PDA

View Full Version : A dialectic on Scientific thought.



firegoat7
20-03-2005, 10:36 PM
Hello,

A few supporting characters have taken exception to a number of very specific scientific posts on this bulletin board.

I am interested in continuing a thread which questions taken for granted scientific thought.

I will present one arguement of Bazzas, which I take exception to, asking him if he believes this statement to be true. Please feel free to generate a better statement or find one that suits your position more if you want, Baz.




An intelligent mind is required to conceptualise the phenomena as behaviour following some mathematical model. However the conscious mind is not a prerequisite for the phenomena to occur. The universe was getting about its business very nicely, thank you very much before we turned up no the scene and will do so again after we have gone.



I will present an arguement form a theorist, who represents an attack against specific scientific thought. I believe that these ideas are in line with what DR and myself have been talking about in a lot of different threads.

In starting this thread can I ask for two rules to be considered.

1) No Godbotherer creationist versus science stuff, its already destroyed enough threads.

2) No personal abuse without humor.

Anyway here is the critique.

"The theorist who maintains that science is the be-all and end-all - that what is not in science textbooks is not worth knowing - is an ideologist with a peculiar and distorted doctrine of his own. For him, science is no longer a sector of the cognitive enterprise but an all-inclusive world-view. This is the doctrine not of science but of scientism. To take this stance is not to celebrate science but to distort it..." (Nicholas Rascher, The Limits of Science, from Moreland, p. 103)

Cheers Fg7

Axiom
20-03-2005, 10:52 PM
science is the best tool we have in determining truth.

arosar
20-03-2005, 10:58 PM
science is the best tool we have in determining truth.

Which surely must beg the question: "what is truth"?

AR

Kevin Bonham
20-03-2005, 11:10 PM
"The theorist who maintains that science is the be-all and end-all - that what is not in science textbooks is not worth knowing - is an ideologist with a peculiar and distorted doctrine of his own. For him, science is no longer a sector of the cognitive enterprise but an all-inclusive world-view. This is the doctrine not of science but of scientism. To take this stance is not to celebrate science but to distort it..." (Nicholas Rascher, The Limits of Science, from Moreland, p. 103)

A lot of context would be helpful.

The serious scientist does not maintain that nothing else is worth knowing - only that there is no other known method of knowing things that works. There are all kinds of things we do not yet know but there is no reason to believe that unscientific alternative methods of "discovering the truth" (eg religion, astrology, tealeaf gazing, historicism, Marxism) actually work in discovering any of them.

I completely fail to see any relevance at all of this to Barry's post that you quote. I am certain this is because there is no relevance to see.

firegoat7
21-03-2005, 12:33 AM
A lot of context would be helpful.


I completely fail to see any relevance at all of this to Barry's post that you quote.

Lets just wait until Barry talks for himself eh?



I am certain this is because there is no relevance to see.
Uh, Uh, Uh, No, No ,No Mr Bon Bon. I will give you a yellow card this time. You can't very well stifle the debate before it begins...no that is not on.....I am sorry you really must play within the rules of the game and learn to tackle legally. :hand:

Cheers Fg7
P.S Moderators please note- Trolling should it be a bookable defence?

Kevin Bonham
21-03-2005, 01:38 AM
Lets just wait until Barry talks for himself eh?

No, if you put something in public and I wish to comment I will do so. If you only want Baz's opinion, send him a private message. Simple.

By the way, your post is redcarded for abuse without sufficent redeeming humour, hoist on your own petard. :lol:


P.S Moderators please note- Trolling should it be a bookable defence?

If so, you just started it. Again. :rolleyes:

PS I love it when you deluded far-lefties try to call me a Tory or Liberal. It only makes your own level of political ignorance more obvious for everyone to see.

antichrist
21-03-2005, 01:53 AM
Originally Posted by some immature idiot who gets off on changing other people's usernames

It is worse when someone puts crude language in one quote which was not there originally. A mod or someone did to me. My limit is double meanings.

eclectic
21-03-2005, 03:53 AM
Which surely must beg the question: "what is truth"?

AR

i think pontius pilate beat you to it

please acknowledge the source or be kicked off here for plagiarism!

:P :P :P

eclectic

arosar
21-03-2005, 07:05 AM
i think pontius pilate beat you to it

please acknowledge the source or be kicked off here for plagiarism!

:P :P :P

eclectic

Yeah, but if I did that see, the Jesus Freaks will start and firegoat will get all upset.

AR

Rincewind
21-03-2005, 07:48 AM
Lets just wait until Barry talks for himself eh?

