swansont

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.

And they are advancing a conjecture that it is not, so the statement has little meaning. A. I'm asking for a number. You gave a number for c B. How can it be the same as the rate of change of c? Ԑₒ and c are both in the equation for α. If α varies as c does, then Ԑₒ can't be changing. But c depends on Ԑₒand you've said that μ0 is a constant. This is mathematically inconsistent. C. Presenting the same information over and over again isn't going to be fruitful. Repeating is not clarification. You just said that the units of μ0 are H/m, which is correct. Thus it is not a dimensionless constant. If c varies as 7.25 mm/s per year, then the fractional change is 2.4 x 10^-11 per year. If α is changing at this rate, we have a problem, "In 2008, Rosenband et al. used the frequency ratio of Al+ and Hg+ in single-ion optical atomic clocks to place a very stringent constraint on the present-time temporal variation of α, namely α̇/α = (−1.6±2.3)×10−17 per year. " https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fine-structure_constant#Present_rate_of_change So your prediction is contradicted by experimental measurement.

Will you answer the question? It's not obvious that it should vary as the same rate at c. (I assume you mean fractional rate). Since α depends on both c and Ԑₒit should not vary at the same rate as c. IOW, it's not as simple as taking 7.25 mm/s and dividing it by c, since that would imply that Ԑₒis not varying. If it's not, you need to show why all the variation is in the magnetic permeability. Is it a constant?

So what can countries that can't afford the infrastructure do to all of the sudden afford the infrastructure? Broken or outdated systems still do not mean that "The sewer system depends on rain water flushing the waste to the ocean." This is just moving the goalposts.

That's not an actual rebuttal. You disprove a conjecture by showing that it's not consistent with what we observe.

Where does the reservoir go in a city for multi-unit dwellings or business properties? (i.e. you don't have a yard for a barrel) Where? A lot of places treat the sewage rather than dump it in the ocean. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sewage_treatment#By_country

! Moderator Note Split. Your conjecture should only be discussed in its own thread. What happens to the fine structure constant? How quickly does that vary? If c varies, what is the variation of the permittivity and permeability of free space? c=1/√(ε0μ0)

The precedent from the previous ruling would have to be ignored, and the notion that rights don't exist unless enumerated, unless strongly rooted in U.S. history and tradition, ignores the 9th amendment. The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people. I don't see his caveat listed. For a long time only white men had rights, so this skews things. He's stating that if, long ago, you could deny people rights, you still can, because it's tradition.

If the Constitution is being ignored, then amending it won't fix that particular problem, though it would address the notion that the rights don't explicitly exist, since they will be called out.

Alito apparently ignored the 9th amendment, and laws can be overturned. The GOP is already discussing a national ban if they get back in power.

You should watch that documentary, 50 First Dates

! Moderator Note No, they don’t. It is a premise of the discussion. If you don’t want to accept the premise, you are under no obligation to participate. The topic is outlined in the OP. Off-topic posts have been hidden. Start new threads if you want to discuss other topics.

I doubt building code is that specific that you can remove a few items and be OK. There is a safety margin in construction; if you expect a certain load, the design will hold perhaps twice that (or more) but if the structure has been compromised you don’t know what it will support. If it hasn’t collapsed, you can’t be sure it won’t, if it’s occupied Sending the pollution and possibly poisonous reside elsewhere isn’t much of a solution. And some of the materials might not be combustible. You’re going to burn brick or concrete?

Vote? They're trying to make sure that doesn't happen

Did they object to your faulty logic? Or was it something else?

! Moderator Note This is copyrighted material; you can't share it in this fashion.

! Moderator Note You've been here long enough to know that making it personal is a no-no. Stick to discussing the topic.

Depends on the threshold of "extreme" - I remember some sticker shock when I moved to Vancouver for my postdoc in the mid 90s. On top of the exchange rate sticker shock (Canadian dollar was a few cents lower than it is today, which kinda sucked for paying off the last of my student loan, which was in US currency)

It’s because people invariably try to inject religion into science discussions, which is inappropriate. There is also a tendency to over-reach regarding claims about how the world work, that don’t have scientific backing. Those can be rebutted by science. Note that what I said was not in reference to any scientific evidence regarding the existence of a supreme being. Just the definition of theory. You had an explanation. The problem with “A explains B” is that it’s inconclusive if C, D and E also explain B. Scientific reasoning, even if it’s not science.

Their stated goal was adding justices that would eliminate Roe, Obergfell, and likely Griswold. Seems likely that they sufficiently vetted their choices regarding matters like this, especially since they all fall under an umbrella of non-enumerated rights.

To my mind we have continually missed with our estimation about how low the GOP will go. Contraception and same-sex marriage are next. How do we know this? Because they told us. https://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/documents/2016-republican-party-platform See also https://talkingpointsmemo.com/news/jackson-supreme-court-roe-republicans-griswold-loving

Overturning Roe was something that supposedly had no basis in reality, either. Obstacle doesn't have to be real to have a perception of being real, and keep people from traveling.