Arronax and Nasrudin are HUMAN

Ferret, why are you avoiding answering my queries into your "pro-black" statement?? I just want to know what you meant by it, if anything.

In showing me how "VERY wrong" I am about science, you should point me at something which you accept as scientific "fact" and I'll show you just how much "truth" there is in it. Science achieves its "advances" by advancing hypotheses and then showing these theories to be "truth" by a process of elimination -- it prunes its theories by showing them "to be false, invalid, or erroneous" (definition of disprove taken from Webster's II New Riverside Dictionary, 1984). Perhaps when I said "science has this tendency to disprove itself" I should REALLY have said "science has this tendency to show its own theories to be erroneous". Any system that builds itself upon negative reinforcement comes up with very little that is positive (i.e. TRULY known), if anything.

 

"what goes up, must come down". You seem to be fond of arguing with people, let's see how you go up against Mr Newton.

 

Gravity doesn't exist. I take this valuable piece of knowledge from a Dilbert comic I saw a few years ago. What really goes on is a constant division of the smallest possible particles into even smaller particles. Although they appear to remain in their original configuration it is the same as the universe as viewed from a great distance: a mere speck. This constant creation of space in the interstices of matter goes on at an exponential rate, hence the acceleration of perceived gravity. The only things holding you onto the earth right now are your exponential expansion towards the ground and the ground's exponential expansion towards yourself. There is no up. There is no down. Circular orbits are really linear and space is NOT curved.

Man has been able to find smaller and ever smaller particles in his search for the truth and not a single graviton to date. Every other force in the universe is governed by a specific particle. Therefore, this theory is closer to the truth than Newton's apple-induced dementia.

 

I don't care what the definition of disprove is. What you say is bollocks. Science DOES NOT prove it's theories via disproof. It REFINES it's theories through disproof mostly, yes. However, they are still theories. You CAN ONLY prove something through a positive sense. Otherwise it's not proof.

You don't seem to understand how science works even though I just explained it to you in the most basic of terms. You're still looking at the journey and taking it as truth you ignorant twat. Next time you argue something look up the definition of PROOF, not disproof! You can't PROVE something by simply resolving around the possibilities. It would be like me have a white circle, a black square and a black triangle and then throwing away the white circle and concluding as proof that all straight-sided objects are black.

Oooh... what bollocks.

If everything was expanding at an exponential rate, the space between atoms would have become so big that the forces holding the atoms together would have lost cohesion about 3 billion years ago (or there abouts - I might be a few hundred million or so out).

In addition to this, if everything were expanding exponentially, we'd be expanding away from the earth at an exponential rate too. In which case, the only thing keeping the two exponentially expanding masses together would be gravity. :roll:

I advise you don't take Dilbert comics as a source for scientific information from now on. Why not try those handy little scientific journals that the rest of the scientific community uses?

Even if something is expanding, it doesn't change the path of the object in relation to each other. Thus, if an orbit were linear, it would not be an orbit - it would simply be flying away from the other object as fast as the expansion occured.

You CANNOT explain an orbit in that the two objects are expanding away from each other. You really DO write a lot of bollocks don't you? I suggest that before you write any more such crap that you take elementary physics lessons and discover what some of these scientific concepts are before arguing they don't exist!

You've counterstated yourself. Can you prove this? Or indeed, can you disprove it? How then can you say that this theory holds more credit to the newton theory? You said yourself that you can only disprove things (which is also bollocks btw way) so by your logic, you cannot tell which theory is correct or which is better.

However, due to the fact that you ARE talking bollocks, and that you CAN prove things and not just disprove things AND that 99%+ of the scientific community favours the Newton theory rather than the theory that we all fell apart 3 billion years ago, I'd have to conclude that you're also talking bollocks. Oh look, I just proved something positive. That makes your theory even more bollocks (can you see where your logic falls apart yet?).

Just on a side note, there is no such particle as a graviton. It was invented by Gene Roddenberry as a plot point for StarTrek.

People like you really piss me off. You obviously have no grounding in logic or scientific thinking. sure, if your theories even made sense and didn't destroy each other in the same paragraph then I would be willing to discuss such things and such a discussion might be interesting. However, you appear to have absolutely no understanding of even the most basic of concepts needed in the physical sciences and like to argue based upon pure conjecture and a simple need to say something even though it's bollocks. Arguing just for arguing sake is a VERy stupid thing to do.

 

Wohoo haven't had an argument worth reading on HoL for a long time.

 

Scott adams tend to take all these strange theories that is thrown on the scrapyard of theories and have the garbage man qoute them as truths, very funny, but so not true. Chalupa Cobra you are a real induhvidual.

