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.
The legal system's response to a man abandoning his pregnant girlfriend is complex. In some cases, it is legal to fully abandon a child and recuse yourself from parental rights. In other cases, even if you do not want the child and legally state as such, you can be required to pay child support. It really depends on what state you are in and what judges are on your case as well as how good of a lawyer the mother of your child can afford.Sounds like another case of a law that's only there if you're poor.
A man learns that his girlfriend is pregnant and immediately abandons her and his unborn child to "do what was best for himself". This is considered unacceptable.Is the current legislation in the USA making it impossible for a boyfriend to abandon his pregnant girlfriend, or is there indication that SCOTUS plans to rule along those lines?
And given that you've said elsewhere that kids who grow up to be gay or trans-gender should feel "unloved and ashamed"To be fair, he quite obviously misspoke there, which is why I chose not to bring it up in that conversation.
You are notoriously unwilling to answer a straight question with a straight answer.I refuse to entertain your shitty trolling - this is very deliberate and intentional on my part. If you didn't want that response, you could have chosen not to engage in it to begin with. You're an OK guy sometimes, but it doesn't give you a free pass on trying to turn every thread into "ga-hyuk, BiShOp CoNsTaNt". Sort your shit out and get back to a serious discussion, or go back to CN where this style of posting belongs.
As usual you're speaking in riddles.Darn yer riddles, ya saucy female! What d'ya mean?
You claim there's a hole in my logic, don't say what it is and then say I know what it is.I literally just finished explaining it to you.
If that is it then all I can do is repeat you are drawing a false equivalenceI am not drawing an equivalence at all.
Wait. Are you claiming that the atmosphere is one medium?It is as consistent as your school experiment you've done in the bronze age or whenever you were young.
You surely understand that the atmosphere is more complex than that, the density changes with altitude which causes refraction.All miniscule and insignificant. That's why your observation involved air and glass, rather than air and air.
Could you give an example?Considering that I've already given countless examples, this is just another case of you starting shit for the sake of starting shit. Get tae fuck.
I don't regard the atmosphere being complex as a weakness.If you aren't willing to address what's been said, please consider saying nothing. This degree of dishonesty just doesn't suit you.
I gave your your chance even though I said I wouldn't have. Behave or join your alts. Your choice.I asked nicely. Get Rule 8'd.
I have outlined an experiment above which I clearly remember doing at school which was used to demonstrate the way light refracts through a glass block. That result would not be a prediction of EA.It's also completely irrelevant here. Refraction as a wave (not necessarily light!) passes through different media does nothing to explain away the inconsistencies that you try to explain which occur within one medium. It's also noteworthy that this explanation contradicts reality on occasion.
Which surely shows that it is refraction and not EA, wouldn't the latter be constant and therefore yield consistent results?You're doing the thing again. You're pretending that EA exists in a vacuum and no other factors could possibly be present. Don't do the thing.
I simply made the observation he didn’t transform the metric tensor correctly.You don't know what that means.
Tensors are invariant with coordinate transformations.Assuming a Euclidean space, which this emphatically is not.
Oh cool. So what causes it? Where’s the finished equation with the value of the Bishop constant? What predictions does it make which have been verified experimentally?I will not entertain your trolling. We've had this discussion many times before, and you've heard the answers. You're trying to stir shit for the sake of stirring shit. Again. Get tae fuck.
That is expected on a globeExcept when the observation contradicts RE's prediction, in which case an ad-hoc mechanism is needed to drag it out of its grave, and even then it's not particularly reliable. Sorry, buddy, stating the same lie twice rarely makes the second time successful.
I’ll simply say the same thing I said the last time you said this. Refraction is a well understood phenomenon which at school you do experiments to demonstrate.The same experiments can be interpreted to prove EA, which is also well understood (despite your empty assertions to the contrary). Saying it again will only get you corrected again.
Compelling…Are you really incapable of having a discussion without bringing your fEeLiNgS into it? It undermines your position to the point of being laughable.
The Sinking Ship Effect might be a good argument for a RE if it was a consistent effect. However, it's not - https://wiki.tfes.org/Sinking_Ship_EffectDon't worry, they have an ad-hoc mechanism that explains this inconsistency. AATW likes ad-hoc mechanisms when they help him defend RET.
It means a small space, or area, like the inside of a rocket or an elevator.lol.
Ask me again in around 10 years when the reserve funds run out.OK, will do!
Americans can't retire on Social Security aloneDo you think annihiliating Social Security will improve that situation?
We don't need more people.Don't we? Who's gonna pay for your retirement? And, more importantly, who's gonna pay for mine?
One of the main problems with UA is that it would require a massive, unexplained energy source, whereas gravity doesn't.Irrelevant to the matter at hand, and likely incorrect (as discussed many times before, and as you are well aware). Allow me to remind you that this thread is not about whether or not you like UA - it's about gravity batteries.
I may be wrong, but my understanding is that everything, sun, moon, stars, satellites all exist within the dome.This is one of those things that FE'ers massively disagree about. Not ideal, I know, but it is what it is.
You have Celestial Gravitation which could explain this but it feels like an ad hoc explanation.How it "feels" has very little to do with whether it would meaningfully affect the operation of gravity batteries. You acknowledge this much yourself, and you do not need to air your feelings in every thread that ever mentions UA.
No, I’m talking about gravity. The force between the earth and objects near it’s surface.Yeah, that's gravity all right - something that's present in both RET and FET. It would be oh-so-helpful if you could stop these endless diversions.
The difference between flat earth gravity and round earth gravity, of course, is that flat earth gravity isn’t dependent on the mass of an object or its distance from the earth.Incorrect on both counts. Imagine how much easier this would be if you had any idea what you're talking about.
The operative phrase in the definition of the equivalence principle is “locally indistinguishable”.Indeed. An observer that is both in outer space and not affected by UA would hypothetically be able to observe a difference. Once you've identified such an observer, let me know.
In a large enough area the effects are distinguishableA "large enough area"? What on Earth are you talking about? The Equivalence Principle says nothing about areas.
which is why I don’t believe it applies here or would explain where the energy stored in a gravity battery comes from.Again - what are you talking about? The energy stored in a gravity battery comes from the force a body is subject to when released from a height.
Here’s why. <wasting everyone's time with an oversimplified explanation of RET>I will say this one last time - learn the basics of the subject you're arguing against prior to arguing against it. If you cannot do that, do not post in the upper fora.
Acceleration is a vector, It has direction and magnitude.It is also relative. Change the frame of reference, and the direction changes accordingly. The two are indistinguishable for you and I. If you dispute this, you immediately invalidate all of RET.