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 - Solmyre

Pages: [1] 2 3
1
Technology, Science & Alt Science / Re: Linux is superior for Gaming
« on: October 15, 2012, 10:15:26 PM »
Ack...then I sincerely appologise. 

2
Flat Earth General / Re: Red Bull Jump 24 miles up high.
« on: October 15, 2012, 02:42:40 PM »
pointless comment, removed.  Going to try to get more sleep.

/sigh

3
Fair enough, though I'd already read the link, so unless you're more direct I'm not likely to pick up on subtleties so well fuzzy headed as I am right now.

4
The blue whale is up to around 200 tons.

Research buoyancy. It's what helps the whales not die under their own weight. When you put a blue whale on land, guess what happens? That buoyancy no longer matters, and they slowly crush under their own weight. Now go back to the article that was previously linked about "possibly solving the dinosaur paradox" or something like that. It takes you through it, scientifically, step by step.

Why do I even bother separating the hurdles of being a large organism?...yes...I am fully aware of how buoyancy works, research microcarrier beads and then consider having to know both buoyancy along with 2 phase fluid dynamics on particles in solution to ensure everything plays nice together.  If you do not understand the difficulty in modeling 2 phase fluid dynamic patterns you won't fully appreciate the gravity of what I'm talking about but it should give you an idea. But yes, suffice it to say I understand buoyancy, not just the layman's version of it (x floats because its less dense) but actual buoyancy as it relates to competing forces and using surface integration techniques to calculate it.

Whales prove the ability of distribution and transport internally, they do not prove the ability of a huge amount of supported standing weight.  Though their tissues do handle very high pressure differentials which is a different kind of stress...which I specifically said...no where do I claim that any living creature currently can directly prove dinosaurs could walk under similar gravitational/UA conditions. 

And while I am aware this particular author believes dinos did not spend significant time in water, that is not a truly settled case (nor likely will it ever be).  He also fails to take into account the whole problem with all the skeletons larger than a brontosuar being extremely incomplete (in some cases just a couple of bones) or that they had particularly dense leg bones but not so much on the upper body which would drastically reduce overall skeletal weight while allowing for serious loading on the limbs themselves.  And then muscles get brought into play with zero regard to leverage (which is why a gorilla that is vastly less muscled than you or I can rip your arms off with little effort, it's that big of a deal) and are treated as if the weight is suspended on them directly.  He makes comments about the teeth which ignore's the practice of eating rock and what not to aid with digestion due to weak jaws on a small head (not unusual practice). etc. etc. etc.

Not that his thoughts are not interesting or fun.  Not that the author is even neccesarily wrong.  But it all has to be taken with a large grain of salt as does practically any theory about "what happened to the dinosuars"? 

As Pseudonym might put it, many people will rely on argumentum ad populum as their support on these kinds of arguments.  And really, I can't blame anyone for that since trying to claim hard evidence for anything that happened that long ago is a slippery slope right from the start.


I apologize. I did not mean to hurt your feelings.


There is a difference between getting your feelings hurt vs. being annoyed with someone who you feel is likely to be acting dense just to screw with you when you're already trying to be specific.

I feel it's likely you're trolling me, its that or you do not understand how far of a stretch the dots are that you are connecting.  My only option would be to continue to find new iterations of repeating what I've already said along with adding in even more clarifications and details which would result in an even larger wall of text.  Which is pointless. 

So I'll leave off with two things: my condensed thoughts on biological classification and the minor details of warm vs. cold blooded organisms vs. your confusion of mamals vs. humans...

Animalia --> Chordata --> Mamal (mamalia) --> Primate --> Hominidae --> Hominini --> H. sapiens (human)
Animalia --> Chordata --> Bird (aves) --> Anseriformes -->Anatidae --> Anas --> A. platyrhynchos (mallard)

Birds (class Aves) are feathered, winged, bipedal, endothermic (warm-blooded), egg-laying, vertebrate animals.

You can not put dinosaurs inside aves.  It litterally does not jive with the classification, period.

Once they evolved (assuming the link is solid, I personally believe it is) to be warm blooded and feathered, it is no longer a dinosaur.  There is no ambiguity here.


And the big problem (ignoring the geological impacts) of suggesting a massive gravity/UA shift is responsible for dinosuar extinction...

