This is a well positioned piece.
https://youtu.be/A0TOqQTFKks
Printable View
This is a well positioned piece.
https://youtu.be/A0TOqQTFKks
Looks like you finally got one right mozzer!Quote:
Originally Posted by MOZZER2
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet"><p lang="en" dir="ltr">NEW: Sidney Powell is moving to dismiss Dominion's defamation suit against her — arguing that "no reasonable person" would conclude her baseless accusations of an election-rigging scheme "were truly statements of fact." <a href="https://t.co/fX5K5PVyeW">https://t.co/fX5K5PVyeW</a></p>— Axios (@axios) <a href="https://twitter.com/axios/status/1374125464609038337?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">March 22, 2021</a></blockquote> <script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>
Ah, the Tucker Carlson gambit.Quote:
Originally Posted by lardy
I wonder if there is a chance that Mozzer will be called to give evidence on the credibility of this defence as a reasonable person capable of seeing through the distortions of mainstream media to get at the truth?
Is Dominion's defamation a sex act 🤔Quote:
Originally Posted by cyril evans awaydays
aye going to rumble on and on and on and on.............Quote:
Originally Posted by lardy
anyway onto the latest on the USA 2020 election lawsuits . the malady lingers on ......
http://wiseenergy.org/Energy/Electio...tion_Cases.htm
It'll rumble and rumble in one direction
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet"><p lang="en" dir="ltr">NEW: Georgia prosecutors are looking at criminally charging Rudy Giuliani and other members of Team Trump for lying to state officials during the 'stop the steal' nonsense. It's a charge that carries a punishment of one to five years in prison. <a href="https://t.co/fBkIfn495L">https://t.co/fBkIfn495L</a></p>— Noah Shachtman (@NoahShachtman) <a href="https://twitter.com/NoahShachtman/status/1374715217704325124?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">March 24, 2021</a></blockquote> <script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>
Let's check in with Fox. Watch to the end.
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet"><p lang="en" dir="ltr">“Never in my lifetime have I ever seen anything like this before” <a href="https://t.co/49ITqDl9gK">pic.twitter.com/49ITqDl9gK</a></p>— Acyn (@Acyn) <a href="https://twitter.com/Acyn/status/1375275951232196609?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">March 26, 2021</a></blockquote> <script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>
Secrets of how Donald "400k" Trump dealt with the pandemic
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet"><p lang="en" dir="ltr">"I didn't really listen to him too much because I was doing the opposite of what he was saying" -- Trump on Dr. Fauci <a href="https://t.co/WxGaEOb3dZ">pic.twitter.com/WxGaEOb3dZ</a></p>— Aaron Rupar (@atrupar) <a href="https://twitter.com/atrupar/status/1375286080530866191?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">March 26, 2021</a></blockquote> <script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>
Sidney Powell: "No reasonable person" would conclude that her accusations "were truly statements of facts".Quote:
Originally Posted by lardy
Where does that leave Trump supporters who swallowed it whole?
Unreasonable people? Surely not.
Dominion are suing Fox News as well for spreading and amplifying the lies - for $1.6 billion.
https://www.theguardian.com/media/20...ing-fraud-lies
The North American voting machine company Dominion has hit Fox News with a $1.6bn defamation lawsuit, accusing the network of spreading election fraud lies in a misguided effort to stop an exodus of enraged viewers after Donald Trump’s 2020 election loss.
The complaint accuses some of Fox’s biggest personalities Maria Bartiromo, Tucker Carlson, Lou Dobbs, Sean Hannity, Jeanine Pirro “and their chosen guests” of spreading “defamatory falsehoods” about Dominion.
Fox supercharged false conspiracy theories about Dominion, the lawsuit says, by plucking the lies from relatively obscure corners of the far-right internet and broadcasting them to tens of millions of viewers on television and online.
“Fox took a small flame and turned it into a forest fire,” the complaint says. “As the dominant media company among those viewers dissatisfied with the election results, Fox gave these fictions a prominence they otherwise would never have achieved.”
Lol
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet"><p lang="en" dir="ltr">This is a real statement released tonight by former President Trump in its entirety <a href="https://t.co/gB61je1mg9">pic.twitter.com/gB61je1mg9</a></p>— Aaron Rupar (@atrupar) <a href="https://twitter.com/atrupar/status/1375610886736478209?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">March 27, 2021</a></blockquote> <script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>
O thus be it ever when freemen shall stand Between their lov'd home and the war's desolation! Blest with vict'ry and peace may the heav'n rescued land Praise the power that hath made and preserv'd us a nation! Then conquer we must, when our cause it is just, And this be our motto - "In God is our trust," And the star-spangled banner in triumph shall wave O'er the land of the free and the home of the brave.
they can't even spell:hehe:
seriously! the southern states must breed some of the dumbest people on this planet (after brexist idiots ofc)
A bit of good news for mozzer at last.
