21

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

« on: June 24, 2014, 06:22:39 PM »

I guess it depends on what you mean by "works".

Obviously there are some big, powerful countries that operate under Communism. They appear to be functioning, even though they obviously have problems. But then there are some democratic countries that appear to have problems too.

If you mean, is Communism in practice congruent with its stated ideals? Probably not. But then again, the functioning of any country is probably far from ideal.

In conclusion, I'm not a communist, so please don't blackball me.

22

Science & Alternative Science / Re: Solar Roadways

« on: June 22, 2014, 05:07:06 AM »

Well here's the question: How come dust and dirt don't obstruct the paint?  It's the same problem.  It's not like dust avoids  settling on paint but would settle on glass.

The lines get dirty all the time. And faded. That's why we're always repainting them.

I disagree that the solar panels would be insignificant.  It would require a very high quantity but I think it would be a large amount of energy. 

So far the numbers I've seen don't seem to support this.

It's financially impractical but I like the idea of our roads doing more than just providing a flat surface to drive on. 

You may as well have stopped at "it's financially impractical". A lot of people like this idea, obviously, and I think it's neat too. But jetpacks are also a really neat idea.

  Plus I think the glass would provide an easier to maintain roadway than asphalt.

Yikes no. When somebody invents a machine that busts up the broken glass on a damaged Solar Roadway and spits out fresh tiles behind it, then you can say that. They already have machines that do this for asphalt roads.

But I have no data to back it up.

Welp.

Also, having utility tunnels next to/under every road can do nothing but be helpful.

It's not like we really need it though. Putting stuff underground is way harder than putting it above ground, hence why we generally have power poles and telephone poles, not power and telephone tunnels.

23

Science & Alternative Science / Re: Solar Roadways

« on: June 22, 2014, 04:44:05 AM »

Don't know if it's been brought up yet, but how well will this work on curved roads? If your road goes over a hill for example, aren't the gaps going to get bigger? And at the bottoms of hills, the gaps could close completely and jam the edges, no? I suppose you could have different sized tiles depending on the situation, but of course that's going to add yet another complication.

24

Flat Earth Media / Re: Rory Cooper: Interesting Flat Earth animations

« on: June 22, 2014, 04:11:40 AM »

I thought you were saying that you didn't believe in FE on another thread.

Plus Rory's channel is gone? Strange I had just gone on a FE video binge about 2 days ago and his videos were still up.

I think it was just yesterday. He has links to other videos, but I couldn't find any of his own including the one in the OP.

25

Science & Alternative Science / Re: Solar Roadways

« on: June 22, 2014, 04:09:26 AM »

PP thinks he knows everything.

Nah, but I know basic electronic and electrical engineering, since it's vaguely related to my field of study. And precisely because I don't know everything, I refer you to the judgement of those much more proficient in these fields than myself.

Right, you provided a Thunderf00t link which Solar Roadways has already made a rebuttal to,

Just "posting a rebuttal" doesn't counter all the claims against an argument. Their rebuttal was prettty weak and mostly consisted of speculation about the amazing thing they haven't built yet.

Eg:

What will an earthquake do to a Solar Roadway?

Basically, any such force that could destroy an asphalt or concrete road would have a similar result with a Solar Roadway. Power will not be lost however: only the damaged panels will stop producing.

They somehow magically know that their power distribution system is impervious to earthquakes. This alone is an innovation given the damage caused to existing power networks during such a catastrophe.

I'm pretty sure if it were impossible it would not have gotten as far as it has.

Yeah you might hope so.

The difference between impossible and improbable is so slender one could barely fit a cigarette paper between them.

It is possible to cover the (USA) country's roads in solar panels. As a consequence the country will be bankrupt. As a consequence the nations roads will be much worse (for driving on).

In an earthquake they will be absolutely fucked, because instead of just filling in cracks and repaving, they'll have to repair wiring, rebuild the maintenance channel, their drainage channels, and only then will they be able to bolt on new panels. It'll probably take 5 or 10 times as long to fix as a regular road.

