2041

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Cultural appropriation

« on: July 03, 2014, 01:54:28 AM »

It's like asking "what color is time?"

Plaid, of course.

2042

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Moon

« on: July 02, 2014, 08:26:46 PM »

"Very close to the Sun"
Excuse me? The Shadow Objects might orbit the Sun, but it's not very close to it. Otherwise we'd be seeing Solar eclipses all the time.

The shadow object might actually travel very far away from the Earth and be pulled back into the Sun due to its aetheric pull value.

Then why did you say:

The Shadow Object is never seen because it orbits close to the sun.

2043

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Moon

« on: July 02, 2014, 07:58:54 PM »

Now, like I said, this is one theory. From my observations, the sun and moon disc seem to be at the same altitude. So I choose to believe that an antimoon and/or antisun causes both solar and lunar eclipse.

That's fine, but still doesn't explain why a small, dark, invisible object that closely orbits the sun should be easy to spot in the night sky.

It blots out stars and other objects behind it. The antimoon moves around. It's not that hard to comprehend.

Since when are objects that orbit very close to the sun visible in the night sky?  Or do you have a definition of "night sky" that's different from the one that's normally used?

2044

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Moon

« on: July 02, 2014, 07:49:47 PM »

Now, like I said, this is one theory. From my observations, the sun and moon disc seem to be at the same altitude. So I choose to believe that an antimoon and/or antisun causes both solar and lunar eclipse.

That's fine, but still doesn't explain why a small, dark, invisible object that closely orbits the sun should be easy to spot in the night sky.

2045

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Moon

« on: July 01, 2014, 11:00:58 PM »

When I say "easy to spot" what I assume you'd gather from that is that it is easy to precieve. Especially combined with words like invisible and "patch of darkness".

How is an object that orbits close to the sun "easy to spot" in the night sky? 

2046

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Moon

« on: July 01, 2014, 08:19:42 PM »

Also, like I've said before, you can easily spot the Shadow Object with your own eyes by looking at the sky at night. There is almost always a circular patch of sky that has no stars. That's the Shadow Object. Are you blind as well as stupid?

  Wait a minute.  Didn't you say that the shadow object is never seen because it orbits close to the sun?

The Shadow Object is never seen because it orbits close to the sun.

Why yes, you did say that.  Perhaps you should get your own story straight before you start calling other people blind and/or stupid.

2047

Arts & Entertainment / Re: Now Playing

« on: July 01, 2014, 02:31:05 AM »

#t=18

2048

Arts & Entertainment / Re: Korra season 3

« on: June 30, 2014, 08:22:34 PM »

ITT: Adults who watch kids' shows.

You say that like it's a bad thing. 

2049

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Attack of the Giant Rats!

« on: June 27, 2014, 06:35:40 PM »

Looks like the giant rats will be bringing fleas along as well:
http://www.dailystar.co.uk/news/latest-news/385586/summer-to-bring-increase-of-fleas

2050

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: North Korea 'threatens war' over film

« on: June 27, 2014, 03:57:43 PM »

I don't think anyone in their right mind ...

I though that we were discussing North Korea.

2051

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: House speaker seeks to sue president

« on: June 27, 2014, 02:01:41 AM »

I find the timing interesting.  So soon before elections and immediately following his second in command's defeat to more extreme republicans.

It takes a while for cases to move up through the courts. If he had done it in 2016 the suit wouldn't have much impact when Obama is no longer president.

If he had tried working with Obama to make things better instead of doing everything in his power to block Obama's every move, then maybe all this nonsense wouldn't be necessary.  Then again, it wouldn't be politics, would it?

2052

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: House speaker seeks to sue president

« on: June 26, 2014, 02:12:50 PM »

Maybe, just maybe, if congress tried working with Obama, instead of trying to thwart his every move, then Obama might not feel the need to abuse his powers.

2053

Arts & Entertainment / Re: Now Playing

« on: June 25, 2014, 01:48:34 PM »

2054

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Do YOU believe in Communism?

« on: June 25, 2014, 01:10:49 PM »

It can work quite well for very small communities.

It seems to work quite well for ants and bees, and they can have some pretty big communities.

2055

Science & Alternative Science / Re: Solar Roadways

« on: June 24, 2014, 10:23:17 PM »

Over the centuries, a variety of materials have been used to make roads: dirt, gravel, cobble stones, bricks, concrete, asphalt, etc.  If glass is such a wonderful material, then why hasn't anyone used it to make roads before now?

Here's a better question:
Why did they use all those other materials?  If asphalt is so great, why didn't they just start with that and skip the other crap?

I never said that asphalt is so great.  If anything, asphalt has some pretty significant disadvantages compared to some other materials, which is why all of those other materials are still in use today.  Then again, asphalt has some pretty significant advantages too, so it becomes a question of which material is most appropriate for the situation.

So, one the significant questions that needs to be answered is how do the pros and cons of textured, tempered glass compare to asphalt and concrete?  After all, if glass can't be made into a suitable road surface, then everything else is moot.

2056

Science & Alternative Science / Re: Solar Roadways

« on: June 24, 2014, 08:05:38 PM »

And then you just need someone who is tired of potholes and ready to think of something new.

I'm sorry, but how does glass solve the pothole problem? 

As this keeps going you think of more and more unimaginative arguments. It's fine if you hate the idea, but "why wasn't it ever used before" is not a good argument.

I don't hate the idea, I just think that it's overly ambitious and they need a reality check.  I think that "why wasn't it ever used before" is a very good argument, especially if you're considering a multi-trillion dollar investment. 

Then again, I don't suppose that the question a viability will really be answered until these guys actually lay down a few hundred yards of roadway for some real world testing, not the least of which being the question of actual energy production vs consumption of the system.

2057

Science & Alternative Science / Re: Solar Roadways

« on: June 24, 2014, 05:15:45 PM »

Over the centuries, a variety of materials have been used to make roads: dirt, gravel, cobble stones, bricks, concrete, asphalt, etc.  If glass is such a wonderful material, then why hasn't anyone used it to make roads before now?

2058

Science & Alternative Science / Re: Solar Roadways

« on: June 24, 2014, 02:31:37 AM »

Now, concrete is harder and stronger than glass.

I don't know that it's the case that concrete is harder and stronger than glass.

Really?

This calls... FOR SCIENCE!

http://www.technologyreview.com/news/512411/your-next-smartphone-screen-may-be-made-of-sapphire/

Oh snap.

Is it just me, or did you just contradict your own claim?

2059

Science & Alternative Science / Re: Solar Roadways

« on: June 24, 2014, 02:26:21 AM »

It depends on the drainage system. It is possible to set it up in a way that the water never has to touch the circuits.

Does the word "condensation" mean anything to you?

2060

Science & Alternative Science / Re: Solar Roadways

« on: June 22, 2014, 08:56:39 PM »

Where do they even say they are definitely using concrete?

What else are they going to use?  Asphalt?