Marc said about 6 hours later

In regards to the cell phone, I've also heard the magnet that is used to produce the vibration is key and that having your cell phone on vibrate and receiving a call, text, etc. will be almost certain death due to the activation of that magnet. Personally, I think simply having a magnet present is the cause, but the things you mentioned as well can cause it.

---

GJ said about 8 hours later

Magnets aren't generally used, small motors that rotate a weight quickly on a gear do the job of producing vibrations. Motors do emit a magnetic force, but it's likely to be very, very small in this case due to the tiny size of the motor and power consumed in the application, far less of an effect than the physical strike I described above. Magnetic force drops off very very quickly, and this motor is minuscule.

I demonstrated the strike effect for Darcy earlier today with a magnetized screwdriver. Apparently, this was news to her--she thought for sure I was full of crap. :) Woot!

---

GJ said about 8 hours later

See http://electronics.howstuffworks.com/question368.htm

---

Darcy said 1 day later

I didn't think you were full of crap--this time--I had just never heard of the strike effect before.

---

GJ said 1 day later

Oh, suuuuuure. :)

---

Geoff said 1 day later

well if it makes you feel any better GJ, I think you're still full of crap ;)

---

GJ said 1 day later

I'll do a demo for you kids. I at least remember one fact from my electrical engineering studies. :)

• paid a crook $90
• effectively installed TWO pieces of bad code on your machine
• given your credit card info to that same crook.
• probably given this to your friends, either directly, or that bad code sitting on your box helpfully passes it to them.

Marc said about 4 hours later

Well put GJ. There really needs to be an Internet Safety class that everybody should go through before being allowed to use it.

---

Abby said about 8 hours later

Hah. BH-BL offers practically everything BUT Internet Safety. Instead of recommending Keyboarding, they should put together an internet safety course and recommend that.

...instead they just block two-thirds of the entire Internet. (not cool!)

Marc said about 2 hours later

Planes typically have a lightning rod no? Seems strange to have received such a strike. But then again, they're a big hunk of metal, so it doesn't surprise me that it may have hit another part. I'm no lightning strike observer either, but this looks like a fire did most of the damage. The burn marks look like they may have been going along with the wind, which would seem to indicate it wasn't just an instantaneous thing.

---

Geoff said 1 day later

asteroid.

---

GJ said 1 day later

OK, entries are closed.

Here's what actually happened: the plane had a cockpit fire on the ground, prior to takeoff. The plane was evacuated safely.

Now, me being a dude with an electrical engineering degree and a physics degree, I could tell you right away that this wasn't lightning. Planes get hit with lightning all the time--each plane likely gets hit at least once a year, if not more. Because they are made of aluminum, the lightning's electricity simply conducts around the outside of the plane. Now, we have lost a plane due to a strike over 40 years ago--because it caused a spark in the fuel tank, and kaboom. Planes were changed after this incident to ensure that fuel vapor is isolated so that a spark cannot set it off like this today.

So, right away, seeing the penetration of the hull said, nope, not lightning.

But, if you didn't have a background in electrical science, you might have to take this at face value. Marc did a pretty good job here, identifying fire as the agent of damage. Noting the burn marks was a good guess too--but of course, if the plane suffered this kind of intense fire in the cockpit during flight, it never would have landed. My guess is the prevailing wind during that day is responsible for the smoke pattern seen.

Geoff's guess of asteroid is, well, pretty bad--but then again, if you get your science from movies like Armageddon, you might come up with asteroid as the cause. :)

However, given the way this page is written, and the fact that the pictures don't look that different from what a tree looks like after being hit by lightning, I'm betting a majority of people viewing that page took that story as is. Marc's analysis was pretty good, from skeptical point of view. Good jorb!

---

Steve said 1 day later

I call BS.

"Lightning does hit airplanes and when it does it can damage the electronic equipment needed to fly the plane. Lightning research done during the 1980s by NASA had an F-106B jet fly into1,400 thunderstorms and lightning hit it over 700 times. The lightning did not damage the airplane but scientists found out that it could damage electronic systems on the plane. This led to requirements that all aircraft electrical and electronic systems have built-in lightning protection."

