Parallel Universe.

[socratus]

About Reference Systems: Vacuum and Space.
From times of Newton in classical physics the principle worked:
" Until the reference system is specified, any conversations on movement
are completely deprived the contents."
Newton, first of all physicists realized, what a main role a reference system has.
The choice of reference system is a central, basic question at the commencement of any task
But the founders of the “Big Bang” theory have forgotten this.
Nowhere do they write in what reference system the "Big Bang" took place,
and in what reference system the substance of the "single point " is distributed.
And consequently, the theory of the "Big Bang" is constructed on a sand.
* * *
The astronomers have established the fact of galaxy rotation
but nobody speaks of the reference system in which they rotate.
Without the inclusion of a reference system the rotation of galaxies
is deprived of any content. To avoid this problem, write:
Each Galaxy is surrounded by an "accompanying reference system",
and the "accompanying reference system" is extended.
/ The Physics of Space. is a small Soviet encyclopedia published in 1986./
This is a joke!
For example, I am at home and I am surrounded by an "accompanying reference system";
my house. Then I go to work surrounded by an "accompanying reference system";
And when I have arrived on the job, I am surrounded by an
"accompanying reference system", the university.
But if we do not understand that we work in the reference system of the Earth,
and the astronomers do not understand in what reference system
the billions of galaxies rotate, any statement is meaningless.
Only when the reference system is specified, then the words "galaxies rotate"
and "Big Bang" make sense.
The first problem in the discussion of the laws of motion is to answer the question,
"In what reference system does this motion occur?
In what reference system are the laws of motion formulated?"
This question is most unpleasant for the amateurs in abstract reasoning and conjecture.
God teaches man to think particularly and logically.
The Devil teaches man to speak with beautiful, general and abstract phrases.
By such method he easily hides the truth from the people.
* * *
The main paradox in physics is not understanding reference systems.
Einstein and Infeld wrote:
“We have the laws, but are not aware what the body of reference system they belong to,
and all our physical construction appears erected on sand”.
They are right. The essence is that now there is no precise border
which divides two different frame of reference:
1) System of Vacuum and
2) Gravitational frame of reference.
Now these two systems are considered as though they were common.
But they are completely different systems.
There, where there is a vacuum - there is no gravitation.
In the vacuum, one set of laws - the laws of the vacuum work
( not taking into account external influences).
Where there is gravitation, there is no vacuum.
In a gravitational reference system
a complete set of other laws apply.
These laws are connected and take into account external influences.
How these two systems cooperate between themselves is explained on the following site.

[socratus]

Two views of the Vacuum
In modern science there are two mutually exclusive points of view
on the behaviour of particles in a Vacuum. One point of view is
the position of classical physics which says that:
In the vacuum at T=0K any movement of a particle stops.
And if in the Empire of Cold there is no movement, it is a dead empire.
But another point of view completely rejects this formulation.
This point of view is expressed in the quantum theory. In 1911, M. Planck
stated that energy does not become zero at the approach T=0K.
He declared this on the 1st Solvay congress. So " Energy at T=0K" became
the main problem in physics because " Physics is first of all the vacuum".
Gradually it began to appear that Vacuum at T=0K is not empty dead space.
There live the "virtual" particles. These particles originally have negative and
imaginary mass, and then make a virtual transition » to positive mass,
becoming real particles. But the apparently mystical "virtual particles"
as they make "virtual transitions". explains little.
Let's rethink these "virtual" particles. Let's ask a question:
What is the geometrical form of "virtual" particles in the Vacuum at T=0K?
The answer is:
According to the laws of physics :
J. Charles ( 1787), Gay-Lussac ( 1802), V. Nernst ( 1910), A. Einstein ( 1925)
particles in a Vacuum cannot have volume and consequently should be flat figures.
This means, particles have the geometrical form of a circle, as from all flat figures
the circle has the most optimum form: C/D=pi.
What are these "virtual" circles in the vacuum?
The answer is given in the theory of radiation of absolute black bodies.
The theory considers an area of the space which are in absolute thermal balance.
It is possible only at T=0K. But it is known, that such a condition is a
"thermal death " and is not observed in nature. Therefore Planck, studying this area,
came to the conclusion that condition T=0K has changed. In this space there should be
a radiation of a quantum of light, possessing an internal impulse h=Et=1.
So, « the virtual circle » is transformed to quantum of light.
This quantum of light has an impulse h=Et=1 and travels with constant speed, c=1.
From this assumption Quantum theory was born.
Therefore the Quantum theory is a theory only about a quantum of light and its various transformations.
And classical theory considers all other particles.
These particles have mass much greater than a quantum of light and
move with much smaller speeds. If we understand the difference between
a quantum of light and all other particles,
then all contradictions in the physics disappear, and all of physics becomes a
harmoniously integral science.

