in the business of aerodynamics. Expert? Maybe, but not in the area you are writing in. In any case, as you do not seem to have any new data I see no reason why this should remain open.

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=wTP2RUD_cL0 Money for Nothing (and get your chicks for free) Apparently Trump's election team wanted to use that to open his rallies but Sting was insisting on royalties. Then Trump said he expected the royalties from them but Sting said he wasn't even American, just an Englishman in New York 🤔

! Moderator Note This is a listed example of a bad-faith argument in our rules. ! Moderator Note Spectacularly wrong. One might think you are trolling. In any event, hijacking threads to bash science without supporting arguments violates multiple rules

Yes but what is the point of that analysis for those people? To gather 1000 plus points on an internet forum?

It may give the correct answer, but that does not prove that it is physics. Faraday's Law does give the correct answer in most cases, but not because it is a valid principle. If it were valid, it would give the correct answer in every case. Mike

I can obviously read your paper and it is wrong. You asked for a hint and I gave you one. Here's another you can solve it in O(n^2) or less with parallelization. I feel it would be better to write it as an academic paper with references. But I am awful at writing papers and let's face it "Give me, a more adult answer" will be exactly the kind of annoyance I can expect if I publish. There are people with phds who haven't solved it for years I doubt they will look favourably on somebody who doesn't have one (There is quora questions on this exact thing)

If you mean this topic: https://www.scienceforums.net/topic/47901-faradays-law-is-false/ then I have to tell you that I have nothing to do with the man who has posted it ten years ago.

I have a few paintings with brief versions of the story on my insta @Keeney.jacob IMO this may already be known math, or the effect at least. I derived much of my math while astral projecting, and I can't even remember when I got that formula, I just knew it was important and I battled my way from Hell to Heaven busting up some ghosts. Source for the equation - Stephen Hawking, Founder of the Ghost Science Center. The place somehow got smashed up, motha fucka didn't want to talk or cave to torture. Somehow Neil deGrass Tyson is up there and I managed to get some knowledge in a hostage situation.

I will, I busted black holes while ghost hunting. I'll take a piss on some degrees sooner or later. But you can wait till I dabble in product proofs. I will also being drawing out the higher dimensions in order, since I can visually see them. For context: How to Divide By Zero - Explained for laymen. Understand, I am currently re writing math, it may never pan out but all is a mental exercise to me. 1/0= Undefined - site my bad math all you want I'd start with yours here. Definition of Zero, 1-1=0 2-2=0, producing a canceling effect. 1/0= -1 it's mirror neuron 1/0 = 1/1-1 = -1 I call this basic math but you all do you. 2/0 = -2 3/0 = -3 An inverted absolute value in our current system perhaps. My investigation always continues. My research uses an all angles approach. Dust off those old text books you are certain don't contain the right answers tho. I'll be Bustin' Ghosts.

Look please at the figure below: The red and the blue circles are cross sections of the two relevant sides of the rectangular loop. The two ends of the loop are connected to two slip rings. One slip ring is connected to the Plus-terminal of an oscilloscope; the other slip ring is connected to the Minus-terminal. Let's say we have colored the two relevant sides of the loop - one in red color, the other in blue color. In the figure (b) the loop has rotated 180 degrees with respect to its position in the figure (a). Can you guess what I am going to say next? How much would you bet? I will bet as much as you say. Dropping a magnet through a coil is completely different setup from a loop which rotates in a magnetic field. The time will tell. Just sit back and relax.

