Problem with Bionic Woman's running. - Page 4 - Triathlon Week

09-29-2007, 01:07 AM

In article <[Only registered and activated users can see links. ]>,
pv+[Only registered and activated users can see links. ] (PV) wrote:

> [Only registered and activated users can see links. ] writes:
>
> (whatever)
>
> Let me apologize for a resident asshat troll that infests the TV
> newsgroups, Troy Heagy. I imagine he's the one who added the triathlon
> group, or at least he's the one being irritating in crossposts to it.
>
> He uses a lot of ids, and this looks like a fairly new one. For the
> complete killfile list, dump all of these:
>
> [Only registered and activated users can see links. ]
> [Only registered and activated users can see links. ]
> [Only registered and activated users can see links. ]
> [Only registered and activated users can see links. ]
> videonovels*@yahoo.com
> telenovels*@yahoo.com
> electrictroy@*
> [Only registered and activated users can see links. ]
>
> Sorry for the inconvenience - no doubt this little pointer will make him
> spew even more, but at least you have a chance not to see it. *

Oh, dear, you're going to make me do it.

[Only registered and activated users can see links. ] has been behaving himself. His 'new shows starting
this week' even alerted me to the premiere of MOONLIGHT that I might
have missed otherwise.

I was giving him 'new TV season' benefit of the doubt. At least under
this one screen name. :)

--
Day 15. Jitterbug phone from CVS still doesn't work, but they did call back.

09-29-2007, 01:08 AM

[Only registered and activated users can see links. ] wrote:
> On Sep 27, 9:50 am, Anim8rFSK <[Only registered and activated users can see links. ]> wrote:
>
>>Everyone prepare to plonk.
>>
>
>
> Plonk this you stupid bitch.
>

Well, since you put it so nicely...

09-30-2007, 12:53 AM

On Sep 26, 6:40 am, Anim8rFSK <[Only registered and activated users can see links. ]> wrote:
....ore resemble someone taking a rapid succession of long
> > jumps than a traditional sprinter.
>
> Yes, which is what the character did in the original book CYBORG, what,
> 40 years ago? Of course, TV producers don't READ, so that was the end
> of that. The running was close to being the worst part of the new BW,
> and that's saying some.

Speaking of Fabulous ideas that were missed in the movies...

Contact forgot to mention the two interesting ideas in Carl Sagan's
Book, that there were hidden messages in pi, that could have only been
left there by gawd, and the curious effect of emergent complexity.

Both of the Planet of The Apes ( versions ) forgot to mention that
when you're traveling to a distant star, no matter how far away the
star is; the trip will 'seem' to the voyagers to take about 2 years...
because of Relativity... You would speed up to about the speed of
light for the first half of the trip, and then turn around and slow
down for the second half... Assuming that during the first half, that
would take about a year, from the voyagers point of view, you would
get close enough to the speed of light, that time would slow down to
near zero...
Of course; to the rest of the universe, it would still take the
distance in light years, in years, times whatever...??? ( 2
maybe...??? )

09-30-2007, 12:53 AM

In article <1191083521.845533.114000@y42g2000hsy.googlegroups .com>,
[Only registered and activated users can see links. ] says...

Fellah, go and Google "general relativity" and then "special
relativity" and come back to us, okay? 'Cuz you haven't even scratched
the surface. In fact, you're not even anywhere NEAR the surface.

> Both of the Planet of The Apes ( versions ) forgot to mention that
> when you're traveling to a distant star, no matter how far away the
> star is; the trip will 'seem' to the voyagers to take about 2 years...
> because of Relativity...

"No matter how far away the trip will seem to take 2 years?"
Nnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnno. Just.... no.

ASSUMING you could travel at relativistic speeds, and we can't at this
point - can not - time inside a moving space ship would go SLOWER than
it does outside. In other words Billy says goodbye to twin brother
Jeffy, zips off to the nearest star and comes back; Billy's aged a few
years but Jeffy and everyone else Billy ever knew is dead from old age.
But the amount of time that passes inside the ship still depends on how
far you go, and even if we COULD travel at the speed of light, we're
still talking a 4 year trip to the nearest star, which we've proven has
no inhabitable planets anyway, but never mind that now.

> You would speed up to about the speed of
> light for the first half of the trip, and then turn around and slow
> down for the second half... Assuming that during the first half, that
> would take about a year, from the voyagers point of view, you would
> get close enough to the speed of light, that time would slow down to
> near zero...

No. Go Google and read. Constant acceleration followed by constant
deceleration has all its own complications, not the least of which is,
as you go faster and approach those "relativistic" speeds, your mass
increases as a function of the speed you're going. So the faster you go,
the more power it takes to push your ship, until you've achieved so much
velocity that your mass is so great that you no longer have enough power
to go any faster. And that happens WAY before you get to even the
tiniest fraction of the actual speed of light.

And your accelerate-at-one-gravity, flip, decelerate-at-one-gravity
works fine for local addresses, but if you were to try to go, say, 25-30
light years, your velocity at the flip would theoretically be about
fivve times the speed of light - and you can't go faster than light,
because if you do... you *become* light. Bzzzt, sorry, try again.

