RE: Science anarchists

RE: Science anarchists (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion

Message

WickedsDesire -> RE: Science anarchists (5/8/2017 7:44:47 AM)
How can they be found if they were instantly atomised dumbfuknth..Or are you inferring the Zionists scattered them about a bit so they could dance over ~~body bits~~ atoms. I am not disputing the two brains cells but that is still easily treble yours thicko.

Real0ne -> RE: Science anarchists (5/8/2017 7:49:52 AM)
who said instantly? you? Witto Dickee? not me. Same inability to comprehend what was said, read it again, for comprehension this time.

vincentML -> RE: Science anarchists (5/8/2017 7:51:20 AM)
Bah! Your own words betray you. Here you are using in words a relativistic calculus for defining instantaneous in your own time frame. The cutting speed of an oxy/cety torch isnt even in the same universe but if you wanna talk closer to instant there you have it, keep in mind this one cuts slow compared to the real mCcoy. You excrete such a rainbow of bullshit that sooner or later you will contradict yourself.

WickedsDesire -> RE: Science anarchists (5/8/2017 7:51:20 AM)
Why the hell are some of you lot arguing over instantaneously anyway. Bit like arguing over big soon now, etc

vincentML -> RE: Science anarchists (5/8/2017 7:53:29 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: WickedsDesire Why the hell are some of you lot arguing over instantaneously anyway. Bit like arguing over big soon now, etc It is an exercise of uselessly counting angels on the head of a pin.

WickedsDesire -> RE: Science anarchists (5/8/2017 7:54:18 AM)
I cant help that you are too slow to follow anything, without seeing the conspiracy is coming to get me, dullard1 paranoid much?

WickedsDesire -> RE: Science anarchists (5/8/2017 7:56:56 AM)
I did scroll a back couple pages but got bored - all em quotes, quotes of quotes, quotes of quotes of quotes etc to find out who the pedantic little shit was - who was it by the way?

Real0ne -> RE: Science anarchists (5/8/2017 7:59:49 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: vincentML Bah! Your own words betray you. Here you are using in words a relativistic calculus for defining instantaneous in your own time frame. The cutting speed of an oxy/cety torch isnt even in the same universe but if you wanna talk closer to instant there you have it, keep in mind this one cuts slow compared to the real mCcoy. You excrete such a rainbow of bullshit that sooner or later you will contradict yourself. nope you fail to comprehend the meaning of instantaneous as its used in physics despite it was explained to you in great detail. My usage is not relativistic in any way since instantaneous in the physics world is from my experience zero time, and smaller time intervals are 'closer' to zero time ffs. I told you I would concede the point if you can come up with any kind of university paper to the contrary, meaning that matches your relativistic approach. Seems snotty couldnt do it, so knock yourself out.

Real0ne -> RE: Science anarchists (5/8/2017 8:02:24 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: vincentML quote: ORIGINAL: WickedsDesire Why the hell are some of you lot arguing over instantaneously anyway. Bit like arguing over big soon now, etc It is an exercise of uselessly counting angels on the head of a pin. wrong it was a correction of your politicized physics.

Real0ne -> RE: Science anarchists (5/8/2017 8:05:39 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: WickedsDesire I cant help that you are too slow to follow anything, without seeing the conspiracy is coming to get me, dullard1 paranoid much? why dont you spend some quality time with your Witto Dickee, Witto Dickee. I dont recall mentioning a conspiracy, care to expalin your latest conspiracy theory so we can all get on the same page here?

WickedsDesire -> RE: Science anarchists (5/8/2017 8:08:22 AM)
was it you dumbfuk1? I got as far back as when someone was talking about water (its not the only substance to have a triple point) http://www.dummies.com/education/science/chemistry/the-unusual-properties-of-water-molecules/ - no shame I actually forget a lot Matter is empty space, how much exactly -- 99.99999999.....% matter/heat/energy - is basically the same shit https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9RDocoSWqPY

Real0ne -> RE: Science anarchists (5/8/2017 8:11:15 AM)
ok Witto Dickee so you have given up on all that and now you want try making hay by talking about other stuff?

mnottertail -> RE: Science anarchists (5/8/2017 8:14:33 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Real0ne quote: ORIGINAL: vincentML Bah! Your own words betray you. Here you are using in words a relativistic calculus for defining instantaneous in your own time frame. The cutting speed of an oxy/cety torch isnt even in the same universe but if you wanna talk closer to instant there you have it, keep in mind this one cuts slow compared to the real mCcoy. You excrete such a rainbow of bullshit that sooner or later you will contradict yourself. nope you fail to comprehend the meaning of instantaneous as its used in physics despite it was explained to you in great detail. My usage is not relativistic in any way since instantaneous in the physics world is from my experience zero time, and smaller time intervals are 'closer' to zero time ffs. I told you I would concede the point if you can come up with any kind of university paper to the contrary, meaning that matches your relativistic approach. Seems snotty couldnt do it, so knock yourself out. Sorry RealZeroRetard. Instantaneous is used in physics to describe observations in single frames of reference as well, where the 'apparent' observation of timeslice is zero (ie speed of light. RealZeroRetard never gets anything right. That has been demonstrated continuously and pervasively.

