trollface-I am not just watching tv.
I know, you're also stalking people.
I cannot tell you who discovered part of the history was missing because I would have to tell you what my mission is.
What part of what history is missing? Don't tell me you're trying to say that you made a mistake with regards to the Ruhr region because in our time the history it's self is actually wrong. Please don't.
As for what your mission is, you said in the first post.
They used sophisticated equipment to scan the brain.
Well, that's helpfully descriptive. Under what scientific principal(s) does this equipment operate?
I know what it signifies, it signifies hyperinflation and with that story it shows how bad it was.
So why didn't you include anything in the story when you told it that had to do with that? Why did you tell the story and not actually make it anything to do with the point of the story, and then when questioned say that you didn't know because it was just something that your teacher had told you?
Anything is possible. you just sound like a pesimist.
I sound like a pessimist? That's your big comeback? I am what is called a realist. I don't think I'm being a pessimist if I say that I, personally, cannot lift an elephant above my head with one hand. why? Because the force I could exert on it could never be big enough. This is why you cannot use the kinetic energy of someone leaning in a chair to steer a subluminal spacecraft - because there simply wouldn't be enough force there. This is all forgetting the issue of lack of friction in space, of course.
The speed of light is the same.
Yes, I know this. You said, however, that the word "lightspeed" now ment 10,000 times the speed of light.
Lets just say that this time can't understand the future.
No, let's not. Let's just say that you don't know what you're talking about and as a result come accross like a man drowning in custard; flailing futilely about in hope of grasping onto anything, even though all the rescue workers have long since given up and mooched off for a cuppa.
I would have though even a toddler would understand what I said though.
Yes, that's true. Let's see. First you said:
We can travel light speed. it takes us about 1 hour to reach andromeda in an exploration/war ship
Then I pointed out that you wouldn't reach Andromeda in an hour if you were travelling at light speed. And you countered with this:
We don't exactly travel at light speed but we just named it that because people couldn't think of anything else to name it.
And your actual description of what you call "light speed" was this:
We measure light speed by 10000 light years per hour so if we travel at 10000 light years per hour we measure it like 1LYPH.
Which means I actually got mixed up a bit when saying that you'd said it was 10,000 times the speed of light. You didn't. You've said that what you call "light speed" is actually 8,760,000 times the speed of light. Or 2.626*10^16 meters per second. Or 26,261,819,320,800,000 m/s, to be more precise.
And now you're claiming that the two speeds are actually the same?
so, yes, a toddler could understand what you're saying. It's just that what you're saying is not consistant. If you're going to do this kind of thing, I suggest that you keep notes so that you can keep track of what you've already claimed so as not to get so mixed up.
So, what speed do you travel at to get to Andromeda in one hour? Why do you call this speed "light speed"? And what is 3*10^8 (AKA c) called?
Diffferent countries are more under the sea level than others so if you actually think about it it would recede different amounts.
Yeah, but not in the way that you've described. France, for example, would be landlocked with England, if what you've already said were true. And yet you say it isn't. Yet again, you're simply flat-out contradicting yourself because you don't know enough about the subject at hand.
Things are different in space.
Some things are. Atomic mass isn't. Atomic decay isn't. Halflives aren't.
No, this is not an episode of
Star Trek with an anomoly of the week, waiting for some technobabble to be spoken. This is real life, and things like that don't change merely because of a lack of oxygen molecules around them.
We don't know what they did with the extra water.
What, it's a secret? Or do you just not pay attention to the major historic events of your own lifetime?
I never said dehydration was a problem.
Even if it was (which it isn't) why would we drink salty seawater?
Ah, having problems with the word "dehydration", are we? You're thinking about the dehydration of people, I'm talking about the dehydration of the planet. "Dehydration" means lack of water. You said that one of the biggest invetions of your time was dry water which, by putting out forest fires, helped solve the problem of global dehydration. And now you're saying that water was exported off the planet.
Again, it's not exactly consistant.
There is already video clips in my time.
What, of the news of this time? who recorded them all? And, if there are already videos of it, then surely you don't need to bother watching it now. You could just concentrate on your stalking.
People in my time are just smarter and more able to grasp things than people from this time.
Yeah, obviously. That's why you don't know the basic meaning of words like "dehydration" and "cryogenics", and why you can't even spell words like "course" or "thought". In fact, I'd venture as far as to say that 5-10% of your replies to my questions (when you've not just ignored the question, that is) have been along the lines of "I don't understand what you're saying".
You have no idea what our ship's engines look like or how powerful they are.
why are you theorising when you should be considering if it is possible.
Considering if it's possible? I know it's not possible. There is no friction in space. If you had just one engine on the side of a spaceship, it would only be able to push the ship sideways, not initiate a turn, because there would be a force acting on the ship in one direction with nothing to counter it. It has nothing to do with how powerful the engines are, it's to do with the fact that there are only two; one on each side.
I don't understand what you are talking about with kinetic energy.
And yet people in your time are just smarter and more able to grasp things, eh?
Do you know what kinetic energy actually is? Because you've said that that's how your ships are steered at subluminal speeds (by which we have to assume you mean speeds under 2.626*10^16 m/s, rather than under 3*10^8 m/s), in the same way as a motorbike. I'm saying that there is no way that there is enough kinetic energy there to steer a ship. You've said that it's done through the ship's systems, but then seem to have become lost and confused, presumably because you don't know what kinetic energy is.
How do the ship's systems "make it work"?
You can freeze a body the same way you freeze an element. The tranformer increases the life span of the element.
So you're saying that the freezing of bodies has nothing to do which what you're saying, and that my definition of what you meant by "cryogenics" was actually right, and that your definition was wrong in context and completely counter-productive and useless? Yes, I'll agree there.
And, we're back to the question that you've not answered in over a week.
How does the "transformer" increase the halflife of the element? What does it do to it on a molecular level? I want to see an answer that discusses neutrons.
Not all elements are radioactive.
Pretty much
everything is radioactive. Water is, air is, food is, skin is, ceramics are...
everything is radioactive to some degree.
go back to school and learn something. I have just realised you are the most stupid person here.
This is the academic debate of the future, is it? This is how you show your maturity and professionalism? I asked for an apology for you calling me stupid last time, so you come right back and do it again? Very mature. I'm sure that all your collegues would be proud of the way that you address the issues without having to resort to ad hominem attacks, and the way that you've maintained the higher ground by arguing in a constructive fashion, rather than sticking fingers up and pulling silly faces like a little child.
I'll expect an apology for both insults in your next post.
where did I say that the reefs were destroyed by terraforming?
You said that the water around the globe had receeded because of terraforming to prevent greenhouse gases, even up to 15 miles. Seeing as the habitats for reefs are generally a lot shallower, both in absolute terms and in terms of the slope, than the coastline around Britain, the sea would have receeded more than 15 miles there. As that shallow sea is the reefs' natural environment, and you've said that that environment has been destroyed...well, it's quite easy to draw the conclusions on that one.
Or is this more of that magical gravity that doesn't work as we know it to which keeps the sea levels high around certain countrys and not others?
The greenhouse gases are gone
And way back when you were asked how, and you said by the terraforming of the ice caps. Now you're saying that the ice caps stay how they are because the greenhouse gases are gone. Not only does it make no sense, but you're talking in circles.
[Edited to add]I forgot to say the last couple of times, but the problem with killer bees (which you've said are the same as in our time) isn't that they kill off normal bees, it's that they
don't fight with them. They breed with them.
