|
Search Tech-Forums - link takes you to our Forum's search page. Note: The following is only a text archive! To view the actual forum discussion, please visit our website at http://www.tech-forums.net Pages:1 The "Who would you like to see get banned" thread.(Click here to view the original thread with full colors/images)Posted by: FireFox The thread title = joke. I'm sure a lot of people are going to look at this thread though. :p Sorry. Anyway, might as well do something a little bit constructive with this thread since I took the time to create it. [quote][b]Sun May Be Warming Both Earth and Mars[/b] "Simultaneous warming on Earth and Mars suggests that our planet's recent climate changes might have a natural — and not a human-induced — cause. Mars, it appears, has also been experiencing milder temperatures in recent years. In 2005 data from NASA's Mars Global Surveyor and Odyssey missions revealed that the carbon dioxide 'ice caps' near Mars's south pole had been diminishing for three summers in a row. Habibullo Abdussamatov, head of the St. Petersburg's Pulkovo Astronomical Observatory in Russia, says the Mars data is evidence that the current global warming on Earth is being caused by changes in the sun."[/quote] [url]http://science.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=07/03/03/2310250[/url] Doesn't surprise me at all. As far as I'm concerned, global warming can kiss my shiny, metal ***. Edit: On second thought, this is probably a bad idea as morons are just going to see the thread title and aren't going to read the first post. Of course they won't! Ah well. The deed is done. :p At the very least, this may be a little bit interesting. Posted by: HAVOC Morons who just read the first post have a lot in common with the morons who write the first post... Just an observation, nothing personal. Posted by: hillbillybob *snort* Well, in my observation, never stick a heifer with a 4000 lbs bull. But I digress... As for the global warming - very interesting. Any idea what change in the sun is causing this? Is it going to go super nova on us? I mean, if so, we are sooooooooo toast. Posted by: FireFox [QUOTE][i]Originally posted by HAVOC [/i] [B]Morons who just read the first post have a lot in common with the morons who write the first post... Just an observation, nothing personal. [/B][/QUOTE] Everyone has their moments. :) I just got done skimming over the modded spanish book thread or whatever it was. So, yea. :p [QUOTE][i]Originally posted by hillbillybob [/i] [B]As for the global warming - very interesting. Any idea what change in the sun is causing this? Is it going to go super nova on us? I mean, if so, we are sooooooooo toast. [/B][/QUOTE] Not a clue. As of late, I've been too busy to ask the Sun how she's doing. She probably just has a slight fever. It'll go away soon enough...just nature at work. Mhum. Immune systems, ftw. Posted by: superdave1984 My theory is the opposite of the big bang. I think we, and all the planets in our solar system, are creeping closer to the sun. Billions of years ago, Venus probably was what Earth is now. There were likely more planets before that. As one gets close enough, it gets pulled into the sun, replenishing it's fuel supply. So, it is more like solar-system warming. And Mars will be Earth in 200 billion years. Call me crazy. Posted by: HAVOC [QUOTE][i]Originally posted by FireFox [/i] [B]Everyone has their moments. :) I just got done skimming over the modded spanish book thread or whatever it was. So, yea. :p[/B][/QUOTE] oh yeah... That's one of TF's finest locked threads. Posted by: Sui .... I was looking for that a while ago, but yeah its interesting. Posted by: Phantom118 Ya... interesting indeed. Lol look what i saw when i was reading this thread lol... coincidence?? [IMG]http://i131.photobucket.com/albums/p306/Phantom118/untitled.jpg[/IMG] Posted by: TheMajor [QUOTE][i]Originally posted by Phantom118 [/i] [B]Ya... interesting indeed. Lol look what i saw when i was reading this thread lol... coincidence?? [IMG]http://i131.photobucket.com/albums/p306/Phantom118/untitled.jpg[/IMG] [/B][/QUOTE] [color=darkred]That's how those ads work.[/color] Posted by: sprtnbsblplya [QUOTE][i]Originally posted by superdave1984 [/i] [B]My theory is the opposite of the big bang. I think we, and all the planets in our solar system, are creeping closer to the sun. Billions of years ago, Venus probably was what Earth is now. There were likely more planets before that. As one gets close enough, it gets pulled into the sun, replenishing it's fuel supply. So, it is more like solar-system warming. And Mars will be Earth in 200 billion years. Call me crazy. [/B][/QUOTE] You're crazy. Posted by: Apokalipse [QUOTE][i]Originally posted by TheMajor [/i] [B][color=darkred]That's how those ads work.[/color] [/B][/QUOTE]yup, they take keywords from the threads they're in. Posted by: Ste [QUOTE][i]Originally posted by superdave1984 [/i] [B]My theory is the opposite of the big bang. I think we, and all the planets in our solar system, are creeping closer to the sun. Billions of years ago, Venus probably was what Earth is now. There were likely more planets before that. As one gets close enough, it gets pulled into the sun, replenishing it's fuel supply. So, it is more like solar-system warming. And Mars will be Earth in 200 billion years. Call me crazy. [/B][/QUOTE] Can I buy some Pot? Posted by: Apokalipse [QUOTE][i]Originally posted by Ste [/i] [B]Can I buy some Pot? [/B][/QUOTE]I don't know, can you? Posted by: Ste I hope so, whatever hes smoking must be some good ****. Posted by: Apokalipse actually, the sun is slowly expanding. the planets aren't dropping down in their orbits, but the surface of the sun is getting closer to the planets, due to its expansion. Posted by: Ste [QUOTE][i]Originally posted by Apokalipse [/i] [B]actually, the sun is slowly expanding. the planets aren't dropping down in their orbits, but the surface of the sun is getting closer to the planets, due to its expansion. [/B][/QUOTE] Yup, But thats NOT what he said. :rolleyes: Posted by: Trotter [quote][b]That's how those ads work.