Huge!!! Black Hole next doer
posted on June 9th, 2009, 6:07 pm
If all objects were thrown from a central point, then they should logically spin in the same Direction, however, this is not so.
An un-prooven theory is still just an opinion.
As far as I'm concerned, there isn't any way it can be proven. Heck, you try to poove I'm not blind.
Any way it Is easy to see that neither of us are going to back down and we should end this, before it gets ugly. :2guns:
Becides I just Started a game and it is hard to type at the same time.
An un-prooven theory is still just an opinion.
As far as I'm concerned, there isn't any way it can be proven. Heck, you try to poove I'm not blind.
Any way it Is easy to see that neither of us are going to back down and we should end this, before it gets ugly. :2guns:
Becides I just Started a game and it is hard to type at the same time.
posted on June 9th, 2009, 6:13 pm
Fight fight fight!!! 
I bet on Dominus_Noctis, I know of him better.
Well maybe we should just tern our sun in to a mega black hole and eat the other that way the Andramda and the other black holes ant a threat. We could add a few nooks to add to the fire works!!!
I bet on Dominus_Noctis, I know of him better.
Well maybe we should just tern our sun in to a mega black hole and eat the other that way the Andramda and the other black holes ant a threat. We could add a few nooks to add to the fire works!!!
posted on June 9th, 2009, 11:59 pm
Thanks Ewm 
Not only is that statement completely incorrect (for instance when you explode a bomb, all the particles do not spin in the same direction--it is in a turbulent fashion due to the way the gasses expand and particles interact), but the reason galaxies rotate is not because of the big bang (if you are going to make THAT argument, think about when solar systems and even individual stars form). Galaxies weren't even formed during the Big Bang, but around 500 million years later. You may also be interested to know that the Universe did not arise from a single point in the manner that you are thinking (it wasn’t an explosion which sent things hurtling away)—all points expanded at once and kept expanding and the early Universe was in fact superheated plasma (until it condensed enough to form Hydrogen, Helium, and Lithium… which then formed stars, galaxies etc).
You may also wish to look up the definition of a theory if we are going to be discussing the Big Bang in a scientific manner, because what you are stating is your unfounded opinion: what I am stating is verifiable, proven, and accepted by the scientific community. Straight from Wikipedia we have: "A theory, in the general sense of the word, is an analytic structure designed to explain a set of observations. A theory does two things:
1. it identifies this set of distinct observations as a class of phenomena, and
2. makes assertions about the underlying reality that brings about or affects this class.
The term is often used colloquially to refer to any suggested explanation, even fanciful or speculative ones, for an event or class of events. In scholarly use, however, the term is reserved for ideas which meet baseline requirements about the kinds of observations made, the methods of classification used, and the consistency of the theory in its application among members of the class to which it pertains. These requirements vary across different fields of knowledge, but in general theories are expected to be functional and parsimonious: i.e. a theory should be the simplest possible tool that can be used to effectively address the given class of phenomena."
Ignoring your straw man (and the fact that you said “according to psychics”) … perhaps then you should head down to the library, or search the Internet, because you are utterly and completely wrong and these views will only serve to make you look foolish.
So give me another theory then. Not a hypothesis and not a conjecture based on what you think must be true about the natural world (even if it has no basis in reality: i.e. see your “objects thrown from a central point” argument) please.
If all objects were thrown from a central point, then they should logically spin in the same Direction, however, this is not so.
Not only is that statement completely incorrect (for instance when you explode a bomb, all the particles do not spin in the same direction--it is in a turbulent fashion due to the way the gasses expand and particles interact), but the reason galaxies rotate is not because of the big bang (if you are going to make THAT argument, think about when solar systems and even individual stars form). Galaxies weren't even formed during the Big Bang, but around 500 million years later. You may also be interested to know that the Universe did not arise from a single point in the manner that you are thinking (it wasn’t an explosion which sent things hurtling away)—all points expanded at once and kept expanding and the early Universe was in fact superheated plasma (until it condensed enough to form Hydrogen, Helium, and Lithium… which then formed stars, galaxies etc).