Mamals existed well before this would have happened, so did flying creatures.  Additionally not all dinosuars were massive in size durring this era.  So how is it that you can reason a big shift in gravity/UA would somehow only target dinosuars and ignore most other complex species which did not radically adapt durring that same time (and they would have had to along with leaving clear evidence of previously having significantly more delecate bones that rapidly gained in density).  Consider the massive strength difference all flyers would have had to undergo, and then consider how quickly mutations and evolution actually occurs in nature ever since it's been documented, the article specifically talks about the impact on flyers and explains it off as extremely rapid evolution.

I absolutely agree a rapid shift in the gravitational constant would be capable of wiping out dinosaurs, unfortunately I also see no reason why it wouldn't wipe out practically all land based creatures and absolutely every last flying creature much bigger than a gnat.  Quid pro quo, if it was not rapid enough to kill all flying creatures then it seems unlikely that it would have been rapid enough to kill all dinosuars as flying creatures would be hit considerably hard by an environment shift like this to put it lightly.  It is more reasonable that something occurred that reduced the overall food supply making speed and efficiency king over size, armor, and strength.  Or it may be as simple as the theory that mamals were REALLY friggin good at stealing and eating eggs prompting everything to get small enough that they could face egg snatchers head on.  Knock out a base tier in a food chain and there is a chance everything above it topples, game over.

None of that proves or disproves how the dinosuars largely became extinct in rapid succession of course, it is simply another set of assumptions lain on top of a set of assumptions.  Which is the reason for my initial point that making such huge assumptions and suggesting it lends credit to a given FE model or RE model is (to me) silly.  As no one can prove any of it, even the people who dedicate their lives to studying it.


And yes I'm cranky and irritable right now as I am sick with a sinus infection at home and one of the projects at work is already behind schedule and we now loose another day on it.  So my patience and empathy are not my usual.  Appologies in advance.  :(

5
The Lounge / Re: The US makes terrible food
« on: October 15, 2012, 09:44:35 AM »
Darn you Beorn and your evil windmill of doom! >o<






I feel better now.

6
Seriously Beorn?

I was pretty specific on the hurdles of larger organisms and the point that we have some living right now which means transport and dispersion are clearly managable, even with giant creatures.

So your other major hurdle is weight which I also covered along with the point that we don't really know what their weight was nor how their tissues were setup to manage it nor if they lived largely in water which would completely trivialize the "weight problem" all together.

I could understand if I had been generic or brought up some unrelated tripe and pretended it applied but for petesakes don't be a punk.

You say we that organisms living in extreme circumstances like heat, ph etc show that dinosaurs could live under extreme gravity. I say that these extreme environments are very different from an environment with a much lower gravity. Also, these organisms living under extreme circumstances are mostly bacteria. They are very far off from dinosaurs.
Then you come with giant squid and blue whales, which live in the water and are still smaller than the estimated size of some of the dinosaurs. And not all huge dinosaurs are long-necked plant eaters (take Spinosaurus for example).
Also, there is strong evidence from modern dinosaurs that the old dinosaurs were boat builders. Why would they mostly live in the water AND built boats?

I don't think that I'm being the punk here...
Yeah...because your entire intial response being a retorical question was constructive and fair? 

And no.  I say that examples of nature adapting to extreme conditions means it can not be safely assumed that dinosaurs required a large change in gravity/UA. 

Most descriptions of spinosaurus suggest that it is related to crocodiles may have lived in and out of water.  They also site it's estimated weight between 7 and 22 tons.  The brontosauarus is estimated at over 25 tons.  The largest acknowledged dinosaur remains found in Argentina suggest a possible size of over 100 tons.  But you have to take that with a big grain of salt as they have only found some vertibrae and tibia and are making A LOT of speculation from there.  By way of comparison, the african elephant can be a bit over 10 tons.  The blue whale is up to around 200 tons.


There are (generally speaking) two hurdles for the size of an organism.

Transport and distribution internally (aka the volume vs. surface area efficiency issue, how do you circulate that much oxygen, blood, etc.)

Structural support (how do you deal with that much mass and the subsequent weight and kinetic momentum and pressure variences on tissues etc.)


You are correct that thermophiles etc. are mostly bacteria but that's really not the point.  The point is that your average person would look at x situation and say "no way is something living there!" and yet nature seems to find ways to adapt.