[/b][/quote] Not on my comp. I don't get ads. Check my list of extensions for Firefox and you'll see why: [list] [*][b]Flashblock[/b] [*]BBCodeXtra [*][b]AdBlock plus[/b] [*][b]Adblock Filterset/G Updater[/b] [*][b]NoScript[/b] [*]Fasterfox [*]CookieCuller [*]IE Tab [*]Yahoo Mail Notifier [*]Nightly Testing Tools (download this one first, restart FF, and then use it to make any other extensions you download work with your current version) [*]Smiley Xtra [*]Tabbrowser Preferences [*]Download Manager Tweak [*]Fitt's Back Button ([url]http://www.extensionsmirror.nl/lofiversion/index.php/t3955.html[/url]) [*]GMail Manager [*]All-in-One Sidebar [*]Disable Targets for Downloads [*][b]McAfee SiteAdvisor[/b] [*]Popups Must Die! [*]TinyURL Creator [/list] Posted by: sprtnbsblplya Actually I dont think the sun has started to expand yet. It only begins to expand when it eats up all of its hydrogen fuel at the end of its mainstage, which lasts another few billion years. Posted by: Phantom118 Ya by the time the sun is ready to blow.. we will probably be living on other planets.. or extinct. Posted by: idiotec [QUOTE][i]Originally posted by Trotter [/i] [B]Not on my comp. I don't get ads. Check my list of extensions for Firefox and you'll see why: ..... [/list] [/B][/QUOTE] Thanks for the tip. I just added Adblock Plus and they're gone. Hallelujah!!!!! Posted by: Ste [QUOTE][i]Originally posted by Phantom118 [/i] [B]Ya by the time the sun is ready to blow.. we will probably be living on other planets.. or extinct. [/B][/QUOTE] Sun isn't massive enough to supernova. It will become a planetary nebula. When the balance between gravity and pressure caused by nuclear fission can no longer be sustained the outer layers will simply drift off leaving a white dwarf. The core of the sun. But thats after the red giant phase in which the three inner planets will be swallowed. Some scientists believe earth may escape such fate when our orbit becomes longer because of the weakened gravitational affect. We shall never know though. Posted by: Crysalis bottom line is: We're all dead Posted by: superdave1984 [QUOTE][i]Originally posted by Apokalipse [/i] [B]actually, the sun is slowly expanding. the planets aren't dropping down in their orbits, but the surface of the sun is getting closer to the planets, due to its expansion. [/B][/QUOTE] So, if the sun is expanding, will its gravitational pull not also increase? Yes it will. It has been proven that the larger a planet or star, the higher it's gravitational pull. So, maybe if the sun is expanding, not only is it getting closer to us, but we are being slowly pulled in as well. Hey, I said it was a theory... Posted by: Beefcake [QUOTE][i]Originally posted by superdave1984 [/i] [B]My theory is the opposite of the big bang. I think we, and all the planets in our solar system, are creeping closer to the sun. Billions of years ago, Venus probably was what Earth is now. There were likely more planets before that. As one gets close enough, it gets pulled into the sun, replenishing it's fuel supply. So, it is more like solar-system warming. And Mars will be Earth in 200 billion years. Call me crazy. [/B][/QUOTE] Planets ARE moving toward the sun. Just like how the moon is moving toward earth, and at some point if it still is in our orbit, will crash into our atmosphere. However the rate of acceleration is extremely low and it will be a very long time before anything noticeable will happen. Just like how our solar system is moving toward the center of our galaxy. You throw a ball forward and eventually it hits the ground, the greater your velocity in your trajectory reduces the speed of which gravity pulls it, but it will hit the ground eventually. What you said however would NOT be the "opposite" of the big bang. The opposite I believe would be that all matter is being condensed into one point in the universe (where as that theory was that matter WAS condensed into one point but now it's expanding at an incredible speed releasing all sorts of matter and energy). Like the big bang is an explosion, the "opposite" would be an implosion. [QUOTE][i]Originally Posted by superdave1984[/i][B] As one gets close enough, it gets pulled into the sun, replenishing it's fuel supply. [/B][/QUOTE] Sorry but I had to laugh at that one. I don't think eating planets is what fuels the sun. It uses hydrogen in a fusion reactor. The sun is relatively 4.5 billion years old, and has roughly enough hydrogen to last another 5 billion years. So I don't think that in "200 billion years" (which I might add is probably around 12- 14 times as old as the projected age of the universe which is said to be between 8-14 billion years depending on what data you look at) Mars would be where earth is. It would be no where near the location of Earth today and if it doesn't go into the sun then it would just spin out into space. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- My opinion about global warming is that we need to know more before we can start making documentaries on it (like you, Inventor of the Internet). Surely we would be making some effect on earth with the amount of stuff we pump into the atmosphere, but there is little telling us it isn't just a natural step of mother nature, and this information only helps support that. Posted by: Apokalipse [QUOTE][i]Originally posted by superdave1984 [/i] [B]So, if the sun is expanding, will its gravitational pull not also increase? Yes it will. It has been proven that the larger a planet or star, the higher it's gravitational pull. So, maybe if the sun is expanding, not only is it getting closer to us, but we are being slowly pulled in as well. Hey, I said it was a theory... [/B][/QUOTE]a hypothesis. Posted by: Ste No, The more massive an object is the more gravitational affects it will have. The Sun will expand because the gases are cooling not because its getting more massive. Your statement is an hypothesis. [url]http://dictionary.reference.com/search?r=2&q=hypothesis[/url] A theory is something that only comes after many tests or experiments for a given hypothesis. It becomes a Theory when many expereiments or tests yield the same or similar results.. A Theory can never be proven correct, it can only be disproved and refined. Posted by: Beefcake Gravity is not relative to the amount of space matter takes up, but how much matter is actually there. Posted by: motoxer4533 [QUOTE][i]Originally posted by Crysalis [/i] [B]bottom line is: We're all dead [/B][/QUOTE] Hey, we're all gunna die before this happens anyway, so i'm not worried about it. :) Posted by: hillbillybob [QUOTE][i]Originally posted by superdave1984 [/i] [B]So, if the sun is expanding, will its gravitational pull not also increase? Yes it will. It has been proven that the larger a planet or star, the higher it's gravitational pull. So, maybe if the sun is expanding, not only is it getting closer to us, but we are being slowly pulled in as well. Hey, I said it was a theory... [/B][/QUOTE] ehhh...no. Gravitational pull is directly related to mass, not physical dimensions. Eienstein's theory on gravity was taking a ball, and placing it on a sheet. that ball deformed the sheet, causing a gravity well. The heavier the ball, the deeper the gravity well, the stronger the pull. Thus why we are planted firmly on the earth instead of being flung off