7 hours ago, dimreepr said:

Like I said, I'm not going to feed you, but I'm happy to use you as an example...

You keep saying that, and as yet are unable to show any real evidence supporting banning alcohol or anything invalidating the myth of karma! 🤣 But par for the course for you.

6 hours ago, Peterkin said:

Under what? I made my case; you have repeated yours. Again. We are done.

You offered an opnion, that's all. Thankfully the general moral standards of my society, will never see the ignorant banning of alcohol, nor the legitimising of any other drug already on the illegal list, for the reasons given.

4 hours ago, Peterkin said:

Of course. There is a reason young people don't tell their parents everything. At least, there was when I didn't tell mine. They would have been more upset about the grass than the LSD, which they didn't understand. They would have been more afraid of me getting arrested than getting high, simply because it was illegal. In fact, I was a lot closer to being arrested for political activities than pot. They - and I - also didn't know that I was a lot closer to following my father into alcoholism than any of the other dangers they didn't know about. And they didn't know what I would pay, eventually, for the tobacco habit I picked up from them.   

Sort of supports at least one of the reasons I presented a while back......"In reality I'n not really interested with any political agenda, and that appears to be the only aspect people taking part in this thread are pushing...that and of course the line one would expect those that do or have partaken in illegal drugs to take, in a kind of self defence case mechanism".

But thankfully, you seemed to have emerged from such rebellion against authority. I congratulate you on that score, but suggest perhaps you  are just one of the lucky ones.

As I have said before, I never ever had any desire, inkling or move to try anything other then what was legal, and I was far from being an angel. My old man told me he would buy me a shandy when I turned 18. I had already been drinking for more then 12 months...Mum knew that but kept it from the old man.

I encouraged my own Son to drink, and at the same time informed him of the dangers and unpleasentness of over indulging. Like me, he has occasionally over indulged on special occasions, but also like me, never let that over indulgment affect others.

Thankfully, and I say it again, thankfully, he has also like me, never seen the need to indulge in any other illegal drug taking. I'm as sure of that as any parent can be.

5 hours ago, MigL said:

One question you should be asking yourselves.
And we won't even consider abusers, but if you have a son or daughter, how happy would you be if he/she had the occasional alcoholic drink, or burned an occasional joint, or did an occasional line of coke, occasionally smoking crack or crystal meth, or even injecting heroin every once in a while. 
Does the idea of your son/daughter doing some of the above, stress you out a hell of a lot more than the first two ?
And, if you found your son/daughter with a needle stuck in their arm, would you say that it was all-right since prohibition wasn't working anyway ?

If it does, ask yourself "why ?", and then apply the resulting answer to the question of making it legal for everyone's son and daughter. 
 

Call up from the basement, Dim, and ask your mom if she's happy with you making the house smell 'skunky' all day and night.
( yes, that was a dig )

It was something always worrying the Mrs about our own Son, and the potential to go  out and experiemnt. Many times I needed to comfort her and explain that I was reasonably sure he was and would remain clean. As usual, another wise question/post, without fear nor favour from political ideologies or simply supporting some self defence mechanism. THANKS.

1 hour ago, dimreepr said:

1/ They can focus on real crime.

All illegalities are wrong, some like traffic offences are less in degrees of affects on the population in general then murder for example. Plus I have already agreed that decriminlisation for cannibis, the  less harmful of the illegal drugs, may be benificial. Decriminalisation is not legalisation though. I also recognise Hitler was a war criminal.

1 hour ago, dimreepr said:

2/ They spend less, time and money, chasing a stoner that's just happy to be alone, or not, whatever...

Happy to be stoned or possibly happy to drive into a bunch of kids on a footpath,  while stoned, killing them. Plus of course while one is able to drive after a night out on alcohol, probably later the next day and be under the legal limit, while with any of the current illegal drugs, will stay in your system for 2 or 3 or more days.

1 hour ago, dimreepr said:

3/ There's less crminals to chase.

See previous answer....or we can legalise unlicensed driving, driving on the wrong side of the road, being drunk and disorderly, break and enter and we'll have even less to chase! 🤣 

1 hour ago, dimreepr said:

It helps me, because the money they raise on the tax, a stoner is more than willing to pay; and the money our society would save, raises my standard of living.

