If you want me to believe that the bodies of water curve, form to the exterior of a shape and do not flow due to the curvature of spacetime caused by the uneven distribution of mass (gravity) then I would like to see a demonstration of some sort to prove this. If you want invoke the claim of gravity and for me to "believe" this over my practical experience then it must be demonstrated.
Idiot #2 - I am curious at how you explain water bending everyday... :/  I said bodies of water find their level. What do you think happens when the water from the waterfall reaches the pool below? Yup it finds it's level. Show me a picture of the pool below the falls with a hump in the middle from the water supporting itself and then your onto something. This is called a false equivalence. Your waterfall example vs the ocean is apples to oranges. How do you think it finds ''its level'' dummy? Besides how did you come up with the rule ''water always finds it's level''? Have you done experiments on this? What is the definition of level? Water’s level is dependent on the shape of Earth’s gravitational field. |
|
|
|
^^^ There's no vanishing point on a globe, the horizon is curvature. In reality the horizon is the result of convergence to a point on a plane. The sextant measures angular size from the vanishing point, this is impossible on a globe. We're not on a globe the Earth is flat, it's measurably flat.
''There's no vanishing point on a globe'' Why not? ''The sextant measures angular size from the vanishing point'' Who told you this? https://www.wikihow.com/Use-a-SextantThere's no vanishing point on a globe because it's hidden behind curvature. Who told me how to measure angular size? Well certainly not the Jews at wikipedia, those wikihow instructions are just the basics and don't cover angular size. Measuring angular size is covered up, it's a conspiracy and there's no readily available source that will discuss measurement because it's impossible to measure on a globe. I've explained how angular size measurement works, you should kill yourself instead of insisting it's impossible.  Do you know what the vanishing point is? Can you define it for me please since I can't trust the jews at wikipedia? What I understand the vanishing point is not something physical. It's not a real point in space, 2 parallel lines never touch, just like in your example, the rails never touch, do they? So how are you measuring anything from the ''vanishing point'' if the vanishing point doesn't exist? |
|
|
|
....
''Forced population reduction.'' The fuck? Come one bro, just admit most CO2 reduction solutions are good, you sound like a conspiracy nutjob.
You are now ridiculing the answer? It's YOUR ANSWER. You wanted proof that your use of "ALL" was ridiculous, you got it. Ridicule the wackos who propose such things, not me. "ALL" is inclusive of all answers, dumbass. I invited you to change your assertion, didn't I? I'm not the one who said that btw. Your argument is trash, change the all to most then? Does it work now? Nutjob No, of course it does not work. Neither is my argument trash. You want to support the "ALL", how many more examples of nut job radical environmentalists do you want? The Atlantic isn't exactly a trash publication. ....Hillary Clinton in 2009, when as Secretary of State she acknowledged the overpopulation issue during a discussion with Indian environment minister Jairam Ramesh. Clinton praised another panelist for noting "that it's rather odd to talk about climate change and what we must do to stop and prevent the ill effects without talking about population and family planning."
"And yet, we talk about these things in very separate and often unconnected ways," Clinton added.
Right-wing critics pounced, with the Alex Jones-run Info Wars calling her comments "Malthusian."https://www.theatlantic.com/health/archive/2014/11/the-climate-change-solution-no-one-will-talk-about/382197/Your problem, not mine. Obviously you need to correct the position or concede your position was wrong. "Most" is also ridiculous. Think about it, that implies this, directly: "Most proposed solutions to global warming should be implemented as public policy." That's what you really want to say? It's ridiculous. First you start by praising science, and I remind you of the scientific methods. Then you praise "ALL SOLUTIONS," many of which were totally idiotic. Then you go to "Most solutions," which shows zero critical thinking. You don't think that perhaps careful engineering studies would be useful, would you? Again, the need for critical thinking and skeptical viewpoints is required. So you don't think getting rid of CO2 is good? The original point was: ''Lets say climate change didn't exist. The steps taken to solve climate change would still create sustainable, renewable energy systems'' I didn't say that but I understood it, you obviously did not. The point was that the steps taken to solve climate change are beneficial nonetheless, so why would the ''fake it''? |
|
|
|
...