via centrifugal force. Posted by: FireFox Hey, something half-decent did come of this thread. I'm very pleased by this; however, there's too much reading for me as I'm at school and don't have time. I did take a quick glance at some of the posts, and so far I agree with the "we're all going to die" hypothesis. It seems more thought out then all the rest. Posted by: Apokalipse [QUOTE][i]Originally posted by Ste [/i] [B]A Theory can never be proven correct[/B][/QUOTE]yes they can. theory and fact are not mutually exclusive. Posted by: HAVOC [QUOTE][i]Originally posted by Apokalipse [/i] [B]yup, they take keywords from the threads they're in. [/B][/QUOTE] Someone should mention, "BIGGER ADS don't EQUAL MORE CLICKS" Then actually EQUAL LESS CLICKS. Now that the ads are just absolutely insanely HUGE and sandwiching posts... Most people are going to be annoyed and simply block them. But, if they are very small and subtle, people will be less opted to block them and if the ads are creative enough people will sometimes click on them. HARDDRIVE, PROCESSOR, HANDLE BARS, CONDOMS, GONADS, WHIP CREAM, SHAMPOO, BLOW DRIER, GRAVITY... keywords.. Posted by: charles_scott [quote]Planets ARE moving toward the sun. Just like how the moon is moving toward earth, and at some point if it still is in our orbit, will crash into our atmosphere. However the rate of acceleration is extremely low and it will be a very long time before anything noticeable will happen. Just like how our solar system is moving toward the center of our galaxy. You throw a ball forward and eventually it hits the ground, the greater your velocity in your trajectory reduces the speed of which gravity pulls it, but it will hit the ground eventually.[/quote] There was a special a few years back on discovery channel claiming that the moon is moving farther from earth at a very slow rate. Posted by: forrestcupp 1. Everyone here is off topic including the OP. I would like to see FireFox banned (just joking). If someone is banned, can they still read posts without posting? 2. If I had time, I would multiple click every large ad I could find. Especially the ones where the advertiser has to pay-per-click. 3. We are still an average of 93 million miles from the sun; we always will be. In another decade or two the temperatures will balance out. It's just a cycle, and before you know it people will be predicting another ice age. Posted by: Ste [QUOTE][i]Originally posted by Apokalipse [/i] [B]yes they can. theory and fact are not mutually exclusive. [/B][/QUOTE] Nop. And I mean, I disagree As I was taught differently. Posted by: Apokalipse [QUOTE][i]Originally posted by Ste [/i] [B]Nop. And I mean, I disagree As I was taught differently. [/B][/QUOTE]a theory is a scientifically backed explanation to [i]how[/i] something works (eg gravity, evolution etc) theiroes are always based around the evidence we have. a hypothesis is an explanation somebody has postulated, but isn't backed by the evidence. Posted by: Ste I know the difference. All I said was that: I was taught that any and all thories can never be proven, 100% to be correct. They can be disproven and refined to increase the accuracy of the statement, that is all. Im not saying your wrong and I am right (Since I don't believe in right or wrong) I was simply taught differently and IMO, It makes more "since" to me the way I learned it. Posted by: Apokalipse [QUOTE][i]Originally posted by Ste [/i] [B]I know the difference. All I said was that: I was taught that any and all thories can never be proven, 100% to be correct. They can be disproven and refined to increase the accuracy of the statement, that is all. [/B][/QUOTE]I think I see what you mean. you're saying that nothing can be absolutely proven; it can only be proven [i]beyond reasonable doubt[/i]. This I agree with. However, when I refer to [i]prove[/i] in terms of a theory, I usually refer to the latter (beyond reasonable doubt) It goes with the statement [i]true knowledge comes with knowing that you know nothing[/i] [QUOTE][i]Originally posted by Ste [/i] [B]Im not saying your wrong and I am right (Since I don't believe in right or wrong) I was simply taught differently and IMO, It makes more "since" to me the way I learned it. [/B][/QUOTE]I don't believe in absolute right or wrong either. Posted by: Ste [QUOTE][i]Originally posted by Apokalipse [/i] [B]I think I see what you mean. you're saying that nothing can be absolutely proven; it can only be proven [i]beyond reasonable doubt[/i]. This I agree with. However, when I refer to [i]prove[/i] in terms of a theory, I usually refer to the latter (beyond reasonable doubt) It goes with the statement [i]true knowledge comes with knowing that you know nothing[/i] I don't believe in absolute right or wrong either. [/B][/QUOTE] Pretty much what I ment. ;) Posted by: mac_mogul <a href="http://estore.vzwshop.com/chocolate/"><img src="http://i50.photobucket.com/albums/f326/mac_mogul/Picture3.jpg"></a> Posted by: molsen i'd like to see crysalis banned Posted by: killians45 The moon is slowing breaking orbit wiith earth. It will take a VERY long time to do this, but it slowly is. This, in itself, will have dire consequences for life on our planet. Earthquakes, increase in volcanic activity, mass flooding, etc. You wont have tidal wave as the tidal lock will be gone, but during the first rips in the earths crust from the change in grav locked mass you will have serious implications to our living conditions. Thankfully this will be a very long time from now. Posted by: Ste [QUOTE][i]Originally posted by killians45 [/i] [B]The moon is slowing breaking orbit wiith earth. It will take a VERY long time to do this, but it slowly is. This, in itself, will have dire consequences for life on our planet. Earthquakes, increase in volcanic activity, mass flooding, etc. You wont have tidal wave as the tidal lock will be gone, but during the first rips in the earths crust from the change in grav locked mass you will have serious implications to our living conditions. Thankfully this will be a very long time from now. [/B][/QUOTE] We don't have to worry about it. In all probability nothing on earth will be alive by such time. Posted by: FireFox Aye. And some people still insist that everything that is now just came about from nothing and by complete chance. :p Who knows, eh? Posted by: Nubius One day I shat in my toilet and from there the universe was born. That is how you all came into existence. Be thankful. Posted by: nagasama [QUOTE][i]Originally posted by Ste [/i] [B] Im not saying your wrong and I am right (Since I don't believe in right or wrong) I was simply taught differently and IMO, It makes more "since" to me the way I learned it. [/B][/QUOTE] is this