1
Technology, Science & Alt Science / There is No Stars
« on: January 11, 2007, 11:33:15 AM »
I'm not even bothering to read this..... There IS no stars? learn english, there ARE no stars.
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.
2
Technology, Science & Alt Science / Mind Control
« on: January 09, 2007, 03:05:44 PM »
well first of all it depends on how you define "work". If there were a single man in control of the world then this "slavery mind-control" would "work" for him, since, if everyone is his slave, no one can stand up to him.
But then he would need the people to mind control the slaves, and then subsidary people to control the flow of goods to and from construction, so that people working in the factories get there food, this is after all too much of a job for one man to do, and it is questionable if a drone would be able to manage something that complex. Any sort of mind control on this level must make someone little more than a vegetable.
but anyway there must be people who aren't under mind control, and who would have tangible control on the minons... these people would probably quite like to be top of the stack....
then of course how do you round up everyone in the world? i mean surely somewhere through the process people are going to realise, and will go underground and start a guerilla war.... those are very hard to put down. complicates things a lot.
so really what i'm going for is it really wouldn't work very well, i doubt it would bring any long term stability, and would only have a short term benefit to a set number of people.
Personally i just don't see the point of enslaving the world.... too much effort for too little gain.
But then he would need the people to mind control the slaves, and then subsidary people to control the flow of goods to and from construction, so that people working in the factories get there food, this is after all too much of a job for one man to do, and it is questionable if a drone would be able to manage something that complex. Any sort of mind control on this level must make someone little more than a vegetable.
but anyway there must be people who aren't under mind control, and who would have tangible control on the minons... these people would probably quite like to be top of the stack....
then of course how do you round up everyone in the world? i mean surely somewhere through the process people are going to realise, and will go underground and start a guerilla war.... those are very hard to put down. complicates things a lot.
so really what i'm going for is it really wouldn't work very well, i doubt it would bring any long term stability, and would only have a short term benefit to a set number of people.
Personally i just don't see the point of enslaving the world.... too much effort for too little gain.
3
Technology, Science & Alt Science / Mind Control
« on: January 09, 2007, 11:43:18 AM »
all the same, totalitarian governments like that crush invention and creativity, it would stagnate the world, never mind that mind control would also crush invention and creativity.... unless the worlds power is concentrated into one man this would not work, because if it were two men, they are both going to be afraid of the other taking his power, therefore he will need bigger and better weaponary, etc.
Also the economic cost of keeping a significant part of the world under "mind control" would probably be very large. Which is probably why the world powers opt for a more general passive mind control as they do now via propaganda and the media.
Also the economic cost of keeping a significant part of the world under "mind control" would probably be very large. Which is probably why the world powers opt for a more general passive mind control as they do now via propaganda and the media.
4
Technology, Science & Alt Science / Mind Control
« on: January 08, 2007, 02:47:48 PM »
Hmmm ok first of all Slavery does not work, it is uneconomical, the Romans realised it, the British realised it and the Americans realised it.
First of all if you have slavery it takes jobs away from "free" men, secondly slaves are generally demotivated, and finally, the most important reason, is that with slaves you have a duty of care to feed and house them. With an employee you pay them pittance and they have to fight for whatever scraps they can.
Don't let anyone tell you that Lincoln abolished slavery because he was a good man, he did it for economical and political reasons (economical that i listed above, and politcally he wanted to weaken the south).
So thinking that Capitilism will end in a return to slavery is naive.
err middle earth? what/when is middle earth? i assume he is not talking about Tolkien.
anyway in the Middle ages he with the biggest sword and the most friends was the one who was the "owner" and he simply divided out his "property" amongst those that fought for him. that would be the feudal system.
but enough talk about this Distributism which in my eyes seem pretty Marxist but with religion (i believe the term is a Theocracy?)
this topic is about Mind Control, not on political beliefs which there are hunderds of posts in this forum about already.
First of all if you have slavery it takes jobs away from "free" men, secondly slaves are generally demotivated, and finally, the most important reason, is that with slaves you have a duty of care to feed and house them. With an employee you pay them pittance and they have to fight for whatever scraps they can.
Don't let anyone tell you that Lincoln abolished slavery because he was a good man, he did it for economical and political reasons (economical that i listed above, and politcally he wanted to weaken the south).
So thinking that Capitilism will end in a return to slavery is naive.
