Page 5 of 5 FirstFirst ...
3
4
5
  1. #81
    Merely a Setback Adam Jensen's Avatar
    10+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Location
    Sarif Industries, Detroit
    Posts
    29,063
    Quote Originally Posted by Bollocks View Post
    How do you know is the more we learn about the world. As far as I'm concerned theories can be formulated like the following:

    F(A) = a
    f= experiment
    (A) = Factor to study
    a = result
    So when we construct our knowledge we do the following
    F(A) + F(B)
    So in actuallity do we really test both factors at the same time? Take for example the law of attraction which states that bodies will attract accordingly to their mass if there are not outside forces (electric forces). Then there is the opposite statement that bodies will repel or attract depending on the electric forces, but it doesn't take into consideration other forces . So both statements together give me a theory that does not take into consideration both of the forces as factors.
    What we shoulD HAVE IS
    F(a,b) = XA + YB
    Huh?

    The "law of attraction," also known as "gravity" doesn't contradict the repulsion effect of like charges. In other words, one theory doesn't make the other theory false!

    Stars go supernova because of both effects working against each other, which means both effects are working. The intense gravity of the particles in a star overcome the electromagnetic repulsion and force them to fuse into heavier elements. When there's no more nuclear fuel for a star to burn, the electromagnetic repulsion wins out and reverses the push of the particles, causing the star to supernova. Same principle as to why our own sun will turn into a red giant. The intense gravity will no longer win out over the internal outward pressure. The difference is our sun is small enough that the expansion won't be an energetic explosion, but simply a red swelling.

    Stars exist because of both gravity and electromagnetism working in concert.
    Putin khuliyo

  2. #82
    Yes. Though I can't prove it due to the nature of trying to prove lack of existence, I doubt you or anyone here can come up with a topic that someone cannot debate. They don't even need to be ethically, morally, or logically correct.

    The ocean feels wet. "Not to me"! - debate begins.
    The sun feels hot. "Naw, I think fire feels hotter." - debate begins.

    If the debate is intellectually rich, it can be about even the most trifling stuff or conventional fact.

  3. #83
    Fact: People on the internet will circle jerk about anything.
    "Well shit, ya'll have fun now"

  4. #84
    The Unstoppable Force May90's Avatar
    10+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    Sep 2013
    Location
    Somewhere special
    Posts
    21,699
    Even facts can be interpreted in multiple ways and put to question on whether they are facts. So, yes, everything is debatable. Even the claim that everything is debatable is debatable!
    Quote Originally Posted by King Candy View Post
    I can't explain it because I'm an idiot, and I have to live with that post for the rest of my life. Better to just smile and back away slowly. Ignore it so that it can go away.
    Thanks for the avatar goes to Carbot Animations and Sy.

  5. #85
    I am Murloc!
    7+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    Oct 2015
    Location
    Baden-Wuerttemberg
    Posts
    5,367
    C'mon...... not every debate is worth the effort. just for semantics sake that everything is debatable ?

  6. #86
    Quote Originally Posted by ranzino View Post
    C'mon...... not every debate is worth the effort. just for semantics sake that everything is debatable ?
    Debating semantics is the entire point of an online forum lol

  7. #87
    Warchief Bollocks's Avatar
    7+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    Dec 2015
    Location
    La Paz, Bolivia
    Posts
    2,112
    Quote Originally Posted by Adam Jensen View Post
    Huh?

    The "law of attraction," also known as "gravity" doesn't contradict the repulsion effect of like charges. In other words, one theory doesn't make the other theory false!

    Stars go supernova because of both effects working against each other, which means both effects are working. The intense gravity of the particles in a star overcome the electromagnetic repulsion and force them to fuse into heavier elements. When there's no more nuclear fuel for a star to burn, the electromagnetic repulsion wins out and reverses the push of the particles, causing the star to supernova. Same principle as to why our own sun will turn into a red giant. The intense gravity will no longer win out over the internal outward pressure. The difference is our sun is small enough that the expansion won't be an energetic explosion, but simply a red swelling.