You should try reading the book "the dilber future" very funny, and it contain very manny theories on to how the world is run and soforth.

 

:lol:

By the way way? That's a new one.

Chalupa, that is the dumbest thing I've ever read. Ferret, has there ever been a time when Newton's theory of gravity has been disproven?

 

Only in those freaky dreams where you are flyin around

 

Please, Ferret, before you go trying to disprove my theories by cursing myself and throwing the word "bollocks" at them as much as you like, give them some consideration. Show some tolerance, if you please. Anger gets in the way of rational thought and throwing a tantrum has very rarely advanced the cause of science. You admit to a certain refinement of "theories through disproof mostly". Consider, then, how much refinement the theory of gravity could use (FYI, deduction IS an accepted form of scientific investigation; one CAN "PROVE something by resolving around the possibilities"). No one has ever acknowledged an understanding of its causes, merely its effects. That, I say, is merely a third part of understanding the whole. To use your own analogy, the "journey" of science is never through as there is always a frontier to be pushed ahead. There aren't simply circles, triangles, and squares -- either black or white -- but n-gons, n-hedrons, and shapes in dimensions beyond in an entire spectrum of colors that we can only see a small sliver of. Do you understand that??

The theory of gravity is tied to mass, and so is my theory of exponential expansion. Yes, you are correct to point out that "if everything were expanding exponentially, we'd be expanding away from the earth at an exponential rate too". Yet, the Earth has so much more mass that its expansion relative to ourselves is greater and that is why we are seemingly pressed to its surface.

You say that the mechanics of cohesion disproves my theory. Now, if I remember correctly from the AP Physics classes I took in college a couple of years ago, it is the strong and weak atomic forces which bind the parts of atoms together. The strong atomic force is pretty well understood to be analogous to a magnetic attraction between protons and electrons. But the weak atomic force is understood to about the extent that gravity is -- we can observe and predict its effects but we are baffled as to its causes as well as the relationship between cause and effect. I don't profess to have much quantum mechanical know-how, but it seems that you do. Please, tell me how quarks and sub-quarks adhere to each other (cause AND effect) and why they aren't shaken loose at the slightest tap when they don't appear to have a charge (i.e. lack of strong atomic force). If you can explain that to me perhaps I will be able to see why the universe would have disintegrated by now under my theory of exponential expansion.

Looking back, I probably should not have written that orbits are linear. For one, I should have used the term linearly perpendicular. Secondly, the statement was a bit off-topic. Third, the universe taken as a whole is static, self-contained.

I've noticed that a bit of my subtlety slipped past you and so I'll point it out for your benefit and the benefit of anyone else that might have missed it. The statement that my theory was closer to the truth than Newton's was meant to be taken as a joke; it's too bad that it wasn't. As you so aptly mentioned, I was using the same method that I was purportedly arguing against. The whole point of my post was to create a reasonable doubt surrounding Newton's theory and thereby show you "just how much 'truth' there is in it". What was funnier was that you used a very similar line of reasoning in order to "prove" just how how much bollocks my post was.

By the way, you never answered my "pro-black" question. I'm beginning to think that your entire rant was a ruse to distract me from this.

 

You may be presuming too much in this respect. Perhaps Ferret didn't see what you wrote. Stuff easily falls through the cracks. Maybe you should give people the benefit of the doubt.

 

That was the fourth time I asked him about it, Snowmane (August 1st 5:02 PM, August 2nd 5:34 PM, August 3rd 6:21 PM, and the most recent post). There's falling "through the cracks" and then there's being flung "into a deep, dark abyss from which there is little to no chance of return". I don't know about you, but I'm beginning to lean towards the latter.

 

Yeah! Be like Snowmane! Right, snow? :cautious wink:

 

That was, by the way, not a typo.

 

No. You can't. All you're doing in narrowing your theories. You CANNOT prove something is true by simply discounting the other possibilities because there are undoubtably possibilities you either have not discovered yet or have not tested.

It's PRECISELY my point about the black and white shapes. Under your logic you prove that all straight sided objects are black and the rest are white because that is what you know and what you tested. You showed that only ciruclar objects are white; However, since you haven't tested all the possibilities or didn't know about the white hexagon then even though you've discounted all the possibilites that YOU KNEW OF it doesn't make it truth.

So, I state again. YOU CANNOT prove something by simply discounted the other possibilities. You CAN ONLY prove something through positive processes.

Precisely. When have I ever said the journey is over? The journey is always occuring, but that doesn't make the journey truth. Only the things that have been proven are truth. There are plenty of those, although the SCALE of that truth is still being explored. We're still trying to find out WHY things are truth in most cases, even though we know them to be truth.

