Geocentric, Yes, Neither Flat Earther, Nor Sceptic About Everything I Need to Trust Someone Else On

Am I Actually Agreeing With Flat Earthers?
SciManDan | 23 July 2026
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=18t5ywLPkVo

7:36 You have forgotten a step.

Observations are a starting point.

What's the due process of stating one observation is misleading? Is it just to say this kind of observation could mislead? Or is it sufficient to say the model proposed instead would lead to the same observation?

No.

It's also to actually show why the prima facie interpretation cannot hold.

For globe Earth, we have Magellan. It corresponds to Aristotle's factually wrong but strongest 4th reason, "east of Ganges" (or whichever the river was) you have pillars of Hercules (Straits of Gibraltar). No, you don't. This was discovered a bit later, not least because of Eratosthenes giving the perimeter implication of the curvature. Then, more than 1500 years later, Magellan and Elcano made good for what the Indian adventure of Alexander didn't really provide.

For a moving Earth we have ... Lost in Space?

8:12 Indeed, I believe the process of triangulation to the Moon or the Sun (by the moon) is one which has been undertaken, because of people who told me so.

I do not believe the process of triangulating to alpha Centauri is correct because of people who told me so. Because, if there is an angel moving alpha Centauri and it's a proper movement (dito for aberration), that leaves 2AU outside a triangle of Earth to two positions of the star. With no length in the triangle, no triangulation.

There is a difference between accepting "someone else measured" and accepting "someone else concluded correctly" ... I cannot handle the apparatus to measure simultaneous angles from two places on Earth to the Moon at the same moment (like Brazil and Africa) and the calculations that add up to the Moon being ... looking up ... 362 600 km to 405 400 km up as the case may be that day. But I can validate the reasoning, like I know from geometry that if the angles had been 60° (to a line through bent earth) or 60° between them, the distance would have been .... also looking up ... sqrt(3)/2 times the distance. And I know simultaneous measures are taken and so have no reason to worry about what is moving.

And similarily, in a case where there is some doubt on what is moving, I can invalidate the reasoning used by the experts, unless they can prove to me that Earth is moving.

Nope, the Geological Column is Not Well-Proven in the Terrain

The Most Amusing Attack on Evolution I've Ever Seen
SciManDan | 28 July 2026
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RDVQkd8dp8w

5:33 What about genes and even combinations of different genes that cannot be explained by coming from small accumulating changes in other genes?

TheWetheriliWitch

@TheWetheriliWitch

In other words... mutations

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@hglundahl

@TheWetheriliWitch The problem was when mutations cannot do it.

For a certain fish, a blind fish in Mexican caves, I think, the retina has ten genes, and because of one mutation on one of them and two on the other, the retina doesn't work, the fish doesn't see.

That's three mutations away from the complete setup for ten genes, and completely useless.

TheWetheriliWitch

@hglundahl Whats useless? Those mutations occured and propogated because the fish lives in constant darkness. Therefore developing the structures needed for vision wastes precious resources that are scarce in a cave environment, making those mutations very beneficial.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@TheWetheriliWitch The structure needed for vision is there and is wasting resources.

The eyeball is there, the retina is there, it just can't see.

The thing is, a configuration that's three mutations away from a complete configuration of ten genes for the retina, that configuration is useless as far as seeing is concerned.

I'm sorry, I forgot the reference, it was a debate on Quora ten years ago, and that account has been closed, so I can't go back and check in it.

If the ten genes started building up slowly to makng a retina capable of seeing, they would have been wasting resources long before they could contribute to seeing.

6:40 Rock layers are dated ...

They didn't use radiometric when starting the narrative, though.

