[quote]gojira wrote:
Professor X wrote:
gojira wrote:
Yo Momma wrote:
gojira wrote:
Yo Momma wrote:
CU AeroStallion wrote:
Relativity. That theory was a bunch of shit.
What about Quantum Mechanics or the String Theory?
Punctuated Equilibrium
I think things went stale for me after my metasystem transition. Seem to have hit a plateau.
I was never a believer of the Bolide Theory for the extinction of the dinosaurs either. If it were true, then why do we still have frogs and insects and angiosperms and crocodiles and…
Well, many insects can survive where other life forms can’t. Frogs and crocodiles, being amphibian, may have been at an advantage as opposed to other land dwelling animals in the confines of a theory based on the levels of iridium found within the clay layer that seperates the Cretaceous from the Tertiary.
Ummm…crocodiles are reptiles, not amphibians.
The iridium layer was caused by the impact of the bolide in the Yucatan. I don’t dispute the meteor impact. What I don’t buy is it being the answer for the extinction at the end of the Cretaceous. There were a lot of other things happening to the planet at that time.
But then biologists and geologists always disagree on these sorts of things (punctuated equilibrium being one of them).[/quote]
id also be interested in knowing the hand the moon had in the extinction of the dinos, you have the moon back then circling faster and also at a closer distance. the tides created by the moons gravity back then pulled around water thousands of feet high
[quote]hardcoreukno0359 wrote:
CU AeroStallion wrote:
Relativity. That theory was a bunch of shit.
When the universe has a beginning, the fudgefactor in relativity is gone, and the theory is correct, based that the universe has a beginning, which looking at the galaxies moving a way and decreasing in speed shows there was a beginning and starting point to the universe[/quote]
scientists do not know when the universe “began” or of it “began”
scientists do not “know” anything they can’t OBSERVE, but can only ASSUME in those instances.
this is what makes science so useful: it sticks to the bare facts.
the problem is when people put too much energy into something that is just a theory. we do not know when the universe “began.”
I generally respect Ellington Darden, but when is his book he said that sugar water was better than protein for bulking up (to gain muscle) because it is effective in starving African children, I was flabbergasted.
[quote]Professor X wrote:
chubs108 wrote:
-You can reach an optimal body by doing body part splits.
That’s an idiotic theory?[/quote]
Now that the gods of the human body here on T-Nation have declared it heresy it apparently seems to be. All those thousands have people who have progressed on them must be genetic freaks…
[quote]KombatAthlete wrote:
Professor X wrote:
chubs108 wrote:
-You can reach an optimal body by doing body part splits.
That’s an idiotic theory?
Now that the gods of the human body here on T-Nation have declared it heresy it apparently seems to be. All those thousands have people who have progressed on them must be genetic freaks…[/quote]
I am actually surprised it has caught on like that. We should be seeing a lot more massive people posting pics who never do isolation movements. I’m training shoulders tonight…by themselves. I guess I’ll never build any muscle.
[quote]horny yoda wrote:
hardcoreukno0359 wrote:
CU AeroStallion wrote:
Relativity. That theory was a bunch of shit.
When the universe has a beginning, the fudgefactor in relativity is gone, and the theory is correct, based that the universe has a beginning, which looking at the galaxies moving a way and decreasing in speed shows there was a beginning and starting point to the universe
scientists do not know when the universe “began” or of it “began”
scientists do not “know” anything they can’t OBSERVE, but can only ASSUME in those instances.
this is what makes science so useful: it sticks to the bare facts.
the problem is when people put too much energy into something that is just a theory. we do not know when the universe “began.”
[/quote]
last time i checked, measuring the wavelength of incomeing light from surrounding galaxies is observing, therefore they can make conclusions based on what they observe. The universe is a system of masses, with decelerating velocities, its only a matter of time when they galaxies and everything in this universe moves back toward the center and collapses. scientests are just up in the air on what will happen when everything collides back to one point in the universe. i think ill agree with albert eistein and steven hawkings
[quote]Professor X wrote:
KombatAthlete wrote:
Professor X wrote:
chubs108 wrote:
-You can reach an optimal body by doing body part splits.
That’s an idiotic theory?
Now that the gods of the human body here on T-Nation have declared it heresy it apparently seems to be. All those thousands have people who have progressed on them must be genetic freaks…
I am actually surprised it has caught on like that. We should be seeing a lot more massive people posting pics who never do isolation movements. I’m training shoulders tonight…by themselves. I guess I’ll never build any muscle.[/quote]
Just shoulders? You’re going to injure yourself!
A Personal Trainer told me that it happens when you do split routines or isolation movements so I know.
Don’t mess with farm boys that have been throwing hay bales all day.
no, that one is true.
especially if you are a hay bale.[/quote]
Remember- farm boys are about the only people that can spend 11 hours a dayt\ picking up 80 pound blocks of grass, and putting them in barns that are 20 degrees warmer then outside, and then still have time and energy to roll in the hay with a farm girl.
[quote]Professor X wrote:
KombatAthlete wrote:
Professor X wrote:
chubs108 wrote:
-You can reach an optimal body by doing body part splits.
That’s an idiotic theory?
Now that the gods of the human body here on T-Nation have declared it heresy it apparently seems to be. All those thousands have people who have progressed on them must be genetic freaks…
I am actually surprised it has caught on like that. We should be seeing a lot more massive people posting pics who never do isolation movements. I’m training shoulders tonight…by themselves. I guess I’ll never build any muscle.[/quote]
I’m in the same boat. I’ve been doing that for years. I guess my physique won’t amount to much, either. I need to find the nearest suicide booth, I guess.
its only a matter of time when they galaxies and everything in this universe moves back toward the center and collapses.
[/quote]
It still is up for debate as to whether or not there is enough mass in the universe to create the gravity to pull everything back in. Everything may just sputter out with no big crunch.
the dumb gal behind the counter at the GNC today was trying to sell me their “mega mens” vitamins, and I had to gently explain to her they contained lots of soy. she then tried to explain to me that the BCAA’s counteracted the soy. Maybe I am too dumb to understand.
There is some speculation that c is not a constant; that it has varied over time.
That page you posted assumes (there’s that word again) that c is a constant. A variable c throws a pretty big monkey wrench into those calculations since one of the axes on the graph is the recession velocities of different galaxies presented as a percentage of c. If c has varied over time, then the final graph presented is meaningless.
While that page makes a routine assumption about c, it’s not necessarily “correct.” We just don’t know for sure.
its only a matter of time when they galaxies and everything in this universe moves back toward the center and collapses.
It still is up for debate as to whether or not there is enough mass in the universe to create the gravity to pull everything back in. Everything may just sputter out with no big crunch.[/quote]
what debate, if the galaxies are slowing down, they dont just go into static equilibrium, they will return, just take a basic physics class