did you use to have a Katamari sig of some dude in an air balloon?

THIS IS NOT SCIENCE STOP TALKING ABOUT MY PROFILE

ffs

but yeah, I did. along with plenty of other optically orgasmic signatures in my heyday.

"Though there never were a circle or a triangle in nature, the truths discovered by Euclid would forever retain their certainty and evidence."

David Hume, bitches. Don't mess with the Hume.

Quote from Captain Cook

this.

The argument of "THE SUN WILL ASPLODE AND KILL TEH ERTH" is invalid because the technology we have now was unfeasible 100 years ago. What's to say we can't have that same tech in 1000 years? 1 million years absurd. We'd have technology so potent we'd probably trap the force the the explosion and bottle it into vibrators.

The fact is, If the sun is dieing, it will first grow till the earth is practically scraping the surface. Then it will explode with a force that will wipe out our entire solar system. Whether or not the earth will be destroyed is no question at all. If the sun dies, so does earth. The only question is if the sun dies, will we be somewhere else in space?

The problem with this entire debate is that the big bang is not even remotely proven. There are certain facts in the universe like the radiation that permeates throughout, and that according to unproven tests, the universe is spreading out. These they could interpret in numerous ways, but since they refuse to admit a God, they explain it as a big bang that occurred billions of years ago from a point of singularity due to a shift to a higher energy state in the quantum field (which by the way is under theoretical physics. It has never been proven, and there will never be a way to prove its existence. In other words, the "scientific community" has deemed it a fact. As far as circular rotation, YOU MORONS WE HAVE ABSOLUTELY NO IDEA!!!

Quote from iRakodai

The problem with this entire debate is that the big bang is not even remotely proven. There are certain facts in the universe like the radiation that permeates throughout, and that according to unproven tests, the universe is spreading out. These they could interpret in numerous ways, but since they refuse to admit a God, they explain it as a big bang that occurred billions of years ago from a point of singularity due to a shift to a higher energy state in the quantum field (which by the way is under theoretical physics. It has never been proven, and there will never be a way to prove its existence. In other words, the "scientific community" has deemed it a fact. As far as circular rotation, YOU MORONS WE HAVE ABSOLUTELY NO IDEA!!!

I couldn't agree with you more. The big bang "theory" isn't defined as a theory because we have no evidence of it occurring. At best it's an unproven hypothesis.

A theory is not the same thing as a guess. A theory is an explanation that has been proven time and time again and has an array of factual information to back it up. The reason why it's not a law, is because when something becomes a law, there are little to no exceptions to said law.

Gravity is a theory. Yes, you can drop a pencil to the ground, but the reason why that pencil fell is a theory, not a law.

And please don't say that the Big Bang has no evidence. We have so much evidence that it's absurd. You both have to do your research and realize that it is fully possible for the Big Bang to occur. Take, for example, Red Shifts. Wikipedia:
"In physics (especially astrophysics), redshift happens when light seen coming from an object that is moving away is proportionally increased in wavelength, or shifted to the red end of the spectrum."
What that meant was that the farther away from an object we are, the redder the light that object emits is. If we were to measure objects in space for an extended period of time, one would clearly see a change in distance, since the object's light is becoming redder and redder, which means that it's moving away. Now, this is not one object I'm talking about, but hundreds upon thousands of objects, which are all moving away from each other, by default, moving away from us. Now, what could make everything in the universe expand at such a crazy pace? A single, massive burst of energy.

Quote from Raven

I couldn't agree with you more. The big bang "theory" isn't defined as a theory because we have no evidence of it occurring. At best it's an unproven hypothesis.

Captain cook got it a bit wrong. Most people do.

Laws are mathematical or logical deductions. They predict how certain things will behave based on observed, tested and verified models that can be repeated. E = MC^2, those are what laws look like.

A theory is simply the best explanation possible for a set of laws, evidence and observations of phenomena which cannot be effectively replicated in an experiment.

Laws deal with the how, while theories explain why. Just because it's called a theory doesn't mean it's validity is questionable without an argument against it. It is not an "unproven hypothesis" -- hypotheses are by their nature unproven, because after they are proven, they're no longer hypotheses. And there's a reason both words exist, they are two very different things.

