with potential for lots of fun

The simple fact that you were dumb enough to ask :)

wheeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee!!!!!!!!!

:o)

Splatttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttt!!!!!!!!!!111

John?

But John, the 'spaces' between his ears IS.

John a new formula for you: f(rd+v)/a + s = hit Scientists have found that the comedic value of a sitcom is determined by multiplying the recognisable qualities of the main character (r) by their delusions of grandeur (d) which is added to the verbal wit of the script (v) and the total is then multiplied by the amount someone falls over (f). Then the total is divided by the success of any scheme during the show (a) and the difference in social status between the highest and lowest ranking characters is then added (s).

hahahahahaha. Pissing my self.

John: all you seem to have done is manipulate values to suit you own accord (typical religion)...if A-A=0, what is the point of an equasion to begin with.....HMMM? (0-0)=(0+0) also...but what's the point of considering that also...hmmm?! Now you seem to have missed my point completey...The Sorites is defined by were a thing begins to become...or it's potential if you like...flux is continuity within a continuum, not static values in a jar! And hence your snapshot is not holistic! If A , therefore A; if B, therefore not A...it's that simple! But one must first concede that all values which resemble A equal A...which they do not, and that leap of faith (presumption) has dropped you into an unrecoverable infinite regress in order to unite a universal axiom...ha ha! In Physics, what you trying to do is shoot fish underwater with a bow and arrow, then claim you're the fish which can shoot out of water with the same bow......you can't....the universe forbids it due to mass/ velocity! Energy is proportionate to atomic weight not atomic size....see the sun for details and tell me if you can calculate its strict mass and atomic weight! Answer you can't...full stop....and it BS to say you can! Q: Does infinity has a specific value to which we can equate or attribute values to all lesser numbers? No, it does not....as you yourself would depose infinity to power of 0 being a whole value of 1, whereas I to power of 0 still = 1 also, whereas 0 to the power of 0 = 0.....therefore these values read 0, 1,1,1,1,1,1,1,1,....infinity...which is not logical because infinity would need to become [INFINITY to the power of 0 = 1 recurring]...which is impossible! So obviously, a double jeopardy with no solution available under current logical terms and mathematical conditions is Physic waffle, as all you are really doing is transporting finite values into the concept of infinity...which is pure bullshit! And as there is an infinite number of values between 0<>1, therefore both values are as nonsensical to all the values between as they equate and relate to nothing (0).......which you claim has some value, but really doesn't! My example was not of space, John....but a theoretically perfect vacuum...now do geddit it...nothing is a void (of something) which attracts other things to make something else...it's potency! .

PS: now before you waffle on with more conventional BS....consider: How can nothing come from nothing? There goes you stupid Big Bang Theory and mathematics along with it also....ooopppssss! There is one very specific answer, John! But I'll not tell you rocket scientists as you'd all only abuse it like you have every other principle in creation! And it's far simpler than ever your precious Einstein idiot every imagined possible! Lateral thinking is not abstract...it is realisation.... because we are all simply under water and upside down! An illusion of arse about face if you like...LOL

Simple mathematics for five year olds: Given that murderer = 1 and netstalker = 1 and Jasper = 2, what do you conclude? Tomorrow, children, we will test the theory that mykle = 1 and Ag = 1, new forum = 2

Sorry missi. Had to rush off. This area has had some Internet down time, so I've only just got back on line. Well the outcome, 'for the full equation' and a couple of others, was to show a direct coalition between energy and mass. 'What goes in must come out', in other words. The big question in Physics 'if not all of Science', is to unify gravity with electromagnetic forces. Classical Euclidean geometry works fine for Classical Physics, but not for Quantum Mechanics. So we have two Models with two branches of math that 'don't work', with each other. The goal is to find one formula that works for both models.

1+1=... Nowwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwww!!????

Actually missi. Now that I've read Jaspers post. Perhaps Jasper would like to elaborate on that equation?

Oh he hasn't got the time, he's too busy working on the 'What goes in must come out' thing. In his case, it's his dick and the wallabys a.rse.

I think he took the title of the thread to literal. ~:

Feel free to join in and make it a threesome, stormy, if you can handle the politenesses.

You have a friend? Oh well I suppose that is better than spinning on the beach alone. That would be 'Canada geese' and 'wandered' then.

It's fairly simple john. Classical physics works on the principal that it's a square world and measures everything in cubes whereas Quantum uses radians - so all you need to do is figure out where to introduce the 8/3Pi ;o)

:o)

I met Jo on the beach a few weeks ago - but as she is a Leo I have no interest in giving romance a whirl :o)

Well, I'm packing my picnic hamper - since we are promised a glorious day (and it's looking good so far) - and don't expect to be back until fairly late. Famous last words (I say that because the last time I said i was going out into the sunshine it clouded over within minutes). Thread a trois, eh Ag? Scandalous ;o)

HUH.....1+1 =? one plus one what, John? And Strummy.........enlighten me.......Murderer.........Hmmmm........interesting assumption, fella? But deductively, a fallacy! Yet as death is goal of all life, it must also be its creator!

