swansont

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.

Which is an electromagnetic interaction. Unless you are claiming dark matter is actually photons, and it isn't, what is the relevance? All of which has been done - people look at/through empty space all the time, when they look at something far away. If there was something there that interacted, we would have seen it. IOW, you're saying dark matter is not dark - it should give off photons. So where are these photons?

A number of people in the thread have agreed that it is, under a strict dictionary definition. Skin color was used a a criterion. Gender was used as a criterion. Two of many criteria used. You continue to rail against a position nobody seems to be taking. Nobody has given a pithy "yes, it's discrimination" answer, likely because of the danger of someone jumping in and using the equivocation fallacy; a couple of people have explained in detail the different applications of the word. The final selection, yes. But it has been implied or stated that some think this was the beginning of the process, and have not provided any evidence that this is the case.

If you can counter the biological claims you are free to do so. No, it's crap. It lack the support you were demanding of CharonY

Dark matter is dark because it lacks these things. If it had them we'd be detecting it. If the dark matter is detecting baryonic matter because of the electric or magnetic field, then it interacts electromagnetically, which we have concluded that it doesn't do, because we'd be able to detect it.

How does it “know” it’s in the presence of baryonic matter?

We’re discussing physics so the implication is we are applying Newton’s laws of motion. You can analyze the problem in an accelerating frame, but to use the laws the centrifugal force is still a pseudoforce.

They are not. There is no (real) force away from the center. Objects move in a straight line unless a force is exerted, which only happens once they reach the edge, where an inward force can be exerted, to cause them to move in a circle.

If one chooses to ignore easily-obtained facts, presenting one’s view as informed opinion is not a position arrived at in good faith. Propaganda is not presented in good faith. Positions where you hold different groups to a different set of standards are not held in good faith. People are entitled to their opinions, but opinions are generally based on underlying facts. If you arrive at a different position that I do, that’s one thing. But if someone bases their opinion on things that don’t stand up to any level of scrutiny, I am entitled to think they are full of crap. And people doing this professionally are advancing an agenda. They know they’re full of crap (or they’re just incredibly incompetent) You deleted the example I gave, so perhaps you could provide a counterexample of how supportive the GOP is in this regard. I’ll save you some time - their views on immigration and education probably won’t be helpful

It can be interpreted that way, and was, but only if you ignore facts. So people whose jobs require this bad-faith interpretation ran with that. It became the narrative pushed by the right, and swallowed whole by a large swath of people who listen to such tripe. The people who "interpret" it this way professionally care not a whit whether PoC were allegedly demeaned. The subset of them in office want to take away PoC's ability to vote. How demeaning is that? I think you've missed some things. The point some of us have been making is that race and gender were included as factors owing to the perspective such an individual would have, and that perspective is needed, and that's perfectly valid for this situation. But they were not the only factors, and Biden was aware of well-qualified candidates before making the campaign promise, because not only is that a reasonable inference for any candidate who has a long history of holding office, we actually have evidence that he was aware. If you want to have a discussion panel on the struggles of <minority group> in society, is it not reasonable to put people from that group on the discussion panel? Doesn't that become a legitimate qualification? We aren't talking about employment and equal opportunity.

Yeah, I wonder what happens when a bunch of people leave the platform if they don't like how it's going - how quickly will it implode?

The promise didn't actually point out the demographic makeup of the court, but everyone knows what it was, and the promise was that a large voter demographic of South Carolina democrats would have representation. Not hard to connect the dots, IMO. I've said my piece on the narrative being sold, and how its hogwash, so no need to revisit that.

The announcement was made at a campaign speech in South Carolina, which has a large population of black people who tend to vote for democrats, if that helps. How so? I'm having trouble seeing how a promise that certain people - not just white men - will have representation in his administration is demeaning.

https://www.goodreads.com/quotes/254896-a-panda-walks-into-a-cafe-he-orders-a-sandwich A panda walks into a cafe. He orders a sandwich, eats it, then draws a gun and fires two shots in the air. "Why?" asks the confused waiter, as the panda makes towards the exit. The panda produces a badly punctuated wildlife annual and tosses it over his shoulder. "I'm a panda," he says, at the door. "Look it up." The waiter turns to the relevant entry and, sure enough, finds an explanation. Panda. Large black-and-white bear-like mammal, native to China. Eats, shoots and leaves.

This is irrelevant, right? I didn't say I was an atheist, and I didn't demand scientific proof of God. I just said such a test can't be conducted. Key phrase: "I am going to assume" So basically this is circular logic. You assume something and then conclude it. Nothing valid is demonstrated.

How do you test* this? If a supreme being is omnipotent, how do you distinguish between how they choose to behave, and how they are able to behave? *and this is the underlying issue when it comes to these matters. There's no way to run a scientific test. You can explain away anything but prediction is not really something you can do.