swansont

Oh my God! So is every grouping of eleven words! Freaky!

Could you clarify this, please?

Gravity shielding wasn't observed during the 1999 eclipse in this experiment

I think it proves nothing of the sort. When you drop a feather 1 m to the floor and observe that it takes longer than .45 seconds, have you shown a problem with Newton's law of gravitation and his Second law, or have you shown that you need to take air resistance into account? Absent detailed knowledge of the atmosphere, can you come to a valid conclusion about it?

Gravity hasn't ceased. It's just that there is another force involved. In this case it's due to the Meissner effect. "Defying" gravity is a very nebulous term. I do it every time I stand up, but there's nothing mysterious about that.

The expansion is a function of pressure, not gravity, as YT implied earlier. So is this happening in space, where the pressure is ~zero, or in an enclosed environment (like the ISS) where you have an atmosphere, more or less, of pressure?

It could also be laser sent through a pair of perpendicularly oriented acousto-optic modulators. But mirrors on a piezo crystal is more likely.

Here's what NASA has to say Doesn't anyone Google anymore?

Not a true statement. We've discussed this before, in the thread cryptically called Faster than C

Surely you mean radiation, not radioactivity.

But not tea.

Exactly.

theft n. 1. The act or an instance of stealing; larceny.

I like the observation, though it's not quite true. Rich pseudoscientific inventors cashed in by selling their idea to other people, not by selling the device itself. Just like the guys selling get-rich-quick books.

Yes, and you seem to be making a moral argument, while I am making a legal one. Taking copyrighted material without permission is against the law in the ~100 countries that are signatories to the Berne convention on literary and artistic works. I don't need to "justify" my position - I am stating a fact. In the US: "The 1976 Copyright Act generally gives the owner of copyright the exclusive right to reproduce the copyrighted work, to prepare derivative works, to distribute copies or phonorecords of the copyrighted work, to perform the copyrighted work publicly, or to display the copyrighted work publicly." Exclusive right to reproduce the work. Black letter law. Your position seems to be that you don't think it's wrong. But trying to argue that it's not stealing is rationalizing, by definition.

Fissile. All of the uranium is fissionable - capable of undergoing fission. But it's the U-235 that is fissile, or capable of a sustained chain reaction.

Not for about two billion years, and explsions are a much more complex problem than a "simple" chain reaction. The Oklo reactor in Gabon was a natural uranium reactor, back when the U-235 abundance was high enough to sustain the reaction.

My argument isn't about whether or not the income of the artist in question is affected. I think the RIAA has their collective heads up their rearends on this issue. The person who holds the copyright is the only person who is legally allowed to decide how and if their work is to be distributed. Taking that copyrighted material, without permission, is stealing. Intellectual property is still property. Any argument that tries to justify it is just rationalizing the behavior.

But they aren't actually taking your money, are they? You are aware that you don't have to have the music, right? Unless there is coercion on their part, you can't say they are stealing. There is absolutely no way you can legitimately justify it. But you, at least, admit you are a thief.