Maybe if we all farted at the same time and lit them?
Printable View
Maybe if we all farted at the same time and lit them?
Hiiiiyyyy Judith, (insert a weak wave of the wrist here)i, here's a worrying revelation.......if we all faced West and ran a hundred metres suddenly, all at once, we'd either increase or decrease the Earth's rotation by a few metres per hour, whatever............(edit) just did a quick calculation, I have an app on my IPAD, and worked out that as the Sun rises in the East it means the Earth is moving towards you if you faced West, so if you faced West and we all ran like the clappers, it would speed up the rotation.
I got that idea watching one of those Japanese late night fun game shows where people dress up in funny clothes and do strange things trying to get to a "winning" post first....lots of water involved......in that show there was a big inflated ball and the nutters had to stand on top of it and walk it to the winning post while falling in the water.
If it works it means we'd get daylight shortening or lengthening if we ran to the East.....if you can tell how much it affects the effect of a long day or night, write a white paper and present it to the Flat Earth society to debate (peer reviewing?) on for a couple of hundred years.....they like that sort of thing.
We may not be able to control the weather but we now can control the Earth's rotation which could affect the weather.....LOL.
Shortly after the Boston marathon we had a longer day by a few milliseconds....but no one noticed it due to the counter effects of the blast shortly afterwards.
But it only works if you are wearing Niikeeeee running shoes, to get a better grip against the Earth's rotation....LOL....time for the pills.....zzzzz.
Ian.
Hi HW, you would need to keep running after the synchronized acceleration, or the act of decelerating to a stop would reverse and cancel the effect...
Hi Dyno.....welcome to the Flat Earth society think tank........we/they have arranged for a Helium balloon to lift the participators off the ground to go back to the starting point, so eliminating any reverse action that is counterproductive.....the white paper clearly lays this procedure out for the peer revue process, and it's not prone to ambiguity, but lateral thinkers will jeopardise the plan if they run North to South just for fun.
A parallel to this thinking is that we can change the weather patterns at will by some form of climate control technology if we throw enough money into the hands of those that work in this field.
The scientist who work in this field all subscribe to the notion that writing white papers and peer reviewing them solves all inadequacies in their convoluted thinking, purely by the time it takes to get results that matter.
Most of the reviewers are retired or dead when the event is played out on the World stage, or the actual process is forgotten due to something else diverting the attention of the plebs who foot the bill....always.
Having gone down the government's initiative with the compact flouro light bulb replacement scheme, (they don't last long) we are now encouraged to think LED with the idea that the LED light bulbs have a 50,000 hour life expectancy and use very little watts for the rated output, but cost at least $10 each.
Ian.
Economic issues continue to top the list of most important problems, and only 1 percent of those surveyed last week offered the environment as a top concern for the country. Other concerns, ahead of the environment, were foreign policy, poverty, education, immigration and politics.
The problem with LED's is they require low voltage DC while standard light sockets are wired to 110VAC. A large part of the expense of the LED bulb is that adapter that transforms the 110VAC to the low volt DC. The solution is to wire new houses with only low voltage DC sockets so that adapters are no longer necessary. Then the LED bulbs sans adapter will be cheaper. The CFL bulbs tent to fail due to an electrical component in the ballast failing rather than the bulb failing. Again, this problem can be fixed by providing the high voltage needed by the fluorescent bulb directly to the light fixture so that a cheap individual ballast is not needed. A single high quality power supply can provide for the lighting needs of an entire house, thus reducing the individual bulb expense.
Now if you want to put a single solar panel on your roof and keep a couple SLA batteries charged up, this is ideal for keeping LED lights powered. Cover the whole roof and the absorbtive and reflective properties of solar will keep your house cooler during the summer even without powering an A/C. However, the peak A/C usage happens to be during peak sunshine, so no batteries required. Who cares if it's helping to cool the planet? My way of thinking is it's better to be independent of the grid, especially during hard times when it may not be possible to scrape up the money to pay a power bill. I view the purchase of solar now as insurance against hard times in the unforeseeable economic future.
Hi, I wouldn't be so sure......at the way technology is advancing, compared to the last ten years when LED's were not heard of, the next wonder solution that supersedes the LED will make all your acquisitions obsolete......putting too many eggs in one basket has always proved to be short sighted.
I love LED's......torches are so much brighter and less costly to run with them, but the tech merchants only see the dollar signs and can't wait to make the LED's obsolete so's they can make you scrap all the present stuff and buy yet once again a whole new load of gear.
