Sayonara

This thread is so far off topic we will need an advanced alien civilisation to tow us back.

Enjoys. dj-D3wQGarE

Thread title updated to reflect the content. If an actual theory is posted I will change it back.

We've had this discussion before. When people say "homosexuals can't reproduce!!!!" it it usually supported semantically, by tabling incredibly strict definitions of sexual categories that bear little or no resemblance to what actually happens in the real world. And if you aren't describing the real world when supporting a claim, then the claim won't have meaning in that world. Likewise it's not possible to conflate sexual behaviour with sexual orientation when it suits your definitions, and categorise them differently when it does not, and not expect to be taken to task on it.

But you pretty much have to accept that a heterosexual act does not magically straighten out gayness. Yes, as a means to eradicate biases and prejudices which have measurable negative effects. Not just for the lulz.

All four pointless threads merged into one pointless thread.

Armageddon is the location of a battle; it is not the name of an event. Perhaps you mean 'apocalypse'. This would be a noun relating to a catastrophic and terminal event. The adjective is "apocalyptic" (as opposed to 'Armageddony'). The implication is that of a swift, violent, and complete ending, usually due to some outside force. I would take issue with the statement that either Rome or the Mayan civilisation experienced an apocalypse. Rome's fall was in no small way hastened by an economical and political decline, which took over 300 years to do enough damage that a couple of well-timed depositions could wreak havoc with the empire's defensive organisational skills. When the empire formally ended, the vastest majority of the infrastructure, population, and culture was still there. Maya civilisation is less clear cut. If you are talking about the collapse in the 8th-9th century, then there's no really dominant theory as to why the nucleus of the civilisation gradually abandoned its main centres over a few generations. If you're talking about colonisation by the conquistadores, their efforts just to get a controlling presence amongst the politically decentralised Maya states took well over 150 years. It is not in the least bit helpful to anyone to randomly list ended civilisations and then declare that they were wiped out by 'Armageddon'. If we haven't spread beyond this solar system by that time then we probably deserve to roast.

Oh look, the "What don't you like about SFN" thread has gone over 100 posts.

There isn't a postcount restriction on psychology, so ohdoublesnap.

I think he's getting plenty enough of it while it's illegal.

You've already been warned about posting massive redundant sigs on the end of your posts. If you continue to do it, I will remove your ability to use VB tags. You will only be able to post plain text.

You have already posted a thread that was vaguely about plate tectonics. It was not significantly different to this one. Stop spamming the boards with pointless threads, and stop using ridiculous tags about Texas.

That would kinda make it all true though. The Pre-Mayan-Prophecy world dies in 2012... because they said it would so we decided it did so they said it would so we decided it did. While we are changing the calendar system we might as well all switch to decimal time too

It's totally real science. NddZ5ftQb0Q

This video is quite interesting; it identifies some common misconceptions: ZZUUQIuNXiM

It might help people to apply their comments if you gave them something specific to discuss about plate tectonics.

I guess the Chemistry forum would be best!

Armageddon is not the event itself, but the location where one of the final battles takes place during the end times: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Armageddon People misinterpret "The Battle of Armageddon" to mean the last battle during Armageddon, as opposed to the conventional locational reading (like "The Battle of Britain".)

You can offer it for sale here provided (1) you carry out any transaction processing elsewhere and (2) you act within the relevant legislation. You will have to accept full responsibility for both the sale itself (i.e. providing what is offered for sale) and for the legality of the transaction (i.e. ensuring all applicable laws and regulations are complied with).

Sigh. It's magical if you just assume the effect that you want. You have provided no mechanism which would show how PV=nRT applies; you have simply begged the question and declared by fiat the temperatures and pressures that you want to see. I call bullshit. As I have now explained three times, you foolishly declared that the elan2 can produce a certain amount of liquid nitrogen in a year, and then made the observation that this uses much less energy than the Kender is supposed to produce in a year, and implied that they could effectively fuel each other. Either state unequivocally that this is not the case, or accept that you are making a claim positive and then back it up. Have you even read this thread from the start? You are starting to look a lot more like a troll with that comment. You don't understand? Okay, let me put it another way. You are declaring by fiat that "small amount of energy goes in, large amount of energy comes out". You have pulled figures out of the air, ignored the fundamentals of thermodynamics, and avoided doing any calculations to show energy flow through a system. Every figure you come up with is a fudge. As for me having to "prove my statements" (which is a bit weird seeing as they are rational objections), I don't think you understand how science works. In science, you put up or shut up. You are making the positive claim so You have the burden of proof. That is how it works, that is the best system available, and that is what is going to happen in this thread. When your opponent actually knows what he's talking about, and you yourself haven't got jack, mutually assured destruction just doesn't work. And yet... despite your incredulity and sense of bewilderment... the magnets are still obeying the laws of physics.

Here's an idea. Instead of waltzing back and starting another thread on this topic, why don't you head over to your old thread and answer the questions that you ran out on last time?

It's not in the least bit obvious when you talk in number salad and flagrantly ignore basic physical principles such as the gas equations while squawking "it isn't black magic, it's just simple physics". You are still expending energy to gain energy. Your unfounded claims of magical pressure increases aside, you have yet to show ONE example of an end-to-end conversion process with the appropriate energy values. You have now twice ignored my request that you explain your ludicrous implication that the elan2 can 'power' something like the Kender engine. Whatever credibility you had when you joined this thread is wearing down rapidly. Or probably fewer, since the 'success' of the system is just a figure fudge. Reality is not compelled to conform to your sense of scale. Yes. Because the magnets are obeying the laws of physics.

And how much energy does that require? You've not really made any comment as to why this is a useful statement. Very few materials occur naturally at or around absolute zero on the earth's surface so it's not a thermal gradient we are apt to exploit. Energy crisis over then I guess. O rly? Let's take a look: You said that the elan2 produces 1642.5 litres of liquid nitrogen per year at an energy cost of 7.9MWh. You also pointed out that the Kender engine produces 300MWh annually. What you are implying here is that if the elan2 "only" uses 7.9MWh and the Kender engine produces 300MWh, then one can easily power the other. But your critical assumption, which I have already pointed out, is that 1642 litres of liquid nitrogen will keep the Kender engine running for a year (and if not specifically the Kender engine, then any turbine system of your choosing which has an annual output of more than 7.9MWh). I would suggest that such a volume would not keep a turbine running for a day, much less a year.

If you look at the questions which are actually posed in the OP, no such belief is required.

So you think you are going to get more energy back from the gas expanding than you put into compressing it, right? That IS what you are saying, yes? The claim is that it is "free" because it uses only a freely available source of energy, and no other. That is what the debate in this thread disputes. You are not addressing any of the technical or physical issues that have been raised. That's not what my nagging voice says. My nagging voice says things like "no free lunch" and "it takes energy expenditure to do ANY work". I didn't. I quite expressly said "the elan2 machine ... will be sufficient to drive a turbine (engineered however you see fit)". This was in reply to you talking about the annual energy output of the Kender engine and the nitrogen production rate of the elan2, between which you implied a causal route, so any connection you infer is down to your own argument. I asked you to fill in the blank in your reasoning. Are you going to try? I was specifically referring to the part where you imagined that because you have both the elan2 and your turbine running for a year that they somehow have a 1:1 input-output relationship.