This is not true. Read https://ancillary-proxy.atarimworker.io?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.madisonbrigade.com... Many of the early states had their own version of the bill of right law prior to the constitution. Some of them are even more explicit than the constitution that it includes the individual right to bear arms for example Pennsylvania "That the people have a right to bear arms for the defence of themselves and the state;" The founders were afraid of imbalances of power at all levels not just between the federal and state.

Please post the studies that show this. I expect there will be major flaws in how the experiments are conducted. For example the comparison will be meat + lots of carbs/sugar and processed foods versus some vegetarian mix.

I googled and reviewed the first group of studies I could find showing what you said. This link talks about an overview of such experiments. I just reviewed the first and third experiment it discusses (the discussion of the second experiment did not have a enough information). https://ancillary-proxy.atarimworker.io?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov%2Fb...

The first experiment discussed uses rats with a genetic small intestines' disorder. It compared tumor rates in these rats fed a vegetarian diet versus a meat diet. This is suspect as the small intestine is responsible for processing meat while the large intestine is designed for processing fiber/vegetables.

In the third experiment discussed rats were compared that ate an ideal rat diet, a fruit and vegetable diet, and a diet containing a variety of meat along with bread, eggs, and margarine, along with other semisynthetic products, including lard, potato flour, sugar, bran, and pectin. They also had a few variants of this last group. So in rats fed a vegetable fruit diet compared to meat with a lot of bad stuff, the vegetable/fruit diet wins.

Can someone explain what they mean by "overthrow" "through violent measures"? Because at face value there is no way that is what happened.

Closer to the truth: these people, rightly or wrongly, thought there were problems with the election that were not getting properly investigated. There was a lot of testimony shown in all of the contested states (Michigan, Arizona, Wisconsin, Georgia, Pennsylvania) that if believed to be true would make the side who voted for Trump upset. The Trump supporters thought all of the testimony got ignored. Showing up at the capitol on January 6th was the last chance anything could be done. I don't think any of the Trump supporters knew what would happen, but certainly a violent overthrow was not on the agenda because obviously it was not practical. Some just wanted their displeasure to be voiced, some wanted delegates or the vice president to do something they thought the constitution allowed, but nobody came to the capitol because they thought they were overthrowing the government. At most you could reasonably argue that they were trying to intimidate the vice president and the delegates into some kind of action, but the practical effectiveness of this tactic was next to nil.

I am not arguing it did not get violent, but the violence was obviously not trying to overthrow the government. Maybe you think Trump supporters are stupid, but if you really believe they were trying to overthrow the government that day....

Democrats often just ignore the law. Sheriff finds clear case of voter fraud in Wisconsin nursing homes: https://ancillary-proxy.atarimworker.io?url=https%3A%2F%2Fjournaltimes.com%2Fnews%2F...

And Democratic attorney general refuses to prosecute. The AP news describes it as some sheriff trying to overturn the election even though it is only a small case. https://ancillary-proxy.atarimworker.io?url=https%3A%2F%2Fapnews.com%2Farticle%2Fcor...

Does this mean all conversations related to business must now be recorded? Because it seems silly that electronic communication is held to a different standard than verbal communication.

Noise was a problem for me too. The library was a pretty good place to study and I never felt I needed to be next to a window. For me it is much better just to go outside.

Here is a video of one of the Munger University of Michigan dorms: https://ancillary-proxy.atarimworker.io?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.youtube.com%2Fwatch%3F... It looks much better than I ever had, but these are graduate dorms and quite expensive (maybe $800 to $900 a month). So maybe not for everyone, but not as bad as some of the posts make it out to be.

That is a fair point. In the military, you are forced to live together in a disciplined way and if someone is a problem they get disciplined by whoever is in charge. In college you don't really have that. Maybe back in a time when there was more discipline (Charlie Munger's time?) it would work better.

But it also works the other way, you get 7 flavors of people and so you are not stuck with just a single flavor you dislike.

In this plan you do have your own room for sleeping (I assume you can close the door) and so from that aspect it would be better than having a room mate where you shared the room you slept in.

I think the point of the design is that you live closely with 7 other people rather than just 1 room mate. I have experienced both the college dorm with just one room mate and the military dorm with shared bed room. You get a lot closer to the people in the shared bed room and it is what I would prefer and recommend for most people at this stage of their life.