Ian.
i think if we as a human if want to spend a healthy and better life then the only option for us is to educate the people to decrease their carbon footprint. What other think you think is possible to decrease the global warming? Please indicate the lest complex method to tackle with this problem.
The very fact that we are Humans means we are self destructive and intend to populate the World corner to corner with standing room only.........if you find that hard to believe, consider the fact that the population from year dot has grown exponentially to the volume it is today, and that is despite all the wars, plagues, natural disasters, birth control measures and suicides.
Reduce the population by half and you have double the resources to feed and clothe them......oh yeah, and there will be less crap to dispose of.
Ian.
I am surprised to read your answer dear. You mean to say that we need to decrease the population to half to live a better life? Is that the solution you are thinking about? I agree with some of your points like birth control etc but about population i am so sorry i am not with you. Yeah one thing is possible to literate the population to avoid kids more than 1 or maximum 2 per couple. That is the only way to increase the maximum resources. Hope you don't mind my answer.Quote:
Originally Posted by handlewanker
Hi......unfortunately, though the solution is plain to see, the fact that we have an excess of people cannot be addressed by simply wishing them away..........we can only sit and watch the show unfold to it's ultimate conclusion.....whatever......too tired and old to actually give a sh!t.
Ian.
Now that is a loaded question.
Poll: Do you like global warming?
If I'm freezing me arse off, bloody oath, I don't.
A better question, would be.. Do you believe that the earth is warming, as a result of Human activity.
Mark Needham
Hi.....if you really want to realise the impact the Humans have on the planet and it's resources, watch the adverts on the TV for donations to "save the child campaign".....they state that 1,850 kids die each day from contaminated water supplies in Africa..............F##KING ARSEHOLES.......if I donate my money and I save 1,850 kids from dying....each day, we'd have more people standing on their shoulders for lack of ground space to walk on......get real, we have too many people, and we're making too many more people day by day.....desperate need for a tie a Dick off campaign NOW.
Ian.
Your post is quite helpful for me. ThanksQuote:
Originally Posted by handlewanker
This question is irrelevant - even if climate changes aren't human induced, so what? Is the hunger less painfull just because the draught that destroyed the crops is purely "natural"? The real questions are "do we have the power to do anything? And if yes - should we use it?". For the first part IMHO yes, for the second - I don't know.Quote:
Originally Posted by dram
Get real and face facts............the current continuing forced intensive crop yield per acre of arable land is fast depleting the natural resources to have enough yield per acre......each year the scientists are finding ways to chemically increase the crop yield and "adjusting" the seeds by selective breeding that once were growing wild but now are only harvested to produce super seed crops.........when the seeds give up and stop growing.........you can kiss your arses goodbye,Quote:
Originally Posted by grg12
Ian.
The reason why the earth is warming is because TO much Co2 is preventing the infrared and heat from heading back into space. That is why methane and c02 are called green house gasses. The consequences are now being felt, here on the west coast. Vancouver is breaking all time records with the dryest, longest hottest summer ever. Our back lawn has been dead since march. Salmon streams are at all time lows and salmon are either dieing or not migrating up some of the smaller streams. Those that do, die from the water being to warm which would kill the salmon. Vancouver island is on severe water restrictions. Vancouver is on stage three water restrictions.This part of the world is having record amount of forest fires. I see nothing good with climate change if it kills all the agriculture in California.
So........store more water when you have floods, or is that too much of an obvious solution to the mere Human element in the food chain.
Down in the Lucky Country we are encouraged to have large rain water tanks on our suburban properties even though we're on mains water supply from a central source.......this is equivalent to having a large dam where you can't have a large dam.......do the sums, work out the odds for survival and do something positive or you'll get buried like the rest of the rubbish you created.
Ian.
Drought in Vancouver does not proof climte warming. It's simple, short term climate fluctuation that could happen 100 years ago (but with climate warming chances for such fluctuations are higher). Few years ago unexpected harsh winter hit USA (I'm in Europe so don't know which state - saw TV reports from New York afair). People thinking climate change is a bs asked then "where is it when we need it". One year drought doesn't prove, exactly like one year harsh winter doesn't disprove the warming. People who don't belive are always very loud in winter, these who belive, in summer :) I belive in longterm temperature measurements, reports that permafrost starts to melt and shrinking glaciers.Quote:
Originally Posted by lortech
I believe in evolution. Adapt or die. A degree or 2 change in a lifetime (say 60 years) is not going to have much of an effect.
There is only 1 constant, it is change.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk