Religion & Tsunamis

yup, i've never seen the dark side of the moon, but i'm still open to the possibility of it's existance.

i had fun in my schooldays with weedkiller and sugar. some very louds bangs from it if it was in the right sort of container. lots and lots of white smoke and a big orange glow/flame if it wasn't.

the loudest bang i've ever heard in my life happened about a second after i done the stupedist thing in my life. kicking, what was in effect, a live pipebomb. as soon as i kicked it, it felt like i awoke from a weedkiller induced stupor, and realised my mistake. as turned away from it, it exploded, forcing me to take a couple of steps forward. i remember standing there thinking that people get their legs bitten off by sharks without feeling it, and it was only a matter of time before i realised what bits of me were missing. i'm still amazed that i was completely untouched. there was a two foot diameter crater in the soil, that went down to and old cobbled path about eight inches below the surface, mud all over a big wall that was nearby, and bits of red/white hot metal still hissing as they landed in the canal.

i think i owe my guardian angel a beer for standing behind me that day, i really do.

I used to make my own gunpowder. Bought saltpeter ( potassium nitrate ) from a drugstore, made the carbon myself and borrowed some sulphur from the chemistry lab. Mixed it with caution, keeping some of the raw materials wet, in the appropriate proportions and made myself some nice bombs. Loud bang, large flame, dense black smoke and lots of heat. Should switch to willow wood when making the carbon, though...

As for the weedkiller and sugar explosive, i've never made such a thing. What type of weedkiller did you use and how did you mix it?

<DIV class=quote>
<DIV class=quotetitle>? quoting Andrei</DIV>
<DIV class=quotetext>As for the weedkiller and sugar explosive, i've never made such a thing. What type of weedkiller did you use and how did you mix it?</DIV></DIV>
i really don't think i should be answering that on a public forum, especially not in a thread that already has enough 'keywords' to have the men in black erase us all from history. (see Jahzels posts :rolleyes: )

<DIV class=quote>
<DIV class=quotetitle>? quoting fishy</DIV>
<DIV class=quotetext>
i really don't think i should be answering that on a public forum, especially not in a thread that already has enough 'keywords' to have the men in black erase us all from history. (see Jahzels posts :rolleyes: )

</DIV></DIV>

mine is a matter of public record, but i was thinking the same thing. since 911, its not been a good idea to discuss this stuff. at least no one said the word president and bomb in the same sentancknock at front door
hold on a sec, i gotta get that.

President president bomb bomb peanuts. :rolleyes:

I used to make my own gunpowder. Bought saltpeter ( potassium
nitrate ) from a drugstore, made the carbon myself and borrowed some
sulphur from the chemistry lab. Mixed it with caution, keeping some of
the raw materials wet, in the appropriate proportions and made myself
some nice bombs. Loud bang, large flame, dense black smoke and lots of
heat. Should switch to willow wood when making the carbon, though...

As for the weedkiller and sugar explosive, i've never made such a
thing. What type of weedkiller did you use and how did you mix it?

It's easier to make dynamite! Or napalm! Gunpowder is for show, real explosives are for proper fun!

<DIV class=quote>
<DIV class=quotetitle>? quoting Andrei</DIV>
<DIV class=quotetext>President president bomb bomb peanuts. :rolleyes: </DIV></DIV>

doesn't count, men in back don't come to homes without front doors..you do live in a grass hut, right?

damn, i always get these third world countries mixed up.
/runs

<DIV class=quote>
<DIV class=quotetitle>? quote:</DIV>
<DIV class=quotetext>the only thing faster than light, is dark. </DIV></DIV>

"Dark" is an absence of light, so if you think about nothing is actually travelling anywhere at any speed :razz: According to the late Douglas Adams, the only thing which travels faster than the light is bad news, which you can't use for propulsion as no-one will appreciate you arriving :wink:

<DIV class=quote>
<DIV class=quotetitle>? quote:</DIV>
<DIV class=quotetext>That's so true. You know the 10% matter we can see we can so only because light reflects off it. The remaining 80% is unobservable dark matter which light cannot reflect off. This means there are galaxies and star systems we cant even see with the human eye. When people think 'it doesn?t exist because I haven?t seen it', it might exist because you cant see it.</DIV></DIV>

First of all, 10 + 80 = 90 :wink: Secondly, if it does exist then it's certainly won't form galaxies or stars as we know them. Thirdly, you don't say "it doesn't reflect light", but "it doesn't interact with light" as it doesn't seem to give off any radiation itself. The main way in which we know its there is because it has mass; of course, whatever else it interacts with depends on what it actually is (e.g. neutrinos- main WIMP candidate- interact via the weak nuclear and gravitational forces only, the former of which operates only on subatomic scales) so potentially we will never know until we go find some of the stuff!



