Flame — HabitableZone

Flame » in reply to Oh good lord. If I have to explain it to you....

re: Did you even read what I wrote.
Johannes — (archived)

I truly do not understand your reasoning in this regard and I do want to understand, so I will make it possible for you to reply in a very simple way.

If you read the following questions and give a yes or a no answer to each one, or explain your understanding of the subject matter, then perhaps I will understand your view point. We are on flame, so it is allowed for you to flame me, but if you do flame me instead of my ideas, make sure that you explain “why” you are doing it.

1) Are you saying that comprehension, imagination, knowledge, experience, and observation, do not come into play when you are studying information that has not been available previously or information that has not been studied fully before?

2) Are you saying that the New Scientist article does not deal with the structure of the universe?

3) Are you saying that scientists fully understand the structure of electrons and why they behave the way they do?

4) Are you saying that you understand where and how (by what mechanism) the charge of the electron is created?

5) Are you saying that vortexes do not exist in nature?

6) Are you saying that a vortex (if it exists) is not associated with energy of any kind?

It would also help if you would tell us your understanding of the concepts of fundamental structures of mass and energy.

LIFE philosophy for the day.

LEAD, INQUIRE, FOLLOW, EXPLAIN !!

LEAD by explaining the truth, if you know it.

INQUIRE if you do not understand.

FOLLOW by understanding what others are saying.

EXPLAIN so that others can understand what you are saying.

Log in or register to post.

The whole thread (45 posts)