Welcome to
Science a GoGo's
Discussion Forums
Please keep your postings on-topic or they will be moved to a galaxy far, far away.
Your use of this forum indicates your agreement to our terms of use.
So that we remain spam-free, please note that all posts by new users are moderated.


The Forums
General Science Talk        Not-Quite-Science        Climate Change Discussion        Physics Forum        Science Fiction

Who's Online Now
0 members (), 164 guests, and 1 robot.
Key: Admin, Global Mod, Mod
Latest Posts
Top Posters(30 Days)
Previous Thread
Next Thread
Print Thread
Page 6 of 6 1 2 3 4 5 6
Joined: Feb 2007
Posts: 1,840
R
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
R
Joined: Feb 2007
Posts: 1,840
Originally Posted By: Bill
Sometimes I kind of think that Orac may actually know something, but after a while it begins to look like he isn't really interested in conducting a conversation. He is just interested in stirring the pot.

Bill Gill

No observer of the forum can fail to notice that Orac has a consistently nasty social interaction problem that precludes him from maintaining civility and common decency in just about any discussion (don't take my word for it, read the threads). Bill, it's evident that you are pretty knowledgeable. Why, I wonder, do you attempt to converse with him in the face of ceaseless, predictable insults. Does it bear fruit in terms of relevant information? You gentlemen can't actually enjoy being that fraudulent jerk's whipping boy.


"Time is what prevents everything from happening at once" - John Wheeler
.
Joined: Dec 2010
Posts: 1,858
B
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
B
Joined: Dec 2010
Posts: 1,858
I have a personal problem. When I see somebody making a statement that doesn't seem to make sense I just automatically have to try to correct it. Heck, when I was in college one of my classes was about art. The instructor was a musician and he made a bad statement. I just automatically told him he was wrong, right in class. Not a really good idea. But it just seems to be built in.

Bill Gill


C is not the speed of light in a vacuum.
C is the universal speed limit.
Joined: Aug 2010
Posts: 3,570
B
Bill S. Offline OP
Megastar
OP Offline
Megastar
B
Joined: Aug 2010
Posts: 3,570
Originally Posted By: Orac
I would ask you what came before the eternal universe because your crazy layman logic demands that we have a start point


Orac, I will not be drawn into an exchange of insults by suggesting that you are not intelligent enough to understand the meaning of “eternal”; so I can only assume you are being deliberately obtuse in suggesting that the concept of an eternal universe “demands that we have a start point”.

Quote:
The chicken and egg problem is probably the most widely known which is probably only resolvable to those who don't accept evolution.


On the contrary, evolution provides a perfectly reasonable explanation for the so called chicken and egg problem.

Some time ago you said that you posted in SAGG only to exercise your English. Are you losing sight of your goal?

In the same way that I provided you with the word you were looking for in your first post in SAGG, I am very happy to continue to help by maintaining interaction. However, your apparent need to score points at any cost does seem to be detracting from any inherent value this exercise might have. We are all well aware that you possess a lively vocabulary of insults. Perhaps it’s time to raise your linguistic sights a little.


There never was nothing.
Joined: May 2011
Posts: 2,819
O
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
O
Joined: May 2011
Posts: 2,819
Sorry guys I don't do inane discussions and generally expect a reasonable amount of intelligence with those who I have discussion with.

There is really nothing to have a discussion on it's like trying to have a conversation with Marosz, Paul or any of the other forum crazies about their world changing ideas.

Lets look at behaviour. Rede only ever joins a thread if he can criticize my behaviour or jump in to support Bill G if he is having an argument with me because the poor guy is still hurting. Bill G in general won't even read what I have written he will just take the opposite view, and I have trapped him a number of times just to make the point and have a little joke. Then we have Bill S now wanting to have a chicken and egg argument without discussing it as such laugh

Apparently the behaviour issue is all me, and apparently I am supposed to care about that smile

You think I am caustic, I am mild compared to many of those around me. Unfortunately the condition develops because of the inane garbage we face continually from people too lazy to actually study, read and learn to make a coherent argument.

I will leave you geniuses to have the deep and meaningful discussion about the fact chickens don't exist (Bill S has proved it) and pat each other on the back and reassure each other this all makes perfect sense smile

Finally Bill S if you actually bother to read (and it's layman understandable http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chicken_or_the_egg) you can't resolve the chicken/egg problem with evolution and science it clearly explains the problem. This is a hint of the problem with your stupidity question that you are trying to ignore.

