shit, that gave me feels.

>Gravitational Theory
>Atomic Theory
>Theory of Relativity
>Evolutionary Theory
>The Big Bang Theory
You ever heard about how badly string theory pisses off a lot of scientists? It's because it's founded on a hypothesis that can't be tested. In other words, it's scientific sounding faith. Theory as used in science is a model that explains phenomena. It's built on facts, to say that it is a fact is just plain wrong. You can however say that it's true, and it is, to the best of human understanding.

Out of curiosity, why are we debating this? All I'm trying to say is that I don't think we have enough information to say we know how large or small of an increase or decrease we have when it comes to how large the universe is. I'm not afraid to admit I'm wrong as I very well may be, but I don't know that I'm wrong yet.

I forgot one

ITT: Abandon thread thread!

Yes, good day to you too, sir.

*mathematical

Oh, like you're one to talk. pffff.

I feel like i spelled it wrong on purpose so later I would be alerted to inform them of their mistakes.

>yfw

lurk moar faggot

I hate to be the bringer of bad news here but i am currently studying physics at university and have quite an in-depth knowledge of this subject. We do have all the advanced mathematics and technology to be able to make these kind of accurate predictions, just because you can't do it does not mean somebody else can't either.

All highschool physics ignores friction because it's too hard for anyone there to to figure it out, am I wrong?

Yes, you are wrong in that aspect. We covered friction in our physics class. We covered up to light, sound, heat and electricity and even delved into certain aspects of radiation.

We covered how friction works and what it does, we weren't given the equations to crunch how it effects a flying rocket. Everything else in your class we did, but somehow I doubt you covered friction in depth.

Actually, you WERE given the equations, just not the measurements. We didn't go very far into wind resistance, but it's not a far cry from friction. As I said, with an ample amount of time I could possibly make a formula for the rocket. All I would need to do is gather my old notes, a pen and some paper and some measurements from online (not the formula, just the measurements). It wouldn't take too much effort to do. The force of the rocket minus a few things like gravity and wind resistance (there's more but I can't remember off the top of my head) The gravity would be a constant subtraction but would decrease over time as the rocket moved away from the Earth. The rocket's surface area and mass would affect the wind resistance. The Density of the air would ALSO be a factor. Angle of launch, speed of the moon, the gravity of the moon, ect. As I said, I could calculate it, but it would take a bit of time.

I'm rather enjoying this but I have a tae kwon do lesson, mind if we continue later?

Sure, I don't mind. Debating is one of the few things on this site that's really fun when people take it seriously and it doesn't become a pissing match. You have a nice lesson.

Gah, don't even get me started. I love debating and I happen to find religion and philosophy to be interesting topics, but the second I open my mouth about it everyone immediately assumes I'm an asshole atheist. Sure, I'm atheist, but can I not talk about it at all? Anyway, thanks and goodbye.

I feel the same with my Christianity.

Yeah, from my experience the second a Christian opens their mouth they're swarmed by the actual asshole atheists that make my life here suck. Little bastards they are.

My dad wasn't about to waste our fresh bread.

It is up to you if you want to believe it or not.

Well I guess that's that.
This whole time I was using basic reasoning from basic sciences. You can't do advanced things without the basics, and that's what I was trying to point out. That's all.
You have a nice day.

Yes, good day to you too, sir.

I want you to go to college for 20+ years, quit being so melodramatic, then pull your head out of your ass(not in this specific order) and repeat the question.


So if you take that same rocket, give it to an engineer who has studied physics, ballistics and geometry he will tell you where he predicts it will land. I would wager he will be correct, and that doesn't even take into account of the technology we have, considering the public has no fucking clearance.

Funny, I've studied all of those things just within highschool. To be honest, I could probably calculate that rocket without the 20+ years in college. It might take me a little bit of time, mind you, but it would be pretty easy. Then again, I would need PRECISE FUCKING MEASUREMENTS to even begin to make a formula. What we're talking about are measurements that we cannot possibly have made yet, and using estimates and predictions for such things is completely hogwash. Therefore, we have not made the mathmatical advances necessary for such a large goddamned task.
Now, you're starting to act like a prick. I'm sorry for saying you can't read, but you weren't. Stop being a smartass, quit trying to make fun of me and go learn basic physics for yourself. Only then will I know that you understand what you're saying.

