Show Posts

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.

Messages - AllAroundTheWorld

Pages: < Back  1 2 [3] 4 5 ... 156  Next >
Science & Alternative Science / Re: FE and ICBMs
« on: May 25, 2021, 11:48:32 AM »
All more unfound claims from RE here.

All you need for any missile to be fired to any target is the right amount of fuel and a simple quadratic equation which works perfectly fine on any x/y coordinate surface.

In other words, FLAT.

End of story.
ICMBs could certainly work on a flat earth but you'd need to know the distance between places, which you don't.
And the trajectory would be significantly different. So all the people who do the calculations and write the software which make it all work are presumably in on it or lying or being fooled or something?

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Trump
« on: May 25, 2021, 11:21:16 AM »
I wonder what Biden policies Tom could point to to pin the price increases on Biden?
I had a look at the coal thing. It was $40 in 2016 and grew to $80 by 2019.
It did then fall quite rapidly to $35 by early 2020 but then rose to $70 by late 2020.
Trump was President through all of that.
So sure, it's gone up a bit more since Biden took over but there were big fluctuations during Trump's presidency.
Taking the very brief low point and comparing it with the current price is very dishonest.
I'd expect nothing less of course...

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Trump
« on: May 25, 2021, 09:58:19 AM »

Holy shit have you looked at that site?
You have previously railed against sites which don't say you want as "leftist", that site is clearly nothing but right wing propaganda and lies.
If you look back it was peddling a lot of the lies which have long since shown to be false.
It's embarrassing how long you're clinging to this nonsense, now months after Biden became president.

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Trump
« on: May 25, 2021, 09:05:27 AM »
Actually, the timeline I gave on the fraud route was that fraud might take years to litigate:
So your counter-argument to my assertion that between November-January you were jumping from one false hope to another about various allegations of fraud is a post from February?
Nice work.

You have alleged that more people voted than registered - that's an easy one to prove, just look at the data. Why hasn't that evidence been shown in court?
There were allegations that dead people voted - that should be easy to check too.
You posted various statistical analysis which you claimed indicated fraud - why wasn't that looked into more?

You know the answer of course - the first two of those things were lies and easily proven so.
The last didn't stand up to the slightest bit of scrutiny. Some of your allegations should have been easy to prove quickly. It's obvious why that didn't happen - none of them were true.

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Trump
« on: May 25, 2021, 07:26:56 AM »
So it is foolhardy to believe that being in power means anything in particular, or that it should have been done between November and January. Unless you have some kind of legal precedent on the record for this kind of thing, I don't see how this can be known.
So why did you spend the whole of the time between November and January posting lie after lie about how the election was going to be flipped any day now and the Supreme Court was going to install Trump? Even in the week before the inauguration you were still desperately clinging to the hope that some coup would happen.

Between November and January you were posting false link after false link claiming there was lots of evidence of fraud and how worried the Dems should be.
Now Biden has been President for 4 months it's "Well, of course this is all going to take some time".

I would like to think that at some point you'll admit you were wrong but we all know you never will. You'll just keep reframing this over and over to keep trying to convince yourself you were right all along.

Arts & Entertainment / Re: Eurovision 2021
« on: May 24, 2021, 02:04:52 PM »

The Eurovision is the antithesis of all that is good in music, our heyday in this parade of anodyne slop was Cliff fucking Richard FFS.
Who, contrary to popular belief, didn’t win.

Dave, you've got to play the long game...

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Trump
« on: May 19, 2021, 10:49:44 AM »
Evidence for fraud has, and is, being presented. It's your position that it's all fake.
Isn't that your stance about all the evidence for a globe earth? :)
As I have repeatedly explained to you - not all evidence is created equal. Sure, you can scour the internet for biased sources which you think back up your stance. But none of the evidence you present stands up to the slightest bit of scrutiny. Another thing the book I mentioned deals with is Confirmation Bias where people tend to read and agree with things which back up a position they already hold. That's another thing you should look into. The credibility you give to evidence is proportional to whether it backs up what you want to believe. I don't know if you are being dishonest with yourself or us or just trolling but multiple people have picked you up on this.