I have previously responded on this subject and as noted you seem unable to form a coherent argument. You say one thing and then deny it shortly afterwards. Therefore as previously stated I see no future in continuing this or any other subject with you.

antichrist
21-03-2005, 09:49 AM
What about you Rincewind, Barry, Rincewind, what's your name??

You can't form a co-herent persona leaving everyone confused. I see no point in continuing this schizoprenic identity crisis with you.

Rincewind
21-03-2005, 10:03 AM
You can't form a co-herent persona leaving everyone confused. I see no point in continuing this schizoprenic identity crisis with you.

Thank you Peter AKA antichrist.

firegoat7
22-03-2005, 10:10 PM
I have previously responded on this subject and as noted you seem unable to form a coherent argument. You say one thing and then deny it shortly afterwards. Therefore as previously stated I see no future in continuing this or any other subject with you.

Well you have learnt well from your mentor Mother Bon Bon Thatcher. Heres how it works- start an arguement- people counter your points- accuse them of being unable to argue,stupid,morons,idiots,non-coherent, whingers, fill in whatever - Draw a conclusion which reinforces your own opinion based on denouncing the opposition not the arguement.

Heres how it works in real life- You ask questions so that people can clarify their thoughts. That way people engage in a discussion instead of a rhetorical diatribe.

Cheers Fg7


Im tipping less then 5 posts before a Bonham diatribe

Rincewind
22-03-2005, 10:22 PM
Heres how it works in real life- You ask questions so that people can clarify their thoughts. That way people engage in a discussion instead of a rhetorical diatribe.

Sincerely tried it once with you but you seemed incapable of keeping up your end of the discussion. Of course, this may have been a failing of mine, but I've never had this much trouble understanding or being understood before.


Im tipping less then 5 posts before a Bonham diatribe

Comments like this certainly don't strengthen your claim of being a non-troll. For the time being you remain on my troll list. Have a nice day.

antichrist
23-03-2005, 01:17 AM
Thank you Peter AKA antichrist.

But you rotate I do not. I don't have an identity crisis. If I was not betrayed for 30 pieces of anit-silver by Judas's on the BB no one would know who I was.

Kevin Bonham
24-03-2005, 05:16 PM
Heres how it works- start an arguement- people counter your points- accuse them of being unable to argue,stupid,morons,idiots,non-coherent, whingers, fill in whatever

There have been many cases where people have countered my points and I have called them none of these things. You get called them 'cause you are them, very simple. :P


You ask questions so that people can clarify their thoughts.

Why would I want you to clarify your thoughts when it is your responsibility to make them clear in the first place, at least one time in ten would be nice, and when your record for saying anything worth reading even once clarified is so abysmal?


Im tipping less then 5 posts before a Bonham diatribe

Well if you stop responding in order to fulfill your prediction, of course you have a good chance of safely predicting the timing of your next flogging.

firegoat7
24-03-2005, 07:07 PM
Hello,

LOL- less then 5 posts and I am spot on the money again.

The post-modernists would be howling with glee at the flogging you've been coping recently.

Moreover, if you actually knew what "communication" was (which you clearly fail to seperate from diatribe), then you would obviously realise that no communication can be taken for granted (again another point you so obviously fail to conceive in your mind), and that any attempt to supply the superlative authorative answer is merely a waste of time, bound to be contested. :hmm: Of course if you had any brains you would know that point, alas I digress, its clear you have no brains when communicating as evidenced by your inability to discuss without lecturing. :whistle: Still locked in your ivory tower again, when will you recognise your own prisons? :hand:

Cheer Fg7

Kevin Bonham
25-03-2005, 01:16 PM
LOL- less then 5 posts and I am spot on the money again.

You don't get prizes for engineering and predicting your own doom.


The post-modernists would be howling with glee at the flogging you've been coping recently.

Would they? Last I looked most of them were dead. They'd certainly be applauding your lame unoriginal lifting of the flogging metaphor from my post.

Why would I care what postmodernists thought?


Moreover, if you actually knew what "communication" was (which you clearly fail to seperate from diatribe),

Anything can be communicated, including "diatribe"; the word basically means "transmit" and in most contexts is not necessarily two-way. I suspect by "communication" you mean some kind of mickey-mouse hippy drivel in which your opinions are respected and placed on pedestals even when they don't deserve it.


then you would obviously realise that no communication can be taken for granted (again another point you so obviously fail to conceive in your mind), and that any attempt to supply the superlative authorative answer is merely a waste of time, bound to be contested. :hmm: Of course if you had any brains you would know that point, alas I digress, its clear you have no brains when communicating as evidenced by your inability to discuss without lecturing. :whistle: Still locked in your ivory tower again, when will you recognise your own prisons?

