No one said any of it was true. The AC pretended that no one was ever saying miracles happen since the bible was written which somehow makes science better or something. That was false which was the entire point of bringing that up.

It's sort of pointless now that rpstrong showed me the error of my thinking.
http://slashdot.org/comments.p...

You see, all you need to do is set the riffle to it's highest point in the trajectory arc and the laser to the center of the scope. At any distance now, the riffle is no longer being aimed except in a general direction. So once the laser kicks in, the bullet will guide itself to the target. All you have to do is get close and aim the laser right when the trigger is pulled.

I was originally thinking the gun had to be aimed before firing so the laser would have to be in the field of view at the same time. According to this site a .50 cal sighted in a 1000 yards or 915 meters will be roughly 45 inches high at 200 yards and 300 inches low at 1500 yards or 1371 meters. Now most scopes and military sights will have adjustments that can be tuned for the differences in distance. But as you can see, with almost a difference of 350 inches (29 feet or 8.8 meters) between 200 yards and 1500 yards, a laser centered at 1000 yards will have to be adjusted the same or be out of the field of view. So if you had to aim the riffle before shooting, you would also have to adjust both the laser and scope. But because the bullet is guided, you just need to make sure the bullet is high enough in the trajectory arc in order to follow the laser to the target. The laser can be centered at this sighting reference and remain on target.

So basically, I was over thinking it without paying attention to the correct details.

My premise is nothing of the sort. It has nothing to do with individual reality but how reality is presented and accepted. No one said anything about anything being true or not, that is beyond anything I was conveying. The point is that it all boils down to someone claiming to have authority saying something and people either accepting it as true or not. This is because just like those people (who happen to be the vast majority) who cannot do the science for whatever reason, most will never talk to god or be presented with any significant evidence of a God.

Now, you coming out and saying trust me, I can do all this to prove it is still someone saying trust me, trust this that proves it. You say but all these other people say it to, but look at all the churches saying the same things too. People listening will still have no option but to trust you or not just like with religion or science fiction.

Note, I put science fiction out there not because science is fiction but because I wanted to show that people will believe science fiction just the same as real science and/or religion.

This entire religion verses science is a bunch of bullshit anyways. They are tools and used for different things. Less than 99 percent of either will ever conflict with each other and of what will, it has so little of an impact on most people it is insignificant.

Again, in 2012 Jane Q. Public left a public comment at my website linking to http://things.titanez.net/dl/asshole-pseudo-scientist.png.

Suppose you're being honest when you deny being Lonny Eachus, a pathological liar dishonestly posing as a woman on the internet. If you're actually an honest woman, how were you able to upload a screenshot to Lonny Eachus's website? Did you hack in, or did Lonny Eachus upload your charmingly named screenshot for you?

Again, if you hacked in, Lonny Eachus should probably be notified.

You can argue if you like that a ~ 27.3% increase is large but I disagree, since climate sensitivity to CO2... [Jane Q. Public, 2014-07-07]

Ocean acidification is independent of climate sensitivity, and it's another reason to be concerned about the unprecedented rapidity of our CO2 emissions.

I would also like to point out again that even if acidification is happening, the RESULTS of that acidification are probably less than alarmists have claimed. Example (2010 article): http://www.rationaloptimist.co... [Jane Q. Public, 2014-06-10]

Lonny Eachus also linked to that misinformation from Matt Ridley, a journalist with a long history of distorting climate science.

In contrast, I quoted from Honisch et al. 2012 (PDF), Knoll et al. 2007 (PDF), and Ken Caldeira’s 2012 AGU lecture. That last link was from my videos section which also includes:

• Andrew Dickson gave a technical 2009 presentation called “Acidic Oceans: Why Should We Care?”
• A series of panels at the 2011 AGU discussed declining reef health and tipping points.

