Jump to content

Tully_Beaver

Senior Members
  • Posts

    46
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Posts posted by Tully_Beaver

  1. That had better not be what was described. If it was quantum entanglement, he didn't reverse the spin of the first particle, he measured it. He then instantly knew the spin of the second particle. But changing the spin of one will not instantly change the spin of the other. The first case doesn't violate causality, but the second one does.

     

    That's exactly what it said. It had two Laurel and Hardy type scientists doing all the demonstrations. I'm guessing the reason for that was to keep things light and humourous, but instead, it was extremely irritating and just incongruent with what the show was actually talking about.

  2. I have no idea where to look for this theory. I was watching a show on the science channel, and this theory was described.

     

    Basically, it was a theory that stated that all particles are in contact/communication with each other throughout the entire universe.

     

    The experiment described went something like this: A scientist took two particles and using what I guess is a law of quantum mechanics showed that they both must revolve in opposite directions -I believe this is common knowledge. He then completely separated them in his lab. He then reversed the spin of one of the particles. Instantly, the other particle changed direction of its spin independently. The scientist then coined this theory that all particles are linked and effect each other via some unseen force or something along those lines.

     

    Sound familiar?

  3. I criticize people who drive SUVs.

    Do you now? Do you also criticize people who waste fuel in other ways, for example nascar drivers, motox riders, FMX rides, jet ski riders, wakeboarders, water skiers, snow mobile racers, freestyle snow mobile riders........(the list goes on and on)?

     

    No?

     

    Then, I call you a hypocrite. I am not writing a paper for an assignment or for you. I originally posted a question in the chemistry forum. I added a little explanation for my question and had to read two pages of posts from people being completely over the top trying to shoot my ideas down when they had no idea what was going on my head. I posted and posted trying to make people understand, but I am not trying to prove anything; and I'm sick of reading your posts.

     

    If you want to make a good argument' date=' stop trying to be tricky about it (you are failing utterly), and try being a little more intellectually honest.

    Here's how:[/quote'] Tricky? Stop trying to be so condescending to me. I really don't care to listen to how you totaly miss the point. And I couldn't care less about how much of a tree hugging hippy hipocrite you are...

     

    However, just because two things are bad, does not mean we should not criticize one or the other, it merely means that we should be criticizing both.
    eerrr...that's my point. You agree that John and the other guy are hipocrites, you agree with the above statement, but you just thought you would come on here and post just to bash me by being pedantic..........?

     

     

    Learn from this!

    I have learnt not to post anywhere on this forum if I fancy discussing something.

     

    Last time I'm posting this.....

    Lets just say; That no other source of fossil fuel burning burns as much fuel as an SUV' date=' for it's specific job/ task (yeah take an airplane at per passenger value). If a person driving an SUV is not allowed to burn that extra bit of gas driving to work and back just for the sheer pleasure of it, why should someone be allowed to race around on a jet ski, go wake boarding, race a car with a big engine etc. for the sheer pleasure of it?

     

    Hypocrisy.[/quote']

  4. this is where you will run into problems on this forum. its not about the numbers and formulas' date=' its about the fact that you have failed to equate the two activities and yet are stating that because you think one but not the other you are a hypocrit.

     

    unless your suggesting that people who drive suvs derive pleasure purely from the act of burning more gas...[/quote']

    More like they drive an SUV because they "derive pleasure purely from the act of" driving an SUV.

  5. Now you're actually getting somewhere by providing a real argument.

    NASCAR' date=' I suppose, being entertainment, is different than a necessity (driving to work). Although you do bring up a good point; I think NASCAR is kind of dumb myself.

    But many people will say that it's not as fun riding a 125cc dirt bike or whatever, because you can't go as fast. Not that I think this is fine (it's rather silly in my opinion) but they have an excuse. And kite surfing is dependent on the wind, so there's a valid reason to do wakeboarding with a motor.

     

     

    I don't think it's the sheer pleasure of SUVs that makes people buy them. It's the "bigger is better" mentality that many people seem to suffer from.

