swansont

In any kind of representative government, where consent of the governed is present, it's a matter of enough of the populace wanting it to be legal.

In ~half the states they won't. Many of them already have laws lined up to severely curtail the right, if not eliminate it completely.

https://www.scienceforums.net/topic/116044-math-test/ Scroll down for the latest info

The creator you have hypothesized (aka God). Who, in order to have done what they allegedly did, must be more intelligent than you. You don't know their intent, but instead have determined that it's a flaw because it doesn't suit you, or make sense to you. This is why I mentioned hubris earlier, to assume that something is a flaw and not a feature, and observed that your desires aren't being catered to.

Tidal streams are not out on the ocean, which is what you originally referenced.

And how do you know it was a mistake rather than the intent, and you just can't understand the intent?

Those are images that have been uploaded, rather than LaTex in the post there are hints here https://www.scienceforums.net/topic/116044-math-test/

It's simply not possible to make something perfect for everyone if they have differing likes and dislikes. So that can't be the metric by which one judges there to be a flaw.

We're a science site. A scientific theory is rather more than ideas used to explain something. It also involves testing the idea and having it be falsifiable.

You're only viewing this from one perspective and there are many. You have likes and dislikes that differ from at least some other people, so what is nice for you is not nice for someone else.

Which is atypical and I'm betting that's not out on the ocean.

Kittenpuncher has been banned after repeated abusive posts, with no sign of improvement

They’re a good fraction of meter https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Earth_tide

Makes no sense to you. There’s a certain amount of hubris in thinking that it should make sense to you.

So it’s about you, not the creator. Why do you think the universe was created with you in mind? Yeah, stop with that. If you didn’t post it, it doesn’t count. As you already acknowledged.

Define “perfect” and from whose perspective this is defined. Also explain why this perfection is the standard.

! Moderator Note Anything you wish to discuss needs to be posted here

! Moderator Note No, we will not aid in the description of illegal acts.

I personally have used rubidium more than cesium, but I did indeed have good luck; they have a fractional frequency stability of around 2 x 10^-13 per root tau, and haven't shown any sign of drift (all white noise down to the ~10^-18 level). People building optical transition frequency standards can do even better measurements in the short/medium term. You can account for the frequency differences caused by differences in elevation.

! Moderator Note Advertising your speculation in another thread is considered hijacking. You get one place to discuss it: your thread. That's it

I don't see how the universe moves through anything. The universe is all there is. No, but there is motion through a field, and you would get photons from a charged particle moving through a magnetic field, since it would accelerate.

"he view or theory that the self is all that can be known to exist." Physics doesn't really have anything to say about what exists, physics tells us the way things behave. Does that electron actually exist? Physics doesn't say, but it tells us that it will behave a certain way if subjected to an electric field. And does that electric field actually exist? No, it's a calculational convenience, like a lot of things that get modeled in physics. Nature behaves as if it does, but what actually exists might be different. We're limited by what we can perceive, which limits what we can say actually exists.

But then charged particles would be accelerated as they move through space, and emit photons. Where are they?

But this is not a valid counterexample. One can show instances where religion is indeed harmful, and that atheism is indeed a rational disposition. As far as the assumption that atheists are rational, who was assuming that? AFAICT the discussion was about whether a particular position is rational, not the people who hold that position. Every person has irrational thoughts, but that in no way means that all their thoughts are irrational.

Yes and no. All we can do is assume, which means that these really aren't theories. I think it's the same leap. It's still a circular argument. You assume things about God and that's what you end up concluding. Sometimes those assumptions are subtle, but they are always there.