Mr Skeptic

Well he did support some of his points, especially after you encouraged him to. But keep in mind that economics is a complex field, and no one has really managed to prove much of anything. So much so that they joke that economics is the only field where you can share a Nobel prize for saying opposite things. Indeed, a few (but not all) of his points are not relevant to your argument. Maybe he thought your argument was something else though. Of your bullet points, 5 and 6 could be relevant depending on the structure of the stimulus, although they don't argue against a stimulus in general. That looks pretty solid to me even from a pure logic perspective. The comparison between tax cuts and federal spending could be questioned, and I don't think it is proven either way (I know you did support your claim), since the effects could go on for decades or more and could be masked by other factors. But it would stand to reason that stimulus spending had better be more stimulating than tax cuts. If you are arguing only for letting the tax cuts expire and using that money for stimulus, then you are arguing something more general than needed for your argument. This I have to disagree with. I don't think we can solve our deficit by raising taxes, not with the current political atmosphere. We'd just ramp up spending to compensate. On the other hand, if we could somehow cut spending eventually we'd get a surplus and people would demand lower taxes. It may be a logical fallacy, but there's a reason for the popularity of this one. Sometimes the people involved cannot properly analyze the data, in which case I think an argument from authority would be superior to data. I know that even Nobel prize winning economists have great trouble with this, and I'm not going to pretend I'm more competent than they are. Well he did show Krugman saying that the tax cuts as a whole were irresponsible, and also that the only choices now were between the Obama plan which he said was expensive and did not say was worthwhile, and the Bush plan which was even more expensive and he expressly said was bad. While not proven I'd say the preponderance of evidence says he's mildly against the making permanent the tax cuts for the middle class. (bold added by me)

Why? Could anything else happen with that energy? The second law of thermodynamics is pretty harsh.

The nucleus tends toward a certain ratio of protons to neutrons, a ratio which starts at about 1:1 but then increases as mass increases. Far from the ratio, the nucleus tends to decay in such a way as to bring it closer to the ratio. I'm not sure if this really relates to your question, but I think that they both attract and repel each other.

I'd eat it, but it better come with a detailed nutritional information box. I know that farmed salmon have a lower Omega-3 content than wild ones due to their feed. The new GE farmed salmon could have either more or less, so that would affect my opinion of them, same with other nutrients.

I think the purpose of the statutory rape law was because of the difficulty of proving non-consent in the cases of child abuse. In fact, I think many of said children really did give their consent, either in exchange for trivial gifts or fear of reprisal. I suppose it would be sensible to allow an exception with parental consent (even without marriage), although I don't think many parents would make use of such.

iNow, before your inevitable complaint that Pangloss didn't answer your "irrelevant" accusations, it would help to know what it is irrelevant to. As it is, I rather lost track of what you two are arguing about. Maybe you're both arguing about different things so what you each think relevant would be different. For example, I think Pangloss showed how politics really does affect economics, with his example of how political factors modified a financial bill. An undeniable although indirect effect.

Note how this is bright and you can see the surface of the water? This is very near the surface, where waves matter. As for the pressure, it is pressure differentials that provide force (pressure differential times area). Absolute pressure doesn't move anything, and the pressure between the inside of your machine and the outside at the same water level will be zero.

So you're saying that only homozygotes can survive and heterozygotes will die? That seems like an odd claim, especially considering the effect called "heterozygote advantage". If you don't know the above terms, please look them up since they are basic biology. But the short of it is, we get our genes in pairs and often only one of the two is needed, so we can survive just fine with several entirely non-functional genes, and a mutant one is often no problem.

! Moderator Note Split from "Do you have a new theory" at post 208, moved to speculations. We know how to find sources, but as it stands this is nothing more than unsupported slander. It is the responsibility of whoever proposes surprising new information to cite a source for it. If you don't know a credible source for such an accusation, then there is no reason for you to believe it, much less repeat it.

Hm, that's an odd arrangement of charge. Getting the charge to switch from -kL to +kL at x=0 would be hard to do though. In any case, it is a mathematical construct and in reality your charges will be point sources rather than smooth. True enough, but arbitrarily large charges arbitrarily close together is more mathematical than reality.

