swansont

Because left to themselves, schools were biased. Legislation was necessary in order to promote equal access, using the lever of eligibility for federal funding. That continues.

Does anyone do this? What the players make and what the national team makes are separate issues, and the disconnect was a reason behind the lawsuit and negotiation for equal pay. U.S. women’s soccer games have generated more revenue than U.S. men’s games over the past three years https://www.cnbc.com/2019/06/19/us-womens-soccer-games-now-generate-more-revenue-than-mens.html There’s no gender wage gap in G7 countries? https://data.oecd.org/earnwage/gender-wage-gap.htm

What is <i|j> when i ≠ j ? (They are orthogonal; yes, it’s because you’ve got a diagonal matrix so you have eigenvalues and eigenvectors)

Scientists play around with ideas that don’t necessarily work out, but reveal things nonetheless - excluding lines of thought, advancing ideas that might apply elsewhere. There’s a lot of “what if” that happens. There’s no inherent problem with “just asking questions” on either side of the aisle.

Because of the Kronecker delta in the first highlighted equation https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kronecker_delta Which is there because <i|j> is in the preceding equation. Do you see why that is?

One could Google this.

No, it was not proposed to be an illusion. The clock ticked slower because time slowed down, owing to relative motion. Sure. It isn’t brought up because it’s irrelevant to the thought problem.

That’s probably a regulatory classification because one deals with the public. But having to evacuate is an indication that something went wrong, and not according to plan, because if it did, you wouldn’t have core damage and a release of contaminants I imagine the SL-1 incident didn’t require much in the way of evacuation because it was remotely located, but it’s hard to argue it operated the way a reactor is supposed to. It, too, exposed design flaws. But this also shows that there have been more reactor problems than the three that hit the news from 1979 onward.

Right, but you don’t have to do it that way. If you went to the lab next door, your field could be at any arbitrary angle to the other measurement. Up and down are relative to however you set up the quantization axis where you do the measurement. If the spin was aligned with the N pole in your lab on earth, measuring along that axis - however it is aligned with regard to anything else - will give you your down spin in the lab at M87.

Up and down are dictated by the local magnetic field You have to transport the electron in such away that you don’t collapse the wave function, but beyond that it doesn’t matter. The spin is undetermined, and what matters is the field when you do the measurement.

In the US, things are probably more…rabid.

I recall religious arguments, but not philosophical ones. From people with a certain worldview that requires that it be a choice. But that’s an emotional argument, not one based on reason, so definitely not philosophy.

These were arguments by philosophers?

Where? I see 5 mentions, and a couple of them mentioned where one sighting was confirmed as a deflating balloon, but nothing about them being ruled out.

You can certainly critique Aristotle (and those who followed) for not testing his hypothesis. Not sure about the astronomers, since they were limited by what they could test, and things changed pretty rapidly once that happened. Is that the original question for science? Or was science separated because it was answering a different question: how does nature behave? Because then you have to say that covering all but a tiny fraction of a second means we have a plethora of answers. Part of this needs to acknowledge that “fundamentals of QM” represents a tiny sliver of physics but generates a disproportionate amount of discussion. i.e. this do not represent what a vast proportion of physicists do, or care about Not a lot of people claim that physicists need to spend more time listening to what athletes or musicians have to say in order to do physics, or examples of physicists weighing in on how the athletes/musicians do what they do (as far as I am aware)

That’s interesting, given that axial tilt and the length of the day are not constant, and had different values in the past. Which means this “pattern” is accidental and just makes this numerology Also, you didn’t “predict” anything.

Link(s) to satellites acknowledging this needed. (since thorium is not fissile) Conspiracy claims need to be supported. You have quotation marks around all these. Am I to understand you are just collecting random comments from some thread? With absolutely no attribution or suggestion of credibility? Hardly. They reacted to some extent as designed, which showed flaws in their design. But what they were supposed to to was shut down safely, stay cooled, and not release contamination, and they did not “react” this way. One main critique of this is that thorium is not fissile. You can’t make a reactor with thorium as a fuel. You use it to breed U-233, which is. Any suggestion that there would be less waste should be taken with a huge grain of salt. You still have a bunch of intermediate half-life byproducts - too long to let it decay away, short enough that it has significant activity. The “meltdown-proof” claim is suspect. You still have to remove decay heat. There were issues with TMI, Chernobyl and Fukushima that were all related to this.

Which are still anecdotal. Observations being made by military personnel doesn’t change that. Plus, they admit “The sensors mounted on U.S. military platforms are typically designed to fulfill specific missions. As a result, those sensors are not generally suited for identifying UAP.” One thing missing here is an analysis of known aerial phenomena as a comparison. Surely birds and balloons, etc. have been detected and identified by aircraft before, without being categorized as UAP. What are those signals and how do they differ? There’s also no mention of any sort of systematic test of the sensors to see what kind of signals can be created from any of these mundane phenomena.

Are these peer-reviewed papers? Where were they published?

If you would review, you might see we were talking about the pay disparity between the USMNT and USWNT. The women play better soccer relative to their competition.

But not so much by people with a physics background, since the physics didn’t even start to exist until Newton. You also have to take into account the date and ability to investigate, including the speed and depth of communication. Vague reports of a rock falling from the sky from a place a hundred miles away isn’t likely to be investigated when there’s no science to be used and that’s a multi-day trip. That’s assuming the news traveled that far. These reasons why people didn’t investigate is a separate issue from the question I was answering. The issue was investigated after it became clear that there was evidence rather than anecdotes, and actual analysis could be done. Do these experts say they do, or do they qualify this by saying “could” i.e. if the objects are real, and other assumptions are valid. (Linking to your sources would be helpful when you paraphrase what others say) I’m sorry, I thought this was about a congressional hearing. What is this “real investigation”?

It was actual analysis and the weight of observational evidence. You actually had meteorites in hand, and could compare them to stones from the area. And a large number of eyewitnesses of the same unambiguous event, rather than isolated events. https://www.smithsonianmag.com/smart-news/1803-rain-rocks-helped-establish-existence-meteorites-180963017/ “Biot distinguished two kinds of evidence of an extraterrestrial origin of the stones,” Gounelle writes. First, the kind of stone that had fallen was totally different than anything else available locally—but it was similar to the stone from the Barbotan meteor fall in 1790. “The foundries, the factories, the mines of the surroundings I have visited, have nothing in their products, nor in their slag that have with these substances any relation,” Biot wrote. Second, unlike earlier falls, there were a number of witnesses “who saw ‘a rain of stones thrown by the meteor,’” Gounelle writes. They were from different walks of life, and, Biot wrote, it would be ridiculous to think they had all colluded to describe something that hadn’t happened. “One can follow Biot’s enquiry, village by village, step by step,” writes Gounelle.

Yes. That’s equivalent to what I said. Giving everyone the same rights means securing them for the people who are systematically disadvantaged under the current system. But the GOP likes the current system, because they are the ones who have the full rights and the power to exploit others. And they don’y shy away from the fiction that equal rights for all is a loss of rights for some.

The result is different, but it’s because the binding is different. I think perhaps it’s a mistake to try to use the same terminology.

Winning games, perhaps? The US women have won World cups and Olympic gold. The men haven’t had anywhere close to the same success. They didn’t even qualify for the WC in 2018, and their highest finish since 2002 was 8th.