Your standards of living would be raised even more, if people obeyed the law as is, plus the freely availability of even more dangerous drugs, and probably more crime,   would lessen  your standards of living obviously. 

1 hour ago, dimreepr said:

It's such an obvious win win, one has to wonder, who's dragging their feet? 

No win win at all, simply an unproven prejudice, philsophical stance, based entirely on opinionated speculation, that certainly, and thankfully  will not eventuate in my society.

Alcohol is a social necessity. It can be harmful if taken to excess and over long periods. Education of young people particularly should be undertaken to make them aware of those dangers. All other illegal drugs are illegal for the same reasons. It makes absolutely no sense to legalise anything more and give many more reason to abuse. At best, perhaps cannibis could be decriminalised, but certaily not legalised. 

Decriminalisation is not legalisation. If drug possession and personal use are decriminalised, it is still illegal to possess and use drugs. Selling and manufacturing drugs still carry criminal penalties. 

7 hours ago, StringJunky said:

You don't need to ban alcohol, the consuming public increasingly buys something else, so its use diminishes, just as smoking is diminishing and vaping is rising in the UK. Prohibition doesn't work.

If it isn't working as it should, increase penalties. I'm yet to be convinced though, that legalising such crap, helps anyone.

3 minutes ago, StringJunky said:

Repetition is not more evidence. You've got nothing more to add.

By the same token, all the so called reasons for either legislation of cannibis or the banning of alcohol, are continued repeats.

25 minutes ago, Zerilia said:

I'm curious of the possibilities of what could happen, with a higher gravity inside the hole,(1) would the person inside be basically in slo mo compared to everything outside? (2) How would it look from their perspective? (3)Would more light enter their eyes from time dilation? Would they see everything in faster speed? (4)With lowered gravity inside the "hole" (would be a ledge now), the speed of the surroundings should would reverse and they would be the fast ones.

To the (1) highlight, yes. (2) highlight everything would appear as normal in each and every frame of reference, to anyone in that frame of reference.From the (3) highlighted bit, yes, that is how they would observe anything outside their FoR. With the (4) highlight, again everything from any FoR, to anyone in that FoR, would appear as normal...1 second will pass as 1 second, it is only when comparing the elapsed time within, to the elapsed time outside, that discrepencies would surface.

33 minutes ago, Zerilia said:

(5)If we increase the gravity would the person look red from the redshift? (6)Also if we increased to the point of a singularity would it just look like a black spot in the shape of a human? (7)Could a person survive in that hole since they aren't accelerating towards anything or does the math break so much we can't really figure that out.

With the (5) highlight,  Gravitational redshift would be obvious to anyone outside that gravity well. With the (6) highlight, increasing the gravity so that the escape velocity exceeds "c" would create a BH, and nothing can ever get our beyond the EH of that BH. With(7) highlight, any person/thing within the EH of a BH, will always only ever have one direction...towards the central core and the singularity. He would be likley spaghetiffied and torn asunder into his most basic constituents, as the singularity was approached. How long he could survive would depend on the size of the BH...A SMBH could see someone survive for a time, as the tidal gravitational effects between head and feet would not be as severe.

9 hours ago, Bufofrog said:

The greatest risk with pot is being arrested.  That is a risk that is easily fixed by making it legal.

Thankfully, that will not happen in my society for the reasons stated many times.

7 hours ago, MigL said:

I would think cannabis use should be compared to cigarette use rather than alcohol, but I do think it is rather strange that the new mantra is "Cigarettes are bad; pot is good for you". They both involve breathing byproducts of combustion ( there is a reason fire-fighters wear supplied air ), and smoking 20 joints a day will have equivalent ill effects as smoking a pack of cigarettes; plus, you'll be perma-stoned.
All I'm asking for is like for like comparison.

Hits right at the heart of why I have never put anything "combustible to my mouth and find it absolutely disgusting. 

7 hours ago, Peterkin said:

Here you go! Bolding your own misconstruction doesn't really help clarify it.

- .How many alcoholics hold up liquor stores?

We do not know, because no records are kept.

