swansont

! Moderator Note We expect responses to be based in mainstream material, not something you’ve made up, and we also expect it to be relevant to the discussion.

Yes. An ugly truth that at the founding of the US, any folks other than white men were considered to be lesser beings, and that attitude persists.

Also contrary to the US position; the Constitution is the supreme law of the land (Article VI, Clause 2) Laws ≠ rights The only rights mentioned in that are rights of members in the society, and only the rights pertaining to the society

Can you point to any legal document that says this? In the US there is a constitution that highlights the rights of people. That’s not the position of the US. The rights are recognized by society, but they are inherent. That was a foundational concept.

That, and it was packing by the subsequent administration.

There are a number of possible responses, but they are not compulsory responses. The right wing in the US has a manufactured outrage response of “pump more oil”

Filling vacancies that occur under administration, by following the rules, is not “packing”

And how is that related to your claim that gravity and magnetism are “synonymous”? Your posts contain far too many tangents. They need to be much more concise, coherent and relevant.

They aren’t supposed to. They aren’t elected. They’re supposed to decide if laws follow the Constitution. As Larry Flynt put it “Majority rule will only work if you're considering individual rights. You can't have five wolves and one sheep vote on what they want to have for supper“ What this court is doing is taking away those rights. That the majority wants the rights means there is potential leverage for legislative action. But that’s blocked by some senators who don’t feel they have to bow to the will of the people. And until people vote out the bad actors, they won’t. So what? Either you have the right or you don’t. That incest or rape don’t account for all unwanted pregnancies doesn’t matter a whole lot. Those are just the most egregious cases, used as examples, because many of the barbaric laws won’t even make these exceptions. It doesn’t have to be a clear-cut choice, as long as the woman is the one making it, and not some old guy forcing the decision on someone else. The opposite side of forced birth isn’t forced abortion.

If they love the unborn, you'd think they wouldn't cause so many miscarriages

These give you the 2-D shapes of the gravity wells, which would be related http://www.projectrho.com/public_html/rocket/spacemaps.php#xkcdgrav

The legal ramifications are not what the website is addressing. AFAICT any CO2 generated by pumping oil/gas or mining coal is assigned to the country where that activity is taking place. The point that it takes two to tango has possible merit, but consider that if the supply dwindles because some country decides not e.g. to pump more oil, and all else remains the same, then the response will be that the price goes up - nothing happens to the inherent demand (we are seeing this happen right now). Some people will not being able to afford to buy the oil product, but it's not like they want to stop driving their car. (and if this production decrease is driven by government action it is likely to be very unpopular) But if they did decide to stop driving a personal gasoline-powered vehicle and went with an alternative (public transportation, EV, or even just something that got much, much better mileage) then the demand goes down. Price goes down. Some oil fields become unprofitable. So the production part of this and the demand part of this are asymmetric. And what a country can control is likewise asymmetric. Country A can't dictate to other countries whether that other country should install green power sources and get people to buy EVs. Each country has to be responsible for their own policies.

Science is more than credible math. That's one necessary condition. But you have to compare the theory with experiment. IOW, y = x^2 is credible math. But if the phenomenon you are modeling doesn't follow a quadratic, the theory is incorrect. If these chronons (on which the paper is based) don't exist or behave as advertised, then the paper is built on a poor foundation. The paper is based on a thesis from almost 30 years ago. Not on a peer-reviewed paper that was published based on the idea. No other references. One is compelled to ask why that is. Just because there are key words in common with another paper does not mean they are related in any meaningful way. Science is also more than "take this idea and run with it" and also more than "post a whole bunch of references without making the connection to the question before us" (reminiscent of the Gish gallop) It's up to YOU to explain why you think a monopole and a dipole behave the same way, when clearly they don't. And why an only attractive force is the same as one that is both attractive and repulsive.

The CMB is one frame of reference, used for convenience. It is not the frame of reference of the universe, and “real speed” is nonsensical.

