Category: "Debunking"

The Core II - the worst film ever to return

I've just heard that the Core, one of the worst films attacks against human intelligence ever is set to return sometime next year.

I can just see the tagline now... The Core II - We'll get at least 3% of the science right.

The Core is right up there with Armegeddon, in fact it's probably beyond Armegeddon on how dumb it is. I'll just briefly outline why the Core was so stupid:

1) The Earth's magnetic field is collapsing because the core of the Earth stopped rotating.

The amount of energy worked up in the Earth's core is huge. Here's an interesting fact; if the Earth's core actually did stop rotating the energy released would be enough to melt metals on the surface of the Earth, enough energy to evaporate all the world's oceans 10 times over.

2) Because the field is collapsing the microwaves from the Sun are getting through.

The Sun doesn't emit much in the way of microwaves. Secondly the magnetic field doesn't stop microwaves anyway. Thirdly microwaves aren't even that dangerous.

3) The bridge scene.... Bad engineering at its worst, a bunch of microwaves break through the magnetic field and come up to a suspension bridge - breaking it in two. The towers bend inwards.

If you break a suspension bridge in two, ie break the cables, the force would pull the towers outwards, not inwards because the inward force has just disappeared because the cables have broken.

4) They use a ship that is made out of indestructible metals to reach the core of the Earth.

Bad engineering and bad science. If the metals are indestructible how can you cut them to make a ship out of them? I mean come on.

5) They use a nuke to start the core of the Earth up again. In the film they mention the core is a ball of iron the size of Mars.

Well the core is about the size of Mars and it is mostly iron. So what the hell is a nuke going to do to it? Nothing!

Right so that is why the Core was a terrible film. You might argue it's only a film it doesn't need to be realistic, that's perfectly correct. But this film is the typical disaster film, ie it tries to make itself realistic. It has therefore stepped over to the side of reality where it can be judged by reality.

The lack of any understanding of science is inexcusable, it wouldn't take a lot to get at least some of the science right, well actually with this film the whole plot would need to be scrapped.

At it's best this film is a comedy. At it's worst this film damages the already under-developed understanding of science among the population.

We do not need a sequal. I mean what the hell are they gonna do next? Start the core of the Sun up with another nuke? What's a nuke going to do to a nuclear reactor over a million times the size of the Earth? Bugger all!

New Rods discovered - paranormal ghost and orb rods!

This is first hand evidence collected by nobody else but myself this afternoon. I'm pleased to announce MY BRAND NEW DISCOVERY of not only a new form of Rods but the new paranormal rods. Some lesser and inferior ROSWELL ALIEN ROD BELIEVERS. Seem to ponder why nobody has ever found the body of a dead Rod.

Of course scientists and anyone with more than 2 brain cells say this is because they are nothing but flies as they past in front of the camera at high speed. Well who would believe such a stupid idea!

We now have a simple and more down to Earth answer! These are alien creatures not from the Earth, and not only that due to my evidence found today I can say with absolute surety that these Rods have no physical existence, we can only see the alien rods when they go hyper-dimensional and become ghosts-rods and orb-rods.

Only four of my images remain after the FBI working for the CIA, FSB and the secret KGB society and the US government stole my camera! I was able to conceal some of my evidence and escape to Mexico from where I now write to you!

Rod classic - no ghost orbs

We see in the above image a normal rod (as in not paranormal yet). From this picture we can clearly see it has jumped in from the hyper-dimension. A few minutes later after watching it fly around:

Ghost Rod - the ultimate hyper-dimensional paranormal rod

The camera shows a change, it has turned into a ghost rod. It remained in this form for some time, looking almost confused - then suddenly I saw it begin reading a tiny book. From enhancing the original images I could clearly see the name of the book was the Holy Bible. This frame was however one stolen by the FBI working for the CIA, FSB and the secret KGB society and the US government.

The next thing that happened was a change into an orb form as it found peace with itself. We can see the new form clearly in the following images:

Paranormal ghost Rod turning into an Orb-rod

The Orb-rod becomes more clear in the next image as its level of peace increases:

Paranormal ghost Rod turning into an Orb-rod

Here the final complete orb form moments before the Orb-Rod entered back into the 5th hyper-dimension.

The evidence is clear! I will be releasing a book;

Titled Rods: they're alien hyper-dimensional Christian ghost rods turning into orbs! detailing this new evidence and why the ROSWELL ALIEN ROD BELIEVERS are so wrong. I mean it's just clear we're dealing with paranormal ghost rods turning into orbs after crossing hyper-dimensional space-time. This book will be available for only $24.99! Buy copies in their thousands to learn the TRUTH.

