The Cysko Kid Posted March 7, 2014 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. He did and I let this thread die until htownbrown brought it back up. Then you decided to attack me so if you plan on doing that plan on getting attacked back Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Cysko Kid Posted March 7, 2014 Report Share Posted March 7, 2014 I didn't say your avatar which is indecipherable on the phone had to do with me. Reading comprehension is also, apparently, around the same level as debate on your skillset checklist. 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 Oh god that attack so hard Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Cysko Kid Posted March 7, 2014 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. 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. Edit: apple like the fruit, fuck Apple products I answered the post you quoted in a pretty straight forward manner. This is where I think you started to get a bit douchey Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Cysko Kid Posted March 8, 2014 Report Share Posted March 8, 2014 http://www.smithsonianmag.com/smart-news/stephen-hawking-says-black-holes-dont-exist-180949481/ Not even Stephen hawking can get his story straight. So tell me again about what science has proved Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Cysko Kid Posted March 8, 2014 Report Share Posted March 8, 2014 http://www.nature.com/news/2005/050328/full/news050328-8.html Apparently gentlemen, better scientific minds than us disagree with the common.knowledge of black holes Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Erie Dawg Posted March 9, 2014 Report Share Posted March 9, 2014 Back to page 1) I think the original question was should the schools teach the scientific theory or the religious aspect of where man came from. My answer is neither. Since neither side has a smoking gun for one side or another it is something that can easily be skipped over and the students can come up with there own conclusions later on in life. Are the students going to be somehow better off in life one way or the other? No. Stick to what is more important and we will be better off. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
calfoxwc Posted March 9, 2014 Report Share Posted March 9, 2014 Terrific take, Erie Dawg. Agreed. There's so much to different sciences that is absolute, to teach kids. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gftChris Posted March 10, 2014 Report Share Posted March 10, 2014 http://www.smithsonianmag.com/smart-news/stephen-hawking-says-black-holes-dont-exist-180949481/ Not even Stephen hawking can get his story straight. So tell me again about what science has proved He says that though something like a black hole is certainly out there—there's tons of evidence for them, after all—black holes as they're commonly conceived don't really exist. So basically this is still more of the scientific method at work. Science has proved that "something like a black hole" exists and what's happening now is a tweaking of the theory. He's not saying that there's no such thing as black holes, as that article seems to want to suggest. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DieHardBrownsFan Posted March 10, 2014 Report Share Posted March 10, 2014 I hope they can some day be used to travel the Universe. Black hole starship From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia A black hole starship is a theoretical idea for enabling interstellar travel by propelling a starship by creating an artificial black hole and using a parabolic reflector to reflect its Hawking radiation. In 2009, Louis Crane and Shawn Westmoreland of Kansas State Universitypublished a paper investigating the feasibility of this idea. Their conclusion was that it was on the edge of possibility, but that quantum gravity effects that are presently unknown may make it easier or make it impossible.[1][2] Although beyond current technological capabilities, a black hole starship offers some advantages compared to other possible methods. For example, in nuclear fusion or fission, only a small proportion of the mass is converted into energy so enormous quantities of material would be needed thus a nuclear starship would greatly deplete Earth of fissile and fusile material. One possibility is antimatter, but the manufacturing of antimatter is hugely energy inefficient and antimatter is difficult to contain. The Crane and Westmoreland paper continues: On the other hand, the process of generating a BH from collapse is naturally efficient, so it would require millions of times less energy than a comparable amount of antimatter or at least tens of thousands of times given some optimistic future antimatter generator. As to confinement, a BH confines itself. We would need to avoid colliding with it or losing it, but it won't explode. Matter striking a BH would fall into it and add to its mass. So making a BH is extremely difficult, but it would not be as dangerous or hard to handle as a massive quantity of antimatter. Although the process of generating a BH is extremely massive, it does not require any new Physics. Also, if a BH, once created, absorbs new matter, it will radiate it, thus acting as a new energy source; while antimatter can only act as a storage mechanism for energy which has been collected elsewhere and converted at extremely low efficiency. (None of the other ideas suggested for interstellar flight seems viable either. The proposal for an interstellar ramjet turns out to produce more drag than thrust, while the idea of propelling a ship with a laser beam runs into the problem that the beam spreads too fast.) According to the authors, a black hole to be used in space travel needs to meet five criteria: has a long enough lifespan to be useful, is powerful enough to accelerate itself up to a reasonable fraction of the speed of light in a reasonable amount of time, is small enough that we can access the energy to make it, is large enough that we can focus the energy to make it, has mass comparable to a starship. Black holes seem to have a sweet spot in terms of size, power and lifespan which is almost ideal. A black hole weighing 606,000 tons would have a Schwarzschild radius of 0.9 attometers, a power output of 25.6 gigawatts, and a 593 year lifespan[a] Getting the black hole to act as a power