34 replies to this topic

[990Dreams]

I know I am going to regret creating this. But, rather than have my other physics thread get sent to K-Town, I'll make this and let it go to K-Town (if that is the level people will stoop to in their posts).

I'm gonna try to leave some guide lines to follow But first, read the Code of Conduct. Now, for my custom rules for this thread:

• This is not religion vs religion thread.
  
• All scientific theories are to be treated as that (unprovable and falsifiable).
  
• Be kind to other people.
  
• Be respectful of other's opinions.
  
• Act like adults instead of children.
  
• Unless asked for, don't source anything. This thread should be your arguments backed by your logic.
  
• A redundant case shouldn't be made, unless you're clarifying or the argument wasn't clear the first time.
  
• If you post, be prepared to have your post checked, corrected, and knocked out. This may not happen, but be prepared when it does.
  
• If you participate in this thread, do so with an open mind.

(Special note to the moderators: This thread does not violate the CoC. It is the content the users may or may not post here that could be problematic.)

If there are more than five violations of these rules I'm deleting this thread (unless there is a violation of the CoC, in which case I will leave the thread for the moderators to use as evidence for their decision). If there is a violation of the CoC, expect the thread to be closed automatically by my request. I'm trying to do a good deed so that the good people in this thread can continue their debating without sinking that thread.

List of violations of my rule set:

1:
2:
3:
4:
5:

Edited by DavidHurricane, 01 September 2014 - 04:40 PM.

[BLOOD WOLF]

• 1. Wrong. Use magnetics to contain the plasma, since plasma responds to magnetic fields.
  
• 2. Wrong. The Fermi collider and the LHC could produce black holes, but those would fizzle out before they could grow. They just don't have enough mass.
  
• 3. Wrong. It just disintegrates matter into atoms, doesn't "destroy them". The only matter that is "destroyed" is the matter in the initial fusion reaction. It is converted to energy by E=mc^2.
  
• 4. Wrong. The plasma would be kept at a safe distance from the coils. And, once again, matter isn't destroyed.
  
• 5. Wrong. The ITER (International Thermonuclear Experimental Reactor) is designed to continually fuse the gases.
  
• 5. Black holes don't destroy matter. Simply put, they compress it into the singularity.
  
• 6. Currently efficient nuclear reactors weigh 27k tons (or some other awful number). So it will take a long time to compress the technology to Mech scales.
  
• 7. We aren't harnessing a fusion bomb. It is a very small fusion reaction in a contained vessel. Orders of magnitude smaller than a bomb.

I just wanted to add that Black holes also project matter in two opposite directions in large Jets. This was thought to be the cause of matter spreading through the Universe. has been a while since I researched the subject, but you really know your stuff

Edited by BLOOD WOLF, 01 September 2014 - 08:20 AM.

[990Dreams]

BLOOD WOLF, on 01 September 2014 - 08:18 AM, said:

• 1. Wrong. Use magnetics to contain the plasma, since plasma responds to magnetic fields.
  
• 2. Wrong. The Fermi collider and the LHC could produce black holes, but those would fizzle out before they could grow. They just don't have enough mass.
  
• 3. Wrong. It just disintegrates matter into atoms, doesn't "destroy them". The only matter that is "destroyed" is the matter in the initial fusion reaction. It is converted to energy by E=mc^2.
  
• 4. Wrong. The plasma would be kept at a safe distance from the coils. And, once again, matter isn't destroyed.
  
• 5. Wrong. The ITER (International Thermonuclear Experimental Reactor) is designed to continually fuse the gases.
  
• 5. Black holes don't destroy matter. Simply put, they compress it into the singularity.
  
• 6. Currently efficient nuclear reactors weigh 27k tons (or some other awful number). So it will take a long time to compress the technology to Mech scales.
  
• 7. We aren't harnessing a fusion bomb. It is a very small fusion reaction in a contained vessel. Orders of magnitude smaller than a bomb.

I just wanted to add that Black holes also project matter in two opposite directions in large Jets. This was thought to be the cause of matter spreading through the Universe. has been a while since I researched the subject, but you really know your stuff

Seems logical that that is how matter would be spread. Also, that matter doesn't come from the hole, that is matter that is ejected just before it is 'eaten'. And as for the list of things I said, why is that here?

Edited by DavidHurricane, 01 September 2014 - 08:22 AM.

[BLOOD WOLF]

It doesn't, but its something. If you want philosophy I can definitively do that but I just thought I would mention that because your other thread is flooded.

Edited by BLOOD WOLF, 01 September 2014 - 08:24 AM.

[990Dreams]

BLOOD WOLF, on 01 September 2014 - 08:23 AM, said:

It doesn't, but its something. If you want philosophy I can definitively do that but I just thought I would mention that because your other thread is flooded.

