|
Post by General Veers on Dec 14, 2008 18:42:40 GMT -5
You act as if the truth to your statement DOES exist...
|
|
|
Post by shandyman on Dec 14, 2008 19:07:43 GMT -5
... this is really, REALLY confuzing...
so...your saying that we don't exist, because of some mathematical equasion that somehow makes it so 1=0 even though you just said that that sort of proof doesn't exist...because we don't exist??? sigh... we don't exist -> math equasion -> doesn't exist -> we don't exist -> math equasion -> doesn't exist -> we don't exist -> math equasion -> doesn't exist -> we don't exist -> math equasion -> doesn't exist -> we don't exist -> math equasion -> doesn't exist -> we don't exist -> math equasion -> doesn't exist -> we don't exist -> math equasion -> doesn't exist -> we don't exist -> math equasion -> doesn't exist -> we don't exist -> math equasion -> doesn't exist -> we don't exist -> math equasion -> doesn't exist -> we don't exist -> math equasion -> doesn't exist -> we don't exist -> math equasion -> doesn't exist -> we don't exist -> math equasion -> doesn't exist -> we don't exist -> math equasion -> doesn't exist -> we don't exist -> math equasion -> doesn't exist -> we don't exist -> math equasion -> doesn't exist -> AHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
IT DOESN'T MAKE SENSE!!!
also, does anyone know what string theory is?
|
|
|
Post by General Veers on Dec 14, 2008 22:09:16 GMT -5
I'm afraid not, but Google probably knows...
|
|
|
Post by Qwerty on Dec 14, 2008 23:17:51 GMT -5
Indeed.
If we didn't exist, then how could we argue about it?
Also, I need more evidence than that.
|
|
|
Post by Sandmaster on Dec 15, 2008 20:39:26 GMT -5
because the argument is nonexistant.
|
|
|
Post by General Veers on Dec 15, 2008 20:53:44 GMT -5
How do we know that anything you say is nonexistent?
Where is the proof that math provides? You said that there was technically some proof...
|
|
|
Post by Qwerty on Dec 15, 2008 22:43:50 GMT -5
Well, he has no proof. We should just ignore him.
|
|
|
Post by General Veers on Dec 16, 2008 0:07:23 GMT -5
Alright...
I think, therefore I am!
|
|
|
Post by Qwerty on Dec 16, 2008 0:52:07 GMT -5
Oh yeah? Well, I think too! Does that mean I exist?
|
|
|
Post by shandyman on Dec 16, 2008 15:36:17 GMT -5
Yes, it does. oh well, as i said before, we can't force him to change. we've said what we felt like saying, now he and anyone who has the same views as him can choose to take it to heart or not. but what ever they choose, it's not our buisness. so since we've talked ourselves out, and no one seems to know what string theory is, we'll just move on. remember, if you feel like you want to join in this mess, you can talk about whatever you want, even go back to other theories from earlier. Just state what it is you're talking about so that no one gets confused. alright, so New Topic: Global Warming/Weather Change - Do you think its really happening?
- If so, do you think its being caused by what scientists and the media are saying?
- Do you have any plans that you think would (help) stop it?
|
|
|
Post by Sandmaster on Dec 16, 2008 16:56:21 GMT -5
If any of you bothered wondering, the nonexistant thing was a joke. I understand that there is a difference with nonexistant and infinitesimal, though similar, as we will not accomplish anything, but we do exist, unfortunately.
Global warming is all our fault. No question. We screwed up, and we deserve the consequences. There is no way we can solve it quickly enough to avoid any firther cost of life, as people die every day due to drought and disaster.
|
|
|
Post by General Veers on Dec 16, 2008 19:56:13 GMT -5
Topic: Same as previous - Global Warming
The Earth has gone through average temperature fluctuations, and our planet is simply going through the same cycle. If one were to look at a history of average temperatures for the planet Earth over the interval of several hundreds of thousands of years, then the graph of temperatures will be sinusoidal. Towards the time that the Industrial Revolution took place, however, there should be a significant change in average temperature that would not fit within a curve of best fit.
HOWEVER, we members of the species Homo sapiens have greatly exaggerated the peaks and troughs by emitting greenhouse gasses which trap heat on the Earth, expanding the ozone hole, and what not. Our overconsumption of resources does not make the situation any better.
There is nothing to solve any problems in the short term, but for the long run, we can moderate our consumption of different materials.
|
|
|
Post by Qwerty on Dec 17, 2008 0:34:10 GMT -5
Indeed.
I believe we have proven that global warming IS happening beyond doubt. The question is: are we causing it?
I think someone proved that, but I don't remember how.
|
|
|
Post by General Veers on Dec 17, 2008 1:37:16 GMT -5
I don't presume you are talking about Al Gore...
|
|
|
Post by Qwerty on Dec 17, 2008 21:05:33 GMT -5
I don't know whether I am or not...