Avoid the relevant parts as much as you like, I will keep repeating them. While no records are kept, logic "should"tell you that just because someone robs a liquor store, does not mean he is an alcoholic, plus taking notice of reputable news items and court room judgments might help.

7 hours ago, Peterkin said:

Where was that ridiculous notion stated?

It's what you inferred erroneously, to support your position. It was and is wrong, period.

7 hours ago, Peterkin said:

By George, my very message in a nutshell!

By George, what a heap of garbage and effort in trying to get out from under!!

Your message is loud and clear, and will never eventuate in my society for the reasons I have given. Alcohol is legal and has been for younks...so much so, that it is now a social necessity and any attempts to ban it would be met with riots, in any westernised democratic society. While its harmful effects are recognised and accepting that education for our young people should be paramount, it is scientifically illogical and morally wrong to even attempt to legalise any current illegal crap and make it easier to obtain in general, and adding to the harmful legal list which is alcohol.  In essence, one "harmful" drug, (as socially acceptable and necessary as it is) is enough.

6 hours ago, zapatos said:

You complain about my 'sad' use of the point system in the same post you happily (😜) justify your use the point system.

Please don't be a hypocrite, it's beneath you.

Please try to comprehend correctly what I did say, and not fall vicitm to your prejudices and bias. I said I avoid and dislike neg reps. I said nothing about positive reps. I will often use positive reps to express my agreement with logically, scientifically correct posts by others, as a token of my appreciation.

I generally don't see the need to point out politically or philsophically biased, or inncorrect posts with a neg rep. generally, they speak for them selves.

To sum up (again) my stance here, In reality I'n not really interested with any political agenda, and that appears to be the only aspect people taking part in this thread are pushing...that and of course the line one would expect those that do or have partaken in illegal drugs to take, in a kind of self defence case mechanism. 

9 hours ago, dimreepr said:

I'm done feeding you...

Forget feeding me and show that karma, like anything paranormal and supernatural is anything other then unscientific myth. 

Or if you like, a more subtle explanation as to karma I just found.....

"Science does not explain karma because karma is not a real thing. Karma is simply how humans interpret being in a certain probability range of events. Say for every decision you take there are x number of finite possible outcomes/results/consequences. Out of these some are favourable to the person, some are not favourable, while others are just insignificant. Out of the significant ones, if the probability actualizes into a favourable outcome, then you could interpret it as good karma or if the outcome is infavourable it is bad karma. But karma is not a real phenomenon, it is just a psychological bias that is justified by our need for positive or negative reinforcement. It’s just an evolutionary concept that our simple minds use to grasp the concept of probability and how vastly different things could have been.
Say you committed a crime and got away with it, that’s your luck, things just worked in your favour because of the various variables in the system. If you had gotten caught it would be because the variables happened to work out, it’s why not all cases get solved. Sometimes there’s too many variables and it takes time.

I don’t buy the whole “Newton’s Third Law” bullshit. Newton’s laws apply to physical entities and phenomena which have scientific and empirical bases. Not to ideas of mass psychology and herd mentality which have no tangible proof. Karma is an idea that was professed to keep people in line, it’s the same as your conscience pricking you when you do something wrong. Newton’s laws deal with inanimate objects and elements of the universe that have no consciousness, they have no demonstrated effect or prescription on matters of consciousness or the mind. Minds have free will and free will is what makes all the aforementioned variables.

So karma isn’t real, science is. Science can explain why you think karma exists."

Quora:

41 minutes ago, CharonY said:

You could make the argument then that with cannabis becoming more common you'll like also to have fewer folks having a cannabis use disorder. After all, limited social use is likely going to dilute the severe cases.

https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-019-02530-7

Weighing the dangers of cannabis

extract:

Immediate harms

Along with countries including Canada and Uruguay, 33 US states have legalized cannabis for medical use. Eleven also allow recreational use. And evidence is accumulating to support the use of specific cannabis compounds, especially cannabidiol (CBD), for a variety of health conditions, including seizures and inflammation².

