Show Posts

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.


Messages - EnragedPenguin

Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 ... 27
31
Flat Earth Debate / Fe gravity as it relates to the speed of light
« on: February 08, 2007, 09:13:11 PM »
Quote from: "Quarrior"
Ohhh Idiot, GR applies on Earth as well, what about clocks slowing down at points of higher gravity. We know the gravity of the Earth is not uniformed, you can go stand in Kakadu National Australiapark above the Uranium deposits and measure acceleration higher than the average force due to gravity. This causes atomic clocks to run slower above points of higher gravitational pull due to a more intense bending of space time at these points


I have never noticed any slowing down of clocks when I move denser material, therefore I am not particularly inclined to believe you that this happens.

Anyhoo, I'm off to bed. Night all. Don't have too much fun Engineer.

32
Flat Earth Debate / Fe gravity as it relates to the speed of light
« on: February 08, 2007, 09:06:40 PM »
Quote from: "Quarrior"
Ok so everyone in the universe is just existing, we have no idea at what speed we are travelling. However we MUST continue to accelerate at 9.8m/s/s to keep gravity normal. eventually we would have been accelerating for so long that we will approach c?


Nope. The Earth never moves faster than 0m/s from our frame of reference (unless we jump in the air), even though we can tell it's accelerating. Just like sitting in a car going around a corner. You can tell the car is accelerating by the fact that you are pushed into the wall, even though it never moves faster than 0m/s relative to you.

33
Flat Earth Debate / Fe gravity as it relates to the speed of light
« on: February 08, 2007, 08:59:41 PM »
Quote from: "Quarrior"
People still havn't disproved me yet, you simply can't u can argue all u like about special relativity all you want, its the weakest point i put forth, but still noone has been able to disprove Quantum Mechanics or general relativity, thermodynamics etc etc


We don't particularly care about GR. We admit that it might very well apply to objects other than Earth, but Earth itself does not generate a gravitational field, and therefore is not subject to GR.
I didn't attempt to disprove your argument about Quantum Mechanics because I know absolutely nothing about Quantum Mechanics. I'm leaving that up to one of the smart people.

34
Flat Earth Debate / Fe gravity as it relates to the speed of light
« on: February 08, 2007, 08:53:35 PM »
Quote from: "Quarrior"
Exactly, but it would be easy for an observer to see that the earths gravitation pull is not 9.8m/s/s if it is not continiously increasing at such a rate.


It's only not 9.8m/s^2 relative to them though. To someone to whom Earth is not nearing near c (such as us) the acceleration is constant.

Quote
It would easily be detectable by objects moving within the universe that the acceleration was not uniformed if it was not constantly 9.8m/s/s.


Again, this is only to an inertial observer. The acceleration is constant from the FoR of someone to whom Earth is not approaching c.

Quote
lol unbelievable, what they see is what matters


Only to them. What they see is not any more accurate than what we see. We do not care what they see. What they see has no bearing on what we see.

35
Flat Earth Debate / Fe gravity as it relates to the speed of light
« on: February 08, 2007, 08:40:37 PM »
Quote from: "Quarrior"
Since the entire universe is moving uniformly, the only inertial frame of reference is the accelerator.


This statement is obviously false. This is easily demonstrated by...dropping something. It "falls", therefore it is obviously not accelerating along with Earth.

Quote
Now if Earth's rate of acceleration were continuously decreasing eventually we would have an acceleration of zero.


First off, Earth's acceleration is only decreasing relative to an inertial observer, and we don't really care what an inertial observer thinks.
Second, the acceleration would never reach 0. Earth would constantly accelerate, with it's speed constantly approaching (yet never reaching) c, and it's rate of acceleration constantly approaching (yet never reaching) 0. (this is assuming the energy accelerating Earth remains constant)

36
Flat Earth Debate / Fe gravity as it relates to the speed of light
« on: February 08, 2007, 08:23:13 PM »
Quote from: "Quarrior"
However it is incredible that the energy can continuously increase, because relative to the accelerator the mass would be insanely large and we would of course be going back in time.


You haven't been paying attention. The energy is not continuously increasing, which is why an inertial observer (i.e someone not on Earth) sees Earth's rate of acceleration continuously decreasing.

37
Flat Earth Debate / Fe gravity as it relates to the speed of light
« on: February 08, 2007, 08:09:35 PM »
All right, I guess if I must. I know nothing about this topic, and all I ever manage to do is confuse everyone. But I enjoy it, so...

Quote

Whether you feel that it is possible to travel faster than the speed of light, or not this is simply physically IMPOSSIBLE. Once again, the most conservative estimates of human existence is about 6000 years, but, lets just to simplify that to 5000 as its a nicer number. If we have been accelerating for 5000 years at 9.8m/s/s we would currently have the velocity of 1.5379x10^11 which is much faster than the speed of light. If faster than light travel were possible, we know that it would lead to travel backward through time.