WickedsDesire -> RE: Science anarchists (5/8/2017 8:26:22 AM)
As long as its means not having listing to your codswallop I am all for it witless1 Was witto wicked the best you could come up with ffs. I am not trying for that. Not that I have a clue what you are on about anyway all I read was instantaneous and something about water and ice and was curious as to why we were talking about that.

Real0ne -> RE: Science anarchists (5/8/2017 8:38:39 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: mnottertail quote: ORIGINAL: Real0ne quote: ORIGINAL: vincentML Bah! Your own words betray you. Here you are using in words a relativistic calculus for defining instantaneous in your own time frame. The cutting speed of an oxy/cety torch isnt even in the same universe but if you wanna talk closer to instant there you have it, keep in mind this one cuts slow compared to the real mCcoy. You excrete such a rainbow of bullshit that sooner or later you will contradict yourself. nope you fail to comprehend the meaning of instantaneous as its used in physics despite it was explained to you in great detail. My usage is not relativistic in any way since instantaneous in the physics world is from my experience zero time, and smaller time intervals are 'closer' to zero time ffs. I told you I would concede the point if you can come up with any kind of university paper to the contrary, meaning that matches your relativistic approach. Seems snotty couldnt do it, so knock yourself out. Sorry RealZeroRetard. Instantaneous is used in physics to describe observations in single frames of reference as well, where the 'apparent' observation of timeslice is zero (ie speed of light. RealZeroRetard never gets anything right. That has been demonstrated continuously and pervasively. apparent zero at the speed of light, thats a great load of bullshit snotty, however I am not interested in snotty thereoms of fail, still no university paper eh? [8\|]

WhoreMods -> RE: Science anarchists (5/8/2017 8:41:52 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Real0ne apparent zero at the speed of light, thats a great load of bullshit snotty, however I am not interested in snotty thereoms of fail, still no university paper eh? [8\|] You can blather about university papers once you've done the history homework you've been putting off for three months.

Real0ne -> RE: Science anarchists (5/8/2017 8:44:20 AM)
but I already exposed your hypocrisy countless times.

WhoreMods -> RE: Science anarchists (5/8/2017 8:47:28 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Real0ne but I already exposed your hypocrisy countless times. No, you keep trotting a forgery that's been debunked in two different courts of law as proof of something that you've been otherwise unable to find a scrap of evidence for. Not quite the same thing.

mnottertail -> RE: Science anarchists (5/8/2017 8:51:48 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Real0ne quote: ORIGINAL: mnottertail quote: ORIGINAL: Real0ne quote: ORIGINAL: vincentML Bah! Your own words betray you. Here you are using in words a relativistic calculus for defining instantaneous in your own time frame. The cutting speed of an oxy/cety torch isnt even in the same universe but if you wanna talk closer to instant there you have it, keep in mind this one cuts slow compared to the real mCcoy. You excrete such a rainbow of bullshit that sooner or later you will contradict yourself. nope you fail to comprehend the meaning of instantaneous as its used in physics despite it was explained to you in great detail. My usage is not relativistic in any way since instantaneous in the physics world is from my experience zero time, and smaller time intervals are 'closer' to zero time ffs. I told you I would concede the point if you can come up with any kind of university paper to the contrary, meaning that matches your relativistic approach. Seems snotty couldnt do it, so knock yourself out. Sorry RealZeroRetard. Instantaneous is used in physics to describe observations in single frames of reference as well, where the 'apparent' observation of timeslice is zero (ie speed of light. RealZeroRetard never gets anything right. That has been demonstrated continuously and pervasively. apparent zero at the speed of light, thats a great load of bullshit snotty, however I am not interested in snotty thereoms of fail, still no university paper eh? [8\|] What do you have for RealZeroRetard retard university theorems? Oh, all of them. I am not interested in your continuous retarded untutored cockgargling, still no actual evidence and credible citations, only asswipe as always huh?

Real0ne -> RE: Science anarchists (5/8/2017 8:54:07 AM)
We all know your interested in your own felch gargling and the only snotty thereom that has been found to be correct is 'snotty failure'.

Page: << < prev 14 15 [16] 17 18 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.078125