Yep. In this thread we postulate things that just cannot be proven, nor disproven.
Here's mine: there is a race of microscopic pink intellegent bunnies that live on the far side of our moon. They are subterranean in nature, so have never been detected--as yet.
Prove me wrong. Posted by The White Whale (Member # 6594) on :
Here's mine:
There is not a race of microscopic pink intelligent bunnies living on the far side of our moon.
And we're in a deadlock.
Posted by Achilles (Member # 7741) on :
Can't disprove that either.
Here's another popular one.
There's this old guy who lives at the north pole and delivers gifts to all the children of the world on Christmas Eve.
Posted by Traceria (Member # 11820) on :
By consulting with the ghosts of former pet rabbits, there is a chance, because I believe this race you speak of is also capable of communing with the dead, you may be proven correct.
Distant cousins: BlueBunnies (somewhere in there)
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
You exist.
Posted by Achilles (Member # 7741) on :
(Or anyone for that matter.)
Posted by dragonscript (Member # 11964) on :
5.56mm is better than 7.62mm.
Posted by Achilles (Member # 7741) on :
Isn't a 7.62mm round heavier? I guess that would depend on your definition of "better"....
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
quote:Originally posted by Scott R: You exist.
I can disprove this.
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
quote:Originally posted by dragonscript: 5.56mm is better than 7.62mm.
Are you arguing that a NATO M16 round is inherently better then a Warsaw Pact AK47 round? I am sorry but you are incorrect. The WP round could go through TREES to find its target, the M16 rounds could not.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
I have a .22 that can shoot around trees, but has a tendency to be distracted by sunsets.
Posted by Jhai (Member # 5633) on :
quote:Originally posted by Achilles: (Or anyone for that matter.)
Except for yourself. You know you exist. And by that, I mean I exist.
Posted by rollainm (Member # 8318) on :
I'm Batman.
Posted by dragonscript (Member # 11964) on :
quote:Originally posted by Achilles: Isn't a 7.62mm round heavier? I guess that would depend on your definition of "better"....
quote:Originally posted by Blayne Bradley:
quote:Originally posted by dragonscript: 5.56mm is better than 7.62mm.
Are you arguing that a NATO M16 round is inherently better then a Warsaw Pact AK47 round? I am sorry but you are incorrect. The WP round could go through TREES to find its target, the M16 rounds could not.
yes, yes, no & yes
Posted by Jeorge (Member # 11524) on :
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson: I have a .22 that can shoot around trees, but has a tendency to be distracted by sunsets.
If there was a thread for "Best Hatrack Posts", this would be my choice for today.
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
quote:Originally posted by dragonscript:
quote:Originally posted by Achilles: Isn't a 7.62mm round heavier? I guess that would depend on your definition of "better"....
quote:Originally posted by Blayne Bradley:
quote:Originally posted by dragonscript: 5.56mm is better than 7.62mm.
Are you arguing that a NATO M16 round is inherently better then a Warsaw Pact AK47 round? I am sorry but you are incorrect. The WP round could go through TREES to find its target, the M16 rounds could not.
yes, yes, no & yes
It is common knowledge that in Vietnam that Ak47 rounds could penetrate the trees making them considerably deadlier then the M16, to the point numerous american soldiers took the risk of acquiring them for personal use.
Posted by dragonscript (Member # 11964) on :
quote:Originally posted by Blayne Bradley: It is common knowledge that in Vietnam that Ak47 rounds could penetrate the trees making them considerably deadlier then the M16, to the point numerous american soldiers took the risk of acquiring them for personal use.
They why did Russia move to the 5.45mm with the ak-74 and the new ak-1** model rifles all use NATO standard ammo?
Neither one is better than the other because they were designed with different purposes in mind, thus an unprovable hypotheses. Even though the US military is thinking about going to the 6.5mm grendel or the 6.8mm SPC.
edit: got rid of all the quoted material.
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
quote:Originally posted by Jhai:
quote:Originally posted by Achilles: (Or anyone for that matter.)
Except for yourself. You know you exist. And by that, I mean I exist.
Unless he is an enlightened Buddhist.
Posted by MightyCow (Member # 9253) on :
There's an invisible man who listens to everything we say and think, and occasionally chooses to do something about it, generally in a way that hides his hand in the event, and most often in a way that is completely in line with statistical chance.
