How many logical fallacies can /sci/ make per post? Let's

The universe probably isn't actually getting bigger. It just appears that way do to brane fluctuations.

>>7762188
>let me explain my imaginary concept with another imaginary concept using this imaginary concept i just imagined

P is greater than or equal to NP.

>>7762188
Forget Hubble, some dude on the interwebs knows better

I doubt myself

>>7762193
>guy who has been dead since the 50s
>it is unreasonable that his interpretations of the data could be made incorrect with more modern physical theories

>>7762203
> guy who has been dead since the 50s
> it is unreasonable that his interpretations of the data could be made incorrect with more modern physical theories developed by the wizards of /sci/

it doesnt expand "into" something. there are no borders.

>>7762207
> theories developed by the wizards of /sci/
Isn't my theory bro. Read some books on brane cosmology.

>>7762196
I doubt that you doubt yourself.

>>7762169
All the cool people agree that the universe is expanding into other universes, you do want to be cool, don't you?

>>7762196
You should be getting more confident for each trick they pull. Just think ; The effort they put into fucking with your brain shows your worth.

And for an answer: it is the space itself that is expanding, like you stretch a rubber band, each point getting slowly further away from the others. More the further away they already are and less the closer they are.

"the universe is shaped exactly like the earth if you go straight along it you'll end up where you were"

How accurate is this

>>7762219
When you stretch a rubber band, you expand it in the ambient 3d space.

>>7762169
the universe isnt expanding, matter and energy are "getting smaller"

>>7762169
The universe is actually shrinking, the government is lying to you in order to get your money.

>>7762222
About as accurate as any information you find on /pol/.

It's expanding into itself.

>>7762222
Not accurate as far as is known. In order to be closed like a sphere the universe must have global curvature, the best tests so far say it is flat. It may be just closed but it would be so large you could never travel round (a closed universe would have to recollapse).

>>7762224
Well pretend if the whole world was the rubber band and nothing else existed. It's just a practical way to try and explain in terms we are used to in everyday life.

>>7762240
If nothing else existed, you couldn't stretch the rubber band.

You can't speak of "expanding into" because "into" is defined in spacetime, but that does not exist "outside" the universe. Probably we're incapable of understanding.

>>7762222
If everything was flatland on a big perfect sphere it would be correct. If you walk in a straight line you will be walking along a "big-circle". In practice there will be puddles and mountains and annoying people on the way which would force you to take small detours of course.

logical fallacies don't mean much without knowing metalogics

This was published on national television so it must be true. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NFTaiWInZ44

>>7762241
Yes it could, by internal forces or "laws" which applies to some rubber-band type of universes. Once again, the rubber-band is just a way to illustrate, it is not to be taken literally.

>>7762241
It can if the rubber band has infinite volume.

>>7762169
My favorite fallacy is the "proof" that 0.999 equals 1.

>>7762260
Internal forces cannot stretch the rubber band if there is no ambient space.

>>7762265
The universe has finite volume because it had finite volume in the big bang.

>>7762203
That dead guy has observational evidence to back up his theory
Your "modern physics" barely has meme potential

>>7762278
You did not seem to take the effort to read what I wrote so there's not much point in continuing to argue with you.

>>7762279
The dead guy's evidence does not say the universe is expanding. It implies that it is based on our traditional idea of what the universe is.

Under a braneworld model, the same evidence could have a different meaning.

>>7762283
I'm not arguing, I'm demonstrating why your pop sci analogy of rubber bands is retarded and does not appropriately explain what a metric tensor really is.

>>7762292
It is not supposed to be an accurate description. It is to show that something can expand in an internal sense - that it does not necessarily have to "grow" externally to expand in some sense.

By the way physics does not explain the world - it describes it.

>>7762278
>The universe has finite volume because it had finite volume in the big bang.
But that's wrong, dummy. The universe had infinite volume in the Big Bang.

>>7762292
So you don't understand what an analogy is either. OK.

>>7762300
>It is to show that something can expand in an internal sense
But your analogy doesn't do that.

the observable universe is expanding into the much larger unobservable universe

>>7762319
It didn't convince me. Therefore it was a shit tier analogy.

>>7762333
Or maybe you're just not as smart as you think you are.

>>7762169

If humans came from monkeys then why are there still monkeys?

GMOs should be banned because they cause proteins and proteins cause autism.

Chemicals should be banned because I have an allergy to peanuts and shrimp so they should take the chemicals out of them because they are toxic to my immunity system

Microwaves will give you radiation cancer and destroy nutrients in your food

I don't own a cellphone because they produce electromagnetic fields and those are bad for you.
>do you own a toaster?
Yea, why are you asking?

What people dont 'get' is that absolutely everything is expanding and that expansion is accellerating. This explains fat people.

>>7762348
Or I'm too smart to fall for cheap tricks.

>>7762367
Yes it was a very serious attempt to describe the deep mysteries of nature. Someone could have thought it was the real deal. Halt your stringing and particle colliding everyone, 'cuz I found a bunch of rubber bands over here.

