Re: Expanding Earth -> Why did Achiles never reach the turtle ?

From: David Ford (Nospam_at_internode.on.net)
Date: 01/06/05 

Date: Thu, 06 Jan 2005 12:37:58 +1000

Rod Burns wrote:

> "George" <george@wtfiswrongwithyou.com> escribió en el mensaje
> news:oIOCd.282358$5K2.42206@attbi_s03...
>
>>"Carsten Troelsgaard" <carsten.troelsgaard@mail.dk> wrote in message
>>news:41dbb3f7$0$149$edfadb0f@dread11.news.tele.dk...
>>
>>>"J. Taylor" <jota@gorge.NOSPAM.net> skrev i en meddelelse
>>>news:5bplt0djnsvv25njc952sb8mlui3to788g@4ax.com...
>>>
>>>>On Tue, 04 Jan 2005 09:21:13 GMT, "George"
>>>><george@wtfiswrongwithyou.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>Answer? There is no missing buck. Actually, I fail to see how it is
>>>>even clever.
>>>>
>>>>JT
>>>
>>>We fail to see what you contribute to geology except for pompous comments
>>>on everyones level of intelligence.
>>
>>I'll second that remark.
>>
>
> Owwww. Did I forgot ?
>
> *******************************************
> ** Hoppy new year 2005, to everyone, PT or EE !!! **
> *******************************************
>
>
> BTW, from my slur humble-numble ignorant point of view, I've just no idea
> why Dinosaurs could not be BIGGGG ! So I really do not need to expand the
> earth to understand the dinosaurs. I watched the Animal Channel with the
> kids a couple of time, and I can figure out a giraffe gets hurt when it
> falls after a tranquilizing shot, but I've never seen an elephant getting a
> bruise this way, and it is bigger than the giraffe, so : why the Expanding
> Earth ?
>
> Now if some people feel that the poor dinosaurs would get hurt when they
> fall, and would then need an inflatable earth to walk on ( as a kind of
> cushion ?) I suggest try some pataphysics experiment, like dropping the
> closests thing to the dinosaurs we have near at hand - a crocodile - from
> the fifth floor and see how many times it bounces, or so.
>
> Then - of course, there is still the possssssibility (little little
> little... though) that Einstein misssssed some interresting point in
> Expanded Relativity. So - maybe - there is an explanation to the dinosaurs
> not getting a bruise when running after each other in the muddy little
> earth.
>
> The earth was not smaller, but time was slower.
>
> So when the dinosaurs ran after each other in the mud, they thought :
> GizzhowfastIamtheTRexwillnevergetme - but in reality, theyyyy weeeerrrreeee
> veeeerrrrryyyyy sllllooooooouuuuuwwww aaaannnnnddd wwwwhhheeeennn
> thhhhhhheeeyyyy haaaappppeeeennnneeedddd ttttoooo fffaaalllll thhhheeeeyyy
> neeevvveeerrr ggoooottt huuuurrrtttt !!!!!
>
> But as everybody was vvveeeerrrrryyy slow in these ancient times, they never
> noticed, and the Trex still had a hard time getting on some food 'cuz it was
> as slow as the others.
>
> Nobody found where wuz de mizing BUCK, I reckon. I'll tell you if an EEer
> tells me how many times does a crocodile bounce from the fifth floor.
>
> I'm - almost - sure I didn't insult anybody in this post.
>
>
> ....
>
> I got nooo idea about earth spins and geology. yet I have an interest in
> having geology explaining dead people to me, and maybe some day tell me
> where not to go for holiday.

so, have not a clue - correct!

> After a linear aggression (PT with me ! EEers out ! those not with me are
> against me !), and a retaliatory feedback, ... new computation, polynomial
> approximation of the dynamics of the group.... second order answer.

who cares what your petty biases are?

> 1) EEers, don't allow yourselves get polluted by the creationists. I read
> lovely things about dinosaurs on a half as small earth, because otherwise
> they would break their necks because of their own weigth. etc...

We don't. But I have certainly met a number of PLATE TECTONICS
creationists in my time.

> 2) I like PT because I can *see* plates on the geography of the earth.
> That's enough to me. I just rely on necessary science. I just do not need EE
> to read an atlas. I just need PT.

And as I just pointed out to another disinterested SIMPLIST twit (sorry,
simplist ignorance and science are immicible), you won't see anything
but a distortion with a 2-D atlas.

> 3) maybe you lot have details as thin as those between Newton and Einstein
> to talk about, but my everyday geological life cannot perceive them. What I
> can perceive however is creationnists pollution. It smells.

Who are you claiming (with out a clue or evidence) is a creationist
again? Do I talk like a fuckin religious christian man dickhead? Not
very charitable of me huh? ***, I'll have to go prey for forgiveness to
the wretched fuckin Jehova jerk to spare me (JJehova can be such a petty
little prick of a God, especially over *** all LOL), or something -
like a good little christian creationist. LMAO

Rod, you're a simplistic galloping twit with not even a semblence of
grasp, and clearly no intent of trying to grasp the topic which you so
pompously and effluently assert to speak on.

> 4) maybe PT does not explain every thin detail but it works on average.

LMAO, how lame, works on average!!! Newtonian mechanics works on
average for human-scale observations on Earth, so maybe it applies to
measurement of the cosmos, and the very small-scale? ... except, when we
do that, we find that it DOESN'T then work on average, it then FAILS ON
AVERAGE. And that is why relativistics was applied to both.

Rod, be a simplistic twit, but do it elsewhere.

> 5) maybe you EEers can cut links with ....(creationists)... and rename the
> EE to something more appropriate, and continue working to explain what the
> PT can't explain. I saw something about the india-burma plate limit that
> needs in effect some positive explanation.
> http://users.indigo.net.au/don/ng/hulk.html
>
> I just can't admit lunatic goddists would explain the world to me.

Funny, nor could I, so, again, WTF are you babbling on about?

Creationist?

Where you idiotic smearing bull***-artist?

> !!! That's all folks !!!
>
> I'll quit for a few days

Yeah, bugah-off tool.

Loading