a hypothetical theory? Posted by: Apokalipse what are you referring to specifically? and what exactly is a hypothetical theory, anyway? a theory is an explanation of how something works, backed by scientific evidence hypothetical means an idea that may or may not actually happen in the real world, usually the latter. It also may or may not even be possible. It is postulated for the sake of making a point. [QUOTE][i]Originally posted by FireFox [/i] [B]Aye. And some people still insist that everything that is now just came about from nothing and by complete chance. :p Who knows, eh? [/B][/QUOTE]Most people who use the scientific method properly don't say this, though. This includes atheists (me being one of them) Posted by: Ste [QUOTE][i]Originally posted by Nubius [/i] [B]One day I shat in my toilet and from there the universe was born. That is how you all came into existence. Be thankful. [/B][/QUOTE] This explains alot.. ;) Posted by: Lord AnthraX The Unified Atheists Unite!! :D Posted by: Apokalipse [QUOTE][i]Originally posted by Lord AnthraX [/i] [B]The Unified Atheists Unite!! :D [/B][/QUOTE].....rrright. Posted by: nagasama [QUOTE][i]Originally posted by Apokalipse [/i] [B] and what exactly is a hypothetical theory, anyway? a theory is an explanation of how something works, backed by scientific evidence hypothetical means an idea that may or may not actually happen in the real world, usually the latter. It also may or may not even be possible. It is postulated for the sake of making a point. [/B][/QUOTE] lmao a hypothetical theory is: a big "maybe this is how this works...if it works", with evidence to back it up. like the bigfoot video taken in the 60's up in Oregon... you know the grainy footage of the ape-like beast lumbering through the woods... i dont know dude i made it up:rolleyes: but i do know (hypothetically lol) that our universe is so strange, gigantic, unbelievable...that for us to say scientifically, religiously... or any other way, that we have the slightest INKLING of how things work REALLY is rather egotistical. we haven't even scratched the surface. but say that other intelligent life has developed what amounts to higher mathematics (in this universe) to us, but it is completely different. therfore the laws of physics would be completely different for said life. so, for us as humans to say, "well...this is how we figure it, it must be this way EVERYWHERE"...well, that is rather comical. how can we know what physics laws are in effect on the other side of the universe? eh? eh? by using the formulas that we ourselves have devised...egotisitical. just a hypothesis. lol i love that word. Posted by: Apokalipse [QUOTE][i]Originally posted by nagasama [/i] [B]lmao a hypothetical theory is: a big "maybe this is how this works...if it works", with evidence to back it up.[/b][/quote][i]if[/i] it works? theories are the explanations of how, after it has already been established [i]that[/i] what it is explaining, does work. I don't like the use of the word 'maybe' if there's evidence backing it up, either. At the very least, you can call it 'likely' also, a hypothetical postulation is an idea used to make a point; whether the hypothetical situation is true is irrelevant. like, if I'm going to explain how gravity takes time to act, I could say [i]hypothetically, if the sun completely disappeared, it would still take about 500 seconds for the gravity to stop affecting Earth[/i] Of course, it's completely ridiculous to say that the sun will completely disappear. But that's irrelevant, the entire point is to explain that it takes time for gravity to act. Now, I don't see how you can connect "an idea used to make a point, which may or may not even be true or possible" with "scientifically backed explanation as to how something works", unless you are using a hypothetical idea to explain the theory. But we're talking about whether a theory can be hypothetical, not having a separate hypothetical idea to explain a theory. [QUOTE][i]Originally posted by nagasama [/i] [B]like the bigfoot video taken in the 60's up in Oregon... you know the grainy footage of the ape-like beast lumbering through the woods... i dont know dude i made it up:rolleyes:[/b][/quote]which isn't really strong evidence. [quote][b]but i do know (hypothetically lol) that our universe is so strange, gigantic, unbelievable...[/b][/quote]I agree with everything except for unbelievable. why is it unbelievable? we can see it here, we're living in it. we know it's here and we know it works. the only question is [i]how[/i] it works. [quote][b]that for us to say scientifically, religiously... or any other way, that we have the slightest INKLING of how things work REALLY is rather egotistical. we haven't even scratched the surface.[/b][/quote]of course we've only scratched the surface. It's only unfortunate that more people don't realise this. [quote][b]but say that other intelligent life has developed what amounts to higher mathematics (in this universe) to us, but it is completely different. therfore the laws of physics would be completely different for said life.[/b][/quote]not necessarily. they will be expressed differently, but that doesn't mean they'll get completely different results. [quote][b]so, for us as humans to say, "well...this is how we figure it, it must be this way EVERYWHERE"...well, that is rather comical.[/b][/quote]why? as long as you have the scientific evidence to back it up, then it is fair to say that you have an accurate model. [quote][b]how can we know what physics laws are in effect on the other side of the universe? eh? eh? by using the formulas that we ourselves have devised...egotisitical.[/b][/quote][i]can[/i] they even be different? there is no evidence to suggest that they might be. [quote][b]just a hypothesis. lol i love that word. [/B][/QUOTE]indeed. and hypotheses usually require a lot of work and changes before they can be accurate. Posted by: nagasama dude you did a lot of work on that last post. im not gonna quote on all of that but starting with the quote unbelievable being #1: 1) i use unbelievable figuratively, as in amazing. 