*mathematical

Oh, like you're one to talk. pffff.

I feel like i spelled it wrong on purpose so later I would be alerted to inform them of their mistakes.

>yfw

lurk moar faggot

I hate to be the bringer of bad news here but i am currently studying physics at university and have quite an in-depth knowledge of this subject. We do have all the advanced mathematics and technology to be able to make these kind of accurate predictions, just because you can't do it does not mean somebody else can't either.

All highschool physics ignores friction because it's too hard for anyone there to to figure it out, am I wrong?

Yes, you are wrong in that aspect. We covered friction in our physics class. We covered up to light, sound, heat and electricity and even delved into certain aspects of radiation.

We covered how friction works and what it does, we weren't given the equations to crunch how it effects a flying rocket. Everything else in your class we did, but somehow I doubt you covered friction in depth.

Actually, you WERE given the equations, just not the measurements. We didn't go very far into wind resistance, but it's not a far cry from friction. As I said, with an ample amount of time I could possibly make a formula for the rocket. All I would need to do is gather my old notes, a pen and some paper and some measurements from online (not the formula, just the measurements). It wouldn't take too much effort to do. The force of the rocket minus a few things like gravity and wind resistance (there's more but I can't remember off the top of my head) The gravity would be a constant subtraction but would decrease over time as the rocket moved away from the Earth. The rocket's surface area and mass would affect the wind resistance. The Density of the air would ALSO be a factor. Angle of launch, speed of the moon, the gravity of the moon, ect. As I said, I could calculate it, but it would take a bit of time.

I'm rather enjoying this but I have a tae kwon do lesson, mind if we continue later?

Sure, I don't mind. Debating is one of the few things on this site that's really fun when people take it seriously and it doesn't become a pissing match. You have a nice lesson.

Gah, don't even get me started. I love debating and I happen to find religion and philosophy to be interesting topics, but the second I open my mouth about it everyone immediately assumes I'm an asshole atheist. Sure, I'm atheist, but can I not talk about it at all? Anyway, thanks and goodbye.

I feel the same with my Christianity.

Yeah, from my experience the second a Christian opens their mouth they're swarmed by the actual asshole atheists that make my life here suck. Little bastards they are.

The picture never stated it was accurate. The article however said it was the most accurate reading todate.

Most accurate and accurate are two very two different things. So therefore, I refer back to my original statement, I think that that particular bit was bullshit. I doubt in it's accuracy but I absolutely refuse to believe that it has had sufficient data to prove such an immense theory(ies).

It is up to you if you want to believe it or not.

Well I guess that's that.
This whole time I was using basic reasoning from basic sciences. You can't do advanced things without the basics, and that's what I was trying to point out. That's all.
You have a nice day.

Yes, good day to you too, sir.

Ever heard of the doppler effect? It's the change in frequency of a wave based on whether the object emitting the wave is moving relative to you. It's why cars sound higher pitched when they're driving towards you and why they sound lower pitched travelling away from you. It's possible to measure the relative velocity of everything to you and determine that it's generally travelling away from a single spot, that it's accelerating, and that the universe is expanding to accommodate this. Rewind, you end up at a point where everything is a singularity. Press play, we have an expansion, incorrectly referred to as an explosion or a bang.
There you have it, the big bang theory proven in a nutshell with one point of data. There are many others.

Your theory and a scientific theory are two completely different things. Science has a MUUUUUUUUUUCH higher (and rigorous) definition of the word. I get that you have your ideas and you went to high school and so you know, I get that, but you are misunderstanding something: I get you are reigious (because you capitalize the g in god) but don't you see what that means? It means the universe had a beggining. Science says nothing about god, BUT you could say that god WAS the big bang, i.e. it doesn't have to contradict your beliefs.

Who knows? Maybe it will turn out that the past 2500 years of building scientific thought is wrong (it's not) but it isn't false just because you don't understand it.