Quote from Exilement

Captain cook got it a bit wrong. Most people do.

Laws are mathematical or logical deductions. They predict how certain things will behave based on observed, tested and verified models that can be repeated. E = MC^2, those are what laws look like.

A theory is simply the best explanation possible for a set of laws, evidence and observations of phenomena which cannot be effectively replicated in an experiment.

Laws deal with the how, while theories explain why. Just because it's called a theory doesn't mean it's validity is questionable without an argument against it. It is not an "unproven hypothesis" -- hypotheses are by their nature unproven, because after they are proven, they're no longer hypotheses. And there's a reason both words exist, they are two very different things.

Dude, I just used "unproven" as an adjective to describe hypothesis.

Quote from Captain Cook

A theory is not the same thing as a guess. A theory is an explanation that has been proven time and time again and has an array of factual information to back it up. The reason why it's not a law, is because when something becomes a law, there are little to no exceptions to said law.

Gravity is a theory. Yes, you can drop a pencil to the ground, but the reason why that pencil fell is a theory, not a law.

And please don't say that the Big Bang has no evidence. We have so much evidence that it's absurd. You both have to do your research and realize that it is fully possible for the Big Bang to occur. Take, for example, Red Shifts. Wikipedia:
"In physics (especially astrophysics), redshift happens when light seen coming from an object that is moving away is proportionally increased in wavelength, or shifted to the red end of the spectrum."
What that meant was that the farther away from an object we are, the redder the light that object emits is. If we were to measure objects in space for an extended period of time, one would clearly see a change in distance, since the object's light is becoming redder and redder, which means that it's moving away. Now, this is not one object I'm talking about, but hundreds upon thousands of objects, which are all moving away from each other, by default, moving away from us. Now, what could make everything in the universe expand at such a crazy pace? A single, massive burst of energy.

You have no idea what you are talking about. My bro will explain something to you.

Quote from Captain Cook

A theory is not the same thing as a guess. A theory is an explanation that has been proven time and time again and has an array of factual information to back it up. The reason why it's not a law, is because when something becomes a law, there are little to no exceptions to said law.

Gravity is a theory. Yes, you can drop a pencil to the ground, but the reason why that pencil fell is a theory, not a law.

And please don't say that the Big Bang has no evidence. We have so much evidence that it's absurd. You both have to do your research and realize that it is fully possible for the Big Bang to occur. Take, for example, Red Shifts. Wikipedia:
"In physics (especially astrophysics), redshift happens when light seen coming from an object that is moving away is proportionally increased in wavelength, or shifted to the red end of the spectrum."
What that meant was that the farther away from an object we are, the redder the light that object emits is. If we were to measure objects in space for an extended period of time, one would clearly see a change in distance, since the object's light is becoming redder and redder, which means that it's moving away. Now, this is not one object I'm talking about, but hundreds upon thousands of objects, which are all moving away from each other, by default, moving away from us. Now, what could make everything in the universe expand at such a crazy pace? A single, massive burst of energy.

First of all, Gravity is a law. Its an observable fact of nature. And second, you obviously haven't done your homework. Red shifts in the light spectrum DOES NOT CHANGE THE COLOR OF THE SPECTRUM! There are lines in a light spectrum that can give us clues as to what chemicals the light originated from. There happens to be a line that they couldn't explain. On certain objects in space this line appeared in the lower frequency areas of the spectrum, and on others the higher frequency areas. They thought that this could be caused by something like the Doppler effect, when something moves away, frequency gets lower, and vice versa. This SOUNDS logical, but our limitations leave much to be desired. We have only tested the lines in the spectrum to our own sun's frequency. We will actually never know what that little line truely means until we visit those distant stars and measure them for ourselves. We have no idea whether singularity even exists, only we think that it exists in black holes. I love science, but I feel that the scientific community as a whole needs to be a bit more humble and stop saying we know things that we really don't. Sorry that this was not well formulated, im in a rush. Please, present all the UNQUESTIONABLE evidence you can. I always like to learn more.