You are absolutely correct that according to special relativity we cannot move faster than the speed of light. The reason for this being that as your speed increases, your relativistic mass increases as well. If you want to keep accelerating at the same rate, you have to keep adding energy. The faster you go, the more energy you have to add. If you do not keep adding energy, your rate of acceleration will decrease. Your mass will keep increasing (and thus your acceleration decreasing) at such a rate that to pass c you would need an infinite amount of energy. (Engineer, stop me if any of this is wrong. This is just my very basic understanding)

Now of course, at this point you're likely to saying to yourself "Aha! The acceleration is decreasing, therefore the acceleration of "gravity" must be decreasing as well! This isn't happening, therefore the theory is false!"
The reason you are saying this of course, is because you didn't pay attention. Had you paid attention you would have noticed I said "relativistic mass". Your mass increase is relative. To someone to whom you are not moving near c relative to, your mass is equal to your rest mass, therefore the energy required to accelerate you hasn't increased.
To someone here on Earth, Earth's speed never increases, therefore Earth's relativistic mass never increases, and therefore the energy required to accelerate Earth never increases. Assuming the "universal accelerator" never runs out, relative to us Earth will accelerate at a constant rate indefinitely without ever approaching c, much less passing it.

P.S Note my liberal use of the word "therefore". I think this word looks important, and I like that; therefore I will be peppering and salting it throughout my posts in the future.

38
The Lounge / An Argument for Creationism
« on: February 08, 2007, 06:05:56 PM »
Quote from: "LSUTiger1712"
Oh, I forgot to put this on that last post, so I'll add it right here:

Why even believe in evolution? If I'm right, and there is a God, then I go to heaven, you burn in hell; if you're right, we both die, and nothing happens. So, isn't it safer to just go with the safe choice? I'm sure I'm being ignorant again, but that's just the way it seems to me.


It's not the safe choice though. Yeah, you believe in *a* god, but how do you know it's the *right* god? How many different gods are there? What if you chose the wrong one?
I'm with Richard Dawkins on this one; I think God would be a lot more lenient to someone who didn't worship any god than to someone who worshipped a false god.

39
The Lounge / Why Won't God Heal Amputees
« on: February 02, 2007, 06:36:07 PM »
Quote from: "SPrinkZ"
In experience I've found no God, but logically I still cannot say it isn't possible.


I never said it wasn't possible, I just said it's improbable. I can see no more reason to believe God exists than I can to believe the Easter Bunny exists.

40
The Lounge / Why Won't God Heal Amputees
« on: February 02, 2007, 06:28:57 PM »
Quote from: "SPrinkZ"
Do this, think over your argument for a day or so. Come back, and post it.


My argument is that atheism is logical. I've already given it plenty of thought, that's why I'm an atheist.

41
The Lounge / Why Won't God Heal Amputees
« on: February 02, 2007, 06:19:10 PM »
Quote from: "SPrinkZ"

Thus, it exists, and doesn't. They are not mutually exclusive (albeit they should be), but this paradoxical relationship vis--vis the intrinsic attributes of the intangible is an axiom of truth.



No, something cannot both exist and not exist. You're simply saying it's possible because you're defining the word exist to mean something we can sense, and then saying that things can exist outside of our senses. There is no paradox aside from the one you've created.

42
The Lounge / Why Won't God Heal Amputees
« on: February 02, 2007, 06:04:52 PM »
Quote from: "SPrinkZ"
Most probably?


Nothing can ever be known 100%, so I say "most probably" instead of "definitely".

43
The Lounge / Why Won't God Heal Amputees
« on: February 02, 2007, 05:52:18 PM »
Quote from: "SPrinkZ"
Logical? No.


So it is illogical to be atheistic about the little, intangible purple fairy? It is illogical to confidently make the claim that the little, intangible purple fairy most probably doesn't exist?

44
The Lounge / #FES in SlashNET: Flat Earth Society channel!
« on: February 02, 2007, 05:44:22 PM »
Quote from: "Ubuntu"
Program: http://www.silverex.org/download/


No good, I'm not using Windows.

45
The Lounge / Why Won't God Heal Amputees
« on: February 02, 2007, 05:41:15 PM »
Quote from: "SPrinkZ"
Well demonstrate how it's more logical.


Ok, maybe this would be a better question: Do you think it is logical to be atheistic about the little, intangible purple fairy?

46
The Lounge / Why Won't God Heal Amputees
« on: February 02, 2007, 05:36:07 PM »
Quote from: "SPrinkZ"
Do you have Firefox? If you do, I can link you to an add-on with a spell checker, I use it myself. My spelling is pretty much perfect though.


Is my spelling really that bad? I've only made one spelling mistake.

Quote
Before I answer, where is this going?


I'm trying to demonstrate to you why atheism is more logical than theism, deism, or even agnosticism.
It doesn't seem to be working though.

47
The Lounge / Why Won't God Heal Amputees
« on: February 02, 2007, 05:25:44 PM »
Alright, since you see a difference between them, I'll use another anology. Are you agnostic about the little invisible, intangible fairy that floats right next to your head?

48
The Lounge / #FES in SlashNET: Flat Earth Society channel!
« on: February 02, 2007, 05:17:28 PM »
How do I join in?

49
The Lounge / Why Won't God Heal Amputees
« on: February 02, 2007, 05:12:08 PM »
Quote from: "SPrinkZ"
Wait wait. Why am I even entertaining this? The easter bunny isn't equivalent to the divine.


