If I were to choose my political opinions based on the looks of the most prominent television personalities representing those opinions, I'd be an conservative. I'd be something else too. Can anyone guess?

Well.

All righty then.

I didn't state a position at all. I asked you a question.

And if I was discussing that, you might be onto something.

Your questions are unrelated to my statements. Why are you asking me questions that are unrelated to my statements? If you had some difficulty understanding my statements, maybe you could examine that, and explain a bit better how you understood my statements. I'd be happy to clarify to anyone who is willing to think, first, before asking unrelated questions.

I'm establishing a relationship between "what things look like", which was a clear reference to how your posts are read by others, and how you feel about how your communications are understood by others.

To be honest, I'm not sure how this is in any way unrelated to your statements. If anything, it's too relevant, as it covers no new ground at all. Please advise.

It wasn't an "argument". It was a response entirely equal to the challenge put. I certainly did not want to "go that route", having assumed more than second grade arguments from this board.

I don't think this thread requires a very deep understanding of physics, which (and this is not an attack either, unless you work for Caltech) I don't think you have either. There are very few people who do. I think a broad summary of the main points would do nicely. And apart from mistyping 'mass' for 'density' once, I think I managed that.

Yes. That was one of the prompts which led me to *sigh*. There comes a time when it's best just to let someone believe something incorrect. And that time is when a correction will probably mistaken as a personal attack.

Well thanks a lot! Now I have to cancel the weekend's entertainment I had planned!

Also, you don't seem to understand what "troll" means.

The responses are a lot more cheery and familiar than the content of the message would otherwise seem to dictate.

Are you sure that's your position? How do you know you're not wrong about that?

You don't think you have any responsibility to communicate something when you're trying to communicate something? You think it's entirely up to the recipient to interpret you correctly, and any error in doing so is HIS fault and not yours?

*sigh*

Really?

Well then. I guess we're done here.

Holy balls. I never thought of that. You're right. I know people who admit to doing that all the time.

That's one of the great things about internet message boards, though. That sort of problem is minimised. So I very much think that it's not what's going on here.

You know, I understand each individual word of that, but put them all together...

Is that your reasoned opinion? Are you more sure of that than the opposite view? I'm not being a dick here. I'm trying to show you that this is circular reasoning. No matter what you say on the subject, it's an opinion you've arrived at, presumably relinquishing other opinions to do so.

It's not a bad thing to have well-thought out opinions. I don't know why you'd try to make it look otherwise.


Yes they are. But we have objective ways of evaluating opinions, such as evidence, likelihood, falsifiability, etc.

Yes. Now imagine all that without the box.

It might not be. We'll never know. We can barely detect the things as it is. We certainly can't see them. We have to watch for "wobbles" and Hawking radiation and so on. There isn't even a theoretical way to work out what's going on in there.

However, the same physics which led to the correct prediction that they exist at all leads to the prediction that the singularity has zero volume and hence infinite mass.

Some will argue that quantum mechanics (the movement of sub-atomic particles, which is at great variance with the movement of everything else) allows for alternative interpretations, but there's no reason to believe any of them at the moment, and there is a strong reason to believe Einstein (namely, that he predicted their existence before anyone saw them).

There is an argument which states that anything that has parts is divisible, and hence cannot be infinite, the logic being that something infinite must either have no parts at all (like the concept of freedom) or just the one part that goes on forever (like a singularity - good luck breaking that up into bits).

I'm demonstrating the link between expressing a dumbass opinion and enacting laws.


I was trying to show you the flaw in your argument. I asked two completely reasonable, completely relevant questions: that does not make me some sort of arrogant bastard.


Well then we're on the same page. Because I'm not sure your opinion is right either. For someone who's not really sure, however, you seem to be willing to push it pretty hard.

I'm pretty sure of all my opinions, at least the ones that I'm prepared to defend, as you have done on this thread to your unsure opinion. That's not to say that I'm not open-minded. If some new information presents itself, I'll happily change that opinion, as I have done on many occasions. I actually enjoy it when someone tears down my opinions. Because it means that whatever replaces it is better.

