I should probably know this, but what side of the pond is this shipping from? Funny enough, these are decent annealing torches, so I've been somewhat interested in getting one, as a 50% actually useful, 50% I'm going to get arrested for melting the snow off of my sidewalk this winter, tool.

I don't think they are lying. I went through some of their older posts in the thread, and I'm under the impression that they are messing around, hopefully not genuinely disturbed.

On an interesting side note, there was a topic a grad student from Stanford I want to say, proposed a few years ago, where they said that all bodies in the universe are made of yoyos, and it held pretty well mathematically under ideal situations. The real flat earth believers use that kind of pseudo logic to find specialized circumstances inside of the broader acceptance of how things work, to come up with interesting ideas like that. They are at least useful in that you can question why it all makes sense if all of the planets are yoyos and learn something from it.

Notbatman is essentially invoking the religious argument, that everything is wrong because. You don't need to back up an argument based on faith. We can't prove otherwise because we can't come to an agreement on any basis, and you don't need to explain your faith, because its your belief. If I say that something is gravity, you can simply say, no that's god's will holding you down, and you can't prove or disprove it. Even if we come to an agreement that we can quantify mystery X at 9.80m/s^2 at the surface of the earth, you can still argue that it is only Mystery X at the surface of the earth in cases where the aether monster wants it to be, so you can bend any misconception that you want into a fact.

I'm sure this is going to be misquoted, so don't bother responding until you prove that your assumptions aren't mere beliefs in the unproven. The reason I think you are just messing around, is because you are very intentionally dodging the least critical, most logical questions that I've asked. They don't target you, and rather assume you are correct, and invite you onto the stage to share you knowledge. You won't begin by proving your statements because you don't have to prove your statements, because they are mere beliefs. If you at least want the A for effort, back up your claims with something consistent. If you want to prove that the aether exists because of an experiment that relies on gravity for the result, you are admitting that gravity exists. If you don't think gravity exists, you can't use the results of that experiment.

Science can't argue against an omnipotent force that can do anything it wants. Science can't convince religion, those that don't understand it, or those that purposely ignore it.

I acknowledge your right to your own reality. Your belief in a flat earth doesn't hurt anyone any more than someone's belief in a deity, cthulu, the flying spaghetti monster, or santa clause. Just know that not a single person will ever take you seriously if you can't understand the concept of backing up your claims, or blaming the jews for flattening earth or whatever it is you are doing.

This is really getting pitiful. I'm not taking a jab at your beliefs, I'm taking a jab at your thought process. For the sake of analyzing your statements, I'm assuming your initial conditions are true. I personally don't think they are, but thats not the point. If I assume the aether is real, the earth isn't moving, and the sun is where and what you claim, then your proofs of those topics don't hold up.

I'm not saying a gravitational field must be present, I'm saying that the laws that you are claiming as evidence requires a gravitational field to be present. Whether gravity is real or not, I don't care. My point is that theory A relies on Variable B, where Variable B is gravity. You claim that Theory A is proof of your point, however you also claim that Gravity isn't real, making Theory A not hold up. If you want to say, oh the aether is why we don't need gravity, you need a full set of calculations proving that is the case. We should then be able to take your full set of calculations, apply them to any situation, on earth, off of earth, in imaginary space, inside of a black hole, whatever. And it should still make sense. Let me see your derivations and how you reached your conclusion. I'm not humoring you just to be a jerk, I'm humoring you because even though I think you are wrong, that doesn't mean that you aren't going to accidentally stumble onto something that is actually going on.

I'm giving you the benefit of the doubt and not just saying, NOPE! AETHER ISN'T REAL TRY AGAIN! But you refuse to show how you came to the conclusion that it does exist. Find me a single scientist in any field that resorts to name calling or misdirection to personal attacks. Prove your point with your conclusions and how you came to them, not by throwing random assumptions out and then telling people they are stupid for not understanding how you came to your conclusions.

I believe that Theory A and Variable B exist. But, if I am to assume that you are right, there are too many contradictions to count. Its not that I'm trying to reject your own ideals, I'm just trying to make sense of them. You are disproving yourself. Take a few minutes to link all of your thoughts together. Start with your assumptions, and then make sure the experiments that you are using as proof don't rely on your assumptions being false. If an experiment says oh, we used this equation to figure out whats going on, and that equation relies on gravity, which you claim doesn't exist, then you are claiming the experiment was performed wrong, and you can't use it as proof.