[Billy T]

strange...why is no one giving you shit?

I'm confused...

[jjbilly]

I knew when the GUT came, it would be posted on ActionScript.org.

[tg]

strange...why is no one giving you shit?

I'm confused...


cuz that was such boaring shit, that i couldn't make it thru 3 lines, then just quite reading....

[Gibberish]

I haven't even attempted to read it. :)

[finchou]

my little brother used to say stuff like that until I shut his mouth.

[Cota]

Its also old, this guy has posted the same thing 5 times already...

[tg]

5x? holy crap... i only saw it once.... you should have deleted all 5 posts.

[Cota]

I merged two of them today...I didnt realize there were 5 until I started looking into it...I figures since the other mod's didnt delete them, and just moved them to general chat, that they were leaving it alone...

[tg]

...I figures since the other mod's didnt delete them, and just moved them to general chat, that they were leaving it alone...

dude... i know your new at this game and all, but you gotta start flexing your muscles here a bit.... just not around me or my posts.

[Cota]

I dont follow the part about you and your posts?

[CyanBlue]

I think I moved one of the post to the GC forum because I thought that it was not right to just delete the post because what he says has nothing to do with Flash and I didn't think he was really spamming or something... He just was not finding the right board to post the forum... What I am saying is that he'd get more exposure if he post the threads in some boards that deals with something other than Flash... But then, I was too lazy/confused to read what he was trying to say... :D

[outlando]

@socratus: So what you're basically saying, without all the unnecessary frills and frippery, is that nobody can understand anything unless it's explained within its own context, and that should we one day fully understand Quantum theory, we will understand everything.

There. That's your two posts in about four lines :p

[finchou]

I would translate it by "I spent two years locked in my room with a bag of weed and a 1950 primary school physics book".

[Headshotz]

@socratus: So what you're basically saying, without all the unnecessary frills and frippery, is that nobody can understand anything unless it's explained within its own context, and that should we one day fully understand Quantum theory, we will understand everything.

There. That's your two posts in about four lines :p

2 :p


Its like that movie, what the bleep do we know

[socratus]