Quote
Middle Ages Europe
Most of Middle Earth
err middle earth? what/when is middle earth? i assume he is not talking about Tolkien.
anyway in the Middle ages he with the biggest sword and the most friends was the one who was the "owner" and he simply divided out his "property" amongst those that fought for him. that would be the feudal system.
but enough talk about this Distributism which in my eyes seem pretty Marxist but with religion (i believe the term is a Theocracy?)
this topic is about Mind Control, not on political beliefs which there are hunderds of posts in this forum about already.
5
Technology, Science & Alt Science / Assumptions
« on: January 08, 2007, 02:25:06 PM »
actually you use properties of things to prove theory, for example things falling at 9.8 m/s/s helps prove Gravity, finding certain Mesons and Baryons at predicted energy values helps prove the Standard model. These are properties of the sceintific theories.
The universe existing can be said to be proof of gods existence.... but it could also be proof that the Big bang that happened, in fact the existence of the universe can be used to prove whatever crack pot theory i want to make up like.... oh i don't know... the universe exists because the oh powerful potatoe needed the soil to create his offspring in. This is, hopefully, not true, and there is not really any other evidence for this theory, other than rather hand wavy things. However there is quite a lot of evidence for the Big Bang including the latent heat in the universe, averaging at around 3 Kelvin, etc.
Anyawy god demands absolute blind faith from his followers, and god is perfect, therefore if it were possible to prove that god existed, then it would not be possible for god (atleast the christian thought of god) to exist.
The universe existing can be said to be proof of gods existence.... but it could also be proof that the Big bang that happened, in fact the existence of the universe can be used to prove whatever crack pot theory i want to make up like.... oh i don't know... the universe exists because the oh powerful potatoe needed the soil to create his offspring in. This is, hopefully, not true, and there is not really any other evidence for this theory, other than rather hand wavy things. However there is quite a lot of evidence for the Big Bang including the latent heat in the universe, averaging at around 3 Kelvin, etc.
Anyawy god demands absolute blind faith from his followers, and god is perfect, therefore if it were possible to prove that god existed, then it would not be possible for god (atleast the christian thought of god) to exist.
6
Technology, Science & Alt Science / Ancient Civilization
« on: January 08, 2007, 12:22:38 PM »
where is that second story from?
7
Technology, Science & Alt Science / Parthenogenesis [Virgin Birth]
« on: January 08, 2007, 12:20:41 PM »
it has actually been seen in quite a few reptiles and amphibians, that when a populetion is in some way limited to female only then one of the females will "become" male. There are also cases, again in reptiles and amphibiaians, of self procreation, which is this parthenogensis. Both occur when there is no male presence in the population. This was not the case in Mary's time, she was, afterall, to be married. So it is safe to assume that there were males around her.
Also this has never been seen in mammals, and there are significant differences between the biology of mammals and reptiles/amphibians.
Also this has never been seen in mammals, and there are significant differences between the biology of mammals and reptiles/amphibians.
8
Technology, Science & Alt Science / Moon Landing Hoax
« on: January 08, 2007, 12:09:29 PM »
well ok how about a less glaring difference, the 1964 SR71 Blackbird flew at Mach 3, the 2006 Airbus A380 flies at just below mach 1 (mach 0.85), the 2004 F-22 Raptor flies at around mach 2.5
The Harrier jump jet is capable of taking off vertically, however the first generation Harrier is
The Harrier jump jet is capable of taking off vertically, however the first generation Harrier is
Quote
an old piece of junkcompared to the F-22 Raptor
9
Technology, Science & Alt Science / Is there such a speed slower than no speed at all?
« on: January 08, 2007, 04:08:13 AM »
Personally i believe that the better question is not "is there a speed lower than no speed at all" but is instead " is there such a thing AS no speed at all" considering even if you are at rest on the Earth surface you are still in motion, so is it actually possible to be totally at rest?
10
Technology, Science & Alt Science / Moon Landing Hoax
« on: January 08, 2007, 04:04:41 AM »
I read that article that was posted at the top of this topic and it was actually quite interesting, especially the one about how the crosshairs are behind the white object. that was always the one "hoax" i could never rationalize.... would never have thought of bleed through.
11
Technology, Science & Alt Science / Faster Than Light Travel
« on: January 08, 2007, 03:36:51 AM »
hmm Einstein didn't actually say that faster than light travel is impossible, he did say that acceleration to faster than light travel is impossible, however other methods of gaining apparent ftl travel may be possible.