I would bet that if this was really a lightning strike, it happened when the plane was on the ground and was connected to a passenger loading/unloading tunnel.

---

Steve said 1 day later

Ok, and since I waited to read comments until after I responded, there's my logical response. Look it up. And I found some cool lightning strike videos along the way...

http://www.coasttocoastam.com/gen/page2173.html?theme=light

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=036hpBvjoQw

And my source of information:

http://www.centennialofflight.gov/2003FF/lightning/flight.html

---

GJ said 1 day later

You know, you had me worried with link #1...coast to coast AM is a hotbed of aliens and conspiracies.

Abby said 1 day later

I like their spelling of skeptical. Hahaha

Interesting video, though

---

GJ said 2 days later

The Brits spell a lot of things differently.

---

GJ said 2 days later

Let me guess--this was too long for Geoff to sit through. :)

---

Geoff said 2 days later

you guessed it! Lost me about 2 minutes in... :)

---

Geoff said 2 days later

if he used aliens instead of ghosts, there may have been a chance :P

---

GJ said 3 days later

Aliens = ghosts. There. Now watch the rest of it.

---

Geoff said 3 days later

ugh that was painful. We need to do a better job if we are going to convince the world they are close-minded.

---

GJ said 3 days later

Painful in what way? Just curious. It's actually gotten a lot of kudos from skeptics of many varieties, but of course they'd find it appealing.

You're correct, however--folks that argue irrationally aren't likely to be swayed. A cute flash video isn't going to cure them of gullibility, or teach them to work at distinguishing fact and fiction, rather than taking things at face value if they line up with one's belief system.

---

Marc said 3 days later

One suggestion I have goes for all skeptics. Stop acting like you know everything and don't argue in a mocking fashion. :) It's not all skeptics, but many I have seen. I just recently watched Religilous (well done documentary in many respects) and also this video both share the same quality I've seen in all debates on these types of topics. Sure, when talking about evolution, the people who don't believe in it are absolutely ridiculous, but when you come off as mocking, there's no way it will work. It will simply lead the person on the other end to get into a defensive state.

It's not just the words you use to debate, but the tone of voice as well. If skeptics in general all acted in a more professional manner, their points would come across much better. You could spend all the time in the world coming up with irrefutable evidence, but being condescending about it won't help your cause.

One of the best parts of Religilous was when they described the story of Jesus' life as being written almost exactly the same by several other, older civilizations. That is good proof to show for your point and he did it in a very factual manner, but much of the rest was very mocking, as if people are flat out stupid who don't believe what you do. Now, I'm of the spiritual side, but I still enjoyed the movie because I'm not a nut case and can accept evidence when it's brought to me.

I think if the level of professionalism is brought up in these videos, articles, etc. you'll probably find you could sway more people to "the dark side." :)

---

Darcy said 3 days later

GJ--it is all a question of "framing". ;)

I think Marc is correct regarding mocking. There are definitely some in the skeptic community out there that come across this way. That is a big reason why I didn't care to see Religilous--what little I saw of it was mocking. It isn't going to win anyone over, but I also feel there is a level of frustration in the skeptical community(of a "how can you not see it" variety)whether it is alternative medicine woo, or vaccines cause autism, or creationism vs evolution. The frustration is there because even when facts are presented, in a calm manner, some are so deep into denial(I am thinking of vaccines=autism folks here) that they dismiss it automatically. What many skeptics forget is that many people are not ruled by their minds. They don't reason everything out, for lack of a better way to put it they are ruled by their heart, their emotions. I don't think you can change that.

---

GJ said 3 days later

Marc, can you point to a specific part of this video as being condescending or mocking? I know what you're referring to, and yes, it's a common complaint I hear, but all too often people read "mocking" and "know-it-all" into situations where they're being told their beliefs are based on fallacious truths. It'd be hard to think anything else of the skeptic if your core values are under attack.

Anyhow, point me to a specific example, so I can look at it from the "other side." I'm honestly curious--even thought I suspect the British accent is enough to make this sound snooty. LOL.