The Structure of Nothing . /According to my peasant logic: 1 + 1 = 2. /

Once upon a time, 20 billions of years ago, all matter
(all elementary particles and all quarks and
their girlfriends- antiparticles and antiquarks,
all kinds of waves: electromagnetic, gravitational,
muons… gluons field ….. etc.) – was assembled in a “single point”.
It is interesting to think about what had surrounded the “single point”.
EMPTINESS- NOTHING….???
Ok!
But why does everyone speak about EMPTINESS- NOTHING in
common phrases rather than in specific, concrete terms?
I wonder why nobody has written down this EMPTINESS- NOTHING in
the form of a physical formula ? You see, every schoolboy knows that
is possible to express the EMPTINESS- NOTHING condition
by the formula T=0K.
* * *
Once there was a “Big Bang”.
But in what space had the Big Bang taken place
and in what space was the matter of the Big Bang distributed?
Not in T=0K?
It is clear, that there is only EMPTINESS, NOTHING, in T=0K.
Now consider that the Universe, as an absolute frame of reference is
in a condition of T = 2,7K (rests in relic radiation of the Big Bang ).
But, the relic radiation is extended and in the future will change and decrease.
What temperature can this radiation reach?
Not T=0K?
Hence, if we go into the past or into the present or into the future,
we can not escape from EMPTINESS- NOTHING .
Everyone knows about the “singular point”, but nobody knows that it is
EMPTINESS- NOTHING! To understand it, it is necessary to ask a question:
What geometric and physical parameters can particles have in T=0K?
Can they have a volume?
No.
Then they must have the geometrical form of a flat circle: C/D =p= 3,14.
But what these particles do ?
Nothing.
They are in a condition of rest: h = 0. So, maybe they are dead?
In order to answer of this question, it is necessary to more clearly understand
EMPTINESS- NOTHING.
* * *
Has this EMPTINESS- NOTHING a border? No! It has no borders.
EMPTINESS- NOTHING is indefinite. Let's identify it by the formula: T=0K = ∞
And what about time in the EMPTINESS- NOTHING ?
Independent time is absent.
Time in EMPTINESS- NOTHING is indissolubly merged with infinite space.
Stop!
But you see, such space is described by Einstein in Special Relativity Theory.
In SRT, space also has a negative characteristic and there also,
time is indissolubly merged with space.
Only in SRT, this EMPTINESS- NOTHING has another name:
Negative four-dimensional (Minkowski) space.
Then it is possible to conclude that SRT describes the behaviour
of the circle-particles in T=0K.
* * *
In agreement with SRT, these circle-particles can be in two conditions of movement:
To fly rectilinearly with a speed of c =1.
In this kind of movement , it is named a “quantum of light”, ”photon”.
2) To rotate around its own diameter and then its form and
physical parameters will change according to the Lorentz transformation.
In this kind of movement, it is named the “electron”.
* * *
But what is the reason for the movement of circle-particles?
In the EMPTINESS- NOTHING, nothing can influence the condition of rest.
Quantum theory gives the answer to this question.
1) The rectilinear movement of the circle-particles depends
on Planck's spin :h = 1.
2) The rotary movement of the circle-particles depends on the spin
of Goudsmit-Uhlenbeck: ħ = h /2pi.
* * *
Very strange particles surround the "singular point ".
These circle-particles can be in three conditions:
1) h = 0 ,
2) h = 1,
3) ) ħ = h / 2pi
And they can independently decide what action to take.
So it can work only with particles that have their own consciousness,
which is not static but can develop.
The development of consciousness scale goes " from vague wishes up to a clear thought ".
* * *
Best regards.
Socratus.
http://www.socratus.com
"If consciousness is in fact defined (and different) at every moment of time,
it should also be related to points in space:
the truly subjective observer system should be related to space-time points."
from "Quantum Theory and Time Asymmetry", Zeh (1979).

[outlando]

It appears that somewhere in this thread our friend has found some encouragement...

Perhaps someone hit you with a spinning Planck? ;)

[Billy T]

there's one small problem there

3) ) ħ = h / 2pi

should be

3) ) ħ = h / 3pi

a simple mistake for a newb like yourself but a mistake just the same

please check your facts more carefully in future

much love

[Billy T]

holy crap...I just realised Safari has "Copy" and "Paste" functions...that is so freakin awesome

