[Xrow]

Rage much?

Each and every single question you've posed here has been proved extensively within the scientific community. Open a ****ing book and start reading.

First, you mean proven.

Second, common sense says that these concepts haven't been proven.  Why?  BECAUSE NO ONE HAS BEEN TO THE EDGE OF THE DAMN UNIVERSE TO SEE ENERGY DEPARTING FROM IT.  /facerocketlauncher.

Third, just because some olda*s scientist in one of your bullheaded college classes says "This is absolute truth!!" doesn't mean it is, sir.
Close-minded methods of reasoning generate a static reality, not a dynamic one.  "We can't solve problems by using the same kind of thinking we used when we created them." - Einstine.
I am open to new beliefs, but not because some college child tells me its fact.  You have put forth absolutely no proof to back up any of your statements.  Should have seen that one coming.

Fourth, I have read 9 books since September first, so maybe YOU should crack some pages.

And honestly, I don't give a rats a*s about the universe being a closed or open system.  Obviously I wasn't referring to naught and the aught it holds.  I also don't particularly care about the second level of thermodynamics, it is merely a big word that describes a small concept.

Maybe you should go back to high school.

[zomniethe4]

universe does not exist

[Xrow]

universe does not exist

Everything exists.

[zomniethe4]

Nothing does not exist

[Optimism]

Rage much?

First, you mean proven.

Second, common sense says that these concepts haven't been proven.  Why?  BECAUSE NO ONE HAS BEEN TO THE EDGE OF THE DAMN UNIVERSE TO SEE ENERGY DEPARTING FROM IT.  /facerocketlauncher.

If I were to go to the edge of the universe and throw a rock, it would behave in an identical manner to that at an alternate location given identical surroundings. If these surroundings were to change in an identical manner, then the rock would behave in accordance to this change. For instance tossing a rock near a planet with gravitational force x results in displacement y. Tossing the rock 200 light years away near another planet with a gravitational force z (equal to the of x) would result in displacement w (equal to that of y). Any point's physical laws are considered a microcosm of any location within the universe. Believe it or not, one doesn't have to be at a location to gauge select laws.

http://physics.about.com/od/physics101thebasics/p/PhysicsLaws.htm

Third, just because some olda*s scientist in one of your bullheaded college classes says "This is absolute truth!!" doesn't mean it is, sir.
Close-minded methods of reasoning generate a static reality, not a dynamic one.  "We can't solve problems by using the same kind of thinking we used when we created them." - Einstine.
I am open to new beliefs, but not because some college child tells me its fact.  You have put forth absolutely no proof to back up any of your statements.  Should have seen that one coming.

Fourth, I have read 9 books since September first, so maybe YOU should crack some pages.

And honestly, I don't give a rats a*s about the universe being a closed or open system.  Obviously I wasn't referring to naught and the aught it holds.  I also don't particularly care about the second level of thermodynamics, it is merely a big word that describes a small concept.

Maybe you should go back to high school.

Regarding "truth" and "untruth"...

Everything we know is based from philosophy -- even science (the philosophy of science). Those who practice the scientific method would agree with this statement; however, they would find it unpractical in the method which they use to provide tangible (in some form), repetitious experiments that provide validity to their hypotheses. You can argue what you believe truth to be all you like, but at some point, we must come to an agreement as to how we gauge truth. If I were to mentally construct a gun and fire it at you once within a 10 minute time frame, the likelihood of you being able to tell me when I fire this gun is up for grabs (is it real; does this have consequences for yourself?). Now, if I were to put a real gun in my hand and fire this gun at you (not killing or hitting you), you could surely tell me when this gun is fired, if fired within the aforesaid 10 minute time frame. If I were to aim it at you and fire, would it have consequences similar to that of the mentally constructed gun? No. In other words, whatever mental construct (ideas, theories, etc.) you propose has no bearing on myself until it is tangibly reproducible in a way that we both can understand. This is what is considered truth. Certainly, god isn't this. It is purely a subjective belief based on one's mental concepts that cannot be validated through reproducibility or through tangible means (objectivity). Now you seem to have some trouble dealing credibility to what science has provided to this world and its populous and thus its laws. Look around you -- the advancement is undeniable. At one point do you quit discrediting science? The only reason you do this is to provide what you believe to be a backing to your argument. It certainly is rather evident and childish. If you can't meet me at common ground to gauge what is real and what isn't real within this universe, then you sir, aren't worth having a conversation with. The adult mentality simply isn't there.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XDtjLSa50uk&feature=player_embedded

