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.

Topics - spoon

Pages: [1]
Arts & Entertainment / Senior Project
« on: November 29, 2013, 09:18:59 AM »
For my high school senior project I am composing a concert band piece over which I will solo on alto saxophone. Under the stipulations of the contract, it must be a completely original piece, however it won't be. Nobody needs to know that except you guys.  ;) It will be loosely based on the music from one of my favorite games, Shining Force. Listen to the "mp3 original soundtrack" clips here.

I am taking a few ideas from here and arranging them in a classical style. The concert is in March, I think. I'll have it recorded and I'll post it here for your enjoyment. I'm not sure if there's much to discuss about it, but I wanted to let somebody know!

Arts & Entertainment / Cannibal Holocaust
« on: November 05, 2013, 06:50:08 PM »
It's a 1980 film where actors mingled with tribes indigenous to the Amazon rainforest. It is a highly controversial piece of work. Animal cruelty and sexual violence are frequent. A large turtle is killed on camera. A monkey is partially decapitated on camera. Some type of squealing rodent is killed, if I recall correctly. Overall, it's a pretty disturbing bit of film with a creepy intro song that sticks with you. Discuss.

The Lounge / What am I?
« on: November 05, 2013, 06:34:36 PM »
I have been here for a year and a day. Have I left the ranks of noobs?

Suggestions & Concerns / quoting older posts
« on: September 02, 2013, 08:45:47 AM »
Whenever I'm typing up a reply, I sometimes want to quote an older post. However, the space below the text box only shows the past 15 posts. What I usually do is open up another tab in my browser and go to the thread and copy/paste the post into my reply. This seems unnecessary. Why not have an option to show more than the past 15 posts? Unless there is a solution that I'm too dumb to see, this seems like an easy fix. I know I could just quote the post instead of hitting reply, but I'm talking about instances where I quoted a different post initially or decided I want to quote the post half way through my reply.

Philosophy, Religion & Society / justified suicide
« on: July 20, 2013, 06:14:35 PM »
Is there such a thing? I'm not talking about a seriously ill person that's in pain. I'm not talking about a soldier who just got his legs blown off behind enemy lines who has one bullet in the chamber.

I mean a regular person. Somebody who has seriously considered his options. Somebody who doesn't derive joy from any aspect of his life. An atheist, obviously, or some other belief that doesn't have an afterlife. Somebody who feels that the neutrality of zero consciousness is better than his odds of positivity in the rest of his life.

When you answer this question, try to drop appeals to emotion. I'm not suicidal at all, but I can't help but feel that some people are better off dead. I know that sounds harsh, but who am I to try to gauge somebody's self worth and satisfaction in life.

I don't know if this thread has been done recently, but whatevs. I'm curious about your thoughts.

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Criminals
« on: July 10, 2013, 01:11:26 PM »
Just a quick question. I don't really know if it can be debated.

Are criminals put into jail to make the world safer, or are they put in jail as punishment, so that their world is worse? Essentially, are jails put into place to benefit society or to harm those who deserve it?

The Lounge / Soccer skirmish
« on: July 07, 2013, 02:11:12 PM »

This is neanderthalic. What the fuck kind of society operates this way?

Philosophy, Religion & Society / high school athletes
« on: June 09, 2013, 08:26:41 PM »
Suppose there is a high school kid who is an extremely talented football player. He is good enough to play for any college team that he wants to, and could receive a full scholarship from any university, given that he meets the academic requirements. He sees that his talent gives him the favor of teachers, other students, and administrators. He uses this leverage to get what he wants. He cuts class, comes in late, slacks in the classroom etc.

One would expect that such a student would receive poor marks, but lo and behold, come graduation, his transcripts reflect a GPA just high enough to qualify for an NCAA D1 scholarship. He selects the best school in the nation to play football at, and receives a full ride. Unfortunately, he receives a letter a while later from his choice school revoking his scholarship on account of "fishy transcripts". That is, the school feels that his high school records may have been doctored to make him eligible for a scholarship. As a result, no D1 school will give him a full ride, and his high school loses academic credibility.

The question: Who is to blame? The student or the school?

I would argue that the school system is entirely to blame for this situation. If a system is put in place that can be taken advantage of or bent at will, you can't blame the student when it inevitably happens. You also can't argue that the student just should've worked hard and earned the grades. He saw the minimum required amount of work required to succeed in the eyes of the school, and he did that work. (earning a grade is not the same as receiving a grade.) It is not the student's fault that his high school inaccurately reflected his work. The high school administration is ultimately responsible for the information the colleges receive about students.