    [/quote']

    Can you really make statements about why people buy SUVs? Where's your numbers?

    I don't see a difference between paying for gas for you car to go to work and back and then paying a bit extra for your hobbie at the weekend, nascar, motoX etc. and paying for gas for your car to go to work and back and then paying a bit extra just because you enjoy riding in a big ole truck suv to work and back.

     

    Even if that was a joke, calling people anal isn't recommended if you want to stay here very long..
    I just felt in both of my threads he/she has been really condescending.
  6. you havent shown that those other activities WASTE fuel. one could argue that driving an SUV wastes fuel because it burns more gas for the same result, but there is no more fuel efficient way to go wakeboarding, you have to burn that gas to get the result you want..
    There is kite surfing. But that's beside the point. If you have no probelm with someone driving a boat up and down a lake all day long because "There is no more fuel efficient way to go wakeboarding" then standing there and telling someone that because they are driving a vehicle that burns more fuel than yours to go the same distance (even though this person pays for the extra because they enjoy driving their vehicle why is it people wake board again?) then you are a hypocrite.

     

    and aside from any logic i could supply to tell you your wrong, it doesnt matter. as people are trying to explain to you, your not attacking a position that anyone was standing behind. you created your own, slightly different version of someones position and attacked that instead.
    Wrong about what?
  7. Give me numbers and the sources form which they come. Moreover, what does it matter if some environmentalists are hypocritical.]

    The point of this post was nothing more than to get one of you to admit how this..." Lets just say; That no other source of fossil fuel burning burns as much fuel as an SUV, for it's specific job/ task (yeah take an airplane at per passenger value). If a person driving an SUV is not allowed to burn that extra bit of gas driving to work and back just for the sheer pleasure of it, why should someone be allowed to race around on a jet ski, go wake boarding, race a car with a big engine etc. for the sheer pleasure of it?

    " is hypocrisy.

     

    The point is that the vast majority of SUV drivers are simply being environmentally irresponsible. What does it matter who's criticizing them? .]
    That might be your point. It's not mine.

     

     

     

    And for the love of Jebus, [b']it's spelled "hypocrisy!"[/b]

     

     

    For the love of who?...........lol

     

    Oh by the way

     

    hypocrasy
  8. Science requires proof, so you can't put too much stock into assuming [/i']something is true, just because it proves your point. You have to provide arguments based on data, not the other way around.

    lol....Ok "ecoli." I've made my point.

     

    I would like to say that proving someone to be a hypocrite is not a scientifc experiment.

     

    Next you'll be wanting to lay Fred and John out on a table to perform all kinds of dodgey experiments on them just to prove if they are racist or not...lol

  9. In other words, what is the point of this thread?

    The point of this threa was try and try again to get someone to admit this...........

    Ok... assuming [/b']that is correct, and people are hypocritical in their denunciation of SUVs... ??

    Thank you ecoli. And thanks you too Cap'n Refsmmat. I totaly understand the analness of phi for all now. Seriously thanks. Because I just thought you were all a bunch of up tight, anal etc ers. I see now that to be taken seriosuly here, or even to be invloved in a fair discussion, i muct have some kind of evidence some numebrs of some sort for you all to punch into an equation (I can hear phi for all now "well that's how science works).

     

    so what? People have the right to be hypocrites, what do you propose to do about it??

    Nothing at all. These people can make themselve look like fools all they want.

  10. Why should anyone waste their time debating situations that don't actually exist? You claim that there are other activites that waste fossil fuels' date=' just like driving SUVs do, but you don't provide any evidence that this is true.

     

     

     

    But you have no evidence that this is, in fact hypocritical. Sure, I know that you say it's your opinion, but I recomend that you still base your opinions off of facts.[/quote']

     

    The only facts I have, are along the lines of, I hear people protesting SUV drivers all day long. I have never once seen or heard about anyone protesting fuel use at a nascar race.