I'm not a chemist or a marine biologist/ecologist, so I read peer-reviewed papers and go to conferences like the AGU to watch lectures by scientists who do specialize and publish in those fields. For instance, consider that 2011 AGU panel on declining reef health. Nina Keul observed one species of foramanifera Glas et al. 2012 (PDF) growing faster as carbonate ion concentration decreases (which happens when CO2 increases). She provided context by noting that this is one species from one experiment, noting that this is like looking at one puzzle piece of a big puzzle.

Then Adina Paytan provides further context by noting that most species aren't like this. She shows Fig. 2 from Crook et al. 2012 (PDF) which shows that only ~3 out of 9 species of coral are present in locations with naturally low pH and notes that "Because these three species are rarely major contributors to Caribbean reef framework, these data may indicate that today’s more complex frame-building species may be replaced by smaller, possibly patchy, colonies of only a few species along the Mesoamerican Barrier Reef."

Finally, Robert Riding provides a paleo perspective. Note that he admitted a mistake during questions. Contrast this with Matt Ridley's misinformation which repeats many arguments scientists had already tried to correct. Instead of correcting his mistakes, Ridley just recycled the same talking points propped up with different studies.

For instance, Ridley vaguely refers to Jury et al. 2010 (PDF). Ridley and others wrongly imply that Jury et al. 2010 shows that corals in general and other species build their shells using bicarbonate (HCO3-) instead of carbonate (CO_3^2-).

In reality, after a long list of studies, Jury et al. 2010 says "While the studies above show drastic reductions in coral calcification in response to ocean acidification, there are indications that such responses are not ubiquitous."

So Jury et al. 2010 acknowledges that most coral species show drastic calcification reduction, and simply notes that some species don't. So Jury et al. 2010 is consistent with that 2011 AGU panel, which also showed that most (but not all) species of coral are sensitive to the reduced carbonate concentrations caused by our CO2 emissions (i.e. ocean acidification). It's also consistent with Comeau et al. 2012: "[CO_3^2-] played a significant role in light and dark calcification of P. rus, whereas [HCO3-] mainly affected calcification in the light. Both [CO_3^2-] and [HCO3-] had a significant effect on the calcification of H. onkodes, but the strongest relationship was found with [CO_3^2-]."

Chris Langdon had even previously told Matt Ridley: "Empirical studies have shown that many calcifying organisms, including corals, only use CO_3^2- (carbonate) to build their skeletons. The HCO3-, while, 7-times more abundant than the CO_3^2-, does not seem to be available for calcification. A drop in pH from 8.1 to 7.8 has been shown to reduce the ability of many species of coral to build their skeletons by 30 to 40 per cent. This same small reduction in pH has been shown to adversely affect coral reproduction as well by decreasing larval settlement success and post-settlement growth of the juvenile coral. Matt is correct that the skeleton and shell building of some species is unaffected or even increases under reduced pH. However, there is no free lunch. The reduction in pH makes it thermodynamically more difficult to precipitate calcium carbonate. While an organism can chose to overcome the increased expense of producing their skeleton or shell, it generally comes at a cost because less energy is now available for some other life process. Loss of muscle mass in some invertebrates and a reduced growth rate in the case of a coccolithophorid are examples of the tradeoffs that some species have made."

Fabricius et al. 2011 (PDF): Losers and winners in coral reefs acclimatized to elevated carbon dioxide concentrations

"Experiments have shown that ocean acidification due to rising atmospheric carbon dioxide concentrations has deleterious effects on the performance of many marine organisms[1,2,3,4]. However, few empirical or modelling studies have addressed the long-term consequences of ocean acidification for marine ecosystems[5,6,7]. Here we show that as pH declines from 8.1 to 7.8 (the change expected if atmospheric carbon dioxide concentrations increase from 390 to 750 ppm, consistent with some scenarios for the end of this century) some organisms benefit, but many more lose out. We investigated coral reefs, seagrasses and sediments that are acclimatized to low pH at three cool and shallow volcanic carbon dioxide seeps in Papua New Guinea. At reduced pH, we observed reductions in coral diversity, recruitment and abundances of structurally complex framework builders, and shifts in competitive interactions between taxa. However, coral cover remained constant between pH 8.1 and ~7.8, because massive Porites corals established dominance over structural corals, despite low rates of calcification. Reef development ceased below pH 7.7. Our empirical data from this unique field setting confirm model predictions that ocean acidification, together with temperature stress, will probably lead to severely reduced diversity, structural complexity and resilience of Indo-Pacific coral reefs within this century."