What is this supposed to mean? You can’t just link to material because it has a few buzzwords that show up in a search. Peer reviewed journal that appears to report conference papers, which are generally not peer reviewed. “conference organisers act as editors managing the peer review process” https://publishingsupport.iopscience.iop.org/questions/iop-conference-series-publication-procedure/ So the peer review is only as rigorous as the conference wants it to be, and if it’s not backed up by experimental confirmation, you can’t present it as valid support for anything.

Meissnerizing

https://www.space.com/38984-tiny-space-debris-sensor-to-station.html The [space-based] sensor can detect pieces of space debris that are less than 0.039 inches (1 mm) wide. The smallest objects the instrument can detect are 0.0019 inches (0.05 mm) wide. Ground sensors can detect pieces of debris that are larger than about 4 inches(10 cm) wide. That was when it was active, and attached to the ISS, so detecting particles near the ISS https://www.hou.usra.edu/meetings/orbitaldebris2019/orbital2019paper/pdf/6026.pdf Unfortunately, shortly after the beginning of operations, the SDS began experiencing anomalous behavior, and after approximately 26 days, became unresponsive.

"There could be evidence" is not "there is evidence" Let's discuss credibility of sources for a moment: The paper is based on someone's thesis from 1984 - not on peer-reviewed articles or experiment that's been done. That should be a red flag. Citing ArXiv links and preprints, rather than journal articles when the ArXiv/preprint is from several years preceding suggests the papers never made it through peer review. That's a red flag. Youtube videos as a citation is yet another red flag. All of that together screams that this is not a serious proposal - it's built on a rather shaky foundation, much of which has not entered mainstream science. Meanwhile, gravity and magnetism have distinct differences. Newtonian gravity (i.e. what GR reduces to when you don't have really strong gravity) not having a repulsive component, and monopoles vs dipoles as the default configuration are two of the main points of difference.

Jasper10 suspended for acting like a troll

! Moderator Note You were told not to bring this up again. You had your shot, and you blew it.

Predictable trajectory ≠ a fixed point in space I don’t know the details. I can only offer what seems reasonable based on available information. A predictable trajectory is great, but satellites move fast, so you need to know what the missile’s trajectory will be. Not much tolerance for variation. For a satellite moving say 7 km/s, a one ms delay or advance in arrival means a 7m difference in position which probably means a miss for a kinetic weapon. Is there that kind of precision in thrust that you can repeatedly get the speed the same to the necessary precision? Some satellites can be re-positioned, so they have this capability. You’d have to be foolish not to take this into account. We have missile technology that works independently from ground stations. Ground station signals could potentially be jammed. All things to consider

Some folks are probably excited about this... https://phys.org/news/2022-06-results-anomaly-elementary-particle.html New scientific results confirm an anomaly seen in previous experiments, which may point to an as-yet-unconfirmed new elementary particle, the sterile neutrino, or indicate the need for a new interpretation of an aspect of standard model physics, such as the neutrino cross section, first measured 60 years ago.

Satellites are not at a fixed point in space. You're hitting a moving target. Some might have maneuvering rockets, which could be employed for evasion.

The question wasn't directed to you. I was asking studiot for clarification. I thought we were to leave religion out of it. Disproving things is fairly straightforward in science, at least in principle. It's why we prefer specific, quantifiable predictions rather than vague ones, and why we want prediction and try not to rely on just explaining observed behavior.

There is a concept in relativity known as the velocity four-vector (aka four-velocity). The components are the spatial velocity vectors and gamma*c for the time component, which has the opposite sign of the spatial components https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Four-velocity The magnitude of this vector is always c^2. If you are at rest, the time time proceeds normally, with a magnitude of c. If you have a velocity, then the time component is reduced. You are always at rest in your own frame and time runs normally for you. Nothing with mass can move at c, so this is a non-issue. The objects in the cyclotron will have their time run slow according to that central observer.