swansont

I don’t know how you can extrapolate to that from what I said. I did not mention forbidding elections, or anything about how to keep extremists from power. I merely said they were not in power in the two examples you gave. So obviously no, you did not understand me correctly.

“Idiotic” is a subjective assessment, i.e. your opinion, and an argument should be objective. Repeating doesn’t rebut the statement, since they made a different point than what you’re rebutting. It also gives the appearance that you’re not reading/comprehending things, which is probably not the impression most people want to give.

Depends on how you account for the “real” cost. There are roads required and pollution issues that are a direct result. I don’t see a problem lumping that into cost. We haven’t raised the federal tax on gas in the US (fixed amount, not a percentage of the price) in a long time, and we’re in political denial about the pollution costs. If it’s not in the fuel cost, it’s just going to show up somewhere else, but at least this way it’s proportional to the impact. Use less gas, pollute less and less wear-and-tear on the roads.

But many of the monstrous SUVs are built in the US. We can’t export them because basically no other country wants them. Parts come from elsewhere, so their price will be affected by tariffs, but I don’t see how small cars would avoid this same fate.

AfD is not in power, and was just identified as an extremist organization by German intelligence https://www.dw.com/en/germany-intelligence-agency-labels-afd-party-as-extremist/a-72413346 “The designation gives authorities greater powers to monitor the party, with measures such as intercepting phone calls and using undercover agents.” Similarly, Le Pen does not hold office. Every democracy has extremist elements in it. That does not mean they are not stable democracies. When the extremists take over, though, that’s not necessarily the case.

How is this better than putting your money in a bank? You have $300,000 worth of papiruses after ten years. In a bank you earn some interest, so you have more. You’re converting back to dollars at the end, so putting your dollars into a non-appreciating vehicle is the same as putting it in your mattress.

As I pointed out, this is only the case in some countries, rather than being true in general. Was there any debate/discussion when Britain made this exclusion, that attempts to justify it?

Since Townsend has declared that they “shall not be frequenting these forums again” we have locked the door as an hypocrisy-prevention measure

That’s “mocking”? Is your idea about changing memories or isn’t it? “shifting within Conscious Memory” “does not alter physical events only the perception of how those events are remembered” Are just two of many descriptions you posted. (I posted a bunch of physics stuff, but you made it clear that you aren’t discussing that) You don’t get to decide the primary concern; the rules of speculations are reasonably clear. Seems that you might be upset that you didn’t find a credulous audience, and that you wanted to pontificate rather than discuss.

In addition to men tending not enter fields dominated by women, there’s a phenomenon called gender flight, where men start leaving a field once women reach a certain level of participation

You do understand I’m a moderator, right? That part of this is trying to get you to follow the rules? Having you flip-flop about whether there’s any physics to discuss is a violation of rule 2.12, and I was practically begging you to not respond to me.

I joined because you pulled a bait-and-switch by implying that there was physics involved. I’m trying to exit the conversation, since you’ve made it clear that there isn’t. You could just leave it alone, but you won’t. It’s looking more like trolling with each post. Take the hint and just address the cognitive issues, from others’ posts.

Tariffs will/have shut down some shipping, yes. COVID did the same thing. It will be a while before domestic manufacturing could possibly fix the issue. “be minimalist” is a privileged assessment, because it assumes that buying less means reducing discretionary spending. What of people in or near poverty?

Doesn’t the patient’s emotional comfort matter? Also, is this restriction worldwide? I don’t think it is. That brings up the question of what countries restrict them, and what cultural and possibly legal influences come into play.

From my perspective - physics - it’s semantics. It’s your job to explain why this distinction is imporrtant. Posting in physics implies you wish to discuss physics. It’s clear you do not. There’s no reason to continue along these lines.

But that’s a decision you can only make for yourself. You can’t order someone else to be comfortable in a certain situation. And I don’t think you want to do any additional thing that would make women avoid cancer detection screening. Also, there is a zero-sum game in employment. If there are professions that have a disproportionate fraction of men, there must end up being at least one with a disproportionate fraction of women. That’s unavoidable.

You’re arguing semantics Untrue, according to relativity You’re not making the proper comparison. Noon is a point, and length is not. The proper correspondence would be a single point in space, which, if you were moving, you would not experience that point again unless you changed direction. Which you can do trivially in coordinate space, but not in time. Um, you originally posted this in physics, and complained when the topic was moved out of physics. To reverse course once again does not suggest good faith discussion. As above, good faith discussion means you need to present a consistent position. So be it. No physics, all perception. MiB memory erasure, it would seem.

The precision of a prediction is limited by the precision of the data that goes into the model, and the model itself, which came up in the discussion. We’re talking about a discrepancy of ~5 parts in 250 (the temperature in the formula is in Kelvins) 2% is fairly precise under these circumstances.

I don’t know which talks you’re referring to; there are a limited number if scenarios where time travel (returning to an earlier time) would be hypothetically possible We traverse time just sitting around. It’s noon. One minute later, it’s 12:01 “Physical phenomenon” and “physical entity” carry different implications. We can measure time. We can affect time in some ways, because time is relative to the environment you’re in (specifically your motion and gravitational potential) Physics does not require this to be the case. Can you store length somewhere? Length is a physical phenomenon that subject to certain physical laws, similar to time. Many of the same arguments one applies to time must apply to length.

Mainly I paid attention to your declaration that it’s not physics, and that it has to do with perception. (also the complete lack of physics in the post) It ended up in speculations because (from your own presentation) it is new, rather than being a discussion of some established science. I don’t think any mainstream physics says that time is a physical entity. Can you hold it in a container? (Jim Croce wanted to do that)

It’s also basically in the same orbit, though it has a different albedo (but also assumes things about the earth’s albedo which might not hold under those conditions) A few degrees is not a big difference given the assumptions being made.

So it should not have been posted in physics. Moved to speculations. Sounds like you want to overwrite memories, which is in no way time travel

If you want to learn to do QM, math is necessary, but learning about QM, not so much. But you do need to understand things about energy and momentum (angular momentum in particular) The undergrad QM class I took had a fair amount of history in it, to ease the students into the really new concepts of quantized values and treating things as waves. One reason the Bohr model is still discussed.

Since the moon lacks an atmosphere, “like the moon” means no greenhouse effect. You might not like the way the information was presented, but it’s not factually incorrect.

That’s moving goal posts - nobody said a wolf with 20 dire wolf edits isn’t a wolf. It’s just not a dire wolf. Homo habilis with 20 sapiens edits would still be Homo, but would an Australopithecine? We don’t know the genetics, but they seem closer to Homo than Pan does, and 20 edits certainly doesn’t get them to Homo sapiens.