Abysmal drivel suggesting that firegoat has been "communicating" with either a rather poor selection of chemicals, the voices in his head, or both.

I quote it only to wonder why he bothered hiding something that lame behind something as useful as color=white.

firegoat7
25-03-2005, 02:31 PM
Anything can be communicated, including "diatribe"; the word basically means "transmit" and in most contexts is not necessarily two-way. I suspect by "communication" you mean some kind of mickey-mouse hippy drivel in which your opinions are respected and placed on pedestals even when they don't deserve it.

Your definition again! You then claim authority like the pompous clown you are. It dosen't even dawn in your pea sized head that when I ues the word "diatribe" I mean a bitter critical attack. Notice I am now producing a diatribe(by my definition)-which is typically the result of most exchanges with you that involve somebody who disagrees with you.

Instead of saying "the word basically means" in a lame attempt to establish authority, you ought to say "my understanding is diatribe means-blah blah blah". At least that way you have some legitimacy with your stance, anything else is just a pompous assertion.

Notice the assertion comes in defining what I mean by diatribe (ie I used the word diatribe first). When, or should I say if, you reflect on, why you communicate with people in this way- then possibly some communication may be possible, but until there is some genuine reflexivity on your behalf, well then Im sorry but your just talking to yourself. Others will continue to contest your ill-founded legitimacy claims. The sheer arrogance you display in defining other peoples words without any internal questioning of whether your subjectivity is mistaken just dumbfounds me. You would like to think or hope that an "academic" would know better.

As for placing "opinions on pedestals" well what sort of nonsense is this. If you think opinion should be on a pedestal..well lets just say its more reflection on your internal mindset, not mine.



Abysmal drivel suggesting that firegoat has been "communicating" with either a rather poor selection of chemicals, the voices in his head, or both.

The usual personal attack by you. Completely false. Another assertion for the point of what? Maybe its because you get a little bit touchy when people use a bit of humor against yourself. Poor Bon Bon, Im bleeding tears for you clownboy.




I quote it only to wonder why he bothered hiding something that lame behind something as useful as color=white. Who are you clown? The style police? Surely I have the right, as do all posters (including yourself who has a historical past of producing such things) to print anything in any color I want for whatever reasons I find appropriate.

Expression is personal not subject to your spurious assertions of morality,legitimacy or reason.

cheers Fg7

Kevin Bonham
26-03-2005, 03:48 AM
Your definition again!

No, you stupid goose, I looked it up in the dictionary to check. You are the one who invents your own definitions then puts down anyone who disagrees while trying to pretend the other party is a "pompous clown".


It dosen't even dawn in your pea sized head that when I ues the word "diatribe" I mean a bitter critical attack.

You have seen my head and know roughly what size it is, about the same as yours, and I assure you it has not shrunk or expanded in the interim, so let us stick to insults that have some credibility, shall we?

You would not have a clue what dawns in my head. In this case your assertion is unfounded; for once I had a fair idea what your inscrutable gibberish meant.


Notice I am now producing a diatribe(by my definition)-which is typically the result of most exchanges with you that involve somebody who disagrees with you.

Takes two to tango, diddums. Go crawl into a corner, suck your thumb and cry yourself to sleep.

[skipped paragraphs of extremely repetitive and badly written frothy nonsense that completely missed the point regarding definitions]


The usual personal attack by you. Completely false. Another assertion for the point of what? Maybe its because you get a little bit touchy when people use a bit of humor against yourself.

You obviously really do have a split personality or something of that sort if you think anyone else sincerely finds your failed moronic attempts to unsettle me funny.

Note that I am just returning fire here - you were the one who started the junk psychoanalysis ages ago. Until you retract every single word of it, I shall feel entitled to make any claim I wish about your fragile state of mind, with or without evidence, as I see fit. Perhaps you should have thought of that, if it upsets you so. :hmm:

(There is, yet again, the matter of you taking this waaaaaay too seriously to be considered. And for that I do have evidence. All very funny. :lol: )


Who are you clown? The style police? Surely I have the right, as do all posters (including yourself who has a historical past of producing such things) to print anything in any color I want for whatever reasons I find appropriate.

Yes, and I have the right to point out that your behaviour and expression is, in my considered view, futile, immature, and stupid.

antichrist
26-03-2005, 08:10 AM
What do you lads get out of it?