People try to tell me "He should've just earned his diploma. Then none of this would be an issue." Well, he did earn his diploma. He graduated just last week. Take a look at his transcripts. Whether or not those transcripts reflect his work in the classroom is irrelevant. All that matters is that certificate that says he has at least a 2.7 GPA or higher. And who makes that certificate? The school, not the student.

The Lounge / Race
« on: June 03, 2013, 07:49:13 PM »
I'm curious about the ethnicities of TFES members. I need to know about how much racism should be in each of my posts, and in order to determine that, I need to know the ratio of people I'm racist against to people I'm not.

No offense.

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Awareness
« on: May 17, 2013, 10:48:02 PM »
Alright, it's really late, and I might not be thinking straight, but I can't get this out of my mind.

Why is awareness even a thing? I've been viewing the free will thread, and I essentially hold a predeterministic view. So basically, all of existence is a series of reactions at the micro and macro level. I understand the basics of how life could form, but just life isn't that special. At a pretty basic level, we have cells. I would argue that cells are not aware, and I'm pretty sure I'd be correct. They respond to stimulus, but are not aware in the sense that humans are. What about larger organs or plants? They are larger, and they also respond to stimulus, but are not aware, as far as I know. Now, take a human. Me. I am aware. I think it is safe to assume that I am aware because of my brain. That is the single organ that gives me awareness. But what is awareness, exactly? Is it thinking? Is it perceiving? Is it the ability to recognize one's own awareness? Back to the predeterminism thing. Why should a random jumble of atoms give rise to awareness. I simply cannot conceive of a way in which atoms could be aware. I understand life to a degree and the concept of stimulus response, but awareness? It makes no sense. It makes me mad that I can even reason. I shouldn't be able to.

In my tired jumble of rambling, I have come to a conclusion. Awareness isn't real. Thinking isn't real. Essentially, awareness is just more stimulus, then response, with nothing more. It is a result of evolution and our brains developing to a certain point.  Awareness is basically our bodys way of tricking us into sustaining it. It is a sort of graphic organizer for stimulus, which would be OK if thinking about awareness wasn't a result of that stimulus. Then the graphic organizer starts taking in stimulus from itself and spits out a response that triggers more of the same stimulus, creating a vicious mental feedback loop, leaving me a stupid, tired, kid. A lot of this may seem contradictory, I know. I tried typing out a detailed explanation of my conclusion twice, but failed both times, so I'm only putting a very brief explanation. Perhaps tomorrow when I'm slightly more awake, I'll reach a sound conclusion.

Does anybody else have any thoughts about awareness? What is it? Why is it?

Also, if this post makes absolutely no sense, I won't be offended if it gets moved. I just want somebody else to think, because I'm done with that shit. So somebody think and get back to me with what you thought about.

Arts & Entertainment / Daft Punk - Random Access Memories
« on: May 13, 2013, 06:33:51 PM »
I was never a huge fan, but the single "Lucky" was kinda fun and my interest was spiked. The whole album is currently streaming on itunes for a limited time. It's definitely not my usual genre but it's fun to listen to.

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Walt Whitman
« on: April 21, 2013, 02:35:57 PM »
I was assigned to write a paper for a final grade on any American of my choosing who has written various works. Because he is referenced in Breaking Bad, I chose Walt Whitman. Little did I know that any research I would attempt would be clouded by how gay he was. I mean, seriously, some of the stuff he wrote...

"And that night O you happy waters, I heard
          you beating the shores—But my heart
          beat happier than you—for he I love is
          returned and sleeping by my side,
And that night in the stillness his face was
          inclined toward me while the moon's
          clear beams shone,
And his arm lay lightly over my breast—And
          that night I was happy."

This is an excerpt from "Live Oak, With Moss", which is work completely dedicated to expressing gay feelings about some dude. If you feel inclined to read more,

His poetry is chalk full of direct references to gay love and whatnot. For god's sake, his nickname was "The Prophet of Gay Liberation". The point is, I don't want to speak to my peers about some gay dude from 150 years ago. I don't know where I'm going with this but if anybody has any interesting input about his life that I could look into, that would be great. If not, consider this to be an open discussion about Walt Whitman in general.

