@drbrownbears@SamCKx@RobKenyonReform@antmiddleton Unlawful wounding (of a male police officer, PC Christopher Brooksbank) and common assault (of a female police officer, PC Katherine Alison).
Two people.
@socialistfella@Wills_42@guywalters@beeboo2412 You can lead a horse to water. There are enough people out there calling out the nonsense. Blame however, is the easy way to say “it’s not my fault I’m down on my luck… its coz of Mohammed”
@__vAv_@Michael98940721 So if you’re on a train are you moving at the trains speed or not? Don’t feel it’s acceleration constantly? Because that’s what the water is doing my friend. It’s moving in relation to your ball. It’s held down the same way you cannot just float upward. Engage your brain. Read.
@petetho05730914@juneslater17 It’s not the that the audience is left wing, it’s just from the position of the far right, everybody else is to the left. No matter how left leaning they are.
@__vAv_@Michael98940721 See oxygen??? So you pick and choose which science you want to believe.
Water not wrapping round a ball! 🤦♂️ Gravity. Guess that doesn’t exist either. You can’t see it right.
@__vAv_@Michael98940721 And yet you do not delve into it.
The worry here is you and your ilk are breeding.
Can you observe oxygen?
DNA?
Viruses and Bacteria?
These things I assume you’re ok with being based in your reality but have probably never observed. Or are they all a hoax too?
@__vAv_@Michael98940721 Not conclusive, but it’s repeatable and fairly accurate. His conclusion was correct. Other tests have then been undertaken to disprove this and they don’t. Amazingly living in a snow globe has never been a conclusion that hasn’t been debunked.
@__vAv_@Michael98940721 You don’t test several hypothesis though do you. A good hypotheisis should be testable and disprovable. His wasn’t. His hypothesis was proved. Not due to assumptions, but due to repeatable evidence. You’ve still not shown any evidence for an alternative, I might add
@__vAv_@Michael98940721 Why would he assume flat, when everything he observes points to the contrary. Again, This is how science progresses: better models explain more with fewer assumptions and hold up under scrutiny. Scientists want to prove other scientists wrong. They want better models.
@__vAv_@Michael98940721@YouTube No you cannot. This is how science progresses: better models explain more with fewer assumptions and hold up under scrutiny. If new rigorous data supported a flat Earth comprehensively, scientists would shift — but that hasn’t happened in over 2,000 years of testing.