- All Debates
- Popular Debates
- Active Debates
- New Debates
- Open Challenge Debates
- My Challenge Debates
- Accepted Challenges
- Debate Communities
- Argument Waterfall
- New People
- People by Points
To be fair, in the 'old wild west,' to steal a mans horse was, quite frequently, a de facto sentence to slow death for that man. A man whos horse was stolen all too often faced death from exhaustion and dehydration in the desert, whereas a company who has been looted faces the horror of filing an insurance claim.
EXCEPT the only other elements around were the lightest elements, requiring even more time to build a singularity. Can't really conclude any less time is needed. But the heavy elements as well most certainly could have existed with no BB.
Oh, you were there? It's theorized that the overwhelming majority of elements were hydrogen and helium, but not the entirety. A black hole/singularity is a concern of overall mass- not the individual mass of each atom and molecule. Whether it's predominately heavy elements, predominately iron, or predominately helium, the condition for a black hole/singularity is simply that the mass is sufficient that gravitational attraction compresses the whole beyond the schwarzchild radius.
Again nothing is known about the state of matter in the theoretical singularity before the BB
The notBB idea completely accounts for the matter in the universe, without some unknown and unexplained super singularity exploding and creating the universe. Soooooo I'm liking the more complete explanation, that doesn't require an unexplained BB. I believe it has long been the case in theoretical physics that most often the most elegant and simple explanation turns out to be the strongest.
I think you're talking out of your ass. You can't even name the idea in question- WHAT idea? The poorly explored one in the article, you mean? No, that doesn't begin to completely account for all the matter in the universe.
Also, let's look at these two quotes of yours:
"nothing is known about the state of matter in the theoretical singularity before the BB"
"EXCEPT the only other elements around were the lightest elements:
One of these statements does not belong here.
Heavy Elements (link)
Doesn't really contest anything here- this shows the conclusions some have drawn from available data, but do not speak to heavy elements being ONLY formed in old stars, nor does it actually assert that their presence in the immediate aftermath of the big bang was impossible; even if only .0000001% of the mass contained within the big bang formed heavy elements during the initial expansion, that is still a massive raw quantity of heavy elements.
Black holes have never been seen (link)
Of course they haven't been seen. To see something requires viewing light either emitted or reflected by it, neither of which occurs with these particular phenomena. As I said, they were called black holes initially because they appeared to be actual holes- as in regions where there should be detectable emissions, but none exist. The phenomena were initially detected and their nature inferred due to the fact that light 'falls' into it.
You may be right about the uneven distribution if the BBT is correct
What are you trying to say here, exactly?
There can't be an uneven distribution of matter after a big bang if no big bang occurred; that's non-sensical.
If a big bang occurred, the distribution of matter and energy was almost certainly uneven. Asserting a perfect distribution of all matter and energy in all directions is quite a claim to make.
I don't see how any of this constitutes actually disputing my position either, care to clarify that?
The discrepancies you point out, exist only if you assume that heavy elements could be part of a singularity.
You'll note that I noted the formations could occur during or just after the big bang as well, while all the material is still reasonably close. We also don't know what the initial matter that expanded from the big bang looked like- some of it may well have originated as heavy elements at the moment of the big bang.
Also a cause for uneven distribution is not shown in the BBT.
Do we have any reason to believe that the distribution of mass and energy from the big bang was 100% uniform and perfect? If not, then we're working with an uneven distribution.
We do in fact have a sound theory that says the heavy elements are formed in stars.
I'm not contesting that- I'm contesting the idea that this is the only way that they can possibly form. If it is possible for these to form during the course of the/a big bang, then it's pretty obvious we don't have a way to directly observe that yet.
Further, nothing you've said speaks anything regarding the possibility of an inaccurate timeframe.
Finally black hole theory has one big hole in it. Namely that it does not seem like a hole at all. Matter seems to accumulate, rather than pass through a hole. Black holes are known to increase in size as they draw in matter. All they are sure of is that in BHT a powerful gravity well exists. What's inside it is pure speculation.
