 |
|
You are not logged in! F.A.Q Log in Register |
 |
|
 |
 Now online (2)DADONCK recycle ...and 332 guests Last 5 registered Oplandisks nothingstar N_loop yipe foxtrotromeo Browse members... |
 |
Members 8025Messages 2614145 Today 17 Topics 127544 |
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
Have you ever heard someone say that since you can subdivide a distance infinite times, it is a paradox that you can cover that distance at all? I FUCKING HATE THAT. Obviously the distance of each unit goes to zero as the subdivisions go to infinity. So obvious that it must be a joke. in which case--dear everyone: I fucking hate your joke. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
Sure there are an infinite amount of 'distances', but as they get infinitely smaller, the amount of time to pass through them gets infinitely smaller. I think calculus solved that whole problem. What's it called? Zeno's paradox? |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
You don't need calculus for it at all. Yes that's the name. The point is that it always gets mentioned in this annoying tongue-in-cheek fashion, and I find it simply stupid. Mental masturbation of an idiot. I don't understand why it hasn't slid under the rug with lots of other stupid ideas. then again, reality is great evidence that bad ideas stick around like fucking muddddd |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
yeah. its that whole arrow never hitting the target thing. i think its some intro calculus that solves that problem. so, no real argument there. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
Evolution can't be true because it violates Newton's Second Law of Thermodynamics! I'M A CHRISTIAN SCIENTIST! |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
hey, is anyone reading what I wrote? I'm not talking about solving it. I gave the answer in what I wrote, and said it was simple. the point is that it is mentioned at all |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
its supposed to undermine your understanding of the universe or some such nonsense. i can't say anyone has ever brought that up to me, outside of math class in high school, so its never been annoying. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
OKay, I've never heard it mentioned before as an argument for anything. When has someone used it, and in what situation? |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
I see it joked about in math texts now and then. twice in the past 3 years, to be exact. I haven't seen it in a few months, but this board is dead right now, so.. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
This was actually all a grand scheme to get us all bitching about things, up the energy level, that sort of thing. bored. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
so, start the exact kind of argument you're bitching about? |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
Okeh, well any argument a Creationist uses, I hate, because it always turns out to be a: ignorant and b: just plain wrong,. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
I did. we fell into in-fighting. =(((((( |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
Do you actually have to associate with those kind of people? |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
Hey sneakattack, have you seen |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
Oh, no, sometimes I get bored and masochistic and go into the Yahoo Christian Voice chats. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
hahahahaahaha |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
no I haven't, thanks for the heads-up. I haven't looked into anything astronomy/astrophysics/cosmology relating in a long while unfortunately |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
space |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
hahah, funny word, space |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
yeah this looks pretty sweet, I wish I wasn't engrossed in something technical at the moment and could spare some time on it.. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
xlt is providing decent backdrop for when aforementioned reading starts sucking assshoo |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
if you want to know who to blame, the culprit is zeno of elea, a presocratic greek philosopher, who conceived of this paradox in about 450 BCE. incidentally, this paradox was the impetus that lead to the "discovery" of atoms by two later philosophers, leucippus and democritus. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
Yeah, totally. I'm not a scientist but I have a sneaking suspicion that quantum mechanics is largely filled with basically science fiction with the true purpose of entertaining. Some ideas (information) , for whatever reason, is better at replicating from brain to brain than competing information. This is what the protoscience memetics deals with. The school system as well as books have replicated the information that einstein newton darwin etc were the most essential contributers to science, for example, but I suspect there are many who simply have not had their name replicated so well. There was some weird geometry problem I remember in school that was caused by the assumption that a line has zero height (maybe it was an illegal divide by zero problem or something). My argument was that any line must be made of something, even if a string of molecules, which have mass and "height". If you draw a line on a chalkboard, the chalk particles form the line. You can't just say it's 0 height "in theory" because that's impossible. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
I don't like occam's razor or whatever it's called (the simplest solution is likely to be the right one, or something like that). Is that supposed to be a helpful heuristic or something? Well it was mentioned in a hollywood movie with helen hunt, as the main argument of the whole movie practically. That gave it some memetic boost... it's why I heard of it in the first place. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
This is similar, someone said this to me this the other day; If you drop a ball from a given height, at some point it reaches half the original height, and then half that height and so on. When you look at it like that it would seem the ball never reaches a height of zero. Obviously not the case, but it still confuses me nicely. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
i've heard this "joke" several times myself.. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
That's because we're never actually touching the ground. Atomic force never actually allows us to properly touch the object. In effect we're not solid. So basically that statement is correct on the atomic level. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
science is in the first place not about claiming truth, it is about a methods to come theories that support observations, be it on a day to day basis or in a scientific setup. The theories are never true: they just happen to be the best 'provable' explanation for a phenomenon. They can change over tome |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
|
Messageboard index
|
|||||||||
