So people are just as divided and know as little about other cultures in your time as they do in ours? I mean, you’re a historian and you don’t even know how the Arabic languages have evolved in the 20th Century, or even your own time? I find that very sad.
You know what? I believe that you don’t understand it. Or the principals behind it. However, I reckon that were it a real thing, that I’d be able to get my head around the basic concept.
I really hope that you’re being deliberately obtuse, here. I’ll see if I can make the question any clearer. How does the ship turn? What physical forces act upon it? What causes these physical forces to occur?
So, then, if you don’t need anything other than knowledge to overcome the laws of physics as we know them now, how come it’s not been done by accident?
Look, it’s a nice conceit, to be able to fall back on “I can’t tell you that”, but it’s not convincing. Not even slightly. Especially as you’re saying that Einstein’s easily, consistantly and often-proven theory of relativity is wrong.
You don’t know much, do you?
Why? What’s hard about lightspeed?
I’ve read it, thank you. Maybe if there’s a misundersatanding it derives from your poor grammar and spelling, rather than my comprehension abilities. Or, of course, it could just be that you made a stupid statemtn, were caught, tried to cover yourself with an even more stupid lie and were caught out in that one, too. That’s my pet theory.
Yeah, just the basic, well-established, easily proven fundamental truths of how the universe works are wrong. it’s just the little things like what electricity is and how it works, how molecules are composed, as well as matter itself and things like that which are wrong, eh? The fact that they have a knock-on effect to everything else doesn’t matter because…what?
Why don’t you tell me which scientific theories of the moment are wrong and which are right? And don’t say you can’t tell me because you’ve already told me that relativity is wrong.
I understand what you’re saying. You don’t seem to understand that it doesn’t matter. You could reduce the element to absolute zero, and it still wouldn’t stop the decay of the nucleus. And you’d still only have a tiny fraction of a second in which to locate, excavate and freeze the element, and after you’d frozen it it would still be gone in a microsecond.
Do you understand?
I uderstand that’s you’ve got cause and effect mixed up. The temperature of the globe is not dependent on the size of the icecaps, the size of the icecaps is dependent on the temperature of the globe. Okay, so how much has the water receeded and, as a consequence, how tall is the Antarctic now?
How do you keep the larger icecaps frozen? How do you manage this process without making the global temperature actually rise? And you’re not going to tell me that it didn’t because the First Law Of Thermodynamics is wrong, too, are you?
You are also aware that more rainfall would be the ideal, aren’t you? Especially if there is more plantlife in the world now.
Wow, Hitler. One of the tough, obscure things to really prove you know your stuff, eh?
BTW, to any independant observers, does this count as Godwinisation?
You’ve taken on board my advice about videotapes, right? And, seeing as the ultimate goal for any historian is to go back in time and talk to the people of that time period about the minutae of their lives, rather than relying on biased second-hand accounts such as books or TV, I’d have thought that talking to us, here, was more important than watching the news or The Simpsons. BTW, which news programmes do you watch?
So you have no idea how these ships that you travel in work? Still, well done, I only had to ask that question 3 times to get an answer out of you. I may keep a running tab for the others…
The same way as what? You didn’t even slightly answer the question that I asked, so I’m going to re-ask it.
So why did you need to deal with an ice-age? Was it a warm ice-age?
Not even slightly. You’ve given some vague side-steps to a few, but to say that you’ve answered them is insulting. It’s certainly not doing much for your credibility. If you’ve already answered the questions, then how come you’ve not, say, told me the name of the philosophy which is supposedly based off communism under which you claim your entire wolrd operates? It’s a question that’s been asked, I believe 4 times of you directly with no fear of misinterpretation. You’ve not even acknowledged the question, let alone answered it.
Now, I admire your bare-faced cheek, even if it vastly outstrips your abilities. But to claim you’ve answered somthing when the evidence is plain for all to see is just silly. Have a word with yourself, then come back and actually do answer the questions. This is exacly why I want you to quote what you’re replying to. That way it’s all accounted for. It also means that I don’t have to guess which of your statements is refering to which of mine. You don’t have to use the UBB code, there’s plenty of other ways to indicate a quote, including good old quotation marks, but clarity, again, is the thing. Something you’d know if you were an academic.
Anyway, the questions still unanswered are:
Well, a couple down, but some new arrivals. So the new total of questions you’ve ignored or not answered is 21. You’re building up a backlog, so I really would advise just biting the bullet, quoting the questions one by one and simply answering them.
It’d be a lot less work for both of us.
Oh, BTW, I’d love to have a chat with your “Time Guard”. Should be good for a giggle.
