Favorite team:Nebraska 
Location:
Biography:
Interests:
Occupation:
Number of Posts:313
Registered on:11/27/2019
Online Status:Not Online

Recent Posts

Message

re: Noah's Ark found?

Posted by Cfrobel on 5/15/25 at 9:49 pm
quote:

Atheists: The earth is 4.6 BILLION YEARS OLD.


Outside of religious extremists the age of the earth is widely accepted by far more than just atheists.

quote:

“We’ve learned absolutely all there is to know, in and about the universe, in the last 150-200 years.


The study of astronomy goes back millenniums and there are plenty of ongoing debates regarding the validity of the Standard Cosmological Model.

Not sure of the Mahomes connection with this one. Nebraska athletics have been sponsored by Adidas since 1995, it isn't surprising they gave Raiola an NIL deal.

re: Thoughts on climate science?

Posted by Cfrobel on 4/6/25 at 12:06 pm
quote:

Link?


The Permian-Triassic Mass Extinction event for a start.

https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-021-22298-7

re: Thoughts on climate science?

Posted by Cfrobel on 4/6/25 at 11:46 am
quote:


Climate always changes and it’s not because of man.


So far no other lifeform on earth has dug up carbon deposits bound for the mantle and re-released into the atmosphere. I am not sure how you can confidently make a comparison to the geologic past.

re: Thoughts on climate science?

Posted by Cfrobel on 4/6/25 at 11:31 am
quote:

When they start telling you an essential part of life CO2 is deadly to the planet....


The geologic record consistently shows that spikes in CO2 concentration is deadly for almost all advanced life.
quote:

CO2 causes earthly greening. Greening causes more plant respiration. More plant respiration creates more water vapor. Higher concentrations of water vapor in the air means more temperate climate. Specifically, it means higher low temperatures in the morning and lower high temperatures in the afternoons. Climate data suggest this trend as CO2 concentrations increase.

Higher concentrations of CO2 means more life. The explosion of life on earth was during the Cambrian Period. CO2 concentrations were 4000-10000 ppm during this period.


While true, there were no terrestrial plants or animals during the Cambrian so a comparison to the Quaternary isn't quite relevant. Since terrestrial colonization began CO2 ppm decreased to the point of over oxidation until the huge spike during the Permian-Triassic mass extinction event.

Higher CO2 concentrations may mean more life and a "greening" but the geologic record shows it likely be simple photosynthetic life such as Cyanobacteria and algae that will flourish before plants and animals have a meaningful recovery.
quote:

Back to top
Posted on 3/28/25 at 10:47 pm to OWLFAN86
cant be worse than NYC Revealed Season 2

this commercial has been running on the watch ESPN app for 4+ years at this point with no end in sight. every commercial break for every college baseball game broadcast on their shitty app.


So glad to see that I am not the only one, I thought it was some targeted psych op to slowly drive me insane or get me to quit watching sports.

re: Trees vs CO2 in the atmosphere

Posted by Cfrobel on 3/22/25 at 5:55 pm
quote:

This is one of my favorites, but there are bunches of this type of demonstrations on internet.


I guess it's great for photosynthetic lifeforms, I am sure Cyanobacteria will feast. Take a look at the results of the Permian-Triassic Extinction Event if you want a glimpse of how it might go for most of us.

re: Trees vs CO2 in the atmosphere

Posted by Cfrobel on 3/22/25 at 4:17 pm
quote:

So how about just burying trees then?


That approach definitely worked during the Carboniferous period.

re: Trees vs CO2 in the atmosphere

Posted by Cfrobel on 3/22/25 at 3:11 pm
quote:

Trees don’t consume CO2. They trap it temporarily.


Right, carbon isn't really reduced until the subduction process sends the deposits back into the mantle.

re: Flight 800 crash animation

Posted by Cfrobel on 3/3/25 at 6:17 pm
quote:

The test they did only found that jet fuel type A heated to the presumed temperature range did not ignite with a spark. It did ignite with a torch.