WELL, PRINCE, Genoa and Lucca are now no more than private estates of the Bonaparte family. No, I warn you, that if you do not tell me we are at war, if you again allow yourself to palliate all the infamies and atrocities of this Antichrist (upon my word, I believe he is), I don’t know you in future, you are no longer my friend, no longer my faithful slave, as you say. There, how do you do, how do you do? I see I’m scaring you, sit down and talk to me.”
These words were uttered in July 1805 by Anna Pavlovna Scherer, a distinguished lady of the court, and confidential maid-of-honour to the Empress Marya Fyodorovna. It was her greeting to Prince Vassily, a man high in rank and office, who was the first to arrive at her soirée. Anna Pavlovna had been coughing for the last few days; she had an attack of la grippe, as she said—grippe was then a new word only used by a few people. In the notes she had sent round in the morning by a footman in red livery, she had written to all indiscriminately:
“If you have nothing better to do, count (or prince), and if the prospect of spending an evening with a poor invalid is not too alarming to you, I shall be charmed to see you at my house between 7 and 10. Annette Scherer.”
“Heavens! what a violent outburst!” the prince responded, not in the least disconcerted at such a reception. He was wearing an embroidered court uniform, stockings and slippers, and had stars on his breast, and a bright smile on his flat face.
He spoke in that elaborately choice French, in which our forefathers not only spoke but thought, and with those slow, patronising intonations peculiar to aman of importance who has grown old in court society. He went up to Anna Pavlovna, kissed her hand, presenting her with a view of his perfumed, shining bald head, and complacently settled himself on the sofa.
“First of all, tell me how you are, dear friend. Relieve a friend’s anxiety,” he said, with no change of his voice and tone, in which indifference, and even irony, was perceptible through the veil of courtesy and sympathy.
“How can one be well when one is in moral suffering? How can one help being worried in these times, if one has any feeling?” said Anna Pavlovna. “You’ll spend the whole evening with me, I hope?”
“And the fête at the English ambassador’s? To-day is Wednesday. I must put in an appearance there,” said the prince. “My daughter is coming to fetch me and take me there.”
“I thought to-day’s fête had been put off. I confess that all these festivities and fireworks are beginning to pall.”
“If they had known that it was your wish, the fête would have been put off,” said the prince, from habit, like a wound-up clock, saying things he did not even wish to be believed.
“Don’t tease me. Well, what has been decided in regard to the Novosiltsov dispatch? You know everything.”
“What is there to tell?” said the prince in a tired, listless tone. “What has been decided? It has been decided that Bonaparte has burnt his ships, and I think that we are about to burn ours.”
Prince Vassily always spoke languidly, like an actor repeating his part in an old play. Anna Pavlovna Scherer, in spite of her forty years, was on the contrary brimming over with excitement and impulsiveness. To be enthusiastic had become her pose in society, and at times even when she had, indeed, no inclination to be so, she was enthusiastic so as not to disappoint the expectations of those who knew her. The affected smile which played continually about Anna Pavlovna’s face, out of keeping as it was with her faded looks, expressed a spoilt child’s continual consciousness of a charming failing of which she had neither the wish nor the power to correct herself, which, indeed, she saw no need to correct.

[Cota]

And all this falls under some wise words, "DooBee DooBee Doo"

[tg]

holy crap...I just realised Safari has "Copy" and "Paste" functions...that is so freakin awesome

WELL, PRINCE, Genoa and Lucca are now no more than private estates of the Bonaparte family. No, I warn you, that if you do not tell me we are at war, if you again allow yourself to palliate all the infamies and atrocities of this Antichrist (upon my word, I believe he is), I don’t know you in future, you are no longer my friend, no longer my faithful slave, as you say. There, how do you do, how do you do? I see I’m scaring you, sit down and talk to me.”
These words were uttered in July 1805 by Anna Pavlovna Scherer, a distinguished lady of the court, and confidential maid-of-honour to the Empress Marya Fyodorovna. It was her greeting to Prince Vassily, a man high in rank and office, who was the first to arrive at her soirée. Anna Pavlovna had been coughing for the last few days; she had an attack of la grippe, as she said—grippe was then a new word only used by a few people. In the notes she had sent round in the morning by a footman in red livery, she had written to all indiscriminately:
“If you have nothing better to do, count (or prince), and if the prospect of spending an evening with a poor invalid is not too alarming to you, I shall be charmed to see you at my house between 7 and 10. Annette Scherer.”
“Heavens! what a violent outburst!” the prince responded, not in the least disconcerted at such a reception. He was wearing an embroidered court uniform, stockings and slippers, and had stars on his breast, and a bright smile on his flat face.
He spoke in that elaborately choice French, in which our forefathers not only spoke but thought, and with those slow, patronising intonations peculiar to aman of importance who has grown old in court society. He went up to Anna Pavlovna, kissed her hand, presenting her with a view of his perfumed, shining bald head, and complacently settled himself on the sofa.
“First of all, tell me how you are, dear friend. Relieve a friend’s anxiety,” he said, with no change of his voice and tone, in which indifference, and even irony, was perceptible through the veil of courtesy and sympathy.
“How can one be well when one is in moral suffering? How can one help being worried in these times, if one has any feeling?” said Anna Pavlovna. “You’ll spend the whole evening with me, I hope?”
“And the fête at the English ambassador’s? To-day is Wednesday. I must put in an appearance there,” said the prince. “My daughter is coming to fetch me and take me there.”
“I thought to-day’s fête had been put off. I confess that all these festivities and fireworks are beginning to pall.”
“If they had known that it was your wish, the fête would have been put off,” said the prince, from habit, like a wound-up clock, saying things he did not even wish to be believed.
“Don’t tease me. Well, what has been decided in regard to the Novosiltsov dispatch? You know everything.”
“What is there to tell?” said the prince in a tired, listless tone. “What has been decided? It has been decided that Bonaparte has burnt his ships, and I think that we are about to burn ours.”
Prince Vassily always spoke languidly, like an actor repeating his part in an old play. Anna Pavlovna Scherer, in spite of her forty years, was on the contrary brimming over with excitement and impulsiveness. To be enthusiastic had become her pose in society, and at times even when she had, indeed, no inclination to be so, she was enthusiastic so as not to disappoint the expectations of those who knew her. The affected smile which played continually about Anna Pavlovna’s face, out of keeping as it was with her faded looks, expressed a spoilt child’s continual consciousness of a charming failing of which she had neither the wish nor the power to correct herself, which, indeed, she saw no need to correct.