But a look at what happens when the use of cannabis becomes more widespread suggests that the drug can also have downsides, including acute injuries and illnesses. In 2000, Colorado legalized medical marijuana. Further policy changes in 2009 made the substance easier to get hold of, and between 2008 and 2014, licences for medical marijuana in the state increased from less than 5,000 to more than 100,000. In 2012, the state also legalized recreational use, and shops began selling cannabis products in 2014.

As cannabis has lost its stigma in Colorado, Monte’s research shows that the need for health care for cannabis-related reasons has risen³. Between 2012 and 2014, cannabis-related visits to emergency departments at a group of Colorado hospitals increased by around 40%, from 824 per 100,000 visits to 1,146 per 100,000. Many of those visits were related to mental illnesses, which were diagnosed five times more frequently in people who had used cannabis than in those who hadn’t.

Colorado hospitals have also seen a growing number of cases of marijuana use leading to cyclic vomiting syndrome, a condition characterized by vomiting and severe abdominal pain. Occurrences of this condition doubled at two Denver hospitals after the liberalization of medical cannabis². Burns are another risk. In a 2015 analysis⁴, Monte’s group found that the University of Colorado burns centre admitted 29 people for marijuana-related burns between 2009 and 2014, compared with no burns cases before the policy changed. Most were incurred during the process of extracting the plant’s main psychoactive ingredient, tetrahydrocannabinol (THC), for making butane hash oil.

Cannabis is also causing more of other types of accident than it used to. From 2009 to 2015, Children’s Hospital of Colorado in Aurora saw 81 children under 10 years of age who had been accidentally poisoned by cannabis, and the state’s poison-control centre dealt with 163 cases of children in the same age group, with a mean age of about 2. The rate of marijuana-related visits to the children’s hospital nearly doubled from 1.2 per 100,000 people two years before legalization to 2.3 per 100,000 two years after legalization⁵. The number of cases at the poison-control centre increased by 34% per year during the study period, far outpacing a 19% annual increase in the rest of the country.

Studies with driving simulators suggest that cannabis also raises the risk of car accidents⁶, although those data are harder to quantify because cannabis lingers in the bloodstream, and drivers in collisions might have more than one drug in their system.

Adverse outcomes do not seem to be abating in the state, even after years of legalization. Between 2012 and 2016 (the latest data available), there were nearly 10,000 cannabis-related visits to the University of Colorado Health Emergency Department⁷. Reasons included psychiatric, cardiovascular and gastrointestinal symptoms. Edible products accounted for about 10% of visits, even though, in 2016, they made up just 0.3% of THC sales in the state.

“There are risks, absolutely,” Monte says. “And we need to be open and transparent about what those risks are with patients.”

::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::

No I hav't read the whole paper as yet, as I am on the way out for dinner, and yes a few beers....taxi there and back.

ps:Before anyone takes me out of context again, yes I fully concur with the use of cannibi and any other drug for medical reasons, as certified by professional health departments.

14 minutes ago, Peterkin said:

  Nobody knows. That was my point.

Of course we know. And that is not the point. Many who have held up alcohol stores are not alcoholics, as the results in court cases shows. the whole paragraph from the sentence you commented on....How many alcoholics hold up liquor stores? any number you can come up with? How do you know that all that hold up liquor stors are alcoholics? How do you know someone doesn't hold up a liquor store just to resell the alcohol? You don't of course, so another invalid comparison.

14 minutes ago, Peterkin said:

Laws are not enacted on the basis of scientific study, or measured, well-reasoned analysis. laws are enacted on the basis of power distribution, expediency, patronage, political pressure, prejudice, custom, fad and panic. They're sometimes altered and modified by sober afterthoughts and to correct unforeseen negative effects... ad hoc, piecemeal, half-assedly, hoping enough tinkering will finally satisfy everyone - well, everyone who matters.   

Laws are inacted on and in the democratic system by the people we elect to enact them. Some are good laws, some are bad. We show our contentment or otherwise by throwing those that made the laws out of office or re-electing them. Generally nothing to do with power distribution ( that is in societies hands in a demcratic society) not whether one is rich, poor or indifferent. Those reasons are philsophical furphies, pushed by political agendas.

4 hours ago, zapatos said:

Don't play the martyr. I didn't neg rep you because you want beer to be legal and hard drugs to be illegal.

