Curse

Rbp-7-(Ooz) · May 31, 2005, 03:19 PM // 15:19

Quote:

Originally Posted by Principa Discordia

I got my old avatar back, this avatar = win.

Might as well link to it, in case I change it.

That's Shiny material right? not a piece of see through or absent fabric!?

wow.

Principa Discordia · May 31, 2005, 03:37 PM // 15:37

Some latex/pvc fetish-wear, I assume.

Let's keep this family-friendly.

ChristopherKee · May 31, 2005, 04:50 PM // 16:50

Mistress Eyahl has the best avatar so far. Something about the picture makes me feel at peace. I'm a W/E like Eyahl so I see it a lot.

Second best is my avatar. It's a picutre of the iniside of a blackhole.

Principa Discordia · May 31, 2005, 05:53 PM // 17:53

Quote:

Originally Posted by ChristopherKee

Second best is my avatar. It's a picutre of the iniside of a blackhole.

A black hole does not have an inside, and I don't see the light ring around where the event horizon is.

Unless it's a black hole from very far away, then yeah it's all good.

midnyte13 · May 31, 2005, 06:11 PM // 18:11

Quote:

Originally Posted by ChristopherKee

Mistress Eyahl has the best avatar so far. Something about the picture makes me feel at peace. I'm a W/E like Eyahl so I see it a lot.

Second best is my avatar. It's a picutre of the iniside of a blackhole.

yes the Mistreesses is awesom...just something about those eyes.....

and second best is mine not yours,

Dreamsmith · May 31, 2005, 06:16 PM // 18:16

Quote:

Originally Posted by Principa Discordia

A black hole does not have an inside...

That's an interesting philosophical assertion...

In any case, if it were true that the inside of a black hole was nonexistent, then a nonexistent avatar would be a perfect picture of the inside of a black hole, no?

Principa Discordia · May 31, 2005, 06:22 PM // 18:22

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dreamsmith

That's an interesting philosophical assertion...

In any case, if it were true that the inside of a black hole was nonexistent, then a nonexistent avatar would be a perfect picture of the inside of a black hole, no?

There's nothing philosophical about it.

A black hole is a solid object of near infinite density, so dense that it pulls everything (including light) toward it with such force that it is destroyed.

The perfect picture of a black hole, in theory, would be a circle of light. A halo if you will.

Vengeance · May 31, 2005, 06:22 PM // 18:22

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rbp-7-(Ooz)

I've changed mine to more line up with my Old School gaming personality.

>_<

Old School is the way to go baby!!! Hands down ... we've got the winner right here!

CONTROL DISC 4 LIFE!!!

Mango Midget · May 31, 2005, 06:25 PM // 18:25

http://www.fuzzyblueslippers.com/th_..._for_girls.gif
If it would let me this would be my avatar.^

Tur713 · May 31, 2005, 06:37 PM // 18:37

Quote:

Originally Posted by Principa Discordia

There's nothing philosophical about it.

A black hole is a solid object of near infinite density, so dense that it pulls everything (including light) toward it with such force that it is destroyed.

The perfect picture of a black hole, in theory, would be a circle of light. A halo if you will.

No, I believe that still this is all in the realm of theory and therefore can still reasonably be called phylosophy. There is very little proof to show which is true and which is not. In fact, phylosophy will go to show that nothing can be truly proven at all (which we will not get into at this moment) In any case, yes, he has a cpmlete lack of avatar, thus being Dreamsmith's point and the computer monitor gives off light, thus being your own point. If you'd like to be picky, there are tiny little lights that make up the screen which will form a halo amoung multiple other shapes.

ChristopherKee · May 31, 2005, 06:51 PM // 18:51

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tur713

No, I believe that still this is all in the realm of theory and therefore can still reasonably be called phylosophy. There is very little proof to show which is true and which is not. In fact, phylosophy will go to show that nothing can be truly proven at all (which we will not get into at this moment) In any case, yes, he has a cpmlete lack of avatar, thus being Dreamsmith's point and the computer monitor gives off light, thus being your own point. If you'd like to be picky, there are tiny little lights that make up the screen which will form a halo amoung multiple other shapes.

so much word hurt hulk head. hulk smash

Principa Discordia · May 31, 2005, 07:03 PM // 19:03

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tur713

No, I believe that still this is all in the realm of theory and therefore can still reasonably be called phylosophy. There is very little proof to show which is true and which is not. In fact, phylosophy will go to show that nothing can be truly proven at all (which we will not get into at this moment) In any case, yes, he has a cpmlete lack of avatar, thus being Dreamsmith's point and the computer monitor gives off light, thus being your own point. If you'd like to be picky, there are tiny little lights that make up the screen which will form a halo amoung multiple other shapes.

Ah, but by calling it a theory, you are conceeding that as it is the only theory concerning black holes widely accepted at present, then it is the most accurate and should be treated as fact or pseudo-fact until a time comes when it is proven or disproven. As a theory, it is based on experience, explanatory statements, accepted principles, and current methods of analysis, which makes it the most plausable explanation and therefore the correct one. Besides, a guy in a wheelchair who speaks through a machine said so, so nyer.

Dumb Quixote · May 31, 2005, 07:05 PM // 19:05

Heh... that's funny

Dreamsmith · May 31, 2005, 08:08 PM // 20:08

Quote:

Originally Posted by Principa Discordia

Ah, but by calling it a theory, you are conceeding that as it is the only theory concerning black holes widely accepted at present, then it is the most accurate and should be treated as fact or pseudo-fact until a time comes when it is proven or disproven. As a theory, it is based on experience, explanatory statements, accepted principles, and current methods of analysis, which makes it the most plausable explanation and therefore the correct one. Besides, a guy in a wheelchair who speaks through a machine said so, so nyer.

