Others I do not... you, after all you are sooo special. I'm part of the billions, you are unique, remember.
On Oct 5, 1:31 pm, adrian <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > 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 -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