---

Marc said 3 days later

There's various examples throughout, nothing huge in this video, but it's the small things sometimes. Like saying "if you have difficulty accepting that other people don't share your beliefs, than that's unfortunate for you." (Around 5 minutes in) It just seems like a childish way to say what is meant. Maybe that's just me, but it certainly was more predominant in Religilous. You are right, though, the British accent didn't help. ;) But to be honest, I never felt like my beliefs were being attacked, I felt like my maturity was. When a skeptic is arguing for the side of "We just don't know," I think that's a fair honest and honorable opinion, but there's ways to argue for your side without belittling others.

Darcy's point is valid too, I can imagine it sometimes feels like you're trying to teach a child when trying to convince people that things like evolution have irrefutable evidence.

I think there's a fine line between being passionate about a topic and being overly emotional and this point is often a case used by skeptics, which I agree, when you let emotions control you, you'll often ignore what's right in front of you. Skeptics need to watch out for the same problem though. I enjoy the passion and debate it brings up, but I'd hate to see Skepticism be a new "religion" involved in a holy war. We've got enough fundamentalists causing havoc. :)

If you'd like, I could attempt to bare that video looking for the specific examples, but...it's 9 minutes man...this is the 21st century, what kind of time do you think I have? :P

---

GJ said 3 days later

First, sorry, Darcy, you and I were posting simultaneously and I didn't see your post. I'm in agreement with most of what you and Marc are saying. However, I may have to beat you senseless for the framing pun. (Inside joke, folks, nothing to see here).

Second, Marc's point about skeptic "fundamentalists" is quite funny--that's precisely how many religious opponents paint us. However, there ARE skeptic fundamentalists out there--they are the "burn the damn bridges already" type. They are the equivalent of Rush Limbaugh and Keith Olbermann. If your political beliefs line up with theirs, you'll probably find them amusing, and find they do occasionally say some really good things, but by and large they are a guilty pleasure. Unless, of course, you're a total nutjob and eat up everything that comes out of their mouth, but in that case you'd be a terrible skeptic. :) They don't do much to educate the opposition, rather, they serve the purpose of revving up the core supporters.

Back to the video. "If you have difficulty". I found that line amusing--but let's face it, it's true. Why should you be offended that other people don't agree with your point of view? Skeptic or believer, it matters not. If you take offense based on this difference of belief, you're a moron. Aw, crap, that's an ad hominem. :) Still, it's just too bad for you in that case. Nothing childish about that--it's simple a no-BS way to say what needs saying, isn't it? How would you go about covering this point? Maybe there is a better way.

Religilous was pretty bad in this sense--they went out of their way to be unfair to believers, and ridicule them. Again, guilty pleasure time for the atheists, but it was unfair and unethical. In fact, it was not so different than how Expelled was made, and atheists went ape-crap over that movie (rightfully so).

In any case, my point behind the video was to try to demonstrate how skeptics view the definition of open-mindedness. And yes, I think they did get a bit childish when referring to others' definition of open-mindedness--it harkens back to the saying, "be open minded, but not so open-minded your brains fall out." All too often we're accused of being closed-minded...when the opposite is usually (but not always) true.

---

Marc said 3 days later

I will say that this video was not really that offensive in the sense that I constantly felt ridiculed, but it just reminded me a couple times and with Religilous recent in my head, this is something the skeptic community needs to keep in check. Overall the way things were phrased weren't all that bad, my example wasn't even that harsh, but it is a common theme I've seen and could make the process even harder for you "heathens." :)

---

GJ said 4 days later

Yeah, don't judge us by Bill Maher's masterpiece, Bill isn't a true skeptic (he believes some really FAR OUT crapola) and as I said before, Religious was a hatchet job on the faithful. Try reading Dawkins or Sagan to get an idea of how a real skeptic operates.

Anyhow, this was a pretty civil discussion with no name calling. See! It's possible to play nice in this area....sometimes. :)

---

Geoff said 4 days later

Sorry I'm late to the game...few things.

What I meant by "painful" is the way it was presented. This thing put me to freaking sleep. The quality of the content was good, but the presentation was...painful. I didn't see any explosions, spaceships, or aliens! Seriously though, a little background music would have helped just a little...and perhaps a more dynamic speaker. But that's a whole other topic.