<DIV class=quote>
<DIV class=quotetitle>? quoting Andrei</DIV>
<DIV class=quotetext>About this thread's title: I was talking to a(n orthodox) priest a few days ago, and he said that those poor people deserved what had happened to them because they are, well...sinners. Such is the mentality of the Orthodox Church. </DIV></DIV>

Orthodox or not, they are still Christians, yes? If you meet this chap again tell him about all the christians who would have been washed away, along with all the other people who have never heard about Jesus. Either he has little understanding of his own religion or his god is some bitter little man :/

<DIV class=quote>
<DIV class=quotetitle>? quoting Gwil</DIV>
<DIV class=quotetext>
It's easier to make dynamite! Or napalm! Gunpowder is for show, real explosives are for proper fun!

</DIV></DIV>

Erm...I really am fond of being alive. Still, making dynamite sounds good :smile: .

Orpheus said:
damn, i always get these third world countries mixed up.

Oh, i will get back on you for that :biggrin: .

<DIV class=quote>
<DIV class=quotetitle>? quoting Leperous</DIV>
<DIV class=quotetext>

<DIV class=quote>
<DIV class=quotetitle>? quote:</DIV>
<DIV class=quotetext>the only thing faster than light, is dark. </DIV></DIV>

"Dark" is an absence of light, so if you think about nothing is actually travelling anywhere at any speed :razz:







</DIV></DIV>
go ahead, make fun.. i bet fundamentally i am correct.. they laughed at the guy who said he would invent a portaloo with water in the bottom. i bet he is rich now :biggrin:

Making TNT, while easy, is highly inadvisable. The stuff is acutely toxic, not merely explosive! Besides, you need concentrated nitric and sulfuric acid, which isn't exactly available at your local hardware store.

Orph-

Hmm... Not sure if that was sarcasm or not... But meh, here's this-

Dark, as TB and Lep said, isn't a thing, it's more of a state of how much light is available. So, Dark and Light are not antonyms, but Dark and Bright would be. They are just different levels of "light." Bright is the presence of lots of percieveable light, and dark is the absence of it.

<DIV class=quote>
<DIV class=quotetitle>? quoting Monqui</DIV>
<DIV class=quotetext>Orph-

Hmm... Not sure if that was sarcasm or not... But meh, here's this-

Dark, as TB and Lep said, isn't a thing, it's more of a state of how much light is available. So, Dark and Light are not antonyms, but Dark and Bright would be. They are just different levels of "light." Bright is the presence of lots of percieveable light, and dark is the absence of it. </DIV></DIV>

look, this is one of those cases where i have not the correct terminologies to say what i am thinking.

lets assume for the moment, that i realize the term "light" means energy, and "dark" means lack of energy. this i know. what i am saying is, there is a substance we cannot see, or yet detect that is dark and either as fast as light, or faster, cause the light energy, must push it out of the way to gain access to its location.

forget for a moment, that we are discussing dark=no energy, and substitute dark=unknown substance with no discernible measurements.

i am not arguing that the lack of energy is one of the definitions of dark, i am postulating that the word dark can have more definitions besides.

sighs
i wish i had enough schooling to make that more intelligible. :sad:

Dark is light with rendercolor set to 0 0 0. :biggrin:

I understand what you mean Orph, it's just that there isn't much point in discussing it from a scientific perspective if it isn't detectable. You are postulating something like a fluid through which light has to push aside as it moves, right?

In order for this postulated "dark" to exist, it also must offer no Resistance to the movement of light, otherwise there would be energy loss in photon transmission through free-space, which is not the case. So either light does not interact with "dark", or they are connected in some way that causes them to move at the same speed and not impede each other. We can also postulate that "dark" has no mass, charge, or spin as other particles do, because otherwise we could detect it. What does that leave us with? It can't be matter or energy as we know them. Even the unfortunately named "dark matter" or "dark energy" could not account for it because both of these are detectable. Basically, unless you can come up with a mathematical theory the predicts the existence of "dark" you are left with precisely "nothing", which of course is what I believe it to be.

Oh, and for all of you babbling about the 90% of the universe we can't see: Just remember that current physical theory describes the 10% we CAN see to near perfection. It would be a grave mistake to think we know everything, but the unknown does not invalidate the known. Classical Mechanics is still entirely applicable to the macroscopic world. It was not invalidated for the framework in which it was developed just because Quantum Mechanics has supplanted it in the nanoscopic world of atoms. I believe we will see a similar transformation as new theories are developed. Relativity and the Standard Model will always be with us. They do not describe everything, but they describe most of what we know about for the present.

like i said, if dark was indeed "nothing", why would there be so much of it?

nothing meaning,the absence of something.

anyways, thanx TB.. i think you come closest to understanding how my train of thought is.

I suppose it isn't "nothing" precisely. Everything exists within space-time. There are also postulated "virtual" particles everywhere that spontaneously form and obliterate themselves on minuscule timescales. However, we are treading well beyond the extent of my knowledge at this point. I don't really go in for cosmology that much.

Well, I'm a cosmetology major at my college, and we didn't learn ANYTHING about any particles besides thos in the new AVOn collaged cream (removes wrinkles!!)

I'm joking. Psych major.