The biggest problem is that part about "proven or disproven". If what we know about the laws of physics is true, then no possible experiment could determine anything at all about the inside of a black hole. It is simply not a part of the observable universe. Therefore, any statements about the inside of a black hole are philosophy, not science. They are not subject to experimental proof or refutation.

Principa Discordia · May 31, 2005, 09:05 PM // 21:05

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dreamsmith

The biggest problem is that part about "proven or disproven". If what we know about the laws of physics is true, then no possible experiment could determine anything at all about the inside of a black hole. It is simply not a part of the observable universe. Therefore, any statements about the inside of a black hole are philosophy, not science. They are not subject to experimental proof or refutation.

Depends, who knows what sort of scientific measuring/statistical equipment we'll have in five hundred thousand years, if we're still around.

By the way, as a theory, it's still science and not philosophy. The current theory about black holes is a combination of empirical evidence and observations of similar and related phenomena (gravity, particles, etc.) Since the middle ages science has only increased our knowledge, figuratively speaking it's pretty damn rare these days for a theory to be entirely debunked as we've had such empiric evidence to hand before taking the step from speculation to theory.

Of course, that doesn't cover the potentially limitless amount of crap we have no idea about yet, but we've already made observations of stellar bodies similar to black holes (neutron stars), so we've got a head start on that one.

PS. This is the biggest off topic ever.

Dreamsmith · May 31, 2005, 09:56 PM // 21:56

Quote:

Originally Posted by Principa Discordia

By the way, as a theory, it's still science and not philosophy. The current theory about black holes is a combination of empirical evidence and observations of similar and related phenomena (gravity, particles, etc.)

Yes, but you're confusing the scientific theories about black holes with unscientific speculation about them. Any hypothesis that cannot be tested is an unscientific one. That doesn't mean it's false or bad, but if it ain't testable, it isn't science. The current scientific theories about black holes say that what lies beyond the event horizon of a black hole is not a part of the observable universe. Given this, once you start speculating about what's inside a black hole (which your original message did), you stray out of the realm of science. Our theories about black holes are based on empircal evidence, our speculations about what lies behind an event horizon are not, and if our theories are correct, they never can be based on empirical evidence, because such observations are impossible, no matter how good your instruments are.

pHobac · May 31, 2005, 10:37 PM // 22:37

I go off to lunch and come back to find an arument about black holes. I must throw myself into the middle of it. I'm not a scientist, but I am a Philosophy major and I would say that this discussion would fall under a Philisophical framework. The basis of philosophy was first set up in a book by Aristotle. It was one in a series of books he wrote discussing the sciences. It was written immidiatley after the book he called "The Physics" so scholars began calling it "The MetaPhysics" Meta meaning after.

The physical sciences rely on concrete evidence in support of hypothesis, metaphysics use logical deduction to support hypothesis. Since we have no physical evidence about black holes we have to use logical deduction.

And I would also like to say this.

Quote:

A black hole does not have an inside, and I don't see the light ring around where the event horizon is. Unless it's a black hole from very far away, then yeah it's all good.

Quote:

There's nothing philosophical about it. A black hole is a solid object of near infinite density, so dense that it pulls everything (including light) toward it with such force that it is destroyed. The perfect picture of a black hole, in theory, would be a circle of light. A halo if you will.

If a black hole did not have an inside, then it would be a hollow object of zero density. Saying that it is a solid object makes the existance of its interior trivially true.

I dont mean to sound condesending, I just LOVE arguments of symantic paradox. I couldn't help myself.

P.S. dont ban me...

Mistress Eyahl · Jun 01, 2005, 03:08 AM // 03:08

Black holes are simple. People see colour because when the 7 colours of light shine onto something, the makeup of that object absorbs every light except the colour it appears as. If an object reflects all the colours it appears white, and if it absorbs all the colours it appears black.. right? I got that round the right way.. didn't I?

So anyway, there's nothing fantastic about a black hole, it's just like a black car. A black car absorbs all the colours that make up light.. so it's black.
Whether a black hole abosorbs TIME.. well heh.. I'll be searching my room for one cos no matter how much time I leave myself to straighten my hair.. it's never enough *_*

God that made me sound like such a girl *_*

Oh and thank you to those people who said you liked my avatar *blush* It makes up for the private messages "Omg you are SOOOO fugly" Lol.

P.s. thanks Rbp.. I'll be forwarding my eyes to you shortly for immediate crossing

Oh little note. I LOVE conversations like this! Only two days ago was I sitting with my sister and cousin talking about the possibility of keeping a head alive in a jar and whether human combustion could actually happen. Also about super human strength when under serious pressure, WHICH in my mind is totally explainable. Everyone knows we only use 10 or whatever% of our brains, so what's to say that only leaves us able to use 10 or whatever% of our muscles or ANYTHING for that matter

Unconciousness (er, did I spell that right?) leaves people's brains open to the deepest of realisations. Of course it's when you hypnotise someone to cure them of smoking, and they start saying they're Ghandi that we need to perhaps rethink the benefits of this

Principa Discordia · Jun 01, 2005, 03:17 AM // 03:17

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mistress Eyahl

Oh and thank you to those people who said you liked my avatar *blush* It makes up for the private messages "Omg you are SOOOO fugly" Lol.

It's 4am, so don't expect anything about astrophysics from me right now, but...

Whoever said that to you is mean and I hope they get bitten by a snake.

ManadartheHealer · Jun 01, 2005, 05:28 AM // 05:28

Quote:

Originally Posted by Principa Discordia

...This is the biggest off topic ever....

Yes, but it is also very informative and interesting....