CreateDebate


Debate Info

75
51
Facts No Facts
Debate Score:126
Arguments:128
Total Votes:131
More Stats

Argument Ratio

side graph
 
 Facts (60)
 
 No Facts (44)

Debate Creator

BurritoLunch(6608) pic



"I Don't Have A Source Handy" Says Amarel. While Connected To The Internet.

😆😆😆😆

Facts

Side Score: 75
VS.

No Facts

Side Score: 51
1 point

For a discussion about singularities, I cited a physics professor, an astro-physics professor, and referred to NOVA for what "most physicists agree" about. You cited an article from a philosophy encyclopedia and wikipedia.

"A singularity is a place of infinite density, and that's not really a thing."

What's sad is, you claimed this area was your profession. You said you were a science journalist. You have been schooled in your own profession by an anonymous internet guy.

Side: Facts
1 point

"When scientists talk about black hole singularities, they are talking about the errors that appear in our current theories and not about objects that actually exist. When scientists and non-scientists talk about singularities as if they really exist, they are simply displaying their ignorance."

displaying their ignorance

displaying their ignorance

displaying their ignorance

displaying their ignorance

Side: Facts
1 point

Poor old 6 gun Amarel who values freedom of speech but bans everyone who disagrees with him has been exposed “waffling “ yet again .....

In reply to your previous “piece “......

Jody, you're a god-damned child walking in to the middle of a grown-up movie and asking little kid questions.

Of course when something is beyond your pea like brain it’s my fault not yours........LOL

You're out of your depth, as usual.

Being told this by an idiot who’s whole argument is another appeal to his latest favourite go to source is amusing to say the least

If you run the expansion of the universe which we observe today backwards , then the density of matter must have been larger the younger the universe was, all the way back to an initial moment where the density must have been infinitely high: it must have been singular.

I’m really dumbing it down for you here buddy

Side: Facts
2 points

"In the real universe, no black holes contain singularities. In general, singularities are the non-physical mathematical result of a flawed physical theory. "

-A physics professor rather than a wikipedia page

Side: No Facts
Mongele(185) Clarified
1 point

I'm sure you know that Nom/burio. and Jody are one of the same.

They/it need(s) a good kick up the source.

Side: Facts
1 point

"Based on their experience with other systems, physicists suspect that the singularities in General Relativity are a warning, a tip-off that we need another theory to describe the physics in the extreme situations when gravity is very strong and its quantum effects are very large."

Side: No Facts
Jody(1595) Disputed
2 points

"Based on their experience with other systems, physicists suspect that the singularities in General Relativity are a warning, a tip-off that we need another theory to describe the physics in the extreme situations when gravity is very strong and its quantum effects are very large."

You really should read the entire article that you plagarised your snippet from and credit the source........ which was NOVA ......

The one type of singularity that might be real—that physicists don’t know how to resolve—is the one that appears in Einstein’s theory of General Relativity when matter collapses under the gravitational pull of its own weight. There is nothing in General Relativity that then stands in the way of this collapse. It will continue until all the matter is located at a single point of infinite matter density and infinite space-time curvature: a singularity.

Side: Facts
Amarel(5385) Disputed
1 point

I didn't really think you could read. Good job, though your comprehension is iffy. Yes, the beginning of the article says that the one singularity that might be real is the black hole. It then goes on to explain that the the math of Einstein's General Theory resulting in black hole singularities violates the principle of unitarity. It concludes with my above quote which. Which is a quote dumbass, not plagiarism.

Side: No Facts

and credit the source

He doesn't credit his sources because he misrepresents and/or misunderstands them and doesn't want to be called out on it. A couple of weeks ago he confused a world population table with data on fatal stabbings. How that is even possible I don't know but he managed it. I tracked down his source and he must have read no further than the title.

Side: Facts