I'd prefer you use the other thread, since I get most posts there no matter how busy it is. But It's fine for now.

[Hex Pallett]

Wait, is this a philosophy thread or a physics thread?

[BLOOD WOLF]

Helmstif, on 01 September 2014 - 08:35 AM, said:

Wait, is this a philosophy thread or a physics thread?

Philosophy deals in many things. I am fond of reasoning, logic, validity and reality. Its the combination and use of the mind to answer problems that one can face. What I love most is the Rational argument, which is not as easy for some to do, Vice versa.

I read, Aristotle, Plato, Chinese philosophers such as Lao-tzu, European, all sorts.

However this thread wont go anywhere if it doesn't have a basis besides just discussing philosophy. I like what you did but those people are not going to jump over here and start arguing their post away, i dont think.

Edited by BLOOD WOLF, 01 September 2014 - 09:02 AM.

[990Dreams]

Helmstif, on 01 September 2014 - 08:35 AM, said:

Wait, is this a philosophy thread or a physics thread?

A few people were debating over evolution, it trailed into philosophy. So it's a mix of them.

Debate the existence of things, what a theory is, what is and isn't possible, human observation limits. Just follow the CoC and rules I listed.

Edited by DavidHurricane, 01 September 2014 - 08:47 AM.

[BLOOD WOLF]

Nothing is ever impossible, just Implausible. Even Implausible things are not impossible. If this thread ever picks up that is great. good luck.

[Gyrok]

Mine would be logic, and social contract...

[Hex Pallett]

Mine would be "everybody keep whatever sh*t you believe in to yourself and get the f**k out of other people's way".

[BLOOD WOLF]

Nikolai Lubkiewicz, on 01 September 2014 - 12:51 PM, said:

So what's everyone's flavor then?
I tend to veer in the favor of Logic, Epistemology, and Ethics.
(Metaphysics just makes me mad....What makes a table a table is that I can fit my computer on it...
Problem solved.)

, For me, my flavor is and will always be the Socratic method. That is why I always bump heads more often then not. metaphysics is also very interesting.

Helmstif, on 01 September 2014 - 03:37 PM, said:

Mine would be "everybody keep whatever sh*t you believe in to yourself and get the f**k out of other people's way".

Impossible, you live and interact in a society, made up of different kinds of people. To achieve that one would need to remove themselves from contact

Edited by BLOOD WOLF, 01 September 2014 - 04:34 PM.

[Hex Pallett]

BLOOD WOLF, on 01 September 2014 - 04:14 PM, said:

Impossible, you live and interact in a society, made up of different kinds of people. To achieve that one would need to remove themselves from contact

Well there's a difference between "meaningful and thoughtful exchange of ideas" and "shove it up to your face and if you don't agree then screw you you're the worst". Unfortunately things have been leaning toward the latter lately.

And you're kinda right. I am indeed not a very social person.

[BLOOD WOLF]

Helmstif, on 01 September 2014 - 04:34 PM, said:

Well there's a difference between "meaningful and thoughtful exchange of ideas" and "shove it up to your face and if you don't agree then screw you you're the worst". Unfortunately things have been leaning toward the latter lately.

And you're kinda right. I am indeed not a very social person.

fair enough, although the latter is kinda extreme?

""It was designed to force one to examine one's own beliefs and the validity of such beliefs."(Socratic method). This does not bold well with most, as most people do not like their carefully laden ideals and beliefs about something to be proven otherwise, and if so then ego does a good job in rectifying.

Like Socrates your not going to be a popular guy going about using methods to reasoning.

why do you say what you say, and if so is what you say correct?

Edited by BLOOD WOLF, 01 September 2014 - 04:41 PM.

[990Dreams]

Helmstif, on 01 September 2014 - 04:34 PM, said:

Well there's a difference between "meaningful and thoughtful exchange of ideas" and "shove it up to your face and if you don't agree then screw you you're the worst". Unfortunately things have been leaning toward the latter lately.

Case and point made, no longer considered a rule violation. You should probably make these clarifications in your original posts though .

[Hex Pallett]

BLOOD WOLF, on 01 September 2014 - 04:38 PM, said:

""It was designed to force one to examine one's own beliefs and the validity of such beliefs."(Socratic method). This does not bold well with most, as most people do not like their carefully laden ideals and beliefs about something to be proven otherwise, and if so then ego does a good job in rectifying.

“Carefully laden ideals and beliefs” are nothing short of a rarity on the day and age of the Internet. People receive and output large sums of information and many times opinions are being given without being thought through and/or based on false or incomplete information. Prime example would be Twitter and YouTube comments.

I myself when entering an argument would always leave the assumptions that my opinions might be uninformed/misinformed, and I always try to keep my ego out of the process. However I don't expect others to do so in most cases, which is why I mostly avoid arguments at all. Chance is it would be nothing but a waste of time and brain power.

