Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[RAM]

My perception exists, that much is pretty tough to discredit. However, my perception may, in fact, just be the result of a momentary state in a chaotic existence. Chaos does, by it's very nature, possess no predictable qualities, it can even remain static permanently just to spite you.

The cow and the bucket are both perceived as concepts, however, as the potential products of chaos, their qualities can not be discerned, and therefore, if necessary, should be assumed to be equal...

Of course, that is cheating of the highest order and should not be taken seriously. It is probably also flawed, too tired to double check the logic...

[Muz]

You can use logic to prove anything, too

Prove that a cow is a bucket.

All cows move at slower than the speed of light.
All buckets move slower than the speed of light.
Therefore all cows are buckets.
(I learned that from IQ tests! )

[Sordid]

You can use logic to prove anything, too

Prove that a cow is a bucket.

Without using fallacious logic.

A. There is a cow.
B. The cow's name is Bucket.
Therefore C., the cow is a Bucket.

 

[Sowelu]

You can use logic to prove anything, too

Prove that a cow is a bucket.

Without using fallacious logic.

What I'm saying is a 'garbage in, garbage out' thing.  Most of these theories say "If A, B and C, then X, Y and Z", and they can be mathematically coherent, but that doesn't mean A, B or C are all true.  If I assert that cows are made of wood, and if I assert that cows have an invisible handle, then sure, you can define them as buckets.

Sure, we've seen some crazy stuff before, and even quite recently.  Our knowledge changes constantly.  But I don't think we have established all the preconditions for wormholes yet, so the best we can say is "Wormholes have been proven possible IF".

[MrWiggles]

You can use logic to prove anything, too

Prove that a cow is a bucket.

Without using fallacious logic.

A. There is a cow.
B. The cow's name is Bucket.
Therefore C., the cow is a Bucket.

 

Fuck you Sorid.

[Sordid]

Fuck you Sorid.

Tee hee hee.

[LegoLord]

I actually thought that was rather clever, Sordid.  Thinking outside the box.

[Ampersand]

My point was that it is actually impossible for a person to come to an untrue conclusion through the use of logic, UNLESS there is a fault with the -persons- reasoning. It is not logic itself at fault, as Logic itself can not be either true or false. The premises used to reach a conclusion can be erroneous, and the conclusion can be a non-sequitur, but the process by which one forms those premises, and forms that conclusion is not at fault.

Maybe if I rephrase it. You cannot conclude that -this- cow, is -this- bucket. Because they are two objects separate and mutually exclusive. An object is what it is and is not what it is not, and logic cannot be used to demonstrate that absolute false.

The Problem is, Sowelu, that you don't actually know what you're talking about. I'm sorry, but when you make statements of skepticism over the existence of black holes, that you can use logic to prove anything, it tells me that you simply haven't done your homework in this particular regard. Scientists aren't sitting in a hut flinging darts at a board to determine how they feel about particular things, they research, they study, they treat everything they think of with harsh skepticism, and are more than willing to toss out old ways of thinking in favor for more correct ways of thinking.

Isaac Newton was not wrong. He was correct as far as he was capable of being correct. Newtonian physics is still useful for things that don't need to be extreme precision. There are fundamental, absolute definitions for the forces that govern the universe, but we cannot see them. All we can see of it is through a fractured mirror. Isaac Newton and Einstein could only see parts of the truth, but they were both describing the same truth.

[Sowelu]

The Problem is, Sowelu, that you don't actually know what you're talking about. I'm sorry, but when you make statements of skepticism over the existence of black holes, that you can use logic to prove anything, it tells me that you simply haven't done your homework in this particular regard.

