6681

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: What happened to flight MH370?

« on: March 19, 2014, 12:38:55 PM »

The probability is remote however it is possible that a mobile phone could cause a fire at a petrol station.

Well, yes, so could shoes. We should ban those too.

Are you allowed to use mobile phones at petrol filling stations?

Generally mobile telephones are not designed and certified for use in explosive atmospheres. Their use can also create a serious distraction for people carrying out dispensing activities. Radio transmissions from individual mobile telephones are generally too low to induce dangerous electric currents in nearby equipment and the risk of incendive sparking from the battery is low, however, they should not be used in the hazardous areas that exist when actually dispensing petrol. Neither should they be used in the hazardous areas around the fill and vent pipes during petrol deliveries.

Rather than applying a total prohibition on the use of mobile telephones on petrol forecourts which has resulted in some anomalies and frequent abuse to staff, the following controls are recommended:

   

• Mobile telephones should not be used by customers or forecourt staff whilst actually dispensing petrol into fuel tanks or containers;
• During petrol deliveries mobile telephones should not be used on those parts of the site that have been designated as hazardous areas by the site operator or the driver;
• Mobile telephones should not be used during other petrol handling operations or during the maintenance of petrol equipment unless a specific assessment shows the risks are negligible;
• There is no need to restrict the use of mobile telephones, with respect to the safe keeping of petrol, at other times or in other areas of the forecourt. This includes in the shop, in motor vehicles parked on the forecourt or in other non-hazardous areas.

The use of radio equipment fitted on emergency vehicles and citizen band (CB) radios may create an ignition risk. These types of transmitting equipment do have a power output sufficient to induce dangerous electrical currents in nearby fixtures and they should not be allowed to be used at the dispensing points or in the vicinity of the road tanker when unloading. It should be noted that the radio equipment mounted on most emergency vehicles is under automatic interrogation from the base station. This means that radio messages are being received and transmitted without anyone speaking into a hand set. The Home Office has issued the emergency services with separate advice on the use of radios and CB equipment in the vicinity of filling stations.

6682

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: What happened to flight MH370?

« on: March 19, 2014, 12:03:34 PM »

"Broadly, a citation is a reference to a published or unpublished source (not always the original source). "

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Citation

I stand corrected. I was only aware of the stricter definition outlined later in the article.

6683

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: What happened to flight MH370?

« on: March 19, 2014, 11:28:03 AM »

I think that still leaves heaps of places to land.

Absolutely.

6684

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: What happened to flight MH370?

« on: March 19, 2014, 11:07:14 AM »

Perhaps a signal from a mobile phone that was left on interfered with the electronics of the plane causing it to do weird things.

Yes, and petrol stations blow up if you use a phone close to the pumps.

6685

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Satellites

« on: March 19, 2014, 10:57:30 AM »

I give up. There's no point in trying to teach you proper debate if you're not willing to even try. Off to the ignore list you go.

6686

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: What happened to flight MH370?

« on: March 19, 2014, 10:49:33 AM »

Mobiles generally dont work at cruising altitude either.

Citation needed.

Far from a citation, but Rama's claim is consistent with my own observation. I'm that one douche that's often too lazy to switch my phone off (or put it in "airplane mode"), and my phone never picked up signal until shortly before landing. So, as long as they didn't land somewhere that has mobile coverage, they'd be completely undetected.

6687

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Satellites

« on: March 19, 2014, 10:31:50 AM »

The existance of satellutes is not an idea, it is fact.

Then it should be very easy to prove, and I encourage you to do so.

How does your satellite tv service work?

Not much can be said about that, given that my satellite TV service doesn't exist.

6688

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Satellites

« on: March 19, 2014, 10:24:06 AM »

So what would back up the claim or facts from millions who understand how they work, plus those who design and build them, are they wrong?

Perhaps Graham's Hierarchy of Disagreement will be of some use to you.



Currently, you alternate between "responding to tone" and "contradiction", introducing an occasional straw man along the way. For people to start taking you seriously, you'd have to bump it up to "counterargument" or "refuation".

Very importantly, saying "millions of people believe/know it" is not a valid argument in this case. It's a common logical fallacy known as argumentum ad populum. The popularity of an idea does not say anything about its truth value.