I understand that. I seem to understand that better than you do, because you've ignored you own knowledge when considering the above argument.

What you're also forgetting is that the space between the masses is also expanding at an exponential rate. You're saying that the universe is expanding, but you've only included matter. In that is your logic flawed. Infact, because of the atomic forces, matter is actually expanding at a lesser rate that the space surrounding it so the distance between the two masses is expanding at a rate greater than the two masses themselves. It is only the gravitational attaction that holds the two masses together whilst the universe expands around them.

And I thought you said it wasn't your theory but one you read in a comic book that uses stupid theories and sayings to amuse the public? Make up your mind. :roll:

I think that's where you don't understand what I was saying. It has nothing to do with our understanding of how those forces work at all. I couldn't care less (for the purposes of this argument - of course I'm interested) whether it is gravity that holds them together or subatomic fish secreting quark-glue from their noses. It has everything to do with the fact that we know that every time we pull those subatomic particles apart far enough then the atom falls apart. Just because something is truth it doesn't mean that we neccessarily understand WHY it is truth. That's what science is all about and I've tried to explain it to you, but you're not taking it in.

Science PROVES things, but it's always trying to understand WHY those proven things occur. Science is ever targetting the SCALE of truth. Once we know something is truth then it automatically uncovers the need to find more truth about WHY it is truth. You have alluded to this yourself earlier on, when you mentioned the journey of science never ending so I know you must have some idea about it, but I think you're just not seeing it correctly. Just because we don't know why something works doesn't mean it isn't truth.

It's not like a Wile. E. Coyote cartoon. Just because we don't know WHY gravity works doesn't mean that if we throw something up in the air it's just going to levitate there. :lol:

Firstly, I won't hold it against you for writing something incorrectly. Everybody does it, Xento tends to always point them out really annoyingly, and it can't be held against you.

Secondly, I don't think it matters. This whole thread is off topic.

Thirdly, I don't think that quite fits into the argument. I don't see how that has anything to do with the fact that two exponentially expanding objects, expanding away from each other at exponential rates, STILL won't cause things to orbit each other. Even though you stated it wrongly to start with, it doesn't change the fact. Its true that orbiting objects retain a constant angular velocity at perpendicular coefficients to their orbital mass, but it can't be explained through expansion because expansion cannot be the sole cause of angular momentum - there has to be an additional tensile force holding the bodies to each other in order for the expansive force to generate angular, rather than linear momentum. Thus gravity comes back into play.

Sorry, I have to admit that I missed that. The statement was made in such a similar style as to the rest of your argument, which you alluded to be serious, that it was impossible to distinguish between the serious tripe and the humorous tripe.

Well, you failed miserably. We have proven that gravity exists far beyond reasonable doubt. Just because we don't know WHY it exists doesn't change the fact that it DOES exist. Who's to say that gravity ISN'T caused by some strange and wonderful thing we haven't even thought of yet? However, it doesn't disprove Newton's laws because they are still truth - depsite that the backing may or may not be what we think it is now.

That was the entire point. I was using your own reasoning to show you how flawed it was. I'm glad you noticed it.

I already answered your question. It seems that you never read my answer. The answer was that you misinterpretted my original answer, as I already explained (twice now I believe). I already told you that by 'pro-black' I was not alluding that you had any favouritism towards the colour black, but that it was the predominant 'colour' that you brought up in your posts where you argue about colour.

Indeed, since you have now repeatedly brought up the subject of the colour black in order to ask why I mentioned the colour black you are now by far a 'pro-black' colourist.

No, it's 'by the way way'. :lol:

[Edit - Xento, I know there are a few typos in here. I'm using a really naff keyboard at work. I'd appreciate it if you didn't pick it apart just to look clever (yeah, you wish ).]

 

Finally, Ferret, I have gotten you to admit that gravity may not necessarily be the cause of things falling when dropped. Strangely, we both now seem to agree that deductive reasoning is a faulty method of scientific investigation; I had originally thought that you were arguing against. That leaves induction but that only leads to reductio ad absurdum (i.e. how do you know the apple is REALLY an apple??).

I have NOT forgotten that the space between masses is expanding exponentially. This is kind of a mental Moebius strip, so please bear with me. Because matter is constantly dividing at the smallest level creating ever smaller levels of matter and further dividing itself, and because this happens at an exponential rate, all space is accounted for and matter APPEARS to retain its size from moment to moment -- it is the extra space which creates the expansion. Since everything is expanding at the same rate, everything is relatively the same size and density. Of course time is bent on a logarithmic curve scaled to the exponential expansion, but we are discussing the relation of mass and "gravity" (you really have to explain to me some time how "space" is "expanding" when it is incapable of any such thing).

