|
The last time Tether crashed, it pushed Bitcoin's price up a lot, so no, it will not bring bitcoin down, perhaps it will push Bitcoin up like the last time.
|
|
|
|
^^^ your first link is garbage:
"We've picked up some unusual traffic from your network and have temporarily blocked access from your IP address."
The Michaelson interferometer was 10x more sensative than it needed to be to detect if the earth was rotating. So unless you've got any specific arguments from that site you're just spamming garbage links that are making false claims.
As for the wiki link it's also trash because it fails to address the fact the Dufour & Prunier replication took rotating frames of reference into account and falsified special relativity.
And you know this how? Did you do the experiments yourself? How do you know Dufour and prunier replication was accurate? Are you a physicist? |
|
|
|
Thank you for providing even more evidence you don't have two brain cells to rub together to form a cogent reply. I can't blame you though, you would probably stop breathing if you stopped to think that long.
Dude you're advocating the right for someone to MUTILATE someone else if they dare pushing you. What do you want? You're even worse than Islamist fundamentalist. Even Sharia law doesn't allow that. I am not advocating for anything. I am stating the FACT that in The United States of America, if some one physically assaults you, you have the CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT to use force against them to stop the assault. He was assaulted, he attempted to flea, he was chased. What do you want him to do just stand there and let these people beat him? Would they stop at just beating on him or would they go further? He had no way of knowing. You don't get to assault people then cry when they defend themselves, sorry. It's against the law to have a sword like that with you though. |
|
|
|
|
It's quite amazing, science as usual keeps doing its thing, it's hard to imagine why someone would be religious in 2019 considering all the advances science has achieved.
|
|
|
|
Blasted headlines don't make something true. You can blast headlines about false things, and you can misinterpret the things that the headlines are blasting. Your post is meaningless.  So, of course again, you wont admit you failed. You said ''Because none of them have ever come up with any difinitive proof. How do we know? Because they would have blasted the proof as proof all over the headlines'' I showed you the headlines, now you are changing your argument, you are like a kid, NO I DIDN'T SAY THAT, headlines are meaningless, then why did you use it as an argument before? Are you so naive as to think that something like headlines is what makes a thing factual? If this kind of thinking pervades your whole life, how in the world do you even exist? Sometimes I really do think you have some sort of memory problem, you are the one who used the argument, remember? I'm simply destroying you as usual, look, I made it big so you can see it. |
|
|
|
I don't know what that means, you asked for examples and I provided them, as usual you are ignoring the evidence because you are incapable of accepting it, you can't live without your imaginary god and that's fine but don't tell us you use science, you don't. |
|
|
|
 Watch notbatman losing his mind over the first picture of a black hole. ''An international scientific team on Wednesday announced a milestone in astrophysics – the first-ever photo of a black hole – using a global network of telescopes to gain insight into celestial objects with gravitational fields so strong no matter or light can escape. The team’s observations of the black hole at the center of Messier 87, a massive galaxy in the nearby Virgo galaxy cluster, lend strong support to the theory of general relativity put forward in 1915 by physicist Albert Einstein to explain the laws of gravity and their relation to other natural forces.'' https://globalnews.ca/news/5149768/black-hole-photo/ |
|
|
|
'' If you don't think gravity is a not law, show us why.'' No, I know why gravity is a law but you said that laws are always true and that's why evolution is not true, because it doesn't have a law. Now you are saying the law of gravity might not be true, then why did you say evolution is not true because it doesn't have a law when you admit laws can be wrong too? Don't you see the flawed logic here?
True changes when the parameters of true change. Gravity law true parameters haven't changed. Evolution law true parameters never existed. Gravity theory doesn't necessarily have anything to do with the actions of gravity law. Evolution theory is trying to find some real evolution. Let me repeat what you said, for you. You said that evolution is not known to be true/factual because it doesn't have a law, gravity on the other hand, you said, it has a law and therefore it's true/factual. My point here was that you yourself admitted that laws aren't 100% factual so why would you base your conclusion that gravity is a fact on its law when you don't know if that law is factual? Simply your argument is wrong. You can't say evolution is not real because it doesn't have a law, nowhere in science does it say that scientific theories need laws, not to mention that evolution theory does actually use laws to explain evolution, also facts and other observations. Let me repeat something that I haven't had to for a long time. The gist of what we are talking about doesn't have anything to do with the perfect wording of what we are talking about. If we have to state all the meanings of each little section of wording all the time, our posts would be miles deep. There is nothing wrong with what I said. There is wrongness in the ways you twist what I say into things that we are not talking about. Evolution is not known to be factual because it has never been found that we know of. Gravity is factual because we use it everyday all the time. Atheists hate religion because they can't get away from the fact that people are religious beings. People are slaves to religion, and nobody likes being a slave... except for the slave who is treated well. ''Evolution is not known to be factual because it has never been found that we know of'' There are hundreds of examples of evolution though. https://examples.yourdictionary.com/examples-of-evolution.htmlEvolution is used everyday by every animal on earth. |
|
|
|
Who cares, is there really any harm in it? I'm sure some people do have like a serious addiction to it, just like people have addictions to eating sand or rocks but it's probably extremely rare. Also what's wrong with incest porn? It's a fantasy, just like other fantasies in porn. Are you one of those guys who think videogames make kids more violent? Do you think people are more violent now than 100 years ago when they used to literally hang people in front of everyone?
