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 - Tom Bishop

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 461  Next >
1
Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Bye Bye Abortion
« on: Today at 05:21:56 AM »
It does not matter if it occurred or not. The point is clearly that women can just get higher standards or opt for marriage.

If you don't actually have an argument against that I would suggest you refrain from ranting irrelevance and how bad you think your opponent is.

2
Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Bye Bye Abortion
« on: Today at 04:43:17 AM »
If you guys have nothing to post except a low content post, I would suggest not posting.

It doesn't get more low content than posting some random non-attributable tweet from one individual on the planet talking about a girls-night-out conversation. It literally means nothing and is completely irrelevant.

Wrong. It does not need to be attributable, or have even occurred, to convey the idea that women could just opt for higher standards and marriage.

An argument was expressed there, and it was not directly addressed.

3
Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Bye Bye Abortion
« on: Today at 04:33:34 AM »
If you guys have nothing to post except a low content post, I would suggest not posting.
I disagree. The 2nd part of my last post was pertinent to the discussion.  The link you posted contained content that was an obvious exaggerated reaction to the change in law.  Do I really have to explain this to you?

Remarks like "That might be a joke" is a fairly low content response. Was I supposed to respond that it might not be, where you again respond that it might be?

I will hold out until you have something legitimate to argue.

4
Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Bye Bye Abortion
« on: Today at 03:46:46 AM »
If you guys have nothing to post except a low content post, I would suggest not posting.

5
Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Buy Illegal Abortion
« on: Today at 03:00:18 AM »
Even died in the wool fanatics of misogyny and religious mansplainin' (Tom and Achtung80. talking to you guys here) will have to admit that if it is not available legally it will promote a criminal source

Alternatively:


6
Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Old Politicians
« on: August 05, 2022, 06:32:21 PM »
Whenever someone brags about the Digital Age and muh amazing computers the arguments end up sounding like "The US Constitution: Now on LaserDisc!"

7
Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Old Politicians
« on: August 05, 2022, 04:44:14 PM »
If thats the criteria then, well, none of the tech you listed is revolutionary either.

Automobile: we already used horses.  Cars were just us moving faster and longer. 
Radio: we already could send messages wirelessly via sound waves.  So this was just doing it with another wave.
Airplanes: we already had hot air balloons.  Putting a fan on the front to move isn't a big change.
Etc...

Correct. On their own those technologies weren't that big of a change. But if you combine radio, television, telephone, automobile, airplane, automated manufacturing, home appliances, it becomes a very significant change to human society in that era. We were comparing that era to the modern era. I specified that the era and time period represented a period of new useful technologies and impactful change to society, as compared to recent years in which it has been less so.

tom i hate to burst your bubble, but people born in the first half of the 20th century didn't actually invent books, libraries, and post offices. those things have been around for some time.

I did not claim that the early 20th century invented language and the written word. The invention of language and the written word was arguably even more important than the revolutions to society between the early to mid 1900's.

Humanity has been making less important revolutions and inventions as time goes on.

8
Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Old Politicians
« on: August 05, 2022, 03:13:51 PM »
Points 3 and 4 represent the creation of fundamentally new technologies. The Digital Age in on point 5 represents people doing the same things they were already doing, but on a computer.

For someone to say that a personal computer or even the internet was not revolutionary is insane.

We went from the Harvard Mark I in the 40's:



To this, way more powerful, in the oughts:



And that's not revolutionary?

Actually I did say it was revolutionary. I also said that it wasn't as important as the technologies that revolutionized society in the early to mid 1900's.

My main criticism was that the applications used are largely just digital replicas of things which already existed. People already had encyclopedias in their homes and had library passes. People already could compose documents, order things from catalogues, and send letters and notes to each other. Now you can do all of that on a computer with emojis. It provided a convenient platform, but people were still doing the same things they were doing before.

9
Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Old Politicians
« on: August 04, 2022, 12:40:12 PM »
Points 3 and 4 represent the creation of fundamentally new technologies. The Digital Age in on point 5 represents people doing the same things they were already doing, but on a computer.

10
Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Old Politicians
« on: August 04, 2022, 04:36:03 AM »
Also Radio: 1890
Telephone: 1876
Automobile: 1886

The years they revolutionized society were from 1900-1950's. Radio, television, telephone, automobile, airplane, automated manufacturing, home appliances, all came together to fundamentally revolutionize civilization in a very extraordinary way that far overshadows anything that came after. I can hardly say the same about the internet and video games.

11
Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Old Politicians
« on: August 04, 2022, 04:06:02 AM »
...The era of the early and mid 1900's is also marked by extraordinary revolution from the telephone, automobile, airplane, radio, radar, computer, manufacturing, and medicine, which have only been refined and improved on today without fundamental revolution.