     

    Lets just say; That no other source of fossil fuel burning burns as much fuel as an SUV, for it's specific job/ task (yeah take an airplane at per passenger value). If a person driving an SUV is not allowed to burn that extra bit of gas driving to work and back just for the sheer pleasure of it, why should someone be allowed to race around on a jet ski, go wake boarding, race a car with a big engine etc. for the sheer pleasure of it?

     

    Hypocrisy.

  11. I think the real criticism of SUV drivers is not because they're wasting fuel, but because they're using a lot more fuel then they really have to. They could have just used a Prius--but there are no hybrid 4-wheelers and NASCARs.

    Thanks Cap'n Rersmmat. I appreciat this post.

     

    Why should they not be allowed to use more gas than they need?

     

    but there are no hybrid 4-wheelers and NASCARs..
    Yes. But isn't there....not nascar racing? Or even riding a 125cc off road bike than a 350? Or kite surfing instead of wakeboarding?
  12. this is a inductive fallacy (I think). You are assuming that because Fred and John like to go 4 wheeling and wakeboarding that they are hypocrits. First of all' date=' you haven't presented any information that these activities (which are usually done only once in a while, anyway) comsume more fuel then SUV's.

     

    Just because you think that SUVs are wasteful in terms of fuel consumption, does not mean that you'd be a hypocrite by useing fuel.[/quote']

    LOL...just keep the fancy names coming to support the fact that you can't argue this.

     

    Fred and John use fuel for recreational use every weekend.

     

    i don't know how many aiplanes fly each day

     

    or how many nascar races there are everyweek....or motoX races, or go kart races, or freestyle motoX races there are, or monster truck shows, but Fred and John watch all of them on TV and don't protest them at all.

  13. No, Cap'n doesn't have an argument because your argument isn't based off of real data..

    Oh ok I get it now. Now I see why you people can't debate or discuss anything. Because you need to everything presented to you in the scientific method, even if that is someones opinion, it must be presented in a scientific way with expirements having been carried out etc. Right.

     

     

    You have made some sort of sweeping conclusions about the hypocrasy of people who use fossil fuels, but these conclusions are not based off of reality.

    No. The hypocricy of people giving SUV drivers a hard time for "wasting" fuel.

  14. You're strawmanning again.

     

    (Creating a position that you can easily attack' date=' rather than attacking the position that we're providing)[/quote']

     

    The position that you're providing is.......

     

    Oh we posted it 100 times in that last you just didn't read it.

     

    I did read it, understood it, and counter attacked it. you have no arguement...unless one of you make a valid arguement in the next post that shows your stance....you have no arguement.

  15. Fred: Yes they are john. You coming out on your 4 wheeler this weekend?

     

    John:Of course I am Fred. You coming with me to watch the indie500?[/b]

     

    Fred:Yep. How was wakebaording last weekend?

     

    John:Great we wakeboarded all day long.

     

    Fred: Why is it SUV drivers are wastefull again?

     

    John:Oh..it's because the vehicles they drive require more gas to run on than my hybrid. We might both travel the same distance but the SUV driver has burned near twice as much gas as I have...thus being wastefull

     

    Fred:Why do they drive such big cars John? Just to be wastefull? or is it..........just................just.................just............

     

    John ..Just because they want to Fred and can afford to. Therfore we must hate them for it. It is because of them that we have deal with global warming etc.

     

    Why do you think Fred and John go 4 wheeling and wakeboarding or enjoy watching the indie500?

     

    Could it be because they want to and can afford to?

     

     

    Hypocricy=False pretension to personal qualities or principles not actually possessed.

     

     

     

    http://www.scienceforums.net/forums/showthread.php?t=16887

  16. You're still strawmanning.

    I don't care if I'm a strawman, an ironman, a witch, or even the wizard of Oz himself. It is wrong for someone to protest people driving SUVs and then go and support their favorite nascar racer or sit on an airplane full or not. That is hypocricy.

     

    Really, if you can't see the simple logic in that being wrong, I guess you just missing the point as you are too caught up in trying to bash SUV drivers yourself.

     

    That's how I feel.

