http://www.thisdaylive.com/articles/science-of-gay-marriage/158265/ In addition to using physics, biology, chemistry, and math to disprove homosexuality, he has made other significant contributions to science and mathematics: [rquoter] “I was the first to publish report about the 2006 total solar eclipse in the newspaper in Nigeria when I was writing for the defunct New Age newspaper. I also reported the true situation about the 2010 acid rain in Nigeria. I carried out analysis and found out that there was nothing like cancer of the skin attributed to the acid rain and by 2011, I emerged the best science reporter in Nigeria where I won Nigeria Media Merit Award in the energy category as a science editor with Compass newspapers.” He continued: “Ever since then I have been doing a lot of researches in the country. There are many discoveries and inventions I have made in science and technology. I have also been able to prove that the mathematical symbol pi which people thought of as 22 over 7 is not actually 22 over , but rather a transcendental number while 22 over 7 is a rational number. I also proved that watching television in the dark impacts negatively on one’s eyes and by God’s grace, I was the first person to use scientific instruments to prove it in the whole world. The Nigerian Television Authority (NTA) featured me on this in one of their programmes on January 12, 2013, where I demonstrated to millions of their viewers that watching television in the dark damages the eyes. Usually when it’s around 10pm, many families in Nigeria will switch off their surrounding lights to use the light from television or the light from computer alone thinking that they will see images brighter. But from experiments I found that it’s not true and experts both at the University of Lagos and elsewhere have found my work to be true. The reason for this is because there is a lot of difference in illuminants (brightness) between the television screen and the dark background in the room known as the periphery,” Amalaha said. [/rquoter]
The Physics of Gay Marriage “To start with, physics is one of the most fundamentals of all the sciences and I used two bar magnets in my research. A bar magnet is a horizontal magnet that has the North Pole and the South Pole and when you bring two bar magnets and you bring the North Pole together you find that the two North Poles will not attract. They will repel, that is, they will push away themselves showing that a man should not attract a man. If you bring two South Poles together you find that the two South Poles will not attract indicating that same sex marriage should not hold. A female should not attract a female as South Pole of a magnet does not attract the South Pole of a magnet. But, when you bring a North Pole of a magnet and a South Pole of a magnet they will attract because they are not the same, indicating that a man will attract a woman because of the way nature has made a female. Even in physics when you study what is called electrostatics, you found that when you rub particles together they don’t attract each other but when you rub particle in another medium they will attract each other. For example, if you use your biro and rub it on your hair, after rubbing, try to bring small pieces of paper they will attract because one is charged while the other one is not charged. But if both of them are charged they don’t attract, which means that man cannot attract another man because they are the same, and a woman should not attract a woman because they are the same. That is how I used physics to prove gay marriage wrong. If only people were magnets, this might make sense.
I am guessing this article is a joke. He proved pi != 22/7? It is a rough estimation of pi. This was proven thousands of years ago. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proof_that_22/7_exceeds_π Maybe he just learned about wikipedia?
I wouldn't be surprised if somebody uses this article as a source to prove that homosexuality is wrong. :grin:
Also, if you have 2 male connectors, they can't connect. Unless of course you have a female adapter in between them for a DP.
What if I only have one male connector and 2 or more female adapters? Will I be able to get that to work? If so, will that be in series or parallel?
Pfft. I used Paul Abdul to debunk homosexuality. <iframe width="480" height="360" src="//www.youtube.com/embed/xweiQukBM_k" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>
Yeah, other than South Africa I can't think of any part of Sub-Sahara whose scientific research I would take seriously. To even scrutinize their views as part of some overarching ideological or philosophical debate on this issue is petty and unnecessary. Was this actually posted elsewhere or did you just find this on some Google search?
It was mentioned in a podcast I listen to. I don't know about the state of scientific research in Nigeria in general, but this is alarming if true: [rquoter]And now his works have earned him the respect in the world of science. He said: “At the University of Lagos where I currently study as a student you will find my publication on the notice board there. When you go to the Senate Building of the university you will see the same notice there and even recently my lecturer at the Department of Chemical Engineering, Profesor D.S.Aribuike pointedly told me that I will win Nobel prize one day, because he found that my works are real and nobody has done it in any part of the world. You know Nobel Prize is the highest award anyone could ever win and no African has won Nobel Prize in science. So I am aspiring to win Nobel Prize for Africa. Other universities have seen my work and sent me commendations. I have a professor friend who has seen the work I did and he sent me congratulatory message because of the originality of the work.”[/rquoter]
This guy sounds like a real Einstein. Reminded me of this... Paleoanthropology Division Smithsonian Institute 207 Pennsylvania Avenue Washington, DC 20078 Dear Sir: Thank you for your latest submission to the Institute, labeled "211-D, layer seven, next to the clothesline post. Hominid skull." We have given this specimen a careful and detailed examination, and regret to inform you that we disagree with your theory that it represents "conclusive proof of the presence of Early Man in Charleston County two million years ago." Rather, it appears that what you have found is the head of a Barbie doll, of the variety one of our staff, who has small children, believes to be the "Malibu Barbie". It is evident that you have given a great deal of thought to the analysis of this specimen, and you may be quite certain that those of us who are familiar with your prior work in the field were loathe to come to contradiction with your findings. However, we do feel that there are a number of physical attributes of the specimen which might have tipped you off to it's modern origin: 1. The material is molded plastic. Ancient hominid remains are typically fossilized bone. 2. The cranial capacity of the specimen is approximately 9 cubic centimeters, well below the threshold of even the earliest identified proto-hominids. 3. The dentition pattern evident on the "skull" is more consistent with the common domesticated dog than it is with the "ravenous man-eating Pliocene clams" you speculate roamed the wetlands during that time. This latter finding is certainly one of the most intriguing hypotheses you have submitted in your history with this institution, but the evidence seems to weigh rather heavily against it. Without going into too much detail, let us say that: A. The specimen looks like the head of a Barbie doll that a dog has chewed on. B. Clams don't have teeth. It is with feelings tinged with melancholy that we must deny your request to have the specimen carbon dated. This is partially due to the heavy load our lab must bear in it's normal operation, and partly due to carbon dating's notorious inaccuracy in fossils of recent geologic record. To the best of our knowledge, no Barbie dolls were produced prior to 1956 AD, and carbon dating is likely to produce wildly inaccurate results. Sadly, we must also deny your request that we approach the National Science Foundation's Phylogeny Department with the concept of assigning your specimen the scientific name "Australopithecus spiff-arino." Speaking personally, I, for one, fought tenaciously for the acceptance of your proposed taxonomy, but was ultimately voted down because the species name you selected was hyphenated, and didn't really sound like it might be Latin. However, we gladly accept your generous donation of this fascinating specimen to the museum. While it is undoubtedly not a hominid fossil, it is, nonetheless, yet another riveting example of the great body of work you seem to accumulate here so effortlessly. You should know that our Director has reserved a special shelf in his own office for the display of the specimens you have previously submitted to the Institution, and the entire staff speculates daily on what you will happen upon next in your digs at the site you have discovered in your back yard. We eagerly anticipate your trip to our nation's capital that you proposed in your last letter, and several of us are pressing the Director to pay for it. We are particularly interested in hearing you expand on your theories surrounding the "trans-positating fillifitation of ferrous ions in a structural matrix" that makes the excellent juvenile Tyrannosaurus rex femur you recently discovered take on the deceptive appearance of a rusty 9-mm Sears Craftsman automotive crescent wrench. Yours in Science, Harvey Rowe Curator, Antiquities
Ahh, so this is the kind of scientist that religious folks and politicians like to cite as a "counter" to mainstream scientific theory.