Why would anyone have a picnic on their own? Does one person even constitute a picnic ?

lol. I too found myself taking pics of swans and ducks the other week. I was pretty proud of this one: It's a swan... and some ducks! It's funny because as I was walking away a fisherman beckoned me over and said "eh mate, if you like taking pics of birds then keep an eye on those two **points to two ducks** they've been mating all morning." I didn't get that. I just froze, did a reality check and then turned and walked away. Mating ducks? Why would I want to take a photo of two ducks shagging? Did he think I was a duckaphile?

Haven't you ever heard of having a date with yourself? I spent my 21st birthday on my own. Took myself out to dinner, had a bottle of wine and a huge piece of chocolate cake, read, hm, I think it was Milan Kundera. Great birthday. No expectations; no bullshit; since my birthday is a week off Christmas, no 'I got you a birthday/Christmas present.' Just peace and quiet. Since I spent it alone, does it constitute a birthday party? Going out for a meal? Hrmm. I would venture to say yes.

I had a blind date with my self onces. Unfortunately I failed to turn up.. Heat it when that happens. ~:

Sludge....I have a Pinic on my own everyday! Their a gorgeous chocolate bar with peanuts and lots of yummy caramel and wafer biscuit inside....HMMMMMM! One never shares a Picnic....*runs off to 7 11* Now John, remembering everything very easy..... it's the forgetting that seems impossible!

But then radians can be then converted back into cubitts, hence it's either Chains or String to hang themselves with...or simply cut an ear off like Van Gough did..lol ! Gravity waves....what a crock of photons! Ever simply thought that the atomic archetype (geometrically) was always wrong to begin with, John? If you think about quantum, then atomic physics is pure bullshit.....uncontrollable outcomes...thar she blows! Displacment of form always seems forgotten!

But then radians CAN"T be then converted back into cubitts,

:O)

*8/3Pi* Precisely. ~:

You actually ascertain a woman's star sign before considering trying your luck? You are a bigger c.unt than I first thought. If she was a discerning woman you wouldn't be in with a chance anyway.

hahahahahahaaaah! Wheeeeee! Gosh, this is the best post for a long while...!

Hahahahaha :o)

*If you think about quantum, then atomic physics is pure bullshit.....uncontrollable outcomes...thar she blows!* Jasper. This statement is a typical example of miss understanding. It is not Marley a question of probability, it is a question of how is it possible for the electron to behave both as a fundamental particle 'And' at the same time behave as a quantum wave? You seem to make the assumption that a unified field theory will never be realized, Well Jasper I believe you are mistaken, in view of recent work being done. The fact that Einstein and Heisenberg failed to unify the weak, strong or electromagnetic forces doesn't imply that it will never happen, Jasper. I believe it will.

The three forces you mention have already been unified John - it's just gravity that won't behave and even though it's the weakest of the lot we are still depending on it to pull everything together in the end :o)

Yes smiley, I Know. Question is, dose Jasper depend on it?

Ho see what you mean Smiley. It dose read that way, don't it. Must stop rushing post. ~:

:o)

Hay, Smiley. Out of curiosity, are you a relativists?

Relatively :)

Yes. But 'ARE' you a relativists?

Dose God roll dices? Come on Smiley, yes or no!

Einstein himself said God did not play dice with the Universe... but that's more to do with Quantum mechanics than Relativism. I do think that the sun goes around the Earth if you're on the Earth - after all you can watch it do it - but I've never been convinced that time and space are joined at the hip. [%sig%]

Yes Maxwell I agree, its a tricky one! We could work the equation in a number of different ways however. (M/E) for mass energy conversion with 9.1X10^- 28m or we could simply say 10^8 giving 10.000.000.. and so on. Personally I prefer (M/E=9.1X10) raised by 10 to the minus 28m Its much more tidy that way, don't you think? *blooming heck, this is a challenging thread*

Bedtime children.

So do you believe that the state of 'being' is dependent for existence or determined by nature? Re relativism. Also, are you an opponent of the two postulates? *You'll see what I'm getting at in a bit, Smiley* ~:

cottleston pie

relativism is just a word. If it turned out that the earth was a marble in an air pocket in a pond in someone's garden in another dimension, I'd still get up tomorrow, take a shit, worry about the mortgage and eat my toenails. Who gives a fuck.