1. bobbo, are we Men of Science, or Devo says:

    Like everyone else here, I like to think of myself as “smart”… at least on a few issues I take the time to study.

    SCIENCE always leaves me feeling a bit deficient. Maybe more theoretical physics…. as I got AGW down pretty well for an average joe.

    Newtonian physics makes sense to me. So does Einsteins warping space. I had not recognized before that the ball on a rubber sheet still didn’t explain the gravity “pulling” aspect of it.

    So now…. does this explanation explain anything more deeply, or just put another analogy on the table.

    …………… I don’t know. Like trying to compose music… I just can’t do it, can’t conceptualize/visualize the key recognition here. I get in on some certain simple level, but think I’m missing what it really means so as to apply it to some other aspect of physics.

    Well…… life goes on.

    • Marc Perkel says:

      I have the same problem. Just can’t quite wrap my brain around it.

      He’s another way of looking at it. Me and the Earth are two objects moving at the same speed through space. So we should be floating next to each other. But because of mass the Earth is moving through time slower so because of that it’s moving slightly slower than me. Because it’s slower I’m pushing into it, and that’s gravity.

      • bobbo, are we Men of Science, or Devo says:

        I’m not going to even try to understand that analogy…. mostly because I don’t understand why mass would increase as you approach the speed of light. Why would the two concepts even be related? They are represented by two different symbols just to start with.

        E=mc2

        Why would energy be related to the speed of light…. and then why the speed of light squared??

        Makes no sense at all to me. I did take a few days a while back to read up on how this formula came to be and was getting close to some insight…. but then I slept overnight and lost it all.

        Seems to me you would be pushing into Mother Earth only if you were behind it? If you are only next to it, then you should slowly separate? No… on this analogy, the ball on a rubber sheet makes more sense to me.

        To what degree do we need to “see” an idea in our minds in order to understand it? I’ve read that Einstein could actually “see” his mind experiments..in the same way I can see that ball on a rubber sheet. Its the magic of insight.

        One of my top 10 songs for many reasons:

        https://youtube.com/watch?v=FhmeroR20lc

        • Tim says:

          “”Why would energy be related to the speed of light

          It’s right there in the ’emck’ equation you quoted… just look. Acquired kinetic energy. derp;.

          btw, I was asked why the feather and the nigger-egg dropped at the same rate in vaccuo by a particularly bitter envoy of satan who just also happened to be an 8’th grade physics teacher. I got it wrong so she told me to go to the white room and not draw eyes on dollar bills — then we had sex {not really}…… My reasoning was based on the observable nature of acceleration and the newtonian derivation of force/work thereof — The force is more on the bowling ball but there is just an equivalent amount of more of it to move…

          The reality is that even though bobbo is not moving in space he is still pretty fucking heavy just sitting there because he is still moving in TIME along the same space-time warp.

          • Clotho says:

            and *weave* sister. don’t you go forgetting weave. derpess.

          • Atropos says:

            Ohh, shut up, CC. That’s not how any of this works…

          • bobbo, are we Men of Science, or Devo says:

            Thanks Timmy……. I have “so many” questions but no one as qualified as you to answer them.

            I thought kinetic energy only existed within a gravity field, and as such only addresses attraction or force of gravity rather than energy itself? I must be wrong on that. Please explain.

            Yes, I can “see” the relationship of E to m to c to squared==when I read the formula. I’m talking about understanding the relationships before, during and after reading the formula. Why is it the aqure of the speed of light rather than say directly proportional to the Avragodo number or number of quarkes? Why is it squared instead o doubled or cubed? My spidey sense of right and wrong leaves me without a clue.

            Energy isn’t about the speed of things as that is only one expression of energy.

            Thinking about my ignorance, I see many of my remaining questions are about Black Holes. How come light aka photons can’t escape but radiation can? Why can’t the photons without mass escape or is that a commonly understood synonym for the Hawkin Radiation that does leak out?

            How can anyone propose that as you get spaghettified that you may not even be aware you are in a black hole and that we may be in one now? aka==I think these so called physicists are BS artists.

            ….. but I don’t understand what that means either. Even the BS is mysterious. Talking to these theorists is like listening to a Theist. All totally convinced of what they are saying, making no sense at all, and I can only accept or reject on faith.

            I do tend toward rejecting….. I’m just an electron kind of guy.