1) Radiometric. Extra argon was trapped in the Flood which solidified lava quickly. Or, both potassium argon and uranium processes were sped up so that the mud after the Flood could dryp up more quickly. Mud problem and heat problem cancel out.
2) Consistent order. That depends on "rock layers" ... the thing is, shale comes in many different ones of those, as a material, and so does sandstone. The land fossils usually come in one layer and so the "period" fauna actually reflects the biogeography of the pre-Flood world. (The sea fossils come in different layers, as they were at different heights in the pre-Flood sea or sometimes where it inundated pre-Flood land).

7:04 and radiometric dating

The big bluff.

TheWetheriliWitch

Not really if it can be reliably repeated over and over and over again

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@TheWetheriliWitch Key word reliably.

CMI has quoted a quoteable quote about how Evolutionists treat aberrant radiometric dates.

TheWetheriliWitch

@hglundahl What?

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@TheWetheriliWitch Here is the text:

Underpinning everything, of course, is the theory of evolution and its passengers. As the archaeologist Professor Brew put it, ‘If a C-14 date fits our theories, we put it in the main text. If it does not entirely contradict them, we put it in a footnote. And if it is completely "out of date", we just drop it.’

This article:

How long have Aborigines been in Australia?
Published 27 Jan, 2006
https://creation.com/en/articles/how-long-have-aborigines-been-in-australia

footnotes that quote to:

Fully referenced in The Revised Quote Book, Creation Science Foundation, Sunnybank (Queensland), 1990, p. 23.

TheWetheriliWitch

@hglundahl Creation Science Foundation doesnt seem like a very good source, and regardless, theories are made around evidence, not the other way around.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@TheWetheriliWitch "Creation Science Foundation doesnt seem like a very good source"

Do you believe they could accurately quote the archaeologist Professor Brew?*

If not, that seems like paranoia about them.

"regardless, theories are made around evidence, not the other way around."

Why?

And what exact relevance to this discussion?

* footnote:

Probably:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Otis_Brew

7:46 Indeed. In California la Baja it seems that the "late" Cretaceous land fauna was flooded by "early" Palaeocene marine fauna, not the least decapods.

8:11 You are basically grading "early" or "low" by your view of what was earliest in fauna, like Ediacaran only containing bacteria and similar.

9:27 I'd go with habitat for land fossils.

The assemblage zones of Karoo are side by side in the terrain. And that means that different habitats could be buried side by side, and give different "assemblage zones" (local subdivisions of for instance Permian or Triassic) simply by containing different fauna.

9:35 Mixing would not be apparent in land habitats, though.

Sure, a T Rex could be washed 500 km away, but if so would not appear today as a recognisable T Rex fossil. If a T Rex fossil looks like an assembled skeleton, presumably it was buried in situ.

9:40 Rabbits would be a land habitat, and trilobies a marine one.

9:43 Men would not have lived with dinosaurs in close quarters any more than we do now with Safari fauna.

10:05 Disagree with Hovind here. Sortings during the Flood, we would usually see just the top layer, or possibly some underneath that if the top layer was worn off later in the Flood.

10:45 Where they lived.

[SciManDan is presenting the fossils as sorted by when they lived, which between the interpretations is begging the question]

11:40 their position within rock layers around the world

Similar habitats result in similar layers. As similarity is defined by fossils contained.

11:52 often using radiometric dating where appropriate

Meaning, some radiometric dates exist, that contradict, like the radiocarbon ones collected by Armitage, but those dates are somehow inappropriate ...

On Good and Bad Arguments for Good and Bad Ideas (or admitting an argument wrong, even if popular and in support of one's idea

Flat Earther AGREES With SciManDan!!
SciManDan | 7.VI.2019
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bWKqpBINNRE

I

4:20 There are Evolution believers who can't do the maths too.

(Btw, I am not a Flat Earther, but I am a Geocentric, so this argument concerns me, I gave it up after a mathematical analysis by Robert Carter).

For instance, if I state that carbon date 40 000 years ago really was date of Deluge, 2957 BC, they will go, "oh, he must be wrong on the maths, there is no way a measurement could be wrong by a factor of 8".