This isn't a hole in the theory. Black holes were named long before we had any understanding whatsoever of what they are, because they literally appeared as distant 'holes' in the night sky as observed by a telescope, due to their gravity preventing light from escaping. Nobody who is informed at all seriously believes these are actually holes of some kind.
It's a relic of the individual terminology used, and we continue to use this terminology because we don't yet know enough about the phenomena to give them a 'more accurate' name.
Neither side is really accurate for me. I use it, but probably not as often as I should.
I read, investigate myself, and learn in general constantly, and retain much of it, but next to none of it is done under the context of trying to win a debate down the line. I often find myself entering a debate on a topic I've learned much about, and more often than not work from memory initially. When my claims are questioned, I tend to backtrack to find the sources I originally worked with. Most of the time it's quite accurate, but sometimes it turns out that I misremembered something, or conflated two different issues in my memory, or something to that effect.
If I approached this less casually, I'd probably be a better debater- but debating itself is just one of the things I use in my endless quest for knowledge. Almost every time, even if the other side is completely wrong from a factual perspective, there is something useful or at least interesting to be learned by debating them- and I welcome having my positions questioned and criticized, as regardless of whether it reaffirms that I'm right or causes me to seriously re-examine the issue, I benefit from it in some way- more in the latter than the former, really.
I'll probably continue the same, honestly. I don't feel entirely comfortable regurgitating something I just googled, as I generally prefer to look at an issue from as many sides and varying sources as possible before forming an opinion- not that I can prevent myself from inadvertently forming one before I have much in the way of information, but at the very least I can refrain from asserting something I believe to be true if I haven't satisfied my own burden of proof.
While I'll need to do further reading on the subject, as it is interesting, the specific criticisms levvied against BBT in the article don't seem particularly well thought out.
The two examples given are:
1) A black hole that evidently formed inside of 900M years when accumulating mass that quickly should be more or less impossible. But given that the big bang concept theorizes that all matter and energy in the universe was originally (or just previously, in the cyclic big bang theory) in one location as is, it would seem to have pretty ready access to far more mass than is needed at one point in this history, and an uneven scattering with a particularly high concentration would be more than sufficient for the black hole to skip most of the accumulation time by virtue of having most of the mass it needed from the get-go.
2) Heavy elements that evidently formed inside of 700M years when the processes known to create them are only known to occur in stars much older than that. But, again, with all of the matter and energy that exists being concentrated into one spot at some point, certainly there would be enough pressure and energy for fusion processes to begin prior to, during, and even for some time after the big bang before the energy disperses. Similar to the black hole bit, in a way.
Both are also fundamentally rooted in the idea that we know exactly how black holes and heavy elements form, and further know that the known method(s) are the ONLY way(s) they can form.
Both of these discrepancies could also arise if we happened to be basing our predictions on the time the big bang allegedly occurred on a very limited area of the universe due to technical limitations.
Even that article suggests that possibly a number of 'smaller bangs' could be a normal part of the process. In this case, the big bang theory may well be correct, just wrong in scope, and be limited only to an area somewhat larger than what we can currently observe. This would be a case of the data being correct, but the conclusion being incorrect- the conclusion here being that this event is the origin of the entire universe. The whole thing may well be marriageable to a cyclic big bang theory as well, depending on the information we uncover.
That said, I'm not saying that they're wrong, just that I don't see how the information provided in the article actually discredits BBT without making further baseless assumptions. Honestly, I hope they're right- it's a wonderful thing when a previously held scientific theory is found to be untenable, because thats when a surge of new investigation and learning begins.
I believe that when we are called to jury duty we should perform it.
Attempting to evade jury duty is a very common phenomenon. Those called to jury duty roughly fall into three categories:
1) Those who are able to evade jury duty, employing knowledge of the proceedings and the intellect to leverage it in order to do so.
2) Those who do not want to perform jury duty but are lacking in the knowledge/intellect required to do so
3) Those that accept jury duty as a responsibility and do not attempt to evade it.
