Professor Wankstain's science thread

[Otto von Jizzmark]

On 13/04/2024 at 12:38, Otto von Jizzmark said:

Now, I am assuming that you wouldn’t be daft enough to engage me on this subject if you were armed with nothing more than a Google-level grasp of PCR, so perhaps it would help to speed things along if you explained to me in precise mechanistic terms what you believe the limitations of the technique to be.

@zzzak: You’re late with your assignment, boy. My office, tomorrow, 9 o’clock sharp - and prepare to assume the position.

[Pedro]

44 minutes ago, Saul said:

True and can be flighty moody bastards to.  I am hoping to wean the younger off them and onto bikes hence the CB125 thing.   She is dead keen to be fair.  

How does that work? Isn’t a horse like a dog, in the way he’s attached to her and you can’t just sell it or give him to another person? 

[Saul]

44 minutes ago, Pedro said:

How does that work? Isn’t a horse like a dog, in the way he’s attached to her and you can’t just sell it or give him to another person? 

We don't own any horses.  My elder daughter loans Coconut, which in my terms, is a fucking great grey thing the younger ones loan horse fell though as the horse went lame, so she hasn't got one at all at the moment.  But she is helping my cousin train one of her horses for her daughter.  Loaning is a bit like renting.  Costs £200 a month for Coconut.   

[boboneleg]

I've been away for three days riding glorious trails in the Peak District , camping in a lovely little campsite and drinking various beers.

Just think , I could have stayed home and looked in on all this claptrap instead ................

 

[Pedro]

2 hours ago, boboneleg said:

I've been away for three days riding glorious trails in the Peak District , camping in a lovely little campsite and drinking various beers.

Just think , I could have stayed home and looked in on all this claptrap instead ................

 

I look forward to the ride report

 

[boboneleg]

9 minutes ago, Pedro said:

I look forward to the ride report

 

I never really took any photos @Pedro  , it was a pretty fast paced ride and I was the tail end charlie .  Right now I feel absolutely fecked  .

[Pedro]

11 minutes ago, boboneleg said:

I never really took any photos @Pedro  , it was a pretty fast paced ride and I was the tail end charlie .  Right now I feel absolutely fecked  .

[Otto von Jizzmark]

2 hours ago, boboneleg said:

I've been away for three days riding glorious trails in the Peak District , camping in a lovely little campsite and drinking various beers.

Just think , I could have stayed home and looked in on all this claptrap instead ................

 

[zzzak]

16 hours ago, Nute said:

 

 

Witchcraft? 

So I took a closer look at that and lo and behold, the shadows are going in the same direction, the trick in the picture is that one match has been leaned over to give the false impression that the light is going two ways, but as I said its only going the one.

Do you normally introduce subterfuge into an argument, is that the best that you have.

[Nute]

4 hours ago, zzzak said:

So I took a closer look at that and lo and behold, the shadows are going in the same direction, the trick in the picture is that one match has been leaned over to give the false impression that the light is going two ways, but as I said its only going the one.

Do you normally introduce subterfuge into an argument, is that the best that you have.

The shadows go exactly as shown in the photo. How do you think I have tricked you? 
 

As said in my original post the angle of the shadow depends on the angle of the thing casting the shadow. It’s not trickery, it’s physics. The two bits of the lunar lander casting the shadows are at different angles in your “evidence” photo, by doing the same with matchsticks it produces the same thing. Ffs, how hard can this be to understand? 
 

First the shadow is a reflection … now it’s trickery…  You swallow the jibberish from whatever web site you go to for the conspiracy crap yet you refuse to believe a simple photo with a torch and two matchsticks showing simple physics. 

 
 

 

[Nute]

4 hours ago, zzzak said:

So I took a closer look at that and lo and behold, the shadows are going in the same direction, the trick in the picture is that one match has been leaned over to give the false impression that the light is going two ways, but as I said its only going the one.

Do you normally introduce subterfuge into an argument, is that the best that you have.

This might help...

 

Branches go all different directions = shadows do the bloody same

[Buckster]

9 hours ago, boboneleg said:

There's no such thing as 'ride where you want'  as far as trails are concerned.  

Scotland is pretty much ride where you want.

[Buckster]

1 hour ago, Nute said:

The shadows go exactly as shown in the photo. How do you think I have tricked you? 
 

As said in my original post the angle of the shadow depends on the angle of the thing casting the shadow. It’s not trickery, it’s physics. The two bits of the lunar lander casting the shadows are at different angles in your “evidence” photo, by doing the same with matchsticks it produces the same thing. Ffs, how hard can this be to understand? 
 