But in regard to specifics.  Obviously we have current living examples right now demonstrating the transport and distribution problem can be overcome as the size of a blue whale truly dwarfs most dinosaurs

In regard to the structural support issues.  I specifically note that

A) we don't really know what they actually weighed
B) we have no clue how their connective and re-inforcing tissue structures worked
C) we don't really know how many of them lived on land and how much time they spent on it
D) we DO have organisms living at absolutely crushing pressures, even the afore mentioned whales can dive to depths well beyond what would crush you and I.  They have quite a few adaptations that allow them to do so.  So we do have living examples of complex organisms that can handle very high stresses on their tissues.  It's not the exact same as the requirements of a land walking creature larger than an elephant but that's really not the point.

Thus my point that we can speculate about a lot of things but if we treat it beyond that and pretend we're talking about facts then we're kidding ourselves.  This was said primarily in response to the assumptions that dinosaurs "must have required less gravity/UA".


Then you respond with the statement of where's the place on earth will less gravity?  Which aside from being a purely abusive retorical question has jack all to do with anything I just said as my whole point was that the assumption of requiring different gravity is exactly that, an assumption.


Then when I call you out on the abusive statement... 

You're response is that birds have built nests in water.  I agree, they have and do. http://birds.ecoport.org/Ecology/EBnests-aquatic.htm
You follow that with a statement questioning the validity of making a floating nest if you live in water.  Never mind the point that all documented birds that make floating nests spend a good chunk of time swimming in the water...

Ignoring this you also make a statment than because modern birds (flyers) make floating nests, large ancient land creatures, are unlikely to have lived in water...


And you act like that isn't also a completely over the top abusive statement but is in fact a rational argument.



But to be even more specific...lets pretend that ancient flying dinosaurs also built nests on water, in fact lets pretend ALL of the ancient flyers did this and pretend we had some way to prove it.  How exactly does that even start to apply to non flyer's habits and what does that have to do with the previous discussion at all?



So yes, I feel you simply ignored much of what is currently known about modern biology and life on the planet, ignored much of what is unknown about ancient life, and threw out some abusive statements.


Having said all of this, even ancient dinosaurs drove around in yachts...that would not tell us their actual mass or if they were not structurally sound enough that they would absolutely require lower gravity/UA.



Your assessment that birds are dinosuars is messed up on so many levels I don't even know where to start let alone the point that you say modern dinos are all the flying type?  What?  So you'll count a bird as a dinosaur but hell no crocodiles?!  And a parrot mimics what it hears so now we have "evidence" of racism in ancient times?

Do you understand the magnitude of the leaps in logic you're making? 

Biologists and pretty much every text book on the planet call a bird a bird...because it is not cold blooded...among other aspects that dinosuars are assumed to have had.  This is not to say there is not a historical link (which is the whole reasoning behind evolution) but it is to say there are enough critical differences established between what we call a bird and what we assume about dinosaurs.

7
The Lounge / Re: Post an image of yourself!
« on: October 15, 2012, 03:11:52 AM »
She is one tough cookie, and you are correct Beorn   ;)

8
And Beorn if you read this and were thinking of responding that I'm not I'd like you to know that my 2 year old thinks I'm hysterical and therefore you should too.  Read into that what you may.   ;D

I feel so insulted.

You are just soooo not a cup half full type are you?   :'(

9
Flat Earth General / Re: "Noob"
« on: October 15, 2012, 03:01:15 AM »
@qwerty - I don't think any FEers follow the scientific method as most are utterly disgusted by it and would much rather follow the zetetic method of inquiry. When one learns more about zeteticism they realise that the scientific method is heavily flawed and tend to favour it less.

If this was true then it archetypically would follow that zeteticism would gain momentum per capita.  As it stands, scientific method and engineering derived from such has continued to gain acceptance globally (pardon the term).


Regardless, this is a bold statement Pseudonym.  Which aspects of the scientific method do you feel are heavily flawed? 

How do you feel the zetetic method overcomes these?  Do you believe the zetetic method you use is generally accepted by everyone who practices the zetetic method?
That first part sounds like argumentum ad populum.
The next barrage of questions are nothing new and have been asked and answered many times before. I think this first post by James here sums it up well

http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php/topic,12438.msg176097.html#msg176097

I can see where you would argue that except that the grounds of your assertion are that people ditch SM in favor of ZM once they learn about it.  If this was true then people who hear about ZM would inevitably use it, in doing so others would be exposed to ZM and learn of it, once learning of it they would ditch SM in favor of ZM.