Also the name for radiation that travels ftl is called a tachyon.
Also the name for radiation that travels ftl is called a tachyon.
12
Technology, Science & Alt Science / evolution : why not?
« on: January 08, 2007, 03:09:53 AM »
damned i made a nice long post with lots of lovely evidence for why evolution was not a complete theory then my browser crashed ::sigh::
well lets try again:
This teaches me to try and make an arguement for the other side. Now i have to go do some research instead of just talking out my rear end....
from http://www.cs.unc.edu/~plaisted/ce/blocked.html
Basically, as i have seen in several other papers, one of the major difficulties in the evolution theory is that some of the evolutionary steps that seem to be necessary would have caused protein unfolding, which would have caused the single celled organism to die, therefore that step in evolution would have been "eliminated from the population". as seen in many bacteria, protein evolution seems to stay in a certain range of stability.
http://serendip.brynmawr.edu/biology/b103/f01/web1/baird.html
This article is written by a student and discusses the possibility of life originating from a planet other than earth, and comming down to earth via an asteroid or the like. This theory is proposed to jump over the time constraint of the life ending events, because life was kick started. It is also a theory that is gaining support because of certain discoveries, such as a bacteria that is resistant to high levels of radiation, something that has no use on the surface of Earth, and the discovery of complex organic molecules inside a meteor.
I had more articles that i quoted, but these were the easiest to find again. I should note that i only used websites from .edu and .ac.uk (university websites in America and Britian respectively)
well lets try again:
This teaches me to try and make an arguement for the other side. Now i have to go do some research instead of just talking out my rear end....
Quote
Another way to justify the fact that many mutations are needed to change the shape of a protein is found in [Cordes et al 99]:
Mutagenesis experiments show that limited changes in sequence can have large effects on stability and activity, but generally do not lead to large shifts in structure. For example, highly disruptive mutations such as insertions in elements of regular secondary structure or hydrophobic-to-charged substitutions at core positions lead to only minor structural differences in bacteriophage T4 lysozyme and staphylococcal nuclease, pointing to a strong drive to preserve the basic native fold.
Despite this, just a few mutations are likely to cause a protein to misfold, or not to fold at all. In the transition between folds, a protein passes through a region of instability, and is likely not to fold at all. Since natural proteins tend to be stable, it must be that instability is detrimental to the organism and (under evolutionary assumptions) is eliminated from the population. Therefore proteins tend to remain in regions of stability, and many mutations are required to change their shape. Thus mutations along the path of change would be harmful to the organism and would tend to be eliminated from the population.
from http://www.cs.unc.edu/~plaisted/ce/blocked.html
Basically, as i have seen in several other papers, one of the major difficulties in the evolution theory is that some of the evolutionary steps that seem to be necessary would have caused protein unfolding, which would have caused the single celled organism to die, therefore that step in evolution would have been "eliminated from the population". as seen in many bacteria, protein evolution seems to stay in a certain range of stability.
Quote
Klyce uses the faults of the Darwinian Evolution theory to support his theory for strong panspermia. Many scientists agree that the theory of Darwinian Evolution has flaws. Darwinian evolution relies on random point mutations to produce evolved organisms. As mathematician David Belinski points out from a mathematical point of view, Darwinian theories appear far too weak to have brought about the remarkable structures evident in living creatures. (10) If one assumes that all life arose out of random generations of proteins then there’s a problem. First of all, every known example of genetic mutation either produces no noticeable change or causes death (or in rare cases undoes the mistake of a past mutation). (Yet, Darwinian evolution relies on random point mutations creating lots of biological advantages. The ratio of useful proteins to possible random proteins is 1:10500. (7) Therefore, barring incredible luck, it would take about 10500 trials to produce one useful protein when a cell needs a minimum of one to two thousand proteins. (7) Hence, life appeared on earth (and evolved) too quickly for the Darwinian theory of evolution to be completely correct.
http://serendip.brynmawr.edu/biology/b103/f01/web1/baird.html
This article is written by a student and discusses the possibility of life originating from a planet other than earth, and comming down to earth via an asteroid or the like. This theory is proposed to jump over the time constraint of the life ending events, because life was kick started. It is also a theory that is gaining support because of certain discoveries, such as a bacteria that is resistant to high levels of radiation, something that has no use on the surface of Earth, and the discovery of complex organic molecules inside a meteor.
