Jump to content

Tully_Beaver

Senior Members
  • Content Count

    46
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

10 Neutral

About Tully_Beaver

  • Rank
    Quark
  1. That's exactly what it said. It had two Laurel and Hardy type scientists doing all the demonstrations. I'm guessing the reason for that was to keep things light and humourous, but instead, it was extremely irritating and just incongruent with what the show was actually talking about.
  2. I have no idea where to look for this theory. I was watching a show on the science channel, and this theory was described. Basically, it was a theory that stated that all particles are in contact/communication with each other throughout the entire universe. The experiment described went something like this: A scientist took two particles and using what I guess is a law of quantum mechanics showed that they both must revolve in opposite directions -I believe this is common knowledge. He then completely separated them in his lab. He then reversed the spin of one of the particles. Instantly, the other particle changed direction of its spin independently. The scientist then coined this theory that all particles are linked and effect each other via some unseen force or something along those lines. Sound familiar?
  3. Do you now? Do you also criticize people who waste fuel in other ways, for example nascar drivers, motox riders, FMX rides, jet ski riders, wakeboarders, water skiers, snow mobile racers, freestyle snow mobile riders........(the list goes on and on)? No? Then, I call you a hypocrite. I am not writing a paper for an assignment or for you. I originally posted a question in the chemistry forum. I added a little explanation for my question and had to read two pages of posts from people being completely over the top trying to shoot my ideas down when they had no idea what was going on my head. I posted and posted trying to make people understand, but I am not trying to prove anything; and I'm sick of reading your posts. eerrr...that's my point. You agree that John and the other guy are hipocrites, you agree with the above statement, but you just thought you would come on here and post just to bash me by being pedantic..........? I have learnt not to post anywhere on this forum if I fancy discussing something. Last time I'm posting this.....
  4. But if you did and you were giving people shit for driving an SUV because they are "wasting fuel" you would be a ....hypocrite?
  5. I just felt in both of my threads he/she has been really condescending.
  6. There is kite surfing. But that's beside the point. If you have no probelm with someone driving a boat up and down a lake all day long because "There is no more fuel efficient way to go wakeboarding" then standing there and telling someone that because they are driving a vehicle that burns more fuel than yours to go the same distance (even though this person pays for the extra because they enjoy driving their vehicle why is it people wake board again?) then you are a hypocrite. Wrong about what?
  7. The point of this post was nothing more than to get one of you to admit how this..." Lets just say; That no other source of fossil fuel burning burns as much fuel as an SUV, for it's specific job/ task (yeah take an airplane at per passenger value). If a person driving an SUV is not allowed to burn that extra bit of gas driving to work and back just for the sheer pleasure of it, why should someone be allowed to race around on a jet ski, go wake boarding, race a car with a big engine etc. for the sheer pleasure of it? " is hypocrisy. That might be your point. It's not mine. For the love of who?...........lol Oh by the way
  8. lol....Ok "ecoli." I've made my point. I would like to say that proving someone to be a hypocrite is not a scientifc experiment. Next you'll be wanting to lay Fred and John out on a table to perform all kinds of dodgey experiments on them just to prove if they are racist or not...lol
  9. The point of this threa was try and try again to get someone to admit this........... Thank you ecoli. And thanks you too Cap'n Refsmmat. I totaly understand the analness of phi for all now. Seriously thanks. Because I just thought you were all a bunch of up tight, anal etc ers. I see now that to be taken seriosuly here, or even to be invloved in a fair discussion, i muct have some kind of evidence some numebrs of some sort for you all to punch into an equation (I can hear phi for all now "well that's how science works). Nothing at all. These people can make themselve look like fools all they want.
  10. Thanks Cap'n Rersmmat. I appreciat this post. Why should they not be allowed to use more gas than they need? Yes. But isn't there....not nascar racing? Or even riding a 125cc off road bike than a 350? Or kite surfing instead of wakeboarding?
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.