Well, carbon dates don't directly measure time, but directly measure remaining C14:C12 ratio. And I consider them wrong about not one percent of that measure, I only consider them wrong by a factor of about 60 about how much C14:C12 there was when last Neanderthal died.

Which is not a thing they measure.

So, the alternative science side is not alone in lots of supporters handicapped in maths. It's fairly common across the field.

In my case, the argument I withdrew support from was how it would feel to be on a spinning earth (merry go round parallel, also the one adressed by Robert Carter).

Oh, feel in our stomachs is basically what I was supporting up to Carter (not FE, but Geocentric, but this is not about globe as globe, but globe as spinning).

[S]-Riley Dunn

@Hans-Georg Lundahl
Oh? How would it feel on an Earth spinning at 0.0007 RPM? How would it feel to travel 0.25 degrees per minute?

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Yes, point already granted on my part.

[S]-Riley Dunn

Hans-Georg Lundahl
I asked you a question and you answered with “yes”. Try again. Also, remember that humans feel acceleration, not velocity. But anyway, show us your math.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

I gave a yes to your point : it is already granted.

II

4:59 By his words "gravity doesn't exist" I suppose he means Newtonian or Einsteinian gravity doesn't exist.

Either of them, or Aristotelic gravity (heavy bodies tend to the centre of the Universe, which is the centre of the Earth) or sth else could account for the observed acceleration.

People who differentiate between observations and deductions are fairly rare on your side too (outside the science geeks, who you seem to be one of).

He might also mean gravity if his model (not Aristotelic if he is Flat Earth) is not universal.

III

By the way, thanks for the trampoline clip, exactly what would happen to someone jumping off a train, he would be dragged on ground with train speed and probably die or get very unhealthy if at all surviving, and probably be maimed for life if any survival.

Also, a miss on usually well documented Hergé in The Temple of the Sun : he jumps off a train into a narrow river gorge and into the water, arguably he would be crashing into the gorge walls if it wasn't a comic book.

IV

8:34 And how rare is it Evolution believers and Heliocentric / Acentrics admit there are flawed arguments for their view.

"Armstrong saw Earth spinning from the Moon"

Yeah - if Moon is turning around Earth at 24 h 55 minutes per turn, what would Earth look like from Moon? Turning around itself of course.

Or this one:

"We managed to orient ourselves in space, which we would not have been able to if we had the wrong idea of it"

Depends on what type of wrong idea, if you wear glasses that turn all upside down, your brain gets used and you start to orient normally, even if light hits your eye the "wrong way round". Geocentrism doesn't state Heliocentrics get the facts wrong within the wrong framework, just that they get them in the wrong framework.

a

johnbiggscr

The moon takes roughly 30 days to go around the earth, not 24hours.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

That is according to Heliocentrism, in which the 24 h 55 min between twice you see the moon in same place is supposed to be a compound of Moon's monthly movement and Earth's spin.

Gratulations to showing up to illustrate my point that being knowledgeable on the opponents' pov is rare all over the field, not just among the "marginal" community.

b

[S]-Riley Dunn

Where are your quotes from? What is the second one even talking about?

Hans-Georg Lundahl

My "quotes" are summing up arguments given by Heliocentrics.

And the last one, successful space travel, has been featured as a recent new proof we got cosmology right.

[S]-Riley Dunn

Hans-Georg Lundahl
So what is the source of your quoting?

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Arguments I met in real life and on the internet, and not actual quoting.

If you insist on a real actual quote with a real actual source:

"Ok, I get it. You think this is silly because there is no way to get a lander on Mars without a heliocentric solar system model. Yes, that's an excellent point. But still, this IS evidence of a heliocentric model that you can figure out for yourself."

