swansont

! 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.

I'm not being pedantic. It's outside of the realm of my experience, and doesn't pass the smell test. It sounds like a movie-plot problem. Which is why I ask. Your links are about class and classism, not whether someone is rich, though of course there is overlap. I responded to your questions "What is to stop me from deciding only rich people can work for me?" and "Should there be some kind of affirmative action for those with a long family history of poverty?" For example: one of the bullet points in the first link is 18% of privately-educated graduates earn over £30,000 within 6 months of starting work - compared to 9% from state schools. None of that tells you if the individual in question is rich or poor, and says nothing about whether there was discrimination on this basis in the hiring process, so this says nothing about what I asked. What that statistic says is that you will probably get a better job if you can go to a private school. Doesn't say anything about being rich, or whether you were hired on that basis. Since all you would have to do is not ask the applicant if they were rich or poor, I'd say it's likely to have zero effect. You can reject protected classes based on them not being qualified for the job. The same applies here.

I want you to show that wealth-based hiring discrimination is widespread. That's how other protected classes were afforded their status. And there are exceptions "employers may consider membership in a protected class when making employment decisions if there is a business necessity for doing so, or if membership in a protected class is a bona fide occupational qualification." https://subscriptlaw.com/protected-classes/ Then it sounds like everyone has a problem. You could not be a member of the "poor" and be affected. IOW, you're fighting a certain kind of bias. Like "long-haired freaky people need not apply" Nothing illegal about that Your accent does not guarantee to what class you belong. There's only correlation. You would be discriminating on the basis of that accent, not on the financial status. IOW, consider "My Fair Lady" (yes, it's fiction, but consider the plausibility of a similar scenario) I don't believe I said I wouldn't engage in it, nor do I think I spoke for anyone else No, I asked for evidence that socioeconomic status was explicitly impacting hiring practices. You are weaving a bit of a man of straw here. You don't agree but you also agree? I don't understand. Let's see it then. evidence of rejecting candidates solely because of whether they are rich or poor. I'm not asking that it come from you, per se. I don't think an individual would personally have generated that sort of data, and otherwise it would just be anecdotes. I would expect you to point me to credible sources of information. I'm not sure where this is coming from. This is a science site. Surely you should expect challenges to nebulous claims.

A. It's not unconstitutional until 1. it's an actual law, and 2. it's found to be by a federal court B. Ben Franklin is not subject to prior restraint penalties since he's already said what he said, and he's dead. Also, this is not a government site, so unless directed by a government entity, it's not possible for the site to deprive anybody of any rights whatsoever. It's entirely possible that the demarcation of 15' (or whatever is decided on) could be upheld. They could find that anything inside that is interference with the police. The GOP has gotten a lot of judges put in place, and this is the kind of thing that chips away at rights

Unfortunately, "unconstitutional" is what the supreme court says it is, though this would probably get struck down in whatever federal district it's in first. But it will likely take a while for that to happen. (if it gets signed into law, which hasn't happened yet) Why is Ben Franklin's name redacted?

You can't rent/borrow good clothing? Your accent makes you rich or poor? If you have hiring criteria that aren't related to how the person will do their job, you will end up with bad hiring practices, and that will be a drag on your company. If this were widespread, I would imagine there would be complaints about the discrimination. You say it has come up - do you have evidence of this? Is it more than an isolated case or two? What ought to happen? If a company decides they only want to hire rich people, they can hinder themselves that way. There are other companies out there that will hire better candidates and be more competetive in most cases, all else being equal.

It's an interpretation, not a theory. i.e. it's there to aid in figuring things out. I don't think that makes it "very unscientific" It would be like saying using ROY G BIV as a mnemonic to remember the spectrum is unscientific. It's not claiming to be science, and it's not contrary to science, so that label doesn't apply.

Doubtful. The explanation requires a certain basic understanding of physics, which is not universal, and ignores the reality that not everyone responds to the same style of explanation.

How does this come up in the hiring process?

Citing a youtube video is not exactly a rigorous argument, and “force” has a particular definition in physics. A force is not involved here.