Jump to content

DrKrettin

Senior Members
  • Posts

    822
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Posts posted by DrKrettin

  1. At the 400 year anniversary of Shakespeare's death, they had 10 actors (9 plus Prince Charles) who each said the lines "To be or not to be, that is the question" in sequence. Each one gave a stress on a different word in the sentence, so you had the sensation that they were saying 10 different things, which they probably were.

     

     

    Entertaining, if nothing else

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mGTR__LiueM&list=PLEkdXL92nICBty4iYfN6CqXXqzqotXLdz

  2. Veganism is associated with B12 deficiency, it can remediated with additives and/or fortified food products (though it is one of the reasons why vegetarianism is often recommended rather than veganism).

     

    This opens another can of worms - I find vegetarianism even less defensible. If you consume dairy products, you are contributing to the production of animals which ultimately have to be eaten, or discarded. It makes no sense on any level.

  3. I am a bit at a loss what the discussion regarding B12 in livestock is about. In many formulated animal feed B12 (and a lot of other nutrients) are typically added. The issue is that in ruminants it is mostly useless, other simpler cobalt compounds are more effective. This is because ruminant biota is quite effective in synthesizing B12 and technically ruminants are feeding on bacteria.

    . Does not mean that feed producers or farmers apply that knowledge. In other animals, addition of B12 have shown various degrees of benefits and that is why producers add them to sell it up to the farmers.

     

    Simple: the OP claimed a vegan diet was sufficient in itself. I said it was not because the only source of vitamin B12 was from animal products. He then said farmers feed B12 to animals, so vegans can take B12 pills. I found it difficult to believe that farmers did feed it to livestock, and it transpired that he was not differentiating between cobalt as an additive and B12.

     

    I find arguing with vegans is rather pointless - a bit like with creationists.

  4. If you really believe that the area needed to produce food for someone is some fixed quantity, and not dependent on climate latitude soil condition etc then you have pretty much proved that you have not thought this through and we can discount your opinion.

     

    I have encountered many vegans, and this could apply to all of them. They just have not thought it through. As stated above by somebody, I think the OP has a good point that meat production could be reduced with a greater emphasis on vegetable crops, but he makes no case at all for veganism. I have yet to meet anybody who does.

  5.  

     

    I am just trying to explain you (and illustrate) that when the moon, sun and earth is aligned , the resulting upwards acceleration / force is so strong as it can be, - 4 hours later 50% of the vertical pull is gone. And that strong upwards pull in the Earth will only get back by solar and lunar eclipse.

     

    But this is nonsense, as I said earlier. Four hours later the moon will have moved about two degrees, not 90 degrees.

  6.  

    Livestock are supplemented with b12 because the animals that we are eating can’t even get b12 because of modern farming practices. The reason b12 are more prevalent among vegans is because they tend to eat less fortified food. Farmers know that they need to supplement these animals with b12 or they would die much earlier.

     

     

     

    So you have found a product which does that, presumably in the USA (Although I suspect it just contains cobalt, not vitamin B12). However, you can't just make a simplistic statement that farmers do that, because it is not generally true. I don't know what you mean by modern farming practices, but I used to be a sheep farmer and my sheep lived perfectly well without such supplements, and I was following what I thought was normal practice. The sheep were grazing land which was unsuitable for growing crops, by the way.

  7.  

     

     

     

     

    The first two links don't work. The third link refers to the adding of cobalt to cattle feed. Vitamin B12 needs cobalt, but the vitamin itself is not added to the feed. The cattle can synthesize vitamin B12 provided they have the cobalt.

     

    As I said in a previous ignored post, our species has lost the ability to synthesize B12, so feeding us cobalt would not be much use.

  8. If you don't have access to the supermarket that has vegetables, fruits, beans, legumes, lentils, seeds, etc... and you have to settle for meat to survive, then that's what you have to eat. And vegans get their vitamin b12 in supplements. Farmers supplement their livestock with b12 so meat eaters can eat it, but vegans supplement it themselves.

    How about you, do you have access to a grocery store near you?

     

    That vitamin B12 answer is pathetic. Can you please give me some evidence that farmers feed vitamin B12 to their livestock? I've asked that before and received no reply.

  9.  

    But in this day and age where we have supermarkets nearby, we have a lot of options, meat is not a necessity.

     

    So what would you do with land which is impossible to cultivate, and only good for grass?

     

    Where would you get your vitamin B12?

     

    I've asked this before, but received no answer.

  10. Yes but caused by what exactly? I mean I know an object weights more on the poles for example than at the equator and even the density of the ground can have a very slight effect but I really don't know how and what affects the object the most regarding factors outside of these.

     

    You are nearer the centre of the Earth at the poles than on the equator, so with the inverse square law, the attraction is greater.

     

    In a Newtonian solar system, every object exerts a force on every other according to this inverse square law, so in principle, say, Jupiter directly overhead exerts and upward force which reduces the effect of the downward gravitational force. This is often used by astrologers to argue that the planets exert some kind of influence at birth, which is total nonsense because these forces exerted by the planets are far less than the forces exerted by the building in which you are being born. The only significant forces are those of the sun and the moon.