2)nothing to say there, we agree lol. 3)nothing wrong with this statement but you are putting our human limitations (or knowledge limitations) on it. 4)and 5) here is my main and only point really with this... think of the scientists in ancient times... they thought the solar system (as we know it) revolved around the earth. they had evidence. the sun moved across the sky (and its funny that we STILL use that expression...the sun isn't the one moving...although it is but another topic you get my point) they were wrong lol. but based on their laws, their perception...their limitation of "knowledge", if you will...they were absolutely certain they were correct. of course they can be different, keep in mind in europe in the 1400's there was no evidence that a ship wouldnt fall off the edge of the world if it sailed too far past the horizon. it is all based on your perception, knowledge, how far your civilization is advanced (which in itself is relative)...all traits of being human. to say that something is true simply because there is a lack of evidence to the contrary is an expression of the arrogance that we as a race have developed. it might be. it might not be. who knows? i know that astronomers like to lock down and say "this is what is happening", but in the grand scale of the universe...we really don't know sh*t. granted they do know more calculus than me lol. Posted by: Apokalipse [QUOTE][i]Originally posted by nagasama [/i] [B]here is my main and only point really with this... think of the scientists in ancient times... they thought the solar system (as we know it) revolved around the earth. they had evidence. the sun moved across the sky (and its funny that we STILL use that expression...the sun isn't the one moving...although it is but another topic you get my point) they were wrong lol.[/B][/QUOTE]the evidence was not scientifically valid to come to any conclusions about what was moving. it was still entirely possible that the Earth was moving instead of the sun, and it would still fit the observations. They just didn't think of that at the time. Posted by: Apokalipse [QUOTE][i]Originally posted by nagasama [/i] [B]of course they can be different, keep in mind in europe in the 1400's there was no evidence that a ship wouldnt fall off the edge of the world if it sailed too far past the horizon.[/b][/quote]which is an argument from ignorance, if they wanted to say that ships [i]do[/i] fall off the edge. [quote][b]to say that something is true simply because there is a lack of evidence to the contrary is an expression of the arrogance that we as a race have developed.[/b][/quote]exactly. Yet, people still use these arguments. [quote][b]it might be. it might not be. who knows?[/b][/quote]that's why you should gather further scientific evidence on the matter. [quote][b]i know that astronomers like to lock down and say "this is what is happening", but in the grand scale of the universe...we really don't know sh*t. granted they do know more calculus than me lol. [/B][/QUOTE]Actually, we know heaps about the universe. The problem is, there is just a whole lot [i]more[/i] that we don't know. Posted by: Chankama Firefox! oh wait.. Got excited too much after reading the thread title.. :p :p :D Posted by: Chankama Welll..... I would imagine this link would be useful to the above discussion: [url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theory[/url] :) Posted by: nagasama "Actually, we know heaps about the universe. The problem is, there is just a whole lot more that we don't know." lol dude my head hurts. we know heaps based on our scientific interpretation of the universe. which may or may not be correct. which is itself one of the things we do don't know. what i am saying is, according to the science AT THE TIME, the evidence was perfectly valid. our laws of physics, which seem to fit our observations, may not hold true in other parts of the universe, or in the future. the same way that scientists' observations and theories from the past do not hold up currently. you get what i am saying? everything, from science to your breakfast has to do with your PERCEPTION of the universe around you. whether you use mathematics or your eyes. thats my entire point. most of the other stuff, lol bigfoot, i was just trying to lighten it up a little. __________________ Posted by: Apokalipse [QUOTE][i]Originally posted by nagasama [/i] [B]what i am saying is, according to the science AT THE TIME, the evidence was perfectly valid.[/B][/QUOTE]no, it still wasn't valid. they made some big assumptions. And they often refused to look at things in a way that they disagreed with. Scientists today are much more open-minded. They will listen to ideas which challenge what they think they know. They don't care what the truth is, as long as it can be shown beyond reasonable doubt that it is the truth, without making any hasty assumptions. Posted by: nagasama sigh. Posted by: nagasama jesus what the fu*k ever, man. lol the way you are refusing to look at this argument in a way you disagree with? YES it was valid. based on the knowledge they had then, it was valid. you are basing the invalidity on YOUR perception of science. they didnt have the same perception. they didnt have the same science. your argument is moot. and no, scientists today are not so open minded that they can accept that perhaps there is another force in place that is unexplainable mathematically. dude, just look at how you are challenging my every statement.... lol yeah like we dont make any ASSUMPTIONS on what is happening with our own solar system, or within our own lives, in the universe in general...physics is an ASSUMPTION. mathematics is RELATIVE to your PERCEPTION. a point for you... how many astrophysicists have been inside a supernova? EXACTLY none... so how do you know that the knowledge we have on supernovas is accurate throughout the universe? that is LUDICROUS. it is RIDICULOUS for you to tell me that we have the slightest idea "how things work" in reality, when it is not even certain how the universe came into being. dude, its not even certain how intelligence came to pass into humans instead of lizards. there are lots of THEORIES. stop trying to argue it so hard man. Posted by: Evergreen ^^ Preach on brotha Posted by: nagasama woot 4-3-3-8 Posted by: Nubius [quote]Scientists today are much more open-minded. They will listen to ideas which challenge what they think they know. They don't care what the truth is, as long as it can be shown beyond reasonable doubt that it is the truth, without making any hasty assumptions.[/quote] Didn't they teach you anything about generalizations in school? How can you says "Scientists are open to ideas" as though you know every scientist on the face of the planet. Who says they are open to new ideas compared to ones of yester-year....are you john titor and you've time traveled between the two times and made friends with all these scientists or what? Posted by: Apokalipse [QUOTE][i]Originally posted by Nubius [/i] [B]Didn't they teach you anything about generalizations in school? How can you says "Scientists are open to ideas" as though you know every scientist on the face of the planet. Who says they are open to new ideas compared to ones of yester-year....are you john titor and you've time traveled between the two times and made friends with all these scientists or what? [/B][/QUOTE]Perhaps I didn't word it that well. I mean scientists who actually follow the scientific method properly. the scientific method, by definition, necessarily requires people to be open-minded. Posted by: Apokalipse [QUOTE][i]Originally posted by nagasama [/i] [B]jesus what the fu*k ever, man. lol the way you are refusing to look at this argument in a way you disagree with?