300knt torpedo

[FranklinRatliff]

Originally Posted by stonebreaker

Yeah, and I'm sure JFK had to become a rocket scientist before he could propose sending men to the moon.

That's not what I said. I said if the current systems work, there's no need to waste money on something fancier. The money can be more productive somewhere else.

Except JFK was getting his advice from people who understood the physics and technology.

[stonebreaker]

Originally Posted by FranklinRatliff

Except JFK was getting his advice from people who understood the physics and technology.

OK, I'm all ears. Exactly what part of an intercept goes against the physical laws of the universe? If you can prove it mathmatically, then I'll agree that intercepting a torpedo is physically impossible.

As far as technology, you create it as you need it - just ask Robert Goddard or Kelley Johnson. Or me.

[FranklinRatliff]

Originally Posted by stonebreaker

Yeah, and I'm sure JFK had to become a rocket scientist before he could propose sending men to the moon.

That's not what I said. I said if the current systems work, there's no need to waste money on something fancier. The money can be more productive somewhere else.

Why is nobody anywhere in the world, including the Russians, known to have developed anti-torpedo weapons?

[stonebreaker]

Originally Posted by FranklinRatliff

Why is nobody anywhere in the world, including the Russians, known to have developed anti-torpedo weapons?

That question is a logical fallacy called Appeal to Ignorance, and the standard reply is "absence of evidence is not evidence of absence."

[FranklinRatliff]

Originally Posted by stonebreaker

That question is a logical fallacy called Appeal to Ignorance, and the standard reply is "absence of evidence is not evidence of absence."

Who says the absence of such weapons on any warships anywhere in the world is "absence of evidence"? Maybe it's EVIDENCE OF ABSENCE.

[stonebreaker]

Originally Posted by FranklinRatliff

Who says the absence of such weapons on any warships anywhere in the world is "absence of evidence"? Maybe it's EVIDENCE OF ABSENCE.

Whatever. It's still not a valid argument. That's like saying, "I don't see any evidence of nukes on board the ship, so they must not be carrying any."

[FranklinRatliff]

Originally Posted by stonebreaker

Whatever. It's still not a valid argument. That's like saying, "I don't see any evidence of nukes on board the ship, so they must not be carrying any."

Ummm, no. It's not like that. Saying "simply because I can't see anti-torpedo weapons on warships doesn't mean they aren't there" is just stupid.

[hansp77]

Originally Posted by stonebreaker

That question is a logical fallacy called Appeal to Ignorance, and the standard reply is "absence of evidence is not evidence of absence."

RRHOUWWWH!
(or more like it rrhouwwwh!)

Little cat, little argument.
No offense stonebreaker, but,
this argument is getting rather weak.
to deny any appeal to ignorance is to have to allow an infinite possibility of unlikely realities.
eg. please provide evidence that you are not currently acting (unknown) under the "programming" of an alien intelegence who is dictating to you what to say, which will by the way (in retrospect) fit perfectly into a grand master plan of world domination!!!
Sound unlikely?
Does to me too,
but neither you nor I could prove otherwise without appealing at some level to some form of ignorance.
Absolute knowledge/enlightenment is never possible.
We have to make do with what we have got.

I don't mean to interrupt though…

please continue.

[stonebreaker]

Originally Posted by FranklinRatliff

Ummm, no. It's not like that. Saying "simply because I can't see anti-torpedo weapons on warships doesn't mean they aren't there" is just stupid.

How is it stupid? Give me a reason.

[FranklinRatliff]

Originally Posted by stonebreaker

How is it stupid? Give me a reason.

Res ipsa loquitor.

[stonebreaker]

Originally Posted by FranklinRatliff

Res ipsa loquitor.

What speaks for itself? and it's spelled loquitUr, btw.

Listen, if you want to get into some kind of trollish pissing match, be my guest. But I'm more interested in seeing your proof demonstrating how torpedo interception violates the physical laws of nature.

[FranklinRatliff]

Originally Posted by stonebreaker

What speaks for itself? and it's spelled loquitUr, btw.

Listen, if you want to get into some kind of trollish pissing match, be my guest. But I'm more interested in seeing your proof demonstrating how torpedo interception violates the physical laws of nature.

Traveling to another star system doesn't violate the laws of physics.

Yet we're not even remotely close to having the technology for that one either.

The technology existed in Da Vinci's time to build an unpowered glider, but that doesn't mean they could have built a supersonic jet fiighter.

[stonebreaker]

I'm still waiting for your proof. I'll even accept a logical arument, you don't have to prove the math. But comparing torpedo intercept to interstellar space flight is absurd. I would have said hitting a torpedo with another torpedo is as hard as hitting a comet with a spaceship. Oh wait, they've done that already...

[FranklinRatliff]

Originally Posted by stonebreaker

I'm still waiting for your proof. I'll even accept a logical arument, you don't have to prove the math. But comparing torpedo intercept to interstellar space flight is absurd. I would have said hitting a torpedo with another torpedo is as hard as hitting a comet with a spaceship. Oh wait, they've done that already...

Of course they're the same, particularly the dumbass argument that simply because they don't violate the laws of physics must mean we're somewhere remotely close to having the technology to do them.

[FranklinRatliff]

Originally Posted by stonebreaker

OK, I'm all ears. Exactly what part of an intercept goes against the physical laws of the universe? If you can prove it mathmatically, then I'll agree that intercepting a torpedo is physically impossible.

As far as technology, you create it as you need it - just ask Robert Goddard or Kelley Johnson. Or me.

People who make simplistic statements like "you create it as you need it" are the ones who've never had to do anything more challenging than moving photons around with a keyboard. They start thinking reality must be equally easy to manipulate.