          • Tim says:

            you need a more fleshed out equation to see very much. EMC is the ‘rest mass’ energy equivalent which is useful for explaining that a little bit of bomb can go a long way.

            http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy%E2%80%93momentum_relation

            ———————————-

            The massless photons are trapped because of that curve in spacetime again… closed upon itself or lining the walls of a bottomless pit…

            ———————

            The Hawking radiation

            “”A slightly more precise, but still much simplified, view of the process is that vacuum fluctuations cause a particle-antiparticle pair to appear close to the event horizon of a black hole. One of the pair falls into the black hole while the other escapes. In order to preserve total energy, the particle that fell into the black hole must have had a negative energy

            “”A slightly more precise, but still much simplified, view of the process is that vacuum fluctuations cause a particle-antiparticle pair to appear close to the event horizon of a black hole. One of the pair falls into the black hole while the other escapes. In order to preserve total energy, the particle that fell into the black hole must have had a negative energy…

            http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hawking_radiation#Overview

            ——————————–

            silly kinetic energy. it’s what you have after accellerating something. it’s the one that depends as the square of the velocity. it’s what you have lots of after converting gravitational potential energy to kinetic energy when you’re pushed out of windows. It’s why bullets hurt and bits of asteroid blow up worlds… It’s why your brakes get hot when you take it back out of your car.
            ——————-

            Science. only good for carbon taxes and how proprietary cleaning molecules are stuffed to the brim in the bright red box moms have trusted for generations.

          • Tim says:

            “”How can anyone propose that as you get spaghettified that you may not even be aware you are in a black hole and that we may be in one now?

            It would appear that you have found yourself in a very dense place for a long time. Forever, actually; because time has apparently stopped in and around your locality somewhat.

            Hmm. Still-sentient spagetti?? We’d probably all be better off just leaving that thing in there… nothing to be done about it now, anyways…

            —————–

            p.s. to feel a little less dirty about the relativistic equations of motion then don’t forget to let v<<c to see they converge on the classical forms…

          • bobbo, the AGW hair on fire single issue advocat who long ago would have doused himself in plant based ethanol and lit himself aflame to bring light and heat to this subject if it were not for my love of beer says:

            Tim–thanks for Hawkin radiation. I’ve read that before, imagine I understand that…. as much as one can understand + and – particles springing into existence in the vacuum of space and within a black hole where we can observe.

            e = mc2.

            In my own simple way, I look at the formula and when you take away the speed of light which does seem like something other than energy or mass then what our universe actually is is all energy? It somehow bundles together or vibrates and creates the perceived effect of mass…. but as we cut reality into smaller and smaller pieces, all we find is empty space and energy?

            My spidey sense tells me there is no such thing as a thing or stuff or matter…. its all energy…. “♫ the magic length of god….”

            I’m sure on a theoretical level, its as useful as any other idea much more than a “required” 17 dimensions to make string theory work. Talk about hip wader territory.

            I agree its the expanded forumal where any real understanding of e=mc2 will come from…. if at all.

            joules. “the work done on a body….” simple words….. don’t understand them. What “work” is being done on an uranium atom otherwise at rest?

            blah, blah.

          • Tim says:

            IDK, bobbo. Nodes and antinodes, it is a zero-sum game — Somehow, music still comes out of a guitar…

            all i know is you don’t know shit about the relationship between AGW and CO2… Niether does Earth, apparently…

          • Tim says:

            “”particles springing into existence in the vacuum of space and within a black hole where we can observe.

            Oh, that reminds me; append to the list of everyday observances of aquired kinetic energy…. how to create black holes at LHC where a lead atom used to be by putting lots of kinetic energy into little bits of good stuff and then driving like you respect the law…

      • NewFormatSux says:

        No one will ever believe you have the same problem as bobbo.

    • Says says:

      ‘What goes up..Must come down!”

      • bobbo, are we Men of Science, or Devo says:

        Not if it has escape velocity.

        ………but ……..good effort.

    • Tim says:

      “”SCIENCE always leaves me feeling a bit deficient.…. as I got AGW down pretty well for an average joe.

      Umm, Would it be considered to be sweet sweet irony that the champion of the SCIENCE of AGW has no concept of kinetic energy thus most likely a weak concept of temperature????

