Global warming is ridiculously easy to understand, just follow the money.Justthetruth » 09 Jan 2023, 3:23 pm » wrote: ↑ They can't do that.
Scienctist are stupid and cant possibly know how that works.
If it doesn't have a hemi with huge tires and get five miles to the gallon it isn't worth figuring out.
and global warming is a hoax because I can't unsetstand it.
Local hillbilly Trump supporter.
It's good to know the *** derails his own threads as well as others.Skans » 09 Jan 2023, 3:47 pm » wrote: ↑ Assuming that you are correct, what the heck does this have to do with your OP?
Said the jaggov who could not find and read peer-reviewed science with a gun to his head and a month to figure it out.Justthetruth » 09 Jan 2023, 3:23 pm » wrote: ↑
Scienctists...
and global warming is a hoax because I can't unsetstand it.
The issue of Soks has always baffled me. Soks serve 2 somewhat practical purposes - entertainment for the one creating them and a way to sneak back onto a forum that banned the person using a different name. Beyond that, they don't much matter to me. The opinion expressed is the same, regardless of who wrote it.Cannonpointer » 10 Jan 2023, 12:26 am » wrote: ↑ It's good to know the *** derails his own threads as well as others.
BTW - less than 1/2 the participants on this board are my soks.
Now that's funny, Kelly.Mrkelly » 09 Jan 2023, 2:44 pm » wrote: ↑ I can only imagine the black hole this thread will go down
Most of the discoveries produced in the big particle accelerators are only there for nanoseconds. Various particles like quarks and gluons, and now this mini-black hole aren't there long enough for them to do anything. But all of this can be identified and measured by the equipment in the brief moments the particles are there. Are they true quarks? Are they true gluons? Yes and yes. Why would you question the replication of a black hole in a particle accelerator? But how difficult it must be for anybody who lives and breathes in a **** of anti-science to accept anything a scientist says, provides a good enough answer for me, eh Skank?Skans » 09 Jan 2023, 2:54 pm » wrote: ↑ Interesting stuff. Question is, was it a true black hole. While hawking radiation is inversely proportional to the mass of a black hole, that still does not necessarily explain why a tiny black hole would only exist for a fraction of a second, before sucking up all of the matter within close proximity.
I understand all of that. However, I question their findings as pertaining to creating a black hole in a particle acceleratorIkeBana » 10 Jan 2023, 9:23 am » wrote: ↑ Most of the discoveries produced in the big particle accelerators are only there for nanoseconds. Various particles like quarks and gluons, and now this mini-black hole aren't there long enough for them to do anything.
I question it because I understand particle accelerators and the nature of black holes, as we presently understand them. My questions are: 1) what causes any black hole to be so unstable; 2) if the "black hole" is so unstable as to evaporate in fractions of a second, then was it ever really a black hole; 3) Black holes are defined as massive objects, from which even light cannot escape - therefore, the proposition that an atom-sized black hole ever existed in the particle accelerator is contrary to what we know about black holes. 4) Where we do not understand the precise nature of gravity, have not observed the "graviton" or anything like it, yet know that black holes are caused exclusively by the gravitational forces from super-massive objects - the claim that a black hole was momentarily created in a particle accelerator reeks of bogus **** to me.Why would you question the replication of a black hole in a particle accelerator?
Your presumptions about me just serve to validate my view of you as unable to engage in genuine critical thinking when it comes to maters of science.But how difficult it must be for anybody who lives and breathes in a **** of anti-science to accept anything a scientist says, provides a good enough answer for me, eh Skank?
This is precisely correct, and quite representative of my own feelings about soks. There ARE other, more nefarious possible uses for socks - but these are rarely employed. An example off the top of my head: We had a libertardian *** - a real live by the written prescription and ignore the actual territory fruitcake; would have made an excellent marxist - posing as a 13 year old engenue to further an agenda he was incompetent to argue as an adult. So I created a 14 year old sok and went after the bitch - it was a knee slapper.Skans » 10 Jan 2023, 8:55 am » wrote: ↑ The issue of Soks has always baffled me. Soks serve 2 somewhat practical purposes - entertainment for the one creating them and a way to sneak back onto a forum that banned the person using a different name. Beyond that, they don't much matter to me. The opinion expressed is the same, regardless of who wrote it.
If you just debate and/or discuss the opinion, and not fixate on attacking the writer, whoever that may be, then Soks shouldn't matter to you. However, if you are the type who spends most of his time attacking the writer, then quite likely Soks will annoy the crap out of you.
Cannapoinna dondu soks.Skans » 10 Jan 2023, 8:55 am » wrote: ↑ The issue of Soks has always baffled me. Soks serve 2 somewhat practical purposes - entertainment for the one creating them and a way to sneak back onto a forum that banned the person using a different name. Beyond that, they don't much matter to me. The opinion expressed is the same, regardless of who wrote it.
If you just debate and/or discuss the opinion, and not fixate on attacking the writer, whoever that may be, then Soks shouldn't matter to you. However, if you are the type who spends most of his time attacking the writer, then quite likely Soks will annoy the crap out of you.
LOL! That would have been entertaining to watch.Cannonpointer » 10 Jan 2023, 11:54 am » wrote: ↑ This is precisely correct, and quite representative of my own feelings about soks. There ARE other, more nefarious possible uses for socks - but these are rarely employed. An example off the top of my head: We had a libertardian *** - a real live by the written prescription and ignore the actual territory fruitcake; would have made an excellent marxist - posing as a 13 year old engenue to further an agenda he was incompetent to argue as an adult. So I created a 14 year old sok and went after the bitch - it was a knee slapper.
It was on the other board, and it was a **** riot. Traffic was jumping in that thread - the sok's name was Cannon'sNephew14.
Have you met that credulous ****?Skans » 10 Jan 2023, 9:35 am » wrote: ↑ Do you have answers to these questions, or did you just not think to ask them. Are you not curious, or skeptical?
He lied. Selaphobia is not my sok - but I AM that fruitcake Supra's obsession.
Those are kind of obvious. Now, where is that Ronjul You could farm him out to @kfools at 110/hour to fix his forum.Cannonpointer » 10 Jan 2023, 12:17 pm » wrote: ↑ He lied. Selaphobia is not my sok - but I AM that fruitcake Supra's obsession.
My soks are shack *** rev sharpton, tree *** herman 2 feather, and national disgrace hillary clinton.
Lol - the curry ***.Skans » 10 Jan 2023, 1:20 pm » wrote: ↑ Those are kind of obvious. Now, where is that Ronjul You could farm him out to @kfools at 110/hour to fix his forum.
And you were John-Handcock.
I hereby dumb you the "King of Soks". LOL - you've got way too much time on your hands.
Mmmm...Skans » 10 Jan 2023, 1:51 pm » wrote: ↑ I hereby dumb you the "King of Soks". LOL - you've got way too much time on your hands.
OH OH OHHHH, THE CRYING INJUN!!! Protector of America's highways from evil trash. You're famous!!! "I weep when I spot a Chick-fil-A bag on I-10!"HermanTwoFeather » 10 Jan 2023, 1:58 pm » wrote: ↑ Mmmm...
Him CHIEF of soks, no king of soks.
Mmmm...