You may also wish to look up the definition of a theory if we are going to be discussing the Big Bang in a scientific manner, because what you are stating is your unfounded opinion: what I am stating is verifiable, proven, and accepted by the scientific community. Straight from Wikipedia we have: "A theory, in the general sense of the word, is an analytic structure designed to explain a set of observations. A theory does two things:
1. it identifies this set of distinct observations as a class of phenomena, and
2. makes assertions about the underlying reality that brings about or affects this class.
The term is often used colloquially to refer to any suggested explanation, even fanciful or speculative ones, for an event or class of events. In scholarly use, however, the term is reserved for ideas which meet baseline requirements about the kinds of observations made, the methods of classification used, and the consistency of the theory in its application among members of the class to which it pertains. These requirements vary across different fields of knowledge, but in general theories are expected to be functional and parsimonious: i.e. a theory should be the simplest possible tool that can be used to effectively address the given class of phenomena."
As far as I'm concerned, there isn't any way it can be proven. Heck, you try to poove I'm not blind.
Ignoring your straw man (and the fact that you said “according to psychics”) … perhaps then you should head down to the library, or search the Internet, because you are utterly and completely wrong and these views will only serve to make you look foolish.
All I mean is that it isn't the only Idea about haw our universe was crated.
So give me another theory then. Not a hypothesis and not a conjecture based on what you think must be true about the natural world (even if it has no basis in reality: i.e. see your “objects thrown from a central point” argument) please.
posted on June 10th, 2009, 12:29 am
Last edited by Anonymous on June 10th, 2009, 12:46 am, edited 1 time in total.
lol. I love these weird arguments that go back and forth, particularly when the overall hypotheses about the universe as advocated with much enthusiasm and confidence here are as "real" as newtonian dynamics causing galactic expansion.
Come 2021 Im sure ppl will look back at the "sureness" of today's physics students(who haven't even graduated yet) with the same amused bewilderment.
Keep it going, I love this
Come 2021 Im sure ppl will look back at the "sureness" of today's physics students(who haven't even graduated yet) with the same amused bewilderment.
Keep it going, I love this
posted on June 10th, 2009, 12:47 am
That is fine. Really I see no point to take this further. You may call names and laugh at me all you want, it doesn't make you correct. And saying I should read more books just says to me (tho I know this isn't true) Go find your own evidence because I don't have the time to find my own. A Theory is not porrven. This is Why it isn't Fact as you use it, it is only theory. Everybody has their own definition of the Big bang, and the age of the universe changes every day.
I respect your opinion. Even though I think you are completely wrong, and you think I am a "fool" Doesn't mean either of us are right. This is not what the thread is about. I'm sorry you can't respect other peoples opinions. However, Again I'll say You may have your opinion and I will respect it. I will not tell you you are wrong unless it is purely my opinion, and I will not preach what I precieve as Truth to someone who doesn't want to hear it.
And one last thing. I will not tell you my "theory" because you have already decided on a reaction. I do believe this is my last word on this matter, and you may have the last word and argue with yourself for all I care. I really don't care to give my opinion freely, when it is only going to be shot down and called ridiculous. As I have said many times before, this argument has no place in a gaming forum, and I will end my side of the debate here.
Oops, Because I type too slow.
I concur, tho I don't enjoy being used as amusement.
I respect your opinion. Even though I think you are completely wrong, and you think I am a "fool" Doesn't mean either of us are right. This is not what the thread is about. I'm sorry you can't respect other peoples opinions. However, Again I'll say You may have your opinion and I will respect it. I will not tell you you are wrong unless it is purely my opinion, and I will not preach what I precieve as Truth to someone who doesn't want to hear it.
And one last thing. I will not tell you my "theory" because you have already decided on a reaction. I do believe this is my last word on this matter, and you may have the last word and argue with yourself for all I care. I really don't care to give my opinion freely, when it is only going to be shot down and called ridiculous. As I have said many times before, this argument has no place in a gaming forum, and I will end my side of the debate here.
Oops, Because I type too slow.
Serpicus wrote:Come 2021 Im sure ppl will look back at the "sureness" of today's physics students(who havent even graduated yet) with the same amused bewilderment.
I concur, tho I don't enjoy being used as amusement.
posted on June 10th, 2009, 10:52 am
Well. Please define the term reality in contrast to the terms truth and validity. One can pnly argue about what is "right" or "approximately right" when you have a common base of what cognition allows.