Wired : How Do We Know the Earth Orbits the Sun?
Author: Rhett Allain dot-physics 04.14.14 08:26 am
https://www.wired.com/2014/04/how-do-we-know-the-earth-orbits-the-sun/

SciManDan on some ID Arguments

In context:

3 Academic Professors Debunk Evolution With Ease
Off The Kirb Ministries | 5.XII.2018
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1EXFySDWq9I

As "debunked" by SciManDan:

Three Academic Professors Get Evolution Completely Wrong!
SciManDan | 9.IV.2019
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8NLdlsyXkGM

Whom I now procede to debunk:

I

4:26 Congratulations for shooting yourself in the foot.

While a baby bird won't have a ready feather, he already has the DNA to produce them.

Since it is anyway adults who procreate (each animal is adult when able to produce offspring), and DNA which gives most aspects if not all of adult morphology (via, to be sure, foetal and youth morphology), we do really have a question on why something developed which could give the advantages we see in feathers.

Minor adjustments?

Gimme a break.

The problem is how minor adjustments produce such a thing as a feather.

5:21 - 5:31 "see, it's now not a massive stretch to go from hollow tube to feathers with barbs on them : barbs were needed so that birds could withstand the high air pressure on their wings during flight"

Without "developing" barbs, birds would not have "developed" flight, problem solved.

No, a need for a desireable outcome is not going to produce the needed input by random mutations.

That is the point, and that is what he didn't and you did miss.

As you mentioned feathers without barbs, ostriches and kiwis can't fly.

II

7:38 Homology points to a common ...

ancestor/designer?

In the case of knee joints, you have not effectively refuted a designer.

Changes in evolution don't have to occur simultaneously?

Well, some don't - insofar as evolution is anything like the word for it.

Mutation for blue eyes (as opposed to brown ones) and mutation for white skin (as opposed to brown skin) certainly did not have to occur simultaneously.

However, they leave eyes as eyes, with same functions, and skin as skin, with mainly same functions, a bit less good at protecting against skin cancer and a bit better at synthesising vitamin D than otherwise.

You don't really observe any functions building up over time, and the point of Stuart Burgess is, for knee joints, you can't.

And while knee joints could possibly evolve to human ones from quadrupedal ancestors, you chose not to comment on the arched foot, which obviously couldn't evolve either from four handed or four footed ancestry.

That God gave us powers that some misuse is not an argument against God being the Creator.

Nice showing off, again, your real beef with creationism is actually your anti-theology.

Oh, while I was researching your own academic credentials (you were harping on neither of the three being an evolutionary biologist, I thought perhaps you were, perhaps you thought only those who went through evolutionist brainwashing in the process of becoming evolutionary biologists have a right to speak on the subject), I actually found this:

"If you want to see an atheist using Science, reason and logical thinking to promote the proven natural history of Life, the Earth and Universe then the subscribe button is up and to the right."

"Pseudoscience, religion, flat Earthers....they are all fair game!"

Academic field - rabid atheism?

III

10:38 Oh, you "discovered" that irreducible complexity has less weight as an argument than a flat earth one.

How clever ... and just a bit self serving on part of an atheist evolution believer.

11:12 "If everything is intelligently designed, why do I need these for driving" (eye-glasses shown).

Well, the discovery of eye-glasses by one Fr Roger Bacon OFM came before the discovery of the combustion engine ... I think somehow the history of discoveries was intelligently designed as well.

You have still not adressed the point that ATP motors in cells show more intelligence of design than combustion motors and more precision than you gain by adding eye-glasses to your eyes.

The point was your anti-theology, not a good evolutionary explanation for ATP motors.

And the point in your anti-theology can be adressed by stating, both your need to drive and your need to have glasses while doing so have something to do with the sin of Adam.

I note that one of your fans has the Swedish surname Alm (even if his first name is more an English version of the Christian name than a Swedish version of it), and another has clearly Danish names, bith given name and surname. Mads Nexø.

I feel I sense why I had to leave Sweden.