Made your point , Now that made me curious are we more violent than the people in the past? And beside's it is true it is only fantasy it is not like we would really do it. And videogames doesn't make kids more violent some of us get some friends and attention in the games more than in real life . There are people who are suffering in depression that is only having real fun in the internet with games or watching movies or porn 😎. No we aren't, as a whole society we are 100 times more civilized, 1000 years ago, hell, even 200 years ago people were being killed in front of everyone for crimes, tortured sometimes, everyone was far more racist, homophobic, sexist, etc. We are way better now than before and every year we are better no matter how many violent games are there, in fact, kids play more videogames now than ever and yet I don't see any epidemic of kids killing people. |
|
|
|
 The Earth is a stationary plain and the Sun is a small, optically projected object off of a mirrored dome that moves in an circular path above us. It's about 32 miles wide with an altitude of about 3,000 miles according to direct measurement with a sextant. As the Sun does its 24 hour daily cycle, throughout the year it moves closer to the central point at the north pole, then back again. This yearly cycle back and forth creates the various seasons and the changing length of day and night. 
"... Bible scholars and notable believers also accept evolution ..."
No, no they don't the Bible says man was created. If you're contradicting the Bible then you are by definition an inept biblical scholar and not a believer. Dinosaurs are a hoax, fossils form rapidly like concrete and giants once roamed a young Earth.  ''No, no they don't the Bible says man was created'' Evolution can be integrated with the bible to some degree since evolution only talks about how species evolve, not how they were created, even if man was created by god, animals too, they would still be able to evolve. The pope for instance says evolution is real. |
|
|
|
|
The previous weeks were basically sideways trading like before the last crash where we also had 9 weeks of sideways trading and then a big dump followed by a lot of bearish action, this certainly looks like the same but inversed, it's also the first time we actually broke the lower high in the weekly chart so it is looking quite good.
|
|
|
|
If you are the real satoshi, would you think you still need to prove people that you really are satoshi. You will not even waste your time claiming your own name if that is the case. Everyone would like to claim that name since bitcoin is really successful.
Specially after all this time? Suddenly satoshi comes out and does all this stupid shit Craig is doing? Even if he could sign and prove he has access to the first address I would still not believe him just by the way he acts and what he does. He is disrupting the whole ecosystem and you can tell when talks about technical stuff, he is not a genius. |
|
|
|
|
Who cares, is there really any harm in it? I'm sure some people do have like a serious addiction to it, just like people have addictions to eating sand or rocks but it's probably extremely rare. Also what's wrong with incest porn? It's a fantasy, just like other fantasies in porn. Are you one of those guys who think videogames make kids more violent? Do you think people are more violent now than 100 years ago when they used to literally hang people in front of everyone?
|
|
|
|
Blasted headlines don't make something true. You can blast headlines about false things, and you can misinterpret the things that the headlines are blasting. Your post is meaningless. So, of course again, you wont admit you failed. You said ''Because none of them have ever come up with any difinitive proof. How do we know? Because they would have blasted the proof as proof all over the headlines'' I showed you the headlines, now you are changing your argument, you are like a kid, NO I DIDN'T SAY THAT, headlines are meaningless, then why did you use it as an argument before? |
|
|
|
'' If you don't think gravity is a not law, show us why.'' No, I know why gravity is a law but you said that laws are always true and that's why evolution is not true, because it doesn't have a law. Now you are saying the law of gravity might not be true, then why did you say evolution is not true because it doesn't have a law when you admit laws can be wrong too? Don't you see the flawed logic here?
