Quote: "As for everything i have said it is actually feasable."
No. No it is not.
Quote: "Ive had a leg up on you this whole time."
THAT, sir, is sexual harassment. I am contacting my attorney!
Quote: "think of it as pebbles in a pond, billions of them and thier ripples overlapping infinitly."
Pebbles do not create infinite ripples. Once they hit the bottom, they cease to move. Unless, of course, they are moved another force, such as water current or a fish. However, since we are using pebbles as an allegory for all living beings and a pond as an allegory for the universe in which we live, there are no fish or water currents, so once a pebble reaches the bottom, it will cease to move until another pebble lands on top of it.
Also, ripples only exist on the surface of a pond, and there is no "surface" of the universe. Hence, your analogy fails utterly.
Quote: "The 'weave' created from this effect could theorectically be altered by a large explosion, hence the eurasian plate exploding and releasing all that pent up heat and potential/elastic energy from friction stress's."
Moot point because your analogy of the pond and pebbles is inaccurate.
Quote: "At the core of the explosion all matter would turn to pure energy"
Completely and utterly preposterous. The law of conservation of matter states that matter cannot be created or destroyed, only changed from one form to another.
The law of conservation of energy states the same for energy.
Hence, the matter at the center of the blast would most likely be vaporized (changed into another form of matter) but it absolutely would NOT be turned into energy. (That would mean the matter was destroyed.) Similarly, if the matter were turned into energy, that would be creating new energy.
Quote: "Now the gate is the equivlent of a controlled black hole"
Sorry, no such thing.
Quote: "The excess energy would be practically gone the second it started. Dont get me wrong it would still be aglobal disaster, but the earth would be realativly unharmed."
Not really. There is no way that the detonation of a device with enough explosive force to destroy the Eurasian plate would leave the earth intact. The sheer force of the explosion blow the earth into millions of pieces. Even if the earth survived the blast itself, the shock waves would created massive earthquakes on a scale never seen in history and would crack the earth into tiny fragments.
Quote: "The term weapon does not mean destructive, it means it carriers malice, the outcome of using it would casue malice from the bridge as its my plan agianst everything. Also signifies the crew lost on board aswell. 'It was a act of sucide by thier own weapon'"
Tell you what, show me something that is neither destructive nor dangerous, and is still classified, under the law, as a weapon. Then we'll talk. Until you can do that, a weapon is destructive.
Quote: "'Sir Coder', was Coffecoder, the one who allianced with me at the start, i thought that it would be easy to figure that one out."
That's what I figured. However, I didn't just want to assume that that was the case. Also, the fact that you had said Sir Coder had sent his troops into your base, and that you said his soldiers had sent a communication to him, when neither of these events ever occurred, made it less likely that CoffeeCoder was Sir Coder.
CoffeeCoder was never even participating in our game. He never posted anything about our war, and he sure never said anything about sending troops into the base that got nuked.
You cant just pick a forum member and say that he or she did this or that. If that was allowable, then I could just say "Then Lazerus swallowed three quarts of poison, picked up a shotgun, blew his own head off, and fell backwards into a pool of boiling lava which was full of spinning saw blades and being spun like a giant blender at hundreds of miles per hour."
Is that fair? No, of course not. So why would it be fair for you to just say that CofeeCoder is allied with you or sent his troops into that base? He never agree to be allied with you, and in fact, he;s been allied with me since the Forum Presidential elections.
Quote: "Sorry for the confusion, but yes this game is over."
Does that mean you forfeit? Cause I'm still very much alive and ready to continue beating you. I'm still raring to go, so unless you give up and surrender to me, the game is absolutely NOT over.
So what if I talk to myself? Its the only way i can have an intelligent conversation around here.
