Leaderboard

TBH, even if not applicable it is one of the things that POC often face when getting criticized for something that their peers are not. Overtly, it is never about race but something else. Weirdly, however, there is much larger pile of the "definitely-not-related-to-race-issues" on someones desk. Of course no one ever acknowledges it and the imbalance must clearly always be about something else.

“It would not be impossible to prove with sufficient repetition and a psychological understanding of the people concerned that a square is in fact a circle. They are mere words, and words can be molded until they clothe ideas and disguise.” ― Joseph Goebbels

Apropos of absolutely nothing at all (I am definitely not accusing another member of being a troll), this came to mind recently: https://knowyourmeme.com/memes/sea-lioning

Consequences of global warming will be massive starvation, wars for water and food, increase of food and water prices, massive emigration of billions of people living on lands affected by increased temperatures to more moderate temperature regions (Europe, North America and North East Asia). Death of sea wild fishes and sea living organisms (plankton does not like higher temperatures and it is primary food source of the all sea living higher level organisms). Oxygen dissolves less efficiently at higher temperatures of water. Sea living organisms have no time to adjust for lower concentration of Oxygen, so many species will extinct. People relying on sea living organisms will be starving or will have to switch to other food sources even further increasing their prices. And so on, so on..

I think it is because you are given sources, but then do not watch them, while still talking about 'alleged' temperature changes, as if that's not kind of shown at this point? Questions are fine, but it may be good to first fully consider the answers given.

! Moderator Note If a meaningless diagram with no explanation is the best you can do, then I think we are done here. Do not start another thread on this.

The strategy is: Flood the zone with shit https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2020/1/16/20991816/impeachment-trial-trump-bannon-misinformation

It is quantitative. Feynman mentions this - it's having electron spins line up. That's pretty sloppy for someone with a physics background. Forces do not require energy, work does. If there is no motion, or the motion is perpendicular to the force, no work is done. That's physics 101. Someone versed in quantum physics would know about the Heisenberg uncertainty principle, and the time constraints this places on conservation of energy

! Moderator Note Almost every statement in your last post is wrong: there is a purely quantitative difference between a material being magnetised and not; virtual photons do not violate the conservation of energy; the "guy on the video" can only make sense to someone with zero knowledge of, and interest in, physics. If all you can do is list all the things you don't know, rather than attempt to justify the claims in the vide, this thread is closed. Do not start another thread about those videos. Feel free to start a thread in the Physics section where you can ask questions about electromagnetism and, perhaps, learn something. But if you use such a thread to say that physics is wrong, then that thread will be closed.

Waste of time, unless you could dilated it to fraction of second. Up to you, the future will teach us the truth... Much density close to the center of mass, and less over distance! Now you could close this subject if you want, but It's a big win to me, in a relativistic point of view

No, but I swear that I saw the results personally, If you know what I mean!

If they are in a state of martial law, the other parts of the government are shut down, and people are only tried by a military court. It is more of a cause and effect type of thing. The law isn't going to state what happens after the law no longer applies anymore, because no one would be following it anyways. At this point, it doesn't matter what the law or constitution says, because it is a method of getting rid of it. It would just no longer apply, but it could be in accordance with international law.

Maybe

That is the entire basis of the theory. The Constitution doesn't allow us to get steam rolled by a Russian invasion, because they do not agree with the presidents actions. It allows the president to take whatever actions necessary to protect the people of the country in those types of situations, even if it means he has to go against the will of the congress.

You could try some of my experiments, why yours are better? If once done they gives rise to evidence… from a hobbys Physicist

I have to leave, see you next time, in a year, maybe 🥰. Yes...

You two just fail to recognize the concept of the executive branch or military taking over the government by force. If you take control of something by force, you don't have to adhere to what the people say that you have forcefully taken control of. The constitution just allows that process to begin in extreme circumstances. Then it could be started by the president in-sighting extreme circumstances, which he has the power to do. It doesn't matter what the constitution says after that point. For instance, we turned Iraq into a democratic form of government. It was taken over, so the democratic law they had no longer applies. There was nothing in the laws of their democracy that apply now... They are no longer a democracy. They are not going to look into their democratic constitution to see what they should do now.