At any rate, temperatures are rising.
|
|
|
Post by noodlesoup on Dec 17, 2008 21:11:28 GMT -5
Yay, I like this thread!
Here's my thoughts about global warming.
It exists. It wont stop until nations pass laws banning it, or some freak thing like an ice age happens.
|
|
|
Post by Qwerty on Dec 17, 2008 22:21:19 GMT -5
Something like that.
We all agree that is exists and we are causing it.
Shandy, wanna pick another topic?
|
|
|
Post by Sandmaster on Dec 18, 2008 16:44:19 GMT -5
Afterlife or black holes. What sounds more controversial, or 'flammable' if you wish to call it.
|
|
|
Post by shandyman on Dec 18, 2008 18:03:54 GMT -5
well first, my thoughts on global warming: I have no idea if it exists or not. there are equal amounts of "facts" to support both so I say if it exists, let's find a way to fix it (CO2 attractor/splitter anyone?) if not...it shouldn't hurt to build it anyways.
Second, to answer your question SM, the afterlife would probably be more flammable. But I still might come back to it soon.
Third, I've said many times that you can talk about what ever you feel like discussing. just make sure that we're done talking about the current topic.
But we do need a new topic so for now we'll talk about Black Holes.
New Topic: Black Holes um.... ...What do you think Black Holes really are? How strong do you think they really are?(what could be their limit for pulling things in?) How do you think they work? etc.
|
|
|
Post by General Veers on Dec 18, 2008 19:15:14 GMT -5
I'm glad I did research on this, although it was a while ago...
If we wanted to debate, we should have made the topic the afterlife. There is nothing much that is "uncertain" about black holes. Let me tell you that there is not much to debate about black holes, since there are given facts that can be proven. As a matter of fact, I could try looking for the notes that I got my research from, although that would be time consuming. Only my last part, a theory involving time travel, could be debated. Everything else here that I mention is fundamental facts or definitions (also facts).
A black hole is the result of the collapse of a gigantic star (i.e. 50 times bigger than our sun at the very least) after it goes supernova. In essence, a black hole is just a really dense star that used to have an incredibly smaller density. The mass remains the same until its gravitational field pulls in more masses.
Black holes are strong enough that they can curve light and direct it into the black hole, therefore preventing a black hole from reflecting light and furthermore preventing a black hole from being seen directly. It can be seen indireclty by looking for massive concentrations of x-rays, which are produced as a result of masses being "consumed" by a black hole. In this way, you are not truly seeing the black hole itself, but rather the result of its consumption of matter; this is similar to finding dancing men in black tuxedos in a dark room by looking for female dance partners dressed in white according to an illustrative metaphor an earth science book used.
Do you know how gravity works? All forces exert gravitational forces upon each other. For any mass, it's gravitational pull is greatest at its surface, and gets weaker as you go inside the mass or as you go outside and away from the mass. As the distance from the surface of a mass increases, the strength of the graviational pull decreases. Theoretically, if you were an infinite distance away from a mass, the strenght of the gravitational pull of that mass on you would be 0G.
Let's pretend that the Earth could become a black hole. At the surface of the Earth as it is now we experience a gravitational pull of 1G (G being a unit for the measure of gravity, with one G being defined as the strength of gravity at sea level on Earth). If we were to go 5 kilometers toward the center of Earth, the gravitational pull would be weaker. If the Earth became a black hole it would have the same mass (assuming it hasn't "consumed" any outside matter yet) as before it became a black hole, but would have less volume and therefore a larger density. Where the old surface of the pre-BH Earth used to be, the gravitational pull would still be 1G. Yes, the gravitational pull is still the same. However, because the Earth has less volume and a smaller radius, you can still go closer to its new surface. As you approach the new surface, the gravitational pull will increase until you are at the new surface. Once you reach the new surface, going towards the center will decrease the gravitational pull until you reach the absolute center.
There is a theory about black holes that I once read in a Geographic Kids article, that it can be used to go forwards in time, i.e, go into the future. THIS IS ONLY A THEORY, THOUGH, AND BASES A FUNDAMENTAL IDEA FROM EINSTEIN'S THEORY OF RELATIVITY. Theoretically, time for a motionary mass will pass by faster than for a stationary mass. If we were to get up out of our chairs (or floor or whatever) and walk to a different point, we would be passing time quicker: however, only by fractions of fractions of nanoseconds. The higher our velocity, the faster time seems to pass by. If we could travel at large velocities, we could essentially make time go by quicker by minutes, hours, or even days. With extremely large, dense black holes, and if we were to travel along the correct path while succesfully avoiding the point of no return (a.k.a. event horizon), then we could SEEMINGLY go forwards in time by significant intervals, such as in years or decades (technically make time pass years quicker for us than for those who are travelling at slower velocities).
|
|