Well, assuming stimulus spending is more of a stimulus than tax cuts (it would be a really dumb stimulus if it wasn't), then coupling a stimulus with expiring tax cuts will stimulate the economy, so even if every additional tax dollar is spent on the stimulus it will still reduce the deficit (the extra revenue coming from the improved economy).

With current technology yes, with current politics no. To make it self-sufficient would require quite a lot of R&D. We could build them as big as could be afforded; it just spins slower (less RPM but faster velocity).

The key is that most of the gas does not escape, so that the well still has lots of pressure by the time they get the pipe down to where the oil is. Then the pressure differential (more pressure in the well, less in the atmosphere) pushes the oil up the pipe. The drinking straw was a good example, the difference is that with the drinking straw you reduce the pressure above rather than increase the pressure below. You could play around with a straw and a balloon filled partly with water and partly with air to get an idea of how it works.

Pluripotent is correct. See the part where it is equivalent to cells in the inner cell mass. These can't become placenta.

Well, some preventative medicine is worth it and some isn't. There was a suggestion that we were overscanning for breast cancer in the younger patients, resulting in additional deaths. This is because the scans can find tumors that would have gone away after a while, but not for sure and the patient almost always opts for chemotherapy which is really really nasty. On the other hand, if you are at risk for heart attack taking an aspirin every day to thin your blood is almost free, and definitely pays for itself in reduced risk. Avoiding known carcinogens is also a good preventative measure. Cleaning wounds also worthwhile. Vitamin supplemented food. Regular checkups. Exercise. Washing hands. Cooking food thoroughly. Certain dietary modifications. Many many things that we do are worthwhile preventative measures, even if we don't think of them as medicine.

The intrinsic magnetic field of an electron is different than the magnetic field of a current. The electron is like a tiny tiny magnet. The magnetic field of a current is circular around and perpendicular to the wire as swansont said, so that it doesn't have any pole. However, if your current is a loop some of the magnetic field cancels out and it ends up with a magnetic field like a magnet's with the poles perpendicular through the center of the loop. Magnets don't really have poles, we just pretend they do. But you can't separate one of these "poles" from the other.

That's only because you have your eyes closed and your ears covered and are singing la la la la la. The abstract does not turn into the concrete. Energy is real, even though it has many forms. Mass is also real even though it has many forms. Photons are also real even though they have many colors. There's lots of ways to get photons, ultimately it is due to the energy released from the fusion process. Just to give an example, it is necessary that a charged particle releases electromagnetic waves when it accelerates, and the ions in the sun collide with each other and also with photons, accelerating them and forcing them to release photons as required by the laws of physics. It can't not release photons.

The first thing you need to calculate is the centripetal force (gravity and angle of the string). Once you calculate that I'll give you another hint if you need one.

Sure... Catch one of these, sell it to a sucker for a ton of cash, and use the cash to buy medicine.

Photons come from energy, any source of energy at all. You can use fluorescence or Compton effect to get several photons from one more energetic photon, lightbulbs of various kinds to get photons from electricity, chemoluminescence to get photons from chemical energy, hot objects to get photons from blackbody radiation, nuclear reactions to get photons from nuclear energy, annihilation to get photons from matter+antimatter, and several other methods I haven't thought of. Definitely not from nowhere though On top of that, photon number cannot be conserved because photons are their own antiparticle.

It's both possible and has been done, at the commercial scale.

On the other hand, in those nice nice places, you can't live on $2 per day. Yup, that's why in democratic countries like the United States, the top 1% owns only about 60% of the wealth.

Could you give an example? All the cases I can think of of electric dipoles are made of two or more electric monopoles and would have an inverted field between the poles as compared to the outside field. I think the ball could be made but wouldn't be a monopole (nor magnetic if made perfectly). If made of parts it is likely some field will leak between the cracks.

Interesting point, we need to let them make some mistakes so they can learn proper risk assessment. However, I think we should try to avoid letting them make really big mistakes if we can help it. I think they can learn from small mistakes, and they're bound to make some big mistake some time or another so they also learn to take things seriously.

Magnets come in dipoles, there is no magnetic pole for the field line to end at. In one side out the other. Electric dipoles on the other hand have two poles and so their field looks kind of like that of a fundamental dipole except for in the space between the two poles where it is the opposite direction.