Sayonara

If PMs were deleted it would have to be by an admin. I am not aware of any such deletion occurring and I'd like to think that if something like that were about to happen then it would be as the result of admin consensus. It is much more likely that this has happened as an unexpected result of the platform change.

*Cough*

It takes more water to excrete the gained salt from your body than you acquire by drinking the seawater in the first place.

Funnily enough I am actually working through a book on colour management right at this very minute and I can tell you that not all colour space profiles would refer to the colours with the same numbers. The numbers are arbitrary, but their meanings are specified by convention within the colour space profile which is being used.

Apple cubed?

Precisely.

It really doesn't.

I recall reading a short story a while ago in which the planet was invaded by an alien race. It turns out that god is very much real and very much on their side. I can't for the life of me remember the name of it, but it was basically an exploration of this question (among others).

You realise that's just a longer and more colourful list of assertions, right?

Correction, you haven't created a cation and an electron from nothing, nor have you successfully multiplied or divided zero, or multiplied or divided by zero. You have simply observed that when they are combined into an atom their charges sum to zero. Having negative one apples could be owing X apples to somebody when you only have (X-1) apples. You can't eat a negative apple, but you can not eat an apple that you would have done were it in your possession. So you could in fact say that having a negative apple deducts the relevant calories and vitamins from your potential intake. A negative apple is not imaginary though; it's just a cumbersome way of describing a debt. Division is a means of scaling a quantity. That's all. Funnily enough, the Wikipedia entry on division uses apples as an example. Dividing by a half is the same as multiplying by two, or doubling the quantity. It's not difficult to understand unless someone like you comes along and tries to describe it in way that makes it look like occult magic. No, what you do is scale up your quantity by 2. You do this by acquiring more apples. Multiplication is a process of iterative addition. As if this wasn't enough of a mess, Klaplunk, Pioneer is one of those people who posts gibberish in threads with no intention of addressing the discussion that is already in progress. I suggest you ignore him as he will just confuse matters further.

Gentleman-farmer, your original post is leading to some confusion because it doesn't seem to make a specific proposal, ask a well-defined question, or provoke any particular discussion. What is it you want to discuss? Presumably something since you have taken the time to start a thread. Some clarity here would be of benefit.

This appears to be another cut-and-paste job. Alex, your posts appear to be always one of two varieties: 1) Post a tract of likely copied material to start a thread that you never come back to, 2) Post a short reply to a news thread like "thank you" or "the link didn't work for me". Quite frankly you look like a Delayed Spammer. If you don't reply to this post within a reasonable period of time, I'll take the appropriate action.

In what way? It's just a Youtube video page; the only reasons it would not work are if there was a server error at their end, or the video is restricted in your locale (in which case there would be a message to tell you this).

You haven't given anything worth debate. You have made a list of assertions, which have been objected to based on their own merit or lack thereof. The onus is on you to demonstrate the veracity of your position, not anybody else. Take as long as you need. Forums are an asynchronous form of discussion and the posts will still be here when you return (assuming no horrific server failures), so there is no rush at all. It's better done right than done quickly.

Well clearly. This is not getting us anywhere. Let's go right back to the start. Klaplunk, at the end of your first post you asked "Questions"? I have reorganised that post into a list of assertions, simply by removing the extraneous material. Here's my question: Can you evidence any of these assertions? Note that I consider assertions 8 and 17 to be different and unique.

However you just stated in your last post that time is static and we move through it. What we call the future and the past can therefore only be named relative to our motion. They therefore stop being identified in terms of entropy and become arbitrary descriptors, just like 'left' and 'right'. You are undermining your own assertion. Yes, absolutely. I'm glad that when I take your strategy and reproduce it exactly you are suddenly capable of evaluating it in an objective fashion.

And on that note, and having seen post #6, I think this can probably end now. At the moment the thread is just liable to become a proving ground for Klaplunk's shenanigans.

But I didn't say that you can't have a beach without water. I said "a beach can't exist without a sea". You see Klaplunk, I deliberately used exactly the same metaphor as yourself. I simply swapped out the nouns, and you walked right into it. The lesson here is that word games don't force the world to comply with your map of it. You might also want to consider that there are lakes, seas, and possibly oceans in this solar system that have no water in them. This coming from the person who said a few posts ago that you can't have a future without a past.

So oceans, lakes and rivers aren't made of water now?

In the sense that the small excerpt you presented does not say much about the Christian god, yes. However the Bible does go on for a bit after that section.

And let's not even get onto Klein Bottles.

I don't see how my last post speaks of anyone's character at all. I suggest that you stick to the topic at hand, otherwise your contributions (*cough*) to this thread will be trimmed out on the basis of being discussion derailment.

I'm not saying that I am better than everyone else. I'm saying that you have clearly not researched one word of the Mayan calendar system. However if you want to reduce this to ad hominem then I shall confidently propose that I am better than you at understanding this topic.

It's not assumed to be "truth", it's assumed to be an internally consistent descriptor for event spaces. Except in nebulae. So it depends what you mean by "sky", doesn't it? Every assertion you have made can be traced back to semantic selection. No it isn't. It's like saying that a beach can't exist without a sea. Which it can.

Again, a meaningless term provided without any conceptual framework. Yes. Do Not Know Sweet FA. FA is in itself an acronym for "f**k all". I can find some numbers that will allow the equation to solve correctly. However I suspect that this won't be what you mean by "correct".