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kinetic_theory
      http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/kinetic/kintem.html

      Kinetic Energy — the energy of motion. and the beat goes on…

      • bobbo, the AGW hair on fire single issue advocat who long ago would have doused himself in plant based ethanol and lit himself aflame to bring light and heat to this subject if it were not for my love of beer says:

        I don’t think so……rather a concrete example that each “fact” of science has the duality of standing on its own WHILE being interconnected and woven into the fabric of knowing what the f*ck you are talking about.

        Kinetic Energy…everything eventually turns into heat which ultimately cools to zero.

        Entropy.

        Seems to me the burden of believing in magic, aka=not understanding the science of it, AKA=not knowing the formula most directly points to those who understand photons hit the atmosphere turning their kinetic energy into heat. And that heat ….. heats up the Earth.

        How can you avoid the physics of only two dots and the heavy line of causation between them?

        • Tim says:

          the ‘science’ is being perverted. The goal is the continued enslavement and eventual destruction of humans which threaten the final transhuman elite.

          However, *scientists* used to think heat was a fluid. They didn’t know about kinetic energy either.

          “”The caloric theory is an obsolete scientific theory that heat consists of a self-repellent fluid called caloric that flows from hotter bodies to colder bodies. Caloric was also thought of as a weightless gas that could pass in and out of pores in solids and liquids.

          http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Caloric_theory

          The funny thing was, it worked for whatever they wanted to model and had nice little analogies with fluid dynamics… until it didn’t…

          • bobbo, the AGW hair on fire single issue advocat who long ago would have doused himself in plant based ethanol and lit himself aflame to bring light and heat to this subject if it were not for my love of beer says:

            Science? Of the type that annouced its practice with a red and white stripe pole?

            Silly conflation of history, metaphor, and willful stupidity.

            With the earth heating 2 Degrees a century up due to co2 concentration in the atmosphere…. what do you surmise will be “the eventual destruction of humans .”

            I mean……..just take a wild guess?

            Hint: its not paying more than 34% in taxes.

          • Tim says:

            bobbo, now you’re acting like a lame duck trying to sacrifice a rook in an attempt to distract me from having pinned your queen and king with mate in two. I’m not THAT arrogant as to miss that {well, sometimes i am. i tend to be able to get pregnant on those days}.

            Ohh… You’ll appreciate the high quality producion value on this one — because, you know…

            We Want Your Soul..
            http://youtube.com/watch?v=_WTBkj8gFfI

            and something not quite theologically correct… just to piss alphie off…
            http://youtube.com/watch?v=4WBK3U4f4ao

  2. Ted says:

    And I’m eve more confused than before, yet understood the whole thing.

  3. What? The moth is always drawn to the flame? says:

    Truth is, they don’t know.

    The observed effect does not constitute an understanding of the physical process, but merely the reaction of the physical world to it.

    Just as observing fire erupt from a match does constitute an understanding of the chemistry of ignition.

    Are there gravitons? Does gravity move at the speed of light, or faster? Can gravity exhibit wave propagation? These basic physical properties are unobserved, unmeasured, or unconfirmed.

    Physics is about the physical world, however fleeting or lasting. Theory is useful in attempting to interpret the data, as theory can be tested against new data.

    When you don’t have measurements, or data, the theory is useful in identifying where to look for data. But theory doesn’t provide data, much to the chagrin of science charlatans.

    In the macro world, theory does a good job of predicting physical outcomes. Dig too deep, and there are a lot of ideas supported tenuously, if at all.

    • Test Tube says:

      Not that I read the rest of the posting but there’s a good question you brought up What.

      Why doesn’t gravity affect fire? No matter where the fuel is, the actual flame always seems to go against gravity and burn upwards (the opposite direction of gravity).

      I wonder if any of out third grade theologians can answer that one.

      • bobbo, the AGW hair on fire single issue advocat who long ago would have doused himself in plant based ethanol and lit himself aflame to bring light and heat to this subject if it were not for my love of beer says:

        Huh? Fire weighs less than the “air” it is burning in. In a very real sense, it is still gravity that is making fire go in the opposite direction. Its the heavier air moving in gravity’s direction.

        • What? The moth is always drawn to the flame? says:

          The density of air, heated by fire, is lower than the surrounding air not heated.

          Because the column1 of air, heated by fire, is less dense, that column exerts less pressure on the area at the bottom of the column.

          The pressure, at the bottom of the column, is equal to heated-air density*height of the column*acceleration of gravity.

          The pressure of the adjacent, unheated, air, at a height equal to the bottom of the column is unheated-air density*height of the column*acceleration of gravity.