Pandolfi et al. 2011 (PDF): Projecting Coral Reef Futures Under Global Warming and Ocean Acidification

"Many physiological responses in present-day coral reefs to climate change are interpreted as consistent with the imminent disappearance of modern reefs globally because of annual mass bleaching events, carbonate dissolution, and insufficient time for substantial evolutionary responses. Emerging evidence for variability in the coral calcification response to acidification, geographical variation in bleaching susceptibility and recovery, responses to past climate change, and potential rates of adaptation to rapid warming supports an alternative scenario in which reef degradation occurs with greater temporal and spatial heterogeneity than current projections suggest. Reducing uncertainty in projecting coral reef futures requires improved understanding of past responses to rapid climate change; physiological responses to interacting factors, such as temperature, acidification, and nutrients; and the costs and constraints imposed by acclimation and adaptation."

IPCC Breakout Group I-2: Reconciling apparently contradictory observations

"This Breakout Group report summarizes participant discussions on divergent observations of the effects of ocean acidification for marine organisms. For calcification in zooxanthellate corals and in plankton, as well as for other processes, the Breakout Group considered examples of contradictory observations, the level of disagreement among data sets, and possible explanations for apparently conflicting results. From this evaluation, the Breakout Group investigated the complexity and species-specific nature of the coral calcification response to ocean acidification, the importance of clarifying present uncertainty about the responses of coccolithophores to ocean acidification, and the large inherent variability in the effects of ocean acidification for other processes considered."

McCulloch et al. 2012 (PDF): Coral resilience to ocean acidification and global warming through pH up-regulation

"Rapidly rising levels of atmospheric CO2 are not only causing ocean warming, but also lowering seawater pH hence the carbonate saturation state of the oceans, on which many marine organisms depend to calcify their skeletons[1,2]. Using boron isotope systematics[3], we show how scleractinian corals up-regulate pH at their site of calcification such that internal changes are approximately one-half of those in ambient seawater. This species-dependent pH-buffering capacity enables aragonitic corals to raise the saturation state of their calcifying medium, thereby increasing calcification rates at little additional energy cost. Using a model of pH regulation combined with abiotic calcification, we show that the enhanced kinetics of calcification owing to higher temperatures has the potential to counter the effects of ocean acidification. Up-regulation of pH, however, is not ubiquitous among calcifying organisms; those lacking this ability are likely to undergo severe declines in calcification as CO2 levels increase. The capacity to up-regulate pH is thus central to the resilience of calcifiers to ocean acidification, although the fate of zooxanthellate corals ultimately depends on the ability of both the photosymbionts and coral host to adapt to rapidly increasing ocean temperatures[4]."

So Ridley was told that even though some species are tolerant to lower pH, most aren't. Ridley then cites Hendriks et al. 2010 (PDF) claiming "there was no significant mean effect" from lower pH in 372 studies of 44 marine species. But if the Hendriks et al. 2010 meta-study were inadvertently biased towards studies of the few tolerant species, they'd cancel the more numerous vulnerable species. Averages across seasons can also mask vulnerabilities, as in Rosa et al. 2013 which showed different impacts in summer and winter. Here's another problem:

Dupont et al. 2010 (PDF): What meta-analysis can tell us about vulnerability of marine biodiversity to ocean acidification?

