swansont

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.

That you don’t understand it is not something that matters. Physics doesn’t claim that any individual form of energy is conserved. Only the total energy. Nobody cares that you don’t like it. It works. People do thousands upon thousands of successful experiments that use the concepts of physics. Mass doesn’t increase in a collision. The mass at the beginning of the example is the same as the mass at the end. In a completely inelastic collision, the two masses are moving at the same speed. That’s different than what you said, which was just two particles moving at 1000 m/s But OK, then calculate the kinetic energy before and after the collision. Is it the same?

Knowledge overconfidence is associated with anti-consensus views on controversial scientific issues https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/sciadv.abo0038 Recently, evidence has emerged, suggesting a potentially important revision to models of the relationship between knowledge and anti-science attitudes: Those with the most extreme anti-consensus views may be the least likely to apprehend the gaps in their knowledge Probably comes as no surprise to folks here, encountering people with “alternative” views on science. Mismatches between what individuals actually know (“objective knowledge”) and subjective knowledge are not uncommon (31). People tend to be bad at evaluating how much they know, thinking they understand even simple objects much better than they actually do (32). This is why self-reported understanding decreases after people try to generate mechanistic explanations, and why novices are poorer judges of their talents than experts

Was it true, or did he just say it? The NIH says that both of these cancers are overfunded relative to their burden on society. So your brother’s claim doesn’t hold much water. Prostate cancer is not being “pretty much ignored” (Greg hasn’t shown any interest in facts or substantiation of claims, but others who read this do, so here is the link https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3411479/ ) P.S. how is this an example of white males being discriminated against? You could question the source of your beliefs, and confirm them as facts rather than blindly believing things. Make no mistake - this is a choice on your part.

Glancer has been banned, because we thought it would be funny. (seriously, though: aliens? No hint of good faith discussion? Yeah, gone)

! Moderator Note Knock, knock Who’s there? You’re banned. Get it? I think it’s really funny.

And CEOs make 200x (or more) than the rank-and-file workers. Wealth disparity is worse than it was a few decades ago In 2021, the top 10 percent of Americans held nearly 70 percent of U.S. wealth, up from about 61 percent at the end of 1989 https://www.cfr.org/backgrounder/us-inequality-debate So we are wealthier now, but wealth has not been redistributed Force the prices down? With a magic wand? You were asked to back this up. All you’ve done is repeat the claim. Others have addressed most of the other points. All you’ve done is make stuff up. You bring to mind a quote from Josh Billings (though something similar is attributed to Mark Twain) "It ain't ignorance causes so much trouble; it's folks knowing so much that ain't so." And that’s you: you “know” stuff but don’t/can’t show that it’s factual.

It was split off of that thread several days ago.

What does my user name have to with swans getting colds? Swanson is my last name, first name starts with t. Last name + first initial Is a pretty common protocol. I will admit that making fun of someone’s name is common, though…in grade school.

Fusion, though fission is used to create the high temperature and pressure.

In some cases it’s difficult to track; you might not be measuring it. But in e.g. a completely inelastic collision, it doesn’t matter, since conservation of momentum applies and allows you to solve the problem. In a situation with friction it may not matter if you can calculate the amount of work done. Some problems might just not be solvable without additional information. You shouldn’t add text to anyone’s quote, since a quote implies that it’s an actual quote. i.e. what they said. Then there is no change in the motion. So what? It’s a different example than what I gave. (And this ignores that you can choose whatever convenient frame of reference you want. I chose one where the momentum is zero. But pick whatever frame you want; in a completely inelastic collision, the kinetic energy is smaller after the collision) KE not being conserved means you can’t assume it is as a general principle. It doesn’t mean you can’t find individual examples where it doesn’t change. i.e. “not conserved” does not mean “must change”

So you’re saying this spelling was deliberate

Yes, two PhDs. Glad you agree.

You can check in any college 1st semester physics textbook and confirm that this is the mainstream view. It’s a basic definition. I’m giving you information, and the benefit of my expertise. Not bothering would mean not responding at all. Nobody here owes you any of their time. I gave you an example that shows it does. You are free to recreate it. You can also drop a wet rag or raw egg on the floor. It will have some speed just before it hits the floor (i.e. it has kinetic energy) and then just after the collision, it won’t be moving, so its KE is now zero. You’re working very hard to deny something so trivially easy to observe. Why should the KE change? The real question is why wouldn’t it? TOTAL energy is conserved. Not any particular type of energy, unless you have specific circumstances. Energy can change from one type to another. Lots of devices take advantage of this - a generator takes mechanical energy and converts it to electrical. You want an example of kinetic energy converted to thermal energy, you can see this in a car’s brakes. They heat up as the car slows. Any object sliding along a surface with friction present will heat up. You can check this yourself.

Who has two PhDs, not four https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Travis_S._Taylor

Citation needed. For this, and, well, everything. Your claims are considered bogus until substantiated.

It’s so you can upload pictures. You aren’t obligated to use that feature. You are obligated to post material for discussion. Take Phi’s suggestion and do it in parts, so nobody gets bogged down.

Really? Do you think we get to tell nature how it works? I’m sure they aren’t things we can just decide on, independent of comparing with experiment (i.e. nature) We can’t decide that pi=3 and think that our calculations will work. How do you know what I’ve noticed? I’ve only commented on a few of your musings. It makes sense to put physical constants in equations that require them. Which is what we do. Are you not aware of this? You’re moving the goalposts here.Star Trek is fiction. It’s entertainment. They make stuff up. No obligation to investigate underlying patterns. That’s for your other thread. I thought this was about aliens. The evidence for which is…a video from the history channel?

Add the above that e.g. if you aren’t within ~50 light years of earth, you would be unaware of our space travel.

Ah, you need to believe. That explains a lot. Being wrong about some things means you’re wrong about anything built on them, and that can be problematic. And you’ve been told not to discuss this anymore, because you went ~6 pages and refused to address issues people raised, and we decided that’s enough. You aren’t engaging in good faith, and when that becomes obvious we shut threads down. In accordance with the rules you agreed to when you joined. Another nebulous, unsupported claim. You’re all hat and no cattle. See above comment. Which you’ve been asked to identify, specifically, and you don’t. Can’t, probably, but would never admit it.