It's not that it contradicts my beliefs, it's that it is a theory yet to be proven that gets on my nerves. A theory without a solution is not a fact. It is true that I don't have vast knowledge of the universes workings, but I understand the basics. If something advanced conflicts with the basics then it won't work. My biggest complaint is that The Big Bang Theory is just a theory in it's most simple form. Perhaps we have gained some insight into that great mystery, yet I do not think we have enough information to move beyond the stage of hypothesis yet. I have seen the many things that they've done to measure it, but if you think about it, the things they are measuring are really goddamn old, and we have yet to gain enough information (in my earnest thought) to propose it as fact. It's not that the universe began in a big bang, but as to the matter of measuring the average temperature of the entire universe, I don't think we have spent enough time measuring it to have an accurate enough number to put it in as fact.
You're a pretty cool guy, I like how you present your argument better than I present mine. Have a nice day.

>Gravitational Theory
>Atomic Theory
>Theory of Relativity
>Evolutionary Theory
>The Big Bang Theory
You ever heard about how badly string theory pisses off a lot of scientists? It's because it's founded on a hypothesis that can't be tested. In other words, it's scientific sounding faith. Theory as used in science is a model that explains phenomena. It's built on facts, to say that it is a fact is just plain wrong. You can however say that it's true, and it is, to the best of human understanding.

Out of curiosity, why are we debating this? All I'm trying to say is that I don't think we have enough information to say we know how large or small of an increase or decrease we have when it comes to how large the universe is. I'm not afraid to admit I'm wrong as I very well may be, but I don't know that I'm wrong yet.

It clearly says the universe.
and that doesn't even argue the point.

Estimation and prediction however does. Don't even say they aren't dependable because that would just classify you as a bigot.

Okay, I want you to to take .5 and estimate it to 1 and then multiply it by a million or possibly a billion and tell me this, How fucking large of a difference would that small change do to an even bigger problem? What I was trying to say through that small example is this: If you don't have enough information and you attempt to estimate on such a large scale in an effort to make an accurate outcome, you are going to be off by a lot. The numbers that we're dealing with are unfathomable. If you adjust the angle in a rocket launch by one billionth of a place, you are going to be off target. So explain to me how they could possibly be accurate at the range we are speaking of with the technology that we have?

I want you to go to college for 20+ years, quit being so melodramatic, then pull your head out of your ass(not in this specific order) and repeat the question.


So if you take that same rocket, give it to an engineer who has studied physics, ballistics and geometry he will tell you where he predicts it will land. I would wager he will be correct, and that doesn't even take into account of the technology we have, considering the public has no fucking clearance.

Funny, I've studied all of those things just within highschool. To be honest, I could probably calculate that rocket without the 20+ years in college. It might take me a little bit of time, mind you, but it would be pretty easy. Then again, I would need PRECISE FUCKING MEASUREMENTS to even begin to make a formula. What we're talking about are measurements that we cannot possibly have made yet, and using estimates and predictions for such things is completely hogwash. Therefore, we have not made the mathmatical advances necessary for such a large goddamned task.
Now, you're starting to act like a prick. I'm sorry for saying you can't read, but you weren't. Stop being a smartass, quit trying to make fun of me and go learn basic physics for yourself. Only then will I know that you understand what you're saying.

*mathematical

Oh, like you're one to talk. pffff.

I feel like i spelled it wrong on purpose so later I would be alerted to inform them of their mistakes.

>yfw

lurk moar faggot

I hate to be the bringer of bad news here but i am currently studying physics at university and have quite an in-depth knowledge of this subject. We do have all the advanced mathematics and technology to be able to make these kind of accurate predictions, just because you can't do it does not mean somebody else can't either.

All highschool physics ignores friction because it's too hard for anyone there to to figure it out, am I wrong?

Yes, you are wrong in that aspect. We covered friction in our physics class. We covered up to light, sound, heat and electricity and even delved into certain aspects of radiation.

We covered how friction works and what it does, we weren't given the equations to crunch how it effects a flying rocket. Everything else in your class we did, but somehow I doubt you covered friction in depth.