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet"><p lang="en" dir="ltr">Mike Lindell declares that as a result of voter fraud lawsuit he'll soon be filing, "Donald Trump will be back in office in August." <a href="https://t.co/5Ewtd9SZ1O">pic.twitter.com/5Ewtd9SZ1O</a></p>— Right Wing Watch (@RightWingWatch) <a href="https://twitter.com/RightWingWatch/status/1376546217270910981?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">March 29, 2021</a></blockquote> <script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>
jesus christ lardy i hope that isn't an alt right site you've posted there !
here i am dusting myself down ready to move on from the fake USA election and now you post pro trump stuff think i,m going to lie down :hehe:
i notice your changing your style posting links and videos too .Hmm looks like i've started a trend with backing up statements with data . As for Lindell another 1 trick pony . OK i,m back in the game ................
I don't think that you're even being Ironic with that post.Quote:
Originally Posted by MOZZER2
Quote:
Originally Posted by MOZZER2
:hehe: :hehe:
I wouldn't call Twitter alt right, although plenty of alt right figures have used it and been banned from it (from Trump down).Quote:
Originally Posted by MOZZER2
I'm sure the rest of your post will give everyone a good laugh. Thanks!
Is this a deep Barnard Castle related post?Quote:
Originally Posted by lardy
glad you saw the humour in my post it was designed to be a bit tongue in cheek !Quote:
Originally Posted by lardy
now you've reeled me back in the dark forces infiltrating the election - wisconisin special report
https://wisconsinspotlight.com/speci...-the-election/
I thought there is/was no election fraudQuote:
Originally Posted by MOZZER2
if you want the truth.Quote:
Originally Posted by MOZZER2
Three revolutionary principles
Quantum mechanics (QM) developed over many decades, beginning as a set of controversial mathematical explanations of experiments that the math of classical mechanics could not explain. It began at the turn of the 20th century, around the same time that Albert Einstein published his theory of relativity, a separate mathematical revolution in physics that describes the motion of things at high speeds. Unlike relativity, however, the origins of QM cannot be attributed to any one scientist. Rather, multiple scientists contributed to a foundation of three revolutionary principles that gradually gained acceptance and experimental verification between 1900 and 1930. They are:
Quantized properties: Certain properties, such as position, speed and color, can sometimes only occur in specific, set amounts, much like a dial that "clicks" from number to number. This challenged a fundamental assumption of classical mechanics, which said that such properties should exist on a smooth, continuous spectrum. To describe the idea that some properties "clicked" like a dial with specific settings, scientists coined the word "quantized."
Particles of light: Light can sometimes behave as a particle. This was initially met with harsh criticism, as it ran contrary to 200 years of experiments showing that light behaved as a wave; much like ripples on the surface of a calm lake. Light behaves similarly in that it bounces off walls and bends around corners, and that the crests and troughs of the wave can add up or cancel out. Added wave crests result in brighter light, while waves that cancel out produce darkness. A light source can be thought of as a ball on a stick being rhythmically dipped in the center of a lake. The color emitted corresponds to the distance between the crests, which is determined by the speed of the ball's rhythm.
Waves of matter: Matter can also behave as a wave. This ran counter to the roughly 30 years of experiments showing that matter (such as electrons) exists as particles.
Quantized properties?
In 1900, German physicist Max Planck sought to explain the distribution of colors emitted over the spectrum in the glow of red-hot and white-hot objects, such as light-bulb filaments. When making physical sense of the equation he had derived to describe this distribution, Planck realized it implied that combinations of only certain colors (albeit a great number of them) were emitted, specifically those that were whole-number multiples of some base value. Somehow, colors were quantized! This was unexpected because light was understood to act as a wave, meaning that values of color should be a continuous spectrum. What could be forbidding atoms from producing the colors between these whole-number multiples? This seemed so strange that Planck regarded quantization as nothing more than a mathematical trick. According to Helge Kragh in his 2000 article in Physics World magazine, "Max Planck, the Reluctant Revolutionary," "If a revolution occurred in physics in December 1900, nobody seemed to notice it. Planck was no exception …"
Planck's equation also contained a number that would later become very important to future development of QM; today, it's known as "Planck's Constant."
Quantization helped to explain other mysteries of physics. In 1907, Einstein used Planck's hypothesis of quantization to explain why the temperature of a solid changed by different amounts if you put the same amount of heat into the material but changed the starting temperature.
Since the early 1800s, the science of spectroscopy had shown that different elements emit and absorb specific colors of light called "spectral lines." Though spectroscopy was a reliable method for determining the elements contained in objects such as distant stars, scientists were puzzled about why each element gave off those specific lines in the first place. In 1888, Johannes Rydberg derived an equation that described the spectral lines emitted by hydrogen, though nobody could explain why the equation worked. This changed in 1913 when Niels Bohr applied Planck's hypothesis of quantization to Ernest Rutherford's 1911 "planetary" model of the atom, which postulated that electrons orbited the nucleus the same way that planets orbit the sun. According to Physics 2000 (a site from the University of Colorado), Bohr proposed that electrons were restricted to "special" orbits around an atom's nucleus. They could "jump" between special orbits, and the energy produced by the jump caused specific colors of light, observed as spectral lines. Though quantized properties were invented as but a mere mathematical trick, they explained so much that they became the founding principle of QM.