As concerns orbits, I will clarify. Imagine the analogy I made earlier regarding the strong atomic force: it's like a magnetic attraction. Just as the electrons orbit the nucleus (well, not JUST like because electrons are monopolar and tend to teleport within the bounds of their shells, but keep reading), planets appear to orbit the sun (they remain in the ecliptic because they are bipolar). Yet the "force" exerted between celestial bodies is generated by their common expansion towards each other and their proximity. Earth doesn't so much orbit the sun as it revolves about a center point common to both. The solar system is, similarly, revolving about a center point that is common to the entire galaxy. The entire galaxy is revolving about a center point that is common to the entire universe, and seen from that perspective things aren't so much spinning as they are EXPANDING away from one another. Relatively speaking, everything is moving OUTWARDS from the universal core. From our perspective, the earth's orbit is circular when it is, in fact, a vector pointing away from the universal core. That the earth appears to spin and the solar system appears to spin and the galaxy appears to spin are forces that are reacting to one another; they are each of them offset by an equal and opposite force somewhere else in the universe. Just as with "gravity", the "force" of attraction due to expansion is the inverse of the square of the distance between two bodies; this is why celestial bodies that are clumped together tend to stay that way regardless of which way they happen to be spinning.

Oh, the Dilbert comic was simply a one cell, one-liner type of thing I saw tacked up somewhere. It was I who fleshed out all the wonderful details for my Theory of Exponential Expansion.

This ALL goes back to retard's statement: "what goes up must come down". I could simply have countered with either of two two-word phrases: "geosynchronous orbit" or "escape velocity". But this way has been so much more FUN.

 

You seem to be reading several things into my wording that I have not written. Strange that, but an amazing talent none the less.

I have never said that gravity may not be the cause. Gravity IS the cause. However, we don't know what causes gravity. There is a BIG difference between our two statements.

Also, I have absolutely NO idea how you could perceive me to have been arguing against deductive reasoning for science. Science NEEDS deductive reasoning, but you stated that science ONLY uses deductive reasoning and that it was flawed. The difference is that I know that deductive reasoning is flawed and this is why it's NOT used solely in science. It is used purely to narrow down those theories pertaining to a subject so that positive reasoning can be used to prove one or more of the selected theories. If you had to test every possible combination of theories available in order to determine them then we'd still be in the dark ages!

You were arguing that science only disproves itself and that this is through it's sole and flawed reasoning. I was arguing that what you perceive to be be truth is theory and that truth can only be proved through positive reasoning and thus science uses both.

Perhaps I should have said the universe. However to expand the argument there are some things I should clarify. Matter is not the only constituent of the universe. The very nature of matter is to attract itself. The universe is expanding faster than the matter can fill it. The amount of matter available in the universe is actually decreasing as all matter tends towards energy and the energy in the universe tends towards the neutral energistic state.

As such, if the universe is expanding and the amount of matter is contracting as it degrades into it's energistic status, then the gaps between masses of matter have to be expanding at a far greater rate than the matter is capable of expanding at. This means that despite the possible expansion of matter, all matter is getting further and further apart and so if 'gravity' was an effect of expansion, then we would all be floating around in space by now.

Not quite true actually. Electrons DO orbit their nuclei, but not in a determinable orbit. Infact, the only way to measure the location of an elctron in it's orbit is to destroy the current orbit. As such, electron positions are given as probability orbitals, where the electron is known to be orbiting somewhere within a zone of probability, but we don't know exactly where without changing it's position. It's all part of the Heisenburg uncertainty principle.

There is no 'teleporting' and there are no 'shells'. That is infact a simplified (and wrong, I might add) version of events that was invented to teach in schools where the level of the subjects being taught was deemed not high enough for them to comprehend the true nature of electron probability.

Of course, it's not true that everyone is not capable of understanding it at that level, but that doesn't change the fact that all schools teach a simplified version of events so that everyone has at least a basic understanding of them. Apparently, if you do a degree in Physics you actually have to 'unlearn' a lot of the information supplied to you in schools because it's over simplified.

Yes, called gravity

I state again that you CANNOT have an outwards force producing a angular momentum. It's the driving factor, but you can't achieve angularity without a centripetal force of some sort.

