Pastelland Forum

In my young mind, when i first heard that the gravitational forces of a black hole would stretch you out like spaghetti, for a moment i had the mental vision of a man who would have survived a black hole venture and ended up in a sort of "enigma of amigara fault" style creature. How silly.

Taalit wrote:

Anteroinen wrote:Why not just tell people WHY we think the things we know are right, because a different flavor of bullshit is bound to creep up from somewhere. Nobody has time or money to organize a "Course in which We Debunk Ridiculous Bullshit People Still Believe"

Nobody needs to, either. If you pay attention in your normal classes it should be obvious why those things are Ridiculous Bullshit.

My point exactly.

There is a differences between Bullshit and things yet to be Discovers. I know the World not flat, people who do are entitle to their opinion, doesn't bug me out they think the World is flat.

It is not a matter of opinion, though, it is demonstrably not true. I don't care if they want to continue to be that obtuse in privacy but if they try to tell that to children, I draw the line there. It is the difference between believing in antigravity and tossing children off a sky scraper to prove it. On another note, if it has yet to be discovered, it really shouldn't be in school at all.

Anteroinen wrote:

Taalit wrote:

Anteroinen wrote:Why not just tell people WHY we think the things we know are right, because a different flavor of bullshit is bound to creep up from somewhere. Nobody has time or money to organize a "Course in which We Debunk Ridiculous Bullshit People Still Believe"

Nobody needs to, either. If you pay attention in your normal classes it should be obvious why those things are Ridiculous Bullshit.

My point exactly.

There is a differences between Bullshit and things yet to be Discovers. I know the World not flat, people who do are entitle to their opinion, doesn't bug me out they think the World is flat.

It is not a matter of opinion, though, it is demonstrably not true. I don't care if they want to continue to be that obtuse in privacy but if they try to tell that to children, I draw the line there. It is the difference between believing in antigravity and tossing children off a sky scraper to prove it. On another note, if it has yet to be discovered, it really shouldn't be in school at all.

Ah-Ha! I have you!

If that your case then why did you speak during your time on this Forum about Atoms then? You know...Atoms, one of the Baselines for the Study of Physic. The tiniest object beyond our rang of seeing. What we use categorizing every Object as either Solid, Liquid, or Gas Form? How it says "you yourself is made up of 75% Water" base on this Concept. All that is all base on a Theory, we haven't been able to actually look at an Atom, it just the Best Guess by far to come into our Minds during our existences in History. Do we have Actual Evident that Atoms Exist now do we? We had experiments conducted to see if they Exist. But those Test themselves we design under the Idea to promote if Atoms Exist or Not, the result could have actually meant something else, but due to the test to see if they exist may have looked to our eyes that Atoms May Exist.

If you say it should be Banned from School Anteroinen, lets meet for Coffey to discuss how to Ban Physics from our School. Add some new poppycock to the System, you could say.
I guest Materusz Forum Program AI is blowing up as I type this because you just spoke a Paradox to the System.

WorldisQuiet5256 wrote: Ah-Ha! I have you!

If that your case then why did you speak during your time on this Forum about Atoms then? You know...Atoms, one of the Baselines for the Study of Physic. The tiniest object beyond our rang of seeing. What we use categorizing every Object as either Solid, Liquid, or Gas Form? How it says "you yourself is made up of 75% Water" base on this Concept. All that is all base on a Theory, we haven't been able to actually look at an Atom, it just the Best Guess by far to come into our Minds during our existences in History. We have Actual Evident that Atoms Exist now do we? We had experiments conducted to see if they Exist. But those Test themselves we design under the Idea to promote if Atoms Exist or Not, the result could have actually meant something else, but due to the test to see if they exist may have looked to our eyes that Atoms May Exist.

If you say it should be Banned from School Anteroinen, lets meet for Coffey to discuss how to Ban Physics from our School. Add some new poppycock to the System, you could say.
I guest Materusz Forum Program AI is blowing up as I type this because you just spoke a Paradox to the System.

Atoms are a theory, not a guess by a long shot. Them being a theory is the reason to teach them. Like we teach the theory that cells exist. The experiments that point towards the existence of atoms are pretty solid, quite as solidly as the experiments for a spherical Earth. That makes them evidently true.

If you want to philosophize over the meaning of trueness that is another can of worms, one which we have extensively discussed elsewhere.

EDIT: Also: atoms themselves are irrelevant to their phase, it is their movement that determines that. You can also take percentages just fine without atoms.

Yet theory such as My own are Base on Evident as well. Not Physic but the Submachine Game.

WorldisQuiet5256 wrote:Yet theory such as My own are Base on Evident as well. Not Physic but the Submachine Game.

Well, that's how you're supposed to form a theory. In the particular case of your Black Hole theory, however, the critics found your evidence lacking, it has nothing to do with it being your theory.

EDIT: I am, of course, using the theory in the sense we use it in this forum, not as I just used it in my previous post. None of the things we've come up could probably be called actual theories.

It is a fact that atoms exist, and we have been able to take photos of individual atoms. A cursory search in google will allow you to see this.

No we don't have Picture of Atoms because its too small for any kind of Microscopic Device we have today that can't see it. Maybe one Day we will but so far Atoms is just the Widely excepted Theory because it was the Best guest by far we have come up with. Those Picture are draw diagrams base on what someone theories what the Atomic Structure is actually made of.

I'm not really sure why you think the many actual pictures of atoms there are are just drawn diagrams. Could you please give me your source for the claim that atoms are too small for us to see? When I said 'A cursory search in google will tell you this', I didn't just assume that. I actually found the pictures myself before completing that post.

WorldisQuiet5256 wrote:No we don't have Picture of Atoms because its too small for any kind of Microscopic Device we have today that can't see it. Maybe one Day we will but so far Atoms is just the Widely excepted Theory because it was the Best guest by far we have come up with. Those Picture are draw diagrams base on what someone theories what the Atomic Structure is actually made of.

Yeah we do actually have pictures. For instance these:

Shadow of an atom:
(http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news ... -smallest/)


Gold atoms:
(http://news.cnet.com/2009-1041_3-5472385.html)¨


Niobium atoms:
(http://whyevolutionistrue.wordpress.com ... -molecule/)


Atoms are a fact in layman's terms. That in no way makes them not a theory in scientific terms. You were thinking of somethnig else entirely weren't you? You thought of things like these:

(http://scienceprojectideasforkids.com/2 ... ent-bonds/)


or more accurately:

(https://podcast.punxsy.k12.pa.us/groups ... iki/85d06/)