swansont

My objections were posted pointing out that your answers are inconsistent. So simply repeating your answer doesn’t address this. It makes it look like you’re avoiding critiques of your conjecture. If c varies and ε varies, then the fine structure variation is not the same as the c variation. That’s simple math.

Why not? Isn’t pro-legalization the same as anti-prohibition?

Since we can see the existence of propaganda leading to people resisting a certain action in the name of freedom, how is it unreasonable to say that drug prohibition is not immune to similar manipulation? Would false claims involved in trying to make drugs legal be a counterexample? https://retrorevolution.com/the-top-10-reasons-marijuana-should-be-legalized/ claims that alcohol consumption drops by 50% after pot is legalized, but studies don't back this up https://jcannabisresearch.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s42238-021-00085-x Colorado households showed a 13% average monthly decrease in purchases of all alcoholic products combined Estimates in Washington were suggestive of an increase in spirits purchased I also see a couple of really nebulous claims on their list, too, like cannabis leads to better relationships. I pointed this out earlier - peer pressure is not part of the legal system. Yes it's there, but it's still not part of any law.

That Godwin-ed unexpectedly. How did legality of alcohol lead to Hitler (a prerequisite for Hitler youth), exactly?

That slope, I presume, is slippery. There is a fallacy that describes this justification. The fact that it is a fallacy means that it is indeed unreasonable. We've had legal consumption of alcohol for centuries, through multiple cultures and countries. Where has it become mandatory? If this is such a danger, surely it's happened somewhere by now.

You expect a null result only if α does not change, but you are claiming it does change, though you refuse to cite a value. No, since you are measuring relative values calibration is not needed. When you take the ratio of the frequencies, any calibration factor divides out - it's not part of the result. You have not addressed the issue of other "constants" changing. Since c=1/√(ε0μ0) what changes will we see in ε0 and μ0? At least one of them has to change if c changes. Ignoring this problem won't make it go away

a fabricated propaganda campaign against prohibition and the furphy of government control, and some, (the more gullible) will approve of being able to do what ever we want. I would think current events regarding COVID would show that propaganda about government intervention/control can lead to people screaming about freedoms. Maybe it's just more obvious to me being is the US. (though I'm not sure what furphy is or is supposed to be; it's not in my dictionary)

! Moderator Note Posting to advertise your youtube channel is against the rules (2.7). The link has been removed As exchemist requests, you need to post the material for discussion here

The time-varying depression of the ocean bed and adjacent coast (from the tides) was a factor that entered into an experiment that measured the variation in pendulum clocks owing to changes in g caused by the moon Analysis of Records made on the Loomis Chronograph by Three Shortt Clocks and a Crystal Oscillator. Ernest W. Brown and Dirk Brouwer p584 https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/Analysis-of-Records-made-on-the-Loomis-Chronograph-Brown-Brouwer/507ddf49e246d79933bd77cb871969994581465d

Yes. Your point being? Form factor is likely an issue here, as Phi notes. Can you plug an Arduino into a socket for the chip? No? Then it’s hardly a replacement, even before considering if anyone is shipping them to Russia.

Or less useful, if GLONASS is being jammed or spoofed

I imagine the removal of the effects would depend on the goal of the picture. It would be a corruption of data if you were investigating an area of sky near the star, but I imagine you can put an aperture in place if you were looking at the star itself. As noted, those particular stars are overexposed, so you've already screwed up if you were trying to determine their luminosity. If it's just for PR, it's a neat effect that some people probably like.

I like that people do this, because it recognizes that retribution makes it much less likely that they will call, and that yelling at them after the fact doesn't prevent the situation from happening. Yes, it does. As do the misunderstandings of what alcoholism entails. But the "social necessity" isn't law, and that's what we were discussing.

But the "what" that is needed is the issue. The statement was about being "allowed to use the drug" and you contorted that into being forced to use the drug.

Oh, come on. Freedom to drink (i.e. not being illegal) is not the same thing as making it mandatory.

The thing is that criminals often don't think they will get caught, and they tend to blame others for their predicament. (It's not universal, and not just criminals who do this) Two reasons why harsher sentences aren't deterrents to crime. The reality is that you have limited resources, and have to prioritize what you do. Since you aren't going to eliminate drug use, "safe" zones compartmentalize the problem and reduce risk to others with minimal use of those limited resources. Drunk driving puts others at risk - not just the driver of one car. And logistically this is a non-starter, since you don't have roads you can devote to such an enterprise. The actual action communities/establishments have taken is encouraging groups to have a designated driver and offer free cab/Uber/Lyft rides on nights when drinking is widespread, such as New Year's Eve

Diffraction effects from the support structure inside the telescope https://www.universetoday.com/155062/wondering-about-the-6-rays-coming-out-of-jwsts-test-image-heres-why-they-happen/ https://www.quora.com/What-will-the-diffraction-spikes-on-stars-imaged-by-the-James-Webb-Space-Telescope-look-like#

No, the justices don’t put anything into the Constitution. An enumerated right is one listed in the document. An enumerated right. Freedom of speech. There’s a flip side to this, because the Constitution grants powers to the government. If the government isn’t empowered to restrict you in some way, you have that right, OR the state has some power that limits the right. That’s one of the ambiguities.

No, rights are inherent. They are recognized by such decisions. The amendment says rights exist that even if not listed. How is that circular?

But we actually can “go back in time” for measurements because of the finite speed of light. Light from distant sources are a record of interactions that took place millions or billions of years ago.

The numbers are rounded by a fair bit. 400 nm is actually 750 THz and 800 nm is 375 THz.

Circular reasoning. You assume an attribute and conclude that God has that attribute.

One of the reactions here was your faulty logic, so that’s not the same.

When it comes to the response of the eye, optical effects are additive. https://www.xrite.com/blog/additive-subtractive-color-models There are ways of getting the sum frequency or difference frequency, using nonlinear materials. In general it's called four-wave mixing. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Four-wave_mixing#Sum_and_Difference_frequency_generation But this isn't happening with these lights

The 9th amendment says unenumerated rights exist. That's not an interpretation of it. That's literally what it says, though stated in the style of the time.