IV

12:07 "that the fossil record is fantastic evidence for evolution"

...... supposing an Eocene and a Miocene layer can independently of fossils be proven to have been laid down at times some millions of years separate from each other.

In fact, the things that fossil record can even so reveal (!) are inadequate as responses to the intelligent design argument.

SciManDan on a Flat Earther (where I agree on SciMan) and on Carbon Dating (where I agree with neither)

First a video I did not watch in its entirety (or even at all, except the excerpts in next):

Flat Earth Canada conference opening speech Mark Sargent - DITRH mirror
markksargent | 14.VIII.2018
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AB5Fhp6NWV4

Then SciManDan comments, before I comment on him:

Flat Earth "Leader" Gets His Best 5 Points Ruined!!
SciManDan | 14.IX.2018
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=89RvUQjjTFE

I

8:55 - 9:04 "and no, an enclosed pressurised system is not more logical, because you have to explain who built that system, then we move into some very dodgy territory."

While I am not a Flat Earther, very far from, I object to this remark very strongly.

While theology is a very controverse ridden ground, this does not make theology illogical, nor a theological explanation of physical observations an illogical observation.

II

13:38 as to your comparison:

5 milliSieverts during the trip
3 milliSieverts during a year (on earth)

How long was the trip?

"the crew returned safely to Earth on April 17, 1970, six days after launch."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apollo_13

Let's pretend this is all six days in Van Allen Belt, let's also round off 365 to 366 days.

366 : 6 = 61.

So, 5 milliSieverts during 6 days = 61 * 5 milliSieverts during a year, not in total sum of radiation, but in intensity while it lasts.

305 milliSieverts a year(*) is fairly high.

It is in fact much higher than what my scheme in rapid rise of C14 content of atmosphere, context of Young Earth Creationism (**), always supposing that radiation and rate of production of C14 have a roughly linear (***) relationship.

Notes to II

(*) 366 - 61 = 305
(**) YEC statement : object so and so has a carbon date "before creation" bc C14 was lower than now => corrollary, C14 rose rapidly, with a higher rate of C14 production than now. How much higher depends on how long the Biblical timescale is, but in my version, 11 - 12 times higher during Babel event / Göbekli Tepe is fair enough.
(***) I specifically asked for a similation in the best possible or at least most modern version in which different incoming radiation rates are modelised for outcome in radiation at earth (equator, poles), for production of C14 and Beryllium and so on, and Ilya Usoskin refused to do such a modelling. See here:

Correspondence of Hans Georg Lundahl : Other Check on Carbon Buildup
https://correspondentia-ioannis-georgii.blogspot.com/2017/11/other-check-on-carbon-buildup.html

III

16:03 Your best moment in all of the video was the part where you spoke of curvature.

I have already pointed out to Rob Skiba II that he would not sight Chicago from other side of lake Michigan if he insisted on holding camera at his feet just in the water edge. How long a view one can have depends on how high you are up - in relation to highest intervening plane or object.

They tend to miss that one quite often.

Your second best, when you told of who got cancer in Apollo team.

Your worst moments are when you consider:

• a) God building a system "illogical" and
• b) someone's lack of science background a reason to presume quasi automatically that someone with higher science background has to know better than he.

Sure, some things you do tackle better, but your clearly atheistic moment at 8:55 - 9:04 takes your credibility down quite a huge notch.

Same procedure. First a video I did not watch in its entirety (or even at all, except the excerpts in next):

Carbon Dating is a Hoax
Conspiracies by Hans 4 | 29.VIII.2018
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G829KKitEME

Then SciManDan comments, before I comment on him:

Carbon Dating Isn't a Thing for This Conspiracy Nut!!
SciManDan | 23.X.2018
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6HJYi8d9NCw

I

3:26 Appealing to the science of the computer and of his medical practitioner is actually irrelevant.

Neither of them is based on carbon dating or on the exact scientific concepts involved in carbon dating. OK, most of them, sometimes a contrast liquid might contain C14 to be traceable.

