Not even to illustrate and provide evidence for his alleged illogic?
There you go. Flying off the handle. Did I say I did not provide evidence. Try thinking before you type.
Darby and I debated topics until it was clear to me that he was simply anti-titor. But don't take my word for it. Go back and read some of the posts.
Your patent reply of "not being worth responding to" is a classic ruse employed by someone who cannot actually counter an airtight argument. "I don't have time to tell you where you are wrong". How convenient!
Good example of a post not worth responding to.
What is so WRONG with being a well-defined, fervent anti-titor poster ESPECIALLY when you have thoughtful analysis to back up your position?
Here is a hint. There is no scientific evidence you or anyone can offer that refutes a scientific discovery made in 2036. Of course time travel is impossible, today. Can you offer me scientific proof it will not be possible in 2036.
Trying to refute that statement says a lot about the poster.
Some example dialogue between titor and darbyshire
darbe: It’s the Hawking Radiation that you can’t overcome. This radiation is separate from any other radiation given off by extemporaneous matter falling into the singularity. It is part of the description of a singularity per se absent any other matter. A singularity emits Hawking Radiation.
titor:Yes, that is true. If you firmly believe that Hawking radiation cannot be controlled or goes on even without the presence of virtual particles forever until the singularity explodes than you are correct.
darbe: A simple “E=Mc^2†isn’t the answer here.
titor: You asked where the mass comes from. I simply pointed out that mass and energy are interchangeable in the same equation. One of my Stanford pals tells me there is a running gag about the chances a VW Beetle spontaneously appearing inside the accelerator. It could only come from the transfer of energy to mass.
darbe: You have to form the singularity for your machine to work and that takes mass - real, not virtual mass.
titor: That is incorrect.
darbe: The truly faulty part of your description of your device involves the Hawking Radiation. You can’t overcome it and you can’t ignore it. Its not the size of the singularity that matters - its solely the mass involved that determines the temperature of the radiation.
titor: You seem to be quite upset and I understand your argument. I do however think it is important to gather the facts and probabilities before expelling emotional energy on them. Please keep in mind that I have not shared all the technical details of the machine with you. So an easy out would be for me to just make something up. However, and as I’m sure you are aware, Stephen Hawking admits that his own equations support the “possibility†that microsingularities may not totally disappear as they evaporate in a sea of virtual particles and in fact may leave behind a very stable naked singularity. I’m sure you can look that up. I suppose the difficult part is believing that we’ve taken advantage of it, not that it’s impossible.