Lymerix worked. Even after it was taken down and more tests/studies were performed, the consensus was still the same, the Lymerix vaccine was safe. Do you accept this or not? If not you are just a lying, dishonest person.
I don't accept that, and I doubt that the people who were maimed and sued for damages do either. At least Lyme disease is a serious thing and possibly worth the risk of the vaccine damage in certain corner-case scenarios. Unlike chicken-pox or mumps where they maim kids for dollars for no good reason at all. They also deprive people of just getting the mild illness, getting it over with, and having life-long immunity as is the case with me (a 51 year old with zero medical problems who has not needed to see a doctor in years...and even then I didn't have a pressing need since I could easily have treated myself.) The only time I've seen a doctor in the last 5 years is to get antibiotics after getting tick bites which made me actually ill...when I don't get ill from a tick bite I don't worry about it. The proper antibiotics are cheap and easy to get without a prescription if one knows where to look, but I went in anyway because I enjoy chatting with the doctor. She's actually pretty cool and is no fan of our totally broken public-ish 'health care' system either. Then that's it for me, I'm putting you on ignore, I don't like intellectual dishonesty, you clearly are not going to agree with anything even when evidence is presented and you will simply keep saying the same things, oh but this government agency faked the results or they don't care, etc etc. Cya. |
|
|
|
^^^ There's no vanishing point on a globe, the horizon is curvature. In reality the horizon is the result of convergence to a point on a plane. The sextant measures angular size from the vanishing point, this is impossible on a globe. We're not on a globe the Earth is flat, it's measurably flat.
''There's no vanishing point on a globe'' Why not? ''The sextant measures angular size from the vanishing point'' Who told you this? https://www.wikihow.com/Use-a-Sextant |
|
|
|
....
''Forced population reduction.'' The fuck? Come one bro, just admit most CO2 reduction solutions are good, you sound like a conspiracy nutjob.
You are now ridiculing the answer? It's YOUR ANSWER. You wanted proof that your use of "ALL" was ridiculous, you got it. Ridicule the wackos who propose such things, not me. "ALL" is inclusive of all answers, dumbass. I invited you to change your assertion, didn't I? I'm not the one who said that btw. Your argument is trash, change the all to most then? Does it work now? Nutjob |
|
|
|
'In the aftermath of the LYMErix™ market withdrawal, we must look for lessons learned. The vaccine developers believed they developed a safe and effective vaccine to prevent the most common tick-borne infection in the United States. Even available post-market surveillance failed to demonstrate convincing harm from the LYMErix™ vaccine. After review of available data, the FDA found insufficient evidence to support a causal relationship between the reported adverse effects and the vaccine and continued to permit use of the vaccine. ' https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2870557/Vaccines work. Some vaccines have side effects, it happens, we are humans. Vaccines are not 100% safe but are extremely effective, specially against deadly diseases. Then why are there still 'deadly diseases'? A possible answer is that vaccines are nearly 100% snake oil and they rely on the fact that something which used to take out 1/100,000 people in the 1800's is now re-written in the history books as a 'deadly disease' which was 'cured' by vaccines. They are not developed for genuine threats because it would be to hard to fake a victory for something which people actually remember. LYMErix was one of the vaccines which didn't work for shit. Even after three injections it was only '76 to 92 percent effective.' That strikes me as fairly wide error bars, but anyway... Vaccines have an especially hard time against bacteria (as opposed to viruses) which is why Pertussis (whooping cough) is another vaccine which is in or past failure mode. That's why outbreaks happen among highly vaccinated populations. A major pharma company could inject pure AIDS into people and call it a 'vaccine' and the FDA would give it the 'safe and effective' blessing. These bureaucrats are hungry for the big pay-day on the other side of the revolving door. The problem with you is you are talking out of your ass: ''A possible answer is that vaccines are nearly 100% snake oil and they rely on the fact that something which used to take out 1/100,000 people in the 1800's is now re-written in the history books as a 'deadly disease' which was 'cured' by vaccines. They are not developed for genuine threats because it would be to hard to fake a victory for something which people actually remember.'' Where is the evidence. ''LYMErix was one of the vaccines which didn't work for shit'' If it's 76%+ effective, I would say it works very well. ''Vaccines have an especially hard time against bacteria'' So what? I didn't say vaccines are the cure to everything, I just said they are highly effective, a 76% success rate is highly effective. ''A major pharma company could inject pure AIDS into people and call it a 'vaccine' and the FDA would give it the 'safe and effective' blessing. These bureaucrats are hungry for the big pay-day on the other side of the revolving door.'' Again, you would have to prove that. Lymerix worked. Even after it was taken down and more tests/studies were performed, the consensus was still the same, the Lymerix vaccine was safe. Do you accept this or not? If not you are just a lying, dishonest person. |
|
|
|
If there had been significant upward pressure, then we wouldn't have been stuck at ~$6.5k for so long. I predict that ~$5.5k will be "the new $6.5k" for a while, maintaining relative stability with periodic bouncing.