Is there any value to knowing logical fallacies for refining your own thinking or is it all internet debater mental masturbation nonsense?

>>7762169
Ok what if view the universe like in Strongly coupled heterotic string theory, as an [math] {S^1}/{\mathbb{Z}_2} [/math] orbifold with two 10 dimensional boundaries at its singular points.

What if the expansion of the universe if simply the decompactifcation of this 11th dimension. The big bang was some event that caused this dimension, which was originally at some [math] {R_{11}} = 0\[/math], to start growing to the point where it was no longer compact. i.e. [math] {R_{11}} \to \infty [/math]

This would mean that eventually this 11th dimension should decompactify, i.e. the universe would stop expanding, and we would end up with an extra full sized spacial dimension.

>>7762356
> stop whatever creates autism or other "disorders"

Hell no. We make loads of bucks selling pills for those diagnoses.

>>7762432
sounds right

>>7762224
what kind of autism is this
you're like the retards that try to say that just because parts of the universe have creators that the universe must too have a creator

that's called a fallacy of composition

>>7762734

>Space and matter are completely separate components, with no relationship to each other.
>Space or matter are components of each other once added up!

Your fallacy doesn't even make sense. It doesn't matter how you want to interpret the logic of it. The reality is space is expanding and this is an observed phenomenon.

>>7762432

Great. All you need to do now is prove it.
>Oh, wait, that's the problem with string theory in the first place...

There's no issue with you having the possibility of you being right. You could very well be right. The problem is so many people push this as truth without due diligence, and so you have nothing to actually base this statement on.

>>7762273
Actually curious. How is it fallacious?

>>7762734
>muh pop sci rubber band analogy
>l-l-look at this extrinsic force in my e-e-example
>"But anon, the metric tensor is an intrinsic property independent of embedding. Your analogy is flawed and of no educational value at all."
>sh-sh-shut le fug up ur reeeeeeeetarded
Why are you so cancerous? I bet you don't even know anything about general relativity. Who are you to insult people who are more educated in theoretical physics than you? Go back to watching your silly Neil Tyson kids show.

>>7762191
Some real shitposting anon
Quality work

>>7762746
I know. But really every theory that tries to explain the entire universe is purely mathematical speculation. The math and reasoning that leads to this S1/Z2 orbifold with 10d boundaries idea is quite interesting, gives a good justification for a universal E8xE8 symmetry.
The relation to the expansion of the universe is just my personal speculation though, and has no justification.

You have a series: 1,2,3,4,5,... to infinity.

Multiply it by 2.

You get 2,4,6,8,10,...

It's expanded.

What did the series expand into?

File: 1429599129774.jpg (36KB, 960x643px) Image search: [Google]

36KB, 960x643px

>>7763312

>>7763312
>>7763312
Those two sets have the same cardinality, so it expanded into nothing.

First logical fallacy is using a picture of 2D expansion to describe the non-equivalent expansion of the universe. The implication leaves the question ill defined.

>>7762752
Depends on the proof. There are a few, all fallacious.

>>7762169
atheism

>>7762356
10/10 wow.

>>7762169
There is no shame in admitting that we don't know, there is more shame implying that we should know everything, why do you act so entitled?

Look up redshift data, it offers insight on how we know the universe is expanding.

>>7762420
ITT I envy those who don't have to intentionally generate logical fallacies.

>>7762757
I doubt the guy who said this
>The universe has finite volume because it had finite volume in the big bang.

Has any education in theoretical physics at all.

>>7762193
>Hubble
Isn't that the Scientology guy

>>7764362
Get reverse baited son

>trap sprung

File: hume.jpg (10KB, 241x313px) Image search: [Google]

10KB, 241x313px

Science is the only way to truth and any material explanation is the right one, because NASA says so too.

>>7763312
Double infinity

Greatest Logical fallacy.

Post hoc ergo propter hoc & Cum hoc ergo propter hoc.

These types of statement are why Idiots think they are smart.

>>7762169
The "not universe".
The not universe has no mass because everything that can be identified as having mass is within the Universe. So what the universe is going into is not itself which can be defined as massless nothing which is also known as outside the universe which can be easily be defined as the not-universe since everything outside it can not be identified because to the extent of my knowledge there is no way for information from the outside universe capable of getting to Earth before becoming the universe first.
Rate my shitpost.

>>7762255
very educational

>>7762169
wow Op, you know nothing about physics, phenomenology and philosophy of science. it will be hard to top your post.

>>7762356
You're on fire son.

>>7762188
On that note does the universe have an "end"? What happens if u cross it?

>>7765861
I will not even begin to pretend that I could answer that. But hypothetically if it was bounded and you were to cross this bound then there could be a multiverse scenario where each universe exists in the worldvolume of some brane. And these branes exist in some even higher space.
This is not even a real theory though is purely hypothetical speculation.

Psychology is a real science.

Ur mum