True changes when the parameters of true change. Gravity law true parameters haven't changed. Evolution law true parameters never existed. Gravity theory doesn't necessarily have anything to do with the actions of gravity law. Evolution theory is trying to find some real evolution. Let me repeat what you said, for you. You said that evolution is not known to be true/factual because it doesn't have a law, gravity on the other hand, you said, it has a law and therefore it's true/factual. My point here was that you yourself admitted that laws aren't 100% factual so why would you base your conclusion that gravity is a fact on its law when you don't know if that law is factual? Simply your argument is wrong. You can't say evolution is not real because it doesn't have a law, nowhere in science does it say that scientific theories need laws, not to mention that evolution theory does actually use laws to explain evolution, also facts and other observations. |
|
|
|
... in notbatman's quoted post, above - where it talks about the four corners of the earth. So we see that the wording of this paragraph - verses 7 thru 10 - is very figurative, as is the whole chapter. It doesn't have anything to do with describing the shape of the earth. Rather, it is used to denote peoples from all around the earth. But not the shape of the earth.
...
@BADecker, Your argument is changing the definition of earth from dry land to one that encompasses the entire surface including the sea. You then claim the statement is figurative based on your modified definition. You've changed the meaning of what the author was trying to convey to one which supports the Satanic globalist agenda. You're literally acting out the role of "... the devil who had deceived them ..." - rev 20:10. https://i.imgur.com/GKI7HoO.jpghttps://i.imgur.com/Wop1QL4.jpghttps://i.imgur.com/iwtFNkB.jpgThe Bible (rev 20:9) says the Earth is flat. Except for the fact that Bible scholars generally interpret the meanings of the whole area in the Bible that you are talking about, to be figurative... having nothing to do with the shape of the earth, but having to do with the war between good and evil, Jesus and his people vs Satan and his hordes. This being the case, it is you who are acting out the role of the deceiver, Satan. If you think that it is all the Bible scholars who are lying, are you that much better than they? The appearance that you are providing of yourself is that you have greater research capabilities than most average people. Probably you have a team of people. This shows that you are doing a form of psyops in this thread, even if it isn't a formal, government agency psyops. The fact that you are trying to draw people away from the reason the Bible was written - salvation of souls - towards using the Bible for scientific purposes, shows that you are working for the deceiver. Bible scholars and notable believers also accept evolution, many of them do at least and yet you keep trolling and saying it's 100% a hoax, clearly you don't care about bible scholars. The bible has a lot of references about a flat earth, it's a fact, you can't escape from it. |
|
|
|
Looks like the vaccination people have it backwards. Rather than lowering instances of measles, vaccines greatly, GREATLY, increase measles outbreaks. Yet unvaccinated people are being blamed by government and Big Pharma.
Statistics Show The MMR Vaccine Kills More People Than The Measles DoesThis type of action completely contradicts facts about measles as well as the measles vaccine, more specifically the MMR vaccine.
What we are seeing from the media, which Robert F. Kennedy Jr. explained is completely compromised by Big Pharma and oil , is a massive fear campaign, blaming recent outbreaks of measles on unvaccinated children in order to further drive mandatory vaccination policies. But there is one problem: Measles outbreaks have been occurring in highly vaccinated populations since the inception of the vaccine. Not only have multiple studies shown vaccinated people getting the measles, but vaccinated individuals themselves can shed their virus and spread it to others as well.
For example, during the measles outbreak in California in 2015, a large number of suspected cases occurred in recent vaccinees. Of the 194 measles virus sequences obtained in the United States in 2015, 73 were identified as vaccine sequences. The media (Pharma-owned) generated high public anxiety. This fear mongering led to the demonization of unvaccinated children, who were perceived as the spreaders of this disease. Rebecca J. McNall, a co-author of the published report, is a CDC official in the Division of Viral Diseases who had the data proving that the measles outbreak was in part caused by the vaccine. It is evidence of the vaccine's failure to provide immunity.
...
