Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

In space, no-one can hear frivolous debate.

dogma wrote:

whatwhat wrote:
It's certainly not relevant to me, and the other however many people on this forum. No doubt now you will tell me how irrelevant is not a democratic word.

Democracy has nothing to do with this matter.

Do you discuss relevancy in all threads which feature comments that do not interest you? That must be quite the work-load. I mean, if I commented on all things which did not interest me I would have a very full day. Not to mention the conundrum that follows from being interested by that which is not interesting.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

whatwhat wrote:
edit: Ironically I have now become involved in a debate which in the same way, to many people is completely irrelevant. Debate fail.

You failed as soon as you made your first post.

Blatantly you weren't taking me as seriously as I was taking myself. Never mind squire.

whatwhat wrote:
Blatantly you weren't taking me as seriously as I was taking myself. Never mind squire.

Why would I ever take you seriously? You do two things: make illogical comments, and take offense. Neither of those things require seriousness in regard.

dogma wrote:Not silly, irrelevant. Its the same sort of argument that makes Communism atheist.

I don't see that argument as being valid either.

Religious belief is an inapplicable metric to Communism, and so no trait that is a function of religious belief can be said to be true, even if the traits are usually defined by the absence of one another in addition to their place on metric (i.e. Communism is neither atheist, nor non-atheist, but is both not atheist and not non-atheist, the difference being that non-atheist is a trait in itself, and to not be atheist is simply to be lacking in a trait).

Are we discussing space in terms of literal emptiness, or space in terms of Dirac?

I was discussing it in terms of literal emptiness, as I'm not skilled in quantum mechanics. And "outer space" does contain trace amounts of dust or gases in any sense, and those would be cold.


In other news, is an object which is completely immobile slow? I don't think so, as I would say that slowness is a property of speed, which is not present in an immobile object. Never mind, I don't think this works very well given that the concept of immobility presupposes movement as being a relevant concept with relation to the object. Perhaps I could ask "is nothingness slow?"

dogma wrote:

whatwhat wrote:
Blatantly you weren't taking me as seriously as I was taking myself. Never mind squire.

Why would I ever take you seriously? You do two things: make illogical comments, and take offense. Neither of those things require seriousness in regard.

You have taken me seriously, that's my point. Squire.

dogma wrote:

whatwhat wrote:
Blatantly you weren't taking me as seriously as I was taking myself. Never mind squire.

Why would I ever take you seriously? You do two things: make illogical comments, and take offense. Neither of those things require seriousness in regard.

modquisition on.
Dogma this is flaming on a non serious thread. You might check out for a bit lest you continue down the path to suspension.

whatwhat wrote:


The great wall of china is the only man made object visible from space. For one it's only visible against a morning or evening shadow, and for another billions of lights are far more visible up there.

Sorry to bring this up again at this point whatwhat, but are you sure? Surely any manmade structure wider then the great wall would show from space? take for example the cheops pyramid; It may not cast as sharp a shadow, but if you can see the great wall, you could probably distinguish sharp edges and tell the shaded side from the sunlit side apart?

Mind, i'm not questioning you, you have gotten me genuinely curious as to how this works now.

What can be seen from space is a function of the resolution of the sensor.

Paul Atreides wrote:

whatwhat wrote:


The great wall of china is the only man made object visible from space. For one it's only visible against a morning or evening shadow, and for another billions of lights are far more visible up there.

Sorry to bring this up again at this point whatwhat, but are you sure? Surely any manmade structure wider then the great wall would show from space? take for example the cheops pyramid; It may not cast as sharp a shadow, but if you can see the great wall, you could probably distinguish sharp edges and tell the shaded side from the sunlit side apart?

Mind, i'm not questioning you, you have gotten me genuinely curious as to how this works now.

Yeh that's what I mean. The general conception that the great wall is the only mm object visible from space, is a misconception. As firstly it's barely visible, and other things are visible.

I was stating the misconception, the addressing it. That's where I think I have confused you.

For example, by the power of Google Earth (satellite photographs) I can see my house from space.

whatwhat wrote:
You have taken me seriously, that's my point. Squire.

It seems you lack the ability to detect sarcasm, though the nature of this medium leaves you forgiven.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Frazzled wrote:
modquisition on.
Dogma this is flaming on a non serious thread. You might check out for a bit lest you continue down the path to suspension.