I'm not playing anything....I'm simply stating the fact of a hoarde of neg reps from others including yourself, which imo  sort of sadly detracts from the validity and discussions on opinions on this site. And of course, it has made no difference or detracted from any of the morals relating to my opinion. In reality I'n not really interested with any political agenda, and that appears to be the only aspect people taking part in this thread are pushing...that and of course the line one would expect those that do or have partaken in illegal drugs to take, in a kind of self defence case mechanism.

4 hours ago, zapatos said:

Not necessary to keep quoting yourself. We all saw it the first time.

When others particularly Peterson last night, take sentences out of whole comments for facetious comments on, then it certainly is necessary to remind them of that potential dishonesty. 

3 hours ago, StringJunky said:

You are talking from ignorance Around 40% of all violent crimes are alcohol related in the UK and Oz. Tell me alcohol's not dangerous to social harmony.

No I am not. I have admitted many times so far of the dangers of alcohol, and even agreed to a suggestion from CharonY re education in schools re those dangers and the case for drinking responsibly and in moderation. But that does not invalidate what would happen if some pretentious move was made to ban it. It wouldn't work, because it is part and parcel of society and who we are.

3 hours ago, CharonY said:

if one wanted to allow only one drug, it would be safer to keep cannabis and ditch alcohol.

 Whether that is factual or otherwise, it will never happen for the reasons stated.

3 hours ago, StringJunky said:

I spent the middle third of my 60 years on mostly cannabis and amphetamines. The only time I've had black eyes or social strife is on excess alcohol. The saddest people I've ever seen are alcoholics by a wide margin, it knocks all the other drugs into the second division for the mess it causesNot so with barbiturates and alcohol. I've had many conversations with a UK Social Services substance misuse team, whose care I was under for a couple of years under a voluntary admission. Their sources are based on evidence.

Considering the amount of people who drink alcohol and the amount of people who take illegal drugs, I find that comparison invalid. 

I have never been in any social strife through alcohol, and the vast majority of those that consume alcohol would be in the same boat.

1 hour ago, MigL said:

Why not compare like with like ?

You are comparing alcoholics, who are abusers /addicts of alcohol, to social users of Cannabis. Only a minority of alcohol users become dependent, and have/cause problems; but there are an awful lot of users.
Why not compare alcoholics to the perma-stoned users of cannabis ?

The fact that a lot of alcohol users are not addicts/abusers, but simply have one or two drinks a day, is skewed by how you choose to define 'alcoholic'.

I am reminded of going to my yearly medical, and being asked by the doctor how many drinks I'd have per week.
To which I replied between 7 and 14.
He then said that if I need a drink or two every day, I'm considered an alcoholic.
To which I replied that I just drank on Saturday nights.

And I won't even get into abusers of the 'harder; drugs.

Nice to see a wise comment, and what I was trying to say previously before I saw your post. ps: I gave you a positive green you lucky devil you! 😜

1 hour ago, StringJunky said:

 In fact a casual smoker is more likely to have a fight because they are more alert. than one who is completely intoxicated.

And how about all those irresponsible pot smokers or other drug takers that decide to drive? Not worried about their lives, (that's their business) but they also put other lives at risk. Your comparison is invalid, again.

1 hour ago, Peterkin said:

Nor does one need to be physically dependent in order to get drunk once in a while, even if he only consumes his 7-14 ration on Saturday night, and cause a multi-vehicle accident, or beat up his family, or get involved in an incident - say the celebration of a football victory - that leads to serious trouble. No, we don't all; most of us are reasonably restrained, some have simply been lucky.     

Same situation applies to anyone abusing all the illegal drugs. And many examples can be pulled out to support that.

1 hour ago, Peterkin said:

I see where that's not so easy. Do we have any statistics on the breakdown of hard-drug related offenses? How many are for possession and trafficking (directly because the drug is illegal, for which there are no counterparts for legal alcohol). How many for property crimes in order to get money to acquire the drug on which the user is dependent? (Indirectly because the drug is illegal

Try reading a newspaper, or listening to a news service on the accounts near every night, or the results/decisions of court cases. No need for statistics.