  17. No one judged your ungiven opinion on SUVs. Everyone was commenting on what you asked them to comment on, whether your argument was a good one. So far it is pretty unanimous that it is NOT..

    I was actually just asking about rocket and airplane emissions. I gave a quick reason why, but I was not, in fact, asking for your opinions of my arguement, if you want to be so pedantic about it.

     

    Again, a bad strawman argument. None of these examples are for vehicles used for traveling. These are all vehicles used for entertainment purposes..

    To waste fuel for entertainment is OK, but to waste fuel because you want to drive a big giant truck/ SUV is not? I had a nice big SUV, and was quite entertained while I was driving it. So, "why not protest at a nascar race?" is still a valid arguement.

    Believe me, you DO NOT want to go down that road in your SUV argument. If you did, you would need to provide statistics that show a preponderance of off-road recreational use for the average SUV, which is one of the environmentalists strongest points for their being so extravagantly wasteful.

    Whether or not you drive your SUV off-road has nothing to do with the arguement. Nascars and F1 cars drive on the road too.

     

    Oh Oh but you can't travel to work and back or to the shops and back as well at the same time as enjoying yourself in your vehicle?

     

    You must only drive a yugo for these tasks, but at the weekend you are welcome to rag around in a V12 whatever?

  18. To put an end to you all judging me. I have not stated my opinion on SUVs. I believe they are wastefull. It is pretty obvious.

     

    As for the dividing mpg per passenger, what about private jets? Or even huge private motor yachts? These people can afford to pour fossil fuels down the drain.

     

    No one is picking on these people. That is my problem.

     

    I know it has bee explained to me that it's easier to make an SUV engine more econimc. Part of what makes an SUV an SUV in the first place is the power they have.

  19. If someone takes a plane from New York City to Los Angeles, they are travelling along with 100+ other people and are causing the emission of a scant amount of carbon dioxide. If someone takes an automobile from New York City to Los Angeles, they are putting out a LOT more carbon dioxide into the air thanks to their driving on twisted roads which don't connect the two cities in a straight line. (Therefore, the automobile winds up traveling a longer distance than the plane does and this results in a great deal more pollutants going into the atmosphere). Also, the travel on the roads causes pollution from the breakdown of tires, the failure of car parts, the litter the person will wind up chucking out their car window, etc. etc. In addition, that is just ONE or TWO people going in that car. So take the pollution caused by that one car and multiply it by about 100. Flying is a LOT less polluting, and more efficient way of traveling.

     

    So, if my SUV was the size of a 747 and was propelled by jet engines, environmentalists wouldn't have a problem with me as long as I had a certain amount of people on board when travelling?

  20. People who protest SUVs are protesting because they are unhappy with someone driving around in a car with such a big engine buring up fossil fuels and/or polluting the atmosphere contributing to global warming etc.

     

    To pick on one demographic from a huge spectrum of fossil fuel users is hypocricy.

     

    And to go jump on a plane and fly to some vacation destination after protesting that SUVs use too much fuel is hypocricy.

  21. Could a person who travels by bus rag on SUV drivers? Why? Busses get crap in terms of miles per gallon.

     

    The key is the number of people. A bus might only get 5 mpg' date=' but if it trasports 20 people, that's the equivalent of each of those people driving a 100 mpg car if they drove individually.

     

    Same thing with planes, just even more people. The actual miles-per-gallon isn't that great, but there's over 100 people on most decent-sized airplanes, sometimes over 200. As I mentioned earlier, that'd be like each of those people driving a 75 mpg car if they drove individually.

     

    It's carpooling, just in the air.[/quote']

    But it's still putting the same crap into the atmosphere. if you disagree with that stuff going into the atmoshpere, by buying a bus ticket you become a hypocrite.

     

    is it possible to travel by horse? Bicycle? Then what are you doing on a bus? Putting greenhouse gases into the atmosphere. If you disagree with putting green house gases into the atmosphere and you ride a bus, you're a hypocite.

     

    If you disagree with killing, but keep a gun at you house to protect your family, you're a hypocrite.

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.