So it is not a "because this is popular it must be true" approach.  It is a "because this is not spread, it must be rejected more often than it is accepted when someone is exposed to it". 

Additionally James gets the cornerstone of SM wrong in his second paragraph.  Any scientist that first claim's this is how it works and I'm going to prove it!  Is generally considered a bad scientist and dismissed by most of the community.  SM first step is to consider possibilities for how something occurs etc. and then try to develope solid ways of testing and isolating variables so that things can get narrowed down further.

Much like one of the projects I'm working on to characterize fluid interface behaviors on a laser drilled sparge system.  Unfortunately, at the moment, much of the equations (as I was explaning to Dino a bit ago) are all empircally based directly from experimental data running an array of regressions.  So I can speculate until the sun comes down but until I can match all constants and variables and get repeatable results that agree with one core equation, you can bet your tail I wouldn't dare claim to know the truth about the fine details of the system behavior. 

If your philosophy is that SM suggests believing you know something without testing then yes, I can see your disgust.  It might be worth knowing whomever taught James the SM did an increadibly poor job. 

10
Flat Earth General / Re: Lake Okeechobee Florida
« on: October 15, 2012, 02:44:16 AM »
First post here, just curious about this topic in regards to distance, height, and water. Why is it that without water in the equation, the observations are similar?  IE, when standing at 5,800 feet in the cascades, mountains that are much taller appear shorter in the distance. As in, much smaller mountains make mount rainier and mount baker appear to be shorter in height.  At such short distances, and on a flat plane, these mountains should still tower over the smaller mountains.  From my observations, this does show a curvature of the earth, without water refracting or reflecting light in any weird sort of way.

Objects will appear smaller with distance whether it is on a RE or a FE.  The distances don't change in either theory, so by your logic above on a RE Mount Rainier should still tower over the smaller mountains, except pointed away from the center of the Earth-ball because of its distance.  Is this what you observe?  No, it appears smaller overall and does not "point" in some other direction due to Earth's curvature, no matter from which direction or at what distance you observe it (or any other mountain or landmark) from.  The effect seen is therefore not foreshortening due to curvature but overall shrinking due to distance across a flat plane and thus having a smaller resolution in our field of view.


That is in fact, exactly what is observed.  The objects angled slightly away appear to shrink.  That is one of the major problems with the notion that your eye is creating a horizon.  Resolution is of course bunk because you can use a telescope to overcome that easily.

No, objects in the distance instead appear to compress precisely because they are tilting away.

If instead your eye was building a horizon and/or light was curving into the ground (as some other FErs seem to suggest) the opposite would happen, you'd get a horizon all right, but you'd also get verticle stretching as a result of it occuring in that manner due to your view distorting incoming light.  Instead, distance objects are percieved as compressed due to leaning away from you, with or without telescope/binoculars etc. 

Ballistics, trajectories in general, physical objects, road distances, flight distances, math, all agree with the explanation of a spherical planet. 

Perhaps you have an explanation for this as well Piper?

11
Flat Earth General / Re: Sunlight right now
« on: October 15, 2012, 02:27:15 AM »
I don't see how this is so difficult for you to understand.  Light from the Sun is scattered in all directions by the atoms and molecules in the Earth's atmosphere.  These rays are also refracted as they pass from the vacuum through the atmosphere, and they continue to be refracted and scattered as they pass through different temperature and density gradients.  The ones that intersect your eyes form an image on your retina or whatever.

If what you described actually occurred, light of different wavelengths would refract at different angles and the Earth would have a terminator rainbow. I don't see rainbows at every dusk and dawn, so you must be incorrect. Dusk and dawn light still contains all wavelengths that are uniformly distributed.

Not so,

The sky is blue (generally) durring the day due to different wavelengths being more prone to scattering than others in the atmosphere.

When the sun gets strongly "off angle" and the light is traveling over longer paths a different kind of scattering occurs.  I'd go more into detail but its damn late.  You can wiki "sunset" and it goes into the different scattering types that occur.  I even think wiki at this point goes into some of the math and physics for the different scattering types.  Otherwise your local library should have a physics book and most of them cover this to at least some degree.