I suspect that we're on a long-term slow downward trend until either the next halving or until something major happens (eg. ETFs, maybe certain global events, etc.).
Unless some major event happens like you said, this is exactly going to happen like it happened in 2014-2017. That means even under $3k is a possibility now. Maybe BAKKT can reverse the bearish trend but I don't raise my hopes too high. See you all in 2022  It will be a pure vomitfest from now on. 3 maybe 4 painful diskusting years are ahead. Missed the Gox bubble, missed the tether bubble too. Fuck my life. >:-( I don't agree with that whatsoever. What major event happened in 2017? There were in fact a lot of bad news at the time and the price continued to grow. |
|
|
|
Goes over my head tbh why wouldn't you vaccine. Like you have all the vaccines for tick bites that can make you pretty much brain dead and why would I turn this down? Happened to my friend, luckily found out in the early stage that he has it and doesn't have much damage from the tick, but he's still not quite the same and I'm sure vaccine would have made a huge difference.
Ticks can carry a variety of problematic pathogens, but the main one at this time is Borrelia Burgdorferi (aka, Lyme disease.) There was a vaccine developed and marketed for protection against this bacteria but it was removed from the market rather quickly because it had devastating health effects on a lot of people. It was called 'LYMErix' if you wish to read about it. The idea that ticks can be used to spread diseases to humans as a part of a biological warfare system dates back at least to the Nazi regime. At least one of the top scientists working on such systems were given U.S. citizenship after the war and worked at Plumb Island Animal Disease Center'. 'Animal'. Lol. That facility is right across from Lyme, Connecticut of 'Lyme disease' fame just for what it's worth. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Erich_TraubThe U.S. military, officers commissioned by said, and other employees hold various patents on a variety of microbes which have potential for use as biological warfare agents (often of the so-called non-lethal variety so they just make target populations chronically ill rather than kill them.) Also delivery systems/methods. The Rockefeller institute owns zika and many others though. Same Rockefeller clan who got their start selling 'snake oil' cures and who were highly interested population control and in eugenics. And who spent a lot of money funding medical schools as part of their 'philanthropy.' 'In the aftermath of the LYMErix™ market withdrawal, we must look for lessons learned. The vaccine developers believed they developed a safe and effective vaccine to prevent the most common tick-borne infection in the United States. Even available post-market surveillance failed to demonstrate convincing harm from the LYMErix™ vaccine. After review of available data, the FDA found insufficient evidence to support a causal relationship between the reported adverse effects and the vaccine and continued to permit use of the vaccine. ' https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2870557/Vaccines work. Some vaccines have side effects, it happens, we are humans. Vaccines are not 100% safe but are extremely effective, specially against deadly diseases. |
|
|
|
Nice, now that we've established that I'm stupid and crazy because I can measure angular size with a sextant. We've got additional proof that I'm a paid liar, an idiot and insane with the law gravity, this unproven theory is clearly the proof beyond any resonance doubt I'm mad. You go Vod, show 'em that gravitationally curved water! You guys seriously need rope.
Meanwhile at the airport.... Four Commercial Airline Pilots Admit The Earth is Flat -- https://youtu.be/18QtOZapc38As previously mentioned what does measuring angular size with a sextant prove exactly? It doesn't prove anything, don't see your point here. |
|
|
|
....
Its actually quite the opposite. All of the CO2 reduction solutions would make the world a better place. ....