I have been in relationships that were on their way of denigrating into where you boys have reached. I pulled the plug out as is a waste of life. Years later I still have a good, close, loving relationship with the ladies

At least I was getting something out of it and it had not sunk to your level, what is your excuse?

There used to be humour in it, but no longer.

Kevin Bonham
28-03-2005, 09:46 PM
I have been in relationships that were on their way of denigrating into where you boys have reached. I pulled the plug out as is a waste of life. Years later I still have a good, close, loving relationship with the ladies

Fishing for a medal, are we?

I would suggest that the downsides of exchanging insults with someone you barely know on a BB are far less significant than the downsides of exchanging such insults with a romantic partner. Do feel free to disagree.


At least I was getting something out of it and it had not sunk to your level, what is your excuse?

There used to be humour in it, but no longer.

Given the way you carry on with Bill I think it is a total joke that you are making these comments.

antichrist
28-03-2005, 10:46 PM
Fishing for a medal, are we?

I would suggest that the downsides of exchanging insults with someone you barely know on a BB are far less significant than the downsides of exchanging such insults with a romantic partner. Do feel free to disagree.

A/C
But that was only the bad half side of it, we had a compensatory good half that by separating we have carried on with for decades. We did not sink to the constant sniping that you got to.


KB
Given the way you carry on with Bill I think it is a total joke that you are making these comments.

A/C
I get great enjoyment of stirring Bill and his comebacks have me laughing for ages, whether or correct or not. Overall as far as I remember anyway. I voted him Personality... Read one of my latest replies to him saying why "I love ya".

Rincewind
28-03-2005, 10:57 PM
I get great enjoyment of stirring

An unrepentant troll. ;)

antichrist
28-03-2005, 11:21 PM
An unrepentant troll. ;)

listen mate, I go and stir 40,000 christians in their procession just for the fun, giant banners ridiculing them

upldiscovered
08-05-2009, 01:17 AM
The serious scientist does not maintain that nothing else is worth knowing - only that there is no other known method of knowing things that [i[works[/i]. There are all kinds of things we do not yet know but there is no reason to believe that unscientific alternative methods of "discovering the truth" (eg religion, astrology, tealeaf gazing, historicism, Marxism) actually work in discovering any of them.
Observation is another known method of knowing things. Scientists for years argued that the hare does not chew the cud. They ran all of their scientific experiments and could not deduce that it does. They used this scientific "evidence" to deride the bible that stated that the Hare DID chew the cud. QUOTE: "..., it cannot be expected that theologians are experts in the biology of the lagomorphs. But they could have informed themselves. For more than 100 years, modern biology knows and has published that hares indeed are ruminants even if in another way than the bovids. I myself was introduced to this specific behavior and digestion of the lagomorphs during the very first semester of my studies in biology. I can still remember Prof. Hassenstein pointing out in the course of a physiology lecture that the biblical description was correct.

Obviously, Moses knew this times earlier he and his contemporaries had understood the heavenly command and fathomed out the scientific connection by precise OBSERVATION of nature."( Genesisnet..."The Hare- A Ruminant?)

Einstein was known for his ascribing to experience and observation verses scientific postulating. I believe that Albert was purely observational. As well Einstein suffered much disdain and contempt from his contemporaries(DUH). We know the "rest of the story."

Spiny Norman
08-05-2009, 06:12 AM
Sole reliance on scientific method seems to lead inevitably to either skepticism or solipsism. Scientific method is a good mechanism for a great many kinds of enquiries. Whether you be empiricist (Bacon's school) or rationalist (Descartes school), or a hybrid of both, there are some things that you just cannot derive from a scentific method of thought which concerns itself with the realm of the True. You cannot leap from the True to the Good (ethics) without adopting new founding principles of reason, though many have tried (and IMO failed ... Hobbes, Locke, Berkeley, Hume). I don't think you can leap from truth to aesthetics (Beauty) without adopting new founding principles either. So horse for courses.

Kevin Bonham
08-05-2009, 11:06 PM
Observation is another known method of knowing things. Scientists for years argued that the hare does not chew the cud. They ran all of their scientific experiments and could not deduce that it does. They used this scientific "evidence" to deride the bible that stated that the Hare DID chew the cud. QUOTE: "..., it cannot be expected that theologians are experts in the biology of the lagomorphs. But they could have informed themselves. For more than 100 years, modern biology knows and has published that hares indeed are ruminants even if in another way than the bovids. I myself was introduced to this specific behavior and digestion of the lagomorphs during the very first semester of my studies in biology. I can still remember Prof. Hassenstein pointing out in the course of a physiology lecture that the biblical description was correct.