If you'd like, I can treat you like an idiot, and ask you, "Do you believe in mass, do you believe in gravity, do you believe in friction, do you believe friction comes from gravity, do you believe in electric charge" but I'd much rather you just list your assumptions yourself, so we don't spend 30 minutes talking about how an experiment was flawed, just to have you say, Oh yeah by the way, I don't believe that mass exists. There are somewhat decent theories that mass doesn't exist, and that everything is governed by a law of attraction and repulsion of electric fields.

Michelson's conclusions on the speed of light place the distance of the sun at 93 million miles away. Morely's basis is optics, which you don't believe in either, and the Michelson Morley experiment help to prove relativity.

You believe those things are wrong, so you can't use that experiment to prove your point.

You don't agree with Maxwell's equations, because they are reliant on the speed of light being what they are, so any conclusion from the Trouton Nobel experiment are inconclusive.

In order for light to be dragged by either aether or anything else, a gravitational field must be present. You don't believe in gravity, so there is no dragging of light. Sagnac's experiment is useless in your case.

And, I don't know anything about Prunier or Dufour, so I'm not going to give you an interpretation on the fly that may have some error you can exploit.


This guy proves that light does this under these circumstances! Thats proof that something else is going on! But, light doesn't act that way because of my unicorn science. Hmm...?

Energy is energy, you can disregard the contents. Hydrogen is not a magic substance that defies the laws of physics. Tell me the PSI and the volume of the tank, and I can tell you exactly how many joules of energy are stored there. That potential energy can be converted to kinetic energy, and the kinetic energy is what causes problems.

I'm not sure why you felt the need to word it in caps and sarcasm, but without the sarcasm, you are correct.

Scuba Tank video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tyINNUaXa8Q
More!: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-Q_nVD3fkIs

Full of air, not an explosive chemical. Unless you are saying that if that scuba tank was full of hydrogen, and someone popped the top off, all of the hydrogen would just stay inside?

I've had plenty. I've said nothing incorrect. We are disagreeing on something very fundamental, and I'm not sure why. We aren't considering hydrogen at all, just compressed gas cylinders.

It doesn't matter if its hydrogen or nitrogen, or metal ball bearings. Pressure is pressure. Its not a matter of it being hydrogen, its a matter of hydrogen fuel requiring a highly pressurized container. If structural damage occurs to a highly pressurized container, explosive decompression occurs. The water heater video from Mythbusters is just pressurized water, yet it still explodes when the pressure goes higher than what the container can handle.

Lets take a step back and make sure there are no misunderstandings here. Cars use the chemical potential energy from the combustion of gasoline to create kinetic energy for the car to move. The whole point of a fuel source, is to convert potential energy into kinetic energy. There is chemical potential energy, pneumatic potential energy, electrical potential energy, etc. To make Hydrogen a feasible fuel source, it needs to be compressed and kept under high pressure. That means you need to keep a pressurized fuel source in your vehicle in order to use hydrogen as fuel. As a basic principal, the pressurized fuel will have two energy components to it. 1) The potential energy from the pressurized tank, and 2) the chemical potential energy from the fuel.

We are saying that the potential energy just from the pressure is a hazard when you start applying potential structural damage, such as car accidents.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rGWmONHipVo  < 300 PSI

PSI is a measure of force per unit area. 10,000 PSI of air and 10,000 PSI of nitroglycerin have the same potential energy from the pressure. There is additional chemical energy, but we are just talking about the pressure.

I used nitrogen as an example in my post, because its safe. My point was that a non reactive inert gas at 10,000 PSI is still a gas at 10,000 PSI. All of those movie scenes you see of people shooting bullets at car's fuel tanks and them blowing up is done with explosives, it doesn't actually work that way. If you shoot a bullet at a 10,000 PSI tank, there are going to be issues. Car crashes don't often cause fuel fires, a crash with a pressurized tank on board would probably cause the entire car to turn into shrapnel.

Pressurized containers are spooky when you consider that there are potential major forces that could be applied. I don't know if a fender bender would cause your car to explode, but a highway speed crash very well could, I might need to look into that. Just imagine the consequences of keeping a scuba tank in your car with you at all times. 12 gallons of gasoline or whatever a typical car holds isn't all that dangerous. If it ignites, the car is going to be engulfed in flames. Blow a hydrogen tank, and I'd be significantly more dangerous than an IED.