Maybe you should show an example on how fast things like this should take rather than making baseless assumptions.

The example is in the 3rd post of yours I quoted:
"WH Press Secretary has been claiming that they have been collecting lots of evidence of fraud."
In the same post you posted a Tweet:
"We have 234 pages of sworn affidavits under penalty of perjury alleging election regulations from just ONE country in Michigan"

This is nothing to do with what I think "should have happened in November", this is about what you claimed WAS happening in November. That's less than 2 weeks after the election and you're already claiming there's a huge amount of evidence of fraud.

We already looked at the details of those court cases and they were not about fraud. Did you forget that?

How strange that the cases wouldn't be about fraud when there's all that super-reliable evidence.
But no, I didn't forget your lies about that. In those discussions you were shown court documents from cases alleging fraud. You were shown video of judges talking about the poor standard of evidence.
Then there was the Kraken. That was alleging fraud, wasn't it? Recently NewsMax had to make some embarrassing apologies admitting they found no merit in the claims which people they gave a platform to made

So...yeah. You spent all the time between the election and the inauguration saying that things were going to flip the election any day now, it's all going great.
Now that demonstrably hasn't happened you've simply moved the goalposts to "it takes ages to sort these things out".
I guess that means you can keep posting these lies indefinitely.
Tom's gotta Tom, I guess.

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Trump
« on: May 19, 2021, 08:50:22 AM »
Considering the inherent slowness of the justice system and the process the fraud investigation is all coming together pretty smoothly, as far as I'm concerned.
Yes, but as far as you were concerned there was evidence of fraud immediately after the election.
Remember all the little videos and articles you posted in the aftermath of the election from right wing sources like NewsMax or Sky News Australia. Like:

Remember you getting all excited about the Supreme Court and how they would sort it out for you? Bless.
In that last one you say that the "WH Press Secretary has been claiming that they have been collecting lots of evidence of fraud."
That was on the 13th, about a week and a half after the election. So back then you were claiming there was lots of evidence and it was immediately apparent. Remember the "it's coming in through a firehose" nonsense?
Now because all that fell flat you're reframing it as "well, of course all this takes time". The word "claim" is key there. Sure, they were "claiming" there was lots of evidence. But they had literally dozens of chances in court and had nothing which stood up to any scrutiny.

I read a good book which you might want to look at, Black Box Thinking by Matthew Syed. It talks a lot about why people make mistakes and it deals with Cognitive Dissonance in some detail. There's a story in there about some cult who claimed that there were aliens hiding behind the moon and on some date they were going to swoop down and destroy the earth - sparing the "believers". People had given up careers and houses to join the cult so they were very invested. The date came and went and to the surprise of pretty much no-one the earth survived and nothing happened. So what was the reaction of the cult members? The rational thing would be to abandon their beliefs, clearly they'd got it wrong. But instead some of the members just doubled down and became further entrenched in their beliefs - clearly it was their faith that had spared them and the earth.

I mention all that because this is what you're doing here. In the immediate aftermath of the election you were confident that there was so much evidence of fraud. The election would be flipped any day now. As the inauguration day loomed you leapt desperately from conspiracy theory to conspiracy theory. Even in the days leading up to the inauguration you thought that things could change on the day.
Now here we are. It's May. Biden is the president. The rational thing to do would be to admit you were wrong. But, like the cult members, you double down and reframe things - now it's just the process takes a long time, you were right all along. Unless you're just trolling of course, I'm never sure with you.

But the fact remains that Biden is the President. So...yeah, I'm not really sure what more there is to discuss on this.

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Trump
« on: May 18, 2021, 10:40:22 PM »
The people who were involved in the fraud
The fraud which no credible evidence has been found for? And as has been pointed out, this is Republicans calling bullshit on this. So now it’s Trump’s party who committed fraud to stop themselves being in power? That’s quite the plot twist.