Excuse me?  I've made NO statements of skepticism about black holes.  Quite the opposite.  I think you have me confused with someone else...  I'm not Andir.  Correct that?  I'd like my reputation only sullied where appropriate

I've only expressed skepticism against people who say "The math proves that wormholes are possible".  "The math" can't prove anything.  I think that's the same point you're making about logic in general, right?  In any case, you can take any logically consistent statement, stick absolute garbage in its variables, and get any result you want.  It's a classic stupid logic trick that you can prove anything, given both A and !A.  If you create a theory that states wormholes are possible GIVEN THAT pigs have wings, you haven't proved anything useful.  It's the exact same with a theory that states wormholes are possible GIVEN exotic matter with negative mass.

It's all well and good to formulate theories on a bunch of unfounded assumptions--makes the work a lot easier once those assumptions do get proven!--but it annoys me when people see "Wormholes could exist if there was exotic matter", and take that and run all the way to "Wormholes can exist in our universe as we know it!" which is something entirely different.

[MrWiggles]

The assumption with wormholes, aren't unfounded. They aren't pulled out of thin air. The exotic matter, plays out even with Newtonian physics. Wormholes as they stand now, aren't conclusive; however, I wouldn't be dumbstruck if a paper came out with one being discovered.

But that would have to deal with how I understand cosmology with what I can read and comprehend. Wormholes wouldn't require a rewrite of anything. It doesn't have to overturn any current held notions on the universes workings, which for me means that it lowers it proof of burden.

I agree with you, though neat. It won't have much practical use outside of something extremely cool with many other extremely cool thing in the universe.

Blackholes could be used as a form of power source, through using tidal forces.

[Grek]

It's all well and good to formulate theories on a bunch of unfounded assumptions--makes the work a lot easier once those assumptions do get proven!--but it annoys me when people see "Wormholes could exist if there was exotic matter", and take that and run all the way to "Wormholes can exist in our universe as we know it!" which is something entirely different.

That's not what's being argued. The current arguement is: IF rotating black holes, THEN wormholes. We're fairly certain that the premise "rotating black holes exist" is true. Infact, we are fairly sure that most black holes rotate, due to the conservation of angular mommentum.

[MrWiggles]

It's all well and good to formulate theories on a bunch of unfounded assumptions--makes the work a lot easier once those assumptions do get proven!--but it annoys me when people see "Wormholes could exist if there was exotic matter", and take that and run all the way to "Wormholes can exist in our universe as we know it!" which is something entirely different.

That's not what's being argued. The current arguement is: IF rotating black holes, THEN wormholes. We're fairly certain that the premise "rotating black holes exist" is true. Infact, we are fairly sure that most black holes rotate, due to the conservation of angular mommentum.

We're really sure that SagA, the Milk Way very own super massive black hole, is rotating. The amount of super heat gas and dust absorb most of the em bandwidth making observation a choir. But there a group of stars that we can see, and there orbit suggest a rotating super massive black hole.

[Andir]

But there a group of stars that we can see, and there orbit suggest a rotating super massive black hole.

I have two gumballs spinning on my coffee table.  Dust and papers are flying off it at random.  It must be the work of black holes!

[LegoLord]

You're going to need to give us either a more precise description, a video, or preferably both.

[MrWiggles]

But there a group of stars that we can see, and there orbit suggest a rotating super massive black hole.

I have two gumballs spinning on my coffee table.  Dust and papers are flying off it at random.  It must be the work of black holes!

Are you some how suggesting that orbital mechanics is same to your coffee table?

They're observed the stars orbits now close to ten years for SagA, and calculated the amount of mass needed to hold the multiple stellar masses in its elliptical. Its quite substantial and large in volume. With this there are also observation of the ejection stream of a mass that absent of light. As in the light which can get through the dust cloud is less then what should be. Therefore there is something else observing the light. There also radiometric observation of a disk of super heated particles, which conforms with what happen to matter that is drawn slowly into the event horizon.  The ejection stream and the disk of super heated particles would suggest its not a collection of dark matter or energy. As the volume would be less if where these two things, and there wouldn't be an ejection stream. The ejection stream would be compliant with singularity that is at the center of a black hole.

It complies with the math, and observed phnomena. It an explanation which requires very few assumption that fit with the current held model of cosmology.