swansont

That’s not what you described. A collision of two photons does not change an observer’s reference frame, and there’s no way to change into another frame and then observe an event that has already happened, much less have it be different. Your proposal would mean that one observer sees photons, while someone on a train sees muons. You’re left with the task of finding evidence that lepton number will differ between reference frames, as well as a mechanism for having this happen. IOW, you’ve done the trivial part, but nothing that counts as actual science.

How could this happen? What principle lets you change the number of leptons when you switch frames? Or makes an interaction not happen?

That's going to be a continuous value unless there's a sharp change in the solid surface underneath (a waterfall, for example) and you can get a continuous contour line in a 2-D surface. But a coastline is not a 2-D surface, so there's not going to be a contour of constant value unless you have the trivial case where it's constant everywhere.

The subsequent steps could be flawless, but not the premise if it's false. i.e. the failure is thinking the conclusion is valid. It's an informal fallacy; the conclusion is invalid if the premise is false, and the burden of proof is on the presenter. They own the obligation to ensure the premise is true, so if there is a question, their argument is incomplete. I don't think it's necessarily an issue of good faith or not. I just wanted to know what to call it when it comes up. No need to debunk such an argument until the premise has been verified.

Maybe it is, but that’s not the point of contention here. The issue is that it’s unsupported. Nothing offered to show that it’s true.

But the difference is not nearly as great as you suggested, and the gas we sell now is actually more expensive to make. As I recall, lead additives boosted the octane levels. Car engines started requiring higher octane levels. The EPA also started requiring “summer blend” gas in the summer in the 90s, which also costs a little more. So gas has become more expensive independent of the oil price for unleaded gas, from environmental requirements And as fuel gets more expensive, transporting it becomes more expensive.

It’s true that there are these issues, and also conditionals cause problems with some, but the examples I’m thinking of look to be simple false/unwarranted assumptions. But the wonderful world of search engines employing AI kept pointing me to begging the question, which isn’t it.

Thank you

A premise is offered, and then an argument follows without establishing the veracity of the premise. If the premise is false the conclusion is invalid, but the poster is proceeding as if it were true. Such as an argument based on the moon being made of cheese, and concluding the moon landings were faked because they would have noticed the cheese if they’d landed there. (the conclusion is not being used to support the premise, so it’s not begging the question/circular logic) Seems like this happens a fair amount, and it’s a failure of logic, but is there a recognized name for it?

Some necessity is physiological. Some is social. Some issues are not generally applicable to both men and women. To pretend otherwise is, at best, just parading one’s ignorance

Dunning-Kruger is alive and well

I think you are comparing apples and oranges. In this case, inflation-adjusted prices and nominal prices. When crude hit $150 (Dec ‘79) that’s in adjusted dollars; the nominal price was $38 https://inflationdata.com/articles/inflation-adjusted-prices/historical-oil-prices-chart/ The inflation adjusted price of gas then was north of $3.50. I’m guessing you’re citing the nominal price https://zfacts.com/gas-price-history-graph Leaded gas was sold back then, and was cheaper than unleaded.

There is wording in many of them about a declared emergency, so timing is part of it. But I suspect that shipping and wholesale cost would be easy to document, and show that you were just maintaining your profit margin if all you were doing was adjusting to those changes. And I think these are state sanctions, so the state would be prosecuting and the business pays the fine and have to pay their lawyers.

The existence of secular rules doesn’t mean that the religious rules don’t exist. So it should be easy to find a few examples.

Thrust upon society? There isn’t any sort of hypothesis police that forces people to accept such models. Your view of how science works doesn’t match reality.

A lot of US laws quantify it. Often a 10%-15% rise in price compared to the past 30 days, above any rise in costs.

Shouldn’t “terrible criticisms” be wrong? Or do you have some specific definition of “terrible” that you aren’t sharing? Please show that religion does not control people, by preventing them from doing things they like. Religious rules aren’t legislated. i.e. a religious admonishment not to murder and a law punishing murder are not the same thing unless you have a theocracy Rationalizing a behavior is not showing that it doesn’t happen. And once again you’ve chosen a premise with substantiating it. Where did you find these criticisms? Under what context?

Not to me. I’m baffled as to how you come to this characterization. You’re also entirely too credulous when it comes to untested/unconfirmed ideas. A proposal of a new idea does not mean an existing idea is wrong. Did you miss the part that said “The paper has been released on the preprint server arXiv and has been submitted to a journal”? It’s not even gone through peer review, yet, much less been independently tested (though I’m not sure how you test such ideas)

Two or more, i.e. not alone. Three quark systems exist, of course.

I remember a story from a while back where there was some disaster and one of the stores in a small-ish town jacked up prices to cash in on the temporary supply shortage. Other stores ran out, and people were forced to shell out for some basics, since there was no other option. When things got back to normal their business fell off dramatically. People remembered being screwed over and just stopped shopping there. But that only works if there are alternatives.

Yes, they are both automobiles. That’s a small distinction. The answer is one of utility; there are far more similarities so the automobile designation is useful. Horsepower is demanding a very close or exact match, which is a finer distinction, better left to a subcatagory, much like we do in taxonomy. Animal is at the level of kingdom, i.e. quite high on the tree. Honda vs ferrari would probably be at the level of family (if one were to take the time to sort this out) with different models at a lower level and then horsepower below that, like different species or subspecies. The larger picture is making a useful hierarchy out of this instead of haphazardly grasping at straws to defend a poorly-reasoned point The biology is irrelevant…to biology?

Ah, I had assumed you were to referring to biology, since animal is a biological designation, and we’re discussing evolution, i.e. biology. But a non-sequitur is apparently in your wheelhouse. Can you show (i.e. have evidence) that other animals do not have any of these other characteristics? Surely you have such evidence, since this is “easy” But it’s not arbitrary. Given that the classification of animals exists, how are humans not animals? Infinite number? Really? Abiogenesis is a scientific term. Ascribing it to atheists lacks evidence. And it does, in fact, refer to the origin of life. It would help tremendously if you knew what you were talking about, even a little, rather than spouting nonsense.

Easily? What characteristics would justify a separate category?

You need to define what you mean by Christian. There are at least two - 1. Someone who accepts Jesus as their savior 2. Someone who follows the tenets of Christianity (note that these are not mutually exclusive, though I suspect type 2 usually includes type 1, while 1 does not necessarily include 2) I think there are a lot of type 1 Xtians out there who act like they are also type 2, but (as you suggest) have no clue about the details and no interest in being burdened by all of its limitations. I see a lot of the televangelist types who preach to type 1 followers without bothering to worry about WWJD. Anyone who points to another and says, “You’re not a good Christian” is arguably not a good Christian by the type 2 definition. That said, there’s a lot of wiggle room in the Bible that gives cover to people who want to mollify themselves and think their actions are Christian

Sure. But where is this actually allowed? More than 100 countries have antitrust laws. You can’t offer up a counter to price-gouging by citing unfettered capitalism, since the latter is not a reality, but an idealized system. And drawbacks of it are well-known.