HeadingNorth Posted August 10, 2010 Share Posted August 10, 2010 Why is there no need for further debate? Are you one of these 'steady state' wallahs? Thought that went out with the Ark. The Steady State Theory was widely popular among scientists until .. um, 1967 I think ... when the background radiation from the Big Bang was actually detected, thus proving that it happened. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lockjaw Posted August 10, 2010 Share Posted August 10, 2010 Why is there no need for further debate? Are you one of these 'steady state' wallahs? Thought that went out with the Ark. Or do you believe that as well? Nope.. I was just wanting to make sure I understood what you were saying. I never get into theist discussions ... no point really. No disrespect to your opinions. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Obelix Posted August 10, 2010 Share Posted August 10, 2010 Why is there no need for further debate? Are you one of these 'steady state' wallahs? Thought that went out with the Ark. Or do you believe that as well? Althought I'm a lambdaCDM man myself there is good grounding for quintessance to make the equations balance... it's just the 1^120 imbalance that is a little hard to swallow at the moment.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
artisan Posted August 10, 2010 Share Posted August 10, 2010 Althought I'm a lambdaCDM man myself there is good grounding for quintessance to make the equations balance... it's just the 1^120 imbalance that is a little hard to swallow at the moment.... I have problems with Pi r squared. When you have eaten the Pi, what use is the rest? A square r is not too good straight after dinner. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
onewheeldave Posted August 11, 2010 Share Posted August 11, 2010 Firstly, I never said my claim did make sense, you're the one claiming that. Secondly, what makes you so sure there's only one other alternative?.. there could be ten trillion alternatives. It strikes me that you share the same arrogant, matter of fact attitude that scientists do.. are you a scientist? No, I'm not a scientist. No, I never said your claim makes sense- I used a standard logical technique by showing that assuming it did make sense, lead directly to a nonsense conclusion, thus proving that your claim didn't make sense. Secondly, what makes you so sure there's only one other alternative?.. there could be ten trillion alternatives. It strikes me that you share the same arrogant, matter of fact attitude that scientists do.. are you a scientist? Why don't you give one of those potential ten trillion alternatives? I'm pretty confident that there are only 2 possibilities: a. space requires a further, external space to exist in b. space does not require a further external space to exist in if you think others are possible, then give one. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MadnBad Posted August 11, 2010 Share Posted August 11, 2010 Damn is this pointless thread still going, you wait til dave the fluffy bunny finds out it'll be nothing so nice as a sneeze this time it'll come from the other end then we'll all be in the proverbial. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
danot Posted August 11, 2010 Author Share Posted August 11, 2010 No, I'm not a scientist. No, I never said your claim makes sense- I used a standard logical technique by showing that assuming it did make sense, lead directly to a nonsense conclusion, thus proving that your claim didn't make sense. Why don't you give one of those potential ten trillion alternatives? I'm pretty confident that there are only 2 possibilities: a. space requires a further, external space to exist in b. space does not require a further external space to exist in if you think others are possible, then give one. If we are to dismiss possibility A, due to there being no logic to it. We must also dismiss possibility B for the very same reason - cos there's no logic to it. That can only mean there must be another explanation that we're unaware of. There you go! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
onewheeldave Posted August 11, 2010 Share Posted August 11, 2010 If we are to dismiss possibility A, due to there being no logic to it. We must also dismiss possibility B for the very same reason - cos there's no logic to it. That can only mean there must be another explanation that we're unaware of. There you go! So, you can't think of another possibility. We didn't dismiss a) because there was no logic in it- it was dismissed because I proved, logically, that it was false. In no way can b) be dismissed 'for the same reason', because no one has put forward a proof that b) is false. I expect not you're going to say something like 'just because no-one's presented a proof that b) is false, doesn't mean there isn't one'? Well, tough- fact is, a) has been proved false, and, b) hasn't. No will it be, cos logically, b) has to be true. So, either present your proof that b) is false, or, present an actual alternative to a) or b) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
danot Posted August 11, 2010 Author Share Posted August 11, 2010 So, you can't think of another possibility. We didn't dismiss a) because there was no logic in it- it was dismissed because I proved, logically, that it was false. Proved false because because it would be nonsensical to believe it was true?.. yes!? Posted by Onewheeldave In no way can b) be dismissed 'for the same reason', because no one has put forward a proof that b) is false. No-one has put forward a logical explanation for it either. Would you care to try? Posted by Onewheeldave I expect not you're going to say something like 'just because no-one's presented a proof that b) is false, doesn't mean there isn't one'? ... Sorry.. but when did anyone present proof that B) is true? Posted by Onewheeldave Well, tough- fact is, a) has been proved false, and, b) hasn't. So let get this straight: Possibility A) has been proved wrong because there's no logic to it.. yes?. Possibility B) has been proved right because there's no logic to possibility A).. regardless of the FACT!! that there's no logic to possibility B).. go figure. Posted by Onewheeldave No will it be, cos logically, b) has to be true. But you're forgetting, first, we need to disregard the FACT!! that there is no logic to possibility B) in order to prove it logically true:hihi: Posted by Onewheeldave So, either present your proof that b) is false, or, present an actual alternative to a) or b) No!.. because neither can be proved?. But since you believe possibility B) has been proved.. by all means present that proof. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HeadingNorth Posted August 11, 2010 Share Posted August 11, 2010 Proved false because because it would be nonsensical to believe it was true?.. yes!? No. Proved false because, if it is true, a contradiction occurs. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.