[move]:P
[/move]
[move]:P
[/move]posted on June 10th, 2009, 10:37 pm
Serpicus wrote:Come 2021 Im sure ppl will look back at the "sureness" of today's physics students(who haven't even graduated yet) with the same amused bewilderment.
[1] It's not sureness of students only. We are talking about a paradigm. Take this into account. It is a group of several generations sharing that opinion. The reason why paradigms are very stable sometimes, is, hat they improve the descriptive approximation for nature.
[2] This is where we talk about reality ... those things in our environment, we are able to discibe, and a good physics theory is the best way of predicing future (and thus past) developement of these things.
[3] So anybody can state theories about the universe's past here, and they are all valid, as long as they belong to a theory, that describes preset and future as well.
[4] The best proposition for a reality-related theory is the one, that desctibes nateure best for all times, at least where verifiable.
[5] A theory or reality can never claim to be truth, as any non-formal theory is always an observer-bound hypotheses, thus an approximation for prescription of nature. Truth is only asymptotically reached, always.
I don't count phenomena of individual personal observation to that reality-related theories.
Fell free to comment. I made the brackets to make that task easier for you.
posted on June 10th, 2009, 10:44 pm
Last edited by mimesot on June 10th, 2009, 10:48 pm, edited 1 time in total.
posted on June 10th, 2009, 11:03 pm
posted on June 11th, 2009, 2:17 am
I was going to give some big long winded arguement, to show how you are only slightly right, but Now I must say I agree. Staying away from the original argument, I would have to say that truth lies in the eyes of the beholder. We can't agree on anything unless we have the same views obviously. So unless what we precieve as truth is agreed upon, we will never stop arguing. It all has to do with definitions. If we have different definitions of truth we can't agree. Because Science relies so much observation, it makes it hard to get more than one person to come to the same conclusion from running experiments on hypothetical events, or,things we cannot observe from beginning to end. Just to be clear, and make sure we are all talking about the same thing: this has nothing to do with previous theory's, only the new topic at hand.
posted on June 11th, 2009, 2:20 am
No No your Wrong!!!!
No argument no fun come one stocking the coals!
No argument no fun come one stocking the coals!
posted on June 11th, 2009, 4:26 pm
posted on June 12th, 2009, 9:02 am
posted on June 12th, 2009, 2:59 pm
Last edited by Anonymous on June 12th, 2009, 3:04 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Just as a response to mimesot 
I will merely say that even if the boot fits, it doesn't mean it is the shoe you are looking for. The closest thing to the truth is also the farthest thing from it.
Heck, there is evidence of a world wide flood, and they believe they have found an ark, but I think I can be sure Very few on this site would believe that.
I will merely say that even if the boot fits, it doesn't mean it is the shoe you are looking for. The closest thing to the truth is also the farthest thing from it.
Heck, there is evidence of a world wide flood, and they believe they have found an ark, but I think I can be sure Very few on this site would believe that.
posted on June 12th, 2009, 3:08 pm
May I ask where is this evidence of a world wide flood? Care to send me a link or a source material?... and who is this "they" you speak of (please don't send me to answersingenesis...)?
To completely extrapolate ... Well then, I guess if the Bible is claimed as ultimate truth, it must be the furthest thing from it in your own logic eh
? That kind of puts a hole in your ark, no pun intended. In fact, if you claim any truth, then it must logically be the furthest thing from it, and since you claim that the Big Bang theory is incorrect, it must therefore be absolutely correct. 
Sorry, even though you edited and put that in after I started posting, it is a public forum, and I never got any answers from you earlier... so I guess I won't get any now.
the closest thing to the truth is also the farthest thing from it.
To completely extrapolate ... Well then, I guess if the Bible is claimed as ultimate truth, it must be the furthest thing from it in your own logic eh
? That kind of puts a hole in your ark, no pun intended. In fact, if you claim any truth, then it must logically be the furthest thing from it, and since you claim that the Big Bang theory is incorrect, it must therefore be absolutely correct. Just as a response to mimesot
Sorry, even though you edited and put that in after I started posting, it is a public forum, and I never got any answers from you earlier... so I guess I won't get any now.
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: Bing [Bot] and 6 guests