26

Flat Earth Media / Re: Rory Cooper: Interesting Flat Earth animations

« on: June 20, 2014, 06:21:25 PM »

It would appear that Rory Cooper has been illustrating evidence of FET for quite a while now. His videos are well worth checking out.

Not anymore. All his videos are gone. I suppose the "conspiracy" finally got to him?

27

Science & Alternative Science / Re: Nuclear Freakin' Roadways

« on: June 16, 2014, 08:19:41 PM »

Dangerous for the Solar Roadways folks maybe, and anyone else who hates freedom and virtually free energy and puppies. Why do you hate puppies Vauxhall, why? 

28

Science & Alternative Science / Re: Solar Roadways

« on: June 13, 2014, 05:46:11 AM »

What would be the point of testing pure asphalt on glass anyway? The point is what happens when cars are driving over all the pebbles, dirt and sand that will inevitably get on the road.

I'm also curious to see how good the traction really is once the road gets all oily and wet?

29

Science & Alternative Science / Re: Nuclear Freakin' Roadways

« on: June 12, 2014, 12:08:19 AM »

I like this idea but I don't see how it helps fight terrorism.

If you can't see that Nuclear Roadways = freedom then the terrorists have already won. 

30

Science & Alternative Science / Re: Nuclear Freakin' Roadways

« on: June 11, 2014, 07:38:55 PM »

Is it harmful for animals to cross?

Not at all! Nuclear roadways are extremely durable and can withstand animal crossings easily.

Can I ride my bike on it?

If it's a nuclear powered bike with proper shielding, yes.

What happens if an earthquake or sinkhole breaks the road?

It's recommended that you choose an alternate route until Nuclear Roadways Engineers and Nuclear Roadways Lawyers have fixed the damage.

31

Science & Alternative Science / Re: Nuclear Freakin' Roadways

« on: June 11, 2014, 09:11:52 AM »

But do you use recycled coloured glass that you personally shoveled onto a wheelbarrow, despite it being inappropriate for the purpose?

Better. Nuclear roadways use recycled nuclear waste for paving material.

32

Science & Alternative Science / Nuclear Freakin' Roadways

« on: June 11, 2014, 02:45:47 AM »

Nuclear Freakin' Roadways - what are they?

Roads with embedded nuclear reactors in them.

Advantages:

- turns roads that are just taking up space being regular roads into a nuclear power source
- Forget about ice and snow on these roadways, not even water will accumulate as it instantly vaporizes
- blue glow illuminates roadways 24/7. Nothing more Tron-like than Cherenkov radiation!
- car undercarriages will only need 2-3 inches of lead shielding

33

Science & Alternative Science / Re: Solar Roadways

« on: June 09, 2014, 07:31:44 PM »

Also very difficult to weaponize. And Thorium is much more abundant that Uranium and if I remember right, it's easier to refine. We have the technology, we have the Thorium; why we aren't using them is beyond me.

Probably because liquid fluoride salt corrodes and eats through all known types of shielding for reactors. Other reasons are found in, funnily enough, the very link jroa provided.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liquid_fluoride_thorium_reactor#Disadvantages

Obviously a solution to this exists since there have been working Thorium reactors. The fact remains that despite the engineering hurdles, Thorium still has clear advantages (also listed in that same article, funnily enough) possibly the most important of which is safety, which I expect is most people's first concern when it comes to typical nuclear reactors.

34

Science & Alternative Science / Re: Solar Roadways

« on: June 09, 2014, 07:21:47 PM »

Thorium Reactors are the future.  They are relatively cheap, very safe, and have a high output of energy.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liquid_fluoride_thorium_reactor

Also very difficult to weaponize.

Incorrect.
http://www.wnd.com/2012/12/nuclear-weapons-suddenly-easier-with-wonder-fuel/

Blast the oily hides of the anti-Thorium conspiracy and their insidious propoganda. 

