Spacetime Warp Theory, believe it or not?

[Captain Griffen]

Discussions about possible and impossible with non-philosophers so often break down due to a lack of distinction between 'possible as far as we know', 'possible if we knew how and had infinite means', and 'possible within the realms of our attainable knowledge and our attainable means'.

 

[DoOs_101]

Discussions about possible and impossible with non-philosophers so often break down due to a lack of distinction between 'possible as far as we know', 'possible if we knew how and had infinite means', and 'possible within the realms of our attainable knowledge and our attainable means'.

Lol, I hate you

 

[Hakeem]

I can't see the word "yet" in there.

Barring the typo, >.>
<.<
I see implication of time.

 

[redscores]

and Hakeem is right, HINDYhat, you see, until is a time span, that means, it is possible UNTIL it is proven that it is impossible, and now learn to read.

You know, thats the same in the judgement system, you are guiltless, until you are proven to be guilty.

So please, prove me that it is impossible, if you can't, it is possible, because everything that can't be proven to be impossible is possible, I am sorry for you if you can't get that.

 

[Captain Griffen]

...what sort of possible are we arguing over...?

Possible as far as *we* know - Obviously
Possible as far as humanity know - We don't have the info
Possible if we knew how and had infinite means - We don't have the info
Possible within the realms of our attainable knowledge and our attainable means - We don't have the info.

Therefore I see nothing to discuss?

 

[HINDYhat]

...what sort of possible are we arguing over...?

Possible as far as *we* know - Obviously
Possible as far as humanity know - We don't have the info
Possible if we knew how and had infinite means - We don't have the info
Possible within the realms of our attainable knowledge and our attainable means - We don't have the info.

Therefore I see nothing to discuss?

Exactly my point.

I see implication of time.

He basically just explained my point in his post: innocent until proven guilty.

You know, thats the same in the judgement system, you are guiltless, until you are proven to be guilty.

Using your logic, everyone eventually becomes guilty. There are some people who are innocent, just as there are some things which are inherently impossible, not because we don't know enough about them yet, but because they just are impossible.

So please, prove me that it is impossible, if you can't, it is possible, because everything that can't be proven to be impossible is possible

Really? Let's think mathematics here.
For some elementary functions it's simply impossible to find their antiderivative. For example: f(x) = e^x2, among many others. It's also impossible to know if it's impossible. Yet it has been established that the antiderivative is simply impossible to find.
Here's a more laid-back example. Say you take an apple and you put it in a sealed box, with no openings. I can make the claim that the apple has turned into a dog. It must be possible, because no one can prove that it's impossible, right? Now, we both know that it's impossible, but there is no way that you can prove it to me (without interacting with the box of course).

My point is that the Alcubierre drive may be inherently impossible, or it may be possible and we don't know enough, etc. But it is definitely not possible until proven impossible. We just don't know.

 

[redscores]

Math is a invention of the humanity, humanity makes mistakes, the nature never makes mistakes, traveling at light speed is a thing which was "created" by the nature, the rules are not given by humans, math is completely made by humans, so it has its limits, I understand that you think in your lil squares where you cannot jump out, but please, don't compare a phenomen of nature with a human mistake.

And to your apple in the box: worse example, you can prove it by opening the box, but you cannot open the box to look at the traveling at light speed, thats like comparing:

A 10000 tons man can jump 10 metres high

then a 10 tons man can jump 10000

Its simply a bad example, now leave, mr. wannabe professor.... oh god.

 

[Captain Griffen]

Math is a invention of the humanity, humanity makes mistakes, the nature never makes mistakes, traveling at light speed is a thing which was "created" by the nature, the rules are not given by humans, math is completely made by humans, so it has its limits, I understand that you think in your lil squares where you cannot jump out, but please, don't compare a phenomen of nature with a human mistake.

Erm, actually (correctly done) maths is, assuming that the assumptions are true, irrefutable, since it is based upon logic.

And to your apple in the box: worse example, you can prove it by opening the box, but you cannot open the box to look at the traveling at light speed, thats like comparing:

You missed the point. The point was that, before you open the box, it's possible.