The list of achievements from the recent generations are comparably poor with some achievements in certain areas, but have not provided a comparative revolution to society to dignify the generation on. These later generations have only managed to continue or arguably degrade the status quo.
The digital revolution is all since 1950.  The first transistor was in 1947 but the first chip was 1958, Moore coined what we now call, his famous 2nd law in 1965.  The cell phone in your pocket has far more computing power than a room of equipment even from the 70s.  The internet grew out from the ARPAnet in the 70s.  We have the manufacturing revolution from 3D printing.  Automated low cost genetic sequencing is revolutionizing medicine.  Crop yields that remained stable from 1880-1950 have risen consistently since thus letting us (mostly) feed the world.  Of course there is space flight and its resulting vast increase in knowledge of the universe and our own planet as well as numerous commercial applications in farming, communications, mapping, news gathering, etc (but Tom thinks those are all false of course).  Likely more important than anything is the focus on sustainability.   The practice of burning fossil fuels without regard for the consequences to our environment that was so eagerly embraced in the first half of the 1900s which set the precedent for the 2nd half, has lead our civilization to the very brink of destruction.  If we manage to step back from the edge, which is not yet clear, it will be the greatest accomplishment in history.

None of that later technology is as revolutionary as the technologies from the beginning to mid 1900's. Most of what you cite originate from the time period I cited or even earlier. The 1950's already had radio communication and cell phones were just the natural progression of that technology rather than something truly revolutionary. The 1950's had plastic molding. 1940 Germany even allegedly had rockets capable of getting to space. Sputnik happened in the 1950's. The 1950's had computers. The internet and personal computing are one of the few new things that are revolutionary to society, but the 1950's had the analog equivalent of digital libraries, photoshop, microsoft office, online shops, and bulletin boards.

Genetic engineering is still in progress. The Moon Landing was supposed to be a test case for colonies on other worlds, but never came. The best theory about gravity in science comes from 1905.

Nothing truly and fundamentally revolutionary to human civilization has really occurred over the last 70 years. America has only lost power since it became a super power following WWII. It reached its peak and it was downhill from there. Recent generations are comparative failures compared to the pre-WWII generations.

12
Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Old Politicians
« on: August 03, 2022, 07:12:34 PM »
It is because the pre-1950's generations are still considered by society to be the greatest generations. They are a hard-nosed, no-frills, people with traditional morals who tell it like it is. They won WWII and built the US into a super power and are considered to have established the gold standard in public policy. The era of the early and mid 1900's is also marked by extraordinary revolution from the telephone, automobile, airplane, radio, radar, computer, manufacturing, and medicine, which have only been refined and improved on today without fundamental revolution.

The list of achievements from the recent generations are comparably poor with some achievements in certain areas, but have not provided a comparative revolution to society to dignify the generation on. These later generations have only managed to continue or arguably degrade the status quo.

13
Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Coronavirus Vaccine and You
« on: August 01, 2022, 01:33:33 PM »
I didn't have any adverse side effects.

...

Simply put: there's no evidence to this women even works at a doctor's office, much less is sick.

There is also no evidence from you about your experience with the vaccine. Pro-vaxxers admit to acting dishonestly to push their agenda.


14
Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Coronavirus Vaccine and You
« on: August 01, 2022, 01:06:22 PM »
It's hard for most people to admit that they are wrong. It is commendable for this health care professional to admit it.


https://seed171.bitchute.com/08tAzwjwwhDb/lRmd6CiKKRMJ.mp4

15
Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Trump
« on: July 31, 2022, 11:11:51 PM »
Your twitter quote says - "It is illegal to use the Presidential Seal for commercial purposes."

Yeah, the copyrightlately.com lawyer debonked that.
It's not a copyright question.  However, the use of the Presidential Seal at a sporting event could reasonably suggest that the event is sponsored or endorsed by the government.  That's the part that's illegal.

Yet as a reasonable person you viewed the pictures from the event and knew that Trump was not the president and that the event was associated with a former president. Other reasonable persons would do the same. It is unlikely that anyone at the event thought they were attending the event of the current President.

The copyrightlately.com lawyer says that Trump can even call himself "President", as is customary for former presidents, in stationary with the seal on it, and get away with it:



The reasonable consumer knows that Trump is no longer president, therefore Trump can use the seal and call himself president. By this standard the reasonable consumer also knows that the golfing event was associated with a former, and not a current, president.

16
Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Trump
« on: July 31, 2022, 10:19:38 PM »
Your twitter quote says - "It is illegal to use the Presidential Seal for commercial purposes."

Yeah, the copyrightlately.com lawyer debonked that.

https://copyrightlately.com/trump-office-great-seal/



https://www.amazon.com/s?k=presidential+seal


17
Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Trump
« on: July 31, 2022, 08:35:59 PM »
Are you saying that it's perfectly legal for Trump to continue using the presidential seal at his golf course even when federal law says that it isn't?

This lawyer says it is legal - https://copyrightlately.com/trump-office-great-seal/

18
Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Coronavirus Vaccine and You
« on: July 31, 2022, 07:15:43 PM »
Solid research. Looks like a lot of different things/activities may cause harm to humans. Thanks for pointing that out.