  11.  

    If there were no solar (or lunar) eclipse, you would not get enought upwards acceleration of the Earth to expose DFA.

    61.jpg

    Fig. A and B, - shows that four hours after a solar eclipse the Earth has moved 4000 km whereby the angle to the moon and therefore also the upwards acceleration has declined 50% compared to the solar eclipse position of Earth. Eight hours later angle and upwards acceleration is reduced to 25%. The same thing happens before solar eclipse. In addition to that the moon is also either declining or inclining during that period, this will also effect the anomaly and must also be taken into consideration.

    In short, - the resulting force will only point 100% upwards exact when the max solar eclipse take place, after that the angle of the resulting force will decline, - tilt

     

     

    Surely figure A is total nonsense on any level, unless I'm missing something. Primary School logic: if the moon orbits the Earth in 28 days, then it moves 360/28 = 13 degrees per day. At an eclipse, the angle between the Earth-Sun and Earth-Moon lines is zero. So one day later that angle is about 13 degrees. How the hell can it be 90 degrees after 4 hours?

  12.  

    Are you conscious of how your food got to your plate?

     

     

     

    Those stupid photos of farmland (prime land used for crops, by the way) are an insult to the intelligence of everybody here on a science forum - do you think we are unable to deal with the figures which you bandy about? How about responding to some posts instead?

  13. DrKrettin, thank you for putting rigor into my argument, I sure can use it. I agree that Im operating too frivorously with the word "fact" and this can get me into trouble (and it actually does in some cases)

    I would like to adress one of your statements:

    "Newtons laws are wrong because they do not explain every observable motion"

    I disagree with this statement, imo you cannot put an equal sign between those two. If something is not complete it doesnt mean its wrong. I know you will probably say its semantics but I think that to say something is wrong we better have strong argumentation for it.

     

    OK, yes, it was only a reaction to your assertion that "Just like Newton's laws are not wrong ". I did later say they were right in some circumstances. Ultimately, right or wrong is not the way to look it. They are a veery good approximation, and GR is better.

  14. Is ' a grammar mistake' a grammatical mistake ? are you sure ??

     

     

    10 Common Grammar Mistakes Even Smart People Make

    https://www.inc.com/christina-desmarais/10-common-grammar-mistakes-even-smart-people-make.html

     

     

    20 Common Grammar Mistakes That (Almost) Everyone Makes

    https://litreactor.com/columns/20-common-grammar-mistakes-that-almost-everyone-gets-wrong

     

     

    I still think it is a mistake in English English, despite what American sources say. Why use a noun as an adjective when there is a perfectly good adjective available?

  15. Evolution of species is a fact and cannot be disproven, there is too much evidence pointing to it being right. There can be added aditional information to the fact that species on earth are evolving making the theory of evolution a fuller set of information but there is no possibility to disprove evolution and substitute it with a different, alternative process. Just like General Relativity cannot be disproven, there is just too much experimental evidence prooving it right. There can be additional information added to GR which will make for a fuller view of reality. Just like Newton's laws are not wrong or have not been disprooven by General Relativity, only additional information was added to make for a better, broader view.

     

    Although I agree with the sentiment, I think the language needs more accuracy.

     

    1) Any theory is temporary pending evidence to the contrary. Evolution theory is an extremely good method of explaining what we observe, and so good that it is very unlikely that it will somehow be superseded. This still does not make it a fact.

     

    2) Newton's Law's are wrong, in the sense that they do not explain every observable motion (such as the perihelion shift of Mercury). But they are such a good approximation that they are effectively correct under some circumstances. General Relativity is more accurate, and as yet has not been superseded, but it is still not a fact.

  16. If you are properly hungry(or hungry enough) ,almost anything will taste nice.(the social situation counts too)

     

    Regarding McDonalds, I make hambugers myself. At first I thought of ways to make it interesting (parsley, sage ,garlic ,beaten egg etc) but now I just (using good mince) just shape it and fry it (seasoned of course)

     

    That mightn't seem any different to McDonald's "junk food" but it seems OK to me.

     

     

    I suspect there is a huge difference in quality between the McDonald and your mince. I dread to think what they use.

  17. I find vegans rather irritating, to be honest. I used to live on a farm in Wales, where most of the land had very little topsoil, impossible to cultivate. The only way it could be used was for permanent pasture, and because our species has evolved a way which has severely limited our ability to digest grass, we find it economical to graze sheep and goats, and then eat them. If we did not do that, the land would be useless.

     

    During our evolution, our species also lost the ability to synthesize vitamin B12, and we can only get this important vitamin from animal products. We had some vegan neighbours who lived in sheep-rearing country, living off state benefit and getting vitamin B12 tablets free from welfare, and preaching the immorality of eating animals. Some people have absolutely no sense of reality.

  18. After several people have made quite an effort to explain an extremely simple problem, the OP has resolutely refused to understand any of it. At this stage there seems no point in trying to explain further. Of course, he/she could be a troll.

×
×
  • 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.