Velocity Reviews - Computer Hardware Reviews

Velocity Reviews > Newsgroups > Computing > Digital Photography > Why doesn't the vacuum of space rip apart the earth?

Reply
Thread Tools

Why doesn't the vacuum of space rip apart the earth?

 
 
Gregory L. Hansen
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      04-01-2004
In article <406C373C.23871.38F80AC@localhost>, <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>If nature abhors a vacuum why doesn't space tear the earth apart into
>little pieces
>to equalize the pressure?
>



Because gravity sucks too hard.

--
"'No user-serviceable parts inside.' I'll be the judge of that!"
 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
Uncle Al
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      04-01-2004
http://www.velocityreviews.com/forums/(E-Mail Removed) wrote:
>
> If nature abhors a vacuum why doesn't space tear the earth apart into little pieces
> to equalize the pressure?


Invalid assumptions plus invalid processes plus general ignorance give
invalid conclusions. You qualify as a Liberal or a priest but not as
a scientist.

FALLACIES

Non sequitur: A conclusion that does not follow logically from the
premise. We've piled up $5.4 trillion in debt; we'd better institute
term limits.

Hasty generalization: Jumping to conclusions before considering
alternative information. We ran a deficit again last year; we're
still borrowing to pay entitlements.

Stereotyping: Generalizing from a small sample. We need to shut down
the border; our welfare rolls are already too large.

Either-or thinking (aka: False dilemma): Ignores other relevant
alternatives. We've got to make the tough decision: raise taxes or
cut spending.

"Post hoc, ergo propter hoc" (Latin for: "after this, therefore
because of this"): Assuming that A caused B, simply because B
followed A. There's been an eclipse just before every stock market
crash. You'd better liquidate, because there's an eclipse next
month.

Begging the question: Assumes truth without supporting evidence. Debt
is a burden on our children.

Circular reasoning: Asserting the same idea in different words. The
growing popularity of a Balanced Budget Amendment shows that people
are fed up with deficits.

Special pleading: One-sided argument; completely ignores contrary
evidence. Debt is a virus that's eating us alive. We'll be bankrupt
by 1995.

Red herring: Sidetracking by bringing in an irrelevant matter. We'd
better kill the supercollider project, because debt is a burden on our
children.

Appeal to ignorance: Asserts truth because contrary evidence is
lacking. The supercollider would never have paid for itself.

Ad populum: Appeal to popular emotions, feelings, and prejudices.
We've already piled $20,000 of debt on every man, woman, and child in
America.

Ad hominem: Attacking the person instead of the issue. You think
deficits don't matter? You, sir, are brain-dead.

False analogy: Comparison to something more unalike than similar. I
have to balance my personal checkbook; why shouldn't the federal
government have to?

Snapshot Fallacy: Take a snapshot, examine it for things one likes or
doesn't like, then draw conclusions about what should be different to
make things better. (A snapshot is a poor substitute for a movie.)
The gap between rich and poor is too great. We must redistribute
income to correct this inequity.




--
Uncle Al
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/
(Toxic URL! Unsafe for children and most mammals)
"Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?" The Net!
 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
Paul H.
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      04-02-2004

"Uncle Al" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:(E-Mail Removed)...
> (E-Mail Removed) wrote:
> >
> > If nature abhors a vacuum why doesn't space tear the earth apart into

little pieces
> > to equalize the pressure?

>
> Invalid assumptions plus invalid processes plus general ignorance give
> invalid conclusions. You qualify as a Liberal or a priest but not as
> a scientist.
>
> FALLACIES
>
> Non sequitur: A conclusion that does not follow logically from the
> premise. We've piled up $5.4 trillion in debt; we'd better institute
> term limits.
>
> Hasty generalization: Jumping to conclusions before considering
> alternative information. We ran a deficit again last year; we're
> still borrowing to pay entitlements.
>
> Stereotyping: Generalizing from a small sample. We need to shut down
> the border; our welfare rolls are already too large.
>
> Either-or thinking (aka: False dilemma): Ignores other relevant
> alternatives. We've got to make the tough decision: raise taxes or
> cut spending.
>
> "Post hoc, ergo propter hoc" (Latin for: "after this, therefore
> because of this"): Assuming that A caused B, simply because B
> followed A. There's been an eclipse just before every stock market
> crash. You'd better liquidate, because there's an eclipse next
> month.
>
> Begging the question: Assumes truth without supporting evidence. Debt
> is a burden on our children.
>
> Circular reasoning: Asserting the same idea in different words. The
> growing popularity of a Balanced Budget Amendment shows that people
> are fed up with deficits.
>
> Special pleading: One-sided argument; completely ignores contrary
> evidence. Debt is a virus that's eating us alive. We'll be bankrupt
> by 1995.
>
> Red herring: Sidetracking by bringing in an irrelevant matter. We'd
> better kill the supercollider project, because debt is a burden on our
> children.
>
> Appeal to ignorance: Asserts truth because contrary evidence is
> lacking. The supercollider would never have paid for itself.
>
> Ad populum: Appeal to popular emotions, feelings, and prejudices.
> We've already piled $20,000 of debt on every man, woman, and child in
> America.
>
> Ad hominem: Attacking the person instead of the issue. You think
> deficits don't matter? You, sir, are brain-dead.
>
> False analogy: Comparison to something more unalike than similar. I
> have to balance my personal checkbook; why shouldn't the federal
> government have to?
>
> Snapshot Fallacy: Take a snapshot, examine it for things one likes or
> doesn't like, then draw conclusions about what should be different to
> make things better. (A snapshot is a poor substitute for a movie.)
> The gap between rich and poor is too great. We must redistribute
> income to correct this inequity.



Al, you forgot to list the "appeal to invalid authority" logical fallacy:
Nobel-prize winning biologist claims the elementary particles of physics are
mere delusion, leading the public to demand an investigation of physicists.
Reason? The biologist has a Nobel prize, so he must know what he's talking
about.


 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
Reply

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are Off


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
findcontrol("PlaceHolderPrice") why why why why why why why why why why why Mr. SweatyFinger ASP .Net 2 12-02-2006 03:46 PM
Why Python style guide (PEP-8) says 4 space indents instead of 8 space??? 8 space indents ever ok?? Christian Seberino Python 21 10-27-2003 04:20 PM
Re: Why Python style guide (PEP-8) says 4 space indents instead of8 space??? 8 space indents ever ok?? Ian Bicking Python 2 10-24-2003 11:15 AM
Re: Why Python style guide (PEP-8) says 4 space indents instead of8 space??? 8 space indents ever ok?? Ian Bicking Python 2 10-23-2003 07:07 AM
Stack space, global space, heap space Shuo Xiang C Programming 10 07-11-2003 07:30 PM



Advertisments