hodj
Vox Populi Jihadi
- 31,672
- 18,377
People are not required to take a position in a debate in order to assert that they don't believe your unsupported positive claim. Trying to force someone to take a position in order to defend your position is dishonest and disingenuous.
And the argument was fallacious, and I demonstrated that.
You can't seem to get it through your head, I don't know why.
It is not pedantic to point out that you've made a fallacious argument and have not supported it with evidence. That is fundamental to debate, especially rational debate. Your content is bad if it is founded on bad reasoning, and there's no reason to argue it without some positive evidence to justify your claim is made.
As has also been pointed out, no one is claiming negative mass exists in an absolute way, only that using the concept in theoretical physics is useful. Negative mass in functional physics is always in relation to another object. In theoretical physics it can be used to model things like what happens to mass as it is pulled into a black hole, or pops in and out of what we perceive as existence.
No one claims negative mass in functional physics is a lack of atoms. It is the action of mass moving away from another object, hence it is relative. This is the type of negative mass furry accepts.
The issue is that he claims that because negative mass in theoretical physics isn't demonstrated to be true in functional physics, its irrational to use it in theoretical physics. This is because he continues to fail to grasp that these types of concepts are being used to determine potential validity of a hypothesis, not being taken as true and real values.
And the argument was fallacious, and I demonstrated that.
You can't seem to get it through your head, I don't know why.
It is not pedantic to point out that you've made a fallacious argument and have not supported it with evidence. That is fundamental to debate, especially rational debate. Your content is bad if it is founded on bad reasoning, and there's no reason to argue it without some positive evidence to justify your claim is made.
As has also been pointed out, no one is claiming negative mass exists in an absolute way, only that using the concept in theoretical physics is useful. Negative mass in functional physics is always in relation to another object. In theoretical physics it can be used to model things like what happens to mass as it is pulled into a black hole, or pops in and out of what we perceive as existence.
This demonstrates you don't know what negative mass in functional physics is. It is used to describe masses moving away from each other. This concept is also used in chemistry to describe differentials in energy in terms of positive and negative electric charges.
No one claims negative mass in functional physics is a lack of atoms. It is the action of mass moving away from another object, hence it is relative. This is the type of negative mass furry accepts.
The issue is that he claims that because negative mass in theoretical physics isn't demonstrated to be true in functional physics, its irrational to use it in theoretical physics. This is because he continues to fail to grasp that these types of concepts are being used to determine potential validity of a hypothesis, not being taken as true and real values.
