[General Battuta]

Luckily, we don't need people to get it.

So long as there are enough sane folks left in the world, the Trashmans of the Earth can continue to do their thing, and they'll still benefit from the progress of science.

[Mars]

[quote author=peterv link=topic=57980.msg1171468#msg1171468 date=1228013483

This is another confusing matter so let me rephrase my point:
As long as logic is not a perfect tool yet we can ceep our minds open to it's expantions. Quantum theory and quantum theory's logic came out off experiments that contradicted the logic we had by then and i am sure that you are aware off them.
[/quote]

Um . . . tell me what we have other than logic exactly? There's no evidence that quantum theory doesn't follow some type of logic, just a process that we don't fully understand - yet. Quantum theory doesn't follow expectations we had prior to experimenting, but the experiments themselves would mean nothing without logic, now would they?
 
I suppose we have gut instincts, and feelings, but those are inherently NOT good toolds for anythings.

[peterv]

Um . . . tell me what we have other than logic exactly? There's no evidence that quantum theory doesn't follow some type of logic, just a process that we don't fully understand - yet. Quantum theory doesn't follow expectations we had prior to experimenting, but the experiments themselves would mean nothing without logic, now would they?
 
I suppose we have gut instincts, and feelings, but those are inherently NOT good toolds for anythings.

It must be my bad english.
We dont have anything but logic. Even religions are logical in a way. I am saying that we must agree that our logic so far is not enough to proove beliefs like Gods existance or non existance, at least not yet. So if an atheist acusses a religion guy as wrong (or the opposite) is not logical.

[General Battuta]

Quantum is actually very logical, too. It's just counterintuitive.

[peterv]

It is now but it was not back when Planck invented hes black body Radiation Formula (BTW he hated that formula because it was not logical at all  ).

[TrashMan]

Luckily, we don't need people to get it.

So long as there are enough sane folks left in the world, the Trashmans of the Earth can continue to do their thing, and they'll still benefit from the progress of science.

I expected better from you, rather than throwing insults. 


b.t.w. - I get it. Better than most of you probably. The problem is I'm not good at explaining it..and neither do I feel like explaining it.

Not to mention that this thread isn't a debate anymore (according to the definition of a debate)

[Colonol Dekker]

Gut instinct and feeling are GOOD. Kneejerk reactions are how man learnt to swim. Also without feeling visionaries would never have braved  the fear to conquer the oceans, air and space. Oh yeah. .

[karajorma]

The Wiki being the base for your thoughts doesn't spur my confidence in you either.

If I can prove you wrong simply from Wikipedia it must mean you are very wrong. I've not claimed to be an expert. In fact I know very little about astrophysics. And you despite your discussions with this expert you keep mentioning you keep making very basic errors so it's obvious you aren't an expert either.

Furthermore tell me something. Does this CERN expert of your claim the Big Bang Theory is false?

This is another confusing matter so let me rephrase my point:
As long as logic is not a perfect tool yet we can ceep our minds open to it's expantions. Quantum theory and quantum theory's logic came out off experiments that contradicted the logic we had by then and i am sure that you are aware off them.

No they did not contradict the logic we had back then. They might have contradicted the theory we had back then but the same logic that led to the old one led to the new one.

Supposing that, a year ago, i decleared that it would be possible somewere in the w.w.w. to be a community whit high skills and able to create the best space combat simulator ever for free. I asure you i would hear many logical arguments that would prove logicaly that this is nothing but an optimist's dream. So now i'm dreaming and i'm not writing that it is at least inapproptiate to use logical arguments against beliefs if you can not prove them wrong beyond doubts.

There would have been no logical reason to state that. So given that there are much larger open source projects than FS2, it would have been a rather stupid thing to say. Any arguments against it existing would be based on flawed logic as there would be evidence of larger open source projects.

Nope. Alltough I see Kaj is trying to lead it that way by throwing underhanded insults and hoping to irk me into a rash response, thus earning a ban.
How dissapointing. Pathetic really.

Actually no. If one of the other admins wanted to ban you that would be their choice but given your complaints earlier I had no plans to ban you.

 Although I always love it when people assume I'm some kind of James Bond style bad-guy. Can I have henchmen? And  fortress of doom?

[peterv]

No they did not contradict the logic we had back then. They might have contradicted the theory we had back then but the same logic that led to the old one led to the new one.

There would have been no logical reason to state that. So given that there are much larger open source projects than FS2, it would have been a rather stupid thing to say. Any arguments against it existing would be based on flawed logic as there would be evidence of larger open source projects.

I agree to both (the second one was a joke, even a bad one) and see no serius difference in our points. 

[TrashMan]

If I can prove you wrong simply from Wikipedia it must mean you are very wrong. I've not claimed to be an expert. In fact I know very little about astrophysics. And you despite your discussions with this expert you keep mentioning you keep making very basic errors so it's obvious you aren't an expert either.

Furthermore tell me something. Does this CERN expert of your claim the Big Bang Theory is false? 

I never claimed the Big Bang didn't happen. You somkin' someting?


And b.t.w. - you never proven me wrong in the first place.

Galaxies and stars are moving away at a certain speed. Now, the dark matter either exerts some constant influence that affects their speed, or starts exerting some influence when condition X is met.

Let's assume a) is correct.
That means that whatever speed/acceleration the planets/galaxies have already takes into account dark matter (since it was exerting some force on the planets from day 1). We can now calculate the speed and accleration/de-acceleration of galaxies, and knowing the gravitic forces, we can relatively accurately predict if the galaxies will move away far enough so that gravity will not be able to pull them back together.

