"...sorry orn. again if you were not the case..." - eins I think you are correct eins if my memory serves. However, to be clear, I know adrian's rather bombastic style peppered with hyperbole and am not troubled by it at all. I also recognize debate techniques. But, thanks for the concern!
On Oct 5, 5:03 am, einseele <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 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. > > > ===================- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text - --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ 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 -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
