swansont

Do you mean the density of the two is equal?

Was it removed from the Archives, or never turned over in the first place? Back then there were still Republicans who respected their duty to the Constitution rather than having juts allegiance to their party. They were the ones who convinced Nixon he had to resign, because he was going to be impeached and convicted, which would be a bigger blow since it would detail all his crimes, and the coverup, and be in the public eye for longer. Trump's GOP is different. The vast majority of them either fall in line, or stay silent, when he makes his wild claims.

These things can be estimated. I once calculated that a large number of people (a million?) driving in the same direction would change the rotation rate by a tiny amount. Leaf growth would slow the rotation down in the spring and speed it up in the fall, with a larger effect in the northern hemisphere owing to the larger land area. The mountain growth has to come from mass moving from some other area; as the tectonic plates push up on the mountains, there is subduction somewhere else. I = 2/5 MR^2 for a sphere of uniform density, and since we're going for an order-of-magnitude estimate, we can use this. 2/5 * 6e24*6.4e6^2 = 10^38 kgm^2 and we know that Iw is going to be constant; the angular speed compensate for changes in the moment of inertia (I'm doing this without the morning caffeine having taken effect, so check my math) There are ~3 trillion trees in the world, and some don't shed leaves. Let's say 10^12 participate (north vs southern hemisphere) and they drop 10 kg of leaves 10m, on average. dI/dr is 2 * r dr, or ~10^8, and we have 10 kg, so our moment changes by ~10^9, meaning a part in 10^29 reduction in the rotation rate. Not measurable. The mass of mountains is much higher, but the change in elevation is smaller. Not sure what the area in question is, but keep in mind that people estimate the change in rotation rates after earthquakes, which move a lot of mass around, and these estimates are of order a few microseconds per day. https://www.jpl.nasa.gov/news/nasa-details-earthquake-effects-on-the-earth They also found the earthquake decreased the length of day by 2.68 microseconds. ... To make a comparison about the mass that was shifted as a result of the earthquake, and how it affected the Earth, Chao compares it to the great Three-Gorge reservoir of China. If filled, the gorge would hold 40 cubic kilometers (10 trillion gallons) of water. That shift of mass would increase the length of day by only 0.06 microseconds and make the Earth only very slightly more round in the middle and flat on the top. It would shift the pole position by about two centimeters (0.8 inch). Consider snowfall storing mass in higher latitudes for a few months and then melting. Droughts and floods likely have a bigger effect than the Three Gorges dam mentioned here. A bigger effect is possible if a mass is rotating, since that mass will have angular momentum. A hurricane/typhoon for example. ~200 million tons of water but rotating, some parts much faster than the earth. Any angular momentum it has has been traded with the earth's rotation.

Greg A was given more than the usual leeway, but enough is enough. Too much trolling and uncivil behavior, and absolutely no indication they were going to modify their behavior. <cue dean Wormer’s remark to Flounder> Banned.

Press release. Pretty sure some of my colleagues were tired of fielding calls on the topic https://www.cnmoc.usff.navy.mil/Portals/49/Short day press release_ngs_grc_220809_1.pdf In addition to the dip I mentioned (~1860-1900) there was an even bigger one back around 1660

So breast cancer and prostate cancer have NOTHING to with cancer. And that, somehow research into diseases is giving an ADVANTAGE to women. It does not matter a lot TO YOU. You shouldn't speak for others. I'm not sure of the relevance to your argument that rich people don't have the vice of owning yachts/multiple cars/big houses AND I said that poor people don't own them. I said nothing about the middle class. Who said anything about envy? Once again you try and change the argument, because your original argument is weak. Motivation wasn't the issue. It was who owns what, and whether rich people own stuff. You said they don't. And people "choose" not to be successful businessmen? Plenty of employed people can't afford home ownership. There's a sizable fraction of homeless who have jobs, and there are others who rent because housing costs are very high (we've been through these numbers already) Government is responsible for someone being unemployed? OK. Glad to hear you agree that Bush and Trump deserve the blame for their horrible employment stats, and Obama and Biden deserve credit for the huge improvements in them. Nobody said anybody needed two houses. That's just you, once again changing the argument. The fact is, though, that there are people with two (or more) houses. And we were talking about the rich in the US, not homeless in underdeveloped economies.

It’s funny (though not ha-ha funny) how you see being reminded of the rules, and to follow them, is viewed as a threat. If by “simple” you mean “incorrect” You’re acting like you have no agency here, when the truth is it’s a choice. You can do a little research and include support when you make a claim, as others have done in this thread, but you opt not to. You are responsible for your actions, and omission of actions. Nobody else.

! Moderator Note And the only place to discuss it is in its own thread. Advertising it in someone else’s thread is considered hijacking

Fine: prove it. Go find the data. It’s not hidden in the sunless area where most of your “information” comes from

That’s not what you were arguing, and death rate isn’t the only metric to use. Quality of life, for instance. What a convincing argument. I especially like how you backed it up with a credible source. Poor people don’t live in million-dollar homes, or own yachts. So the people who do, have these vices. Who said they did? Pretty sure they do. Poor people often don’t own homes, much less owning vacation homes.