I had more articles that i quoted, but these were the easiest to find again. I should note that i only used websites from .edu and .ac.uk (university websites in America and Britian respectively)
13
Technology, Science & Alt Science / evolution : why not?
« on: January 07, 2007, 12:47:37 PM »Quote
Every scientist who isn't an idiot will admit that Evolution has more evidence supporting it than any other theory. Ever
yes i agree.... but it isn't a complete theory yet, i was meerly responding to the guy who posted at the top asking for reasons why people don't beleive in evolution. I myself do beleive in evolution.
Quote
By the way, we evolved from mammals that survived the meteor collision.
that wasn't a life ending event, that was a mass extinction event, mass extinction is meant to happen around every 50-100 million years (infact one nearly happened around the time of jesus, when a large asteroid hit into the moon, if there were no moon then that would have probably been a mass extinction event), with smaller extinction events happening in between (like ice ages, etc) a life ending event would be like in the early days of earths life when we collided with another large astral body that ripped open the crust of the earth.... we've seen similar things happen to other planets and moons, and they would happen a lot more often to earth if it wasn't for Jupiter intercepting a lot of meteor's/comets that enter into the solar system.
Quote
Do you have any evidence to back this claim up? Because the mental faculties of an individual ant would seem to be pretty simple.
was a story given to me by my computing lecturer i'm afraid, so no i don't have any evidence for it other than this guys word. Although ants are very interesting mentally because of the hive mind that they work under. I doubt they could consciously handle calculus and algebra, but then have you ever seen a robot able to not only find food in a well hidden area, but actually get to that well hidden area as well? I mean it takes one of the most advanced computers in the world focused entirely on one function to be able to beat a man at chess. if you consider all the other functions that our brain does, and then that we only use 10% of our brain, then it is not hard to believe that our brain is probably incalculably more powerful than all the computers in the world combined, so reducing it down to an ant's size, then it might be reasonable to assume that several million computers linked together could be about as powerful and complex as an ant's brain.
14
Technology, Science & Alt Science / It's not God who made mankind stupid, it's the Devil
« on: January 06, 2007, 09:27:59 AM »
the devil doesn't make us stupid, the devil has no power on earth, except that which mankind gives him.
he may be deathly convincing, but he has no power.
he may be deathly convincing, but he has no power.
15
Technology, Science & Alt Science / Time is nothing more than man's invention.
« on: January 06, 2007, 09:24:49 AM »
as i mentioned else where time is not an invention of man, that is like saying gravity is an invention of man (whether you believe on RE gravity or FE gravity - lets just call it gravity for now so i don't have to think of another word for it)
time is defined as how long it takes for light to travel a certain distance, for example one second is how long it takes light to travel about 300,000 km.
Yes seconds, minutes, hours, and months are all "human" inventions, and broadly days and years too, although they are more inventions of god/random chance (which ever you beleive made the earth rotate on its axis and around the sun at a certain speed). However society would work just as well if you defined minutes as 100 seconds, hours as 100 minutes, days as 20 hours, months as 20 days, and years as 10 months to make it all nice and decimal.... although you would have to redifine the lenght of a second, or not follow the rising and setting of the sun to define what time of day it was, and also not follow the rotation of the earth round the sun to define when a year starts and ends. but you could do it.
but anyway i ramble on. to say that time is an invention of man is lunacy, if humanity didn't exist it would be there just as much as it does now. how man records time is mans invention.... so saying tuesday the 29th of January 1980 is an invention of man would be correct.... if perhaps a little pointless to say.
time is defined as how long it takes for light to travel a certain distance, for example one second is how long it takes light to travel about 300,000 km.
Yes seconds, minutes, hours, and months are all "human" inventions, and broadly days and years too, although they are more inventions of god/random chance (which ever you beleive made the earth rotate on its axis and around the sun at a certain speed). However society would work just as well if you defined minutes as 100 seconds, hours as 100 minutes, days as 20 hours, months as 20 days, and years as 10 months to make it all nice and decimal.... although you would have to redifine the lenght of a second, or not follow the rising and setting of the sun to define what time of day it was, and also not follow the rotation of the earth round the sun to define when a year starts and ends. but you could do it.
but anyway i ramble on. to say that time is an invention of man is lunacy, if humanity didn't exist it would be there just as much as it does now. how man records time is mans invention.... so saying tuesday the 29th of January 1980 is an invention of man would be correct.... if perhaps a little pointless to say.