It seems likely that while you may have read the report you either misunderstood or selectively chose the points to take away.
Another debunk from Caltech:

The NTSB investigators had to use a torch in order to start combustion in Jet A laboratory experiments.

False. Jet A vapor-air mixtures were ignited by many different ignition sources in the Caltech experiments. Experiments were conducted with spark ignition sources [Exhibits 20T and L] with energies ranging between 1 mJ and 100 J and the 1/4-scale experiments simply used a hot filament [Exhibit 20O]. The preliminary experiments discussed in Exhibit 20D used a flame jet from a 1/4-inch diameter nozzle, comparable to some of the smaller openings in the spanwise beams and spars within the tank. Other experiments with pools of liquid creating vapor-air mixtures in the entire ullage with spark ignition in both the laboratory testing [Exhibit 20L and T] and hot filaments in the 1/4-scale experiments [Exhibit 20O, P] demonstrate that the explosion of Jet A vapor mixtures in an ullage over a thin layer of fuel is associated with a propagating flame (deflagration) in the vapor-air mixture rather than a pool fire on the liquid layer. The combustion time is sufficiently short so that the combustion is completed before appreciable venting occurs. [see 1/4-scale experiment number 67 - Exhibit 20P]

re: Flight 800 crash animation

Posted by Cfrobel on 3/3/25 at 5:00 pm
quote:

Cal Tech did the vapor tests heating the jet fuel to the specified temperature. A spark failed to ignite it. I downloaded the entire report back in the day. Took for bloody ever to down load back then. They had to use a torch to get it to ignite.


Looks like Caltech debunks your claims:

"Unfortunately, misinformation about aviation kerosene combustion and misrepresentations about the official investigation of TWA 800 and the investigators have been published in print and on the worldwide web. The most common of these erroneous claims are discussed below:

You can put a match out in Jet A at room temperature so it can't possibly explode inside an aircraft fuel tank.

False. You can do this with many fuels that have sufficiently high flash or fire points. At room temperature, a combustible liquid fuel has enough heat capacity to absorb all the energy and extinguish a small match flame without raising the fuel surface temperature above the fire or flash point. A flame cannot be sustained over a liquid fuel until the surface temperature exceeds the fire point. A flash will not result unless the fuel temperature and vapor space are above the flash point. [Kuchta and Clodfelter] This does not apply to the case of TWA 800 because a) the explosion occurred in the fuel vapor-air mixture and did not require a fire on the fuel surface, b) the fuel and air inside the tank were hotter than the flash point, and c) the effective flash point was lowered due to the lower outside air pressure at the altitude of the explosion. The Jet A involved in the Center Wing Tank (CWT) explosion had a flash point temperature of about 115 F and the decreased air pressure at the explosion altitude of 13.8 kft lowered the effective flash point to about 100 F. [Exhibit20S] The temperatures inside the tank were between 100 and 130 F, and at some points, as high at 140 F [Exhibit 23F]."

https://shepherd.caltech.edu/EDL/projects/JetA/misconceptions.html

(Edit to fix url)

re: Flight 800 crash animation

Posted by Cfrobel on 3/2/25 at 10:53 pm
quote:

Jet fuel is not highly volatile. Throw a match in it and the match goes out. You'd have to turn it into a fine mist to ignite with a spark or even a match.


You keep bringing up this completely irrelevant point, it's jet fuel vapors in the tank that are easily ignitable and highly flammable.

https://www.fire.tc.faa.gov/pdf/ar98-26.pdf



As far as crazy things in sports, in my lifetime I am not sure anything has topped Fernando Tatis hitting two grand slams off of Chan Ho Park in the same inning.

re: Proof of Time Travel (Examples)

Posted by Cfrobel on 1/10/25 at 10:48 pm
quote:

Time doesn't exist, it's a man-made construct. So stands the reason that traveling through it is impossible.


Not quite, as long as the entropy of the universe continues to increase time will irreversiblably march forward.