I think the point was made that hydrogen is more dangerous than propane, with relation to the pressure it needs to be kept under. Not that it is similar to propane.

I'm not sure about that, child developmental science is really primitive and speculative, mainly because we can't experiment on children in good conscience, but a lot of the speculation of what happens during early brain development in abnormal conditions come from those outlying cases such as feral or abused children do occur. For example, if children don't begin to speak by a certain relatively early age, they lose the ability to learn language, which has been observed in those cases. I see that as cause to believe that we don't have any mental processes built into our hardware, just that our hardware is incredibly adaptable until the point that its not.

This is kind of getting into the nature versus nurture debate, but I personally believe that nurture holds a much greater impact on behavioral development. Nature might play a part as far as genetic influences such as hereditary imbalances of hormones. Lack of serotonin or something to that effect will have an effect on your instinctual actions, but correction or lack of correction creates your behavior.

I don't think emotional intelligence is something that we can program AI to have, because its not something we completely comprehend ourselves. We can probably all agree that emotions have to do with the brain and chemical signals in the brain. But learned behavior can effect those chemical signals in the brain as well. I'm not sure how one would program an AI to receive dopamine when it conforms to societal expectations, and does something "good" the same way that humans get from a learned behavior.

You are saying science isn't correct, and then using the same science to prove your case. We can either assume that you are right in the first place, and your proof doesn't hold up. Or your proof is right, in which case your your assumptions are wrong. You need to recreate your own laws of physics and prove that they work if you want to do that. You can't prove that the aether exists, with the same laws that say it don't. Its just lazy.

By the way, the derivation of gravitational forces and electrostatics are nearly identical. I'd have to do some digging, but there is a strong chance that coulomb's law that you love so much relies on the concept of gravity, and if we deny gravity, we deny coulombs law.

F = GM1M2/R^2 is a force of attraction between two masses, dependent on the distance between those masses

F=kQ1Q2/R^2 exploits gaussian spherical surfaces using a force of attraction between two charges, dependent on the distance between those charges.

I'd reckon that the relationship between charge attraction and mass attraction theories were derived from the same place, so you can't have one without the other.

I really can't tell if you believe what you are saying yourself, or if this is just something you are playing around with for fun. I suppose it doesn't matter, but if you want people to take you serious at all, your story should at least be as sound a Harry Potter book. Link all of your theories together, and see if they contradict one another. From what you've said so far, they do. You say A = B, B= C but A!=C and then use A=C to prove your point. Stop jumping around from claim to claim, start with square one, by proving your assumptions. If your proof of your assumptions relies on things that say your assumptions are wrong, try again.

Astrophysics predates Judaism, so maybe physics controls the Jews?

None of those experiments were ever actually done. Its just lizard people that proposed those fake experiments to trick us. If they had actually been done the mudman would have objected and sacrificed 50% of the population of the continent the experiments were done on, as is what happened when the "black plague" hit Europe. If you didn't personally witness those experiments being done, you are just listening to the man, man...

All jokes aside, you can't invoke "science" after discrediting it by saying the basis of their foundations are incorrect. You've already claimed those experiments are invalid if we are to assume your previous claims. You can't use them as proof to support your new claim. Fact check your own claims and theories with the proof you are providing.

I stopped caring around the time that we stopped talking science, and started talking fairy tales. But, if you took a few minutes to compile all of your claims, you'd see just how many contradictions there are in the proofs, if we consider your assertions as fact. If an experiment is saying, we came to this conclusion due to gravity, or by laws of optics, but you have already claimed that those laws aren't real, how can you say that the experiment is proof of anything?

I've personally heard the opinion on the matter by respected professors and researchers in related fields. I did not hear from a single one of them, a definitive, no, global warming isn't real. But I realized one of the problems is the general public's misunderstanding of the moral codes that go along with being a researcher.

If a comprehensive study is done, and strong correlation is found, a researcher will not say, "We have found that global warming is caused by X". Its the opposite, even if a very strong correlation is found, it is their duty to make it strikingly obvious that the study cannot be interpreted as fact, even if there was 95% certainty. I have never heard from a reputable source that global warming is not a real thing. I have however heard from many reputable sources that based on the evidence, they believe global warming is real. However because science doesn't accept 95% or even 99% as certain fact, they make it clear that they aren't certain. People who are against the concept of global warming go running with that 1% uncertainty as conclusive proof that it isn't real. And thats where the debate begins. One of the hard parts to overcome, is that we do not have enough data. If you are claiming to know for certain based on a few hundred data points, out of a potential sample of millions that need to be collected, there is enough error just from that, that its hard to come to conclusions.