Curiously I see that our own Jono has addressed this issue (http://creation.com/do-rabbits-chew-their-cud) in detail.

It is a question of interpretation. As Jono notes in his article, the term "chewing the cud" (and equivalents) can be used for:

(i) a specific form of re-digestion of already swallowed material found in ruminants
(ii) any form of re-digestion of already swallowed material

Hares fall under category (ii) but not under category (i). Rather than processing material internally then re-chewing and re-digesting as ruminants do, they excrete partially digested material and then re-consume it.

Scientists who consider only definition (i) to count therefore correctly exclude hares from the list of animals that chew their cud.

At the same time, Jono argues (and I have no reason to doubt him) that the biblical expression is broader and was therefore not in error in the terms in which it was originally expressed.

However, your claim that hares "indeed are ruminants even if in another way than the bovids." is wrong. Rumination does not involve excretion.

Also, when you just say "scientists for years argued" you need to say which scientists so we can see what particular scientists have said, rather than just your handwaving about anonymous "scientists" and unstated "experiments".

The father of modern taxonomy, Linneaus, was one scientist who thought hares were ruminants because of this behaviour and classified them accordingly. But he was wrong, as have been many taxonomists who have assumed behavioural or structural similarities imply that species are related to each other. I suspect that if you actually name scientists who have said that the hare does not chew its cud, you will find that this is because they are applying the more restrictive definition.

upldiscovered
08-05-2009, 11:17 PM
correction: that comment was a quote( not my words). the reference is provided. However the Bible holds claim to the original scientific statement as to the hare chewing the cud. A cud is a cud is a cud. further (yet more to follow)...who 'discovered' that the earth was round. And who stated "He is beating out the skies hard like a molten mirror."

Kevin Bonham
08-05-2009, 11:25 PM
You cannot leap from the True to the Good (ethics) without adopting new founding principles of reason, though many have tried (and IMO failed ... Hobbes, Locke, Berkeley, Hume).

Actually Hume, rather than trying, told people to give up trying because it was trivially clear that it was pointless. Objectivised moral philosophies have been shutting their ears to the cacaphonous whirring of the wings of the clue fairy on that one ever since.

Hume's view was that a sense of morality is innate - not only does reason not work as a primary motivator of moral actions, but it is also unnecessary.


Sole reliance on scientific method seems to lead inevitably to either skepticism or solipsism.

I am sceptical of this claim. :lol:


there are some things that you just cannot derive from a scentific method of thought which concerns itself with the realm of the True.

This is very likely true but an extremely common blunder is to assume that if a postulated "truth" cannot be derived by scientific methods then it must be derivable in some other way. This blunder tends to arise when people want to believe that a specific "truth" is grounded rather than facing up to the possibility that it may not be.


I don't think you can leap from truth to aesthetics (Beauty) without adopting new founding principles either.

Of course not, because where and how an individual perceives aesthetic beauty varies from individual to individual, especially according to aspects of background and personal history.

Kevin Bonham
08-05-2009, 11:40 PM
correction: that comment was a quote( not my words). the reference is provided.

OK, your source was wrong then and you were wrong to endorse it uncritically without reading more widely. It appears that the article you quoted from is here: http://www.genesisnet.info/index.php?Sprache=en&Frage=87


However the Bible holds claim to the original scientific statement as to the hare chewing the cud. A cud is a cud is a cud.

No, there is a genuine difference in definition here and under modern definitions what hares do is definitely not cud-chewing. The Biblical term had a broader meaning which was imprecise and is obsolete.


cud noun partly digested food returned from the first stomach of cattle or similar animals to the mouth for further chewing

What occurs in hares is similar only in that partly digested food is returned. The mechanism is totally different and hence describing the partly digested food as "cud" is now imprecise and incorrect. But that does not make the biblical claim wrong considering the meaning of the equivalent term at the time it was written.

Spiny Norman
09-05-2009, 05:47 AM
Of course not, because where and how an individual perceives aesthetic beauty varies from individual to individual, especially according to aspects of background and personal history.
I agree that this is a fairly typical modern attitude to beauty, making it about the perception of the viewer, thereby basically denying that there is anything objective about it. However there are other views woth considering ...

Kevin Bonham
09-05-2009, 03:53 PM
I agree that this is a fairly typical modern attitude to beauty, making it about the perception of the viewer, thereby basically denying that there is anything objective about it. However there are other views woth considering ...