Actually, you WERE given the equations, just not the measurements. We didn't go very far into wind resistance, but it's not a far cry from friction. As I said, with an ample amount of time I could possibly make a formula for the rocket. All I would need to do is gather my old notes, a pen and some paper and some measurements from online (not the formula, just the measurements). It wouldn't take too much effort to do. The force of the rocket minus a few things like gravity and wind resistance (there's more but I can't remember off the top of my head) The gravity would be a constant subtraction but would decrease over time as the rocket moved away from the Earth. The rocket's surface area and mass would affect the wind resistance. The Density of the air would ALSO be a factor. Angle of launch, speed of the moon, the gravity of the moon, ect. As I said, I could calculate it, but it would take a bit of time.

I'm rather enjoying this but I have a tae kwon do lesson, mind if we continue later?

Sure, I don't mind. Debating is one of the few things on this site that's really fun when people take it seriously and it doesn't become a pissing match. You have a nice lesson.

Gah, don't even get me started. I love debating and I happen to find religion and philosophy to be interesting topics, but the second I open my mouth about it everyone immediately assumes I'm an asshole atheist. Sure, I'm atheist, but can I not talk about it at all? Anyway, thanks and goodbye.

I feel the same with my Christianity.

Yeah, from my experience the second a Christian opens their mouth they're swarmed by the actual asshole atheists that make my life here suck. Little bastards they are.

I don't give a shit. I just found you an article that stated that it was possible and has been done.

You are forgetting very basic shit. In time evaluations and measurements you need data over time in proportion the the size of the thing you are trying to measure. That Article MIGHT VERY WELL FUCKING BE the way to measure it, but it hasn't been measured for long enough to come to a sound and ACCURATE point.

The picture never stated it was accurate. The article however said it was the most accurate reading todate.

Most accurate and accurate are two very two different things. So therefore, I refer back to my original statement, I think that that particular bit was bullshit. I doubt in it's accuracy but I absolutely refuse to believe that it has had sufficient data to prove such an immense theory(ies).

It is up to you if you want to believe it or not.

Well I guess that's that.
This whole time I was using basic reasoning from basic sciences. You can't do advanced things without the basics, and that's what I was trying to point out. That's all.
You have a nice day.

Yes, good day to you too, sir.

im not going to explain it all. so just go read this en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Age_of_the_universe

www.newscientist.com/article/dn13914-astronomers-measure-temperature-of-t he-early-universe.html

Who said they're measuring the current temperature? www dot scitechdaily dot com/astronomers-measure-the-temperature-of-the-universe-7-2-billion-years-ago/

Okay, you're still not answering my question. I've learned that if you are going to compare something on a large scale (such as the universe) you need multiple data points over a very large period of time. Heat, density, light, radiation, time, velocity, gravity, force, friction, distance and potential interference from other sources are all extremely huge factors in an even larger equation. Just the potential interference(all listed things excepting Interference) would be a fucking huge equation in itself. You'd have to put every single fucking everything in the universe into one equation. If you truly think that what we have now is substantial enough to measure such a behemoth of a math problem, then I really need you to rethink what "Infinity" means. If you think about it, there are an infinite amount of numbers before you reach 1, therefore there are infinite things to be measured in an infinite ocean of infinite things. Now tell me how it's possible, in any way to measure it.

I don't give a shit. I just found you an article that stated that it was possible and has been done.

You are forgetting very basic shit. In time evaluations and measurements you need data over time in proportion the the size of the thing you are trying to measure. That Article MIGHT VERY WELL FUCKING BE the way to measure it, but it hasn't been measured for long enough to come to a sound and ACCURATE point.

The picture never stated it was accurate. The article however said it was the most accurate reading todate.

Most accurate and accurate are two very two different things. So therefore, I refer back to my original statement, I think that that particular bit was bullshit. I doubt in it's accuracy but I absolutely refuse to believe that it has had sufficient data to prove such an immense theory(ies).

It is up to you if you want to believe it or not.