Arts & Entertainment / EVE online
« on: April 07, 2013, 06:16:55 PM »
Does anybody here play? I'm cautious about starting, because I value the time I spend away from my computer, and I would hate to see that time dwindle.

The Lounge / Did we break a record?!
« on: April 03, 2013, 07:04:14 PM »
I just noticed the thing at the bottom of the index page says

Most Online Ever: 1947 (March 30, 2013, 07:52:38 PM)

Prior to that I believe the most online thing said something like August 31, 2008. Does anybody know why so many people were on on March 30? Is it incorrect? Or were there a lot of people back on after the down time?

Flat Earth General / questions for flat-earthers
« on: December 07, 2012, 07:38:02 PM »
Nobody browses this site for a day and says "Well, I guess the earth is flat." Of that, I'm certain. This raises a question in my head. How did you adamant FEers come to be FEers? Were you at one point the certain, condescending RE snobs that now annoy you? What were the big points for FE that led to your changes in beliefs? Are there any arguments in favor of FE that don't work in RE? Because for the most part, it seems like FE is constantly playing catch up with RE, trying to come up with complex, alternate answers for questions RE already has answers for (in before "what causes gravity?" at least gravity is relatively constant, whereas dark energy's effects are seemingly random)? What gave FE a leg up on RE that led to your change in beliefs?

Flat Earth Q&A / tides
« on: November 24, 2012, 03:32:26 PM »
I've seen that tides are caused by celestial gravitation from the sun and moon. Are there detailed explanations as to how this works? How could such a relatively small object like the moon cause the tides? Also, if the moon has "gravity", why isnt it pulling closer to the earth?

Flat Earth Q&A / lit portion of the moon
« on: November 17, 2012, 09:32:32 PM »
In FE the sun and moon are at the same height. One would think that because of this, the terminator line on the moon at first and third quarter would always be vertical. However, it can be lit from many angles, creating an angled terminator. How does this happen if the sun and moon are the same height above the surface of the earth?

Flat Earth General / FE Conspiracy
« on: November 14, 2012, 08:53:07 PM »
FEers say that the motive of the NASA conspiracy is essentially money and power. Well I have a proposition, though I'm probably not he first to think it.

What if is just a big ploy to get you to buy the t-shirt? Hell, I'm an REer and I've thought of buying it. The shirt looks cool and it'd be funny as hell to show up at a party wearing it. Then everybody would ask about it and eventually check out the site, then they'd order theirs. It's a viscious cycle.

I think I have just as much credibility in saying that as an FEer has saying NASA is a conspiracy. Let's compare.

Reasons/motives/evidence for NASA conspiracy:
1.Financial motivation (government funds, cheaper than a real space agency etc.)
2.The earth is flat (according to FEers)
3.Space travel is impossible

Reasons/motives/evidence for FE conspiracy
1.Financial motivation (T-shirts, stickers, merchandise etc.)
2.The earth is round (according to REers)
3.Actually believing in FE is impossible

Flat Earth Debate / gas cloud formation paradoxes II
« on: November 11, 2012, 01:52:02 PM »
Let us suppose a scenario in which a big bang type of explosion does take place.

There would be NO WAY a single atom of hydrogen could form, not to mention any clouds made up of gases.


1 - There is no way to unite the particles. As the particles rush outward from the central explosion, they would keep getting farther and farther apart from one another.

2 - Outer space is frictionless, and there would be no way to slow the particles. The Big Bang is postulated on a totally empty space, devoid of all matter, in which a single explosion fills it with outward-flowing matter. There would be no way those particles could ever slow.

3 - The particles would maintain the same vector (speed and direction) forever. Assuming the particles were moving outward through totally empty space, there is no way they could change direction. They could not get together and begin circling one another.

4 - There is no way to slow the particles. They are traveling at supersonic speed, and every kilometer would separate them farther from one other.

5 - There is no way to change the direction of even one particle. They would keep racing on forever, never slowing, never changing direction. There is no way to get the particles to form into atoms or cluster into gaseous clouds. Angular momentum [turning motion] would be needed, and the laws of physics could not produce it.

6 - How could their atomic structures originate? Atoms, even hydrogen and helium, have complex structures. There is no way that outward shooting particles, continually separating farther from each other as they travel, could arrange themselves into atomic structures.

We will now assume that, contrary to physical laws, (1) the particles magically DID manage to move toward one another and (2) the particles COULD slow down and change directions.



