swansont

There are a lot of treatments that are not based on traditional medicine.

AndaleAndale banned as a sockpuppet of Buai and Noice..gui

It probably is used less, though. If you get sick, some people will use modern medicine if such treatment is available to them, which means they are not using "traditional" medicine. The ones who partake of modern medicine will try other approaches if the original treatment fails.

Russia has engaged before, so their targets don’t seem to think so. Is there a shortage of planes? They won’t do any good if there are no pilots to fly them. It’s not like you can train up a pilot quickly, compared to getting someone basic skills in shooting a weapon.

So according to your conjecture a clock that constructed on earth will not experience time dilation when launched into space?

After they shot missiles at the US consulate?

The connection with Ukraine is…?

I think part of the story is that there’s no patent protection for existing treatments, unless you can isolate some unique compound. So no incentive to go through the expense of clinical trials. You can sell it as a supplement but it’s a bit like selling a generic after patents expire.

! Moderator Note Not the preferred nomenclature. It would be best not to cross this line again.

! Moderator Note This is not the place to be advancing this thesis. That’s for speculations, and would have to follow the rules of that section. Paranormal is not mainstream science, and this farce is ended. Don’t introduce this again.

And you’re missing the point. You won’t be able to easily find documentation from the 21st century of people saying Elvis didn’t exist, even if people claimed it.

And you’re better off pointing to evidence that exists than trying to prove a negative.

Too many of them are invested in fossil fuels to pass the appropriate legislation.

So not much different than asking a random person on the street. No, not so much. There are very few scientists in the relevant field who are saying it's not anthropogenic. You increase those numbers slightly when you get to other fields of science, but you have to be careful about the ones who have been paid for their denial. It's a false balance, such as you are using here, that is advanced by some of the bad actors in the conversation. And, frankly, I would expect a retired physicist to be taking a more critical view of the issue than talking to an explorer and settling for "he said, she said" reporting.

The deepest we've ever drilled is about 12 km, and you need to go about 2900 km to get to the outer core. As you and Phi point out, you don't have to do that to tap into geothermal energy.

1. As far as we know how far is that 2. Paperwork? Paper didn't exist at that time. The literacy rate was what, 15%? Would the average person have been aware? How much documentation exists about any action from that era?

Because some judges have been bought and paid for and aren't qualified to hold their positions, so if this is part of their agenda, they may make a decision that's not based strictly on constitutional grounds. Or maybe they are just a little off-kilter. Judges have weaknesses and biases, even though they are supposed to set them aside as best they can. Legal experts also have a much more comprehensive knowledge of the system that lay persons that discuss topics online, and there might be sufficient basis for such decisions, even if they don't sit well with us. For instance, a judge might decide that earlier decisions were made in a time when cameras were not ubiquitous, and that the current situation might end up with multiple people trying to film the police might actually cause interference. A hard limit is not open to interpretation that could be more easily abused. As for police tape, that's not always deployed, nor is it practical to do so in all cases. And I suspect that many cases that draw the attention of cameras are ones where tape would not have been deployed, because things are escalating quickly. It would be a great help if you would use the quote function.

It's always a bit frustrating to be tagged a "nobody" I think perhaps you are just not paying sufficient attention. What expertise does this person have that they might render a scientific assessment?

It's unreasonable to expect zero mistakes. Also, Dr. LaRock was a postdoc at UCSD, so this likely isn't an issue of impersonation, just a matter of when the material was posted. (As an aside: putting multiple links to a site is usually a big red flag. Were this a commercial site and you had less of a posting history, you would be a suspected spammer.)

Potassium-40 (1.25 billion year half-life), Uranium (predominantly U-238), Thorium-232 (17 billion years)

Where's the bad faith? I am asking you to provide evidence of something which I have not observed myself, and sounds fanciful. You are acting like nobody is allowed to disagree with you or question your claim. I'm not making any assertions here. What questions should I be compelled to answer if I am not staking out a position?

And of course you have evidence to show that nobody did this.

It didn't go anywhere. You can leverage the angular momentum and torque, as Derek explains in the followup. Notice the path of the apparatus - he's not lifting straight up.

2 reasons. One is various radioactive materials inside the earth, with billion year half-lives, and the other is a yellow orb sending us thermal radiation from a 6000K surface.

Let’s be clear that parents typically pay for school. So growing up middle/upper class may have little to no impact on your wealth when you go to get a job. You’re talking about different things as if they are identical, and they aren’t Were you asked about your wealth during a job interview, or did you ask when interviewing someone else? One was paywalled, and I’m just humble civil servant. The abstracts of both are clear enough that they don’t address the claim in question. You are free to quote from them if you think they do. In keeping with academic rigor. I’m not claiming they are wrong, and I’m not making any counter claim. I’m simply asking for evidence that your scenario - hiring only the rich - is something that is widespread enough that it makes sense to protect people from it. What’s the demarcation of “the rich” anyway? How much money do you need in the bank to qualify? I suggested I was smelling BS, so clearly this missed the mark.