Last edited by Orac; 12/12/14 01:57 AM.

I believe in "Evil, Bad, Ungodly fantasy science and maths", so I am undoubtedly wrong to you.
Joined: Aug 2010
Posts: 3,570
B
Bill S. Offline OP
Megastar
OP Offline
Megastar
B
Joined: Aug 2010
Posts: 3,570
Quote:
Finally Bill S if you actually bother to read (and it's layman understandable http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chicken_or_the_egg) you can't resolve the chicken/egg problem with evolution and science it clearly explains the problem. This is a hint of the problem with your stupidity question that you are trying to ignore.


I read it. Evolution provides a clear answer. Of course, there will always be those who will seek to muddy the waters and think they are clever to be able to do that.


There never was nothing.
Joined: Aug 2010
Posts: 3,570
B
Bill S. Offline OP
Megastar
OP Offline
Megastar
B
Joined: Aug 2010
Posts: 3,570
Originally Posted By: Rede
I wonder, do you attempt to converse with him in the face of ceaseless, predictable insults. Does it bear fruit in terms of relevant information? You gentlemen can't actually enjoy being that fraudulent jerk's whipping boy.


It is precisely the predictability of the insults that makes them ineffective; that and a good thick skin. smile


There never was nothing.
Joined: May 2011
Posts: 2,819
O
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
O
Joined: May 2011
Posts: 2,819
Originally Posted By: Bill S.
I read it. Evolution provides a clear answer. Of course, there will always be those who will seek to muddy the waters and think they are clever to be able to do that.

You just did the same dance as Bill G on complex numbers you assumed I was saying something controversial or personal not realizing I was merely stating the accepted view.

This is what make you 3 so funny .. it wasn't my personal view it was simply the view that most intelligent people agree on all I had to do was say it for you geniuses to take the opposite side smile

So we have had about 20 posts which are nothing short of personal attacks which I don't complain about at, I never do. However the moment I give you geniuses a jibe back I am being bad and mean. Perhaps we should discuss the 3 personal shortcomings of you 3 because that seems to the topic of choice now laugh

That is really the issue I would have to rate any of you high enough to care what you think and yeah sorry the intelligent people of the world have the same view as me smile

So perhaps either get back to the argument or ignore me I really don't care as I am not here to convert anyone.

Last edited by Orac; 12/12/14 04:25 AM.

I believe in "Evil, Bad, Ungodly fantasy science and maths", so I am undoubtedly wrong to you.
Joined: Aug 2010
Posts: 3,570
B
Bill S. Offline OP
Megastar
OP Offline
Megastar
B
Joined: Aug 2010
Posts: 3,570
Originally Posted By: Orac
You just did the same dance as Bill G on complex numbers you assumed I was saying something controversial or personal not realizing I was merely stating the accepted view.


Is that really meant to be a response to your quote from my post?

Quote:
So we have had about 20 posts which are nothing short of personal attacks


You might care to show where I have attacked you, personally.

Quote:
it wasn't my personal view it was simply the view that most intelligent people agree on


Once upon a time most intelligent people agreed that the Earth was at the centre of the Universe. Scientific veracity is not determined by popular vote.

Sad that you feel picked on. Obviously there is some vulnerability, in spite of your protestations. Personally I would be happy to see a complete absence of ad hominem attacks in all threads.


There never was nothing.
Joined: Aug 2010
Posts: 3,570
B
Bill S. Offline OP
Megastar
OP Offline
Megastar
B
Joined: Aug 2010
Posts: 3,570
Originally Posted By: Orac
I was trying to show you the logic that follows that therefore says that all numbers are really a concept relative to an argument there is nothing special about infinity.


Should this be taken as saying that infinity is a number, like all other numbers?


There never was nothing.
Joined: May 2011
Posts: 2,819
O
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
O
Joined: May 2011
Posts: 2,819
What I was trying to get people to realize is that number is really a slippery concept. What you start having to do is sort out a criteria to make the selection and generally that usually involves what operators can you do with the thing called a "number".

In the Real number system you can't really do any operations with infinity it is sort of "undefined answer". I think Bill G even expressed it in that sort of way. However irrational numbers are probably no different you could only round them to use them after that point and maybe that is a point of difference between them an infinity as it can't be rounded. It's sort of agreed that infinity isn't a number but it does come down to some very interesting definitions.