Also, he likes it when we sing to him.
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
quote:Originally posted by Achilles: Yep. In this thread we postulate things that just cannot be proven, nor disproven.
Here's mine: there is a race of microscopic pink intellegent bunnies that live on the far side of our moon. They are subterranean in nature, so have never been detected--as yet.
Prove me wrong.
I really must point out that this is not an unprovable hypothesis. If these bunnies do exist, given a large enough budget I could take the moon apart particle by particle and find one.
Proving that they do not exist, is somewhat more problematic but since you have specified that they exist withing a finite region of space and that they are pink (which implies that they must be larger than the wavelength of visible light), it is hypothetically possible to do an exhaustive search and disprove your hypothesis.
There is a difference between hypotheses that are fundamentally impossible to prove or disprove(for example the completeness of arithmetic) and those which simply can't be proven or disproven with the currently available resources.
[ February 11, 2009, 03:55 PM: Message edited by: The Rabbit ]
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
All things considered, 5.56 tends in general application to be better than 7.62.
5.56x45/.223 gets epp of 52000 for a bullet weight of 55gr — definitely preferable to the 'boost' you get for the 120+ gr for a 7.62, and the 5.56 tends to perform better in terminal ballistics.
7.62 tends towards better hard target penetration at long ranges so as long as you maintain a section GPMG of 7.62-ish firepower and put it in specific roles like fire support, 5.56 serves better as the standard ammunition for standard infantry.
Yet, if we had 6.8x43 for our assault rifles and machine guns we wouldn't need the 7.62 a whit.
5.56 = win
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
samprimary: proving the unprovable since twenty ought nine
Posted by Jhai (Member # 5633) on :
quote:Originally posted by The Rabbit:
quote:Originally posted by Jhai:
quote:Originally posted by Achilles: (Or anyone for that matter.)
Except for yourself. You know you exist. And by that, I mean I exist.
Unless he is an enlightened Buddhist.
Enlightened Buddhists don't exist.
Go ahead, prove me wrong.
Posted by The White Whale (Member # 6594) on :
quote:Originally posted by The Rabbit: ..that [the bunnies] are pink (which implies that they must be larger than the wavelength of visible light)...
Bravo.
Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
I am posting in this high quality thread.
Also, I am not posting in this high quality thread.
Posted by Traceria (Member # 11820) on :
quote:Originally posted by MightyCow: There's an invisible man who listens to everything we say and think, and occasionally chooses to do something about it, generally in a way that hides his hand in the event, and most often in a way that is completely in line with statistical chance.
Also, he likes it when we sing to him.
Also, if you bump into him real soft like, it hurts him. If you really smack him, he's cool. Or so we thought about Mr. Invisible when in elementary school. He somehow insists he be buckled in when riding in a car, too. Never figured that one out.
Posted by Darth_Mauve (Member # 4709) on :
E=MCC Dived by sides by M E/M=CC
hence traveling at CC is possible for pure energy with no mass. Teleportation will be obtainable across the universe once we design a system of turning ourselves into and out of pure energy.
I figure there is a 2.5 million dollar energy grant I could get from the government to study this possibility, but I don't have the right diplomas.
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
quote:Originally posted by The Rabbit: Proving that they do not exist, is somewhat more problematic but since you have specified that they exist withing a finite region of space and that they are pink (which implies that they must be larger than the wavelength of visible light), it is hypothetically possible to do an exhaustive search and disprove your hypothesis.
Two easy gambits: a) The "Four of your puny Earth minutes" gambit. Who said that they're using our definition of pink and not their definition of pink?
b) The "You're not looking in the right place" gambit* The rabbits are there now, who said that they don't have the ability to leave as they notice you destroying their habitat?
* Not entirely dis-similar to the common, "What do you mean my prediction of the world ending didn't happen?" problem
Posted by Achilles (Member # 7741) on :
quote:Originally posted by Jhai:
quote:Originally posted by Achilles: (Or anyone for that matter.)
Except for yourself. You know you exist. And by that, I mean I exist.
I am not convinced of the idea that "I think, therefore I am."
In fact, I'm almost sure that I'm a character in a Scott Roberts story. Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
quote:a) The "Four of your puny Earth minutes" gambit. Who said that they're using our definition of pink and not their definition of pink?