"Ocean acidification has been proposed as a major threat for marine biodiversity. Hendriks et al. ... proposed an alternative view and suggested, based on a meta-analysis, that marine biota may be far more resistant to ocean acidification than hitherto believed. However, such a meta-analytical approach can mask more subtle features, for example differing sensitivities during the life-cycle of an organism. Using a similar metric on an echinoderm database, we show that key bottlenecks present in the life-cycle (e.g. larvae being more vulnerable than adults) and responsible for driving the whole species response may be hidden in a global meta-analysis. Our data illustrate that any ecological meta-analysis should be hypothesis driven, taking into account the complexity of biological systems, including all life-cycle stages and key biological processes. Available data allow us to conclude that near-future ocean acidification can/will have dramatic negative impact on some marine species, including echinoderms, with likely consequences at the ecosystem level."

Hendriks and Duarte's reply (PDF) includes: "... Conveying scientific evidence along with an open acknowledgment of uncertainties to help separate evidence from judgment should not harm the need to act to mitigate ocean acidification and should pave the road for robust progress in our understanding of how ocean acidification impacts biota of the ocean."

Other papers have explored bottlenecks in early development:

Melzner et al. 2009 (PDF): Physiological basis for high CO2 tolerance in marine ectothermic animals: pre-adaptation through lifestyle and ontogeny?

"Future ocean acidification has the potential to adversely affect many marine organisms. A growing body of evidence suggests that many species could suffer from reduced fertilization success, decreases in larval- and adult growth rates, reduced calcification rates, and even mortality when being exposed to near-future levels (year 2100 scenarios) of ocean acidification. Little research focus is currently placed on those organisms/taxa that might be less vulnerable to the anticipated changes in ocean chemistry; this is unfortunate, as the comparison of more vulnerable to more tolerant physiotypes could provide us with those physiological traits that are crucial for ecological success in a future ocean. Here, we attempt to summarize some ontogenetic and lifestyle traits that lead to an increased tolerance towards high environmental pCO2. ... while some of these taxa are adapted to cope with elevated pCO2 during their regular embryonic development, gametes, zygotes and early embryonic stages, which lack specialized ion-regulatory epithelia, may be the true bottleneck for ecological success – even of the more tolerant taxa. ..."

Albright 2011 (PDF): Reviewing the Effects of Ocean Acidification on Sexual Reproduction and Early Life History Stages of Reef-Building Corals

"The studies reviewed here demonstrate that ocean acidification has the potential to affect sexual reproduction and multiple early life history stages of corals that are critical to reef persistence and resilience. While further studies are essential, available information indicates that affected processes may include sperm motility and fertilization success, larval metabolism, larval settlement, and postsettlement growth and calcification. ... Although ocean acidification is now recognized as a substantial threat to marine calcifiers and their ability to secrete calcium carbonate shells and/or skeletons, the studies reviewed here demonstrate that increasing pCO2 has the potential to impact multiple life history stages of corals, including critical processes independent of calcification. ... Negative impacts on successive life history stages may cumulate in such a way that the overall effect on recruitment is severe. For example, results of studies conducted with the threatened Caribbean elkhorn coral, Acropora palmata, indicate that ocean acidification has the potential to reduce fertilization success by 12-13% (averaged across all sperm concentrations) and to decrease settlement success by 45–69% at pCO2 concentrations expected for the middle and end of this century. The compounding effect of ocean acidification on these early life history stages translates into a 52–73% reduction in the number of larval settlers on the reef. The net impact on recruitment will likely be even greater, given that depressed postsettlement growth may translate into elevated rates of postsettlement mortality [28]. ..."

This is how scientists learn about research outside of their own fields. Contrast that with Lonny Eachus, who later linked to and retweeted more of Ridley's misinformation where Ridley ignored Tamsin Edwards and other scientists who tried to correct his obvious error. Ridley also advertised a flawed paper by Prof. Richard Tol, who also has problems admitting his mistakes. Instead, anyone interested in ocean acidification should read the peer-reviewed literature and/or watch freely available lectures from scientists who publish in that field.