The theory—Gradually, the outward-racing particles are said to have begun circling one another, forming atoms. These atoms then changed direction further (this time toward one another) and formed gas clouds which then pushed together into stars.

This aspect of the stellar evolution theory is as strange as that which preceded it.

1 - Gas molecules in outer space are widely separated. By 'gas,' we mean atoms of hydrogen and/or helium which are separated from one another. All gas in outer space has a density so rarified that it is far less than the emptiest atmospheric vacuum pressure bottle in any laboratory in the world! Gas in outer space is rarer (less dense; atoms more separated) than anything on earth.

2 - Neither hydrogen nor helium in outer space would clump together. In fact, there is no gas on earth that clumps together either. Gas pushes apart; it does not push together. Separated atoms of hydrogen and/or helium would be even less likely to clump together in outer space.

We will now ASSUME that the outward-moving, extremely fast, ever separating atoms (shot out by the Big Bang explosion) could slow, change direction, and form themselves into immense clouds.



1 - Because gas in outer space does not clump, the gas could not build enough mutual gravity to bring it together. And if it cannot clump together, it cannot form itself into stars. The idea of gas pushing itself together in outer space to form stars is more scienceless fiction. Fog, whether on earth or in space, cannot push itself into balls. Once together, a star maintains its gravity quite well, but there is no way for nature to produce one. Getting it together in the first place is the problem. Gas floating in a vacuum cannot form itself into stars. Once a star exists, it will absorb gas into it by gravitational attraction. But before the star exists, gas will not push itself together and form a star—or a planet, or anything else. Since both hydrogen and helium are gases, they are good at spreading out, but not at clumping together.

2 - Careful analysis has revealed that there is not enough matter in gas clouds to produce stars.

3 - There would not be enough time for the gas to reach the currently known expanse of the universe, so it could form itself into stars. Evolutionists tell us that the Big Bang occurred 10 to 15 billion years ago, and stars were formed 5 billion years later. They only allow about 2½ billion years for it to clump together into stars! Their dating problem has been caused by the discovery of supposedly faraway quasars (which we will discuss later), some of which are dated at 15 billion light-years, since they have a redshift of 400 percent. That would make them 15 billion years old, which is too old to accommodate the theory. It doesn’t take a nuclear scientist to figure out the math in this paragraph. Simple arithmetic will tell you there is not enough time.

4 - Gas clouds in outer space expand; they do not contract. Yet they would have to contract to form anything. Any one of these points alone is enough to eliminate the stellar evolution theory.

5 - If the Big Bang theory were true, instead of a universe of stars, there would only be an outer rim of fast-moving matter. The outwardly flowing matter and/or gas clouds would keep moving outward without ever slowing. In frictionless space, with no matter ahead of it to collide with, the supposed matter from the initial explosion would keep moving outward forever. This fact is as solid as the ones mentioned earlier.

6 - In order for the gas to produce stars, it would have to move in several directions. First, it would have to stop flowing outward. Then it would have to begin moving in circles (stellar origin theories generally require rotating gas). Then the rotating gas would have to move closer together. But there would be nothing to induce these motions. The atoms from the supposed Big Bang should just keep rushing outward forever. Linear motion would have to mysteriously change to angular momentum.

7 - A quantity of gas moving in the same direction in frictionless space is too stable to do anything but keep moving forward.

8 - Gas in outer space which was circling a common center would fly apart, not condense together.

9 - There is not enough mass in the universe for the various theories of origin of matter and stars. The total mean density of matter in the universe is about 100 times less than the amount required by the Big Bang theory. The universe has a low mean density. To put it another way, there is not enough matter in the universe. This 'missing mass' problem is a major hurdle, not only to the Big Bang enthusiasts but also to the expanding universe theorists (*P.V. Rizzo, 'Review of Mysteries of the Universe,' Sky and Telescope, August 1982, p. 150). Astronomers are agreed on the existence of this problem. *Hoyle, for example, says that without enough mass in the universe, it would not have been possible for gas to change into stars.

'Attempts to explain both the expansion of the universe and the condensation of galaxies must be largely contradictory so long as gravitation is the only force field under consideration. For if the expansive kinetic energy of matter is adequate to give universal expansion against the gravitational field, it is adequate to prevent local condensation under gravity, and vice versa. That is why, essentially, the formation of galaxies is passed over with little comment in most systems of cosmology.'—*F. Hoyle and *T. Gold, quoted in *D.B. Larson, Universe in Motion (1984). p. 8.