10 hours a day studying for my PhD in physics? Depends on what counts as studying. Taking physics classes? Going to seminars? Working in the lab, doing research? Those should count. But TA-ing the undergrad classes (which is how I got tuition remission until I got on a research grant) Taking gym classes? Playing hall golf, or real golf, or basketball, or poker? (our popular activities) Not. You have to blow off steam and relax. And eat, do laundry, etc. If the 10 is an average. I took days off, or at least half-days, plus vacation time. For me it was probably 60 hours a week - 3000 hours. And remember this is partly BS. I agree with exchemist - the number is made up. The concept being it takes a lot of work to be good at something.

"Poets are the unacknowledged legislators of the world." is a quote from Percy Shelley (a poet, an apparently politically active one), so "unacknowledged legislator" is a poetry reference to poets, and impeachment is part of the removal from office, which is what you say the article was about.

As far as the "Deep State" cries that have gone up over this: The federal judge that signed off on the search warrant and the FBI director were both appointed by TFG, and I saw something that suggested the DOJ attorney that executed the warrant was, also. It's a toilet

Agree - the reaction has been, in essence, that he's above the law, rather than he's innocent. The division of the FBI that visited in June was Counterintelligence and Export Control https://www.cnn.com/2022/08/08/politics/mar-a-lago-search-warrant-fbi-donald-trump/index.html They told TFG's people to lock up the room where the documents we stored The Counterintelligence and Export Control Section (CES) supervises the investigation and prosecution of cases affecting national security, foreign relations, and the export of military and strategic commodities and technology. The Section has executive responsibility for authorizing the prosecution of cases under criminal statutes relating to espionage, sabotage, neutrality, and atomic energy. It provides legal advice to U.S. Attorney's Offices and investigative agencies on all matters within its area of responsibility, which includes 88 federal statutes affecting national security. It also coordinates criminal cases involving the application of the Classified Information Procedures Act. In addition, the Section administers and enforces the Foreign Agents Registration Act of 1938 and related disclosure statutes. https://www.justice.gov/nsd/sections-offices

I was able to find e.g. the funding numbers for cancer quite easily. The information is out there, if you can be bothered to look. Funny thing about observations is that bias creeps into them quite easily. That matters to some of us, who try to be objective. I don't give a FF about your "prediction" and that's not been the focus of any of this discussion. It can't be, because you were forbidden from bringing the topic up in other threads. You can keep your delusion to yourself.

Only some possible impurities would be attracted to a magnet. Pure iron and nickel (alloys might not be magnetic), along with other less common materials. Gold-plating wouldn't hide this, but it probably would not detect small amounts of impurities

The GOP's response is a little strange. I thought their very vocal position was that anyone who mishandles classified documents must be locked up.

Gold is nonmagnetic, so being attracted to a strong magnet would indicate impurities.

Sounds like they have top men working on it. Top. Men.

But they do use more resources. They almost always have vices of some sort. Big houses with pools and lawns that need watering. Some buy yachts, other buy lots of cars, some have private jets. Some do all of it. If wealth is such an illusion why don't the rich share it freely? They literally do have structures full of commodities. Perhaps not warehouses, because they're ugly, but to argue essentially that rich people don't own more stuff is just something I can't take seriously. I'm sure the working class eat more, owing to the fact that there are more of them. The thing about the 1% is that the comprise just 1% of the population. (funny how the math works out on that) but it's a matter of whether they consume more in proportion to their numbers. And of course this is all a distraction from the original point, which was your claim that "An expanding economy increases employment redistributing wealth in a non-inflationary way" and my rebuttal (with a cited source) that wealth equality is worse and now we get this tap-dancing about consumption.

Science tries to go with the best explanation given current understanding, and that understanding is generally tested, pretty much continually. We update when warranted. It's a matter of whether you are assessing your understanding, and as the article points out, you can do this with explanations of how things work. You tend to run into trouble explaining things when there are gaps in your understanding, and that gets even more scrutiny when people are asking questions, and pointing out when the explanations don't make sense. Then it's a matter of admitting to the gap, or stubbornly insisting that contradictions one has generated don't pose a problem, often accompanied by the waving of hands and sometimes heated responses. This gets amplified when one has an emotional attachment, because it is a pet theory that's been raised from a pup.

That wasn't the point. I was rebutting the second half of the claim "funding for breast cancer was a priority while that for prostate cancer was pretty much ignored" If prostate cancer is overfunded relative to its impact, it cannot be the case that it is ignored. But since you won't actually cite any statistics, what you're left with is changing the argument instead of admitting that the claim isn't true. You made several comments about white males being discriminated against, Phi called you out on it ("So you think white males are discriminated against under the law?!"), and the prostate funding bit was your response. It's all there. So if this isn't supposed to be about white males, then your response to Phi was irrelevant, a red herring. You're just throwing things out there. Trolling.

Like the guy who set the minimum salary at his company at $70,000? https://www.cbsnews.com/news/dan-price-gravity-payments-ceo-70000-employee-minimum-wage/ "He was hailed a hero by some and met with predictions of bankruptcy from his critics. But that has not happened; instead, the company is thriving. ... "Our turnover rate was cut in half, so when you have employees staying twice as long, their knowledge of how to help our customers skyrocketed over time and that's really what paid for the raise more so than my pay cut," said Price."

I wouldn’t call >$200 million “pretty much ignored” though Greg is free to present actual statistics from the eighties. Until he does, though, the claim is just made-up BS.

They’re moving at the same speed is all. What’s the physics of this “togetherness” that has a “different affect”? Actual physics says nothing about this, of course. Mass and speed - existing physics variables - are all you need to describe what’s going on. But it’s not. There’s no m^2 in kinetic energy or momentum equations. You’re just making up a problem.