16
Technology, Science & Alt Science / evolution : why not?
« on: January 06, 2007, 09:13:02 AM »
evolution why not? well lets see, there is the complexity of the central nervous system, there is the statistical unlikelyness of the right amino acids forming, never mind then combining to become proteins. considering the relatively short time between life ending events on earth (ie big rock comming out of the sky and killing everyone) it is hard to see how the Brain could have evolved so fast considering how horribly complex it is (if the empire state building were filled with computers on every floor it would struggle to be as complex as an ants brain)
It is also hazy to see where humans diverged from the other great apes, and why our closest genetic relatives are both drastically smaller that us, even though in evolution we would most likely share the same species a couple million years ago.
you should note that i don't beleive in "intelligent design" but every sceintist who isn't an idiot will admit that evolution has holes in it.
It is also hazy to see where humans diverged from the other great apes, and why our closest genetic relatives are both drastically smaller that us, even though in evolution we would most likely share the same species a couple million years ago.
you should note that i don't beleive in "intelligent design" but every sceintist who isn't an idiot will admit that evolution has holes in it.
17
Technology, Science & Alt Science / Eternity is a Paradox
« on: January 06, 2007, 08:51:08 AM »
actually time is by how long it takes for a photon of light to transverse a certain distance. for example one second is defined as how long it takes for a photon of light to go about 300000 km. therefore in every inertial frame there is an exact reference for time (since the speed of light does not change whatever velocity you are going).
to say that "time does not exist" is like saying Gravity doesn't exist (well.... the movement downtowards the earth whatever you please to call it)
to say that "time does not exist" is like saying Gravity doesn't exist (well.... the movement downtowards the earth whatever you please to call it)
18
Technology, Science & Alt Science / When do you think we will be able to run a car off of water?
« on: October 04, 2006, 01:05:35 PM »
The problem with "going green" is that there are two things you have to fix. One is polution emitted by cars - and the main proposed "green" things are the electric car (or a hybrid one - very efficient, very expensive), Biofuel (you are sitll burning something and producing CO2, however the plants when grown absorb as much CO2 as emitted when burnt), and the Hydrogen (or as you seem to want to call it, the Water) Car.
Biofuel fits in very well with the current process of manufacturing cars, and it only requires very little modification to the car to run. It also can be grown, and would be a great cash crop for the poorer tropical countries of the world. Problem is - as with all of these - it has no infrastructure in place. Also it is just as inefficient and dirty as a petrol drvien engine, and will not cut down on actual polution only on net CO2 in the atmosphere.
Electric cars don't really solve the problem of CO2 emissions because you still need to make the electricity. and that is still done with oil/coal/whatever.
Then Hydrogen Cars, Hydrogen when burned produces water, and a lot of energy. so everything so far is great. first problem is how do you store the hydrogen? you would require a rediculously big petrol tank to store enough hydrogen in gas form, therefore you need to cool it/put it under pressure so you have liquid hydrogen. not a big problem but it ruins efficiency a little. The next problem is where do you get the hydrogen from? as has been said already you can get it via electrosis - big problem here is that to produce enough Hydrogen to run every car in america using electricity form Nuclear powerplants, you would need to every water way in the eastern coast of America. This isn't going to happen. Hydrogen can also be produced as an exhaust in a fusion reactor (which i will talk about a bit further down) but they are a good 50 years away.
The big problem with each of these is the cost. Petrol is cheaper. and as long as petrol remains cheaper market forces dictate it will be used.
then we go to the main CO2/polluter General electricity production. Wind causes relatively little enviormental damage (about .04 cents worth per killowatt hour) and is also competitively priced. Problem is an entire Wind farm can go from 60% production capacity to 0% in under an hour. Therefore it requires back up from another fuel source.