As for the rest of this conversation...I totally agree that we can be condescending, and to tell you the truth, I find it hard not to with some of these folks. I often feel like beating them with a stick they make such nonsensical comments. My favorite part about Religulous was when Jesus described the three aspects of the Christian God...Father, Son, and Holy Ghost...comparing it to the three states of water (gas, liquid, solid). Even Bill was impressed (and how couldn't he...it's a great analogy for something totally bonkers).

In any case, you can't reason with most of these folks and in the end, us skeptics are the Anti-Christ in their mind. Once we've opened the minds of enough people, they will have their Armageddon, and hopefully our Science will trump their God. Boom!

Amen, and merry Easter yo.

---

GJ said 4 days later

Well, we were playing nice....

---

Geoff said 4 days later

:) I'm sorry but some of the folks really are morons. There is no way around it. I just don't understand how somebody can honestly believe humans were playing fetch with T-Rex. It's despicable.

---

GJ said 4 days later

It's not despicable. It's sad, and it's why I get so worked up about the creobots trying to manipulate schools to "teach the controversy." But that's a separate topic, covered a few posts ago.

It does bring up a good point, though. Have you been watching anything on Fox News of late? They are selling the idea that Obama will be instituting a form of tyranny, citing various changes he's made and drawing them out to absurd and nonsensical conclusions, and practically coming right out and saying that it might not be a bad idea to stock up on weapons and ammo in order to "defend our freedom." These are, of course, outright lies, but it attracts viewers and that's all that matters. However, a fair number of people take this "news" as the truth--without applying an ounce of healthy skepticism to it--and guess what? It's getting pretty hard to find ammo at Wal-Mart these days...it sells so fast they can't keep it in stock.

Scary, isn't it? And all based on lies and half-truths.

So, I'm not trying to encourage the thought that everything a skeptic believes it (or doesn't believe in) is the absolute truth. Rather, I'm hoping that you can take some things you take for granted (like the existence of aliens) and put a critical eye towards it. Does it stand up to true scrutiny...or is it in the category of "unknown, and highly unlikely." Or perhaps, "unknown, but rather likely."

---

Geoff said 4 days later

Aliens are definitely unknown but likely....whether they are intelligent remains to be discovered...but I don't imagine it will take long to find "alien" organisms, if they haven't already done so.

In any case, I don't watch Faux News, or much news on TV in general.

---

GJ said 4 days later

Aliens -- separate post. Do educate me on the aliens unknown but likely. I'm not saying I totally disagree, but I'm interested to see what you base your opinion on. That "if they haven't already done so" bit leads me to think I'll find that source *very* interesting. :)

---

Geoff said 4 days later

I'm talking bacteria...found on a remote moon or something. That would be considered alien....and I can almost guarantee they will find some kind of foreign bacteria in the next few decades or so, ***if they haven't already done so***.

As for intelligent aliens, I find it hard not to believe that somewhere in the universe exists some form of creature. And no I don't have proof other than statistics which would indicate that the universe is so vast, that it would be darn near impossible for our planet to be the ONLY one to sustain intelligent life.

---

GJ said 4 days later

They haven't found any bacteria or viruses to date. They were thinking they found hallmarks of that on a Martian meteorite, but that wasn't proven conclusively and even the original researchers aren't quite so convinced of it these days. Will they find something, someday? Maybe--but probably not soon.

The galaxy is very, very big. However, we have but one planet teeming with life that we know about. Any equation (I'm looking at you, Drake equation) that attempts to come up with a figure for the number of intelligent species out there is based solely on guesswork, not science. We don't even know how life came about here on this planet. Not knowing that, how can we begin to approximate the likelihood of it occurring elsewhere? I don't think we can--at least, not in any meaningful way.

Finally, hope that there are no other intelligent species out there. If there are, I can promise you this--neither we nor they will ever "come in peace." Just look back to how humans spread out over this planet. Expansion is always tightly tied to war--because, let's face it, resources in any closed system are finite. To the winner goes the spoils...so if I were you, I'd want to be the ones finding other species first, not the other way around.

Geoff said about 3 hours later

Nice.

---

Abby said about 4 hours later

Wow... That's a lot of Disney movies I haven't seen in ages. xD

---

Steve said about 9 hours later

Very cool video, and glad to see they are crediting all the movies too.