"when approaching the battlefield it's best to have ammunition"
"Quotes of your point view"
- Thread starter theoneiuse
- Start date
- Status
Tell me something that blows my mind and I will love you for it, debate any quote on this thread lets have discussions over them, try and prove them wrong at least one or two must be wrong?
The quote...
What do you think that you can learn from that?
Let's not make this about me and focus on other quotes. You acusing me of being a fool means nothing if I have no respect for your intellect. You will eventual get what you want I will leave here at some point when I feel to. When your name has enough value to enter to history books as more than a footnote then at least you may have a little originality. I would rather be a fool just the way I am then be like you, in fact I would sooner experience my own mortal demise than to live one instant as the person you are proud to be.
I do not hate you, I do not hate anyone. The problem is you are boring and uninteresting, you lack the ability to stimulate my cognition. Please don't waste my time if you are as intellectually concrete as your braggard ego then tell me what makes you unique?
Ah, another (false) assumption.
What makes you think my name isn't already in the books?
(Not history, admittedly, as that isn't particularly my field, but still...)
How do you know that it hasn't been done already?
What is your claim to fame by the way? :shrug:
It is better the hold the element of surprise than to give it up just to satisfy my own ego. I need not prove myself to you, I am satisfied with you perceiving me a fool. You accuse me of having no proof to back up claims that I have made. I have looked at all your arguments of so called proof you used to belittle my claims, you post them as if it was the first time that I have seen them. You believe I don't not understand the logic as to why the current status quo perpetuated false conlusions seemingly ignorant of their own flaw. Fair enough believe what you will. now consider this;
Actually, the thought about electricity came before atoms. In about 600 B.C. Thales of Miletus discovered that a piece of amber, after rubbing it with fur, attracts bits of hair and feathers and other light objects. He suggested that this mysterious force came from the amber. Thales, however, did not connect this force with any atomic particle.
Not until around 460 B.C., did a Greek philosopher, Democritus, develop the idea of atoms. He asked this question: If you break a piece of matter in half, and then break it in half again, how many breaks will you have to make before you can break it no further? Democritus thought that it ended at some point, a smallest possible bit of matter. He called these basic matter particles, atoms.
Unfortunately, the atomic ideas of Democritus had no lasting effects on other Greek philosophers, including Aristotle. In fact, Aristotle dismissed the atomic idea as worthless. People considered Aristotle's opinions very important and if Aristotle thought the atomic idea had no merit, then most other people thought the same also. (Primates have great mimicking ability.)
For more than 2000 years nobody did anything to continue the explorations that the Greeks had started into the nature of matter. Not until the early 1800's did people begin again to question the structure of matter.
In the 1800's an English chemist, John Dalton performed experiments with various chemicals that showed that matter, indeed, seem to consist of elementary lumpy particles (atoms). Although he did not know about their structure, he knew that the evidence pointed to something fundamental.
Actually, the thought about electricity came before atoms. In about 600 B.C. Thales of Miletus discovered that a piece of amber, after rubbing it with fur, attracts bits of hair and feathers and other light objects. He suggested that this mysterious force came from the amber. Thales, however, did not connect this force with any atomic particle.
Not until around 460 B.C., did a Greek philosopher, Democritus, develop the idea of atoms. He asked this question: If you break a piece of matter in half, and then break it in half again, how many breaks will you have to make before you can break it no further? Democritus thought that it ended at some point, a smallest possible bit of matter. He called these basic matter particles, atoms.
Unfortunately, the atomic ideas of Democritus had no lasting effects on other Greek philosophers, including Aristotle. In fact, Aristotle dismissed the atomic idea as worthless. People considered Aristotle's opinions very important and if Aristotle thought the atomic idea had no merit, then most other people thought the same also. (Primates have great mimicking ability.)
For more than 2000 years nobody did anything to continue the explorations that the Greeks had started into the nature of matter. Not until the early 1800's did people begin again to question the structure of matter.
In the 1800's an English chemist, John Dalton performed experiments with various chemicals that showed that matter, indeed, seem to consist of elementary lumpy particles (atoms). Although he did not know about their structure, he knew that the evidence pointed to something fundamental.
This is incorrect.
The observation of (the effects of) electricity came before the theory (or hypothesis) of atoms.
This is usual in science.
So what?
Just as time is relative, it would take you that much longer in comparisent to the other galactic civilastions in gaining objective clarity. Hopefully not more than two decades.
I suppose you have evidence of "other galactic civilisations"?
Or is this another of your non-sequitur pieces of nonsense?
Let me guess...
Oh wait, I don't need to.
If it was meant for you to know then you will know. I grow tiresome of explainations I do not require you to believe me. Alas perceptions of the truth will always be an oxymoron. All temporal observers exist only to gain objective clarity some or most completey ignorant of the fact.
Then it is what it is, just be happy that you are not me, because I am happy I am not you.
Another fail.
If you were me then I couldn't be me. So there wouldn't be a me (as me) for you to be me.
All the more reason why you should be pleased
If I did fail to get the point then I would be you, as you have said that is impossible.
- Status