Particles of light?
In 1905, Einstein published a paper, "Concerning an Heuristic Point of View Toward the Emission and Transformation of Light," in which he envisioned light traveling not as a wave, but as some manner of "energy quanta." This packet of energy, Einstein suggested, could "be absorbed or generated only as a whole," specifically when an atom "jumps" between quantized vibration rates. This would also apply, as would be shown a few years later, when an electron "jumps" between quantized orbits. Under this model, Einstein's "energy quanta" contained the energy difference of the jump; when divided by Planck’s constant, that energy difference determined the color of light carried by those quanta.
With this new way to envision light, Einstein offered insights into the behavior of nine different phenomena, including the specific colors that Planck described being emitted from a light-bulb filament. It also explained how certain colors of light could eject electrons off metal surfaces, a phenomenon known as the "photoelectric effect." However, Einstein wasn't wholly justified in taking this leap, said Stephen Klassen, an associate professor of physics at the University of Winnipeg. In a 2008 paper, "The Photoelectric Effect: Rehabilitating the Story for the Physics Classroom," Klassen states that Einstein's energy quanta aren't necessary for explaining all of those nine phenomena. Certain mathematical treatments of light as a wave are still capable of describing both the specific colors that Planck described being emitted from a light-bulb filament and the photoelectric effect. Indeed, in Einstein's controversial winning of the 1921 Nobel Prize, the Nobel committee only acknowledged "his discovery of the law of the photoelectric effect," which specifically did not rely on the notion of energy quanta.
Roughly two decades after Einstein's paper, the term "photon" was popularized for describing energy quanta, thanks to the 1923 work of Arthur Compton, who showed that light scattered by an electron beam changed in color. This showed that particles of light (photons) were indeed colliding with particles of matter (electrons), thus confirming Einstein's hypothesis. By now, it was clear that light could behave both as a wave and a particle, placing light's "wave-particle duality" into the foundation of QM.
Waves of matter?
Since the discovery of the electron in 1896, evidence that all matter existed in the form of particles was slowly building. Still, the demonstration of light's wave-particle duality made scientists question whether matter was limited to acting only as particles. Perhaps wave-particle duality could ring true for matter as well? The first scientist to make substantial headway with this reasoning was a French physicist named Louis de Broglie. In 1924, de Broglie used the equations of Einstein's theory of special relativity to show that particles can exhibit wave-like characteristics, and that waves can exhibit particle-like characteristics. Then in 1925, two scientists, working independently and using separate lines of mathematical thinking, applied de Broglie's reasoning to explain how electrons whizzed around in atoms (a phenomenon that was unexplainable using the equations of classical mechanics). In Germany, physicist Werner Heisenberg (teaming with Max Born and Pascual Jordan) accomplished this by developing "matrix mechanics." Austrian physicist Erwin Schrödinger developed a similar theory called "wave mechanics." Schrödinger showed in 1926 that these two approaches were equivalent (though Swiss physicist Wolfgang Pauli sent an unpublished result to Jordan showing that matrix mechanics was more complete).
The Heisenberg-Schrödinger model of the atom, in which each electron acts as a wave (sometimes referred to as a "cloud") around the nucleus of an atom replaced the Rutherford-Bohr model. One stipulation of the new model was that the ends of the wave that forms an electron must meet. In "Quantum Mechanics in Chemistry, 3rd Ed." (W.A. Benjamin, 1981), Melvin Hanna writes, "The imposition of the boundary conditions has restricted the energy to discrete values." A consequence of this stipulation is that only whole numbers of crests and troughs are allowed, which explains why some properties are quantized. In the Heisenberg-Schrödinger model of the atom, electrons obey a "wave function" and occupy "orbitals" rather than orbits. Unlike the circular orbits of the Rutherford-Bohr model, atomic orbitals have a variety of shapes ranging from spheres to dumbbells to daisies.
In 1927, Walter Heitler and Fritz London further developed wave mechanics to show how atomic orbitals could combine to form molecular orbitals, effectively showing why atoms bond to one another to form molecules. This was yet another problem that had been unsolvable using the math of classical mechanics. These insights gave rise to the field of "quantum chemistry."
all depends on which side of the fence you sitQuote:
Originally Posted by life on mars
75 million legal voters sit on one side and the rest the other :hehe:
Come on Mozzer, you know there is no fence! It is all a figment of Trump's imagination. The Mexicans haven't paid a single peso!Quote:
Originally Posted by MOZZER2
Joe's nightmare is growing in numbers on that border does he stick or twistQuote:
Originally Posted by jon1959
Yes the 'numbers' do seem to escalate when it's convenient for the republican propaganda machine.Quote:
Originally Posted by life on mars