/sci/ - Science & Math

>>3827094
What a coincidence, I feel roughly the same as you do. Though I had ideas about an abundant society before I encountered VP.

>>3796681
You'd hope so but I mentioned over an hour ago.

>>3796622
>Because the first thing you'd do if you were on fire is take pics to show doubters

You clearly have not see some of the stupid shit people have put on youtube.

Also that's not the point, if you don't have solid evidence don't expect to be believed on your word alone however frustrating that is for you.

>There's a difference between knowing if they were smoking and knowing if they had an active lighter underneath their clothes

There's a difference between not knowing someone is trying to set you on fire and not knowing that you just became a short to ground/had a hot ember stuck to you/are getting trolled by time traveling aliums.

>Using 6volts of battery at 10 amps I fried magnet wire around a needle. How can I keep wire cool? If I put it in a bucket of water would I short it out?

Use heavier gauge wire would be the simplest method...

>>3796570
>Maybe we should ignore all eyewitness testimonies then? I'm sure legal defendants would love that

Courts of law are by no stretch of the imagination scientific. Even then they don't have the witnesses draw conclusions like 'there was no source of ignition I know because I'm omniscient'

If you want to get right down to it this is a case of pics or it didn't happen. There is no solid evidence being presented by survivors at all.

>>3796542
>News articles and wikipedia
>verfication

I hope you're trolling. It's unverifiable because we have only the victim's (and the occasion witness's) word for it. It's unverifiable because there is no independent verification at the time of the incident and it can not be reproduced.

>>3796536
Walking can set you on fire in the correct circumstances.

>>3796492
>Except that many victims weren't near any ignition sources and neither were the survivors listed

Non-verifiable claim of the highest order unless your suggesting that the victims have a superior level of consciousness and are aware of everything happening within 5 feet of them at all times. As well as stating that they know every possible source of ignition that exists.

Here this is for you.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T69TOuqaqXI

Please understand that just flinching might be enough to prevent the initial fire. Survivors don't even have to consciously know that they just dodged a bullet.

Hence why only those with impaired reaction due to heart attack/stroke/intoxication/some other illness/already being dead actually become victims while others survive.

The question after that point is whether the survivors thinks they just survived something paranormal or whether they we able to find the ignition source.

>>3796431
The incidences I know of involving survivors are people who produce smoke. They are never actually on fire they're, just 'smoldering'. If I had to make a broad diagnosis then they were likely caught in the path of an electrical arc assuming they aren't hoaxing it up.

>>3796395
>>3796403
As the sensible man in that link stated the source simply can't be found anymore. Most was likely it was destroyed by the event itself.

The link even says there is a open fireplace. All it would take is one moderately sized cinder to pop and land on the victim. And if he didn't react to prevent himself from catching fire it would be reduced to ash along with him and never be found.

>>3796382
True, but that doesn't contradict what I said. They could have also suffered heart attack or stroke.

>>3796355
Read the wiki you just linked, the wick effect is the most proven of the ideas around SHC.

As for why there are so few cases of SHC. Most people will react to the pain of having a cigarette burn through their clothes. The few that don't become SHC victims.

>>3796317
>I just want to know if there's a better explanation.

There is.
They lit themselves on fire and burnt up.
Most commonly it's falling asleep with a lit cigarette.

>>3796225
I fucking loved those things as a kid.

Spontaneous Human Combustion.

Also hasn't pretty much every case of this been proven to be someone lighting themselves on fire with a cigarette?

>>3796260
I'm probably just projecting my luck, shit like that would happen to me constantly.

>Downloading some Hi-Def craters
>Tiny meteor floats into the beam and 'rides' it all the way to Earth
>every fucking time

If NASA actually goes through with this then they'll have regained a tiny part of my faith.

Though when they finally get it online space junk will probably troll them all day erry day by interrupting the beams.

>>3654591
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Goat_Tower

>>3654624
Seeing a price tag higher than the cost of the bandwidth to transfer the data makes me rage pretty hard so I gotta say you're more lenient than I am.

>>3654601
>PBS

About all they have anymore is NOVA.

>>3654518
Need to go a bit more in-depth than that but that is better than the sex-ed we had here.

Which is just the typical bible thumping, don't have sex before marriage speech.

>>3654475
>Once these children get mature brains they are generally far less retarded about unprotected sex.

This is what retards actually believe.

In the modern day publishers are leeches, it's true of entertainment why would it not be true of academia?