Quote from Raven

Dude, I just used "unproven" as an adjective to describe hypothesis.

Okay? I know what you did, that's why I responded to it and I told you it's redundant. Thanks for ignoring everything else I said.

Quote from iRakodai

First of all, Gravity is a law. Its an observable fact of nature.

Just because it's observable doesn't make it a law. We know gravity exists but all we can do is come up with an explanation for why it exists, and why it works the way it does. It's not something we can run experiments on.

It's a theory. Not a law.

Quote from iRakodai

And second, you obviously haven't done your homework. Red shifts in the light spectrum DOES NOT CHANGE THE COLOR OF THE SPECTRUM!

I don't know what you mean by "change the color of the spectrum", that makes no sense and it's not what he said.

When light from a distant body reaches us, the wavelength is larger than expected. This increase is called redshift, and it's consistently proportional to its distance from us. The farther away it is, the larger the redshift, because the light emitted from the body has had more time to expand away from us.

Quote from iRakodai

There are lines in a light spectrum that can give us clues as to what chemicals the light originated from.

Right, you're talking about electromagnetic absorption spectroscopy.

If we use that process to find absorption lines in the EM frequencies from the light emitted by our own sun, and compare that to distant objects, it's consistently redshifted:



You are arguing with something that's been scientifically verified and confirmed to be true. I don't really know what you're trying to prove.

Quote from iRakodai

First of all, Gravity is a law. Its an observable fact of nature. And second, you obviously haven't done your homework. Red shifts in the light spectrum DOES NOT CHANGE THE COLOR OF THE SPECTRUM! There are lines in a light spectrum that can give us clues as to what chemicals the light originated from. There happens to be a line that they couldn't explain. On certain objects in space this line appeared in the lower frequency areas of the spectrum, and on others the higher frequency areas. They thought that this could be caused by something like the Doppler effect, when something moves away, frequency gets lower, and vice versa. This SOUNDS logical, but our limitations leave much to be desired. We have only tested the lines in the spectrum to our own sun's frequency. We will actually never know what that little line truely means until we visit those distant stars and measure them for ourselves. We have no idea whether singularity even exists, only we think that it exists in black holes. I love science, but I feel that the scientific community as a whole needs to be a bit more humble and stop saying we know things that we really don't. Sorry that this was not well formulated, im in a rush. Please, present all the UNQUESTIONABLE evidence you can. I always like to learn more.

Listen, "bro", you haven't explained shit to me. What this sounds like is you simply re-explaining what I said and then simply covered your tacks by stating that you're rushed and confused. If you don't have the time to post, don't fucking post.

Red shifts in the light spectrum DOES NOT CHANGE THE COLOR OF THE SPECTRUM!

I never said it did, that was implied.

This SOUNDS logical, but our limitations leave much to be desired.

It sounds logical because it fucking is logical. This wasn't made up by 4th graders in science class, the people who came up with this are extremely intelligent people who know what they're talking about. And as for our limitations, what the fuck are you talking about? I giving you the official explanation for an event, and simply because you don't agree with it you say it's not true. Of course, there's a chance it isn't true, but we're not the ones to make that decision. The option I have given you is the generally accepted one.

Sorry that this was not well formulated, im in a rush. Please, present all the UNQUESTIONABLE evidence you can. I always like to learn more.

All in all, you didn't explain anything, you basically told me that my thesis was wrong because the scientific evidence I was basing it may or may not be wrong.

Quote from Raven

You have no idea what you are talking about. My bro will explain something to you.

If your "bro" was supposed to explain something to me, he did it in an incredibly shitty way.

EDIT: What side are you two even on?

It actually doesn't sound logical, because it isn't. He's talking about spectroscopy and I don't think he understands the validity of what we learn from those "little lines".

Quote from Captain Cook

This wasn't made up by 4th graders in science class, the people who came up with this are extremely intelligent people who know what they're talking about.

You'd believe what someone says just because they have a higher IQ than you? Well guess what: anyone can make a guess on how the earth started without any evidence. Example: If I was famous I could say that the we evolved by monkeys and people would BELIEVE me! It's rediculous.