[/b][/quote]no, I'm only looking at it from a purely scientific perspective. I always criticise new ideas. [quote][b]YES it was valid. based on the knowledge they had then, it was valid. you are basing the invalidity on YOUR perception of science.[/b][/quote]it's got nothing to do with perception. Following science necessarily means not making undue assumptions, irrespective of whether you like the ideas or not. [quote][b]they didnt have the same perception.[/b][/quote]it's not about perception. they were making undue assumptions. the assumption that the Earth was static was one big one. [quote][b]they didnt have the same science.[/b][/quote]science itself doesn't change. [quote][b]your argument is moot.[/b][/quote]this is illogical. [quote][b]and no, scientists today are not so open minded that they can accept that perhaps there is another force in place that is unexplainable mathematically.[/b][/quote]okay, some scientists are not that open-minded. But the scientific process is indiscriminative of new ideas. Following science exactly necessarily means being open-minded. [quote][b]dude, just look at how you are challenging my every statement....[/b][/quote]challenges are not always bad. Where would our understanding be if ideas weren't challenged? [quote]lol yeah like we dont make any ASSUMPTIONS on what is happening with our own solar system, or within our own lives, in the universe in general...[/b][/quote]I never said we didn't. but science aims to remove as many undue assumptions as possible. [quote][b]physics is an ASSUMPTION.[/b][/quote]no, physics is the general category of concepts used to model the universe. These models are found using the scientific method (i.e. using verifiable evidence and observation) [quote][b]mathematics is RELATIVE to your PERCEPTION.[/b][/quote]mathematics is relative, but again, has nothing to do with perception. mathematics is pure logic, and there is only one correct answer or set of answers for every problem. [quote][b]a point for you... how many astrophysicists have been inside a supernova? EXACTLY none... so how do you know that the knowledge we have on supernovas is accurate throughout the universe?[/b][/quote]you don't have to go inside a supernova to study it. You can learn things about it by, for example, measuring what electromagnetic waves are coming out of it... [quote][b]that is LUDICROUS. it is RIDICULOUS for you to tell me that we have the slightest idea "how things work" in reality, when it is not even certain how the universe came into being.[/b][/quote]What has one got to do with the other? Are you telling me that all our scientists are wrong, and that all the laws of physics we have modelled are completely inaccurate, simply because we don't know how the universe got here, or if it even needed to "get here" at all? Try using Newton's laws to in various ways to calculate the motion of an object. Show me that Newton was wrong. Show me that 1+1 doesn't equal 2. Then I'll agree with you. No, we don't know everything about the universe. that doesn't mean we can't or don't know anything about the universe. I'm not sure why you would postulate such an idea, either. [quote][b]dude, its not even certain how intelligence came to pass into humans instead of lizards.[/b][/quote]simple. it was a trait necessitated by natural selection. [quote][b]there are lots of THEORIES.[/b][/quote]a theory is backed by scientific evidence. [quote][b]stop trying to argue it so hard man. [/B][/QUOTE]sheesh, I wasn't trying to argue it so hard. I just enjoy searching for the truth. To do that, one must always criticise what's put in front of them. That doesn't mean I'm automatically going to disagree with every idea I see; I just follow the evidence. Why is it that people often get angry when they are criticised? Posted by: nagasama i am not angry, man. i just let the f-bomb fly every once in awhile. the evidence that you are following is based on the assumption, once again, that our laws of physics are universal. i cant prove that they are not, but as far as i know, it is not proven absolutely that they are. [b]"it's not about perception. they were making undue assumptions. the assumption that the Earth was static was one big one."[/b] it has everything to do with perception. what were their assumptions based on? what they saw. perception. [b]"science itself doesn't change."[/b] how do you figure? science is constantly advancing. if it never changed, we would have no understanding of gravity or nuclear weapons. i think you mean the laws of nature dont change...? [b]"no, physics is the general category of concepts used to model the universe. These models are found using the scientific method (i.e. using verifiable evidence and observation)"[/b] you are saying that the evidence and observation is the verification of these models. okay, what is observation if not perception? how do you observe something without perceiving it? and you are telling me that our development of science has nothing to do with our perception of the universe? i would say it was the very reason for science...to explain said perceptions. [b]"Are you telling me that all our scientists are wrong"[/b] No. but i am saying that our science is based on the assumption that 2+2 = 4 everywhere in the universe, and i think that is arrogant and unprovable. [b]"No, we don't know everything about the universe. that doesn't mean we can't or don't know anything about the universe. I'm not sure why you would postulate such an idea, either."