neveza
Junior Member
I may be biased, but I'm usually right.
Posts: 91
|
Post by neveza on Jan 10, 2007 6:43:28 GMT -5
(energy can neither be created nor destroyed) Wait, hold the phone. Are you saying that you cannot create or destroy energy? I properly strike flint with steel and create sparks which in turn catch onto something flammable and I have created fire. Therefore, I have created energy. I then take a bucket of water and I splash it onto the flames, dousing it. I have destroyed energy. I think you mean that /matter/ cannot be created or destroyed. If energy couldn't be created, we would have a limited amount of it used to move. We use energy to do everything, and its created by things both physical (like food) and mental (motivation). I get the feeling I might have missed something... Fire is a result of kinetic energy. Fire isn't energy itself.
|
|
R.
Junior Member
Posts: 85
|
Post by R. on Jan 10, 2007 12:26:50 GMT -5
Creating sparks isn't creating energy only converting it. How much energy do you expend in process of creating that spark? And how do you acquire energy to be able to do that? Simply eating, energy constantly cycles, it is not made and it doesn't disappear. For example, do you know how power plants create electricity?
Confuded take things more seriously, its ok to be new but its nothing to take pride in. And this isn't a videogame so don't bring such things here, new people should take things as they come instead of jumping to things that may take them years to accomplish. Or...could it be that you are just pretending to practice psi and fooling around?
|
|
The Devil's Advocate
Author
Respected Member I will deflate your theories and claims with ye olde pointy stick of logic.
Est autem fides credere quod nondum vides; cuius fidei merces est videre quod credis.
Posts: 1,552
|
Post by The Devil's Advocate on Jan 10, 2007 13:28:11 GMT -5
Folk. TC has corrected himself. Time to drop it.
Confuded: You are missing the point and It's starting to sound like you're doing it deliberately. Until you can actually do TK yourself do NOT try and tell me you're going to create a construct with TK. Enough. Curiosity is a wonderful thing, but when we answer a question, don't ask it again unless you're asking for clarification of a specific point. Don't make a suggestion again when we've repeatedly given you the same response. It gets old. It gets frustrating.
~The Devil's Advocate
|
|
|
Post by confuded92 on Jan 10, 2007 21:44:24 GMT -5
Yes sir. No more theory. Resume practice. Sit in newbie section for now.
Rodziel: No I am not fooling around and I take Psionics pretty seriously...
|
|
TC
Respected Member
Formerly known as Yokusa
Posts: 338
|
Post by TC on Jan 11, 2007 0:15:55 GMT -5
Try to look at the genders of the members before you post a title that addresses a certain gender. DA is a female.
|
|
|
Post by wolfdancer on Jan 18, 2007 16:29:18 GMT -5
Slightly off-topic: TC: you lucked out. I hadn't had time to read this yet I've been a little busy with winter storms and snow days. ~Wolfdancer
|
|
|
Post by confuded92 on Jan 18, 2007 18:09:06 GMT -5
He he, so how do you say to a general/commander female sir? Sires? Mem? No its no mem, if thats a commander or general. Then what is it?
|
|
The Devil's Advocate
Author
Respected Member I will deflate your theories and claims with ye olde pointy stick of logic.
Est autem fides credere quod nondum vides; cuius fidei merces est videre quod credis.
Posts: 1,552
|
Post by The Devil's Advocate on Jan 18, 2007 18:22:44 GMT -5
Ma'am is the proper mode of adress for female officers. Or, since I'm enlisted, "Sergeant" would work. ~The Devil's Advocate
|
|
|
Post by wolfdancer on Jan 19, 2007 0:21:51 GMT -5
*salutes* Yes, Sergeant! *resumes attention then ducks* ****It is now time to return to your regularly scheduled discussion on what Constructs are not used for. Thank you.*** ~Wolfd@ncer, making sure DA can't smack her by calling everyone back to topic
|
|