How so? Does "the divine" have better evidence supporting its existence? I can see no difference at all.

By the way, you're perfectly safe saying something rational like "No, I am not agnostic about the Easter Bunny". I'm not going to say something stupid like "well then you can't be agnostic about anything else!"

50
The Lounge / #FES in SlashNET: Flat Earth Society channel!
« on: February 02, 2007, 05:08:19 PM »
Ok guys, sorry for being completely stupid, but I haven't got the slightest idea how to do this. Where do I type this in at?

Quote from: "Hara Taiki"
To register your nickname that you would like to use, type:
Code: [Select]
/REGISTER <password> <your email>

51
The Lounge / Why Won't God Heal Amputees
« on: February 02, 2007, 05:03:25 PM »
Quote from: "SPrinkZ"
Well, the "probabilty[sic] that it doesn't" is as high as it is low. It's a fifty fifty shot.


:shock: You believe there is a 50% chance that the Easter Bunny exists?

Quote
Using these arguments shows that you've run out of steam, you're trying to use reductio ad absurdum.


That's not at all what I'm doing. Stop being so presumptuous.

52
The Lounge / Why Won't God Heal Amputees
« on: February 02, 2007, 04:53:30 PM »
Quote from: "SPrinkZ"
I live my life as though one does not exist, but I can't prove there isn't conclusively.


So in other words, no, you're not agnostic about the Easter Bunny? You do not think that the probability that the Easter Bunny exists is as high as the probabilty that it doesn't?

53
The Lounge / Why Won't God Heal Amputees
« on: February 02, 2007, 04:41:49 PM »
SPrinkZ, I've asked you this twice now and I'm still waiting for an answer: Are you agnostic about the Easter Bunny?

54
The Lounge / Why Won't God Heal Amputees
« on: February 02, 2007, 02:35:04 PM »
Quote from: "SPrinkZ"
...you're another troll, aren't you? Modus tollens is a pretty crappy argument. It's assuming a ton of things.


No, I'm not. And no, it isn't.

Let's see, wikipedia has this to say about Modus tollens: "In logic, Modus tollens (Latin for "mode that denies") is the formal name for indirect proof or proof by contrapositive (contrapositive inference), often abbreviated to MT. It can also be referred to as denying the consequent, and is a valid form of argument (unlike similarly-named but invalid arguments such as affirming the consequent or denying the antecedent)."

And in case you don't trust the wiki: "Another common argument form with a valid inference is Modus Tollens" http://www.philosophypages.com/lg/e10b.htm

"Modus Tollens is a valid argument form" http://mathworld.wolfram.com/ModusTollens.html

I'll admit that it's a weaker argument than Modus ponens, but that's completely irrelevant to our current discussion.

55
The Lounge / Why Won't God Heal Amputees
« on: February 02, 2007, 02:10:36 PM »
Modus tollens is most certainly not a logical fallacy.

Quote from: "SPrinkZ"

Example:

A murderer must carry a weapon.
The murderer wasn't carrying a weapon;
therefore he's not a murderer.


This argument is perfectly valid. If a murderer must carry a weapon, and the person is not carrying a weapon, then they are not a murderer. Of course, you could argue that the original premise is false. A murderer does not necessarily have to carry a weapon. But the argument itself is still valid.

56
The Lounge / Why Won't God Heal Amputees
« on: February 02, 2007, 02:03:53 PM »
Quote from: "SPrinkZ"

Modus tollens (again).


And your point is...? Modus tollens is a perfectly valid form of argument.

57
The Lounge / Why Won't God Heal Amputees
« on: February 02, 2007, 01:57:27 PM »
Quote from: "SPrinkZ"
Your argument:

If God exists, then there should be proof.
No proof;
therefore, no God.


That's not my argument at all, actually. My argument looks more like this:

For me to believe the Easter Bun-... Sorry, God, exists, I must have a reason.
I have no reason to believe it exists
therefore I do not believe it exists.

58
The Lounge / Why Won't God Heal Amputees
« on: February 02, 2007, 01:50:34 PM »
Quote from: "SPrinkZ"
Deism is just as safe a thought as atheism.


How so? I say there is no God for the same reason I say there is no Flying Spaghetti Monster: There is no evidence to suggest there is, therefore there is no reason to believe there is.
At least a theist has a slight reason for believing in God. They think that God is active and has a hand in their life, that he performs miracles, and that he will reward them when they die. A deist believes in God for...no particular reason at all. God does nothing and serves no purpose. He's (It's) useless and belief in him (it) is also useless.

59
The Lounge / Why Won't God Heal Amputees
« on: February 02, 2007, 01:38:56 PM »
Quote from: "SPrinkZ"
I think I had to read that five times from sheer disbelief. How can you think that? It's just as probable as atheism.


I'm sorry, how can I think what? What is just as probable as atheism?

60
The Lounge / Why Won't God Heal Amputees
« on: February 02, 2007, 01:35:38 PM »
Quote from: "SPrinkZ"
Oh...my...God.


I thought you didn't have a God? So much for being agnostic.

Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 ... 27