[/b] i am not saying that. i am merely examining at the argument from another, more philosophical, viewpoint. science cant explain everything. some things that science does explain are correct (in our perception of correct), and that is due to our perception of the universe and how mathematics ties into it. perception perception perception. if there was no perception of the universe, there would be no science. Posted by: Nubius man, who cares? A moderator and some random dude hi-jacked the crap out of this thread.........yeah good job. Start a debate thread about it if you so desperately want to argue back and forth. Posted by: zmatt well said nagasama. if i may add my 2 cents. since i am too lazy to go back and see what we are arguing about. i will put in my thoughts on sciences purpose. science (to me) is the quest to explain the universe through logic. the scientific method, also known as deductive reasoning is right now the best method we have to do this. humans have been using it ever since recorded history. Newton used it when he saw that an apple fell towards the earth and not away. Dalton used it with his work on the atom, etc etc. everyday science is changing its conclusions based on new information. just the other day i read a book that used science to prove intelligent design. Things like black holes, global warming, and why we park on driveways, and drive on parkways are continuously being worked on. we may never know or understand everything, but its worthwhile to try. As far as nagasama and the perception goes. i must agree, what says that 2+2=4 at alpha centauri, or that light is the finite speed of the universe? most of what we know is based on reasoning on THIS planet. as far as any of us can tell things can be totally different anywhere else than here. infact basing our "laws" on what we know here isnt a very sound principle. isnt part of the scientific method to test a theory as much as possible and to rule out all variables? now given some things cant be tested in other places right now, but astronomers have seen planets interacting in a counter intuitive way that the theory of gravity would lead us to think. Posted by: Apokalipse [QUOTE][i]Originally posted by nagasama [/i] [B]i am not angry, man. i just let the f-bomb fly every once in awhile.[/b][/quote] [QUOTE][i]Originally posted by nagasama [/i] [B]jesus what the fu*k ever, man.[/b][/quote]This comes across as angry. [quote][b]the evidence that you are following is based on the assumption, once again, that our laws of physics are universal. i cant prove that they are not, but as far as i know, it is not proven absolutely that they are.[/b][/quote]argumentum ad ignorantum. it hasn't been proven that the laws of physics [i]can[/i] be different, let alone are different elsewhere. I think you are under the impression that I [i]believe the laws of physics are absolutely universal[/i]. I don't [i]believe that they are[/i], just the same as I [i]don't believe that they aren't[/i] I'm not making the assumption either way. Occam's razor favours the latter, however, so it is therefore more probable that the laws of physics we have found are universal. And, whether or not the laws of physics may be different elsewhere, still doesn't change the fact that they work here. [quote]"it's not about perception. they were making undue assumptions. the assumption that the Earth was static was one big one."[/b] it has everything to do with perception. what were their assumptions based on? what they saw. perception.[/quote]It doesn't matter what their assumptions were based on. the fact is that they made that assumption, and believed it to be absolute fact. In fact, people were hated for disagreeing with what people thought then. [quote][b]"science itself doesn't change."[/b] how do you figure? science is constantly advancing.[/quote]Science is the process of finding out facts using verifiable evidence and observation. Science doesn't change. our understanding changes, depending on the evidence we gather, and the [i]use[/i] of the scientific process. [quote]if it never changed, we would have no understanding of gravity or nuclear weapons. i think you mean the laws of nature dont change...?[/quote]no, I don't mean the laws of nature don't change. I mean: the process of finding facts using verifiable evidence and observation, is still going to be the process of finding facts using verifiable evidence and observation. [quote][b]"no, physics is the general category of concepts used to model the universe. These models are found using the scientific method (i.e. using verifiable evidence and observation)"[/b] you are saying that the evidence and observation is the verification of these models. okay, what is observation if not perception? how do you observe something without perceiving it?[/quote]The context in which you were using the word [i]perception[/i] before, necessarily implied personal bias. that was what I disagreed with: [quote]YES it was valid. based on the knowledge they had then, it was valid. you are basing the invalidity on YOUR perception of science.[/quote] Now, you are using perception in a different way. Perception can be removed of personal bias if the evidence is scrutinised, tested, and verified by a big group of scientists, to make sure it is absolutely consistent with predictions. [quote]and you are telling me that our development of science has nothing to do with our perception of the universe?[/quote]no, I'm saying the scientific process is the same. it is our understanding that develops by using the scientific method. Our understanding is going to affect our perception. However, proper scientific scrutinisation does not include personal bias. [quote]i would say it was the very reason for science...to explain said perceptions. [b]"Are you telling me that all our scientists are wrong"[/b] No. but i am saying that our science is based on the assumption that 2+2 = 4 everywhere in the universe, and i think that is arrogant and unprovable.[/quote]Actually, science is not based on that assumption. mathematics is based on that assumption. And it is a very reasonable assumption to make. Every time somebody has put two objects, and another two objects together, it has always made four objects. This has occurred an uncountable amount of times, it's been tested to death, and there is no reason we should think it might be any different in the future. On the other hand, the idea that the Earth was flat was an untested idea, centuries ago. In this case, since they had no substantial evidence either way, their assumption is simply not comparable to the assumption that 2+2=4. [quote][b]"No, we don't know everything about the universe. that doesn't mean we can't or don't know anything about the universe. I'm not sure why you would postulate such an idea, either."[/b] i am not saying that. i am merely examining at the argument from another, more philosophical, viewpoint.[/b][/quote]I try to look at it from a scientific viewpoint, instead of a philosophical viewpoint. [quote][b]science cant explain everything. some things that science does explain are correct[/b][/quote]because it has been tested to death, and all the results have come up in our favour. [quote][b](in our perception of correct), and that is due to our perception of the universe and how mathematics ties into it.[/b][/quote]Perception without personal bias, I agree with. That comes about through strict scrutinisation, testing and verification. [quote]perception perception perception. if there was no perception of the universe, there would be no science.