Apparently none of the comments which refer to me as a 'squire' (clearly making whatwhat a 'knight') are flaming.

I call people 'squire' quite often when i first meet them, it's just another pronoun....

...besides, didn't Monty Python make use of that particular word quite often?

dogma wrote:

whatwhat wrote:
You have taken me seriously, that's my point. Squire.

It seems you lack the ability to detect sarcasm, though the nature of this medium leaves you forgiven.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Frazzled wrote:
modquisition on.
Dogma this is flaming on a non serious thread. You might check out for a bit lest you continue down the path to suspension.

Apparently none of the comments which refer to me as a 'squire' (clearly making whatwhat a 'knight') are flaming.

Esquire was often used by lawyers in the past and still occasionally so that would be a...no.

dogma wrote:Apparently none of the comments which refer to me as a 'squire' (clearly making whatwhat a 'knight') are flaming.

lmfao

Squire is slang for mate/friend. The subordinate connotations are just an added extra.

Orkeosaurus wrote:
In other news, is an object which is completely immobile slow? I don't think so, as I would say that slowness is a property of speed, which is not present in an immobile object. Never mind, I don't think this works very well given that the concept of immobility presupposes movement as being a relevant concept with relation to the object. Perhaps I could ask "is nothingness slow?"

I would say that it is. I see 'slowness' and 'coldness' as facets of experience, not objective reference.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

whatwhat wrote:
lmfao

Squire is slang for mate/friend. The subordinate connotations are just an added extra.

Damn your English slang.

What's the difference?

(With regards to space being slow and cold, of course, not all of this Dungeons and Dragons nonsense!)

whatwhat wrote:

dogma wrote:Apparently none of the comments which refer to me as a 'squire' (clearly making whatwhat a 'knight') are flaming.

lmfao

Squire is slang for mate/friend. The subordinate connotations are just an added extra.

Evidently there was a misconception there.

Objectivity is the result of proven, or provable, fact. Experience is the aesthetic quality attached to it, in my cosmology, anyway.

Nothing ever touches anything. It is just the magnetic feilds touching eachother which means that there is a microscopic gap between everything thats is "touching".

cormz wrote:Nothing ever touches anything. It is just the magnetic feilds touching eachother which means that there is a microscopic gap between everything thats is "touching".

Misconception. Particles can in fact occupy the same physical space as long as they have different energy levels.

Babies don't smoke.

I don't know about ya'll...but I'm just glad Dogma and what what have made up, and we don't have to read anymore debate on relevant relevancy.

Or.. am I under a misconception?

GG

Khornholio wrote:Babies don't smoke.

Criticising Israel is not by definition or of itself 'racist' or 'anti-semitic'.

dogma wrote:Objectivity is the result of proven, or provable, fact. Experience is the aesthetic quality attached to it, in my cosmology, anyway.

Ah. Well from an aesthetic standpoint I much prefer to think of a vaccum as being neither hot nor cold, given that it's such a great insulator, and I like my definitions to be symetrical.

Khornholio wrote:Babies don't smoke.

Depends on how hot the fire is.

Orlanth wrote:Criticising Israel is not by definition or of itself 'racist' or 'anti-semitic'.

I heard that because Arabic is actually a semitic language itself, an Arab who hates Jews (but not other Arabs) can't truly be said to be anti-semitic.

(Don't know if this is accurate or not.)

Orkeosaurus wrote:Ah. Well from an aesthetic standpoint I much prefer to think of a vaccum as being neither hot nor cold, given that it's such a great insulator, and I like my definitions to be symetrical.

I would simply call it cold, but then I love my nominal referents.

Orkeosaurus wrote:
I heard that because Arabic is actually a semitic language itself, an Arab who hates Jews (but not other Arabs) can't truly be said to be anti-semitic.

(Don't know if this is accurate or not.)

It is.

Abner Doubleday did not invent baseball.

I thought space was 3 degrees above absolute zero.

Am reliably informed that even a Canadian will wear a coat, hat, scarf and gloves in such conditions.

That is definitely cold

The daddy-long-legs (Harvestman) is the most poisonous spider in the world, but has fangs too small to bite.

The problems are, in order...
1. Harvestmen are not poisonous.
2. Harvestmen are not spiders.
3. Harvestmen fangs are not even able to inject anything; they're used like tiny claws.

Just don't eat them