1 hour ago, Peterkin said:

 while alcoholics who hold up liquor stores are not counted as junkies) . How many are actions taken under the influence of a hard drug?

Comparisons are not always straightforward: all we have is statistics compiled under the same system of legal disparity, by people with the same bias.

How many alcoholics hold up liquor stores? any number you can come up with? How do you know that all that hold up liquor stors are alcoholics? How do you know someone doesn't hold up a liquor store just to resell the alcohol? You don't of course, so another invalid comparison.

49 minutes ago, StringJunky said:

Notice he calls illicit drug users 'abusers'. If they are abusers, so are drinkers. Being legal changes nothing; they are all drugs. Being legal instils a false sense of toxicological safety and personal virtue relative to illicit drugs...

"Substance abuse is the medical term used to describe a pattern of using a substance (drug) that causes significant problems or distress. This may be missing work or school, using the substance in dangerous situations, such as driving a car." WIKI

Unlike alcohol abuse, alcoholism (alcohol dependency) is considered a chronic mental and physical disease that can impact all areas of a person's life. Alcohol abuse, on the other hand, can refer to acute instances of abusing alcohol.WIKI

A drug abuser increases his/her drug use in multiples of 2 over time. Results: Emotional change: The drug-dependent person experiences mood swings related to drug use. Gradually there is a personality change and all activity and thoughts revolve around drugs. Judgment and insight are also impaired.WIKI:

40 minutes ago, zapatos said:

What is the one source?

I ask because I neg repped you when you pitied me. That means there are at least two sources.

I'm really not that intereted in what you neg rep old friend, or any of the other hoardes of neg reps I have received in this thread. My position stands firm, and what makes it pleasing, is that this position will stand firm in my society, irrespective of who wins in our upcoming elections in a couple of weeks. 

If that position is not clear, let me state it again.

" My stance is that alcohol has been and always will be a social necessity and as much a part of society as is eating. The dangers etc of excess alcohol intake should be part and parcel of the primary education system, and taught to our young. Legalising more potentially dangerous drugs that are at present illegal, for free and easy obtainability and use, is imo couter-productive and dangerous. "

If you or anyone else sees the need to smoke, snort, inject or whatever it is that tickles your fancy is your business and no skin off my nose. Thankfully, at least in my society, my stance as above, will be maintained. Feel free to neg rep if you wish.

22 minutes ago, TheVat said:

Quick note: taking a part of one sentence as a quote, stripped of context and of the primary point I was making in a longer paragraph, is not an approach I respond to.  Sorry. 

Yes, must agree with that, and it does happen constantly with me. Yet when pointed out am yet met again with facetiousness and/or sarcasm.

9 minutes ago, MigL said:

I wish we could have better arguments, for and against, instead of just down-voting your disagreement.
Please tell us why, else this is not a discussion.

Totally agree. I believe sometimes when valid points are made, which conflict with others political agenda, then malice raises its ugly head.

4 minutes ago, zapatos said:

The number of negative votes with no discussion is minuscule, and typically self-evident.

The numbers of negative votes directed in one direction, from one source I suggest  also gives rise to  conflicting agendas.

The Sydney Desalination Plant also known as the Kurnell Desalination Plant is a potable drinking water desalination plant that forms part of the water supply system of Greater Metropolitan Sydney. The plant is located in the Kurnell industrial estate, in Southern Sydney in the Australian state of New South Wales. The plant uses reverse osmosis filtration membranes to remove salt from seawater and is powered using renewable energy, supplied to the national power grid from the Infigen Energy–owned Capital Wind Farm located at Bungendore.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sydney_Desalination_Plant

22 minutes ago, zapatos said:

You can stick your pity in your bum.

That's OK, other's probably more deserving, may appreciate it.

I actually pity and have some sympathy for those that have or do see the need to dabble in such illegalities, and fully support any rehabilitation processes to change them, at least before punishment and jail. I also fully support a decriminalisation of perhaps one or two of the milder types of drugs, but certainly not and never legalisation.

https://phys.org/news/2022-05-bilayer-graphene-two-universe-cosmological.html

Bilayer graphene inspires two-universe cosmological model:

Physicists sometimes come up with crazy stories that sound like science fiction. Some turn out to be true, like how the curvature of space and time described by Einstein was eventually borne out by astronomical measurements. Others linger on as mere possibilities or mathematical curiosities.

