Active Now

Danilo_G
Element 99
Malizz
my2cents
Discussion » Statements » Rosie's Corner » When multiple examples of ROCK SOLID TRUE PROOF is shown those who obstinately try to refute it look really stupid. Because they really are?

When multiple examples of ROCK SOLID TRUE PROOF is shown those who obstinately try to refute it look really stupid. Because they really are?

Posted - March 6, 2019

Responses


  • 6098
    Does the fact that you have chosen to reject all the examples of "rock solid true proof" we have given you reflect at all on your intelligence? 
      March 6, 2019 7:27 AM MST
    1

  • 46117
    IF TRUMP WERE AN ALCOHOLIC (A BETTER EXCUSE THAN NOT BEING ONE ACTUALLY) HIS MORON BASE WOULD BE THE ADULT CHILDREN OF AN ALCOHOLIC.


    They are in denial and will defend him till the death.  

    HOPE IT'S SOON.
      March 6, 2019 9:07 AM MST
    2

  • 113301
    There is a key somewhere out there to explain the SPECIFIC why Sharon. I don't know if we will ever  be able to access it though. I believe there is a REASON for everything. I mean things don't just "happen" out of nothing from nowhere. Or do they? Thank you for your reply and Happy Thursday to thy! :)
      March 7, 2019 4:02 AM MST
    0

  • 44737
    In science, natural laws are constantly being tested. I still think Newton's Third Law of Motion is faulty. This post was edited by Element 99 at March 7, 2019 3:57 AM MST
      March 6, 2019 12:17 PM MST
    1

  • 113301
    I just looked it up E. "For every action there is an equal and opposite reaction". So where is it faulty and what do you think it SHOULD BE?  The action is specifically limited to physical things right? For example if someone insults me I can simply ignore him/her rather than insult back?  So in that case an action's reaction is not equal and opposite. Oh. Just a minute. Equal and OPPOSITE? Which would mean if someone insulted me I would COMPLIMENT him/her? That would be opposite. Insulting back would be the same. Is that the fly in the ointment? If so I can't help but agree with thee. Please clarify.  Mucho gracias!
      March 7, 2019 4:00 AM MST
    1

  • 44737
    The Third Law requires the creation of `virtual' forces on the premise that if force = mass X acceleration, then equal and opposite forces results in zero total force. Here is my favourite example. The Law says if I push against a rigid wall, the wall is pushing back in order to result in zero total force. The wall pushing back is a 'virtual' force, created to meet the requirements of the Third Law.
      March 7, 2019 8:11 AM MST
    0