Regarding other comments, I've repeatedly noted that the PETM's rapid warming stressed ecosystems. So it's not goalpost moving to note that rapid GHG emissions cause rapid warming and ocean acidification, and that these both stress ecosystems. In fact, only a Sky Dragon Slayer would argue that rapidly increasing CO2 wouldn't cause rapid warming, and only someone unfamiliar with past extinctions would argue that rapid warming wouldn't stress ecosystems. Lectures about CO2 vs. methane also aren't necessary; I've noted: The PETM happened ~55 million years ago, and was a rapid spike of about 5C warming over about 200,000 years. It’s not clear if CO2 or CH4 caused the distinct warming and carbon isotope excursion spikes, but it’s clear that ocean outgassing can’t explain the carbon isotope excursion spike: "Atmospheric pCO2 increases from 834 ppm to either 1,500 ppm (CH4 scenario) or 4,200 ppm (Corg scenario) during the main phase of the PETM (Fig. 4d). The corresponding global ocean surface temperature increase during the peak PETM is 2.1C (CH4 scenario) and 6.5C (Corg scenario) respectively. (Fig. 4e)."

This PETM CO2/methane debate is genuine, unlike many baseless claims. For instance, I asked for citations of PETM warming not due to GHG like CO2/methane because of mistaken claims it was due to H2O and/or volcanoes heating the oceans. Let's explore the literature...

Thomas and Shackleton 1996 (PDF): The Paleocene-Eocene benthic foraminiferal extinction and stable isotope anomalies

"In the late Paleocene to early Eocene, deep sea benthic foraminifera suffered their only global extinction of the last 75 million years and diversity decreased worldwide by 30-50% in a few thousand years. At Maud Rise (Weddell Sea, Antarctica; Sites 689 and 690, palaeodepths 1100 m and 1900 m) and Walvis Ridge (Southeastern Atlantic, Sites 525 and 527, palaeodepths 1600 m and 3400 m) post-extinction faunas were low-diversity and high-dominance, but the dominant species differed by geographical location. ... The species-richness remained very low for about 50,000 years, then gradually increased. The extinction was synchronous with a large, negative, short-term excursion of carbon and oxygen isotopes in planktonic and benthic foraminifera and bulk carbonate. The isotope excursions reached peak negative values in a few thousand years and values returned to pre-excursion levels in about 50,000 years. ... The oxygen isotope excursion was about -1.5%o for benthic foraminifera at Walvis Ridge and Maud Rise, -1%o for planktonic foraminifera at Maud Rise. The rapid oxygen isotope excursion at a time when polar ice-sheets were absent or insignificant can be explained by an increase in temperature by 4-6C of high latitude surface waters and deep waters world wide. ..."

Scheibnera and Speijerb 2008 (PDF): Late Paleocene–early Eocene Tethyan carbonate platform evolution — A response to long- and short-term paleoclimatic change

"... The onset of the latter prominent larger foraminifera-dominated platform correlates with the Paleocene/Eocene Thermal Maximum. The causes for the change from coral-dominated platforms to larger foraminifera-dominated platforms are multilayered. The decline of coralgal reefs in low latitudes during platform stage II is related to overall warming, leading to sea-surface temperatures in the tropics beyond the maximum temperature range of corals. The overall low occurrence of coral reefs in the Paleogene might be related to the presence of a calcite sea. At the same time larger foraminifera started to flourish after their near extinction at the Cretaceous/Paleogene boundary. The demise of coralgal reefs at all studied paleolatitudes in platform stage III can be founded on the effects of the PETM, resulting in short-term warming, eutrophic conditions on the shelves and acidification of the oceans, hampering the growth of aragonitic corals, while calcitic larger foraminifera flourished. In the absence of other successful carbonate-producing organisms, larger foraminifera were able to take over the role as the dominant carbonate platform inhabitant, leading to a stepwise Tethyan platform stage evolution around the Paleocene/Eocene boundary. This szenario might be also effective for threatened coral reef sites."