10 - Hydrogen gas in outer space does not clump together. *Harwit’s research disproves the possibility that hydrogen gas in outer space can clump together. This is a major breakthrough in disproving the Big Bang and related origin of matter and stars theories. The problem is twofold: (1) The density of matter in interstellar space is too low. (2) There is nothing to attract the particles of matter in outer space to stick to one another. Think about it a minute; don’t those facts make sense?

This point is so important (for it devastates the origin of stars theory) that *Harwit’s research should be mentioned in more detail:

*Harwit’s research dealt with the mathematical likelihood that hydrogen atoms could stick together and form tiny grains of several atoms, by the random sticking of interstellar atoms and molecules to a single nucleus as they passed by at a variable speed. Using the most favorable conditions and the maximum possible sticking ability for grains, Harwit determined that the amount of time needed for gas or other particles to clump together into a size of just a hundred-thousandth of a centimeter in radius—would take about 3 billion years! Using more likely rates, 20 billion years would be required—to produce one tiny grain of matter stuck together out in space. As with nearly all scientists quoted in our 1,326-page Evolution Disproved Series (which this book is condensed from), *Harwit is not a Creationist (*M. Harwit, Astrophysical Concepts, 1973, p. 394).

11 - *Novotny’s research findings are also very important. *Novotny, in a book published by Oxford University, discusses the problem of 'gaseous dispersion.' It is a physical law that gas in a vacuum expands instead of contracts; therefore it cannot form itself into stars, planets, etc. That which cannot happen, cannot happen given any amount of time.

Flat Earth Q&A / How does UA affect other celestial bodies?
« on: November 10, 2012, 07:48:36 PM »
Universal acceleration is accepted in both RE and FE theories. Since this "phantom energy" appears to be distributed evenly, the affects should be fairly predictable. Imagine the point that the earth is accelerating away from, the point that everything is accelerating away from. Imagine that point being the center of sphere, with the radius of that sphere being the distance to earth. Since the phantom energy appears to be distributed evenly, Every object on the surface of this sphere should be accelerating away from the center at 9.81 m/s^2. Another important note: not only is the universe expanding, it is expanding exponentially, it is accelerating, hence the name. So it would stand to reason that objects near the "edge" of the universe move (not necessarily accelerate) faster than objects near the "center".

Now, let's look at other celestial bodies. Since the sun and moon and stars are outside the atmolayer, they are affected by the UA. They are also farther from the center than the earth. Does this mean that these celestial bodies are moving "away" faster than us?

Flat Earth Q&A / space travel
« on: November 09, 2012, 12:20:03 PM »
I understand that the NASA conspiracy is critical to FE, but for this, drop all bias.

Why is space travel not possible? With technology advancing at the rate that it is on earth, why is it so hard to believe that we can use fuel to propel a big, pressurized metal tube out of our atmosphere?

Flat Earth General / meteorology
« on: November 07, 2012, 08:42:50 PM »
We all know that weathermen aren't always right, but it seems apparent that satellites have played quite an important role in meteorolgy today. I guess I can accept that satellite tv doesn't come from satellites, but I don't think a radio tower could see and accurately predict hurricane Sandy.

Flat Earth Q&A / Other angles of a flat earth
« on: November 07, 2012, 08:10:49 PM »
We've all seen various maps of the FE, but I'm curious as to what it would look like from the side. I've heard it's shaped like a cylinder, but the term "disk" pops up as well. When I think of a disk, I think of a frisbee, Slightly rounded on the top. I guess I'm just asking for some clarification.

Flat Earth Q&A / questions about zeteticism
« on: November 05, 2012, 04:26:52 PM »
I have browsed these forums for several days rather intently, and i have to admit my thinking is not the same as when i started. I would not say that im a full-blown FEer, but i do have some questions about this "zeteticism". For starters, what exactly is it?

Flat Earth Q&A / gravity
« on: November 04, 2012, 07:19:26 PM »
If FEers concede that gravity is present in the universe, wouldn't it make sense large masses of matter ultimately condense into a sphere?  Also, most FEers agree the sun is a sphere as well as other celestial bodies, so why would the earth be any different? Are other forces acting on the earth?

Apologies if anything i said was dumb. Im a noob, just point me in the right direction for answers.

Pages: [1]