I think this is the experiment you were being asked to try:

http://scifun.chem.wisc.edu/HOMEEXPTS/BlueSky.html
http://www.webexhibits.org/causesofcolor/14F.html

and a host of other examples.

It's pretty straight forward, so is the math and reproducibility.  Not sure how we started talking about lasers and if they have a perfect uniform wave (they don't but they get close enough for most practical applications).  In a nutshell, higher wavelengths are more prone to scatter, thus when you get a sunset, the scattering filters much of the higher frequencies leaving you with the orange and red hues that blend outward with the blue to give you a purple go between region.

I really don't get what aspect of this eludes you Irush, but you seem to be ignoring a lot of what is being presented and that combined with making comments about "winning" certainly paints you as a troll.


On a side note, I am curious how sky color changes are explained in the FE model.  The RE theory for color shifts is pretty well backed up and repeatable both in math and simple and complex experiments and testing.  The FE model (from most of what I've read) suggests a "spotlight" approach, I do not currently see an easy way for this to account for the color shift due to a combination of the idea of a spot light and how close to the earth the sun is estimated to be (according to what I've been told on this forum).

12
Flat Earth General / Re: Red Bull Jump 24 miles up high.
« on: October 15, 2012, 01:51:32 AM »
I see people who refuse to vaccinate their children (I did a report on methyl mercury so I feel I have an idea where they are coming from).

I think that is a poor choice but I do not think it makes them insane.

You have to consider the context.  If you reach a point where you believe almost anything supporting x are lies, how could you ever truly be convinced that x is true?  In a swift simple stroke you logically shut down all possible avenues to allow yourself to understand differently than what you believe to be true.

This happens frequently for a wide array of reasons on a wide array of subjects.

It is a gross over simplification on my part and certainly not everyone on this forun fits that description.  But it is some of the catch 22 that I see in the little time I've spent here. 

Now picture the shoe on the other foot.  Imagine believing that everyone else is blind to what is an obvious truth to you.  Consider repeatedly answering the same or nearly the same questions over...and over... with answers that you truly feel should be sufficient for just about anyone and from your perspective other people just don't get it.

The point that a significant chunk of the FErs on this sight continue to try to humor us RErs and many of them try to do so with a semblance of grace of objective behavior is frankly pretty damn impressive to me. 

Some I feel are a bit out of touch, or (to my mind) have a poor logical approach.  But that doesn't make them insane.


The marketing team I work with on the other hand...

Them: We'd like to do this with the project you're working on.

Me: It can't do that, that would fundamentally break x aspect of it.

Them: Well can't you just make it work?

Me: Sure, if you want to spend an extra 6 months on it and another half million and raise the cost to the buyer.

Them: No we need to stick to the time line.

Me: Then no, we can't do that.

Them: Why not?

Me: ....because it breaks x aspect...

Them: Well how does it break x aspect?

Me: *begins to explain while watching their eyes glaze over because I'm talking to marketing people that don't actually understand how the project works*

Them: ...well can't we just make it work?


That is insanity...

13
Flat Earth Debate / Re: Fe gravity as it relates to the speed of light
« on: October 15, 2012, 01:18:20 AM »
Please use the search function; you will find the photographs taken by Fred Bruenjes in Antarctica, and the ISS/ATLANTIS solar transit videos in my messages.

You (and the others) have not been able to bring a single argument to debate anything relating to what I have written.

My bibliographical references are the very best, as you should that realize by now; please inform us OF ANY mistakes Nikola Tesla ever made, you will not be able to find any, this alone shows your ignorance, the fact that my references took you by surprise and are unable to answer to the specific points.



In 1921, Einstein wrote to a friend that if "the Miller experiments" produced positive results "the whole relativity theory collapses like a house of cards." Miller's experiments produced
consistently positive results as we have seen here:


http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php/topic,3152.msg1398930.html#msg1398930

Dayton Miller's extraordinary experiments proved clearly the existence of the telluric currents (ether drift), thus contradicting the disastrous concept of space-time continuum, which nobody can take seriously.



Again, solmyre, please do your homework, you obviously have no idea about the world you live in, consider yourself fortunate enough to find out and explore the very best bibliographical references you have chosen to ignore until now.