Payne and Clapham 2012 (PDF): End-Permian Mass Extinction in the Oceans: An Ancient Analog for the Twenty-First Century?

"The greatest loss of biodiversity in the history of animal life occurred at the end of the Permian Period (~252 million years ago). This biotic catastrophe coincided with an interval of widespread ocean anoxia and the eruption of one of Earth's largest continental flood basalt provinces, the Siberian Traps. Volatile release from basaltic magma and sedimentary strata during emplacement of the Siberian Traps can account for most end-Permian paleontological and geochemical observations. Climate change and, perhaps, destruction of the ozone layer can explain extinctions on land, whereas changes in ocean oxygen levels, CO2, pH, and temperature can account for extinction selectivity across marine animals. These emerging insights from geology, geochemistry, and paleobiology suggest that the end-Permian extinction may serve as an important ancient analog for twenty-first century oceans."

Kiessling and Simpson 2010: On the potential for ocean acidification to be a general cause of ancient reef crises

"Anthropogenic rise in the carbon dioxide concentration in the atmosphere leads to global warming and acidification of the oceans. Ocean acidification (OA) is harmful to many organisms but especially to those that build massive skeletons of calcium carbonate, such as reef corals. Here, we test the recent suggestion that OA leads not only to declining calcification of reef corals and reduced growth rates of reefs but may also have been a trigger of ancient reef crises and mass extinctions in the sea. We analyse the fossil record of biogenic reefs and marine organisms to (1) assess the timing and intensity of ancient reef crises, (2) check which reef crises were concurrent with inferred pulses of carbon dioxide concentrations and (3) evaluate the correlation between reef crises and mass extinctions and their selectivity in terms of inferred physiological buffering. We conclude that four of five global metazoan reef crises in the last 500 Myr were probably at least partially governed by OA and rapid global warming. However, only two of the big five mass extinctions show geological evidence of OA."

Since Ridley also seems to think that rapid pH swings make coral insensitive to ocean acidification, it's worth pointing out that these rapid swings have been happening since the oceans formed. But they didn't prevent past instances of ocean acidification from stressing ecosystems. Here's more modern research:

Okazaki 2013: Stress-tolerant corals of Florida Bay are vulnerable to ocean acidification

"In situ calcification measurements tested the hypothesis that corals from environments (Florida Bay, USA) that naturally experience large swings in pCO2 and pH will be tolerant or less sensitive to ocean acidification than species from laboratory experiments with less variable carbonate chemistry. The pCO2 in Florida Bay varies from summer to winter by several hundred ppm roughly comparable to the increase predicted by the end of the century. Rates of net photosynthesis and calcification of two stress-tolerant coral species, Siderastrea radians and Solenastrea hyades, were measured under the prevailing ambient chemical conditions and under conditions amended to simulate a pH drop of 0.1–0.2 units at bimonthly intervals over a 2-yr period. Net photosynthesis was not changed by the elevation in pCO2 and drop in pH; however, calcification declined by 52 and 50 % per unit decrease in saturation state, respectively. These results indicate that the calcification rates of S. radians and S. hyades are just as sensitive to a reduction in saturation state as coral species that have been previously studied. In other words, stress tolerance to temperature and salinity extremes as well as regular exposure to large swings in pCO2 and pH did not make them any less sensitive to ocean acidification. These two species likely survive in Florida Bay in part because they devote proportionately less energy to calcification than most other species and the average saturation state is elevated relative to that of nearby offshore water due to high rates of primary production by seagrasses."

Finally, calcification isn't everything. Hamilton et al. 2013 shows that ocean acidification increases fish anxiety, and Simpson et al. 2011 (PDF) shows that it erodes crucial auditory behaviour in a marine fish. Munday et al. 2014 shows that fish stop avoiding predator odor, possibly because of the added stress of using bicarbonate in lower pH waters. Naturally, this doesn't work out well. A billion people depend on seafood.