I came up with this odd equation to explain the Tunneling Effect that exists at the event horizon of a black hole. -1<=0=>(-10)+11 This may not adhere to any standard format. I typed this up awhile back and don't want to edit it. I'll type up a better version with some art. I would like feed back, you may as well save "you're wrong." On the surface -1=0=1 cancels out and is mathematically sound. I will do my best to clarify this concept. My math was derived while doing paintings and research on the paranormal. My methods would be considered scientific nonsense. Much of my data was derived from tearing through every layer of reality in my imagination. Hence, I see things visually in shapes and patterns in my mind. I will focus on the primary concept of -1<=0=>(-10)+11. The -1 is the original state of reality, an infinite outward pull not constrained. This leads to -1<=0 as reality expanded outward, it reached a point of balance, we would recognize as nothing. The first -1 represents the “less than nothing” state of reality initially. When nothing was generated simultaneously, the equation continued -1<=0=>(-10)+11. The -10 is an expanse of negative pull created after nothing and with the 11. This would be the big bang. We exist between the -10 and 11, the 1 remaining representing our total universe. At this point, I speculate the 0 in -10, would be written the same way as the original. -1<=0=>-1-1<=0=>(-10)+11. This represents a sheathing effect, each universe tunneling into the next. Light and darkness existing simultaneously and in a banded pattern. While the universe appears spherical, that is only a 3-dimensional representation. ---(-1)(-1)(-1)---(1)(1)--- -------(1)(1)---(-1)(-1)(-1)--- ---(-1)(-1)(-1)----(1)(1)--- This format demonstrates positive energy that exists within these negative energy pockets. A '-1' is counted omnidirectionally. A cubic intersection. This existence is simultaneous, every '1' represented by (-1)(-1). This negative pull is infinite, so is the energy generation from it. There is never any data loss, only generation. The universe is tunneling forward in time. The point of the original split will eventually be devoid of energy and a new universe will open, ours now a band around it. That said, I've kind of been procrastinating on this. I'm not sure if my Grand Unified Theory will take a week or a year. Feel free to beat me to it. I will take my hoverboard prebuilt and my laser swords assembly required. Blackholes exist as the negative pulling force between 8 cubic tesseracts. Gamma-ray bursts happen as these tesseracts naturally expand, the last burst of light are these cubes corners intersecting before splitting apart. The space between these cubes corners splitting eventually reaching the nothing state that will generate a new universe within our current universal strand. Blackholes exist as an Omni-directional negative pull from our perspective. Each black hole is a data storage device, but it does not store data. Anything entering into a black hole is reduced to basic format, ensuring the maximum possible amount of universes be generated. Each bit of data or positive energy is a potential expanding point that would eventually tunnel in on itself and create a new universe tesseract. These shapes are formed naturally by the expansion of the negative pull. The human mind is an example of an infinite negative pull, the unlimited potential to expand into the darkness within; while generating light in the form of electric impulses. Human memory is near infinite because it experiences the same static expansion as the universe. There is a generally shared frame rate between any universe. The amount of new generation would be limitless, best described as a Rainbow Sheen Choas Flicker Resonance. Positive energy exists in a state of pure vibration, growing into infinities as the endless negative pull attempts to balance itself. Nothing is a state that is inevitably split into positive energy by the cubic intersections generated by endless initial generating points of omnidirectional negative vacuums. I believe the total amount of intersections would be 24, each corner of the cube casting out and in 3 sides of a cube, which interweaves with the 3 sides of a cube cast out and in by each other corner. These corners are blackholes to us, each one would be helping to stabilize reality. We would be interwoven with everything in existence. The spiral pattern formed in many places as matter pulls in on itself provides what I call a "light sheath" allowing both to exist. As light is produced it stabilizes the patterns of dark strands. Looking out at the night sky, we often perceive a layer of black. From that view, I would use the tiny strand of light connecting a person to the past as an example. All those tiny strands of light connect a person all the way to that past, no matter how far. The light we cast out, bounces equally far into the future. An endless chain. An astronaut beyond the Earth's atmosphere would say that space looks white. The stars and galaxies producing a sheen of light. From that view, I would use the tiny wobbles of darkness between them, to represent we are equally connected through dark strands. At this point, a person would perceive the light coming in a straight line, always somehow destined for their eye to catch. This is where I must describe a Chaos Frequency Intersection. Straight lines are hard to come by in reality. Take every step combined with every action, including the shapes a person would make while spinning on the Earth in its orbit around the sun; this is what I call a Chaos Connection. That strand of light moves in a curved pattern itself; as it experiences framerate movement and negative pull; it is interwoven at each frame. The strand itself bending in accordance with the overall resonance patterns being generated. Each strand flickers from light or dark, both existing simultaneously, based on the relative positioning of everything else. These strands extend through all time, like a shadow or beam of light. When these strands no longer exist in a section of space reaching the Zero State, a new universe opens at the same fractal level we experience. Universes exist in larger and smaller formats, never intersecting and all continuing to grow as the overall Resonance Harmonic increases. A small universe would expand to reach the size of our own. Our own universe will expand through the stages of larger format bands. Each strand in the larger format made from spaced out universal bubbles, tunneling in all directions into further universe generation.

Where am I asserting in the thread you have linked that the Maxwell's equations are not valid? More generally, what has that thread to do with this one? Moreover, do you have some objections against the things said in this thread? Otherwise, I would consider your replies as trolling.