Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

AlexL

Regulars
  • Posts

    741
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    44

Everything posted by AlexL

  1. If this is for me, please specify, for ex. by linking/replying to a comment of mine. If this was indeed for me, please repost, but keep it brief and to the point.
  2. No, it was you irrational way of arguing that disgusted me. And is was not about the present thread/subject: I specified previously what thread/subject was it about:
  3. Go away☹ Take @whYNOT with you and say hello to @dream_weaver for me.
  4. Why can't you answer my question if you don't know what I mean by "a" ?
  5. How is this similar to my question? My question was: can you please show - based solely on his [Ben-Gvir's] words - why this man's arguments mean specifically "ethnic cleansing". (I also gave you Wiki's definition of ethnic cleansing.) My question is in no way similar to yours above. Are you trying to dodge by getting insolent, taking advantage of the lack of moderation by @dream_weaver on this forum?
  6. I asked you a clarification about a claim of yours. Providing a clarification it is not charity, is a mandatory element of a rational debate. But I can understand why you refuse to do it. But don't worry, the moderation here @dream_weaver doesn't enforce this, as showed in @whYNOT's case in a Ukraine thread.
  7. My comment was about your prophecy that the 31 Abrams tanks will never arrive in Ukraine. Although this did not follow from the context of your prophecy, were you implicitly counting on the Russian military competence for the delivery to fail?
  8. Still no comment on this comment of mine... Did you just want to vent?
  9. 🤣🤣🤣 Well, they did. All of them: All 31 Abrams Tanks in Ukraine, US Military Confirms to VOA (16 Oct 2023)
  10. But are you still interested? Should I continue? PS: Please link your answer to my post (by quoting it) so that I am notified that you posted an answer.
  11. Do you mean that something can be 'proved' theoretically, or was 'obviously' meant as a double entendre so to speak ? 1. First about "obviously" The obviousness of the fact that "it was not proved theoretically that superconductivity at normal temperatures and pressures is NOT possible" results from: - simply looking at the Wiki's article on Superconductivity and verifying that no such theory is mentioned, - and also from the fact that the search for superconductive materials at normal temperatures and pressures is quite intense. If there were an (established) theory claiming this is NOT possible, the search would have been only marginal, or inexistent. Here is a parallel with another, a somewhat simpler domain in physics: the claim that the speed of light is the upper limit of possible velocities for physical entities. This claim is both an observational fact and the result of a theory (the Special Theory of Relativity). SR is an extremely well established theory, in the sense that it, and its consequences, is/are confirmed by literally billions of experiments (millions per day from particle accelerators). The fact that there is a very well established theory proving the impossibility of superluminal objects is the reason that the search for superluminal objects is only marginal, extremely marginal. Before the SR and its confirmation the search was quite intense. 2. Now the second point, "Do you mean that something can be 'proved' theoretically?" If the context is mathematics, than it is the case: something can be proved theoretically and is done all the time. But our context is physics, a science about nature. The previous point suggests that it is also the case in physics, but only mutatis mutandis, that is taking into account that physics deals with real objects, whose properties have yet to be established (vs. artificial constructs with fully given a priory properties, as in math). Do you have questions at this (intermediary) point? (Note for me: theory vs hypothesis, scientific theory)
  12. Does this refer to something I wrote? If it does, what exactly do you dispute?
  13. Yes, and so did the authors of this study and those of the LK99 study, but without finding the right substance. But, obviously, it was not proved theoretically that superconductivity at normal temperatures and pressures is NOT possible, so that the quest continues.
  14. The previous hype about a new room temperature superconductor - LK99 - is only 5 months old. It was proven false only one month later. As it was for the LK-99 claim, there is no report of an experiment showing that the resistivity of the new material drops to zero at a certain temperature. But OK, the authors write, cautiously, "possible"...
  15. From the Ayn Rand Center UK: South Africa's application to the ICJ, genocide, etc
  16. No comment to this older comment of mine? Then you should repudiate and retract your claim.
  17. My subject was only the ambiguity of your comment. As to the subject itself: Who is "he"? Ben-Gvir? If it is Ben-Gvir, I'll first wait for @SpookyKitty to answer my request for clarification (see here) and afterwards... maybe...
  18. So, in fact you do not confirm that you did not fully meant what you wrote. OK then.
  19. It is important to me to correctly understand what you were saying: if you truly meant it, if you were kidding or if you were sarcastic. And for you it should be important too - to be correctly understood. You yourself confirmed subsequently that you did not fully meant what you wrote, so that my initial suspicion was justified.
  20. There are ways to signal that it is not 100% straight, like an emoji ...
  21. "Not wholly" means that it was sarcastic. OK.
  22. "Not wholly" means that it was sarcastic. OK.
  23. You mean your comment was not meant to be sarcastic?
×
×
  • Create New...