VaporTrail Posted March 3, 2014 Report Share Posted March 3, 2014 Lol, wait, is that last one you linked satire? I really can't tell if it's a joke or if he's serious. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Cysko Kid Posted March 3, 2014 Report Share Posted March 3, 2014 I told ypu right there it was tongue in cheek. At least as far as my posting it goes. I can't speak for the author of the piece. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Cysko Kid Posted March 3, 2014 Report Share Posted March 3, 2014 That NASA article though, must be a joke all the bullshit he presented as fact Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
VaporTrail Posted March 3, 2014 Report Share Posted March 3, 2014 That NASA article though, must be a joke all the bullshit he presented as fact  What are you talking about? The two articles are night and day. Specifically, what is he stating as fact that you think is bullshit? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Cysko Kid Posted March 3, 2014 Report Share Posted March 3, 2014 Time slows as ypu approach a black hole. Black holes will exist for billions of years past the point the universe itself terminates. You can stand at the event horizon and not be sucked in. That black holes as we understand them actually exist. Take your pick Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
VaporTrail Posted March 3, 2014 Report Share Posted March 3, 2014 "Time slows as ypu approach a black hole." Â I already addressed this one. There's experimental confirmation of relativity. Â "Black holes will exist for billions of years past the point the universe itself terminates." Â Actually, this one is kinda sketchy because he doesn't define the termination of the universe. If he's talking about the entropic heat death of the universe, his wording is a little off because this theoretically would not occur until after the black holes evaporate. I think instead, he is referring to the universe consisting of the stars and galaxies that we see. After a long time, the fusion that lights all the stars we see will eventually run out of matter to fuse and the gases that get released by supernova will be too dilute to create new stars. At this point, the only major sources of radiation in the universe would be from black holes. Â "You can stand at the event horizon and not be sucked in." Â So this one is kind of false. Technically if you were "standing" at the event horizon, you would get sucked in because the only force the two objects would feel on each other is gravity. However, if you were in a spaceship orbiting a black hole, you could decrease the radius of orbit up to the event horizon without getting sucked in. Â "That black holes as we understand them actually exist." Â If that's not true, then we'd need another theory to explain the behavior of the Cygnus X-1 system. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
htownbrown Posted March 6, 2014 Report Share Posted March 6, 2014 Trigonometry is a lie. Sine waves are a hoax. Calculus uses letters instead of numbers......c'mon. All this theory crap. God lives in my cell phone. Proove me wrong bitch!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Cysko Kid Posted March 6, 2014 Report Share Posted March 6, 2014 Trigonometry is a lie. Sine waves are a hoax. Calculus uses letters instead of numbers......c'mon. All this theory crap. God lives in my cell phone. Proove me wrong bitch!! Good contribution. We couldn't have done without it Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MLD Woody Posted March 6, 2014 Author Report Share Posted March 6, 2014 Trig is the Truth Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LogicIsForSquares Posted March 6, 2014 Report Share Posted March 6, 2014 Frank Trigg, not so much. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Cysko Kid Posted March 6, 2014 Report Share Posted March 6, 2014 Frank trigg is a Homo Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LogicIsForSquares Posted March 6, 2014 Report Share Posted March 6, 2014 Indeed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
htownbrown Posted March 6, 2014 Report Share Posted March 6, 2014 Good contribution. We couldn't have done without it And your contribution is to suggest that theology is just as valid as countless years as scientific research because science hasn't provided enough to you to suggest that even the science used to power your cellphone is valid? If we can send a satellite up to space and have it circle the earth without falling back down on your thick skull, then I think they have enough understanding of gravity to be credible. There are some real argumentative pricks to challange basic science that we use daily, simply because there is not a shred of evidence on their side. Well besides magic donkeys of course!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Cysko Kid Posted March 6, 2014 Report Share Posted March 6, 2014 I straight up said I was arguing from that point of view to play devils advocate. Its not my problem if you can't comprehend that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
htownbrown Posted March 6, 2014 Report Share Posted March 6, 2014 I straight up said I was arguing from that point of view to play devils advocate. Its not my problem if you can't comprehend that. Your just pretending to be a dipshit......got it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Cysko Kid Posted March 6, 2014 Report Share Posted March 6, 2014 Nothing I argued has any physical proof that it exists. If you can find some they'll probably give you the Nobel prize. I hear theyre giving it away for nothing now Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
htownbrown Posted March 6, 2014 Report Share Posted March 6, 2014 uh...ok. From what I gather, your basically saying that a really educated guess is equal to a really uneducated guess. Its like saying you haven't taken drivers ed, so you don't know how to drive. Ridiculous. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Cysko Kid Posted March 6, 2014 Report Share Posted March 6, 2014 An educated guess isn't fact and should not be treated as such thanks for playing though Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