In a new paper in Physical Review Research, JQI Fellow Victor Galitski and JQI graduate student Alireza Parhizkar have explored the imaginative possibility that our reality is only one half of a pair of interacting worlds. Their mathematical model may provide a new perspective for looking at fundamental features of reality—including why our universe expands the way it does and how that relates to the most miniscule lengths allowed in quantum mechanics. These topics are crucial to understanding our universe and are part of one of the great mysteries of modern physics.

more at link...........................

the paper:

https://journals.aps.org/prresearch/abstract/10.1103/PhysRevResearch.4.L022027

ABSTRACT:

Twisted bilayer graphene is a rich condensed matter system, which allows one to tune energy scales and electronic correlations. The low-energy physics of the resulting moiré structure can be mathematically described in terms of a diffeomorphism in a continuum formulation. We stress that twisting is just one example of moiré diffeomorphisms. Another particularly simple and experimentally relevant transformation is a homogeneous isomorphic strain of one of the layers, which gives rise to a nearly identical moiré pattern (rotated by 90∘ relative to the twisted structure) and potentially flat bands. We further observe that low-energy physics of the strained bilayer graphene takes the form of a theory of fermions tunneling between two curved space-times. Conformal transformation of the metrics results in emergent “moiré energy scales,” which can be tuned to be much lower than those in the native theory. This observation generalizes to an arbitrary space-time dimension with or without an underlying lattice or periodicity and suggests a family of toy models of “moiré gravity” with low emergent energy scales. Motivated by these analogies, we present an explicit toy construction of moiré gravity, where the effective cosmological constant can be made arbitrarily small. We speculate about possible relevance of this scenario to the fundamental vacuum catastrophe in cosmology.

10 minutes ago, iNow said:

You two remind me of a married couple, and not a loving one. 

*shrug*  😏 If we were the only two people living on Earth, I think I would murder him and knock about by myself! 😆😂 Just Joking!!!

http://img.picturequotes.com/2/11/10412/bad-is-never-good-until-worse-happens-quote-1.jpg

11 hours ago, Aman Uensis said:

11 hours ago, Aman Uensis said:

What, in your experience, has been the Catholic church's explanation for evolution? Is it that God allowed for evolution to occur, or something such?

 

As far as I know, and pretty sure about, the Catholic church, accepts the scientific concepts of the BB and evolution, because of the overwhelming evidence supporting them. From there though, they depart from science and put both down to the work of God. As science also has not been able to fully explain how both scientific theories came about, or how our the BB banged, or how Abiogenesis arose and started, the church puts both down to the work of God....commonly known as "the God of the gaps" concept. 

Both are notoriously hard concepts to find any validated scientific evidence for, hence the continued clashes of science and the church in those regards. 

6 hours ago, Peterkin said:

It's the only kind of opinion I have.

Yes it is, but obviously it isn't going to change a thing re the legality of alcohol, and the general illegal, nature of other mind altering, dangerous crutch like nature of dependant drugs. I remain relatively  safe and content in such a society.

8 hours ago, KickMePlease said:

thank you all for the answers, I didn't think so many people would answer

It's at best a controversial topic, that sadly many look at politically rather then realistically and the reason why so many societies are so split on such matters. The facts are, irrespective of the dangers of alcohol, it is now a social necessity, and would literally create riots if attempts to ban it by pretentious do gooders were to eventuate. 

The best we can do, and should do, is educate our young on those dangers, of drinking to excess, and as someone did mention, make it part and parcel of our education system.

In recognising those facts, it is illogical to then want to legalise other dangerous drugs and give our youngsters more reason to experiment, and perhaps become addicted to those drugs, and create even more problems for society.

In essence  and imo of course, this silly move by some, is an example of a type of balancing act between far left and far right politics. I remain realistic imo, in that view, despite the hoarde of red negs, and will never let such morally incorrect extremes alter what I see as morally correct.