Some of your references are about as reliable as the national enquirer, its not that they are "surprising" just unsubstantiated.  People have stopped bothering debating what you are writing because you fail to apply it correctly or it simply doesn't relate to the topic at hand such as the example I gave.  What's the point of conversing with you when you can't actually converse correctly.  They make a comment on x and you come back with quotes and information about a b and c and claim therefore that x is wrong even though you're barking up any tree but the one discussed or simply get things wrong outright and refuse to acknowledge dead obvious errors when you are specifically called to question on it.


Tesla...you mean like his thoughts on x-rays that were grossly off the mark...or his multitude of failed projects?  He was a great person with brilliant insights, especially for the times he lived in.  But to claim he was infallable continues with your utterly juvenile approach to things.



You've had opportunities to clarify repeatedly or condense and focus to the topics at hand.  You refuse to do so and you refuse to acknowledge anything beyond what suits you personally.  This includes ignoring direct responses and then making claims that you were never responded to.  This makes you a waste of time and effort. 

The sad part of all this is, you've proven you don't even understand what I or the "others" are trying to explain to you and probably are rationalizing this somehow as a victory in your head.

Good luck at life.  I won't be wasting further words on you (short of a miraculous transformation in your approach to things). 

14
Flat Earth General / Re: "Noob"
« on: October 15, 2012, 12:55:10 AM »
@qwerty - I don't think any FEers follow the scientific method as most are utterly disgusted by it and would much rather follow the zetetic method of inquiry. When one learns more about zeteticism they realise that the scientific method is heavily flawed and tend to favour it less.

If this was true then it archetypically would follow that zeteticism would gain momentum per capita.  As it stands, scientific method and engineering derived from such has continued to gain acceptance globally (pardon the term).


Regardless, this is a bold statement Pseudonym.  Which aspects of the scientific method do you feel are heavily flawed? 

How do you feel the zetetic method overcomes these?  Do you believe the zetetic method you use is generally accepted by everyone who practices the zetetic method?


15
Every indication has been that cloud seeding weakens storm systems, including hurricanes. Why/how would these spores strengthen hurricanes?

Ski...while that's a great question...I'm still waiting to have my very first question answered and I'd appreciate it if you and random can hold your horses for a moment while we all wait for Pongo to get back to us on this, otherwise we'll have 6 separate discussions rolling at once


Pongo, remember, I asked my question first, and everyone knows that dibs count on web forums aside from just being polite and logical to answer questions in a first come first serve basis.


...just so we're perfectly clear...since body language and intonation don't transmit so well...I was trying to be funny.  And Beorn if you read this and were thinking of responding that I'm not I'd like you to know that my 2 year old thinks I'm hysterical and therefore you should too.  Read into that what you may.   ;D

16
The Lounge / Re: Post an image of yourself!
« on: October 14, 2012, 11:42:55 PM »


For purposes of staying on topic:  Wife and I at last year's Man vs. Mud 5k obstacle course.   ;D

17
The Lounge / Re: Post an image of yourself!
« on: October 14, 2012, 11:31:05 PM »

18
The Lounge / Re: The US makes terrible food
« on: October 14, 2012, 11:29:06 PM »
One of the people I tutored in college was from China.  We got talking about food.  He said point blank that authentic chineese food is generally terrible.  It tastes mostly like salt and fish.  He believed americanized asian food to be significantly more enjoyable.  Having had "authentic" asian on more than one occassion I'd generally agree.  Americanized asian food has a wider and deeper flavor to it typically.

That's because Americanized Chinese food more than likely has far more fat/oil and salt and/or MSG than authentic Chinese food does.  The things that make it taste better are also the things that make it less healthy.

Yes and no.  Authentic asian food is often pretty loaded down with salt and frequently uses a fair amount of unhealthy oils (sesame being the typical offender).  Americanized variants will often follow suit on that too but it depends on where you go and what you order.  When wife and I lived back in MN there were a few places in the Twin Cities that did an amazing job and the food was pretty darn healthy too.  It's the access and good use of a wider array of ingrediants in those situations that take an authentic staple and make it something amazing.


Then you have the extremes where on top of too much salt, too much bad oils, they use a ton of fatty meats, bread the bejesus out of everything and then load it down with corn syrup...


And Beorn...no where did I say "and this proves that american foodz is the bestedst, I win!" ::)

Obviously taste in food is subjective.  But making claims that fast food or american food across the board is unhealthy or unappealing is also obviously false for quite a few people and not just those who are permenant residents.

