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

Discussion in 'Digital Photography' started by Gregory L. Hansen, Apr 1, 2004.

  1. In article <406C373C.23871.38F80AC@localhost>, <> 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!"
     
    Gregory L. Hansen, Apr 1, 2004
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. Gregory L. Hansen

    Uncle Al Guest

    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!
     
    Uncle Al, Apr 1, 2004
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. Gregory L. Hansen

    Paul H. Guest

    "Uncle Al" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > 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.
     
    Paul H., Apr 2, 2004
    #3
    1. Advertising

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

It takes just 2 minutes to sign up (and it's free!). Just click the sign up button to choose a username and then you can ask your own questions on the forum.
Similar Threads
  1. ]v[etaphoid

    Anyone got a Dyson vacuum cleaner?

    ]v[etaphoid, Nov 27, 2003, in forum: Computer Support
    Replies:
    7
    Views:
    2,191
    Harold Potter
    Nov 27, 2003
  2. gary

    pc cleaning, vacuum or what!

    gary, Dec 15, 2004, in forum: Computer Support
    Replies:
    20
    Views:
    4,333
    Noel Paton
    Dec 17, 2004
  3. SJ

    Mini Vacuum

    SJ, Feb 2, 2005, in forum: Computer Support
    Replies:
    4
    Views:
    599
    Plato
    Feb 3, 2005
  4. Robert11
    Replies:
    1
    Views:
    1,216
    Bucky Breeder
    Nov 16, 2006
  5. =?iso-8859-1?Q?Rita_=C4_Berkowitz?=

    It's Falling Apart Around Him And He Doesn't Even Have A Mk III

    =?iso-8859-1?Q?Rita_=C4_Berkowitz?=, Aug 27, 2007, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    55
    Views:
    1,160
    William Graham
    Oct 28, 2007
Loading...

Share This Page