Obviously the problem with that, is if global warming is as we expect it to be, we can't wait around for a thousand years for enough data to be able to say, Ok Global Warming is confirmed. We either agree that the evidence is strong enough to take action in the case that we are right, deal with the consequences of not taking action if we were right, or nothing happens if we were wrong.

I'm personally on the side of rather be safe than sorry. There are enough benefits that go along with prevention of global warming that I feel its worth undertaking preventative measures. The overall negatives of assuming that global warming are relatively few compared to assuming that there isn't.

Maybe if real scientists were more like the research groups you hear about on the morning news that confirmed that coffee causes instant death, from a sample of 10 people that just so happened to be working in a poison factory. We would have less resistance to getting things done.

If you have 20k posts, and 1% of your posts are copy and pasted, you will probably be banned. Thats 200 copy and pasted posts. That said, you would have gotten ample warning between the first and two hundredth. Like I said, don't worry about it.

The reason we have unofficial rules and not rules set in stone with no room for negotiation, is so that no one is penalized or escapes penalties on a technicality. The moderators read why a post was reported, spend a minute skimming through someone's post history. If 99% of your posts are real posts, your bad post gets deleted, and thats the end of it. If 99% of your posts are bad posts, you get the boot. If 5% of your posts are bad posts, you might get a warning from the moderator, the moderator might ask the others their opinion, or you might get 10 deleted post PMs in your inbox. Almost all of the rules here are common sense. If you break them, you were either having a bad day, or it was intentional. The rules that aren't quite so common sense, you get even more leniency with. Things like, you can only bump your thread one time per day. You'll get a PM telling you to stop it before something bad happens.

On a side note, moderators give extra caution to moderating old posts. The rules weren't the same back in the day. Go look through old threads, and you'll find people posting +1 in reply to things. It wasn't a spam issue then, it was just a quick way of saying I support this post. When you have thousands of people doing that though, it begins to get spammy, and the rules had to be changed to now allow people to post like that.

Sorry missed this part:




Well to begin with, if someone in 2011 did copy and pasted something, it was likely for completely different motives than what people are doing now. People didn't really care about post count, and they weren't posting just to post, but to share information. In the case that someone did copy and paste, it probably had a fair amount of their own personal text along with it, such as an opinion or interpretation of the quote they had plagiarized. Intent plays a role in the decision. Someone who purposely claims words as their own, versus someone who uses the wrong format to cite a quote are different things. I'd say its a non issue.

Moderators use their own judgement for every single consideration. A member from 2011 that has 3 or 4 posts deleted per year, versus a new member who has 3 or 4 of their 5 total posts deleted will be shown more leniency. As I said before, intent plays a big role as well. Spamming the forum to increase your post count so you can get a signature advertisement is not the same as getting in a heated debate and yelling at someone. Both posts might be deleted, but the spam is more annoying and intentionally malicious.

There is no magic ban algorithm that moderators use. They look at what someone has done, how often they did it, whether they came here to commit offenses, or whether it was a once in a while people make mistakes type of thing, etc.

I've bolded a few parts of your post. Moderators don't need to conform to the unofficial rules, and there is no pressure to do so. The unofficial rules are written as they are, as a guideline created by collective ideas by the staff. If someone doesn't want to take any actions against someone for a rule they don't care for, they don't, "have to". Another moderator probably will though.

Moderators aren't supposed to ban and then gather evidence. Thats frowned upon.

The rules regarding copy and pasting have very little to do with stealing credit for others work. They were created relatively recently because of the emergence of people copy and pasting genuine posts to disguise their spam, mainly for paid signature advertisements.

The forum doesn't have a spirit of decentralization or democracy. Its operated by Theymos, and the staff here are in charge of making sure that information collected in the form of posts are accessible to anyone that wants to read it. Spam makes it harder to find information and derails conversation, so it is not allowed. Thats the extent of it. Users of the site have the right to read and discuss any topic that they'd like, as long as they don't ruin it for the others that want to read and discuss.

