Search results

Excerpts are safe. I think I've gotten one-line-description links moderated, and it's hard to predict your standards. You can often get away with just the description when it's deep in a discussion, and especially if it's something technical, and the poster has standing. But I wouldn't...

then you should have left them out, if preparing them to metabunk standards is too cumbersome i agree that this is a weird rule, but some conspiracy theorists like to shore up their argument by linking to pages of "evidence" that allegedly supports their point (but often does not), and it falls...

For a more modest investment, buy some flat desert (e.g. outside of Las Vegas?) and landscape it into the desired shape. Drawbacks: no refraction.

Russian-appointed occupation officials in Luhansk, Donetsk, Kherson, and Zaporizhia oblasts announced on September 20 that they will hold a “referendum” on acceding to Russia, with a vote taking place from September 23-27. We'll see what happens.

Why should I trust what you want me to think? "That's what they want you to think" builds on distrust. If instead you do trust "them", then what they want me to think is what's in my best interests: what my doctor tells me, my teachers told me, etc. It's really benign if "they" are your friend...

You may be referring to what is known as 'paradigm shifts' (wikipedia has examples). It means that existing knowledge is seen in a new light because the old way to look at things proved too limited. I still feel that scientific methods have undergone paradigm shifts as well.

1. quote or screenshot the important parts of the source 2. link to it 3. (optional) paraphrase the quoted content to make your point more clearly

What exactly was "upended"? The biggest upset was when stochiometric methods proved the idea of the alchemical elements wrong, plus the upset of the geocentric cosmology. But I expect the physics in Newton's Principia is still in use today.

trains going up hills are just as efficient, but since they're so efficient going straight, the engines are underpowered for going up hills. Example: A Siemens ES64U2 "Taurus" locomotive is rated for 230 km/h (142 mph) and moves HSR in Austria. It is also rated to pull up to 1600 tons of cargo...

well, we have capacity figures from othed HSR systems in America and all over the world, so for a rough better/worse/about equal comparison the existing numbers should do.

because trains are not 100% full (neither are cars, btw)

There are probably other ways to do it, but yes, this seems sensible. They do increase the number of trains. If you leave half the cars behind, you'll still need more than half the energy, because a) there might be the same locomotive, b) air resistance depends on cross-section and speed more...

Funny you should mention gravity, Newton changed the scientific method (from what Francis Bacon had established) to allow astronomical observations, as they're not open to be experimented upon by mere mortals. The scientific method evolves. The knowledge is also fairly stable, we simply learn...

kinda works on Samsung Internet (not good with 720p)

no, that's just the sum of all distances all passengers traveled. (If a train with 320 passengers travels 70 km, that's 320×70=22400 passenger•km.) you are using this in the table in your OP, I thought you'd recognize it.

Norwood Hansen distinguishes between a statement of fact (has to be a fact, i.e. true) and a factual statement (answers a auestion of fact, can be wrong). He'd have aced the Pew questionnaire. If we ask, "what is the shape of the Earth?", that's a factual question. "It's flat" is therefore a...

Truthly McTruthface demonstrates horizon curve for a planet with a radius of 1.31 miles and a surface area 1/3 the size of Washington DC: Source: https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=8UhMLpbS8xY

i wasn't aiming that high basically, my first point was that to take the "vehicle efficiency" for the locomotive and relate that to the number of seats on the train is naive, and I don't think anyone reasonable does it that way? instead we have been relating energy expenditure to person•km, and...

I don't agree.

Would you like to? Source: https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=kT0HJkr1jj4