If it's b) and you believe that at some point, before the galaxies move too far away from eachother, the dark matter will suddenly slow them down/pull them back, then you're no better off then believing Merlin will wave a magic wand and pull them back.

There is NO evidence I've seen that dark matter can slow down the expansion of the universe.

b.t.w. - here, from the wiki:

In astronomy and cosmology, dark matter is hypothetical matter that does not interact with the electromagnetic force, but whose presence can be inferred from gravitational effects on visible matter.

You are right - we don't know what the hell it is. We don't even know if it is there. But it's a nice explanation for he strange behaviours observed in space.
But since you don't know what it is, then you can't really say what effect it has.

[karajorma]

I never claimed the Big Bang didn't happen. You somkin' someting?

So why did you bring it up in the first place then?

And b.t.w. - you never proven me wrong in the first place.

Oh yes I have. Right from when you said

(a universe is constantly expanding them coming together in one point, etc..) has been proven wrong

That is wrong. It's only been proved less likely. You can try to claim that it's been proven "Not right" as if that means something all you like but it only get more and more amusing to watch you refuse to admit you could possibly have been wrong.

Galaxies and stars are moving away at a certain speed. Now, the dark matter either exerts some constant influence that affects their speed, or starts exerting some influence when condition X is met.

Or it doesn't have a constant influence but had a maximum at some point (let's say during the Big Bang for arguments sake) and is now decreasing. Forgot that one didn't you? If dark matter's effect on the expansion of the universe is decaying then sooner or later it won't be able to overcome the effect of gravity and the universe will start shrinking.

There is NO evidence I've seen that dark matter can slow down the expansion of the universe.

It doesn't have to. It only has to stop accelerating the expansion. Given that a few years ago few people would have expected that it was causing an acceleration it's pretty silly for you to claim to know how long that acceleration will last for.

But since you don't know what it is, then you can't really say what effect it has.

Yep. So stop saying it can only act in the ways you want it to act in order to not be wrong. You are wrong. Accept it.

[General Battuta]

Trash, have you ever heard of dark energy?

Do you know how it's different from dark matter?

You change your arguments so often in order to slip away from counterattack that I can't even keep track of what you're trying to say. Are you arguing that the universe will keep expanding? Yes, that's the scientific consensus right now.

Luckily, we don't need people to get it.

So long as there are enough sane folks left in the world, the Trashmans of the Earth can continue to do their thing, and they'll still benefit from the progress of science.

I expected better from you, rather than throwing insults. 


b.t.w. - I get it. Better than most of you probably. The problem is I'm not good at explaining it..and neither do I feel like explaining it.

Not to mention that this thread isn't a debate anymore (according to the definition of a debate)

I'm not insulting you. Relax.

[kalnaren]

Wow.

This thread was fun until someone brought up religion and it degraded into the whole big bang theory stuff.

[General Battuta]

That's the usual pattern, yeah.

[Nuclear1]

No, even that was fun up until the point when TrashMan and kara started their usual thing again.

TM: blah blah blah big bang is wrong blah blah blah
Kara: blah blah blah big bang is not wrong blah blah your logic is flawed
TM: blah blah blah I never said big bang was wrong blah blah blah you're insulting me blah blah blah
Kara: blah blah blah blah yes you did blah blah blah blah smart remark with gratuitous ( )
TM: blah blah blah ualealelaleale blah blah
Kara: blah blah blah monkey!

[TrashMan]

That is wrong. It's only been proved less likely. You can try to claim that it's been proven "Not right" as if that means something all you like but it only get more and more amusing to watch you refuse to admit you could possibly have been wrong.

Semantics.

Or it doesn't have a constant influence but had a maximum at some point (let's say during the Big Bang for arguments sake) and is now decreasing. Forgot that one didn't you? If dark matter's effect on the expansion of the universe is decaying then sooner or later it won't be able to overcome the effect of gravity and the universe will start shrinking.

Wait, are you claiming it's having a slowing down or accelerating effect? Pick one, it can't have both.

It doesn't have to. It only has to stop accelerating the expansion. Given that a few years ago few people would have expected that it was causing an acceleration it's pretty silly for you to claim to know how long that acceleration will last for.

If it's influence is increasing or decreasing, some change, regardless how small, would have been observed over the years - acceleration of the galaxies would have to change if the force dark matter exerts changes.

But since you don't know what it is, then you can't really say what effect it has.

Yep. So stop saying it can only act in the ways you want it to act in order to not be wrong. You are wrong. Accept it.

There is only one thing to accept - and that is that I never claimed it can only act in one way - I claimed that there is no evidence it can act so as to slow down the universe expansion.
Without evidence, that is just whishfull thinking.

Wasn't you yourself who said some time ago that any reasonable theory has to be proven right?

[Nuclear1]

Gravity hasn't been "proven."

Heliocentrism hasn't been "proven."

You'll find most reasonable scientific theories aren't proven, so scientists can save face should something come and prove it otherwise.

[TrashMan]

Well, Dark Matter is a bit more shady than that. not that I think that there isn't any dark matter - what the hell do I know - I'm just saying that "maybe, somehow, if X is correct, Y will be possible" is not really the way to sell theory Y to someone

[Mika]

You'll find most reasonable scientific theories aren't proven, so scientists can save face should something come and prove it otherwise.

My daily laughing quota was exceeded because of this particular comment.

[General Battuta]

You'll find most reasonable scientific theories aren't proven, so scientists can save face should something come and prove it otherwise.

My daily laughing quota was exceeded because of this particular comment.

You actually can't prove anything in science. That's why they're called 'theories'. After all, you can accumulate all the evidence in the world, but one piece of contradictive data ruins the whole theory.

It's much easier to disprove than prove.

Trashman, do you know what dark energy is?