Flat Earth Investigations / Re: Proof positive the earth is flat
« on: May 16, 2021, 09:24:22 AM »
I took up to mean...well, upwards with respect to the horizon. The footage posted in this thread shows them going in all directions. I don’t think there’s any which show them going upwards perpendicular to the horizon. Pretty sure that would be possible to observe on a globe, but you’d have to be perfectly aligned with the direction of the object which makes it unlikely.

I’m not clear why the video in the OP claims this is an issue.

Flat Earth Investigations / Re: Proof positive the earth is flat
« on: May 16, 2021, 07:57:19 AM »
Literally the first video I found has some footage which shows them going in all directions, some upwards.


Flat Earth Investigations / Re: Cavendish experiment
« on: May 12, 2021, 05:05:13 PM »
Now someone else's turn!
Go on then. I don't think this has any quotes from him, but it's an interesting article about the multiple ways they have of measuring gravity:

For such a weak force it's impressive how accurate they can get the value of G and multiple methods of measuring it show that it can't be coincidence. It will be interesting to see if some of the newer experiments which claim a smaller error margin can do better still.

I have similar doubts as to the true nature of the moon, including its eerie glow.  It does not reflect light the way a spherical reflector does/should, and may well be an ionization effect or some sort of reflection.

How should it reflect light, and how do you assert that would differ from what we all see at present?
I wonder if he's going to go down the "hot spot" route, but that of course is a feature of a smooth spherical object which the moon isn't.

Flat Earth Investigations / Re: Cavendish experiment
« on: May 12, 2021, 11:32:12 AM »
Look, we're well past trying to persuade you of anything. Most of us here don't even think you actually believe the stuff you're writing. We're just calling you out in the hope that other people reading this don't get sucked into the con.
Correct. I think we should all stop feeding the troll.
It's clear what the article is about if you look at the context, no matter how many times certain people try to quote small parts selectively or twist things to try and make them mean something they clearly don't mean.

Flat Earth Investigations / Re: Cavendish experiment
« on: May 12, 2021, 11:18:50 AM »
If you want to look at context and believe in keeping the story straight then you can start by accepting that Quinn believes in gravity, and that gravity exists

If you want context, Terence Quinn is a British physicist who spent many years studying gravity and was emeritus director of the International Bureau of Weights and Measures. If he says it, it's golden.

Cool. So you accept his authority that gravity exists then? Good, we're making progress.

Flat Earth Investigations / Re: Cavendish experiment
« on: May 12, 2021, 09:32:56 AM »
“It’s not a thing one likes to leave unresolved, we should be able to measure gravity.”

"We should be able to measure gravity." and "We can measure gravity." are not contradictory statements. Have you tried to read the rest of the article to understand the context here?
Tom isn't interested in context. He routinely does this. Picks out a snippet of a quote from someone and deliberately leaves out the context or quotes elsewhere in the same article which make the views of the person he is quoting clear.
Another good example of this is on the Equivalence Principle Wiki page where he quotes part of "Gravity: A Very Short Introduction" which he thinks backs up his point but ignores quotes elsewhere in the book which clearly talks about the earth as a globe and a planet orbiting the sun. He not only cherry picks quotes, he extends that to cherry picking what he will accept people as "experts" on. You see him in this thread citing experts, but those experts clearly believe that gravity exists and that the earth is a globe. Strangely, he doesn't accept their views about that.

The only question is whether this is delusion, dishonestly or downright trolling. But the article is clear that gravity is a thing and can be measured to a level of precision plenty good enough for all practical purposes.

Cooling by light or sound is not as unusual as it intuitively seems.
Can you expand on this?
I did find this which suggested that they have found a way to cool objects with laser light:

But it's highly technical, I don't see how that would work in natural circumstances.
In general light has energy which can only heat things.

Pages: < Back  1 2 [3] 4 5 ... 156  Next >