          Note: unheated air density is greater than heated air density, and hence unheated air pressure is greater than heated air pressure.

          As the surrounding air, at a height equal to the bottom of the column of heated air, has a higher pressure than the column of heated air, the surrounding air exerts an upward force on the column of heated air. QED.

          1, We make the simplifying assumption that the heated air is in a column. In fact, the principle would hold for any shape experiencing an acceleration. http://youtu.be/y8mzDvpKzfY

      • Tim says:

        I don’t know how you burned up your ship but in real microgravity, the convection is not so much present.

        microgravity combustion.
        http://youtube.com/watch?v=SZTl7oi05dQ

        the ‘tip’ or tendancy for a pointy top part is as a result of charged plasma — electrical effect.

        • Tim says:

          that ‘tip’ is also the result of higher velocity plasma in that thin channel because direction as it kicked straight off the stick-shaped combustible in an asymetric fashion as it was the end of the rod and not in the ‘diffuse’ radial direction equally.

          • bobbo, the pragmatic existential evangelical anti-theist says:

            Timmmmmmay===we should both affirm that we are not third grade theologians but rather ungraded …… something else? Unless by the very nature of the label…. we are all theologians when commenting on magic and the unknown…or the misunderstood…. or the paid to state the opposite?

            I forgot about plasma. I had the great joy of attending a cocktail party. Priest on one side of the room, plasma flux engineers and theoreticians on the other side of the room. As the only wallflower in the joint, I enjoyed telling both sides they were wrong.

            Was there any meeting of the minds in agreement or disagreement? Everyone did agree that molesting kiddies and covering the crime up was not a very good thing to do…. very chrisitain, but not good. Very little other agreement, but the beer was cold. The scientists and myself enjoyed that.

          • Tim says:

            WTF are you prattling on about, bobbo? What Test Tube has done is demonstrate giving us metanalysis of basement-tape scifi spacefail flames.

            You kinda demonstrated it yourself… without even pointing out that he blew the whole premise out of his ass… you answer him with more IPCC-like admonisions out yours.

            fire in space
            http://youtube.com/watch?v=9zdD7lfB0Fs

          • Tim says:

            anyways, as this is kind of about fire, I thought you might enjoy these examples of ‘clean’ pyrolysis reactions I just now happened to have stumbled upon…

            http://youtube.com/watch?v=jEdK4BQCr_8

          • bobbo, space is cool says:

            Timmmmmmmmay–I was going to apologize for stepping on your fire in microgravity link…. but then looking at it, its not very good.

            Mine is better, at the bottom/newest posting. I’ll wait for your apology for trying to steal my thunder by posting the same link.

            I didn’t take the time to find the very best example either. That match flame in its umbrella shape is totally cool.

            What am I prattling on about? Certainly not anything IPCC related. I was equating plasma physics with the abhorrence of child molestation.

            Just look.

          • Tim says:

            I’m sorry. consider it a retweet.

          • Tim says:

            Compare and contrast —

            fire in microgravity
            http://youtube.com/watch?v=SZTl7oi05dQ

            The end of Silent Running {~ 1 min in…}
            http://youtube.com/watch?v=Rt_fQvavqEA&feature=player_detailpage#t=62

            It’s…. something…

          • Dewey says:

            the Valley Forge was bigger?

          • Tim says:

            ‘clean’ pyrolysis

            What is it good for? Consider the case where a customer has requested a chemical but through regulation, either the manufacure or transport of that product from A to B is prohibitavely expensive.

            But, what if a perfectly legal ‘precursure’ is used as a fuel in a self-contained transport system such as a submarine.

            The desired product is refined as it is being delivered — talk about JIT!

            The refining process is not carried out in the place with the regulations and the very act of refining fuels its’ transport instead of pure it up then push it out…

            I know my views are not popular consensus-quoteable; Fuck you, I’m going green.

    • bobbo, the AGW hair on fire single issue advocat who long ago would have doused himself in plant based ethanol and lit himself aflame to bring light and heat to this subject if it were not for my love of beer says:

      “The observed effect does not constitute an understanding of the physical process, but merely the reaction of the physical world to it. ” /// I like this. Don’t understand it, but thats my reaction to it.

    • What? The moth is always drawn to the flame? says:

      Just as observing fire erupt from a match does not constitute an understanding of the chemistry of ignition.

