I said the gulf dialect is the only dialect I have heard of, there probably is more though.
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.
I said kind of like a rocket, it is made it a different way which you wouldn't understand. I don't really understand it.
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.
we have a pilot that steers, he presses buttons and has a kind of touch screen incase he wants to change direction. he uses his hands for this
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?
You can still overcome the laws of physics with what I would say.
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.
I don't know how the shields solve the weight problem, they just do.
You don't know much, do you?
LYPH is easier to understand for everyone than other measuring speed.
Why? What's hard about lightspeed?
none of them are false you just misunderstand. go back and read it.
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.
Not everything you know now is false, just some things are false.
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.
We cryogenically freeze the lunarium so it can't make a reaction. do you understand?
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?
As we froze more of the ice caps more sea receded off the shore lines giving more room to live and grow food. This also meant less rain 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.
I don't have time to make an essay right now but I might do one on hitler tomorrow but it will have to be small.
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?
I can't watch tv and do other research and write reports because I need to concentrate.
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?
I don't know how energy is converted into motion
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...
You can extend the half life of an element the same way.
The same way as what? You didn't even slightly answer the question that I asked, so I'm going to re-ask it.
it was not overheating and cooling at the same time.
So why did you need to deal with an ice-age? Was it a
warm ice-age?
I have answered the rest of the questions.
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:
[...]who chose [the new speed of light]?
.
Before trying to sidestep this, remember if what we know now is wrong, as you claim, then electricity doesn't work. Care to explain that?
.
How do you overcome the Kelin variable?
.
Again, are you not interested in effective communication?
.
Again, I'm going to ask for the name of the philosophy you're talking about. Give me a name, don't just repeat yourself.
.
Once more, I'm going to ask for the name of this philosophy under which your society operates, and I want the name of which branch of Communism it's supposed to have evolved from.
.
As E=mc^2, how does altering the amount of energy that you can have at any one time enable you to accelerate beyond the speed of light?
.
What you have to answer is what you do to it on the atomic level? How do you extend it's half-life?
.
If that wasn't true, as you claim it isn't, then splitting the atom would be impossible.[Not technically a question, but it demands an answer all the same]
.
Any excuse for the other two questions?
.
[...]if the new "speed" is called "light speed", then what do they call light speed?
.
[...]why didn't they just call the new "light speed" by the new name that the old "light speed" has?
.
[...]isn't it stupid to have the speed of light called something else and somethign else called "light speed"?
.
[...]how come there have been huge nuclear reactions many times as fierce and hot as the sun in the moon and nobody on Earth has noticed?
.
How come that this element formed naturally on a dead and chemically simple satellite when not even a Supernova is explosive and complex enough to form such an element?
.
You will need to explain how [Einstein] was wrong, what is right, who sucessfully proved him wrong and when, and what on Earth has been up with all the experiments that have been done over the years which have proven him right time and again?
.
[...]you can tell me what the new equasion [that replaced "E=mc^2] is and what any and all of the elements that are new signify.
.
Which speed of light are we talking about now, the new one or the old one? [I'll add a second question to this actually. If we're talking about the new "speed of light", then what is the significance of that speed, and what would be significant about travelling at that speed that would relate to time travel?]
.
How come speed is measured in seconds, now?
.
Do you mean that no matter how much faster than the speed of light you're travelling and no matter the distance you always go ahead in time 33 seconds? How does that work?
.
Would that be covered by the new theory of relativity?
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.
