If you wish to take that as a personal insult I cannot stop you. But it eems to be ok for you to insult others.
adrian. einseele wrote: > Hello Neil > > When someone like adrian writes (Not being a common joke, I presume): > > "HAHA, One friend reckons I'm one in 2 billion. He's competent enough > to judge so." > > ... all discussions end, at least to me. Because the conversation is > not aimed to the apparent subject, namely physics, or whathever; but > to an intention not stated on the supposed piece of talk. > > He said that in another thread to ornamentalmind, if I'm not wrong > (sorry orn, if you weren't part). > > Probably ornament. did a positive comment to adrian, and he got that > answer were we can read: > > "HAHA, One friend reckons I'm one in 2 billion. He's competent enough > to judge so." > > Meaning: > HAHA (laughing in loud voice), you are a poor thing among billions > (anyone else reading his/her post), because I'm special (ornament > and ... I are idiots), One friend (not A friend) reckons (surrendered > to the revealed truth)... Being the friend someone competent "enough" > > See the perfect movement to say: "Hey everybody there, you are > obviously almost nothing compared to me, I like ornamentalmind anyway > (sorry orn. again if you were not the case) and anyone else who > admires me, the special being among billions, even my idiot friend > reckons that, well he/she is competent enough... > > This is the intention beneath the discussion. Personally gives me > repugnance, I wanted to follow your points, but as usual, that is not > possible as we surely will receive that kind of aggression. Besides I > frankly prefer to be among many others, instead of sharing the table > with adolf adrian > > regards > > > On Oct 4, 11:47 pm, archytas <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> THe LHC has not yet performed the experiments with lead nuclei that >> caused some to fret about black holes. There are plenty of arguments >> around that fall into trivialisation.Dialetheism should be clearly >> distinguished from trivialism. This is the view that all >> contradictions are true (and hence, assuming that a conjunction >> entails its conjuncts, it is also the view that everything is true). >> Though a trivialist must be a dialetheist, the converse is not the >> case: a dialetheist typically claims that some (and, usually, very >> specific) sentences are dialetheias, not that all of them are. How one >> can do the former without being committed to the latter is one of the >> main topics in the dialetheic theory, since trivialism is considered >> by most philosophers theoretically repugnant, if anything is. The >> standard solution for the dialetheist consists in subscribing to the >> view that entailment (deductively valid inference) is paraconsistent. >> Rigourous derivation is needed to avoid trivialisation, as I think >> Georges has just pointed out, or else, frankly, we can make anything >> mean what it does not and become trivial. >> >> On 3 Oct, 09:26, Georges Metanomski <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> >>> NOTE: It's a warning to non-physicists, who could be >>> muddled by this bullshit. >>> --- On Fri, 10/3/08, socratus <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >>> .> Einstein’s formula E =mc^2 belong to behavior of micro >>>> particle >>>> ( light quanta/ electron). >>> According to Quantum physics the> energy >>>> ( force/ power) of body ( particle ) in the rest is not >>>> equals to >>>> zero, >>>> but equals E= mc^2. >>>> When E =mc^2 changes according to" The Law of >>>> conservation >>>> and transformation energy / mass " the body begin its >>>> moving. >>>> It is Potential force which changes in the Kinetic force >>>> and this >>>> power >>>> is hiding in the micro particle: light quanta/ electron. >>> =================== >>> G: >>> E=MC2 concerns Special Relativity and has been conceived >>> before Quantum Theory. I happen to know it, as I have >>> developed its rigorous derivation, which Einstein used >>> at the end of his life. >>> http://findgeorges.com/ROOT/RELATIVISTIC_DIALECTIC/D_OUTLINE_OF_EINST... >>> It has nothing to do with >>> "behavior"(?) of any particles, especially with light >>> quanta, nor with "transformation energy / mass" and moving >>> bodies, nor with any Potential force which changes in the >>> Kinetic force(?), nor with any "power"(?) hiding(?) in >>> "light quanta/ electron". >>> BTW energy is not "( force/ power)" which they teach in >>> elementary high school classes. >>> E=MC2 states equivalence of mass and energy and that's >>> all. In practice when some nuclear transformation results >>> in decrease of mass, the difference transforms to EM >>> radiation, like in Hiroshima, or in radioactive >>> treatment of cancer. >>> Georges. >>> =================== > > > --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Epistemology" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/epistemology?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