Oh, btw, the outwards force that is noticed in orbits doesn't actually exist. It is a phenomena exibited by the reaction to a centripetal force drawing objects TOWARDS each other. Centrifugal force is another 'simplified' concept. As such, this is why outward forces cannot be applied to orbits - you need an INWARD force to achieve orbit, but that EXHIBITS an outward force in reaction. The outward force can only used to drive the orbit and it's the inward force that is needed to produce it and maintain it. Thus you actually need both - tension AND expansion. Applying an external expansive force doesn't supply the tensile force needed to acheive an orbit (that's what gravity is for).

Yada Yada Yada. This makes makes no sense because....

You cannot achieve such an effect through expansion. The reason being is that orbits go back on themselves. The expansion would have to be highly irregular in order to come even close to this effect. In addition, the expansive forces would have to alternate between lateral and longitudinal planes as well as increasing and decreasing at precise intervals. If you can explain why the rate of expansion would vary so much between masses, as well as varying to an impossible degree WITHIN masses - timed perfectly of course, to the rest of the matter in the universe, as related to the universal core - without any form of external or internal change within the structure of the matter then I'd be very interested to hear it.

Accelerations and decelerations don't just occur for the hell of it without any external factor being employed. In addition, the sort of forces that you're talking about to accomplish such delta V would tear the planets apart!!

There is one thing you're overlooking with this. The only reason things expand is because they have overcome their attraction. Otherwise everything would stay the same size and in the same place, because both attractive and expansive forces balance (they are, after all, products of each other).

If something was to be expanding and relying purely upon the reactive force of expansion to stay together NOTHING would orbit anything else, since the force of attraction would be too weak to cause this.

It shows.

Also I think I should just point out once again that if all matter were expanding the forces that hold matter together would have lost cohesion long ago and we'd all just be a disorganised and highly spaced out soup of proto-metasubatomic particles.

Actually, with geosyncronous orbit, the thing IS falling. Infact, ALL orbits are due to the collapsing of matter towards another peice of matter. THe difference is that the angular velocity of the falling object is such that by the time it falls, it's already missed it's target and has to fall again towards the other body. Orbiting objects are in a constant state of falling, so they are in effect 'coming back down' within the contect of gravity.

I'll conceed escape velocity here though, but I should point out we are arguing principles here, not wording.

Plus I believe it was MrNobodie and not Retard who made the statement. You're slacking in your quest for details.

 

I'm about to go back to school (on my birthday at that. AND at a new school :cry: ). I don't need lessons here . Then again, maybe I can use some of this stuff for a project.... keep talkin

 

I know. That's why I laughed.

:lol:

Sorry, but I stomped on your ass over that just because I thought it was perticularly funny. I probably make twenty times as much spelling errors as you do, in any case.

 

Xento, if you use that smile one more time, I swear that I'll ban your ass.











:lol:

 

And if the expansion forces accelerate and decelerate at precise intervals, the object is doing circular motion on the other object! A circular motion can be viewed as acceleration towards one side then change to the other side, and again, as you view it on one side, right? If the expansion force is the same at all the time, the two object can never have circular orbit. that they will only keep the same distance and direction, or seperate at constant rate. So the observed "Circular orbit" will never be simply a vector pointing outward.

One thing I consider about Chalupa Cobra's theory of matter expansion is that, light speed never change, and if space is also expanding shouldn't we find all things moving slower and slower, as more time is needed to allow light enter our eyes? I don't have a degree in Physic by I trust Newton more than you, Chalupa Cobra, as Newton's laws base on observation, and till now we haven't encounter anything opposing his laws.

I generally agree with Ferret. But one thing about science I won't say theory stand becuase it is "proved". They are just supported with more "theory" based on observation with we say we "prove" it right. Still those supporting theory need "prove", and the proving will continue until the god say, "it is true." As the only thing that is never wrong is god, that we consider perfect and knows all.

And a theory, like Newton's, can never be beaten by a new theory, like Cobra's. Newton's law just state observation of some common results of events. The laws and equations are always true as long as nothing disobey it is found. If such things are found, we just say Newton's theory is limited to certain areas. Say if Cobra's theory is not disproved, it still does not disprove Newton's. They are just two theory describing an event, and they give different possible causes. If both theory stand the test of observation, they can never disprove each others. Just give more supporting "theory" or "observation" to one of the theory doesn't prove the other wrong. Only the god knows which one, or both, is wrong, as long as we haven't any opposing observation.

I know I am weak at Physic, and many of my knowledge is still of the simplified version taught in school. You are welcome to point out any of my error, provided with reasoning.

ps : Did you two, Ferret and Cobra, consider this agrument a "personal duel"?, if yes, sorry and i better shut up and watch. If not, I may want to add more of my child thought.