swansont

! Moderator Note From rule 2.7: members should be able to participate in the discussion without clicking any links IOW, post the material for discussion here. And note that we are poised to add a new part to this rule: no shortened links. You must post the url where you are sending people.

! Moderator Note Correlation does not imply causality, though in this case, posting crap (incorrect info, unsubstantiated assertions, logical fallacies) does cause a thread to be moved to the trash.

Angles of a triangle add to 180. Angles at D are on a line, so they add to 180 That gives 4 equations with 4 unknowns

Retinal camera https://lombartinstrument.com/store/canon-cr-2-af-non-mydriatic-retinal-camera-with-dvs-system-and-motorized-table

This is bull. Trump was the one that got support for the Ukraine removed from the GOP platform in 2016 and Trump did nothing but suck up to Putin at every opportunity during his presidency. Support for Putin would be one thing that would be entirely predictable. The one thing that would have been out of Trump's control would be the reaction of the US, which might have forced him into acting, and possibly making Trump look weak. It's entirely possible Putin waited for Trump to be out of power so that the GOP could attack Biden regardless of his response; whatever happened would be "wrong" (their stance for virtually everything)

roger4464 has been banned. The sockpuppets Roger Dynamic Motion and Roger larouche were previously banned, so use of this account violates our rule on sockpuppetry to evade a ban, despite registration predating the others.

! Moderator Note And you were told to link to the material or use the quote function properly, neither of which you have done. AFAICT you just copy/pasted the post. Don't bring this up again.

Yes, we all know the history of when Galileo had a discussion thread closed. It's exactly like that. This board is not an agent of the government and we are not a democracy. We have rules that you need to follow. If a thread gets shut down no rights have been violated. We steer clear of rants and lecturing because we're a discussion board, and not your personal blog. We shut down threads where religions get bashed (any religions) because that doesn't foster discussion. We also ask that threads be posted in the appropriate section of the forums. (again, that's exactly like Galileo! /s) It's not just one moderator. Often mods act in response to complaints from other members, who can't really engage in discussion in these situations, and moderators might be having discussions before acting. One such discussion might be identifying a trend in a posting style, and deciding to give less leeway in posts to try and improve the quality of the threads.

! Moderator Note You’ve been warned before about preaching. Also, if you want to discuss - not preach - religion, then post in the religion section.

It’s people who have published in the same research area - the same subdivision of a journal or conference catering to an area of science. e.g. when I submitted a paper on laser cooling and trapping, AFAIK it was reviewed by others doing laser cooling and trapping. This is an area within atomic and optical physics. Journals and conferences often provide sorting categories or topics. In my experience, reviewers would be publishing in the same category. e.g. in optical physics https://opg.optica.org/josab/home.cfm topics include Fiber Optics Instrumentation, Measurement, and Metrology Light Sources and Amplifiers Light-induced Phenomena Metamaterials Nonlinear or High Field Optics Optical Materials Optics Modes, Structured Light, and Beam Shaping Photonics Physical Optics Quantum Optics Surface Optics Ultrafast Optics

! Moderator Note You linked to a paper entitled “Peacocks and the Zeta Distributions” You already have a thread on this

In my own experience it’s a closely-related field. Such people have familiarity with the techniques and procedures of the experiments, and with any theory being discussed. Reviewers generally volunteer their time; it’s not reasonable to expect them to get up to speed in an area not in their wheelhouse in order to do peer review. You probably wouldn’t be the only one doing such interdisciplinary work. But it’s possible you could have reviewers from both disciplines, each looking at their own area of expertise

! Moderator Note I don't think the vaccine itself is issuing any mandates so let's not delve into politics

! Moderator Note Review complete. We have conspired to leave this locked.

My point was that even where you have a right to free speech, it is not absolute. You can't speak in absolutes when discussing real implementations of this right. No, the exceptions I was referring to was inciting to riot/illegal action, fraud and "fighting words" (actual threats), among others. Things that are not protected even where the right to free speech exists, i.e. the exceptions.

! Moderator Note Perhaps you could post your answers outside of the quoted material, to avoid confusion. Yes, the system is finicky at times, but it's worth the effort that just about everyone else makes.

! Moderator Note Evolution is an issue for biology, not religion. Refine your question and pick which you wish to discuss. If it's biology, leave God out of it. And it would be good to get the science right

And yet we still have murder/rape/theft/etc. Certainly laws might have a chilling effect, but even in places that harshly punish free speech, people speak out. The issue here is the characterization of this as an absolute - "you can't say whatever you want." There are a few exceptions to this out in the world (and no, shouting "fire" in a theater is not one in the US, but that's not for this thread), and if you think that most people aren't behind such exceptions, I'd like to see something stronger than assertion or opinion to back that up.

But you’ve still saiid what you want. You were sent to prison for it, but you still said it. And if it’s for a very narrow scope, e.g. it’s illegal to say “semprini” and you can say whatever else without legal consequences, that counts as “can’t say whatever you want” even though 99.9999% of speech would be permitted. So it’s not very illuminating to put this in absolutes. These are separate rights enumerated in the first amendment. Congress shall make no law … abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press He is now prevented, having been banned. But their first amendment right to free speech has not been violated.

You have to clarify "can't say whatever you want" Is that because of legal repercussions, or social repercussions? i.e. if you say it you will go to jail, or be sued, or you say it and people will hold you to account and possibly shun you? In any event, I think that quite a lot of people would agree that you can't say whatever you want. There are some things that you say that would have one of those forms of response. AFAICT the disagreement is where the line is drawn, rather than adhering to the absolute.

Does water have a preferred shape when gravity can be ignored (e.g. in freefall)? Yes, it does. It forms a sphere.

omicron https://www.theguardian.com/science/2021/dec/15/why-do-so-many-people-struggle-to-say-omicron

I learned recently that these - nonlinear standing waves that appear on liquids enclosed by a vibrating receptacle - are known as Faraday waves https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Faraday_wave

! Moderator Note It’s not up to you, as this is not your thread. The question was asked. If you don’t want to answer, don’t post. If you want to ask or discuss a different question, open a new thread.

If you have a moving clock, it will experience time dilation. Even in deep space. Gamma is speed dependent in special relativity.