Not really, except as an excursion into the history of philosophical failure.

Also, even though different people perceive beauty in different things, there are still some things that are more intrinsically capable than others of being found beautiful by some human somewhere than others. All I'm saying is that if A finds X beautiful but not Y and B finds the reverse then saying that one is right and one is wrong is virtually always silly.

antichrist
09-05-2009, 04:31 PM
I am not going to bother reading these lengthy posts but heard a scientist say the other day that a scientist proves nothing, just disproves things

Kaitlin
21-07-2011, 04:58 PM
If nothing changed would there be time?

Rincewind
21-07-2011, 05:18 PM
If nothing changed would there be time?

If you mean nothing (completely static universe) then no there would be no way to measure time which is the same as saying time did not exist.

But a completely static universe is impossible as we change things simply by measuring them (quantum wave function collapse not interference error). So measurement and change go hand in hand.

antichrist
21-07-2011, 05:59 PM
If you mean nothing (completely static universe) then no there would be no way to measure time which is the same as saying time did not exist.

But a completely static universe is impossible as we change things simply by measuring them (quantum wave function collapse not interference error). So measurement and change go hand in hand.

Is that the same as a leaf dropping in the forest or a sparrow dying whatever and nobody knows....

Kaitlin
21-07-2011, 06:29 PM
I think space is much like water. Sometimes it is still and sometimes its moving very fast and sometimes even stranger. I explained at great length my Raindrop Theory of the Bigbang in FICs. And may touch upon that and other aspects of my Raindrop Universe Theory here at later dates.

antichrist
21-07-2011, 06:56 PM
I think space is much like water. Sometimes it is still and sometimes its moving very fast and sometimes even stranger. I explained at great length my Raindrop Theory of the Bigbang in FICs. And may touch upon that and other aspects of my Raindrop Universe Theory here at later dates.

did you receive a standing ovation? were you offered any research funds?

Kaitlin
03-08-2011, 07:01 PM
Try to envisage what is at the bottom of space?

antichrist
03-08-2011, 07:44 PM
Try to envisage what is at the bottom of space?

nothing exists but maybe Hell, I will concede that

Kaitlin
04-08-2011, 06:39 PM
hmm then I will try and start with this one..

Why is it that space entering a blackhole only does so from the top and not from all directions at once as if the blackhole was a globe?

antichrist
04-08-2011, 08:00 PM
hmm then I will try and start with this one..

Why is it that space entering a blackhole only does so from the top and not from all directions at once as if the blackhole was a globe?

how you see from the top is only artistic license - they would not have a clue how it really looks like, coz it is all dark and there is nothing to see anyway, it is all sub-atomic particles, much smaller then our farts

Kaitlin
05-08-2011, 05:35 PM
:rolleyes: Ok I will try this..

If something is spinning would it be more likely that some points spin slower
(like those near the top and the bottom) than all points would spin the same?

antichrist
05-08-2011, 05:42 PM
:rolleyes: Ok I will try this..

If something is spinning would it be more likely that some points spin slower
(like those near the top and the bottom) than all points would spin the same?

if it was a pear than if the backside at bottom it will spin faster and if neck at top then will spin slower - but if someone doing cartwheels the top and bottom would spin faster

Max Illingworth
05-08-2011, 07:44 PM
Try to envisage what is at the bottom of space?

A point where you cannot go any farther, a bit like the North or South Pole on Earth.

Hobbes
05-08-2011, 07:52 PM
Try to envisage what is at the bottom of space?

It is turtles all the way down.

Sir Cromulent Sparkles
09-08-2011, 01:28 AM
Try to envisage what is at the bottom of space?

ac's neck and shoulders ?

Max Illingworth
09-08-2011, 04:34 AM
ac's neck and shoulders ?

Heaven forbid...

antichrist
09-08-2011, 02:41 PM
Heaven forbid...

does that mean I can only have it off with angels or demons

Kevin Bonham
09-08-2011, 02:54 PM
It is turtles all the way down.

Didn't know quite how much of a history this fine expression has.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turtles_all_the_way_down

It's been "turtles all the way down" for 100 years or more!

Kaitlin
01-09-2011, 07:01 PM
my prediction is ... Gravity isnt even all the way around ... it has weak spots and pops like a bubble

littlesprout85
04-09-2011, 09:08 PM
Hmmmmm,

Sprouty thinks thats a classic description of a Black hole :0

-Sprout =)