By the way, one of the best drugs against infection is penicilline (except in hospital environment where there are plenty of strains of penicilline resistent bacteria).

And penicilline is extracted by scientists, but it is produced by mold fungi.

Not sure if it is also available in synthesised version (there are other antibiotics that are synthetic), but mold fungi naturally produce penicilline.

I am a huge fan of blue cheese.

II

4:24 And before you go on, I can corroborate most of it for you.

Except the "see how much has decayed part" in prehistoric or proto-historic (Bronze age of earlier) settings where no reliable historic calibration exists.

• 1) Carbon 14 can be reliably measured by measuring radioactive radiation from carbon.
• 2) It can be reliably measured as forming one in a - whatever the high measure, way beyond a million anyway, because Carbon 12 can also be reliably measured as not emitting radiation.
• 3) You can even reliably measure a half life, indirectly - namely by calibrated carbon dates checked against what history tells you of the age of objects (and this means you can then go on and find objects of same age, by checking they have same carbon 14 content).

An object that is 100 of years old will have a pmC which is 50% to the exponent that 100 years is of the halflife.

100/5730 = 0.01745200698080279232111692844677

0.5^{0.01745200698080279232111692844677} = 0.9879760628287867902830304684176

So an object 100 years old will have a pmC of 98.7976 percent modern Carbon 14.

200/5730 = 0.03490401396160558464223385689354

0.5^{0.03490401396160558464223385689354} = 0.97609670072267086328978415897413

An object that is 200 years old will have a pmC of 97.60967 pmC.

And so on, which is a check both on the half life and on the carbon 14 content being 100 pmC from back when the organic object is from.

Now, how do you know that we don't have for instance a longer halflife but a rising carbon 14 content for these 200 years?

Well, that would give different dates showing different halflives.

I did the maths behind that one.

So, how do we know we are not having a higher carbon 14 content now than back in the time of Göbekli Tepe?

I am presuming your side has no calendar and narrative based calibrated date for GT.

What you do have is a tree ring based calibration, and I frankly find tree ring datings that old too badly proven.

This brings us to, how fast could C14 have risen?

I'd say the Flood was in real year 2957 BC (based on the Biblical chronology as endorsed in Roman martyrology, a longer one than Ussher, LXX based) and we get carbon levels for 40 000 BP from then.

On the other hand, Troy VIIa corresponds to the historic date for Troy's fall, 1179 BC.

So, Carbon 14 levels rose from 1.5 pmC to 100 pmC between 2957 and 1179 BC.

In 1778 years.

Prove this impossible, if you can (and skip tree ring calibration - or go into depth on it).

III

6:15 I'd have to back up Hans4's scepticism of Nobel prize per se.

In 1906, the Nobel prize for literature went to Carducci, Inno a Satana.

Yes, it means Hymn to Satan.

Not the last time Nobel committee has done a somewhat seedy choice.

As to Libby, he had got the halflife somewhat wrong, the halflife I use is the Cambridge halflife, which is on my view very securely calibrated on modern historical organic material as being what backs that halflife up.

IV

8:20 We know for a fact that squirrels and men do not uptake carbon via breathing, but via eating.

This means, if they are eating plants that grew recently, their carbon uptake is likely to reflect that.

There is some delay in uptake, since human tissues do not all exchange into replacing atoms from outside at the same speed.

In trees, there is the fact that only outermost rings (one light, one dark) is taking up carbon from this years atmosphere, the two rings inside that have carbon from last year, the two inside those have carbon from the year before that and so on.

Btw, this is an aspect I have not taken into account in my tables of carbon 14 increase. I have treated charcoal, basically wood, as if it were hay and included the carbon 14 uptake of one single year. Which is of course wrong, a tree that has grown for 40 years on its level you cut it at has a carbon age of an average of 20 years, and a tree which has grown for 100 years where you cut it has a carbon level average of 50 years.