In this culture, we seem very averse to the reality that some opinions are just BETTER than others. All opinions do not have the same weight. A well-researched, evidence-based opinion, is BETTER than a badly-researched, faith-based opinion. And you (not you, massagetrade, you as in "one in general") might not like that, but if you did not accept this at least in theory, you wouldn't be riding around in airplanes or taking antibiotics.

OK, massagetrade, first of all I have to say that I thought you were being sarcastic. I really did. I was expecting you to come back with some gibberish troll argument full of antagonism and ad hominem. So: sorry for underestimating you.


Yes, it's the example Einstein used. So I guess it's close enough.

I was referring to the existence of infinity in the natural world, which is what you were doubting, or looking for examples of. It doesn't make much sense, in the sense that the human mind isn't good at comprehending it. But it seems to be the way things are, in the sense that, no matter how badly the human mind can comprehend it, it seems to exist in reality.

Example from maths: pi. 3.14259...infinity. Circles and all sorts of shapes occur in nature, and their relationships to themselves and each other is often expressed in terms of infinities.

"But," you will justifiably point out, "this is rubbish. Numbers aren't real! I can't hold them in my hand, and in any case, they're only like that because of our arbitrarily selected base 10 numbers system. Some other pi-based numbers system would just call it 1."

Right. Make a Moebius strip: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M%C3%B6bius_strip The side is infinite. And you're holding it in your hand. It's a real thing.

"But," you will point out, "this isn't what I was talking about. This is a man-made object. I want you to show me infinity!"

I can't. I can't take you by the hand and lead you to the middle of a black hole where you will see the infinite density of a zero-volume singularity. I don't think that will ever be a possibility. Until then, we're stuck with slightly artificial examples, like the Moebius strip or relationships between objects. But it does exist.


Fair enough. You'll have to forgive me. I've been on the internet way too long. I thought you were a troll.

I'm saying that once you try to identify what you mean by "meaningful" without using any words derived from the word "meaning", you could run into trouble. And it is entirely a semantic sort of trouble. It's not a practical trouble. I think sometimes these debates can get hung up by WHAT I MEAN BY THIS and WHAT YOU MEAN BY THAT when, for all intents and purposes, it's obvious.

Prop 8 would seem to render your post nonsensical.

Are you sure? If so, what would convince you otherwise?

I can't be sure over the internet. Was that sarcasm?

That's just a collection of words with no specific meaning. You could argue that the concept of infinity, whether or not it's demonstrable in the real world, has no meaning.

Oh come on! You could say that about anyone's post on anything! Just "a collection of words with no specific meaning". I'm not getting into a whole semiotics thing with you. If I try to post something intelligent, you respond with sarcasm. If I try to post something basic, you'll call me patronizing. There's no winning with you, is there?

Meet me half way.

How exactly do you explain what that means without using relativity?

No it can't.

Oh god! I'm awful at math!

*runs away screaming*

What the hell are you talking about? I'm not making a value judgment on OP, and I wasn't even talking to you.

This is the question we were given:

This question is badly worded. It's not my opinion. It's not me having a go at OP for being one inarticulate motherf. It's just a banal observation which you have now turned into A Thing.

I don't care about grammar problems or spelling problems or whatever, except where they qualatatively interfere with the meaning. Now, there you see, according to my spellcheck, I have spelled "qualatatively" incorrectly, but it doesn't really matter because you know what it means.

With this question, I'm not sure what he means. And the failing is with his wording, not with my hypothetically faulty understanding, and certainly not with "society". If you post something and expect other people to read it, then you should want to be understood. I have no idea about your personal struggles with basic comprehension and I don't care because they have nothing to do with this. Start a new thread all about yourself if you want to talk about that.

Because, EVEN THOUGH this question is badly worded, I still made an attempt to piece together what he meant, and answered two possible interpretations.

At the risk of stating the obvious...