holy crap.... billy t has discovered cut and paste... now who know what will start showing up here.

[Billy T]

its cool man...was just kidding around...I actually discovered copy and paste weeks ago




"Several White House reporters say that as much as McClellan is liked personally, the administration has left him with no meaningful freedom from the podium beyond jackhammering that day's message and providing mundane updates. ('The president had a good discussion with a group of Senate Democrats and Republicans earlier today.') It has diminished the daily briefing to a playacting spectacle in which he recites lines while reporters play the part of exasperated inquisitors."

Briefing Follies

Yesterday's briefing provides an illustration.

At mid-day, the Senate and the White House still appeared on a collision course on the Patriot Act. (Later, the White House, which had so vehemently demanded long-term reauthorization, backed down and accepted a six-month extension.)

Responding to repeated questions, McClellan made reference to his Dec. 16 statement on the matter -- "The President has made it very clear that he is not interested in signing any short-term renewal."

But he simply refused to say those words out loud.

"Q Scott, would the President veto a three-month extension of the Patriot Act? Is that something you can accept?

"MR. McCLELLAN: Well, I think we need to talk about what's going on here. What's going on here is pure obstructionist politics. A minority in the Senate, led by Senate Democrats, are putting politics above our nation's security. This bill has been thoroughly debated. It enjoys majority support. They need to give it an up or down vote and quit playing politics with our nation's security.

"Q So would the President veto a three-month extension?

"MR. McCLELLAN: Well, the President has already made his views known on that -- I expressed his views last week -- and nothing has changed in terms of our views. That's why it's important for them to go ahead and get this passed now.

"Q So you would veto a three-month extension?

"MR. McCLELLAN: I expressed our view last week; nothing has changed.

"Q Can you tell me what that was again?

"MR. McCLELLAN: You can see what I expressed last week. You know very well what it was.

"Q Sounds like you're backing down from that.

"MR. McCLELLAN: No, nothing has changed in terms of what I said last week.

"Q So just say it. Just say --

"Q Will you use the word 'veto'? Why are you not using the word 'veto'?

"MR. McCLELLAN: I expressed our views on that last week --

"Q But if you still stand by them, why won't you reiterate it?

"MR. McCLELLAN: Well, again, what I said last week still stands.

"Q Which is what?"

It's like giving a direct answer would cause him pain or something.

On the other hand, a little while later, he quite bluntly illustrated how the White House sees resistance to its policies in a different light depending on who it's coming from.

"Q You suggested that those who are seeking an extension are putting politics above security. That now includes eight Republicans. Are you including them in that accusation?

"MR. McCLELLAN: No, it's the Senate Democrats."

You can find some more examples of what I've been calling "Briefing Follies" here .

