exchemist

In scientific theories, all “truth” is provisional. Science deals in predictive models, not absolute truth.

No one is stopping you marching up and down Piccadilly, or Madison Ave, with this stuff on a placard and a loudhailer. So your free speech rights are not infringed in any way. But there is no reason why a science forum can't have its own rules of membership, which put some constraints on the type of stuff it allows to be shown on its discussion boards. You are not the first to make the mistake of confusing legal rights to free speech with membership rules on a forum.

You have misunderstood me. I am referring to the lack of context for the quoted remark of Casey. Without context, we have no way to know what CIA programme he may have been referring to, whether it was a joke, or intended ironically, whether he was being sarcastic, or what. This is the trouble with quote-mining. So, in the absence of such further information, it makes little sense to ask us whether we agree or disagree with what Casey is reported to have said, 40 years ago.

Bye bye.😁

OK. This post enables us to form certain conclusions about you and your ideas. I'm out.

My profile is visible if you care to look it up. I answered the thread OP in post 2 as clearly as I was able. (I did include a joke, mind you.)

Please (1) post details of the trials you have carried out, (2) explain why you think LED light has an impact on the layers of the atmosphere and (3) explain why altering the layers in some way would reduce the greenhouse effect of CO2.

Experience: people that can't communicate coherently often can't think coherently, I have found.

A good tip for clear thinking and expression is to communicate in complete sentences, not in half sentences trailing off with "........... ". That way lies slack thinking and, if you're not jolly careful, pet theories.😀 You are not thinking clearly here. "Even light" says nothing whatsoever about the permanence or otherwise of black holes. Or, if you think it does, you need to explain why you think it says that, since it is far from obvious.

Thinking straight involves well-defined ideas, that can be clearly expressed, and which are connected in a coherent way.

What do you mean by crawl out? Do you mean a powered spacecraft or something?

Not sure I follow this. Are you saying people who can’t think straight may end up with pet theories? There does seem to be evidence for that, certainly. But that’s not what this thread is about.

Your logic is flawed. Another possibility is that forums don’t wish to waste time pointing out what is wrong with racist or holocaust-denying statements. We are not under any moral obligation to pay attention to the ravings of every nutter on the street corner. If we did, forums would be cluttered with tedious junk, of no interest to members. We’ve got better things to do than point out why offensive statements and badly argued positions are so. If you’ve been banned a lot it will be because you are an annoying bore, and/or the forums in question don’t want to be associated with your ideas. Why not try Truth Social or something? There are plenty of outlets for unpleasant cranks these days.

How can we agree or disagree with an out of context statement, relating to an unknown subject, from over 40 years ago?

Oh I go to the National Lubricating Grease Institute Spokesman for that: https://www.nlgi.org/nlgi-spokesman/

Financial Times, BBC, Guardian, Reuters, mainly. I also check Independent, Brexograph (headlines only, to see what the Swivel-Eyes are thinking, or being told to think ) and the Spectator and New Statesman for commentary. And others from time to time on specific topics, e.g. Forbes, Business Insider, New Scientist, Nature publications etc.

Your inferiority complex is showing. I remember similar stuff from the USSR when I was a child. They were taught that Russians had invented just about every modern appliance. Their government felt the need to boost national pride by changing history. In your case, you seem preoccupied with some kind of competition that a nation "wins" or "loses". That may be how China, or Malaysia, say, is being taught to see itself, because of an uneasy awareness that it has spent the last 30 years "catching up". But don't try to change history. Nobody "laughs" at Russia because of the war with Japan. You are imagining that. Spain - in the form of Al Andalus - was mostly under Moorish rule from about 700 to 1250, 550 years, not 750. But why pick on that? All manner of parts of Europe and the Middle East were ruled from elsewhere for considerable periods. That's what happens in history. Nobody but you thinks in terms of "Europe" or "The West" versus everyone else. It's simplistic, childish and divisive.

Do they mean light is made of bosons, so even rather than odd? 😄 Actually I presume it is because they have just described the strong gravitation of black holes, so readers may be thinking that bodies with mass can't escape, rather than massless photons.

This is wrong, mad and in Cyrillic.

No. Do your own homework, you lazy git.😁

If you want us to watch a video, please at least summarise what it says, how long it is, and what your point is in asking us to do so.

I may be out of date when it comes to modern terminology, but I don't understand what you mean by "global" rate of reaction, nor do I understand what is meant by a "unique" rate law. A reaction rate can be expressed in terms of the rate of consumption of any of the reactants, or the rate of generation of any of the products, surely? No one of these is more fundamental or "global" than another, so far as I can see. Where do you get this rate expression for ozone decomposition from? It looks a bit strange, especially the inverse dependence on O2 concentration.

Most of this fails to make any testable prediction and is therefore not part of a scientific theory, but just metaphysical speculation. The one thing you do say which seems to be testable is that stuff about black holes exploding. Is there any evidence for this?

Getting at actual production costs is very hard, for commercial reasons, unless one is actually in the business. Data I’ve seen on line for brewing suggests ingredients plus production, excluding packaging, is only 30% of total costs, with another 30% or so being due to packaging. The rest will be distribution, sales and marketing, tax etc. For soft drinks, I imagine these non-production costs would be similar with the obvious exception of tax. As for the production process itself, my guess is beer production is more complex, with more steps in it, than soft drink production, since it involves malting and fermentation, which are fairly subtle biochemical processes, whereas soft drink production is just a matter of blending. Also it takes longer, which increases working capital. I would not like to put numbers to the difference. But you can see from this that even if production costs were twice as high for beer as for soft drinks, that would only make total cost about 15% higher. Tax will be the other big difference. Actually there may be 3rd element in some cases. Glass bottles are a hell of lot heavier than PET packaging. This may have a big effect on distribution costs.

In addition to @Sensei's point about excise duty on alcoholic beverages there is also the need to avoid confusing cost with price. Price is set by supply and demand for the goods in question. The connection to cost can be fairly indirect.