I actually pity and have some sympathy for those that have or do see the need to dabble in such illegalities, and fully support any rehabilitation processes to change them, at least before punishment and jail. I also fully support a decriminalisation of perhaps one or two of the milder types of drugs, but certainly not and never legalisation.

On 5/5/2022 at 10:37 PM, dimreepr said:

Why is alcohol legal?

Because the poor can make it anyway, and the rich has figured out how to make money out of it, despite poverty; much like gambling

I'm neither rich nor poor, and have at one time made my own beer. How many, or what proportionate of the rich are making money out of it? and what has that to do with poverty and gambling? What do you do to help with poverty in your society? 

ps: I also have a punt every now and then.

7 hours ago, dimreepr said:

Your example entirely misses the point, life isn't Hollywood, 99% of people who get attacked don't get the satisfaction of seeing karma in action; they have to use their imagination.

No, they need to stand up to such bullying, criminal activities, and if capable, give back what they get, as per  my link. That's the unscientific nature of Karma. 

1 hour ago, Peterkin said:

All I did was respond, simply, directly and succinctly, to your posts. 

That's a subjective opinion.

1 hour ago, Peterkin said:

Why make a federal case out of it?

Just raising the issue of half smart smug replies, which appears to be your forte...

On 5/5/2022 at 8:02 AM, Peterkin said:

3 hours ago, Peterkin said:

No.

OK. Your rejection is duly and solemnly noted.

And renoted, should you deem it necessary.

It seems you are only capable of half smart, smug remarks, simply because someone reposts the full statement which you reduce to one sentence to make your usual half smart smug remarks on. You are increasingly sounding more like that obnoxious Peterson character.

That statement again concerned your claim that there was somehow a connection between racism and banning drugs. Again, I find the connection fragile at best, and probably wrongly formulated by some lazy acadamics trying to be controversial, in the same vane as that Peterson character..And of course patched together to support one particular line of argument.

9 hours ago, dimreepr said:

Another thing you attack without understanding; karma isn't a thing it's a way of thinking, like science (causality for people), a way to understand our world and our place in it; and like science it's a way to drill down through our prejudice and bias and hate and love, to see where "squateth the toad of truth" - Sheldon Cooper.

No, I'm stating my opnion with regards to your own opinion and unworkable philsophical life stance, and as I have informed you over a few threads now. Your entitled to believe and accept whatever you like, as unscientific as it maybe, drunk or sober.

17 hours ago, zapatos said:

In that case you are only trying to limit what others can do for their own protection. I could see you trying to protect yourself from outside threats, but it seems rather paternalistic to decide you have to protect others from their own weak characters. My own opinion is that we should err on the side of allowing people to make their own decisions, rather than making those decisions for them.

I'm not really trying to protect anyone in particular, I just prefer living in a society where we have the least number of problems possible, for my own selfish benefits and needs. 

16 hours ago, CharonY said:

Two things. First, legalized does not mean that it super easy obtained. There are levels of availability. In parts of Canada, for example alcohol can only by bought at licensed stores and not in regular supermarkets. Moreover, taxes make them extremely expensive. Not sure whether that limitation has any effect. But more to the point, cannabis is legal in Canada since 2018, and is closely monitored, in case you don't know.

While you are correct with the first point and it does not mean necessarily easy to obtain, being legal in itself, will have more people willing to do the stuff I suggest.

One of my greatest surprises when visiting beautiful Japan a few years ago, was seeing alcohol for sale in all sorts of shops, and even vending machines! In Australia, all states, alcohol can only be bought in licence premises, period. Yes, it is also of course taxxed, but not to the extent that tobacco is taxxed, making a packet of cigarettes in Australia worth about $24 and each packet "MUST" contain warnings about the dangers and photos as horrible as this....

I of course support such legislation and as I said earleir, have never had a cigarette to my mouth.

On the legality of cannibis in Canada, let me say I greatly respect the Cnanadian PM and the progress he has made in his country, but I am not sure whether that is the right decision...still none of us is pefect.

22 hours ago, Peterkin said:

And renoted, should you deem it necessary.

🙄 Is that supposed to be some sort of philsophical, wise statement?😴

18 hours ago, StringJunky said:

No prob. What browser?

Chrome.