Patriot Act

Charles Babington and Michael A. Fletcher write in The Washington Post: "President Bush, who had repeatedly said he would not accept a short-term extension of the Patriot Act, embraced the Senate's action last night. 'I appreciate the Senate for working to keep the existing Patriot Act in law through next July, despite boasts last week by the Democratic leader that he had blocked the Act,' Bush said in a statement . 'No one should be allowed to block the Patriot Act to score political points, and I am grateful the Senate rejected that approach.' "

Richard B. Schmitt and Mary Curtius write in the Los Angeles Times that the vote was a "major setback for the White House on a top domestic priority."

They quote Sen. Russell D. Feingold (D-Wis.), who led the fight against the House-Senate compromise legislation: " 'It was only the president, the White House and Atty. Gen. Gonzales who wanted to play that game of chicken -- and they lost that game,' Feingold said. The administration had made it clear, he added, that 'it was their way or the highway, but they did not prevail.' "

Domestic Spying Watch

Carol D. Leonnig and Dafna Linzer write in The Washington Post: "The presiding judge of a secret court that oversees government surveillance in espionage and terrorism cases is arranging a classified briefing for her fellow judges to address their concerns about the legality of President Bush's domestic spying program, according to several intelligence and government sources.

"Several members of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court said in interviews that they want to know why the administration believed secretly listening in on telephone calls and reading e-mails of U.S. citizens without court authorization was legal. Some of the judges said they are particularly concerned that information gleaned from the president's eavesdropping program may have been improperly used to gain authorized wiretaps from their court. . . .

"Warrants obtained through secret surveillance could be thrown into question. One judge, speaking on the condition of anonymity, also said members could suggest disbanding the court in light of the president's suggestion that he has the power to bypass the court."

What exactly is the government doing so secretly? And why was judicial oversight -- even with the granting of retroactive approval -- apparently too limiting? Different theories are emerging. One is that the secret program is some sort of giant high-tech fishing expedition.

Leonnig and Linzer write: "Bush administration officials believe it is not possible, in a large-scale eavesdropping effort, to provide the kind of evidence the court requires to approve a warrant. Sources knowledgeable about the program said there is no way to secure a FISA warrant when the goal is to listen in on a vast array of communications in the hopes of finding something that sounds suspicious. . . .

"One government official, who spoke on the condition of anonymity, said the administration complained bitterly that the FISA process demanded too much: to name a target and give a reason to spy on it.

" 'For FISA, they had to put down a written justification for the wiretap,' said the official. 'They couldn't dream one up.' "

But Scott Shane writes in the New York Times that "officials who have been granted anonymity in describing the program because it is classified say the agency's recent domestic eavesdropping is focused on a limited group of people. Americans come to the program's attention only if they have received a call or e-mail message from a person overseas who is already suspected to be a member of certain terrorist groups or linked somehow to a member of such groups. And the agency still gets a warrant to intercept their calls or e-mail messages to other people in the United States."

Shane adds some historical context: "For anyone familiar with the agency's history, the revelations recalled the mid-1970's, when the Senate's Church Committee and the Rockefeller Commission exposed the agency's abuse of Americans' privacy.

"Under one program, called Shamrock, the agency and its predecessors for decades collected copies of all international telegrams leaving or entering the United States from the major telegraph companies. Another, code-named Minaret, kept watch lists of Americans who caught the government's interest because of activism against the Vietnam War or other political stances. Information was kept on about 75,000 Americans from 1952, when agency was created, to 1974, according to testimony."

Ron Hutcheson writes for Knight Ridder Newspapers: "By letting government agents eavesdrop without court oversight, Bush joined a long list of presidents who've tested the limits of their wartime authority -- often to the detriment of their reputations. Most over-reached. Legal scholars who disagree with Bush's approach say he missed a vital history lesson."

Neil King Jr. writes in the Wall Street Journal: "President Bush's claim that he has a legal right to eavesdrop on some U.S. citizens without court approval has widened an ideological gap within his party.

"On one side is the national-security camp, made even more numerous by loyalty to a wartime president. On the other are the small-government civil libertarians who have long held a privileged place within the Republican Party but whose ranks have ebbed since the 2001 terrorist attacks."