Seriously though, that's news to me. What a bummer. Though it was never the case that Thorium had no proliferation risk at all. I wonder how it compares to U-235 reactors.

35

Science & Alternative Science / Re: Solar Roadways

« on: June 09, 2014, 01:26:10 AM »

Thorium Reactors are the future.  They are relatively cheap, very safe, and have a high output of energy.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liquid_fluoride_thorium_reactor

Also very difficult to weaponize. And Thorium is much more abundant that Uranium and if I remember right, it's easier to refine. We have the technology, we have the Thorium; why we aren't using them is beyond me.

36

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Atheism vs. religion

« on: June 03, 2014, 10:44:00 PM »

Omnipresence is often considered part of being omnipotent. But fine, lets use all 4. As for why God allows shit things to happen to good people, its just the way things are. Then he carries out divine justice to equalise things. It all goes back to free will. W/o it, we are robots

Does god carry out divine justice on himself when he kills lots of babies, as described in the OT?

Yeah, he crucifies himself.

But that was for the sins of mankind, not for anything God did wrong.

God did wrong because of the sins of mankind. So obviously he had to kill himself to fix the problem, right?

1.) Create universe
2.) Create humans with capability to do evil (even though you hate evil) and foreknowledge that they will do evil
3.) Get mad at humans for being evil and curse them forever
4.) Watch as humans continue to do evil
5.) Get mad again and kill all but 8 humans and most of the rest of life on Earth
6.) Send your son (who is also you) to Earth to spread the word of how awesome you are
7.) Kill yourself
8.) Resurrect yourself
9.) Hide

Skip steps 6-8 for the chosen people

Sounds like the perfect plan.

37

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Anselm's ontological argument

« on: June 03, 2014, 08:50:56 PM »

Spoon, I think you have it! & there can only be one perfection in the universe, because it created said universe & all that therein exists. God is perfect. & if he didn't exist,There would be a being more perfect. One that is perfect, & EXISTS. Two such can't exist. One would destroy the other.

First, why is it necessary that a perfect being exists in the first place? And what would "more perfect" mean anyway? Is there any reason why there shouldn't be an upper limit to how good, powerful and wise someone can be? Why does there have to be some being that has all these qualities to an infinite degree?

Second, if God is so great, why would he have this pathological urge to destroy his equal? Couldn't they work together? Besides, if there are an infinite number, is it even mathematically possible to reduce that to just one?

38

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Anselm's ontological argument

« on: June 03, 2014, 08:24:58 PM »

Good point, but there's still a related problem - people make definitions, and if you're going to define God as perfect and include existence as a necessary condition of being perfect, well, you can do that for anything you can imagine. "The perfect unicorn is one that exists". Nope, didn't work.

39

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Anselm's ontological argument

« on: June 03, 2014, 08:05:48 PM »

You had previously asked me to refute the argument, I've been attempting to do so by imagining an equally great being to the greatest being.  I feel this loophole invalidates Anslem's argument that God exists and rather validates that gods exist.  Using your very logic, I've disproved Christianity, Judaism, and Islam with a single thought.

Also Vaux had made since interesting points.

Interesting. What could be greater than a maximally great being? How about an infinite number of maximally great beings?

40

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Atheism vs. religion

« on: June 03, 2014, 07:59:24 PM »

http://www.alternet.org/12-craziest-most-awful-things-god-did-old-testament

lol

(Keeping it OT style as requested by Yaakov)

This was amazing.  Especially the rendition of Job's plight.

Exodus 4:24-26 (AKA "Holy shit God, WTF is wrong with you, man?!)

24 At a lodging place on the way, the Lord met Moses and was about to kill him. 25 But Zipporah took a flint knife, cut off her son’s foreskin and touched Moses’ feet with it. “Surely you are a bridegroom of blood to me,” she said. 26 So the Lord let him alone.

Can this be, in any way, shape or form, how the "greatest possible being" behaves? I'm serious here. And seriously disgusted.