swansont

You were asked about a mention of “ironic” before; I find this to be ironic, given your pattern of not answering requests for clarification when you make a comment. You engage in evasion and sometimes a strategy of “a good offense is the best defense” as it appears you are doing here. Also the farce of pretending you didn’t downvote posts when you did. They are anonymous up until the point where you engage in a charade like this. If you can’t post in good faith, don’t post at all.

Primarily because that was not the question that was asked, making this off-topic, and you’re posting to advertise your speculation, which is against the rules.

The reading from the one on the left depends on the value of g; it measures weight. The compression of the spring is from a force. The one on the right does not - any value of g will do. It measures mass. The value of g cancels, since it’s affecting both sides.

I think most poor people know how hard they work, so they might not succumb to the propaganda that poor are in that situation because they are lazy, which removes a barrier to helping others, if they can. One of the insidious behaviors we have in the US is a willingness to deny help, if it means people we hate are hurt. A certain swath of people can’t stand the thought of one undeserving person (in their view) getting help. The right has made an industry out of pointing out the anomalies and offering them up as typical to undermine social programs that help people, sowing the notion that people are getting away with something and ripping us off. (of course this doesn’t extend to tax cheats for some reason)

Moderator NotePosting to advertise your youtube channel is a violation of rule 2.7

They threaten this, but rarely follow through. In the US, at least, states/regions that have started taxing the rich have not seen the threatened mass exodus. There are reasons the rich live/do business where they do separate from taxes. I mentioned this but if this in response to my post, the mention was only as a recognition that this happens and not an endorsement. I think religion tries to get people to help others, often in spite of themselves. It may be that certain proponents of the various religions recognized that society would be better off as a result and that this runs against the natural instincts of many.

A more generic category of power might cover this and other things (e.g. heat)

Basic human nature is to be selfish to some degree and to have some fear of things that are different (again, to some degree), i.e. a tribalistic attitude. Depending on where you are on that scale you will be more or less altruistic, and in any case, many are more likely to help someone they know rather than a complete stranger, and more likely to help in the case of a disaster rather than the mundane problems like poverty and hunger. It doesn’t help that there are those who exploit our emotions to try and paint people as deserving to be poor (they’re lazy) or not worthy of help (they’re minorities - you’re better than them)

Apparently not his first alias. He previously enlisted under the name John Hume Ross, according to his Wikipedia article. I had no idea.

And I’ve been asking, as I’ve done elsewhere, for analysis that doesn’t depend on a specific technology. The energy constraints on e.g. visiting a planet, has certain parameters that don’t depend on technology. Propulsion has some constraints that don’t (I presented one) and others that would eliminate or constrain certain classes of technologies (chemical reactions for propulsion, for example) What we’re left with is a circular argument for visits of the type described in the OP. You’d need new physics to explain them (e.g. a reactionless drive, since we never seem to see effects of a reaction mass) but without confirming such new physics, simple observation is not evidence of visitation. You’d need physical artifacts — something left behind — that could independently confirm that sightings.

There should be no offsides once the ball is as deep as the penalty area box line that’s parallel to the end line, or on free kicks in the attacking end. Once the ball leaves that zone you reset (similar to hockey blue line/offsides, AFAIK)

I read Deborah Blum’s The Poison Squad (about the efforts to get food safety regulation in place in the US) when it came out and subsequently realized that the tactics haven’t changed. Big business will use any and all legal tactics to protect their profits and shield themselves from blame/responsibility for doing harm by selling us unhealthy (often deliberately unhealthy) food Self-regulation is a myth. Too many bad actors are out there who only care about profits. We see these days that bribery is part of the repertoire, too

No. Matter enters and leaves. Literally tons of space dust enters the earth’s atmosphere every day https://www.universetoday.com/articles/getting-a-handle-on-how-much-cosmic-dust-hits-earth But you said introduction of energy, and the relevant term would be isolated system, and it’s definitely not that.

You need to quantify the proposed effect, and explain why it would affect an electromagnetic interaction

What closed system?

“It doesn’t alter our theory of what caused the extinction event—but it makes it less likely that sulphur contained in the impactor was the smoking gun,” co-author Philippe Claeys, a planetary scientist and professor at the Free University of Brussels in Belgium, said in a statement. “The fine debris thrown into the atmosphere would have [been] the primary factor.” https://gizmodo.com/the-asteroid-that-killed-the-dinosaurs-may-not-have-done-it-exactly-how-we-thought-2000787712

Your tendency to make a statement and the run away when pressed on the details is really f@*%ing annoying. It’s also a violation of rule 2.8; it’s rejecting open discussion of something that you introduced.

Facts are things that are true regardless of whether you believe them. A truth that is incorrect is not a truth. If veracity doesn’t matter what’s the point? No information is conveyed by labeling something as true. Misinformation is false. It does not make facts untrue, since they were never facts or true to begin with. Trump is lying; what he says is untrue. Casting this as “some agree” is warping the description to force it to fit here. “Iran” in this context is the country, the political entity, so it means the leaders empowered to speak and act, not the people. It’s like when Obi-Wan tells Luke that Darth Vader betrayed and murdered his father, and then they had to warp this into a metaphorical description because they wanted to do sequels. It was only “true from a certain perspective” if you decide you can change the meaning of the words, which is equivocation (i.e. a deceptive practice) Being mutually exclusive only means you can’t do both, but it doesn’t make one true and the other false. I don’t see how that affects whether something is true. It’s true that smoking causes cancer and people do it anyway. The actions have no impact on that truth.

It was Mrs. Schrödinger’s cat

Non-sequitur, but can you assign a true or false label to a future event that has yet to be determined? Your teacher was wrong, or the statement was taken out of context. I don’t see what this has to do with the topic.

So one difference is when you look at their multiple definitions, but we could limit ourselves to the use of true and fact that are most similar to each other, i.e. the use of true that’s opposite of false, and fact that’s often synonymous with true.

Or we just call it opinion, as I suggested. But “Bob likes vanilla” is still true for everyone, assuming Bob is not lying, so I don’t see how it’s a personal truth. It’s just truth.

If/when we get responsible government back in the US, it would make sense to mandate the recycling. Tax the batteries up front and make sure recyclers have to take them, but subsidize them to make it profitable. (the hypocrites who complain about socialism or wokeness can pound sand)

What classes? Did your science class coordinate with your literature studies and did civics coordinate with algebra?

On the notion that there are personal/local truths — how do these differ from just having an opinions? If there is no distinction, why complicate the topic by having these different flavors of truths? Someone used the statement “I have a headache” earlier. How do we verify this? Is it just a belief that they have a headache? What if it’s “I like the color red” or “I like broccoli”?