No, that's ridiculous. First of all, your mistake is this claim. Note the bolded word. All of the CO2 .... It should be obvious there have been some really, really bad ideas floated. You want examples or would you like to revise your claim? All that I know of. I would love to hear the examples and can't imagine they are anything being seriously considered and not just "floated". Forced population reduction. Storing CO2 in underground caverns under huge pressures. Painting roads and rooftops white. ''Forced population reduction.'' The fuck? Come one bro, just admit most CO2 reduction solutions are good, you sound like a conspiracy nutjob. |
|
|
|
The term vanishing-point is something that is used when you have limited distance viewing. Confusion is created when notbatman tries to use simple terms like vanishing point, to describe things that are not so simple.
What a hypocrite.  Your entire belief in fairy tales is using the simple term "proof" to describe things that cannot be proven. Just like notaman.  I mean, how insane is your theory that even Badecker thinks you are a moron? Think about it Notbatman.. |
|
|
|
If the sun/moon are just projections on a dome around the earth. Then what about the distant galaxies powerful telescopes take picture of?
Uh Oh, you don't want to get into that man, last time I asked something like that we went down a big hole. I think he also believes those are projections, the other stars aren't really stars because if you look at them through a shitty camera you only see a blur. That was literally his argument btw. |
|
|
|
|
Well, it is clearly ''inspired'' in this forum, however they do have a few different sections so really taking any legal action would be quite hard.
|
|
|
|
...
What about sea levels rising, that to me suggests that something is going on, don't you think?
I answered your questions with a re-explanation of the nature of scientific inquiry. Now what? Change the subject? What are you trying to get to exactly? What questions, I only asked one. I don't see why most scientists would lie about it, period. If you want to discuss what you said: However I did find this: http://advances.sciencemag.org/content/3/1/e1601207What about it? This article simply discusses the issues in moving from temperature measurements by ship engine cooling water to the bouys. ''These results suggest that reported rates of SST warming in recent years have been underestimated in these three data sets.'' ''Ocean temperature is related to ocean heat content, an important topic in the debate over global warming.'' |
|
|
|
To me what best explains the observations is that vaccines work. Disease are at an all time low and every time vaccines were introduced those diseases were heavily affected by them. It's not just hygiene, clearly not. I don't know what you think the cause is, you can look at statistics of any disease that was treated with vaccines.
So the observation that the regulatory agencies have not produced the reports about the safety of vaccines that they were mandated to do is explained by the hypothesis that vaccines are safe? To me a hypothesis that they are unsafe, but the authorities want to deploy them anyway (for some reason) and they simply did not do the studies or did the studies and hid the results is a hypothesis which fits the observations better. It is an important principle in scientific exploration that when a source of information has proven unreliable in one instance, all information provided by that source is to be devalued. This includes past and future information from the source. In my opinion, the 'government certified' data about vaccines is in this category. Very much so. This is why you and I are at loggerheads about some of this stuff. Unlike most of my skeptical peers here, I find it a compelling hypothesis that the social engineers currently in charge actually wish to damage ordinary citizens in certain ways, or are at best ambivalent about doing so if it helps achieve other objectives. Examples: building wealth, maintaining control, meeting certain population density targets, etc. Unlike some of my other skeptical peers here, I 'believe in' the theory of evolution and can speak coherently with others who have proficiency in scientific exploration. You can take that for what it's worth. ''regulatory agencies have not produced the reports about the safety of vaccines'' This is simply not true. You guys keep talking about some missing reports when there are many many more reports about safety of vaccines. ''the National Vaccine Advisory Committee (NVAC), established in 1987, has had regular meetings and published regular reports about vaccine safety'' ''a number of other vaccine safety oversight advisory committees and government groups were established, including the Advisory Commission on Childhood Vaccines, the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP), the Microbiology and Infectious Diseases Review Advisory Committee (MIDRAC) of NIAID, and the Vaccines and Related Biological Products Advisory Committee, with the Vaccine Interagency Group of the National Vaccine Program Office providing overall coordination. They all report to the Secretary of HHS'' And more and more and more but of course if there is only 1 instance of some reports missing somewhere, that's absolute proof vaccines are not safe. Give me a break. |
|
|
|
...
What about sea levels rising, that to me suggests that something is going on, don't you think?
