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.
Couldn't we just like.. Put solar panels everywhere else first? Why does it have to be roads?Because a loud and obnoxious video says we should, and it would be like freakin' TRON.
You probably need a fairly stable currency to do this.Well, more stable than Bitcoin, that's for sure.
Currency traders need to work with millions of dollars to make any potential profit worth the effort.That's inconsistent with reality. Local currency exchange points are very common in Poland (because of how much the Polish enjoy job tourism, mostly). They need to freeze a few dozen thousand dollars to get things going, but it's a fairly safe business after that.
You are saying you dont care if a REer is right, you will dismiss them out of hand. Got it.No, I'm saying that if you come to the Flat Earth Society and say "the Earth is round, trust <someone> on that one" (and make it the central point of your argument that <someone> said this), you're not going to convince anyone. This will happen regardless of the actual shape of the Earth. You're entering a group with a certain belief, telling them their belief is wrong, and demanding that they take your word for it.
Basically, what I want to do is take the output from my code and format it on a png file. halp.It seems like you already found a library that does that. Now you just need to stop whining that computers are hard and start actually using it.
But you guys do it -all- the time. Look at the value you place in the Bedford Level experiement.No, we don't. We don't invade mainstream science forums and bother everyone with BLE.
Quite simply, my point is that empirical evidence is not necessarily the best way to determine the shape of the earth. Sometimes you need to trust the experiences of others.Walking into the Flat Earth Society and telling us to trust other people's experience on the shape of the Earth would be like walking into a church filled with creationists and telling them to trust scientists on the matter of evolution (or vice-versa, going to a university and trying to convince the biology professors there that evolution is a hoax and they should trust creation science instead). It doesn't matter how right you think you are, or even how right you actually are, it simply won't work.
Start adding all that together and it starts looking like the cost of the solar roadways.Yeah, no.
It doesn't have to convert solid ice to water, it only has to be warm enough to keep the ice from forming.Snow forms long before it touches the ground. It does have to be able to melt it.
Which would be spread out over a long, long time (decades, maybe), and would hopefully save enough to be worth it in the end.It wouldn't save anything. The costs of maintenance would be ludicrous.
Are you guys all really arguing that the entire project would be too much all at once?No, we're arguing that the project is completely infeasible. One of the many lines of reasoning is that the entire project would cost several times the US' yearly budget.
So God is a masochist and likes to inflict pain and displeasure on himself?Nah, the only ones receiving pain and displeasure here are the people he specifically designed to be disobedient; for disobedience.
Even if your claim is true, the resulting calculation should be subject to further review and critique.I agree. I suggest you get right on it and use the old site's search feature (assuming it still works). Meanwhile, unless you start making some actual points and stop trying to waste my time by demanding that I do your busywork, I think I'm done with this thread. The OP has been addressed, and your derailment is neither entertaining nor stimulating.
Your admission that you won't be doing (or can't do) these calculation is what I expected.But the calculation has already been done. What about this confuses you?
I apologise, I should have taken your reading comprehension into account when formulating my answer. What I said was that I won't be repeating these calculations. Looking forward to the result would be a waste of your time.I'm not too bothered about going through that again.I'll look forward to your attempt.
How is that irrelevant? I never said you had to choose one of mine. Since when do you choose to answer questions about only models that you subscribe to anyway? Are you just dodging difficult questions again?I didn't say I only answer questions about models I subscribe to. I said that models you had me choose from in your blog post are not subscribed to.
I do agree, BTW, now that you've made you criticism clearer, I should have chosen "affect".I'm glad.
Let's try the OP another way: Given GR and its supporting theories and that the FE uses the UA to provide g in many cases, how much energy would the UA need to have accelerated the FE at approximately 9.8 m/s/s for a billion years? Then for the following day? How does that compare the the observed energy (excluding any inferred from the UA) in the FE? At your option you may round to one significant digit. Please show all your reasoning, math, references, and anything else that might help us understand the result. Thanks.I'm fairly sure we've done this in the past. The numbers were astronomically large and suggested that this energy would be completely unprecedented anywhere else. I'm not too bothered about going through that again.