Bans are not frequently overturned because they are often the decision of multiple moderators. With clear and shut cases where 90% of someone's posts are copy and pasted or one word responses, moderators will act on their own. If there is any ambiguity, the moderators consult with one another typically until a nearly unanimous decision is made. Its still pretty uncommon, but I'd say the majority of ban "mistakes" that are made, are just the amount of time. Maybe a 14 day ban is more appropriate as a 7 day ban and changed to that instead. Permanent bans are almost never overturned, because they aren't made unless its a clear and shut case.

Why do you believe that Airy actually did the experiment? Are you not listening to the masses to believe that the experiment was ever done, or the results gathered were what they were? Do you own a sextant? Have you ever used it yourself to measure whatever it is you did? Did you build your own sextant? Maybe the person who constructed your sextant if you have one has prisms in it that refract the light to make you believe what you are seeing is real when it really isnt. Have you ever got a sunburn? How do you know its from UV radiation from the sun, and that the gravity elves didn't actually use a ray gun on you to punish you for basking in their holy sun? How do you know that the world didn't begin when you were born, and that everyone else was artificially planted on this "earth" (cough cough simulation) with their own memories and personalities to make you believe that the earth was more than a century old and round?

I buy that Nasa is the "mass" in power or whatever (they aren't, they are just a bunch of space nerds), but what about all of the high school physics teachers. No slight to them, but I can hardly define them as the ruling elite with a sole mission to brainwash us for... whatever reason? The same can be said about english teachers, have you ever considered how evil it is that we have language!?! Someone taught you language, and you just unknowingly agreed to be taught! What if the word "physics" is actually a magic word that allows the elves to take a fraction of your soul (made of aether and corn syrup) every time you say it?

Your arguments are rambling thought experiments more than anything else. If anyone wants to discuss the implications of physics using planes instead of spheres thats one thing. If you want to say that 90% of the laws of physics aren't real, you should first come up with working alternate theories that don't rely on the physics you are discarding to prove. Stop trying to prove things with optics. You claimed the sun was the span of the Atlantic ocean away from the earth, and the rays are divergent. Optics as we know them don't work under those assumptions.

Save a Bitcoin, and one day if it ever hits an absurd amount of money, please book a commercial space flight that'll be available in 10-20 years.

Car fires/explosions are incredibly uncommon. I'd be willing to bet that cars full of gasoline are safer than a vehicle with a 10,000 PSI tank of nitrogen, let alone hydrogen. When servicing machinery, pneumatic pressure is a dangerous proposition. Its easy to cut electricity and bleed a fuel line. Forgetting that there is a hose full of compressed air somewhere is somewhat common.
 
All of that said, if a billion people come into contact with ducks, and 2 people die from them. And one person comes into contact with a shark and dies from it, that doesn't mean ducks are more dangerous than sharks. Its kind of hard to draw any type of useful conclusion about hydrogen safety based on a small handful of incidents and their casualty counts, versus completely unrelated metrics, ie a blimp versus cars.

About energy density, cost, etc all of the limiting factors of batteries, they improve every year. Internal combustion engines for example haven't gotten all that much better in the past 100 years. The Model T got like 20 miles per gallon. Don't get me wrong, ICEs are becoming more efficient, more reliable, etc, but not at the same rate as batteries. In under 10 years, the cost per KWH of electric car batteries has decreased 70%, and the energy density has increased 3x recently with new Lithium batteries. Assuming it'd take... 30 years generously to introduce hydrogen as a useful fuel, where will battery technology be at that point? Just to reiterate, my position is to skip hydrogen, and just improve what we have for clean electricity already.

On a side note, while I was looking for some info about the fuel cells themselves, I found this article. I didn't really use the information in it to draw any conclusions, but its pretty interesting.

https://www.caranddriver.com/features/pump-it-up-we-refuel-a-hydrogen-fuel-cell-vehicle

Sorry, I've only got one telescope, so I can't replicate the experiment. Because I can't replicate it, I don't believe the results of the experiment.

Based on what I've read, it seems like the conclusions drawn are a reference frame error. If you see a ball flying by your head at 100 mph, you can either conclude that you are stationary, and its moving at 100 mph, you are moving at 50mph in the same direction, and the ball is moving at 150 mph, or the opposite, that its moving at 50 mph and you are also moving at 50mph towards it. It looks like the four pages of official documentation from the experiment don't realize the possibility that both the light and the earth are moving.