17 Apr 12
1 edit
Originally posted by tim88if those conditions still existed today, we would be seeing big and little bangs all over the place.
The big bang?
in that temperature anything could bond -?- but what in the hell could do ? such a reaction???----Nothing we know today could produce so much heat?-
correction, we would not be seeing anything at all because we would not be here.
17 Apr 12
1 edit
Originally posted by VoidSpiritAnd did you come up with that all by yourself? exceptional buffoon!
if those conditions still existed today, we would be seeing big and little bangs all over the place.
correction, we would not be seeing anything at all because we would not be here.
- Joined
- 31 May 06
- Moves
- 1795
17 Apr 12
Originally posted by tim88For someone who evidently has no idea what they are talking about and who has trouble
And did you come up with that all by yourself? exceptional buffoon!
constructing even vaguely coherent sentences on the subject I would be careful who I called
a buffoon if I were you.
I see nothing wrong with what VoidSpirit said based on our current understanding of the
laws of physics.
Something of which he evidently knows a heck of a lot more about than you.
17 Apr 12
Originally posted by googlefudgeWhat makes you think VoidSpirit knows more about the first and second law
For someone who evidently has no idea what they are talking about and who has trouble
constructing even vaguely coherent sentences on the subject I would be careful who I called
a buffoon if I were you.
I see nothing wrong with what VoidSpirit said based on our current understanding of the
laws of physics.
Something of which he evidently knows a heck of a lot more about than you.
of thermodynamicis than I do? I have already proved my knowledge of those
laws and I say VoidSpirit is wrong.
- Joined
- 31 May 06
- Moves
- 1795
17 Apr 12
Originally posted by RJHindsBecause I know the laws of thermodynamics and unlike you I understand them.
What makes you think VoidSpirit knows more about the first and second law
of thermodynamicis than I do? I have already proved my knowledge of those
laws and I say VoidSpirit is wrong.
You have proven time and time again you have no clue what you are talking about.
You have proven your knowledge of these subjects... you don't have any.
You are ignorant of their meaning or deliberately and intentionally lie about their meaning.
I and others have explained why many times before and I see no point in doing so again
because you wont pay any attention this time either.
You are wrong, in so many ways on so many levels.
Your word has no authority and no noticeable truth value.
- Joined
- 29 Dec 08
- Moves
- 6788
17 Apr 12
Originally posted by RJHindsIs it posited that the 1st and 2nd LOTs are descriptive of what was happening before so-called Planck time, or are we talking about the post- Planck regime?
What makes you think VoidSpirit knows more about the first and second law
of thermodynamicis than I do? I have already proved my knowledge of those
laws and I say VoidSpirit is wrong.
18 Apr 12
Originally posted by tim88You support RJHinds, you seem interested in the accusations of cheating surrounding him, you share the same faith, you often post here at Spirituality, you have played some of the people who post here; one wonders why you haven't played RJHinds at chess.
if i was rj i would sue you all for defamation of character by saying he is chatting - AND WIN!
18 Apr 12
Originally posted by FMFyou have my permission to ask the site where i'm from - australia
You support RJHinds, you seem interested in the accusations of cheating surrounding him, you share the same faith, you often post here at Spirituality, you have played some of the people who post here; one wonders why you haven't played RJHinds at chess.
18 Apr 12
Originally posted by tim88Have you looked at Thread 145363?
you have my permission to ask the site where i'm from - australia