A study published in the highly authoritative Bulletin of the World Health Organization looked at recent measles occurrences throughout China and found that there were 707 measles outbreaks in the country recorded between 2009 and 2012, with a steep upward trend in 2013. “The number of measles cases reported in the first 10 months of 2013 – 26,443 – was three times the number reported in the whole of 2012.” This is odd considering that since 2009 “…the first dose of measles-virus-containing vaccine has reached more than 90% of the target population.” Do you have any other source besides that website? Those studies also mean that if they had no vaccines at all, the cases of Measles would be way higher, do you not understand that? In fact, literally in the second source of your article, the conclusion says: ''Measles vaccine effectiveness was calculated to be 94% (95% CI = 86, 98) for vaccination at greater than or equal to 15 months.'' Does that mean, vaccines do not work in your head? |
|
|
|
^^^ Are you asking me if scientists are paid to do what they're told?  Are you telling me that all scientists are paid to do what they are told? You know they are normal people like you and me right? They just studied science. |
|
|
|
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1054513.msg50483476#msg50483476^^^ And for your peanut brain, all I have been saying all along is that a science theory is something that is not known to be true. That's why it is a theory and not a law. A science theory might absolutely be right, true, real, the-fact-of-the-matter, etc. The reason it is a theory is that nobody KNOWS that it is "right, true, real, the-fact-of-the-matter, etc." There is reason to think that it might not be "right, true, real, the-fact-of-the-matter, etc." A law is simply something that is so extremely substantiated that it is right, true, real, the-fact-of-the-matter, etc. This doesn't necessarily mean that a law can never be refuted by bringing to light some fundamental way in which the whole understanding about the law is wrong. Why don't you read what I have been saying rather than attempting to put words into my mouth? Oh that's right! Your main reason for being here is to maintain that which is the standard, even if it is actually wrong. So, I thank you. Buy twisting things around you show that you don't have a straight-forward answer for them. This indicates that you and standard science don't know much of anything. Now thank me for acknowledging that you are important enough that you can stand for standard science. All you are showing is that your understanding of science is a religion. So, it's easy to understand why you would hate religion. You can't get away from it, and yours is kinda false. ''that a science theory is something that is not known to be true. That's why it is a theory and not a law.'' And again, that's simply wrong, where are you getting your definitions from? Read the definition of scientific theory vs law, nowhere it mentions that a law is true and a scientific theory is not, NOWHERE. ''A law is simply something that is so extremely substantiated that it is right, true, real'' No it's not, again you are simply making up definitions here.
The definition is: ''The laws of science, also called scientific laws or scientific principles, are statements that describe or predict a range of natural phenomena.''
Scientific theory: ''A scientific theory is an explanation of an aspect of the natural world that can be repeatedly tested and verified in accordance with the scientific method, using accepted protocols of observation, measurement, and evaluation of results.''The word "theory" shows that a science theory might not be true. The term "science theory" self-defines. The only KNOWN facts about a science theory are: 1. Some or all of the parts of the ST may be known to be factual, individually, or when combined in ways other than the way stated in the particular ST; 2. The ST is know to factually be a ST; 3. The "object" that the ST is trying to "prove" is known to not be known to be factual in every circumstance. Your definition of a ST, above, doesn't get into it deep enough to express it nearly completely. Read my explanation, again to see that we are not disagreeing about a ST. You simply are not describing it entirely. As for a science law, all it is, is an observation that is so prevalent in the way that it appears to act or exist, that it is deemed to be absolutely certain the way it is described. This doesn't mean that all the observations are absolutely correct observations. Millions of people can make the same mistake in their observance of a SL. So, we are both right if we say that a SL might be wrong. But a ST is absolutely known to not be known to be factual, even though it appears to act factually correct in many cases. The key words in the definitions are the words "law" and "theory." When someone thinks that something that is not known to be factual is factual, he is starting a religion for himself. This means that all people are religious beings, because none of us know the fact about everything. That's why atheists hate religion if they do... because they don't KNOW that God doesn't exist. This makes their atheism a religion. They hate not knowing. ''So, we are both right if we say that a SL might be wrong.'' ''Haven't you seen the term "law of gravity?" But you haven't seen the term "law of evolution," right? What does this show us? It shows that gravity is known to be real'' But you said that laws are always true, in fact you used that as an argument to ''prove'' why gravity is real and why evolution is not, simply because there is a law of gravity you implied that, that's what makes it true but now you are saying that a law might be wrong so how do you know gravity is true then? Gravity is a law because of the overwhelming experience of it by people. It definitely exists. But if we find that we are all part of a simulation where nothing that seems to be real exists, then the law of gravity might not exist. If you don't think gravity is a not law, show us why. The point about ST is that STs can change. So they aren't known to be true simply from their definition. '' If you don't think gravity is a not law, show us why.'' No, I know why gravity is a law but you said that laws are always true and that's why evolution is not true, because it doesn't have a law. Now you are saying the law of gravity might not be true, then why did you say evolution is not true because it doesn't have a law when you admit laws can be wrong too? Don't you see the flawed logic here? |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