In order for any hypothesis (or any statement for that matter) to be useful for the communication of ideas we must agree on the definition of the words. If they're using some definition of pink other than the standard definition of pink and have not clearly specified it as such, then the entire hypothesis is worthless since it does not have a mutual agreed upon meaning.
quote:The "You're not looking in the right place" gambit* The rabbits are there now, who said that they don't have the ability to leave as they notice you destroying their habitat?
It is still hypothetically possible that a technology exists somewhere in the Universe that would allow us to examine every particle of the moon at the instant in question.
The point being that there is a fundamental difference between statements which cannot be proven (or disproven) with the resources we have and statements which are inherently unprovable.
Posted by Achilles (Member # 7741) on :
So, my bunnies would have to be undetectable by any means for this to be unprovable?
Cool.
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
quote:Originally posted by The Rabbit: If they're using some definition of pink other than the standard definition of pink and have not clearly specified it as such, then the entire hypothesis is worthless since it does not have a mutual agreed upon meaning.
A worthless hypothesis is still a hypothesis though and more importantly, it happens. Refer to the "Oh, we didn't mean six 'human' days in Genesis crowd"
quote:
quote:The "You're not looking in the right place" gambit* The rabbits are there now, who said that they don't have the ability to leave as they notice you destroying their habitat?
It is still hypothetically possible that a technology exists somewhere in the Universe that would allow us to examine every particle of the moon at the instant in question.
And it is still hypothetically possible that the rabbits could detect such technology and move beforehand to avoid detection. After all, they're intelligent and most intelligent beings probably wouldn't want to encounter humans anyways.
quote: The point being that there is a fundamental difference between statements which cannot be proven (or disproven) with the resources we have and statements which are inherently unprovable.
And my point being that while such a distinction exists, it doesn't really apply too well to the example at hand since it (and many religious propositions like it) is too malleable, open to interpretation, and open to change.
Posted by Starsnuffer (Member # 8116) on :
quote:There's this old guy who lives at the north pole and delivers gifts to all the children of the world on Christmas Eve.
Isn't this very easily provable by seeing if every child of the world receives a gift or not.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
Sad how fast this deteriorated from fun fluffiness to religion bashing. Posted by Marlozhan (Member # 2422) on :
The Hatrack website does not exist. You have just been hallucinating its existence and arguing with yourself. This particular post is your subconscious mind finally trying to break through the delusion into your conscious mind.
If you choose not to believe this, it only proves that your delusion will triumph.
Stop now! Don't read any other threads! Get help before the delusion adds more posts to convince you that this one is wrong!
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
Who said that?
Posted by MightyCow (Member # 9253) on :
quote:Originally posted by rivka: Sad how fast this deteriorated from fun fluffiness to religion bashing.
Yeah, first post!
Why's everyone always giving my Lord Space Bunnies a hard time?
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
quote:quote: quote: The "You're not looking in the right place" gambit* The rabbits are there now, who said that they don't have the ability to leave as they notice you destroying their habitat? It is still hypothetically possible that a technology exists somewhere in the Universe that would allow us to examine every particle of the moon at the instant in question. And it is still hypothetically possible that the rabbits could detect such technology and move beforehand to avoid detection. After all, they're intelligent and most intelligent beings probably wouldn't want to encounter humans anyways.
quote: The point being that there is a fundamental difference between statements which cannot be proven (or disproven) with the resources we have and statements which are inherently unprovable. And my point being that while such a distinction exists, it doesn't really apply too well to the example at hand since it (and many religious propositions like it) is too malleable, open to interpretation, and open to change.
The only statment at hand at the time I began this refutation was one regarding pink bunnies on the far side of the moon. I did not intend that my arguments be extended to apply to a discussion on whether the existence of god was provable or disprovable. That is a logical leap you took, not I.
My entire point was to make a distinction between hypotheses, like the pink bunnies hypothesis, which are only unprovable given existing resources and hypotheses, like "arithmetic is a consistent system" which are inherently unprovable. I think that is an important logical distinction.
Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by rivka: Sad how fast this deteriorated from fun fluffiness to religion bashing.
I don't understand. You weren't aware from the first post that that was what this thread was about?
Posted by Kwea (Member # 2199) on :
quote:Originally posted by dragonscript: 5.56mm is better than 7.62mm.