Moon hoax, stars, shadows, murders and nonsense

I was flicking through the channels the other day, and I ended up on Sci-Fi. Boy have they really gone downhill. What are they doing showing Moon Hoax stuff? Oh wait, science-fiction.

I just caught the end of the program and four claims it made of the Moon landings being fake.

1) No stars in the photographs.

Well, ask any photographer and he or she will be able to answer that one. Basically the stars being so faint take a lot of time to register on film. This is why if you go have a look at my gallery you'll find the astro photographs will have an exposure of at least several seconds to pick up any stars.

You can test this yourself, take your camera go outside and just try and capture some stars, if the camera is automatic it'll probably try and exposure of may be half a second, may be a quarter, and it will probably pick up zero stars.

Now imagine the camera is set to a really short exposure like 1/125th of a second, because after all the Sun was up and the objects they were imaging like astronauts the lunar surface were all really bright - so they'd have even less time to register on the film. The only thing I could see imaging even at a push would be Venus or may be Jupiter.

There should be no stars in the image. The evidence (tens of thousands of photographs) backs this up. In fact having starry backgrounds would be evidence of the images being fake or doctored. Not the other way around.

2) Objects in shadow aren't black. Due to no atmosphere to scatter the light objects in shadow must be completely black.

Wrong. Go outside, look up at the Moon and note how bright it is.

The astronauts or whatever was in the shadow at the time were also being illuminated by the lunar surface. Just look how bright it is! Now imagine being close to the Moon and how bright it is. In fact it's been compared to the Sun reflecting off ice or snow. Shadows on the surface, where nothing can directly reflect much light at them are pretty dark, but where that shadow is up high - like behind the LEM, where light can be reflected it's lit up. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to know that light reflects off things.

We can make a little model to test this. Get a bright light, place it at one of a room pointing at a table with a white surface, paper for example. Put a box on the table, and note how the surface in shadow is actually being illuminated by the surface of the table. You can even put a little Lego man behind it and he'll be quite easy to see.

3) Shadows aren't parallel, one light source should result in parallel shadows.

That's wrong too, go out on a sunny day and just look at shadows of sign posts, you'll find some that aren't parallel with each other, this is because of the angle of the ground, the Moon isn't completely flat, and any features of the terrain will make shadows not appear parallel.

Again we can create a little model to demonstrate this. Create a lunar surface with two hilly place something on them to cast a shadow and get yourself down to a position of a camera - they won't appear parallel. You'll note the photos with shadows in two different directions only happen when one shadow is being cast over a hill or similar.

The really dumb thing here is they claim it's because NASA used multiple spot lights when they filmed it - if you had multiple spot lights you'd have multiple shadows!

4) NASA murdered Gus Grissom, Roger Chaffee, Ed White and others because they were going to speak to the press.

That's just insane. The Apollo 1 fire was a tragic accident that was a serious set back to the Apollo program. Even if NASA wanted to kill them why burn up millions of dollars worth of hardware when a simple helicopter crash would do just as well. Yes a lot of astronauts did die in the period between 1965-1968, about 15% of NASA's astronauts. But that's just space travel and NASA was willing to push things to the limit.

Claiming NASA murdered them with no evidence is just grasping at straws.

Buzz Aldrin on the Moon

Landing humans on the Moon was one of the greatest scientific and engineering achievements in our history, this is something right up there with Sputnik!

If anybody believes they have any evidence to disprove the Moon landings, I'd love to see it. Come on just look at some of this footage, how can you say that's fake?

We didn't evolve from rocks and more

The Daily Creationism guy:

you believe that sometime way back it evolved from a rock any way! So who cares where cows come in.

Rocks are inorganic material. Most rocks are >95% silicates, silicon and oxygen. To be organic it requires carbon, from which all life is made. So no we didn't evolve from rocks.

I wouldn't talk like that about cows, you'll make a certain somebody angry.

But that is what the text books say. The text books say that there was this dot and it span and span and span faster and faster...

No book, scientific paper, or press release I've ever read has said that the universe was a spinning dot. Please list which books said that and their page numbers.

"The universe (due to the above) was much hotter than it is today." There are a few things that i think you should consider here. The earth is spinning. The earth is slowing down.