Thanks for your concerns. Link to whatever you want. Again, I'm talking about the fact that in 2012 Jane Q. Public left a public comment at my website linking to http://things.titanez.net/dl/asshole-pseudo-scientist.png.

Again, how were you able to upload a screenshot to Lonny Eachus's website? Did you hack in, or did Lonny Eachus upload your charmingly named screenshot for you?

If you hacked in, Lonny Eachus should probably be notified.

Jane, how were you able to upload a screenshot to Lonny Eachus's website? Did you hack in, or did Lonny Eachus upload your charmingly named screenshot for you?

There is some towns in california already doing this since the 90s.

Maybe not exactly this way but they are treating their sewage for potable water

For the content, one only needs a good faith belief. There could be a garage band in the background singing "row roe row your boat" and the automated whatever thinks it is part of some bands album and issues the warning. That would be a good faith belief that the content was infringing. But as you showed, would not be perjury.

The perjury clause isn't for the claim of infringement or mistaken claim, it's for the statement that you are a copyright owner and/or authorized to act on behalf of the owner of an exclusive right that is allegedly infringed. For the actually claimed infringement, it only takes a good faith belief that the use of the material in the manner complained of is not authorized by the copyright owner, its agent, or the law.

Misidentifying a file would not be perjury. The best that could happen is damages and law fees from the person making the claim of infringement.

Is there some reason they would jump to an "it's aliens" conclusion in this case?

It's in the wording of the article summery. Radio pulse sort of initially brings thoughts of a radio station receiver like in a car or home theater, a purpose constructed signal meant to convey messages. Add in the "might have been picking up signals originating from sources on or near Earth" and it kind of reinforces the sentiment of a constructed signal.

GP isn't the only one making that jump either. There are some posts about decoding it and so on.

Listen, I understand how you feel threatened by what I said. I understand how you badly want it not to be true. But we are not talking about those who can do the science, the entire premise was those who cannot. It doesn't matter who is here and not right now, those people will only be able to trust what you say is true.

As for miracles, try doing a google search for modern miracles and see what doesn't happen any more. People are still claiming they happen.

I'm sure there is a huge difference when you ignore the parts you do not agree with. Like this sections started out though, you don't get to ignore reality and impose your own. You do not have to believe miracles happen but you do have to acknowledge that others do. Your premise is lot on reality.

You are probably correct.

However, you would think that the laser would need to be sighted separate from the gun. In order to compensate for gravity, the barrel of the gun is usually lifted so the trajectory is an arch of sorts rather than a straight line. A laser on the other hand, while also suffering from gravity, will not be near as much or even notifiable. This isn't a problem with handguns because the range they are used in is so close that gravity doesn't take hold. Long shots will require a lot of compensation.

Perhaps there is also a method of pre-aiming the so it is as accurate as the sights on the riffle.

People claim miracles still happen. People claim they talk with God, have a personal relationship with Jesus. That is happening today.

I get it. You don't seem to though. To most people, the claim that you recreated the science so it is true will be no different than me saying God told me to give you $20. When someone is incapable of doing the science for whatever reason, they are left with believing what someone else says. It's not difficult and I understand your rejection of it, But it is the reality we live in.

Sigh.. The high school science teacher (preacher) does not have to prove anything- just dictate from the book. The students (parishioners) have to learn it and accept it in order to get a passing grade and graduate. It all revolves around trusting that what someone else says is true. How is this no different?

And no, the scientific method doesn't make any difference to those who have no ability to check it. You are basically saying that because others will also say it is true, you will believe it to be true. But then we are bombarded with articles about scientific journals printing improper materials and groups of people conspiring to taint peer review. But you trust is it all true. NASA has basically lost the magical incantations to build a Saturn V rocket and yet you can prove it wrong.

Yes, some people, somewhere, might end up with enough knowledge and resources to test something. People also claim to be told to do things by God, to see miracles, that their success is because of a God. For the vast majority of people, there is no difference in mental process. You have faith in science, people have faith in religion, some people have both because they are both tools and used for different purposes.