Solar cells are extremely inefficent, fragile, and expensive. therefore making it the most expensive energy source i will talk about. The plus side is, even on a cloudy day they still produce 60% of the energy that they would on a sunny day. however they produce no energy at night time. yet again requiring a secondary fuel source - or some expensive elaborate energy storage system. (also wouldn't work too well in the far north or far south during the winter)
Then there is Fusion - Fusion over the next 10 years is going into the last stage of development before an experimental commercial power plant is built, and, baring any major set back, it should be commercially availible in about 50 years. course that is a long way in the future. Fusions main fuel source is, effectively, water and its main waste is Helium. The irradiated substances only need about 100 years of storage before it is as safe as a microwave (compared to 1000 years with fission). Although current projections indicate that the cost per kilowatt hour from fusion is about 2 cents more than current petrol prices (however Fusion has an enviromental foot print comparable to Wind power). Also a fusion power plant is extremely complex and thereofre would be prohibitively expensive to build - such that one could only imagine USA/UK/China/Canada/France/Germany/etc. building them.
The cost of petrol however is steadily increasing, eventually market forces will dictate the move to another fuel source.
Biofuel fits in very well with the current process of manufacturing cars, and it only requires very little modification to the car to run. It also can be grown, and would be a great cash crop for the poorer tropical countries of the world. Problem is - as with all of these - it has no infrastructure in place. Also it is just as inefficient and dirty as a petrol drvien engine, and will not cut down on actual polution only on net CO2 in the atmosphere.
Electric cars don't really solve the problem of CO2 emissions because you still need to make the electricity. and that is still done with oil/coal/whatever.
Then Hydrogen Cars, Hydrogen when burned produces water, and a lot of energy. so everything so far is great. first problem is how do you store the hydrogen? you would require a rediculously big petrol tank to store enough hydrogen in gas form, therefore you need to cool it/put it under pressure so you have liquid hydrogen. not a big problem but it ruins efficiency a little. The next problem is where do you get the hydrogen from? as has been said already you can get it via electrosis - big problem here is that to produce enough Hydrogen to run every car in america using electricity form Nuclear powerplants, you would need to every water way in the eastern coast of America. This isn't going to happen. Hydrogen can also be produced as an exhaust in a fusion reactor (which i will talk about a bit further down) but they are a good 50 years away.
The big problem with each of these is the cost. Petrol is cheaper. and as long as petrol remains cheaper market forces dictate it will be used.
then we go to the main CO2/polluter General electricity production. Wind causes relatively little enviormental damage (about .04 cents worth per killowatt hour) and is also competitively priced. Problem is an entire Wind farm can go from 60% production capacity to 0% in under an hour. Therefore it requires back up from another fuel source.
Solar cells are extremely inefficent, fragile, and expensive. therefore making it the most expensive energy source i will talk about. The plus side is, even on a cloudy day they still produce 60% of the energy that they would on a sunny day. however they produce no energy at night time. yet again requiring a secondary fuel source - or some expensive elaborate energy storage system. (also wouldn't work too well in the far north or far south during the winter)
Then there is Fusion - Fusion over the next 10 years is going into the last stage of development before an experimental commercial power plant is built, and, baring any major set back, it should be commercially availible in about 50 years. course that is a long way in the future. Fusions main fuel source is, effectively, water and its main waste is Helium. The irradiated substances only need about 100 years of storage before it is as safe as a microwave (compared to 1000 years with fission). Although current projections indicate that the cost per kilowatt hour from fusion is about 2 cents more than current petrol prices (however Fusion has an enviromental foot print comparable to Wind power). Also a fusion power plant is extremely complex and thereofre would be prohibitively expensive to build - such that one could only imagine USA/UK/China/Canada/France/Germany/etc. building them.
The cost of petrol however is steadily increasing, eventually market forces will dictate the move to another fuel source.
19
Flat Earth Q&A / Wind on the Round Earth
« on: August 09, 2006, 06:10:09 PM »
erasmus if this is true why is the same effect exhibited by a free hanging pendulum?
20
Flat Earth Q&A / The roundness of the earth is age-old truth.
« on: August 08, 2006, 06:31:28 PM »
surely they didn't KNOW either of these things, they just thought (crap i used that word... he is going to repeat it with a capital T) that it was flat, round, upside down, inside out, whatever you damn well please. They had no way of telling definitively (although you could say they do now with the whole going into space thing if you beleive that we have gone into space)
21
Flat Earth Q&A / Well done dogplatter
« on: August 08, 2006, 06:29:04 PM »
it was my understanding that Aethist thinks there is god, an agnostic thinks there is a god but that god is not worthy of his worship
22
Flat Earth Q&A / Photons
« on: August 08, 2006, 04:22:26 AM »
as i said they have momentum but they do no have mass, the actual formula is:
lamda = h/p
(no idea how you make symbols in a post) you cannot state that for a photon p=mv (p is momentum btw).
lamda = h/p
(no idea how you make symbols in a post) you cannot state that for a photon p=mv (p is momentum btw).