[Xrow]

"If I were to go to the edge of the universe but you can't and throw a rock, it would behave in an identical manner to that at an alternate location given identical surroundings So basically, if you throw a rock off of the edge of the universe (assuming the universe has an edge although there is no supporting evidence), it would behave the same way as another rock being thrown off the edge of the universe?  Damn, Opti.  Gotta give you props on that one. If these surroundings were to change in an identical manner, then the rock would behave in accordance to this change So 50mph in the US is the same speed as 50mph in Germany?  Your on a roll bro!. For instance tossing a rock near a planet with gravitational force x results in displacement y. Tossing the rock 200 light years away near another planet with a gravitational force z (equal to the of x) would result in displacement w (equal to that of y) Sweet now find me 2 planets with absolutely equal gravitational pull.  Then I guess you could find me two spots on the edge of the universe that are the absolute equal distance from two equally placed planets with equal gravitational pull. Any point's physical laws are considered a microcosm of any location within the universe. Believe it or not, one doesn't have to be at a location to gauge select laws."

I suppose I must reassert that no man has been to the edge of the universe to throw a rock, nor in any equal environment.  Not even Isaac Newton, Opti.  He was brilliant, but he wasn't absolute.

"If you can't meet me at common ground to gauge what is real and what isn't real within this universe, then you sir, aren't worth having a conversation with."
L
M
F
A
O,
sir.
"We can compromise, as long as you see it my way." -Obama
Do you realize that you haven't budged an inch during any of our debates, even when its cripplingly obvious that your wrong?
Yet I have.
Opti, I surmise that you lack a mature and adult mindset and that you are a close-minded, thick-headed college child who has yet to live outside himself.

[Optimism]

"If I were to go to the edge of the universe but you can't and throw a rock, it would behave in an identical manner to that at an alternate location given identical surroundings So basically, if you throw a rock off of the edge of the universe (assuming the universe has an edge although there is no supporting evidence), it would behave the same way as another rock being thrown off the edge of the universe?  Damn, Opti.  Gotta give you props on that one.. If these surroundings were to change in an identical manner, then the rock would behave in accordance to this change So 50mph in the US is the same speed as 50mph in Germany?  Your on a roll bro!. For instance tossing a rock near a planet with gravitational force x results in displacement y. Tossing the rock 200 light years away near another planet with a gravitational force z (equal to the of x) would result in displacement w (equal to that of y) Sweet now find me 2 planets with absolutely equal gravitational pull.  Then I guess you could find me two spots on the edge of the universe that are the absolute equal distance from two equally placed planets with equal gravitational pull.. Any point's physical laws are considered a microcosm of any location within the universe. Believe it or not, one doesn't have to be at a location to gauge select laws."

I suppose I must reassert that no man has been to the edge of the universe to throw a rock, nor in any equal environment.  Not even Isaac Newton, Opti.  He was brilliant, but he wasn't absolute.

http://i.imgur.com/0fgeX.png

Nice. As I said, adult conversation impossible.

Regarding "truth" and "untruth"...

Everything we know is based from philosophy -- even science (the philosophy of science). Those who practice the scientific method would agree with this statement; however, they would find it unpractical in the method which they use to provide tangible (in some form), repetitious experiments that provide validity to their hypotheses. You can argue what you believe truth to be all you like, but at some point, we must come to an agreement as to how we gauge truth. If I were to mentally construct a gun and fire it at you once within a 10 minute time frame, the likelihood of you being able to tell me when I fire this gun is up for grabs (is it real; does this have consequences for yourself?). Now, if I were to put a real gun in my hand and fire this gun at you (not killing or hitting you), you could surely tell me when this gun is fired, if fired within the aforesaid 10 minute time frame. If I were to aim it at you and fire, would it have consequences similar to that of the mentally constructed gun? No. In other words, whatever mental construct (ideas, theories, etc.) you propose has no bearing on myself until it is tangibly reproducible in a way that we both can understand. This is what is considered truth. Certainly, god isn't this. It is purely a subjective belief based on one's mental concepts that cannot be validated through reproducibility or through tangible means (objectivity). Now you seem to have some trouble dealing credibility to what science has provided to this world and its populous and thus its laws. Look around you -- the advancement is undeniable. At one point do you quit discrediting science? The only reason you do this is to provide what you believe to be a backing to your argument. It certainly is rather evident and childish. If you can't meet me at common ground to gauge what is real and what isn't real within this universe, then you sir, aren't worth having a conversation with. The adult mentality simply isn't there.