    Stars exist because of both gravity and electromagnetism working in concert.

    OK I'm not saying they are contradictory but both statements isolated by each other exclude the other when giving their respective explanations.
    Last edited by Bollocks; 2016-06-25 at 08:48 PM.

  8. #88
    Quote Originally Posted by Bollocks View Post
    OK I'm not saying they are contradictory but both statements isolated by each other exclude the other when giving their respective explanations.
    They are not contradictory - you are just confused by bad explanations.

    Sticking to classical physics there are multiple forces generated by electricity and gravity - and in Newtonian physics you can just sum up all the forces; thus if you electrically charge a balloon you can see that it overcomes the force of gravity and you can make it stick to the ceiling - but you cannot do it for a heavy object. It's the same summing of forces that show that tidal waves are the result of summing up gravity-influence from both the sun and the moon.

    So, if we know that forces can be added, we might as well study how the forces of electricity and gravity are generated in isolation.
    Last edited by Forogil; 2016-06-25 at 09:04 PM.

  9. #89
    Quote Originally Posted by det View Post
    I think that is rather incorrect. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spherical_Earth - The ancient greeks already believed it was flat. But of course we had the dark middle ages, where religion ruled....

    Can anyone state something that we all agree on as a fact. Like: The Earth is circular? Do we all agree on that as a fact?
    Erm, did you mean to reply to a different post? Mine was referring to evolution being fact. However, for the sake of argument, my point stands with a spherical earth as well. No matter what people believed was a fact, the Earth is and always has been round. That doesn't mean the fact is wrong, it means our interpretation of the fact is wrong. A fact is not something that relies on our interpretation, it's true no matter what we think of it, it's just that our interpretations of those facts are sometimes incorrect and need revising.

    Edit: To add, I think an issue in this thread is a difference of definition for 'debatable'. I go by the definition of 'open for dispute' which things like scientific fact are not. Other people are going by the definition 'able to be debated' which includes everything (including existence itself).
    Last edited by Pengalor; 2016-06-25 at 10:30 PM.

  10. #90
    Quote Originally Posted by det View Post
    Got hung up on the use of the word "recently" in your post I know people who think we thought the world was flat like until Galileo discovered it was not, but really it has been "known" for much longer
    Fair enough. To be fair, there are still people today who believe in a flat earth. Unfortunately, scientific ignorance and denial have no expiration date : /.

  11. #91
    Quote Originally Posted by zcrooked View Post
    maybe sex ? like who doesnt like sex...
    Asexual people.

  12. #92
    Quote Originally Posted by Kyr View Post
    even facts are debatable.
    What he said. Everything we claim to know should have at least some scrutiny proportionate to how important it is. "Facts" are nothing but well-backed claims that we generally don't consider contested. It never hurts to question them anyway to make sure they are as founded as we like to think.
    Quote Originally Posted by Aucald View Post
    Having the authority to do a thing doesn't make it just, moral, or even correct.

  13. #93
    Quote Originally Posted by melodramocracy View Post
    'Wet' is simply an adjective.
    Are you debating that this adjective is applicable or not applicable?

  14. #94
    The Forgettable Forgettable's Avatar
    10+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Location
    Calgary, Canada
    Posts
    5,180
    Opinions are like butts. Everyone has one...

  15. #95
    Quote Originally Posted by Felya View Post
    The fact that some deny it, means it is debatable. Both sides do not have to be right for a debate...

    - - - Updated - - -



    No, there is a lot about evolution that is still debatable. The who, what, where and why are up for debate.
    No, no and no.
    The fact that there are people denying it, means the are stupid. Evolution has been witnessed, there is no denying that.
    It's easy.
    -=Z=- Satan represents vengeance instead of turning the other cheek! -=Z=-
    https://bdsmovement.net/

  16. #96
    Quote Originally Posted by Phlegethon View Post
    No, no and no.
    The fact that there are people denying it, means the are stupid. Evolution has been witnessed, there is no denying that.
    It's easy.
    Yeah, but it's not a truth even if you got a bunch of evidence. In the both sides are just believers, and not in any way different from each other.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •