Unknown magic sites in starting provinces?

[Arryn]

Originally posted by NTJedi:
For heavens sake goto school !

You need to take your own advice. There is no such word "goto" in modern English. This term only exists in (obsolete) computer Languages such as BASIC. The correct phrasing would be "For heaven's sake, go to school!". Please note the use of appropriate punctuation, which you also failed to use. If you're going to admonish people (in an insulting fashion no less) to improve their education, the least you could do is get it right yourself.

[GavinWheeler]

Originally posted by NTJedi:
Any scientist would strongly disagree with you because there are Unknown substances which have still yet to be found and created.

I have a PhD in molecular physical chemistry and a dozen publications - does that make me enough of a 'scientist' to qualify for your appeal to authority? And even a first year undergraduate should know that you can generate a list of all the elements (at least of normal matter) that can possibly exist just by counting protons.

As I said, even if no atoms of a theoretical element exists, we can still know that the 'element' exists in potentia, can often work out probable qualities of atoms with that number of protons (such as how many neutrons it needs to be as stable as possible) and so on.

But you are confusing the general with the specific. To use your example, you are confusing the general properties of the element gold with the qualities of a specific lump of the stuff. The concept of gold, the laws that govern it and set the properties of atoms with 79 protons, all exist whether or not any of the actual stuff exists. The concept is not the same thing as the concrete specific sample.

Originally posted by NTJedi:

quote:

---

Originally posted by GavinWheeler:

PS: It is possible for a gold/copper/diamond deposit to suddenly come into existence in your back yard, especially if you live somewhere geologically exciting like Hawaii.

Goto school as diamonds and gold do not SUDDENLY come into existence. Or search the internet and you'll see what is needed !

---

Again, you confuse a deposit of the stuff with the stuff in the deposit. Take your own advice: look up what a 'diatreme' is and tell us if you would want to be around when one surfaces suddenly.

If you can understand how these events could create a deposit of gold or diamonds in a particular location, but would not 'create' the gold or diamonds in the deposit, you'll be on the way to understanding the kind of fundamental logical errors you are making.

[fahdiz]

Oh...my...goodness...

I hadn't really checked into this thread for a while...and I cannot believe you are still trying to argue this point, NTJedi - especially with name-calling and accusing some quite accomplished folks of needing to "goto school", as you put it.

You are wrong. It is okay to be wrong once in a while. The important thing is to take it like a man, and admit it.

[NTJedi]

Arryn...
It was a typo... missed the spacebar... big deal and your post is nothing but an off topic flame. Stay focused or please stay off the topic.


=================

Originally posted by GavinWheeler:

quote:

---

Originally posted by NTJedi:
[qb] Any scientist would strongly disagree with you because there are Unknown substances which have still yet to be found and created.

I have a PhD in molecular physical chemistry and a dozen publications - does that make me enough of a 'scientist' to qualify for your appeal to authority?

---

Then you should well know that there are things which qualify as unknown and nonexistent. I've listed only a few examples... to say someone or something knows everything about all nonexistent objects/things is obviously wrong.
A new fuel developed next year... qualifies now as an unknown nonexistent object. The discussion for developing the futuristic fuel may not have even started yet.


[quote]
As I said, even if no atoms of a theoretical element exists, we can still know that the 'element' exists in potentia, can often work out probable qualities of atoms with that number of protons (such as how many neutrons it needs to be as stable as possible) and so on.

The concept of gold, the laws that govern it and set the properties of atoms with 79 protons, all exist whether or not any of the actual stuff exists.

Based on my example... The properties for creating gold would be possible yes... but until that took place gold would remain as an unknown nonexistent object because there would be no available samples(thus nonexistent). There would only be the knowledge that yes it creates something(thus unknown). Even taken to a more basic level a spider web was unknown and non-existent until the first time it was actually created.

[ March 19, 2004, 22:55: Message edited by: NTJedi ]

[Peter Ebbesen]

It is sort of fun in a sad tearjerking way, though. The way things are going, we will pretty soon all be revealing our respective scholarly titles to fight the "all scientists say" call to authority.

At which time we will have no choice but to call in the philosophers to confuse the issue once and for all.

I'm of the firm perception that this conversation never existed.

[Arryn]

Originally posted by fahdiz:
You are wrong. It is okay to be wrong once in a while. The important thing is to take it like a man, and admit it.

FYI, since I joined the forum in early January, NT has never admitted being wrong in quite a few arguments exactly like this one. It makes no difference whatsoever the topic, nor who's in the discussion, nor what facts he's presented with. He will go on, and on, and on, until he wears everyone else down and they quit participating on the other side of the debate, in frustration over what one of my college professors long ago called "invincible ignorance". I admit that I enjoy a good, healthy debate, in which someone is actually learning something. But to me, it seems that NT merely enjoys arguing for the sake of arguing. And he's not even good at arguing, itself, as an art form.

All of us should quit feeding his addiction. It's painful to those of us with reason, only prolongs our suffering, and continues to give NT an outlet (excuse) for spewing nonsense.

Sincerely,

Arryn

[Peter Ebbesen]

Originally posted by Zen:
I'm of the firm perception that this conversation never existed.

Would that be the conversation or the idea of the conversation?

*I need to sleep*

[NTJedi]

With Arryn having nothing better to do except drop another flame he continues to pollute the topic. Arryn please stay focused on the topic and keep your personal opinions of others to yourself.

[Arryn]

Originally posted by NTJedi:
With Arryn having nothing better to do except drop another flame he continues to pollute the topic. Arryn please stay focused on the topic and keep your personal opinions of others to yourself.

You, long ago, ceased discussing the topic yourself. As various others have been trying to point out to you ...