The DHS Disaster

President Bush's most significant bureaucratic legacy is undeniably the gargantuan new conglomeration of 22 federal agencies called the Department of Homeland Security.

But as Susan B. Glasser and Michael Grunwald write in a major Washington Post story today, it's not exactly a proud legacy.

[Headshotz]

This is a Really Long, Pointless Story about a Shirt - Some cut out
Let's start, and end, with the shirts. Dressing is a big deal to me -- ever since I (a) became single, and (b) lost 60 pounds, I've become something of a clotheshorse. I don't know the etymology of that expression, but it's such a neat word I wanted to use it. (Am I like a sawhorse, but for clothing instead of sawing?)

At any rate, I've started shopping at the smallest, snottiest, exclusiviest (I know, not a word) little men's boutiques I can find. At first I was content merely having the guys at Nordstrom all know me by name (and call me when they got a new season's worth of fashions), but that was merely a gateway (like marijuana in the eyes of conservatives) to littler shops, where each individual thread in a garment has a value measured in dollars, not pennies.

Sadly, these kinds of shirts require dry-cleaning, which requires that I make it to the dry-cleaner. This is something of an issue for me, because I'm wont to keep odd hours, and because when I'm awake I'm usually working (c.f. "being single, the suckiness inherent therein"). So, for the last week, in preparation for WWDC, I've been driving around with a big blue laundry bag full of dirty shirts in the passenger seat of my pimp ride.


I should mention that, when I was a wee lad, I had visions of one day getting a pimp ride, so that when I passed pretty women on the side of the street who were forlornly walking somewhere, I could pull up and say, "Hey, mamasita, you want a ride?" I've since been informed that women find this, in fact, really creepy, so I've never actually done it, but I have to mention that every guy has a fantasy of one day doing this, even while admitting this fantasy is in direct opposition to any possible reality.

[I should also mention that should I wish to Jackson out and hit on 12-year-old boys, instead of women, a pimp ride is the perfect way to go. The number of times I've had 12-year-old boys yell out "pimp-de-pimp-pimp-pimp!" to me when I drive by is surprisingly high, considering I had previously never heard the "pimp-de-pimp-pimp-pimp" call and have no idea what it means. But for 12-year-olds it's some kind of lingua franca.]

At any rate, you can imagine how cool it is to drive by a pretty woman walking in the rain and think, "Hey, I should offer her a ride... wait, then she'd have to have my big bag of stinky shirts in her lap... that'd probably strike her as pretty strange... possibly even frightening."

--

So it is that, when packing for WWDC 2005, I only took one good shirt with me. Mind you, this was a really good shirt. This shirt was made in London by a guy named Ted or James or some such, which to me lends instant credibility to it, because as much as I love (the blue states in) my country, when I think of America I think of rebels, I think of individualists, I think of can-do spirit and an indomitable dedication to individual freedoms and happiness. But I don't think, "nice shirts!"

London, on the other hand, has class and panache, and Ted/James clearly was the latest in a long line of shirt-makers who had, for generations, been making shirts for discerning gentlemen, not carrying guns, and/or shipping off criminals to unsettled countries.

I cut out the end so if you were stupid enough to read to here you will never know what happened muahahahahahaha

[tg]

maybe you all need to start a thread about who can create the single longest most pointless post.


then again... maybe not.

[Headshotz]

Ruben would own us all...

[Cota]

Ruben has points....we just dont get them...

[tg]

Ruben would own us all...

not if we went thru all of ruben's post, copied the content and pasted it into one big long continuous post.

of corse i think there is a length barrier, so we may only get to put in 2-3 of his posts before we hit the limit.

[Headshotz]

The smily news

:D

^ I dont go green when I have a bigsmile like this guy

:)

^Im not that yellow when Im happy

:o

^Mildly accurate

[Headshotz]

CONTINUED

:eek:

^I dont go blue, I go orange

:rolleyes:

^Sometimes I go blue when in these emotions

:(

^I never go purple unless its a thursday

[socratus]

The unity.
"You cannot shelter theology from science, or science from theology;
nor can you shelter either one from metaphysics, or metaphysics from either one of them.
There is no shortcut to the truth."