First the shadow is a reflection … now it’s trickery…  You swallow the jibberish from whatever web site you go to for the conspiracy crap yet you refuse to believe a simple photo with a torch and two matchsticks showing simple physics. 

 
 

 

He is the only person who can’t see it, because it does not fit his false narrative.

[Saul]

1 hour ago, Nute said:

The shadows go exactly as shown in the photo. How do you think I have tricked you? 
 

As said in my original post the angle of the shadow depends on the angle of the thing casting the shadow. It’s not trickery, it’s physics. The two bits of the lunar lander casting the shadows are at different angles in your “evidence” photo, by doing the same with matchsticks it produces the same thing. Ffs, how hard can this be to understand? 
 

First the shadow is a reflection … now it’s trickery…  You swallow the jibberish from whatever web site you go to for the conspiracy crap yet you refuse to believe a simple photo with a torch and two matchsticks showing simple physics. 

 
 

 

Physics is Tricksey 

[Buckster]

30 minutes ago, Saul said:

Physics is Tricksey 

It’s okay, @zzzak paid some bird to tell him he is intelligent.

[zzzak]

 

Here it is, the bending of light from a single source, first its one way then the other, pretty simple when you think about it, if you look at the other picture one toothpick is leaning over, hahahaha.

So, who wants to be humiliated next ?

[Buckster]

25 minutes ago, zzzak said:

 

Here it is, the bending of light from a single source, first its one way then the other, pretty simple when you think about it, if you look at the other picture one toothpick is leaning over, hahahaha.

So, who wants to be humiliated next ?

You apparently. 

[Otto von Jizzmark]

22 minutes ago, zzzak said:

So, who wants to be humiliated next ?

Well I'm still waiting for you to expound on your fascinating theory that a 'quote' from someone who fervently believed that he had held a conversation with a fluorescent talking raccoon proves that every molecular biologist in every academic and research institute around the world is mistaken about PCR. 

[Nute]

25 minutes ago, zzzak said:

 

Here it is, the bending of light from a single source, first its one way then the other, pretty simple when you think about it, if you look at the other picture one toothpick is leaning over, hahahaha.

So, who wants to be humiliated next ?

Of course it’s bloody leaning over, the bits of the lunar lander thing in your photo are at different angles, you can see it in the bloody photo. That’s why the shadow is at a different angle.  For fuck sake how can this be so difficult to grasp?

[Buckster]

6 minutes ago, Nute said:

Of course it’s bloody leaning over, the bits of the lunar lander thing in your photo are at different angles, you can see it in the bloody photo. That’s why the shadow is at a different angle.  For fuck sake how can this be so difficult to grasp?

He just debunked his own argument but hasn't figured that out yet. 

[Otto von Jizzmark]

1 hour ago, Nute said:

 For fuck sake how can this be so difficult to grasp?

You’re getting frustrated because you’re dealing with this as an intellectual problem that ought to be easily solved by the application of logic and careful explanation – the way it would be with a child. The issue with Zzzak – as with many conspiracy theorists – is not that he can’t understand these things, but that he chooses not to understand them. It’s a psychological problem rather than an intellectual one. 

In his attempts to discredit the moon landings he has exhibited a grasp of the physics of light that doesn’t even satisfy the learning outcomes of the current GCSE science syllabus, and an understanding of basic diving principles that would have seen him flunk the Junior Scuba Diver course that my kids took a couple of years ago. Now unless Zzzac is genuinely of a lower intellectual capacity than a 15-year-old - which I don’t for one minute believe that he is - then we have to assume that there is another reason for this complete imperviousness to high-school level science. I’m not qualified to speculate on what that might be, but I would imagine that any of the innumerable psychological studies into the causes of susceptibility to conspiracy theories among otherwise intelligent people should give some possible explanations. 

[XTreme]

Where's @zzzak?

Don't tell me he's been worn down by @Otto von Jizzmark and @Nute?

[Buckster]

57 minutes ago, XTreme said:

Where's @zzzak?

Don't tell me he's been worn down by @Otto von Jizzmark and @Nute?

[Otto von Jizzmark]

He's probably on www.elvis-is-alive.com as we speak, checking out the latest irrefutable evidence that The King is working undercover for the Feds...

[Buckster]

38 minutes ago, Otto von Jizzmark said:

He's probably on www.elvis-is-alive.com as we speak, checking out the latest irrefutable evidence that The King is working undercover for the Feds...

Pretty much the same level of irrefutable evidence that man evolved from monkeys.