Well I guess that's that.
This whole time I was using basic reasoning from basic sciences. You can't do advanced things without the basics, and that's what I was trying to point out. That's all.
You have a nice day.

Yes, good day to you too, sir.

Most of the universe is just vast amounts of empty space. Every measurement taken from an area that's not reasonably close to something, anything, has given the same result. I think it's called the cosmic background radiation.

Background radiation is rather difficult to put my head around. I'm still reading about it to see if I'll gain any insight on the subject. Maybe reading about it will prove me wrong, in which case I would sincerely apologize for my blatant disregard for scientific discoveries that have already been done.

What about it's confusing you?

Not much, to be honest. Radiation waves aren't all too different from light waves or sound waves as you described in another comment. It's just that being told that it can be used to know the very furthest reaches of the universe and the temperature thereof sounds a bit off. As I said, more study would probably reveal more to me.

You said air, haha. It's clear you have no idea what you are talking about.

I was referring to Earth in that statement, hence the part "Average temperature of the PLANET in a year." It's clear you have no idea how to read.

It clearly says the universe.
and that doesn't even argue the point.

Estimation and prediction however does. Don't even say they aren't dependable because that would just classify you as a bigot.

Okay, I want you to to take .5 and estimate it to 1 and then multiply it by a million or possibly a billion and tell me this, How fucking large of a difference would that small change do to an even bigger problem? What I was trying to say through that small example is this: If you don't have enough information and you attempt to estimate on such a large scale in an effort to make an accurate outcome, you are going to be off by a lot. The numbers that we're dealing with are unfathomable. If you adjust the angle in a rocket launch by one billionth of a place, you are going to be off target. So explain to me how they could possibly be accurate at the range we are speaking of with the technology that we have?

I want you to go to college for 20+ years, quit being so melodramatic, then pull your head out of your ass(not in this specific order) and repeat the question.


So if you take that same rocket, give it to an engineer who has studied physics, ballistics and geometry he will tell you where he predicts it will land. I would wager he will be correct, and that doesn't even take into account of the technology we have, considering the public has no fucking clearance.

Funny, I've studied all of those things just within highschool. To be honest, I could probably calculate that rocket without the 20+ years in college. It might take me a little bit of time, mind you, but it would be pretty easy. Then again, I would need PRECISE FUCKING MEASUREMENTS to even begin to make a formula. What we're talking about are measurements that we cannot possibly have made yet, and using estimates and predictions for such things is completely hogwash. Therefore, we have not made the mathmatical advances necessary for such a large goddamned task.
Now, you're starting to act like a prick. I'm sorry for saying you can't read, but you weren't. Stop being a smartass, quit trying to make fun of me and go learn basic physics for yourself. Only then will I know that you understand what you're saying.

*mathematical

Oh, like you're one to talk. pffff.

I feel like i spelled it wrong on purpose so later I would be alerted to inform them of their mistakes.

>yfw

lurk moar faggot

I hate to be the bringer of bad news here but i am currently studying physics at university and have quite an in-depth knowledge of this subject. We do have all the advanced mathematics and technology to be able to make these kind of accurate predictions, just because you can't do it does not mean somebody else can't either.

All highschool physics ignores friction because it's too hard for anyone there to to figure it out, am I wrong?

Yes, you are wrong in that aspect. We covered friction in our physics class. We covered up to light, sound, heat and electricity and even delved into certain aspects of radiation.

We covered how friction works and what it does, we weren't given the equations to crunch how it effects a flying rocket. Everything else in your class we did, but somehow I doubt you covered friction in depth.

Actually, you WERE given the equations, just not the measurements. We didn't go very far into wind resistance, but it's not a far cry from friction. As I said, with an ample amount of time I could possibly make a formula for the rocket. All I would need to do is gather my old notes, a pen and some paper and some measurements from online (not the formula, just the measurements). It wouldn't take too much effort to do. The force of the rocket minus a few things like gravity and wind resistance (there's more but I can't remember off the top of my head) The gravity would be a constant subtraction but would decrease over time as the rocket moved away from the Earth. The rocket's surface area and mass would affect the wind resistance. The Density of the air would ALSO be a factor. Angle of launch, speed of the moon, the gravity of the moon, ect. As I said, I could calculate it, but it would take a bit of time.