When you go onto the complex number system and higher even those differences disappear, as many answers are not valid and in some situations infinity can be used in all operations.

As per the presentation on the relationship between physics and maths linked earlier, the two fields don't always agree on how to treat definitions and the controversy around infinity is not entirely unexpected.

Last edited by Orac; 12/15/14 02:17 AM.

I believe in "Evil, Bad, Ungodly fantasy science and maths", so I am undoubtedly wrong to you.
Joined: Aug 2010
Posts: 3,570
B
Bill S. Offline OP
Megastar
OP Offline
Megastar
B
Joined: Aug 2010
Posts: 3,570
Welcome back, Orac. It’s always a pleasure discussing something with you when you are in rational mode. smile

I certainly don’t disagree with anything in your last post. In this sort of discussion, the definition of infinity is usually the stumbling block.

Perhaps the real question is: Is there a better word than infinity to describe a state that has no beginning and no end, and which is the totality of all that is or can be?


There never was nothing.
Joined: May 2011
Posts: 2,819
O
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
O
Joined: May 2011
Posts: 2,819
Originally Posted By: Bill S.
Perhaps the real question is: Is there a better word than infinity to describe a state that has no beginning and no end, and which is the totality of all that is or can be?

You don't need to even go that far the same problem exists for something that is finite and you want to infinitely divid (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Infinite_divisibility).

What becomes important in all these situations is definitions and understanding and that if you reach an option of 2 stupid answers the question is logically flawed not some great fantastic mystery or importance.

The above wiki link explains the situation the both the standard model and classic physics project space and time to be infinitely divisible but they aren't. This is a very similar situation with the universe infinities where people don't realize that there works and evidences against such things unless certain conditions exist.

Infinity is simply an answer the context of which is given by the question asked, nothing more nothing less. Even in mathematics the maths argument itself may define what infinity means. The same layman stupidity exists around the number zero as it's different and they even argue if it's odd or even and some even doubt it is a number and on and on the garbage goes.

For people who think these questions mean anything important the thing lacking is not the answer but the intelligence to understand the question itself and what is really being asked.

Ask any child this question they always get it right, something as adults kicks in that they don't immediately recognize stupid and think about the question and it's meaning smile

Question: What is the average weight of a green elephant?
Child: There is no such thing as a green elephant.

Last edited by Orac; 12/17/14 02:31 AM.

I believe in "Evil, Bad, Ungodly fantasy science and maths", so I am undoubtedly wrong to you.
Joined: May 2011
Posts: 2,819
O
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
O
Joined: May 2011
Posts: 2,819
Quote of the week for me:

Originally Posted By: Lubos Motl
The fact that there is no consensus doesn't mean that science hasn't completely settled all these questions. The consensus doesn't exist – and will probably never exist – because many people who are completely incompetent or irrational or both (like Sebens and Carroll) are trying to offer their opinions and feelings as if they were a part of the scientific evidence. But they are not.


I believe in "Evil, Bad, Ungodly fantasy science and maths", so I am undoubtedly wrong to you.
Joined: Aug 2010
Posts: 3,570
B
Bill S. Offline OP
Megastar
OP Offline
Megastar
B
Joined: Aug 2010
Posts: 3,570

Question: What is the average weight of a green elephant?

Child: There is no such thing as a green elephant.

Scientist: There could, of course be conditions outside our Universe; If indeed there is an outside; in which there could be an infinite number of green elephants; or any number of green elephants, although we don't know if "green" bears the same connotations outside our Universe as it does for us. What you would have to do is to discover if your initial question is in any way relevant to any conditions that might prevail anywhere; or. indeed, if conditions can be said to prevail anywhere outside our Universe. Of course, as a layman you would not be able to calculate that because you lack the training, and probably the intellectual capacity, to understand the question you are asking.

NB. This is a polite scientist.


There never was nothing.
Page 6 of 6 1 2 3 4 5 6

Link Copied to Clipboard
Newest Members
debbieevans, bkhj, jackk, Johnmattison, RacerGT
865 Registered Users
Sponsor

Science a GoGo's Home Page | Terms of Use | Privacy Policy | Contact UsokĀž»­¾W
Features | News | Books | Physics | Space | Climate Change | Health | Technology | Natural World

Copyright © 1998 - 2016 Science a GoGo and its licensors. All rights reserved.

Powered by UBB.threads™ PHP Forum Software 7.7.5