Dan's 'SA=3.14x10^11 LY sq." daily vlog

[mrc25]

Dear Nakor : lol no, but by not being able to prove Dans fun theroy it remains and an idea and not fact

[Nakor]

I already posted a vid reply to him a while ago disproving it by showing we know galaxies actually exist due to gravitational forces they exert on our galaxy that have been measured by scientists. That other galaxies exist is a fact. That there is no screen displaying other galaxies a few billion lightyears away is also fact.

You seem to be prepared to accept nothing less than 100% certainty, but there isn't even 100% certainty that the Earth rotates around the sun by a scientific standard. Nothing is considered 100% ever under the scientific method. However, if something is true beyond at least any rational doubt, then it's considered fact. Thus we can say it's a fact, and not just a possibility, that the moon exists, that there is no monitor 4.5 billion lightyears away, that evolution really happened, and that Obama is the president of the US. That is how science -- and common sense -- works.

[DubiousKing]

Mar 26, 2010 17:44:49 GMT -5 Nakor said:

If it's possible that there was no creator for the creator, then it's possible there was no creator for the universe. Since there is an absolute void of evidence for the existence of a God, it would be more logical to believe that nothing created the universe than that a God did who was in turn created by nothing.

In other words, Occam's Razor: the simplest conclusion is often the correct one.

[mrc25]

Nakor: lol i'm just kidding, and i know there's not a 100% solution. BUT there is still no way of getting a probe 5 billion lightyears away and back and because of that reason and that reason only Dans theroy can not be proved 100% true. And because it can't be proved true it is not fact. Therefore i may not be proving the theory wrong, but i'm making it uncorrect. Please remeber science will observe things to create therories, but pyshcial evidence is extermly important.

[Nakor]

Er? I thought you were arguing against proving it false lol, which is possible.

That said, if Dan's theory were hypothetically true, there would probably be ways for us to prove it true without actually flying out there to see for ourselves. Similar to how I can use gravity to show it's not true, we could probably measure the light we're seeing and other traits like that to prove it true without actually being there.

Unless of course humans ever get around to inventing warp drive. There are various budding theories as to how it might be possible, but all are purely hypothetical at the moment. I think some of them deal with the manipulation of dark matter and how it affects time, or something like that.

[zAkAtAk]

I actually ruler of the universe. Actually, it is a much bigger me. I am just a pawn of myself, sent here as a medium to connect and respond to people on here.

Bow to your leader.


edit: hey cool 200 posts (more like 400 posts but whatever)

[mrc25]

Thank you zAkAtAk for clearing that all up