  4. bobbo, space is cool says:

    Fire in space:

    https://youtube.com/watch?v=9zdD7lfB0Fs

  5. jpfitz says:

    Explain this inertia in a coffee cup. Maybe just the surfaces and weight plus mounting point. I would not have guessed the proper length of time of motion.

    https://youtube.com/watch?v=28GKUdkOeQk

    • bobbo, are we Men of Science, or Devo says:

      You mean you are not a good guesser of outcomes for things outside your normal experience?

      I would have guessed 2-3 minutes as the friction is quite low as is the air resistance.

      If you had bet my life for over/under, I would have said under 6…. I have no such experience other than obviously too different as in spinning tops and quarters. Different issues involved for both of those too…..although…. I have to admit I’ve never actually waited for a spinning bike wheel to actually stop.

      Lots of everyday physics is fun. Show the value of testing and measuring as opposed to being told and believing.

      • jpfitz says:

        Here is a vid about mass. In my field of work measurement was key. Even finger print grease from handling a gauge block would be a nuisance. Enough to almost scrap a Sikorsky helicopter titanium threaded ring with a tolerance of +.0000/-.0002 of an inch at 6 inches or so, i can’t remember the exact diameter. I put the gauge blocks together myself, instead of the inspector. I hadn’t wiped the blocks and about 80 parts were just out of tolerance on the I.D., but Sikorsky checked and bought off the parts. I had to change my underwear at final inspection.

        I think you’ll like this video bobbo.
        https://youtube.com/watch?v=ZMByI4s-D-Y&list=PLrADA23TWqFOpEei9l_lPzP2O5faEAU8A&index=2

      • jpfitz says:

        You never played with a dreidel or a gyroscope toy. How bout taking a large bearing and blow compressed air thru the bearing. Let the bearing go out the shop door when at top speed. That sucker would travel out the door thru the parking lot and down the street. Grown men playing with toys.

        • bobbo, the Climate Change ALARMIST who doesn't want his kiddies boiled to death as the Oilgarchs are currently Hell Bent on doing, and the Science Denying Far Right are ignorantly supporting says:

          That is a nice video… thanks.

          Reconceptualizing anew…I wonder if the basic unit of weight shouldn’t be the gram? It would be cheaper to make as being smaller and it would remove the anomaly of having a prefix in its name. Or–one could just call the kilogram a gram and solve half that issue.

          In high school, I marveled at the Metric System that it was so coherent==based on a measurement of water which was available to everyone. Just as it should be… not some esoteric material. Basing it on a number of atom of some pure material is also good….. but I wonder what all the ramifications are that I don’tunderstand. Its just an arbitrary number/measurement/selection after all. And everyone will still have their thumbs on the scale per their own personal investments.

          So… “top” is not generic enough to include a dreidel and a bike wheel is not specific enough to include as a gryroscope in your buttoned down world? How anal retentive…. yes, I believe you are a machinist.

          Just for coincidence sake: Mom was “friends” with Sikorsky’s son in a special military unit in Germany after the end of WW2, and the chick in the video is remarkably similar to wifey when she was of the same age. Looking good in my view.

          • jpfitz says:

            anal retentive was not the phrase I would have chosen. Being a perfectionist and having a brain that doesn’t know when to shut down after the days work or whatever transpired that day, has made me very good at machining but not with people. Anal, no but I thought myself lazy cause I kept thinking of ways to make whatever work or project I’m involved with take less steps and effort.

          • jpfitz says:

            Yeah, I guess a bike wheel would fit for spinning fun. As a kid I probably did invert my bicycle and spin the tire but with a close pin and playing or baseball card attached.

            I absolutely love the metric system of measurement. So simple, everything is in tens and multiples of ten. Try explaining 7/64″ or 11/16″, I know from years of memorization, but a youngster off the top of their head without any calculator, makes no sense to me why we are the only industrialized nation not using the metric system.

            You’re welcome, I knew the video would be enjoyable to you.

          • bobbo, we think with words, and flower with ideas says:

            That is exactly what anal retentive means. We all have assholes and we all retain. Both are good things considering their alternatives. Its not a bad word or idea except by weirdly retained standards Victorian Prudery and whatever keeps Tits off film while dozens get beheaded.

            Of course, I used clothes pins in the same manner.

            What do you take me for?

  6. jpfitz says:

    Ha, close pin. Clothespin, haven’t used one in decades.

  7. mickray says:

    Before one defines gravity, one must define time. Now shut up slave.

