|
Post by Brandon Azzoria on Jan 16, 2008 20:57:20 GMT
Wrong. You are arguing that the reason it must be false is because they use if. That is why you've lost, not because your argument uses if.
They use if in the form of logical reasoning. If I think, I am. That doesn't mean that I do not think by any stretch of the imagination.
|
|
|
Post by Spangle on Jan 16, 2008 21:00:50 GMT
they don't use if like that, they use if as in "I observed this so black hole exist if i can observe that" when "that" is usually something you need a detector the size of the milky way to observe
|
|
|
Post by Brandon Azzoria on Jan 16, 2008 21:02:09 GMT
Obviously not, since we have observed these effects.
|
|
|
Post by Spangle on Jan 16, 2008 21:03:04 GMT
Have we observed gravatrons?
no.
we would need a dector the size of jupiter to detect them, with enough lead sheilding to make it the size of the milky way.
|
|
|
Post by Brandon Azzoria on Jan 16, 2008 21:06:31 GMT
You don't need to directly observe minute details of distant phenomena before you can venture to say that they exist. Nobody has seen the surface of extrasolar planets through a reflecting telescope, but that doesn't make them mathematical flukes.
Also, I need to go. Your arguments are using up my time.
|
|
|
Post by Spangle on Jan 16, 2008 21:17:43 GMT
They have seen the surface of exoplanets (as they are actually called) and have even analysed water content of a few of them.
|
|
|
Post by Brandon Azzoria on Jan 16, 2008 21:52:33 GMT
A pixel or two does not constitute viewing the surface through a light reflecting telescope?
Can we stop now? This arguing ages me.
|
|
|
Post by Spangle on Jan 26, 2008 23:14:55 GMT
whatever
you lose.
|
|
|
Post by Brandon Azzoria on Jan 27, 2008 3:53:58 GMT
A...
*Restrains Self*
|
|
|
Post by Spangle on Feb 9, 2008 11:28:31 GMT
you nearly lost at restraining yourself too
|
|