I answered your questions with a re-explanation of the nature of scientific inquiry. Now what? Change the subject? What are you trying to get to exactly? What questions, I only asked one. I don't see why most scientists would lie about it, period. If you want to discuss what you said: However I did find this: http://advances.sciencemag.org/content/3/1/e1601207 |
|
|
|
Aside from crazy conspiracy theorists, real skeptics of this would be people who acknowledge there is some climate change happening but it's not because of us. A lot of people simply believe it's a natural process. I don't know too much about it but I definitely don't believe the government or whoever is faking it.
Let me get this straight. Humanity has been burning lots of fossil fuels for over two centuries now. It took nature millions of years to remove the CO2 from the atmosphere and sequester it in the form of fossil fuels. Now humanity is converting this form back to CO2 by burning it. Yet, if climate change is related to an increase in CO2 levels, it can't be tied to human action? OK whatever. I don't follow the logic. Even if the bulk of the CO2 is released by volcanoes, nature has been slowly sequestering this excess over millions of years. The contribution of humanity now taking this sequestered CO2 and releasing it back into the atmosphere cannot be helping the situation. This is compounded by the fact that the sun is putting out much more energy than it did eons ago. Therefore, we need less CO2 in the atmosphere to keep this planet habitable, not more. I'm sure it's not helping, obviously, but what's the real impact of it? Like are we contributing 0,001% to it or are we the 50%? As I said I don't really know much about it, I don't really have any reason to believe the government/science is lying about it, I love science. I don't see any motif behind it either, what would they gain from it? What do any monopolies get from any kind of regulation? The ability to stifle competition while they can cope with new regulations. Also I suggest you look into how much money is ALREADY being made in the carbon swap market. What would happen to that market with wider carbon regulation I wonder? I don't know man, the ''government profits from this'' argument just doesn't do it for me. Every single conspiracy theorists uses that, vaccines, flat earth, bombs, terrorists, etc etc. The government could be making money from a lot of different things, legalizing weed for instance, I'm sure they would make money with it, don't you think? Yet they don't do it. The government is people, they are not fucking Satan. They also make money with all the fines/tickets for driving, drinking, etc etc but are they not doing it for our benefit? Remind me where I used the word government anywhere in my statement. Who makes the regulations? Yeah.. Government / company / xxxx. It doesn't matter, my point is that it's not a good enough argument. A lot of different people/companies/governments can profit from a lot of different things at any given time. Saying they would or are profiting from it doesn't mean it's a hoax. The point was that I never made the argument "governments would profit", you did. I specifically cited financial sectors and large corporate entities who would greatly benefit from this legislation while smaller companies and individuals will be unable to cope. Now if you are denying corporations would manipulate government for profit then I have a special jar of magic piss to sell you, its delicious you'll love it. It's not an argument, that's what I'm saying. That's not proof that climate change is a hoax. Just because someone can benefit from it somewhere. Flat earthers also think governments benefit from hiding the truth from us, should I believe them as well? |
|
|
|
....I don't really have any reason to believe the government/science is lying about it, I love science. I don't see any motif behind it either, what would they gain from it?
Then you know that science is not science unless it can be independently verified and validated, and you know that data sets must be freely available, both the raw and the final sets, for that to be possible. About half of the temperature sensors now used are located at airports. See any problem with that? http://notrickszone.com/2017/02/13/more-data-manipulation-by-noaa-nasa-hadcrut-cooling-the-past-warming-the-present/Most scientists say that climate change is real, I really don't see why they would lie, not to say that we should just believe them but still. I don't know I don't really trust those conspiracy theory websites too much. Nobody needs to trust conspiracy blah blah blah, and nobody needs to trust things scientists or politicians say. Science is PROVABLE, or it is not science. There's almost no room for belief. The very essence of science is repeatability. The data problems with HADCRUT and the other indices of temperature are well known. I passed a temperature sensor today, maybe 50-75 feet away. Guess where that was? AT AN AIRPORT!!!! You know those don't read the same as sensors did in 1910 or 1935. Skepticism is well needed as far as "climate science." When people like you suppress skepticism with derisive statements associating it with conspiracy, vaccines, flat earth, bombs, terrorist etc etc etc you are negating the very nature of scientific inquiry. What about sea levels rising, that to me suggests that something is going on, don't you think? |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