    • bobbo, Big Brained Apes with Lizard Emotions is an Evolutionary Dead End says:

      There is a space time continuum/concept. Gravity one of the four primary forces of the Universe.

      Time for you to…….refresh your basic physics.

      • Tim says:

        Perhaps it is time for us all to refresh our basic physics…

        “”Others have argued that gravity, instead of being a fundamental force of the Universe, is instead an emergent phenomenon. A good deal of this thinking comes from the fact that the equations that describe gravity (in the Newtonian limit, at least) are mathematically similar to those that describe other emergent phenomena, such as fluid mechanics or thermodynamics. Where Dr. Verlinde goes the next step forward is by arguing for a definite mechanism behind gravity: differences in entropy.

        http://arstechnica.com/science/2011/04/is-gravity-a-result-of-thermodynamics/

        Bohmmmm!!!!!!!!

        http://youtube.com/watch?v=Mst3fOl5vH0

        • bobbo, Big Brained Apes with Lizard Emotions is an Evolutionary Dead End says:

          Oh Yeah????

          Doesn’t matter “what” gravity “really” is…fundamental or emerging…the relevant point, the point being addressed is that gravity is not related to the space/time continuum….except as everything is related to everything else.

          Timmmmmmmy==your grounding in physics is admirable. I hope to see you actually apply it to one or more issues of our time.

          • Tim says:

            “”I hope to see you actually apply it to one or more issues of our time.

            Sometimes, bobbo; You really piss me off…

          • bobbo, I'm no math guy says:

            The reply button is back for what I take will be a brief appearance? ((given posts supposedly are frozen after 10 days by Admin)).

            Well Timmmmmmay, glad you see the point.

            Use it as motivation.

        • Tim says:

          “”For nearly a century, “reality” has been a murky concept. The laws of quantum physics seem to suggest that particles spend much of their time in a ghostly state, lacking even basic properties such as a definite location and instead existing everywhere and nowhere at once. Only when a particle is measured does it suddenly materialize, appearing to pick its position as if by a roll of the dice.

          “”More than 30 years would pass before von Neumann’s proof was shown to be false, but by then the damage was done. The physicist David Bohm resurrected pilot-wave theory in a modified form in 1952, with Einstein’s encouragement, and made clear that it did work, but it never caught on. (The theory is also known as de Broglie-Bohm theory, or Bohmian mechanics.)

          http://wired.com/2014/06/the-new-quantum-reality/

          Bohmmmm!!!!

  8. Cgpnz says:

    Well done, I always had problems with the stretched fabric
    Demonstration. This bending graph shows the tracks.
    I think a similar demo could be done with the fabric, ie draw
    Straight lines on the fabric without the ball. Maybe use some balloon fabric and really stretch it to see if orbits can be more expressed.

  9. Tim says:

    As the nature of open comments on this thread seems to be multiplied by an imaginary number and somewhat periodic, I’ll approach bobbo’s spaghetti recipe from a different franchise…

    “”How can anyone propose that as you get spaghettified that you may not even be aware you are in a black hole and that we may be in one now?

    Well. You are still in freefall so no forces on your overall body. However, the ‘field’ is so intense that, unlike the constant accelleration due to gravity on earth, there is a *tidal* pull because of the inverse square relationship with distance and gravitational attraction — the head feels much less than the ass, unless you went in tits-up…

    Now. You’re in freefall but getting very close where tidal forces come into play. But the closer you get the more time *stops*…

    ^^ I’m about 3% confident this analogy works… I’m vegan. So, don’t quote me on it….

    • bobbo, a new Nom de Flame: the hair on fire CACC who understands why first fermentation stops at 13%, and so will Hoomans says:

      Oh…… I tell everyone who will listen (aka–still no one knows) that you are a Vegan.

      But with Schrodinger’s Cat in my lap: you are either BEING spagettified or your are not. The frame of reference is “you” from head to toe.

      All to the point: S’s Cat was a demonstration meant to show uncertainty theory didn’t make any sense. Turns out…Uncretanism won the day and its the Cat Anology that makes no sense. Amusing I think.

      I eat vegatables…….. so like everything else…… I’m part spaghetti.

    • Tim {Sara Palin.. no 'h'} says:

      you tell inflammatory retoric…

      There are no stars, but I can see my back porch from here


0

Bad Behavior has blocked 19706 access attempts in the last 7 days.