source and engine also requires a way to convert the Hawking radiation into energy and thrust. One potential method involves placing the hole at the focal point of a parabolic reflector attached to the ship, creating forward thrust. A slightly easier, but less efficient method would involve simply absorbing all the gamma radiation heading towards the fore of the ship, and let the rest shoot out the back to push you onwards. [3] Notes[edit] Jump up^ calculated by solving , and . References[edit] Jump up^ "Are Black Hole Starships Possible?", Louis Crane, Shawn Westmoreland, 2009 Jump up^ Chown, Marcus (25 November 2009). "Dark power: Grand designs for interstellar travel". New Scientist (2736). (subscription required) Jump up^ http://io9.com/5391989/a-black-hole-engine-that-could-power-spaceships [hide] v t e Black holes Types Schwarzschild Rotating Charged Virtual Size Micro Extremal Electron Stellar Intermediate-mass Supermassive Quasar Active galactic nucleus Blazar Large quasar group Formation Stellar evolution Gravitational collapse Neutron star Related links Compact star Quark Exotic Tolman–Oppenheimer–Volkoff limit White dwarf Related links Supernova Related links Hypernova Gamma-ray burst Properties Thermodynamics Schwarzschild radius M–sigma relation Event horizon Quasi-periodic oscillation Photon sphere Ergosphere Hawking radiation Penrose process Blandford–Znajek process Bondi accretion Spaghettification Gravitational lens Models Gravitational singularity Penrose–Hawking singularity theorems Primordial black hole Gravastar Dark star Dark energy star Black star Magnetospheric eternally collapsing object Fuzzball White hole Naked singularity Ring singularity Immirzi parameter Membrane paradigm Kugelblitz Wormhole Quasi-star Issues No-hair theorem Information paradox Cosmic censorship Alternative models Holographic principle Black hole complementarity Metrics Schwarzschild Kerr Reissner–Nordström Kerr–Newman Lists Black holes Most massive Quasars Related Timeline of black hole physics Rossi X-ray Timing Explorer Hypercompact stellar system Black hole starship Categories: Black holes Hypothetical spacecraft Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Cysko Kid Posted March 10, 2014 Report Share Posted March 10, 2014 So basically this is still more of the scientific method at work. Science has proved that "something like a black hole" exists and what's happening now is a tweaking of the theory. He's not saying that there's no such thing as black holes, as that article seems to want to suggest. So its not scientific fact which was always my point. Were not sure what's out there so we should not be treating it as fact. If someone as prominent as hawking is casting doubt on something which has supposedly been observed how can we trust the same theoretical scientists' theories of the big bang as fact? There's no real evidence of that either so what makes that worthy to be taught as fact to children in school? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MLD Woody Posted March 10, 2014 Author Report Share Posted March 10, 2014 There is "no real evidence" for the big bang? What? That isn't true at all. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MLD Woody Posted March 10, 2014 Author Report Share Posted March 10, 2014 Whenever I think of game changing, unbelievable, incredible scientific advancement, I think of Kansas State. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Cysko Kid Posted March 10, 2014 Report Share Posted March 10, 2014 Here's thirty problems with the big bang theory not from a creationism website http://metaresearch.org/cosmology/BB-top-30.asp Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Osiris Posted March 10, 2014 Report Share Posted March 10, 2014 So its not scientific fact which was always my point. Were not sure what's out there so we should not be treating it as fact. If someone as prominent as hawking is casting doubt on something which has supposedly been observed how can we trust the same theoretical scientists' theories of the big bang as fact? There's no real evidence of that either so what makes that worthy to be taught as fact to children in school?The first thing I was taught in a science class as a child is the difference between theory and fact. Once that is established, you can and should teach students all theories, and equip them with the critical thinking skills to digest the evidence behind each theory and make up their own minds as to which seems most believable to them. Teach them evolution in biology class, the Big Bang theory in physics, and creationism in religion class or social studies. It's a human failure to begin to rationalize our most deeply held beliefs until we think of them as facts. I'm equally skeptical of the guy who is certain that God exists as I am of the person who is certain God does not. Ditto for the person who claims the Big Bang theory is true or false. Absolute language has no place in science. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Cysko Kid Posted March 10, 2014 Report Share Posted March 10, 2014 The first thing I was taught in a science class as a child is the difference between theory and fact. Once that is established, you can and should teach students all theories, and equip them with the critical thinking skills to digest the evidence behind each theory and make up their own minds as to which seems most believable to them. Teach them evolution in biology class, the Big Bang theory in physics, and creationism in religion class or social studies. It's a human failure to begin to rationalize our most deeply held beliefs until we think of them as facts. I'm equally skeptical of the guy who is certain that God exists as I am of the person who is certain God does not. Ditto for the person who claims the Big Bang theory is true or false. Absolute language has no place in science. This is the answer I was more or less looking for, thanks for that Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
calfoxwc Posted March 10, 2014 Report Share Posted March 10, 2014 Although, I don't get the absolute language thing. The origin of metamorphic or igneous rocks isn't theoretical. Neither is the biology of a frog.There is plenty of absolutes in science. And from that, you have theoretical science. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Osiris Posted March 10, 2014 Report Share Posted March 10, 2014 Although, I don't get the absolute language thing. The origin of metamorphic or igneous rocks isn't theoretical. Neither is the biology of a frog.There is plenty of absolutes in science. And from that, you have theoretical science. Yep, I meant no absolutes in theoretical science. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