A 10000 tons man can jump 10 metres high

then a 10 tons man can jump 10000

How does that follow? It so obviously doesn't. That'd only follow if (ignoring air resistance) both of them had the same initial kinetic energy. 1000 times the kinetic energy per ton? Yea, makes sense...

 

[redscores]

Who invented logic? the human. Thats a neverending circle, and the example shouldn't follow, because it is unlogical as his example.

 

[Captain Griffen]

Who invented logic? the human. Thats a neverending circle, and the example shouldn't follow, because it is unlogical as his example.

Unlogical? First, it's "illogical", second, aren't you saying logic isn't trustworthy anyway?

 

[DoOs_101]

Unlogical? First, it's "illogical", second, aren't you saying logic isn't trustworthy anyway?

He is David Hume.

 

[FamousPker49]

Just here to lol @ redscores.

@redscores: Lol at your argument

 

[HINDYhat]

Math is a invention of the humanity, humanity makes mistakes, the nature never makes mistakes, traveling at light speed is a thing which was "created" by the nature, the rules are not given by humans, math is completely made by humans, so it has its limits, I understand that you think in your lil squares where you cannot jump out, but please, don't compare a phenomen of nature with a human mistake.

I think you just beat Elenai for the "Most Commas in a Sentence" award.
Anyway, Griffen neatly replied to this statement.
As for human mistake relating to the Alcubierre drive, I really don't see how this is relevant at all. You're saying that Einstein's special theory of relativity was wrong, and that it is possible to move at the speed of light without using a warp drive, because math is limited and Einstein is mistaken? Right... that's why nature has proven to us that special relativity has tangible real effects on the real world. Do you even know anything about special relativity?

I understand that you think in your lil squares where you cannot jump out

Its simply a bad example, now leave, mr. all-knowing genius.... oh god.

And to your apple in the box: worse example, you can prove it by opening the box, but you cannot open the box to look at the traveling at light speed

(without interacting with the box of course)

Can't you read? It's a hypothetical situation.
Alright, I'll change it to make you happy. What if the box is sealed by an impenetrable barrier that defies logic because it was built by God and not humans.
Also, what the fuck are you talking about travelling light speed?

A 10000 tons man can jump 10 metres high
then a 10 tons man can jump 10000

... completely irrelevant and retarded? Oh wait, Its simply a bad example, now leave, mr. wannabe professor.... oh god.

Its simply a bad example, now leave, mr. wannabe professor.... oh god.

It's actually a very good example and illustrates my point clearly.
You, however, haven't given one good example. You've tried, yes, but your posts have been littered with illogical statements (hey, you're only human, right?), terrible grammar and the occasional insult. And also, me using logical deduction and reasoning makes me a wannabe professor? Wow, now I know why your posts are so ridiculously nonsensical. I'd suggest you come up with something intelligent to say, or leave.

 

[Kwah]

Logic is for the fallible.

 

[redscores]

You understood it, my example was a example for a bad example, like your example.

 

[HINDYhat]

You understood it, my example was a example for a bad example, like your example.

Oh okay. Everything makes sense now. I guess you were right after all.

 

[redscores]

Just by the way, it is hard for me to express some things in english, because it is not my native language, I just tried to say that everything is possible until it is proven to be impossible, means, we cannot say that something is impossible unless we can prove it. Thats my message.

I hope that was clear english.

 

[HINDYhat]

I just tried to say that everything is possible until it is proven to be impossible, means, we cannot say that something is impossible unless we can prove it. Thats my message.

A better [way to phrase it might] be: we can't say anything unless we prove something to be possible or impossible.

 

[Hakeem]

Wait a minute. Does this sound familiar to anyone else?

I understand how the engines work now. It came to me in a dream. The engines don't move the ship at all. The ship stays where it is and the engines move the universe around it.

 

[DoOs_101]

Wait a minute. Does this sound familiar to anyone else?

Lol...

Or the universe spins around earth.