I'm rather enjoying this but I have a tae kwon do lesson, mind if we continue later?

Sure, I don't mind. Debating is one of the few things on this site that's really fun when people take it seriously and it doesn't become a pissing match. You have a nice lesson.

Gah, don't even get me started. I love debating and I happen to find religion and philosophy to be interesting topics, but the second I open my mouth about it everyone immediately assumes I'm an asshole atheist. Sure, I'm atheist, but can I not talk about it at all? Anyway, thanks and goodbye.

I feel the same with my Christianity.

Yeah, from my experience the second a Christian opens their mouth they're swarmed by the actual asshole atheists that make my life here suck. Little bastards they are.

~14billion years is the age of the universe.

Okay, how did they figure it out?

im not going to explain it all. so just go read this en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Age_of_the_universe

Math. You can predict the weight of a planet, how far away a star is, what gasses it contains without ever visiting it. Why would finding a way to measure the temperature make you go all crazy?

Okay, you're missing a very important part of what I was saying. What they're doing is measurement over time. The bigger the scale of the measurement, the longer one would need to accurately measure it. No, it makes absolutely no sense at all that a person can think that something a million lightyears away is still there to be measured. By the time the light reaches us, the star might already be gone and the heat would be as well, therefore, they would need a much larger amount of time to ACCURATELY pinpoint the temperature. I still highly doubt the validity of our capabilities to measure EVERYTHING instantly with a complex equation. Yeah, heat dissipates over time and is measurable but unless we measure it over a rather large period of time, we can't be 100% sure that the data is accurate.

www.newscientist.com/article/dn13914-astronomers-measure-temperature-of-t he-early-universe.html

Who said they're measuring the current temperature? www dot scitechdaily dot com/astronomers-measure-the-temperature-of-the-universe-7-2-billion-years-ago/

Okay, you're still not answering my question. I've learned that if you are going to compare something on a large scale (such as the universe) you need multiple data points over a very large period of time. Heat, density, light, radiation, time, velocity, gravity, force, friction, distance and potential interference from other sources are all extremely huge factors in an even larger equation. Just the potential interference(all listed things excepting Interference) would be a fucking huge equation in itself. You'd have to put every single fucking everything in the universe into one equation. If you truly think that what we have now is substantial enough to measure such a behemoth of a math problem, then I really need you to rethink what "Infinity" means. If you think about it, there are an infinite amount of numbers before you reach 1, therefore there are infinite things to be measured in an infinite ocean of infinite things. Now tell me how it's possible, in any way to measure it.

I don't give a shit. I just found you an article that stated that it was possible and has been done.

You are forgetting very basic shit. In time evaluations and measurements you need data over time in proportion the the size of the thing you are trying to measure. That Article MIGHT VERY WELL FUCKING BE the way to measure it, but it hasn't been measured for long enough to come to a sound and ACCURATE point.

The picture never stated it was accurate. The article however said it was the most accurate reading todate.

Most accurate and accurate are two very two different things. So therefore, I refer back to my original statement, I think that that particular bit was bullshit. I doubt in it's accuracy but I absolutely refuse to believe that it has had sufficient data to prove such an immense theory(ies).

It is up to you if you want to believe it or not.

Well I guess that's that.
This whole time I was using basic reasoning from basic sciences. You can't do advanced things without the basics, and that's what I was trying to point out. That's all.
You have a nice day.

Yes, good day to you too, sir.

Here, take this .gif

The biggest problem you will face more than likely is the people within your own town. Somebody is going to decide to declare themselves ruler, and insubordination will not be tolerated. Examples must be made, fuck the undead it is the living you need to worry about.

Dat shoulder thing that goes up.

it would be pretty easy(relative to itself OC) to mine coal like they did in the back when. And as long as you have coal, you do have power. it's pretty easy to modify a standard car engine into a steam engine, which can it turn be modified into a generator. it would be A LOT of hassle, but you would still be better off then most of the rest of the world in a ZPAW.