By contrast, human tissue seems to be on average exchanged every 7 years. Probably some kind of difference between bone and some other stuff. The discrepancy in Mungo Man indicates that such a delay or difference could then amount to some millennia (c. 2000 years) between tissues, meaning the carbon 14 content was growing drastically back then.

"almost the same"

As long as food taken from down in the sea is not involved.

You know the Vikings who were carbon dated to Anglo-Saxons, despite history saying Vikings?

They ate lots of fish.

You know the men in Spanish or Portuguese coastal areas who had syphilis in pre-Columbian times "so syphilis didn't come from Azteks"? Well, they ate lots of shellfish.

It's called the reservoir effect.

V

9:12 - I already answered his question for him.

An object which is 100 years old should have a pmC which is 50 % to the power of 100/5730.

An object which is 350 years old should have a pmC which is 50 % to the power of 350/5730.

This is in fact the reason we have 5730, since that is the Cambridge half life, corrected from the initial somewhat lower assumptions by Libby.

350/5730 = 0.0610820244328097731239092495637

0.5^{0.0610820244328097731239092495637} = 0.95854493886704444226341829511985

So, an object which is 350 years old should have a pmC of 95.854 pmC.

9:59 Isn't the relatively short time and extrapolation from that exactly how Libby got his half life - which was wrong by more than a century?

Here is a comparison of Cambridge halflife with Libby halflife:

5730 +/- 30
5568 +/- 30
=162

Libby was 162 years off. 2.8 % off.

VI

10:46 When it comes to that longer halflife, it is impossible to correct it like the Cambridge version of C14's half life.

Your method is one which for C14 was 2.8 % wrong, a very much slower process would be very much less precise in watching, so it could be wrong even more.

What's more, the most common one is Ka-Ar.

With Ka-Ar we have a very long half life, but was also have a snag : what if some of the measured Argon is actually not from decaying Potassium, but from Argon from the atmosphere?

11:15 I really don't see how the polymerisation of plastic - a process we can control in real time - can help you accurately determine in a Cambridge half life way the half life of Ka-Ar process or how much if any Argon got trapped while the lava cooled.

VII

11:50 If your backyard is on Jurassic coast in England, or in the Karoo area, you do in fact have great chances of digging up a fossil.

Or at least greater than otherwise.

Same if your back yard is in Hell Creek formation.

And most backyards with some chalk (was that the wrong stone?) might give you some chance of digging up a trilobite.

VIII

12:33 I'd cut the pear in half or the hair into four, whichever one you prefer on this one.

We have fairly good empiric evidence water involves bodies consisting of one bigger and two smaller balls.

We would have similarily good empiric evidence of alcohol involving bodies consisting of two big balls, surrounded by five small balls and a sixths even bigger ball with a small ball attached to it. Just, electronic microscopy images are more easy to find on the internet for water molecules than for molecules of ethyl-alcohol. Maybe some Muslim conspiracy in the science world, alcohol being Haram to them and all that ...

On the other hand, we do not know the internal structure of the atom by such a near direct way, and we do also not know whether the space observed between two water molecules is empty space or belongs to the water.

IX

14:05 Hans is in the German and Scandinavian world about as common as John (in fact it is John : Iohannes is nominative and Iohannem is accusative of same Latin version of Yohanan, and Iohannes > Hannes > Hans is as good an etymology as Iohannem > Iohann > Jo(h)n).

Just to make it clear I am not the same person, and I do not share his interest in outing trannies among the élite, people who on his view are opposite sex from what they are publically known as.

He probably has very feminine looking ladies and very masculine looking gentlemen in his family and surroundings and any even slightly androgynic appearance signals "tranny" to him ....

X

14:31 When it comes to carbon dating, and if someone shouting tranny to anyone who looks slightly androgynic to them ticks you off, why did you pick him and not me?

Because he has a youtube and I got a blog?