I thought it was pretty damn funny when I was in a restraunt in germany and the waitress was bragging how they had cheese all the way from Wis.  ;)

Not that their cheese is bad, but growing up in the Twin Cities in MN I just never thought to myself "man, I'm lucky to be so close to Wisconsin so I can easily get their cheese curds for cheap!" etc.  I was more interested in crossing the boarder to get fireworks after they got banned from MN and then later only brought back without rockets.

I still wonder what statistician convinced the MN gov. that exploding ground fireworks were somehow "safer" than exploding airial fireworks. 

....but I digress.


19
...,  but I believe that some of these spores and nutrients escape the lunar surface, fall to earth, and help fuel terrestrial hurricanes.

In what way would this affect hurricanes?

He covered that, he believes the spores would work to effectively trigger cloud seeding though I've never recalled reading about evidence to support strengthening of weather systems by this.  Sure, it makes them dump their water, but I have yet to read a study that concludes much beyond this.

20
Seriously Beorn?

I was pretty specific on the hurdles of larger organisms and the point that we have some living right now which means transport and dispersion are clearly managable, even with giant creatures.

So your other major hurdle is weight which I also covered along with the point that we don't really know what their weight was nor how their tissues were setup to manage it nor if they lived largely in water which would completely trivialize the "weight problem" all together.

I could understand if I had been generic or brought up some unrelated tripe and pretended it applied but for petesakes don't be a punk.

21
Technology, Science & Alt Science / Re: Linux is superior for Gaming
« on: October 13, 2012, 11:49:40 PM »
si

22
I stand corrected on multiple points then, and I'll try not to be lazy on the distinction between astronomy etc. in the future.  ;)

So Random, how far are the stars away from us by the typical FEr setup?

And where did the concept of light emitting organisms on the moon originate from anyway, it seems like a darn tough sell to push at someone?



23
The Lounge / Re: The US makes terrible food
« on: October 13, 2012, 11:40:41 PM »
One of the people I tutored in college was from China.  We got talking about food.  He said point blank that authentic chineese food is generally terrible.  It tastes mostly like salt and fish.  He believed americanized asian food to be significantly more enjoyable.  Having had "authentic" asian on more than one occassion I'd generally agree.  Americanized asian food has a wider and deeper flavor to it typically.

Also...authentic mexican food is often very bland.  If you are thinking spicy and loaded with flavor, you are likely thinking Texmex...which is often vastly more flavorful.

Generally speaking, in terms of meats, the US is tops on multiple levels.

The blanket, unqualified, statement of the US makes terrible food seems more like a troll action than anything with real conviction or substance.  Particularly in light of the follow up vapid statements of the US not having a clue about fine/gormet foods etc.

Likewise the blanket comment that "fast food is terrible" is just plain silly.  Considering that a prepped and ready salad is about as fast as it gets...soups...whole grain sandwiches (subway anyone?). 

The further irony of this is that, much of the menu items at a "sit down" restraunt are absurdly less healthy than an archetypical fast food burger and will run in excess of 1500 kcal with more than 150% your daily sodium intake.  Pasta dishes are a frequent culprit of this.

I'm with Irush on this.  Go to merry ol britan and order a sheppard's pie and a pint and then come back and tell me that was better for you than a big mac.  (which I rather like sans middle bun, no sauce, extra lettuce, onion, pickle, add tomato)  Not as good as a burger or steak on the grill at home, but not terrible in moderation either.  ;)

The nice part about food in America is the extreme variety available across the board.  And yeah, sure, getting fat is all about balancing calories burned vs. consumed.  But not being fat doesn't mean you're healthy either.  Which I "think" is what Irush was getting at.  There is more to leading a healthy life style than just calorie counting.

24
Technology, Science & Alt Science / Re: Linux is superior for Gaming
« on: October 13, 2012, 11:04:32 PM »

I'm not annoyed with Windows right now. I try to forget it exists altogether when I'm not using it, which is most of the time.


Fair enough, let me rephrase then.  If you end up having to use windows 8 at some point in the future, and it isn't on a tablet, and thus are at that specific moment unable to forget that it exists; I do not anticipate that you will be pleased at that moment.  ;)

Admirable stance though to be able to divorce yourself from a company and try to evaluate a product on its own merrits.  Most people can not do this at all, hence much of the rampant fanboism in the industry.
Or he can click the "go back to classic desktop" button.