calfoxwc Posted March 11, 2014 Report Share Posted March 11, 2014 ah. That went flying sky high over my head.... I'm with it now. @@ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Westside Steve Posted March 11, 2014 Report Share Posted March 11, 2014 Yep, I meant no absolutes in theoretical science. Absolutely. WSS Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Osiris Posted March 11, 2014 Report Share Posted March 11, 2014 Absolutely. WSS Rimshot! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Legacy Fan Posted March 11, 2014 Report Share Posted March 11, 2014 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Erie Dawg Posted March 12, 2014 Report Share Posted March 12, 2014 There is "no real evidence" for the big bang? What? That isn't true at all.I think you are confusing yourself with the difference between theories and real evidence. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MLD Woody Posted March 12, 2014 Author Report Share Posted March 12, 2014 I think you are confusing yourself with the difference between theories and real evidence. I think you are confusing yourself with what a scientific theory actually is... If there were no evidence for a hypothesis it would gradually evolve into a theory. If there was no evidence of evolution or the big bang they wouldn't be widely agreed upon scientific theories. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Erie Dawg Posted March 12, 2014 Report Share Posted March 12, 2014 I think you are confusing yourself with what a scientific theory actually is... If there were no evidence for a hypothesis it would gradually evolve into a theory. If there was no evidence of evolution or the big bang they wouldn't be widely agreed upon scientific theories. They simply make it up as they go. Who is going to argue? If they are wrong and something new comes along they tweak things and yell hooray for the new found evidence. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Legacy Fan Posted March 12, 2014 Report Share Posted March 12, 2014 I think you are confusing yourself with what a scientific theory actually is... If there were no evidence for a hypothesis it would gradually evolve into a theory. If there was no evidence of evolution or the big bang they wouldn't be widely agreed upon scientific theories. ?? Come on, buddy. Sounds like you're confused. Hypothesis -> theory -> law. Something something 101. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MLD Woody Posted March 12, 2014 Author Report Share Posted March 12, 2014 My bad that had some typos If there were no evidence for a hypothesis it wouldn't gradually evolve into a theory. I meant evidence in support of the starting hypothesis. Also, Erie Dawg, that is a very ignorant take on the process. Point is, evolution and the big bang are scientific theories and are widely accepted BECAUSE there is evidence out there that supports them. If there was no evidence then they wouldn't be scientific theories Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Erie Dawg Posted March 13, 2014 Report Share Posted March 13, 2014 My bad that had some typos If there were no evidence for a hypothesis it wouldn't gradually evolve into a theory. I meant evidence in support of the starting hypothesis. Also, Erie Dawg, that is a very ignorant take on the process. Point is, evolution and the big bang are scientific theories and are widely accepted BECAUSE there is evidence out there that supports them. If there was no evidence then they wouldn't be scientific theories listen scientists are human they make mistakes daily and misinterpret evidence on a daily basis, Maybe they are correct I just think that the universe is way way to big to figure out. so when you think about how small our tiny galaxy is compared to the big picture it seems kind of hokey to put 100% faith in the BBT. I caught the tail end of a show on the national geographic channel the other night that basically said the universe is like the veins in our bodies and within those veins are galaxies flowing through like small particles. Did the BBT create highways that Galaxies can flow through? Anyway off to get a tall glass of OJ, which by the way a scientist said a couple weeks ago increased my chances of developing cataracts ten fold, but today new evidence suggests that it OK for you... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gftChris Posted March 13, 2014 Report Share Posted March 13, 2014 listen scientists are human they make mistakes daily and misinterpret evidence on a daily basis, Maybe they are correct I just think that the universe is way way to big to figure out. so when you think about how small our tiny galaxy is compared to the big picture it seems kind of hokey to put 100% faith in the BBT. I caught the tail end of a show on the national geographic channel the other night that basically said the universe is like the veins in our bodies and within those veins are galaxies flowing through like small particles. Did the BBT create highways that Galaxies can flow through? Anyway off to get a tall glass of OJ, which by the way a scientist said a couple weeks ago increased my chances of developing cataracts ten fold, but today new evidence suggests that it OK for you... Individual scientists make mistakes, of course, but that's the point in peer review. If someone publishes a paper, then you can bet there are 10 people trying to disprove it, especially something as big as the big bang. As for the OJ, that's basically the same thing - one scientist does a study that shows slightly higher risk of disease x, then other scientists corroborate or disprove. Enjoy your drink. I've just got up. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
VaporTrail Posted March 13, 2014 Report Share Posted March 13, 2014 Did the BBT create highways that Galaxies can flow through? It appears that way. There are voids in the observable universe, enormous expanses of space with no galaxies. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.