I know what I am talking about but being extremely busy means that I am very tired.
So why, do you think, do you not write like someone who is tired, but rather like someone who doesn't know what they're talking about? In my job, I've spent up to 7 days doing 18 hour days with no more than 4 or 5 hours sleep before the beginning of work the next day. And I still managed not to make mistakes. Why? Because I know what I'm doing.
if a government starts a putsch and succeeds then gets overthrown days later then in my opinion the putsch was a failure.
So, rather than use the word "putsch" with it's correct definition, even though it's a technical term with a precise, specific meaning, you decided to arbitrarily re-define it and use it with your own, incorrect definition? And this is supposed to
support the case for you being a professional historian, is it?
Hyperinflation was caused by the overprinting of money but it was stopped when stresseman introduced the rentenmark
And the reasons for this
were? Thew question is what caused the hyperinflation? Yes, the government were printing huge amounts of excess money. Why? The historical sources I've cited agree with my assessment that it was because of the strikes which were because of the occupation of the Rhur region. You say that all the historicalk records of this time are wrong and that you know better. So, tell me, why did the government ruin it's own economy by printing excess money when there was no imperative to do so? What happened?
satellites from space chose 50,000 people at random and examined their memory and knowledge functions and found that they only used 10.79% of their brain.
How? Are we talking electromagnetically here?
Yes I am a historian but I learned from a history teacher like every historian does.
What historians
don't do, however, is to simply buy any story that they were told in school, become an expert on the time period in question and yet simply repeat the story without getting it's point accross or ever having checked it. History is about evidence, and you're saying that you've simply taken someone else's anecdote that doesn't even amount to hearsay and repeated it in part without understanding the significance or having a clue as to whether it's true or not? And, again, the point is to prove that you're a real historian? Who do you think you're likely to fool?
You don't know anything about our ships so how do you know that you can't steer a spaceship using kinetic energy?
I think we can add the laws of motion to the list of things that you don't really know much about. Why can't you use the kinetic energy of moving a seat to steer a subluminal spacecraft? You might as well ask why you can't make a bullet go through a maze by blowing at it through a straw.
dover and calaise aren't landlocked but maybe it didn't recede 15 miles in some parts, it did in most parts though.
So, how far did it receed there? It's interesting that it would receed a smaller distance there, as that's the shallowist bit of sea around England. So, logocally, it would be the place where it receeded the furthest. so, can you explain this?
the definition of lightspeed has not changed but we just say it differently for ships so it is more understandable.
If "lightspeed" is now 10,000 times faster than it used to be then the definition
has changed. It doesn't mean the same thing, so therefore it's not the same.
So, which is it? Has it changed or not? And, if it hasn't, then why hasn't it? I can't believe that it hasn't been researched.
You will have to rephrase the sea level question.
Okay, are you saying that the sea is no longer flat? Because for what you say to be true, the sea would have to no longer be flat.
not everything you know about gravity is wrong.
Again, it's just the easily proven basics, such as what gravity actually is and what it does, eh?
I don't know what happened to the extra water, they never said there was extra water.
Well, there must be. Why don't you ask the doctor or the time guard? Surely not all three of you can be ignorant as to the details of major historic events in your time, even if they're not things which seem to interest supposed historians.
I aren't relying on fuzzy 8-year recollections of events.
You claim your English isn't bad, yet you say "I aren't"? Hmmm....
As for the actual comment, if you're not prepared to document your findings, your main source of information gathering is watching TV and you don't feel that it should be recorded, then you
will be relying on fuzzy 8-year recollections. Why don't you detail how you are conducting your research?
I said that we only use 10.79% of our brains because I forgot how to talk to people from this time, in my time they would know what I meant.
So in your time the Englaish language has changed so much that saying that we only use 10.79% of our brains actually means that we only use 10.79% of our brains
for memory? So, has the language changed or not? Above you claim that it hasn't, and you use that to defend one of your positions. And now you're relying on saying that it has changed and using
that to defend your earlier statements. So, which is it? Either way, you'll still have sunk one of your own arguments.
The ship has 4 engines. 2 at the back incase something goes wrong with one and 1 at either side.
So, it can't actually turn, it just moves laterally, then?
You will have to repeat the question about the ship turning if you crossed the ship because I do not know what you are referring to.
You don't know what I'm referring to? Could that be beacuse you didn't answer the question when I actually asked it? Could it be because I've had to harrass you into answering it? Can you now see why you should answer the questions when you're asked them? It saves us all a lot of hassle, you included.
The point is that you cliam that the ship is turned by the kinetic motion of the seat moving. Walking from one side of the ship to the other would produce even
more kinetic energy, so the ship would turn in the same way.
