https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/White_hole
"... In general relativity, a white hole is a hypothetical region of spacetime which cannot be entered from the outside, although matter and light can escape from it. ..."
I don't pretend to be even close to being an expert on this.
Good answer.
Is every white whole connected with a black whole? (Not considering speculations...)
Originally posted by @humy the evidence proving the scientific facts about an unrepeatable event are repeatable, not the unrepeatable event itself that evidence is about;
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Equivocation
If you can't repeat the event itself, then it isn't a scientific fact, just speculation.
You are free to believe as you wish. To believe others must believe what you believe makes one a European. The US was created with that specfic European trait rejected.
Although it us true many modern Americans hold to the traditional European ideal of the population being told what to believe by the sicietal head, it is still a European ideal not American.
Originally posted by @eladar If you can't repeat the event itself, then it isn't a scientific fact, just speculation.
No, it can be a scientific fact.
A particular supernovae event itself from a particular star exploding can never be repeated but if it was scientifically observed then it is a scientific event even though that star no longer exists thus the event of that particular star exploding can never happen again. That is an example of a event that is a scientific fact when the event was directly observed via direct evidence. An event that cannot be repeated can also be a scientific fact when we can deduce it must have happened from the indirectly evidence available to us. An example of that is an impact crater indicating that once an impact happened at that exact specific location where that crater is situated; we were not around to witness it when that event took place and it is extremely unlikely for that event to ever happen at that exact spot again so that we can observe it but we can deduce from the indirect evidence (the crater in this case) that it must have happened at that exact location.
Originally posted by @humy No, it can be a scientific fact.
A particular supernovae event itself from a particular star exploding can never be repeated but if it was scientifically observed then it is a scientific event even though that star no longer exists thus the event of that particular star exploding can never happen again. That is an example of a event that is a scientific fa ...[text shortened]... ific fact when we can deduce it must have happened from the indirectly evidence available to us.
It may have happened it may not.
You are welcome to your assumptions, but if you try to force them on others, then that is not welcome.
Originally posted by @eladar It may have happened it may not.
You are welcome to your assumptions, .
how can it be an assumption if we have proof that it happened?
Is it just an assumption that an impact event occurred to create a particular impact crater? You make no sense. It happened. No maybe about it. We don't have to be around to witness an event nor repeat the exact particular event to know for a fact that it happened. What we deduce from an impact crater is proof of that. If you see the smoke and feel the heat without the opportunity to directly see the fire, it is still very reasonable to think there is fire.
Originally posted by @humy how can it be an assumption if we have proof that it happened?
Is is just an assumption that an impact event occurred to create a particular impact crater? You make no sense.
You assume that God does not exist and that miracles can't happen.
Then you say but this is science so we must make that assumption.
I would then answer which is why we must limit science to what we can repeat because science limits itself to the assumptiin God does not exist.
Originally posted by @eladar You assume that God does not exist and that miracles can't happen.
now you change the subject rather than answer the questions so I assume you have no counterargument because you know have lost the argument. I (and you) in the last few posts clearly wasn't taking about god or gods or miracles but rather events we can actually deduce from the evidence must have taken place.
But, OK then, tell us how is belief in God and miracles is not just merely assumptions but belief in the evidenced-based sciences is?...
Originally posted by @humy now you change the subject rather than answer the questions so I assume you have no counterargument because you know have lost the argument. I clearly wasn't taking about god or gods or miracles.
But, OK then, tell us how is belief in God and miracles is not an assumption but belief in science is?...
No, I am not changing the subject. I am just identifying the root of the problem.
You can't see the difference between fact and belief. Since you believe your beliefs are facts you are a true believer and try to force others into your religipus truth.
Originally posted by @eladar No, I am not changing the subject. I am just identifying the root of the problem..
So if I see an impact crater then the root of the 'problem' of my conclusion that an impact event occurred there is that I " assume that God does not exist and that miracles can't happen " (your words) . You make no sense. You have change the subject to miracles and goddidit.
You can't see the difference between fact and belief.
No, you can't. A belief may or may not be based on fact. Fact is what is proven by the evidence. There existing god or gods or magic has not been proven by the evidence hence the belief in god or gods or magic is not based on fact. Therefore belief in god/gods is religion. Belief in the facts proven by the evidence is not religion nor religious belief but just rational belief (and scientific belief if fact a scientific one) .
Originally posted by @humy So if I see an impact crater then the root of the 'problem' of my conclusion that an impact event occurred there is that I " assume that God does not exist and that miracles can't happen " (your words) . You make no sense. You have change the subject to miracles and goddidit.
You can't see the difference between fact and belief.
No, you ca ...[text shortened]... nor religious belief but just rational belief (and scientific belief if fact a scientific one) .
I get to teach AP stats this year, so I am getting a refresher.
Y hat is the prediction equation for a set of data, but that predictiin equation is not valid beyond the original set of data. If the smallest input is 5 and the largest is 100, then y hat can only be used for inputs 5 to 100.
Originally posted by @eladar No, I am not changing the subject. I am just identifying the root of the problem.
You can't see the difference between fact and belief. Since you believe your beliefs are facts you are a true believer and try to force others into your religipus truth.
No, in fact you changed the subject to one of religion.
Originally posted by @eladar I get to teach AP stats this year, so I am getting a refresher.
you need to do a lot more than a refresher on that. You need to remove the vast load of gibberish religious propaganda crap from your stats so you are left with just the stats to teach. Only then may you be both mentally fit and morally justified to teach it else you should be banned from teaching it; leave religious nut propaganda out of maths education.
Originally posted by @humy you need to do a lot more than a refresher on that. You need to remove the vast load of gibberish religious propaganda crap from your stats so you are left with just the stats to teach. Only then may you be both mentally fit and morally justified to teach it else you should be banned from teaching it; leave religious nut propaganda out of maths education.
Originally posted by @eladar If you can't repeat the event itself, then it isn't a scientific fact, just speculation.
You are free to believe as you wish. To believe others must believe what you believe makes one a European. The US was created with that specfic European trait rejected.
Although it us true many modern Americans hold to the traditional European ideal of the population being told what to believe by the sicietal head, it is still a European ideal not American.
Are you generalizing here or thinking of a specific effect or something? When Nobel was making his explosives, if he tried some formula and set off the explosion it is a one time event, he can't do that exact experiment again. Or like Humy said, a supernova can't be repeated since all the atoms are being spread far and wide but others happen so you can still figure stuff out statistically, if a thousand of them are studied, all of them gone when the trigger is pulled, you still learn from them.
05 Oct '17 07:35
Age of the earth
Back to Top