– Alfred North Whitehead, Religion in the Making

[outlando]

Are you insinuating that I should tolerate your bombastic point of view when your fundamental faculties are insufficiently sophisticated to adjudicate your philosophies? ;)

[Headshotz]

Are you trying to tell us the sun is not real?

[Cota]

Are you insinuating that I should tolerate your bombastic point of view when your fundamental faculties are insufficiently sophisticated to adjudicate your philosophies? ;)
Way too many big words in one sentence....

[Headshotz]

My brain automatically cancels out big words that are not part of actionscript syntax and replaces them with dancing elves.

[Cota]

mmmmmmmmmmm.......Donuts.....

[Headshotz]

mmmmmmm doughnuts (http://www.untruenorth.com/vol1_iss5/lifestyle/lifeimages/doughnuts.jpg)

[Cota]

Doh!

[Headshotz]

___________
| |
| |
| [ ] |
| |
| |
---------------


Mmmmmm, really crappy text dougnut

[Headshotz]

Oh it reformatted it just like my topic graph :mad: :mad:

[socratus]

The wise God carefully collected the constants of Nature
to build our beautiful Earth.
At one time, physicists wanted to build the picture of Genesis
originating from the basic constants of Nature.
And what are they doing now?
In 1906, Lord Rutherford studied internal structure of atoms,
bombarding them with high energy a- particles.
This idea helped him understand the structure of atom.
But the clever Devil interfered and gave advice to physicists to enlarge the target.
Bomb them!
And physicist created huge cannon-accelerators of particles.
And they began to bomb micro particles in the Vacuum, in hoping to understand
their inner structure. And they were surprised with the results of this bombing.
Several hundreds of completely new strange particles appeared.
They lived a very little time and do not relate to our world.
Our Earth needs its real constants of nature. But this was forgotten.
What God carefully created, is destroyed in accelerators.
And they are proud of that. They say: we study the inner structure of the particles.
The clever and artful Devil is glad. He again has deceived man.
Physicist think, that an accelerator - is first of all the presence of huge energy.
And the Devil laughs.
He knows, that an accelerator - is first of all the Vacuum.
But this, he has withheld from man.
He has not explained that the Vacuum is infinite and inexhaustible.
And in infinity there is contained an infinite variety of particles.
And by bombing the Vacuum, one can find centaurs and sphinxes.
But my God, save us from their presence on Earth.
Socratus.

[socratus]

E.Rutherford was right.
His followers are mistaken.
Why?
Imagine, that I want to plant a small apple- tree.
For this purpose I shall dig out a hole of 1 meter width and 1,20 m depth.
It is normal.
But if to plant a small apple- tree, I shall begin to dig
a base for a huge building (skyscraper),
or if to begin drill ground with 10 km. depth,
will you call me a normal man?
==================
Rutherford dug a hole and planted an apple- tree.
His followers senselessly drill hole (deeper and deeper)
with hope to plant their own apple- tree.
=======
When a man does not know his borders
he is maybe funny or maybe a crazy one.
Clever man knows his borders.
It is doubtfully to call our society " clever"
if we continue to build pyramids.
Pyramids of the XXI-st century.

[newblack]

god? the devil???? and i thought you had pushed nonsense to its breaking point!

[socratus]

Gentlemen.
I have only two questions:
First -
Hasn,t my parrot flown to you?
Second -
Why does everyone says, that the relative movement is only real: v=s/t,
if the speed of quantum of light is absolute: c=1 and
it can occur only in absolute space: Vacuum T=0 ?
P.S.
You can easily find out my parrot, it has learned only two sentences:
“there is no absolute movement’,
“ there is no absolute reference system”.
Best wishes.
Socratus.

[newblack]

it really is pretty selfish to keep whatever it is you're shooting into your veins to yourself...

and I'd be far more likely to actually read this drivel if you gave a half-second's concern to grammar and/or spelling. i might even buy a pair of nikes and drink your kool-aid.

[outlando]

“there is no absolute movement’,
“ there is no absolute reference system”.


There is no-one listening.

[maskedMan]

A spammer *and* a thread necromancer.