6689

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Satellites

« on: March 19, 2014, 10:13:10 AM »

Do you really doubt that satellites exist?  What do dishes point at, measure the angles to find the source.  Talk to people in the industry.

Why, why, why are you so reluctant to just back your claim up? Two can play that game, you know.

*ahem*

The Earth is hollow and we've known that for ages. Just look at satellite dishes, measure where they point. Talk to people in tinfoil hats. Also, your claims about satellites are untrue because of simple maths and set theory. Simple physics tells us that you must be wrong. Please explain how satellites have enough fuel to keep flying around the Earth.

This is what your posts look like. They include empty claims with no substantiation at all, pretend to refer to "basic" and "simple" stuff (but never in any specific way), and claim that others said what they didn't say. Do you understand how worthless that is in a discussion?

6690

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Satellites

« on: March 19, 2014, 10:03:14 AM »

Meanwhile, we know that satellites provide us with communications, and have done for many years.

You have yet to substantiate that.

Why is it that RE'ers are obligated to show why FET doesn't work but FE'ers aren't obligated show why FET does work?  Seriously, how can Inquisitive properly refute Thork's ionospheric skip proposal when Thork did not provide a workable proposal to refute?

He can't, and I'm not asking for that. I'm asking that he substantiates his own claims. Thork at least made a sloppy attempt.

What claims have I made that need substantiating?

I've done a pretty good job when it comes to quoting the claims while making requests. In fact, the very post you've quoted features two of those. I made them bold and pink for your convenience.

6691

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Satellites

« on: March 18, 2014, 01:07:19 PM »

Meanwhile, we know that satellites provide us with communications, and have done for many years.

You have yet to substantiate that.

Why is it that RE'ers are obligated to show why FET doesn't work but FE'ers aren't obligated show why FET does work?  Seriously, how can Inquisitive properly refute Thork's ionospheric skip proposal when Thork did not provide a workable proposal to refute?

He can't, and I'm not asking for that. I'm asking that he substantiates his own claims. Thork at least made a sloppy attempt.

6692

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Satellites

« on: March 18, 2014, 11:20:55 AM »

Funny that is what I was accusing you of!

Yes, good thing I called you out on it. Anyway, please stop derailing this thread. Feel free to continue trying to trip me up via PM if you so desire.

6693

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Satellites

« on: March 18, 2014, 08:55:40 AM »

I am not claiming that an ionosphere based system would work

Irrelevant.

6694

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Satellites

« on: March 18, 2014, 07:54:06 AM »

How about you come up with a proposal using the ionosphere and show how it would work. With enough design details for review.

Why are you so afraid of backing up your claims? C'mon, pick one and write about it in more than one sentence. You can do it, inquisitive. I believe in you. You can finally prove that you're not a complete waste of time to all of us!

6695

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Satellites

« on: March 18, 2014, 07:35:41 AM »

I did not miss any context.

I didn't say you missed it, merely that you skipped it. I accused you of malice, not stupidity.

It would not work.

Substantiate this claim.

Do you not know?  Basic maths.

Show your working and elaborate on the answer (well, once you presented it).

6696

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Satellites

« on: March 17, 2014, 03:16:36 PM »

I'm glad that you noticed my mockery of him. Too bad you skipped out on the context and my previous remarks.

6697

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Satellites

« on: March 17, 2014, 02:51:53 PM »

Thork needs to explain how it would work via skywaves, in detail.

That may well be so, but that does not mean you can carry on not explaining your own views. Hold yourself to your own standards first.

6698

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Satellites

« on: March 17, 2014, 12:42:57 PM »

What do you mean?

I mean that if you have a specific objection, you need to voice it. Otherwise, no one will take you seriously, and you're unlikely to see any replies that involve actual effort.

People aren't going to guess what you mean by saying "Nope, this won't work because variable distance lol". If you have something to say, just say it.

6699

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Satellites

« on: March 17, 2014, 11:26:53 AM »

Variable distance.

Use you words, inquisitive. Say what you mean, no one's gonna waste time trying to guess.

6700

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Satellites

« on: March 17, 2014, 09:23:45 AM »

Bouncing off the sky would not give that.

Why do you think that?