[/QUOTE]that doesn't mean all perception is correct. That's why evidence is scrutinised all the time. [quote]just the other day i read a book that used science to prove intelligent design[/quote] [url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intelligent_design[/url] [quote]The scientific community states unequivocally that intelligent design is not science[/quote] [quote]black holes[/quote]proven to exist [quote]global warming[/quote]not entirely proven. Also not demonstrated to be caused entirely, or even significantly, by man, if it even is happening. [quote]and why we park on driveways, and drive on parkways are continuously being worked on.[/quote]these are arbitrary. [quote]what says that 2+2=4 at alpha centauri[/quote]It should not be assumed that the laws of physics can be different, unless evidence is given to support it. There is, however, significant reason to consider the laws of physics being universal. the fact that there are many galaxies similar in structure to ours; the fact that stars all follow much the same patterns, and the light and other electromagnetic radiation from them indicates very similar properties, is strong evidence that the laws of physics are not going to be different. [quote]man, who cares?[/quote]I care about the truth. All I'm trying to do is use science to get to it. [quote]A moderator and some random dude hi-jacked the crap out of this thread.........yeah good job.[/quote]The thread was originally a scientific discussion. It is still a scientific discussion. Posted by: nagasama [b]I try to look at it from a scientific viewpoint, instead of a philosophical viewpoint[/b] and there we have it my friend. shall we agree to disagree? Posted by: Nubius [quote]The thread was originally a scientific discussion. It is still a scientific discussion[/quote] Not hardly, nice attempt at justification though, as it appears to be your forte for every action you do. I'll keep this in mind for the future though....I can apparently take a thread topic, catagorize it into a really large and vague catagory, then proceed to pick anything else from said catagory and rape the thread with that topic instead and somehow.....somehow.....it's still on topic.......RIGHT. You haven't even talked about the topic. Your first three posts are in regards to keywords, bringing in a "answer a question with a question" answer, then you follow up on trying to correct someone about a term they used. Not ONCE have you mentioned the thread topic. There was "a" science discussion, you're right. Although, it had NOTHING to do what you two are rambling on about. Therefore, you HAVE hijacked it as the original thread wasn't about what is or isn't "proper scientific method." Now, I'm sure you're just dying to quote every sentence and try to come up with this "logical argument using scientific approach" to somehow prove I'm wrong. Don't even bother, it's pretty clear you're not on the subject topic so dont try to argue that. Seems like you want to argue needlessly to me. Posted by: Apokalipse [QUOTE][i]Originally posted by nagasama [/i] [B][b]I try to look at it from a scientific viewpoint, instead of a philosophical viewpoint[/b] and there we have it my friend. shall we agree to disagree? [/B][/QUOTE]fine by me. [QUOTE][i]Originally posted by Nubius [/i] [B]Not hardly, nice attempt at justification though, as it appears to be your forte for every action you do. I'll keep this in mind for the future though....I can apparently take a thread topic, catagorize it into a really large and vague catagory, then proceed to pick anything else from said catagory and rape the thread with that topic instead and somehow.....somehow.....it's still on topic.......RIGHT. You haven't even talked about the topic. Your first three posts are in regards to keywords, bringing in a "answer a question with a question" answer, then you follow up on trying to correct someone about a term they used. Not ONCE have you mentioned the thread topic.[/b][/quote]The original thread topic was just an informational post. He wasn't asking for help on a very specific category. Also given that this is the 'off topic' section, the importance of sticking to a very specific topic is not very high. Had he been asking questions that he genuinely wanted answering, I would have definitely stuck specifically to the original topic. [QUOTE][i]Originally posted by Nubius [/i] [B]Now, I'm sure you're just dying to quote every sentence and try to come up with this "logical argument using scientific approach" to somehow prove I'm wrong. Don't even bother, it's pretty clear you're not on the subject topic so dont try to argue that.[/B][/QUOTE]See above. Are you trying to ridicule me for trying to use a scientific approach? [quote][b]Seems like you want to argue needlessly to me. [/B][/QUOTE]I don't argue for the sake of arguing. I genuinely care about finding the truth; That just sometimes happens to involve arguing. When I say that, I am using the very specific definition: [i]a series of connected statements used to establish a conclusion[/i] Posted by: FireFox I think we should just have a rating per post thingy with which we can rate each post within a thread on a scale of 1-5. 1 being not related to the topic at all and 5 being dead-on. Then in the user's profile you can have his average topic accurateness rating....with which you can help prove that your e-***** or whatever the heck it is called is, indeed, bigger! :rolleyes: Posted by: Ste [QUOTE][i]Originally posted by FireFox [/i] [B]I think we should just have a rating per post thingy with which we can rate each post within a thread on a scale of 1-5. 1 being not related to the topic at all and 5 being dead-on. Then in the user's profile you can have his average topic accurateness rating....with which you can help prove that your e-***** or whatever the heck it is called is, indeed, bigger! :rolleyes: [/B][/QUOTE] Just one of many good suggestions that will never happen. (Probably) Posted by: Apokalipse [QUOTE][i]Originally posted by FireFox [/i] [B]I think we should just have a rating per post thingy with which we can rate each post within a thread on a scale of 1-5. 1 being not related to the topic at all and 5 being dead-on. Then in the user's profile you can have his average topic accurateness rating....with which you can help prove that your e-***** or whatever the heck it is called is, indeed, bigger! :rolleyes: [/B][/QUOTE]I would rate this particular post 1... :p but seriously, I generally don't like arbitrarily assigning numerical values to anything subjective. vBulletin Copyright ©2000 - 2003, Jelsoft Enterprises Limited. PPC Management vB Easy Archive Final - Created by Xenon |