Yes the Earth is spinning, and yes the Earth's rotation is slowing down due to tidal forces from the Moon, the Moon has already been tidally locked with us which is why it shows the same face. What's your point?

If the earth is slowing down then that means that it must have been going faster. Because of the earth's rotation, the earth is already about 20 miles wider than it is high. Now if the earth was hot, and the earth was spinning much faster than it is today. Wouldn't that mean that the earth would have been stretched our like a disc?

The universe was "hot" long before the Earth formed. The Earth certainly was hot when it formed, but it wasn't spinning fast enough to really stretch it out, you see there's this thing called gravity that holds the Earth together.

By the way if you see galaxies moving away from each other than doesn't that puts some kind of limit to the age of the universe.

Correct that was one of the first ways we came up with the age of the universe. What's your point?

Creationists and alien life

This is an interesting little snippet I've harvested from the Daily Creationism.

Most thinking people will agree that:

1) A highly ordered universe exists.

Highly ordered compared to what? It's true that the universe is governed by the laws of nature, but how could we know of an alternative.

2) At least one planet (probably only one) (earth) in this complex universe contains an amazing variety of life forms.

Earth is probably the only planet with life on in the whole universe? You've made a claim that we can test, which we can demolish. Now you've nearly entered the realm of science.

It would be extremely unlikely that Earth is the only place in the whole universe with life. We see the materials needed for life throughout the universe. It is far more likely for the universe to be absolutely crawling with life than for the Earth to be the only place.

3) Man appears to be the most advanced form of life

Depends what you mean by advanced. By DNA complexity? We're not the most complex form of life by this measure. By success? We're hardly successful compared to bacteria. By technology? Well that's true. But if dolphins had evolved hands they would probably be running the show, they already teach tool use to their children, that's a pretty "advanced" stuff, they've already got a larger brain than us, if they had hands or an ability to manipulate their environment as well as us, their brains would be highly technology-prone after a few million years. Go back ten million years and try and decide what the "most" advanced form of life is. Much harder to do. But yes, most people would probably agree with this statement even if they can't explain why.

But the key point is number 2. The Earth being the only place with life on. Highly unlikely and not highly probable.

Creationist Big Bang straw man

It looks like the comrade over at The Daily Creationism is back at it again. This time talking about the Big Bang (again).

The Big Bang is a Big Dud

Interesting factoid: The name Big Bang is actually not what the scientists who proposed the hypothesis called it, Big Bang was the what those opposed to it called it. Big Bang referring to how silly an idea it was. The Big Bang was not a Big Bang in space, more of a Big Expansion of space.

This scientific law (conservation of angular momentum) contradicts the Big Bang Theory which proposes that a spinning cosmic explosion started the universe into its evolutionary processes.

This is what is known as a straw man argument. Skeptics would describe it as being:

Arguing against a position which you create specifically to be easy to argue against, rather than the position actually held by those who oppose your point of view.

The Daily Creationism goes on to say:

If the Big Bang Theory were true then all of the planets should be spinning in the same direction today.

Well first of all let's assume the universe was spinning, this is no reason for the planets to spin the same way. The planets in question are Venus and Uranus. Which do rotate backwards compared to the other 7 "planets" in the solar system. We believe this is due to impacts in their past. If we take asteroids they're rotating all over the place, why is that? I also don't recall the last time I was walking down a street and all the people were spinning the same way. Same basic thing happening, the energy in any spin of the universe, or more importantly how the cloud of gas and dust that condensed to form our solar system came together can be quite easily over come by smashing two planetary bodies together or by close gravitational encounters.

However...

Conservation of angular momentum doesn't require that everything spin the same way. All it requires is that a change in spin in one object be compensated for by an opposite change in spin in one or more other objects.

Also...

How can you say the universe was spinning? Spinning against what? How can you measure it if space-time itself is spinning? The idea that the universe is or was spinning is absolute nonsense, and if the cosmos does spin there is no reason to expect the spin would effect how matter falls together, which is entirely random.

If we put the straw man away in the cupboard what does the Big Bang Theory really say, two things basically:

1) Everything in the universe was closer together in the past.
2) The universe (due to the above) was much hotter than it is today.

Tell me what hypothesis does the Bible put forward to explain the two key pieces of evidence for the Big Bang:

1) We see galaxies moving away from each other.
2) We see the cosmic microwave background radiation across the whole sky.

Come on what's your hypothesis?

1 ... 2 3 4 5 6 7 ...8 ...9 11 13