Those who actually serve jury duty are limited to categories 2 and 3 above, predominately 2. This has the net effect of lowering the actual burden of proof required by prosecutors, and allowing legal precedents to arise that should not.
The more people we have in category 3, the better.
"It'll be a great memory" is primarily a justification for what amounts to a very short-term diversion, rather than an actual motivation to do something.
We don't do the things that make great memories for the purpose of making great memories, at least most of the time. We do the things that make great memories because great memories tend to come from great experiences, however transient. The memories are more of a side effect.
A pragmatist will note the transience of these pleasant experiences, and will generally hold that their transience means they are not worth the costs (financial or otherwise) of experiencing them. The memory argument is typically used as a justification here; even if the experience is momentary, the memories last for most of a lifetime.
"Creating memories together" is another form of this, which is primarily (though not always) more concerned with establishing or reinforcing bonds between individuals. Creating the memories are merely a side effect of the actual intent in most cases, but it's far more pleasant to say that one wants to do something with you to "create a new memory with you" than it is to say that one wants to do the same to "establish an emotional bond with you."
There are, of course, exceptions, where creating memories is the primary goal. This is most frequently the case with a family member who knows he or she will be dying soon, or at the very least will be facing serious life-threatening situations- it's most frequently a parent with a young child when this is the goal; a terminally ill parent who is still mobile but expects to lose mobility soon might want to create memories for their child while they still can- a military parent who is to be deployed to a very dangerous area might want to do the same.
You're confusing dating with arguing. Clinging to these commandments in an argument would fairly and reasonably be called a cop-out for those unable to hold their own.
Debate is different from argument, and debate is all about rationally presenting each position and questioning the premises, assumptions, reasoning, and conclusion on the other side. It's supposed to result in eventually reach a conclusion, with one side or the other demonstrated as being a generally more reasonable position to hold; a decision making tool, and one that also allows aspects of our own position that we may not examine fully to be looked at with unbiased eyes. In a debate, one side or the other may prove to be the better option, but nobody loses- everybody wins, both (or more) debaters and the audience.
The problem is when one tries to apply the debate format to something that is fundamentally subjective, or when an individual stoops to fallacies (such as most of these) rather than reasoning in what is supposed to be a debate. It turns into an argument, and there is only one winner- and it's a shallow win, because who knows what the better option is after all that?
If a priest were to bless the Atlantic Ocean, each blessing would convert 1 pint of water. He must be in physical contact with a portion of the water to perform the blessing.
It's a level 1 spell, so if the priest were to max out his level and allocated all his spell slots to it, he could perform the spell several dozen times (~70 castings of level 1 or higher spells with good stats and other bonuses). Overall, that amounts to about 10 gallons/day max.
Based on an estimate of 264.17 billion gallons of waters in the Atlantic Ocean, it would take a maxed out priest roughly 72 million years to bless the entirety. Better make sure it's an immortal priest.
Even more complicated is the need of 5 pounds of powdered silver as a material component for the spell. That's over 21 trillion pounds of silver total. So... a very rich immortal priest.
I need feminism because, even though such was not their intent, their actions have sparked additional scrutiny into injustices affecting other groups that might otherwise have gone scoffed at unanimously. Even now, many of these injustices are downplayed by the majority, but at least some are thinking about them now.
Exactly what could possibly be accomplished by further disparaging an organization already known to be unscrupulously violent?
Even ff there is no potential for discussion and understanding with such an organization, there is still no benefit I can see to disparaging them. Doing so only gives them more ammunition to fuel propaganda by which to further indoctrinate others to their cause. The best propaganda is built on truths and half-truths that are spun to invoke specific emotions in the audience.
I mean, what? Do you want more recruits for ISIS? Do you want them to have more fuel to inspire further violence and terrorism? Aren't you opposed to them?
No, it didn't. That's just the most inflammatory troll persona I can name off the top of my head. I'm assuming at this point that you're a troll persona, possibly by the same operator even- no evidence in your case, I just don't want to believe that someone could actually want that, and would rather believe they would only do so to get a rise out of others. Call it naivete.