htownbrown Posted March 6, 2014 Report Share Posted March 6, 2014 Science will always improve by disproving itself.....and thats a good thing. What youre saying really disproves nothing anyway. I guess by your logic if a drug company comes up with an improved boner pill then that means viagra was phony science. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Cysko Kid Posted March 7, 2014 Report Share Posted March 7, 2014 Not sure how you come to that conclusion, sports fan, but if it makes you happy sure thing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Cysko Kid Posted March 7, 2014 Report Share Posted March 7, 2014 I'm not trying to disprove anything bud. I pointed out that there's no more proof of a black hole then of god yet one is considered fact and one is ridiculed by a certain sect. I decided to turn the tables on that argument. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
htownbrown Posted March 7, 2014 Report Share Posted March 7, 2014 What causes accretion discs in empty space then? There is evidence that suggests they exist through observation of stars orbiting something with a massive amount of gravity. We know neutron stars exist. We've viewed a pulsar in xray. The evidence of black holes is more so than not. If you see a two thousand year old book that has not managed to accumulate one shred of evidence over that same time period as being equal to a theory that has a mountain of evidence to support itself.....well your not very logical. Â A theory is based on general principles independent of the topic in question. Religion is at best a hypothesis since the established framework by which it is known is almost entirely unsubstantiated. There is a difference between the credibility of science(black holes) and religion. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MLD Woody Posted March 7, 2014 Author Report Share Posted March 7, 2014 He wants to play devil's advocate and he wants to pretend he got everyone. Whatever. Let him Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Cysko Kid Posted March 7, 2014 Report Share Posted March 7, 2014 He wants to play devil's advocate and he wants to pretend he got everyone. Whatever. Let him you look at it as pretending I got someone. I look at it as extending the life of threads by arguing the less taken point of view. I like to foster discussion, so what? If you cant think on your feet thats really your issue. That's being intellectually lazy. Maybe that's why you feel I think I've 'got' people. I don't look to get people. I look to force you to think from a different point of view, and try to find logical reasons for you to do so. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gftChris Posted March 7, 2014 Report Share Posted March 7, 2014 you look at it as pretending I got someone. I look at it as extending the life of threads by arguing the less taken point of view. I like to foster discussion, so what? If you cant think on your feet thats really your issue. That's being intellectually lazy. Maybe that's why you feel I think I've 'got' people. I don't look to get people. I look to force you to think from a different point of view, and try to find logical reasons for you to do so. Great, but the black hole thing is a real non-starter, scientifically. We can observe the effects of it, such as the previously described star wobbling - the same concept used to detect planets, btw - to detect that there's something there, and describe it fairly well. Science is like CSI, trying to use the facts after the event to create a construction of what actually happened. Just because you weren't there, doesn't mean you can't determine what happened. Sometimes scientists will see the smoking gun and jump to a conclusion, and sometimes it'll be completely wrong - geo-centricity or whatever. But most of the time, they get it basically right, and then refine when more information becomes available. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Cysko Kid Posted March 7, 2014 Report Share Posted March 7, 2014 Plus one could see all intelligent existence as proof of god. It's the difference between believing and needing evidence of everything. Â In other news how many pages of discussion did this add to this thread? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MLD Woody Posted March 7, 2014 Author Report Share Posted March 7, 2014 Riiiight. This was all to extend a 16 page thread to 18. Feel free to argue one side "just cuz" and to be devil's advocate. I think Vapor pretty much shut it down the first time you brought it up. It is almost worse to see people debating you because you don't genuinely believe what you are trying to defend. Â Â If all intelligence is evidence for a god then I guess everything is. This apple in my hand, god. My pants, god. This chair, god. Why? Cuz god that's why. Â Â Â Edit: apple like the fruit, fuck Apple products Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Cysko Kid Posted March 7, 2014 Report Share Posted March 7, 2014 Right like I said, you're intellectually Lazy. Generally arrogant too. Too willing to fall back on insulting an argument instead of creating your own counter argument. You'd be horrible at debate. I don't mind being wrong if it means ill get a discussion like I got out of vapor over your standard flying spaghetti monster crap that you just stole from south park anyway Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MLD Woody Posted March 7, 2014 Author Report Share Posted March 7, 2014 I don't think South Park invented the flying spaghetti. Also, this avatar change had nothing to do with you, don't be so arrogant. Finally, what do you want me to debate back? Vapor responded better than I could have. I think he made the point for my side pretty obvious. If you still feel there is a debate there isn't much new I can say. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DieHardBrownsFan Posted March 7, 2014 Report Share Posted March 7, 2014 I believe Cysco used to be an attorney. Not wise to debate one. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.