Yep, it's a mystery.


19
Flat Earth Investigations / Re: Theory that Black Holes are Land Mass
« on: July 31, 2022, 01:03:39 AM »
If universal gravitation cannot be simulated then it doesn't work.

I was simply going to lurk here, but this is such utter bullshit I can't help it.

Can we simulate and model the whirlpools of the deception pass bridge?



Of course we can't because we don't have the math to do it.  Do they exist in reality?  I've seen them myself.  Perhaps you should too, they're pretty amazing at times.

Well yes, if you can't model it with the supposed physics that govern it then you can't claim to know the underlying physics. People in this thread and on this forum are claiming that they do know the underlying physics and that their RE model works. They are wrong.

Also, unlike seeing a whirlpool as a whole, we have never seen the entire solar system outside of space agencies.

Quote from: ohplease
Quote from: Tom Bishop
The fact that the greatest mathematicians of human history haven't been able to get gravity to work is a pretty good reason to believe that it doesn't work. If it can't be modeled then that is a reason to believe that the fundamental assumptions are false.

The fact that not merely the greatest physicists over the last 100 years but the entire physics community over the last 100 years disagrees with your conclusion is reason to believe you have no idea what you are talking about.  How fragile your world view must be to have to constantly fall back on this tired mantra.

Incorrect. Many of the greatest mathematicians did try their hand at the three body problem, with unsatisfactory results. Regardless of your personal ignorance on the matter, the Three Body Problem is a known problem. See the quotes here: https://wiki.tfes.org/Three_Body_Problem#Quotes

Quote from: AllAroundTheWorld
Well, firstly, what can be simulated in FE? What predictive power do any of your models or theories have?
By that criteria your model doesn't work at all.

Secondly, that's nonsense. A model doesn't have to be perfect to be useful. It's very common in science or engineering to simplify a problem from one which can't be solved to one that can. If the latter is good enough to have predictive power then it's useful. Our models of the solar system have got us to the moon, they've got craft to Mars, they can predict eclipse paths to the block level.

Loads of things can't be simulated accurately, put milk in your coffee and mix it - that's a chaotic system right there which can't be perfectly simulated. Does that mean your coffee doesn't now have milk in?

I pointed out that planets and asteroids would not use gravitationally selective two body problems or mathematical cheats when traversing the solar system. You don't have a working model that can exist without these cheats.

You guys are now agreeing with this and are stamping your feet like children claiming that the models are useful in other ways, and make additional claims about how space agencies use the models. None of this proves that the bodies are using selective gravity and is contradictory to the concept of universal gravitation. Simply, you don't have a coherent model. Gravity does not explain the astronomical systems you claim to exist.

20
Flat Earth Investigations / Re: Theory that Black Holes are Land Mass
« on: July 29, 2022, 07:03:38 PM »
Quote from: AllAroundTheWorld
And you will again - or someone will, there's always someone willing to feed the troll it seems.
What Tom repeatedly fails to understand, or pretends to, is that breaking a problem which we currently can't solve down into smaller problems which we can is a perfectly valid technique.

The problem is that planets, moons, and asteroids traversing the solar system in the real scenario would not use gravitationally selective two body problems or mathematical fudges. If universal gravitation cannot be simulated then it doesn't work.

Quote from: stack
I've read all that. I'm just trying to figure out the significance as it pertains to FE. Is this some sort of argument for UA?

As well, using the numerical solutions seem to get a fairly high level of accuracy. Perhaps not perfect, but very good. And utilized with alot of success. So why is so important to FE that we don't quite yet have an analytical solution?

You can use unrelated gravitational physics, limited gravitational interaction, and mathematical fudges to come to any result you want. None of it shows that universal gravitation actually works to simulate astronomical systems. That it needs to be done this way does more to discredit it than support it.

It should be possible for a star to have a planet which has a moon, for the paths of asteroids to be explainable, and for solar systems and galaxies to exist. Yet the difficulty simulating this undermines accepted theories of astronomy.

Quote from: ohplease
The fact that we must use numerical methods to plot the path of multiple masses through space does not invalidate any of that.  That those methods produce very accurate predictions of the paths of celestial bodies and allows us fly around the solar system with great precision only adds further validation.  You either know that or simply refuse to educate yourself about such things.

It is apparent that you guys have abandoned claiming that you have a working model of gravity and are now appealing to space ships "flying around the solar system" to prove disjointed gravitationally selective models.

Your model simply doesn't work and the excuses are poor.

Quote from: DuncanDoenitz
Its complex = Humans haven't found a way to calculate it yet = It doesn't exist.

The fact that the greatest mathematicians of human history haven't been able to get gravity to work is a pretty good reason to believe that it doesn't work. If it can't be modeled then that is a reason to believe that the fundamental assumptions are false.

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 461  Next >