Yeah, though based on the little hands on experience I've had plus the reviews, even doing that doesn't make it as good as windows 7.  Win 8 with a tablet though generally recieves extremely favorable reviews.

25
Not worth going down that road unless you want to make a few separate threads Random.

A) FErs say that things like the moon and stars are "closer" to earth than RErs calculate.  I have yet to get an actual answer of how close, but because of this they can argue that it takes less light intensity than an REr would estimate, because they never disclose how close the moon is supposed to be we can't call them out on it.

B) FErs will say you don't actually know how big the moon is because all astrologers and NASA and methods of measuring such things are balony.

C) Because an FEr believes there is life on the moon that emits light and all evidence an REr would bring up to the contrary is part of "the conspiracy" there is nothing you can say that will dismiss the possibility that there is in fact 787500000000000000 fireflies worth of light emitting organisms on the moon.


AKA because the FEr philosphy on this is full of intangibles but is more or less believed on faith you can't logically argue about it and expect to make headway (for the most part).


Having said that, I've run quite a few bilogical experiments, (go figure, my forte is bioreactors) and so I understand the dificulties involved in being able to analyze a clean sample, let alone a dirty one in an uncontrolled environment (such as tape outside).

Needless to say, this leaves me very curious as to Pongo's plans for running analysis on the tape for spores etc.

26
Technology, Science & Alt Science / Re: Linux is superior for Gaming
« on: October 13, 2012, 06:44:41 PM »
Parsifal...if you are annoyed with windows right now...just wait until windows 8 hits.  It is even worse in this regard.

I'm not annoyed with Windows right now. I try to forget it exists altogether when I'm not using it, which is most of the time.


Fair enough, let me rephrase then.  If you end up having to use windows 8 at some point in the future, and it isn't on a tablet, and thus are at that specific moment unable to forget that it exists; I do not anticipate that you will be pleased at that moment.  ;)

Admirable stance though to be able to divorce yourself from a company and try to evaluate a product on its own merrits.  Most people can not do this at all, hence much of the rampant fanboism in the industry. 

27
Flat Earth General / Re: Curiosity Finds Screw on Mars
« on: October 13, 2012, 06:40:11 PM »
As to why they did it, here is how I see it going down.  Guy working the camera finds a screw and takes a pic.  The public sees it before a more competent employee can cover it up.  They say they need to look at it for a few days while the start the BS train up.  They decide that they are going to say it fell off the rover.  They also decide that they are going to switch it with a piece of plastic because it makes NASA look incompetent to have screws falling off their rover.

That analogy doesn't hold a lot of water for me personally, but I appreciate you humoring my question regardless.  We'll just have to agree to disagree since I haven't been to thier training facility in quite some time let alone actually worked for them directly. 


And Iwanttobelieve... I wouldn't call this a pointless attack.  I'm generally pretty proud of all our space program has accomplished and the amount of material science, logistics, and engineering that has gone into their efforts is truly amazing if you get a chance to study it in detail.  Much of what they have developed has had excellent contributions to the rest of society as well.

But you have to admit...calling attention to a piece of plastic...I believe the scientific analogy for that is "weaksauce".  ;)

Even I have to laugh when this is considered newsworthy. 

28
Technology, Science & Alt Science / Re: Warcraft massacre
« on: October 13, 2012, 03:28:42 PM »
Make love not warcraft. 

That hacker is epic.   ;D

29
I plan to test this by leaving tape outside and trying to collect spores for further study.

There are an aweful lot of assumptions in place there and I'm not going to take the time to go over them since each would deserve its own post for purposes of keeping each items focused.

But this last one I'm curious about.

How would you be able to target the spores of interest and more importantly, how will you be able analyze the film collected on the tape to determine that you have your spiecies of interest?

30
Flat Earth General / Re: Curiosity Finds Screw on Mars
« on: October 13, 2012, 02:57:58 PM »
A tech probabally switched it out to not have to answer why screws were falling off the rover.

I think it's this one that feels insufficient to me in regard to the "why oh why would NASA post incongruent fake pictures on purpose".  AKA why post a picture with an item in it that they didn't want there?  Particularly since that was the point of the picture release unless I'm missing something else?

Your response (to me) doesn't really answer the question as to why do it in the first place?

Pages: [1] 2 3