Incase you missed it the first time, try reading again, regarding "absolute truth"...

[Xrow]

^ So your giving up?

L
M
F
A
O,
sir.
"We can compromise, as long as you see it my way." -Obama
Do you realize that you haven't budged an inch during any of our debates, even when its cripplingly obvious that your wrong?
Yet I have.
Opti, I surmise that you lack a mature and adult mindset and that you are a close-minded, thick-headed college child who has yet to live outside himself.

[Optimism]

^ So your giving up?

I'm waiting for you to meet me at a platform at which we can both objectively view a concept and discuss it without the philisophical "what if".

My platform: the scientific method -- the reason you are typing on that laptop of yours; the reason medication exist; the reason transportation exists; the reason nuclear power sources exist, etc., of which, you deny outright. Your platform? Yet to be spoken of. Your aforementioned theory's validity? Torn apart.

[Xrow]

I'm waiting for you to meet me at a platform at which we can both objectively view a concept and discuss it without the philisophical "what if".

"We can compromise, as long as you see it my way." -Obama

Torn apart.

You just gave me your opinion about your own opinion.
That statement, therefore, holds no meaning.
Most of your arguments were merely concepts created by open-minded men.

Open your brain, Opti.  Just because one man said something doesn't mean its absolute.

[Optimism]

...and that has what correlation to this discussion? If you can propose a platform in which we can gauge "truth" and "untruth", then by all means, you have the possibility of continuing this discussion with myself. If you fail to propose a method of equal reliability to my own (keep in mind, the method I've proposed is the reason you're not freezing to death outside at this very moment), then either submit to my own and we can begin here (really, end) or you can keep looking like a complete fool spatting nonsense left and right.

http://www.pearsoned.ca/highered/divisions/text/troyka/help2/logicchart.html

My "opinion" is garnished by the provided link -- I tend to avoid these. You on the other hand, are ridden with them.

Regarding "absolutism". I guarantee if I drop two objects simultaneously they will hit an end at the same time, falling 9.8 m/s to that end. Guaranteed. I also guarantee I am raising my right hand this very moment. Now my left. Now my right again. I can guarantee you that people die; that people are alive. And if you want to get nit-picky, please refer back to the following:

...and that has what correlation to this discussion? If you can propose a platform in which we can gauge "truth" and "untruth", then by all means, you have the possibility of continuing this discussion with myself. If you fail to propose a method of equal reliability to my own (keep in mind, the method I've proposed is the reason you're not freezing to death outside at this very moment), then either submit to my own and we can begin here (really, end) or you can keep looking like a complete fool spatting nonsense left and right.

[Xrow]

...and that has what correlation to this discussion? Stay on topic here buddy, discrediting your opinionated opinion has all the correlation in the world to disproving you. If you can propose a platform in which we can gauge "truth" and "untruth", then by all means, you have the possibility of continuing this discussion with myself. As I am not sure where that statement even came from, or what correlation that and most of your other "arguments" has to my initial discussion, I will not answer it. If you fail to propose a method of equal reliability to my own (keep in mind, the method I've proposed is the reason you're not freezing to death outside at this very moment), then either submit to my own and we can begin here (really, end) or you can keep looking like a complete fool spatting nonsense left and right. I don't need to, kiddo. And a complete fool to one is an exemplar to another, and a martyr to still another. I guess next time I have a conversation with you, I'll just quote the renowned in place of my own independent thought.

[Xrow]

http://www.pearsoned.ca/highered/divisions/text/troyka/help2/logicchart.html

My "opinion" is garnished by the provided link -- I tend to avoid these. You on the other hand, are ridden with them.

Now your just making a damned fool of yourself.
I haven't posted one "garnishment" in the form of a link TO ANOTHER PERSON'S THOUGHTS, and this is - I believe - your third.

/growabrain

[zomniethe4]

This is getting intense. *Gets passed a towel*

[Optimism]

Read my edit. Those aren't "another person's thoughts" -- they are the thoughts of any man who is well versed in logical debate. Period. We are all imitations of another in some form.

*walks away satisfied that king remains as ignorant as the first day we met*

You realize you are having a heart attack -- your medication is lying on the counter (beta blockers / nitrates). What do you do? Hrmm...



Night.