I agree in the sense that it is the velocity term that makes the major contribution to the twin's age difference and not the acceleration for this paradox. Obviously the twins could travel a short distance apart and do the same acceleration and not experience the same time dilation that they experience if they travel a long distance apart.

If science accepted the concept that the universe has a preferred reference frame then this paradox is easy to understand. When twin A accelerates relative to twin B then in an absolute sense twin A is traveling at a higher speed than twin B. If at the most fundamental level, physics operates at the speed of light, then it should make sense why time has to slow down for twin A relative to twin B when twin A is traveling at a faster absolute speed.

We can't discriminate because of color, race, sex, but we can discriminate based on political perceptions.

I think your politics are dangerous and violate terms of agreement I am going to kick you out of your apartment

And even if we signed a treaty it would still be meaningless without any laws behind it.

Can you provide a source for either quote?

I get that there is a lot of hate for Trump, but it does not excuse just making shit up.

For what it is worth, I did find this quote on Rush Limbaugh:
“Firsthand smoke takes 50 years to kill people, if it does,” he said. “Not everybody that smokes gets cancer. Now, it’s true that everybody who smokes dies, but so does everyone who eats carrots.” The source was David Mathews from New York Daily Times: https://ancillary-proxy.atarimworker.io?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.nydailynews.com%2Fne...

I am not claiming EWT *correctly* explains anything, but it does have explanations for all of the forces and it does explain how it fits in with relativity.

How have you confirmed this? Where does EWT fall short of obeying the laws of relativity?

The double slit experiment can be explained in a classical like way by simply saying that the particle and the wave that pilots the particle are separate entities. This sort of fits the EWT model because EWT contains an aether and a fundamental particle (the wave center) that moves as a result of disturbances in the aether. That said, I don't know how EWT explains the photon in the double slit experiment, because I don't think the photon is considered a particle in EWT.

I don't think you or anyone else can provide an experiment that proves there is truly a conflict with cause and effect. I suspect the ambiguity of the cause and effect that you mention is because of the misleading language in the theories we choose to describe sequence of events, and not that the events actually happened in a different order. What experiment do you have in mind when you say this?

I disagree. On the face of it, EWT (from Jeff Yee) is simple and explains much more than the standard model explains.

I will probably butcher a summary of the theory, but this is my understanding:

EWT has 1 fundamental particle called the wave center that exists along with the aether. Particles are a result of standing waves reflected by wave centers in the aether. Forces are traveling waves reflected by wave centers in the aether. Forces are a result of wave centers minimizing the amplitude of these waves. The equations that model these particles and forces are provided in the theory.

So it has a very simple model like you would expect a model of our universe to have given the simple equations that provide the basis for our quantum mechanical theory like: E=nhf, wavelengh = h / p, E = mc^2, etc.

Sub atomic particles are explained as a collection of wave centers forming stable structures based on minimizing wave amplitude between the wave centers. 1 wave center is a neutrino, 10 wave centers in the form of a tetrahedron is an electron, and all of the other particles in the standard model are made in a similar fashion. EWT provides the equations that allow the masses of these sub-atomic particles to be calculated by plugging in the wave center number. This is not something the standard model provides any explanation for.

EWT explains all of the forces (strong, electromagnetic, gravitational) as manifestations of the wave equation used in its model. I believe it also provides explanations and the math for many of the fundamental constants used in the standard model that the standard model has no explanation for.

EWT provides a much simpler explanation of how the nucleus works, why we get the nuclear decay products we get, why a free neutron decays, etc.

There are things I don't see explained in this theory like the non-locality of the EPR experiment and an explanation of the double slit experiment. I tend to think EWT does not explain the photon in this model properly or at least in a way that makes sense to me. However these criticisms do not take away from the particle explanations and its general approach.

I tend to think EWT is more on track to a theory of everything than most mainstream physics today, because it has not given up on a simple mechanistic (classical like) explanation for a theory of everything, where as much of mainstream physics has. I don't think anyone can provide a solid, air tight reason to give up on a mechanistic model and I would say the evidence strongly suggests that it is the model for the universe we live in.

I would like to see an honest peer review of this theory, but I think simulating is a great way to prove out its merits.