Cryogenics is when you can freeze someone withhout killing them or aging them for a long period of time.
No, that's Cryonics. Cryogenics is the production of low temperatures, or the study of low temperatures and the associated phenomena.
If your definition is the one that you mean, then what has that got to do with the physical atomic properties of elements? Surely you're not claiming that Lunarium is human now, are you? After all, you said you couldn't explain to someone who doesn't know what Cryogenics is. Seems I actually know more about it than you do. So why don't you explain how you lengthen the half-life of Lunarium, then?
about 5% of the reefs and other near-shore ecosystems have disapeared.
So, this is supposed to help keep the Earth cool, even though reefs are one of the best systems on the planet for processing greenhouse gases and helping to prevent global warming? How did they figure?
I can't explain how electricity works, It is one of those things that you know how it works but don't know how to explain it.
I can explain it.
I do care how comprehensible I make my self
So why don't you try writing more clearly? How come you have to interpret what you say for it to make sense? and I'm not talking about your typing.
Donkel will not be born for 150 years.
In which case you didn't asnwer the question I asked, did you? I'll re-ask it, then. Which modern school of Communism did your current philosophy grow out of?
The ice caps stay frozen because we have no greenhouse gases in the atmosphere to melt them.
The gases don't melt the ice, the temperature does. If you just created bigger ice caps, then they'd just melt again, they wouldn't spontaneously lower the temperature of the globe. You're getting cause and effect mixed up again.
you will have to be more specific on the question referring to the First Law Of Thermodynamics.
Well, to keep the ice caps frozen, you'd have to expend energy, and draw the heat away from the ice. This heat would have to be transferred elsewhere. As no energy can be lost, and there would be small imperfections in the machinery, this process would actually create have the effect of warming the planet
up overall. You claim that this isn't true. So, how has this been achieved?
We needed to deal with the ice age because parts of europe was suffering.
So, how came the world was in the throes of severe global warming, yet a significant proportion of relatively warm countrys were experiencing an Ice Age?
never heard of a warm ice age.
That's the point.
"Once more, I'm going to ask for the name of this philosophy under which your society operates"
A couple of questions up you just asked about the man. I thought you don't repeat yourself?
I don't repeat myself. The question above was what current school of Communistic thought did your current philosophy evolve from. This question is what is your philosophy called. Two completely different questions, although they are related, I give you that.
I really hope that you're acting this dense on purpose. I'd hate to think that you can't even comprehend a simple question in real life.
You put it in the machine like I said to extend a half life.
Which still doesn't answer the question I asked you.
On the atomic level, how is the half-life extended? Talk about electrons and atomic decay. I want to see the word "isotope" in your answer.
You will have to be more specific on splitting the atom.
You claim that E=mc^2 is wrong. The fact is that were it wrong, the entire principal of splitting the atom would be wrong. It would be impossible to split the atom, let alone for the results predicted to be accurate, if E=mc^2 was wrong. As we have had nuclear bombs and nuclear fusion, which operate exactly as E=mc^2 says they should...then how can it be wrong?
They call lightspeed the same but it is measured differently.
See, this is one of your less comprehensible statements. So are you now saying that the speed of light is called "lightspeed" and 10,000 times the speed of light is also called "lightspeed"? And this is supposed to be not stupid?
I don't think there has been nuclear reactions many times as fierce and hot as the sun in the moon.
In which case, there is no way an element such as you describe could have been formed. It would have to be hotter then a supernova. Whic would, incidentally, destroy the Earth.
The universe is mysterious and not everything what you think should happen actually happens so it is possible that lunarium could be found on the moon.
The universe is mysterious? It's not
that mysterious. And one thing it certainly isn't is illogical.
Besides, the universe may be mysterious, but the moon sure as hell isn't.
We have better equipment in my time that proves einstein wrong. I can't remember who did it though.
Better equipment will make no difference. No matter how accurately you can measure will not disprove the theriy of relativity.
I will not tell you the new equasion.
Well, you seem to be learning not to just blurt stupid things out so much. I suppose that means that you're improving at this, even if you're not more convincing.
our speed of light and your speed of light is just the same, they are just phrased differently.
See, not this is really confusing and/or stupid. I mean you're saying that 10,000 times the speed of light is exactly the same as the speed of light? And that's why they've both got the same name?
Well, you've made something of an effort to answer some of my questions, at least. Don't think I've forgotten about the ones you've ignored, or simply answered a different question instead. I've got to go out in a bit, though, so I can't be bothered to faff around doing the usual summary. Don't count this as being let off, though, as I will return to them.