23
Flat Earth Q&A / Astronomers detect new flat planet being formed
« on: August 07, 2006, 05:54:40 PM »
although it does raise the interesting fact that the universe is - broadly - flat (not totally however) but overall the universe doesn't seem to be using all the space it could.
24
Flat Earth Q&A / Photons
« on: August 07, 2006, 05:51:19 PM »
photons do not have mass under any circumstance - they have momentum but they cannot be considred to have mass - the effects of gravity etc are tied into wave particle duality and the photons momentum, however the photon HAS NO MASS
25
The Lounge / Our president and intelligent design
« on: August 07, 2006, 05:47:03 PM »
Hitler never cheated on his wife (ofc they were only married for about an hour before they killed each other) and never drank or smoked.
Churchill was a drunkard, a womanizer, and smoked like there was no tomorrow.
In other words go out and get drunk tonight and cheat on your wife, it will make you a better person
Churchill was a drunkard, a womanizer, and smoked like there was no tomorrow.
In other words go out and get drunk tonight and cheat on your wife, it will make you a better person
26
Technology, Science & Alt Science / Does the bible condemn abortion?
« on: August 07, 2006, 05:41:12 PM »
hmm i know this relates back to the first page but David did kill Goliath, admittedly he probably wasn't 40 foot tall or anything, but even if he were just 6 foot tall he would have seemed like a giant at that time.
I believe most historians of this era say that Goliath was most likely a phonecian general trying to conquer the hebrews.... one stone between the eyes later and David becomes king david
Now onto the actual topic, personally i bleeive the aboriton is distateful, and it almost disgusts me when it is used because a chile would not be "convienient" as is said somewhere above you had sex, what the hell did you think would happen?
But saying that i beleive that woman should have the choice. Just as i beleive someone has the right to vote for a neo-nazi group at a general election i think they have the right to an abortion. But i don't particualarly want to know someone who does either.
I also beleive that an abortion hurts you more in the long term than having the child would have done - most woman regret having an abortion after the fact, but i have yet to meet a mother who says that they regret choosing to have there child.
I believe most historians of this era say that Goliath was most likely a phonecian general trying to conquer the hebrews.... one stone between the eyes later and David becomes king david
Now onto the actual topic, personally i bleeive the aboriton is distateful, and it almost disgusts me when it is used because a chile would not be "convienient" as is said somewhere above you had sex, what the hell did you think would happen?
But saying that i beleive that woman should have the choice. Just as i beleive someone has the right to vote for a neo-nazi group at a general election i think they have the right to an abortion. But i don't particualarly want to know someone who does either.
I also beleive that an abortion hurts you more in the long term than having the child would have done - most woman regret having an abortion after the fact, but i have yet to meet a mother who says that they regret choosing to have there child.
27
Flat Earth Q&A / Occam's Razor
« on: August 06, 2006, 05:41:18 PM »
hmm you know it would if the entire earth were a superconductor!!!
it ain't though.
it ain't though.
28
Flat Earth Q&A / Occam's Razor
« on: August 06, 2006, 05:29:47 PM »
ok... err.... magnetism? surely the sun should be crashing towards the ground?
also on the fusion thing: The RE sun, has a fusion reaction, causing the a massive amount of energy "seperating" the mass apart, then gravity pulls it back together (there is a hell of a lot more to it than that, and i'll get into it if i have to ;-) )
what in the FE is holding the sun together if it is under a fusion reaction?
also on the fusion thing: The RE sun, has a fusion reaction, causing the a massive amount of energy "seperating" the mass apart, then gravity pulls it back together (there is a hell of a lot more to it than that, and i'll get into it if i have to ;-) )
what in the FE is holding the sun together if it is under a fusion reaction?
29
Flat Earth Q&A / Bandwidth exceeded?
« on: August 06, 2006, 05:24:53 PM »
well, broadly, this one qwerty ;-)
30
Technology, Science & Alt Science / Consciousness, the border of the universe..
« on: August 06, 2006, 05:21:57 PM »
Einstiens Theory of relativity states that the speed of light is the same whatever speed you yourself are going, therefore it is not possible to set a frame of reference at the speed of that photon, because it will always be travelling at 3x10^8 m/s