I disagree. Not just with the facts, but that it is unprovable. Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
quote:Originally posted by The Rabbit: I did not intend that my arguments be extended to apply to a discussion on whether the existence of god was provable or disprovable. That is a logical leap you took, not I.
See Lisa and MightyCow, thats pretty much the whole point of discussing non-visible pink organisms.
quote: My entire point was to make a distinction between hypotheses, like the pink bunnies hypothesis, which are only unprovable given existing resources and hypotheses, like "arithmetic is a consistent system" which are inherently unprovable. I think that is an important logical distinction.
And I'll repeat, my point is that the pink bunnies hypothesis is ill-defined precisely in the way that it is so that its unprovable given *any* resources. There are unprovable propositions given current resources but they have to be much more rigorously defined.
Posted by Achilles (Member # 7741) on :
That and I could retcon the original post constantly to deny arguments against it.
But rivka is right in her assumption. I had intended this originally to just be a game.
Sorry, rivka!
Posted by Starsnuffer (Member # 8116) on :
I was shocked when the opening post wasn't an allusion to religion, and was delighted at the tact and agreeableness of MightyCow's poke at religion. (It quelled my desire to post my own, which I am thankful for because I wouldn't have done such a good job.)
I suspect that most people expected religion to come up in here at some point.
Nobody is actually talking about religion with the rabbit thing, right? although it is obviously a very similar argument it is NOT about religion and is instead about the difficulty of proving or disproving a hypothesis (which, again, is very similar to the religion argument if one is asking for proof).
So, Rivka, I don't know what you're complaining about.
On that note: I think the quality of 7.62mm vs. 5.56mm is unprovable unless we introduce some criteria of "betterness" specifically.
Posted by Kwea (Member # 2199) on :
Samp, every single person I met in the Army who actually served in the field hated the 5.56 round as compared to the 7.62.
I liked the M-16, but I would prefer a more robust round with better penetrating power hands down. (and yes, I AM familiar with both, and the arguments for and against both)
Posted by dragonscript (Member # 11964) on :
Kwea, look at the 6.5mm Grendel and the 6.8 SPC rounds. They were designed to be around same general characteristics as the 5.56mm so all you would need to do is replace the barrel on the m-16/m-4 and you are all set. The 6.8mm is in current use by SOCOM.
Posted by El JT de Spang (Member # 7742) on :
Kwea's not in the army anymore. I doubt if has much need of a modified M16 in nursing school. Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
Have you SEEN some of those nursing instructors?
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
quote:Originally posted by Starsnuffer: Nobody is actually talking about religion with the rabbit thing, right?
If it wasn't obvious, I had assumed that the "non-detectable pink rabbit" thing was just a reference to the Inivisible Pink Unicorn.
The congruity between the two if the OP wasn't really about religion is pretty remarkable since both are fundamentally about pretty much the same issue. But meh *shrug*
Posted by Tatiana (Member # 6776) on :
I totally took it as being about religion, with references to the movie Harvey with James Stewart. Religion as a hypothesis, though, is entirely testable by each searching soul aiming for his or her own private understanding. Just don't require that we all get the same exact answer. It doesn't work that way.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Originally posted by Kwea: [QB] Samp, every single person I met in the Army who actually served in the field hated the 5.56 round as compared to the 7.62.
When you are a soldier, you individually would prefer to fire a 7.62. I agree! It is more fun to fire 7.62. They tend to punch more effectively too.
When you are the managers of a military and you have to balance logistical, weight, cost, magazine size, and overall military effectiveness of either round, you end up having to care very little about which round is preferred by individual soldiers. For the general soldier in general use, the 5.56 is preferable, so if you're a general soldier in general use, expect to use it.
There's still use for heavier bang-bang that has to be incorporated for specific use so there's at least still opportunities for the people who hate the 5.56 that much. You could opt into it.
PS: ammo aside, the M16 family needs to get replaced
Posted by MightyCow (Member # 9253) on :
quote:Originally posted by Tatiana: I totally took it as being about religion, with references to the movie Harvey with James Stewart. Religion as a hypothesis, though, is entirely testable by each searching soul aiming for his or her own private understanding. Just don't require that we all get the same exact answer. It doesn't work that way.
I would be happy if religious people actually behaved that way. Many of them DO require that everyone have the same answer, often by force of law.
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Angst]](graemlins/angst.gif)
![[Frown]](frown.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)