[Hex Pallett]

^ Agreed. I for one apologize for deviating the topic from philosophy to methodology. Lemme help get this back on track.

I guess what most closely describe my philosophical believe is...law of the jungle. I suppose you could call me a Darwinist, not in terms of the theory of evolution, but of "survival of the fittest". We live in a world with limited resources, and situations where two groups of creatures fight for what's left are inevitable. And thus there will always be conflicts, and at the end of the day, all ethics are but a fig leaf to bond one group of individuals together upon the loss of another. Basically, whatever helps the survival of myself - the term "myself" may vary due to the scale of conflict: myself, my family, my race, my country, human kind - are the only things that hold true.

I guess that's why I used to be an environmentalist when I was a kid, but now? Heck, if sacrificing a few species is required for human expansion, so be it.

[BLOOD WOLF]

Helmstif, on 01 September 2014 - 08:04 PM, said:

^ Agreed. I for one apologize for deviating the topic from philosophy to methodology. Lemme help get this back on track.

I guess what most closely describe my philosophical believe is...law of the jungle. I suppose you could call me a Darwinist, not in terms of the theory of evolution, but of "survival of the fittest". We live in a world with limited resources, and situations where two groups of creatures fight for what's left are inevitable. And thus there will always be conflicts, and at the end of the day, all ethics are but a fig leaf to bond one group of individuals together upon the loss of another. Basically, whatever helps the survival of myself - the term "myself" may vary due to the scale of conflict: myself, my family, my race, my country, human kind - are the only things that hold true.

I guess that's why I used to be an environmentalist when I was a kid, but now? Heck, if sacrificing a few species is required for human expansion, so be it.

That's more along the lines of Sociology I would think.

Philosophy is something everybody needs as in its roots, it is the ability to identify and solve problems. Fundamental problems with various methods, Such as Reasoning,Logic and knowledge. That is the root of everything else, because before philosophers in B.C there was nothing else. Things where explained by the supernatural and We all know The sun is not dragged into the sky by a god in a chariot. Therefore Reasoning is used to determine what is and what is not. Truth vs reality, If you are doing it right you will never make a problem that cannot be solved and you will always have problems that need solving.

Edited by BLOOD WOLF, 01 September 2014 - 08:11 PM.

[BLOOD WOLF]

Nikolai Lubkiewicz, on 01 September 2014 - 12:51 PM, said:

So what's everyone's flavor then?
I tend to veer in the favor of Logic, Epistemology, and Ethics.
(Metaphysics just makes me mad....What makes a table a table is that I can fit my computer on it...
Problem solved.)

It doesn't matter in a sense what he perceives what a table is. "Anything I can fit my computer on"(dont need the it). So i can say a table is a building, make it smaller. A table is a office, make it smaller. A table is a Desk, make it smaller or can we? A table is a Drawer(can he fit a computer in it?) maybe he can. A table is a Rat.......................does that work? or make sense. I do not think so, I can use reasoning and say a computer no matter what size can fit into a rat. No amount Of metaphysics, or Logic, Or reasoning can make it so. I think I may have missed something.

[Pht]

Helmstif, on 01 September 2014 - 08:35 AM, said:

Wait, is this a philosophy thread or a physics thread?

All areas of human thought have a philosophy that undergirds them, even physics.

The philosophy of science has been addressed by guys like karl popper and bertrand russel on the secular side, and by guys like Gordon Clark on the bible-believing side.

Nikolai Lubkiewicz, on 01 September 2014 - 12:51 PM, said:

So what's everyone's flavor then?
I tend to veer in the favor of Logic, Epistemology, and Ethics.
(Metaphysics just makes me mad....What makes a table a table is that I can fit my computer on it...
Problem solved.)

I tend towards the theory of how we can validly say we know things. I also prefer meaningful conversation so I tend to like to have words defined.

Nikolai Lubkiewicz, on 01 September 2014 - 07:27 PM, said:

I'd generally recommend moving any philosophical debates away from discussions of theology or particular religions. We aren't setup to moderate concerns in that area and there are many areas of the internet better suited to such discussions. If we must get into moral and ethical quandaries, such as the definition of goodness, let's try to keep such discussions generic to all humans and not just towards those knowledgeable on a particular faith.

... which is exactly why I said this kind of conversation wouldn't be long for this world on the MWO forums, even in k-town.

You've just said that I can't participate - nor any other serious-minded bible-believer, for the simple reason that we believe 2 timothy 3:16-17 ... and I suspect there's no realization that this is the result. Or, at least, I hope so.

As in first to third century syncretistic rome, so in the twenty-first century post modernistic west. Some things don't change - if you can't join the pantheon, keep your marbles at home.