> Of course; to the rest of the universe, it would still take the
> distance in light years, in years, times whatever...??? ( 2
> maybe...??? )

[Only registered and activated users can see links. ]

= )

[Only registered and activated users can see links. ]

09-30-2007, 12:53 AM

On Sep 28, 5:56 am, Steven <[Only registered and activated users can see links. ]> wrote:
> What are we doing here than?
>

No dicklips, what are YOU doing HERE on a running NG with some
stupidass post about a bionic hoe?

> Shut up unless there's a good rhetoric involved here?

I'll slap that ugly dick-like face so hard you'll have a nose on the
side of your ****ing ugly head.

09-30-2007, 12:53 AM

On Sep 28, 9:32 am, Michelle Steiner <[Only registered and activated users can see links. ]> wrote:
> You are responding to a troll who is impersonating the real person who
> goes by "Elf Lord".
>

Bullshit, taht was Rebbichi.

09-30-2007, 12:53 AM

On Sep 29, 6:57 pm, Forge <[Only registered and activated users can see links. ]> wrote:
> In article <1191083521.845533.114...@y42g2000hsy.googlegroups .com>,
> [Only registered and activated users can see links. ] says...
>
> Fellah, go and Google "general relativity" and then "special
> relativity" and come back to us, okay? 'Cuz you haven't even scratched
> the surface. In fact, you're not even anywhere NEAR the surface.
>
> > Both of the Planet of The Apes ( versions ) forgot to mention that
> > when you're traveling to a distant star, no matter how far away the
> > star is; the trip will 'seem' to the voyagers to take about 2 years...
> > because of Relativity...
>
> "No matter how far away the trip will seem to take 2 years?"
> Nnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnno. Just.... no.
>
> ASSUMING you could travel at relativistic speeds, and we can't at this
> point - can not - time inside a moving space ship would go SLOWER than
> it does outside. In other words Billy says goodbye to twin brother
> Jeffy, zips off to the nearest star and comes back; Billy's aged a few
> years but Jeffy and everyone else Billy ever knew is dead from old age.
> But the amount of time that passes inside the ship still depends on how
> far you go, and even if we COULD travel at the speed of light, we're
> still talking a 4 year trip to the nearest star, which we've proven has
> no inhabitable planets anyway, but never mind that now.
>
> > You would speed up to about the speed of
> > light for the first half of the trip, and then turn around and slow
> > down for the second half... Assuming that during the first half, that
> > would take about a year, from the voyagers point of view, you would
> > get close enough to the speed of light, that time would slow down to
> > near zero...
>
> No. Go Google and read. Constant acceleration followed by constant
> deceleration has all its own complications, not the least of which is,
> as you go faster and approach those "relativistic" speeds, your mass
> increases as a function of the speed you're going. So the faster you go,
> the more power it takes to push your ship, until you've achieved so much
> velocity that your mass is so great that you no longer have enough power
> to go any faster. And that happens WAY before you get to even the
> tiniest fraction of the actual speed of light.
>
> And your accelerate-at-one-gravity, flip, decelerate-at-one-gravity
> works fine for local addresses, but if you were to try to go, say, 25-30
> light years, your velocity at the flip would theoretically be about
> fivve times the speed of light - and you can't go faster than light,
> because if you do... you *become* light. Bzzzt, sorry, try again.
>
> > Of course; to the rest of the universe, it would still take the
> > distance in light years, in years, times whatever...??? ( 2
> > maybe...??? )
>
> [Only registered and activated users can see links. ]
>
> = )
>
> [Only registered and activated users can see links. ]

09-30-2007, 12:53 AM

Well! See if *I* ever offer any helpful advice to someone posting
massive idiocy on Usenet.

In article <1191107766.329415.67780@d55g2000hsg.googlegroups. com>,
[Only registered and activated users can see links. ] says...
> On Sep 29, 6:57 pm, Forge <[Only registered and activated users can see links. ]> wrote:
> > In article <1191083521.845533.114...@y42g2000hsy.googlegroups .com>,
> > [Only registered and activated users can see links. ] says...
> >
> > Fellah, go and Google "general relativity" and then "special
> > relativity" and come back to us, okay? 'Cuz you haven't even scratched
> > the surface. In fact, you're not even anywhere NEAR the surface.
> >
> > > Both of the Planet of The Apes ( versions ) forgot to mention that
> > > when you're traveling to a distant star, no matter how far away the
> > > star is; the trip will 'seem' to the voyagers to take about 2 years...
> > > because of Relativity...
> >
> > "No matter how far away the trip will seem to take 2 years?"
> > Nnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnno. Just.... no.
> >
> > ASSUMING you could travel at relativistic speeds, and we can't at this
> > point - can not - time inside a moving space ship would go SLOWER than
> > it does outside. In other words Billy says goodbye to twin brother
> > Jeffy, zips off to the nearest star and comes back; Billy's aged a few
> > years but Jeffy and everyone else Billy ever knew is dead from old age.
> > But the amount of time that passes inside the ship still depends on how
> > far you go, and even if we COULD travel at the speed of light, we're
> > still talking a 4 year trip to the nearest star, which we've proven has
> > no inhabitable planets anyway, but never mind that now.
> >
> > > You would speed up to about the speed of
> > > light for the first half of the trip, and then turn around and slow
> > > down for the second half... Assuming that during the first half, that
> > > would take about a year, from the voyagers point of view, you would
> > > get close enough to the speed of light, that time would slow down to
> > > near zero...
> >
> > No. Go Google and read. Constant acceleration followed by constant
> > deceleration has all its own complications, not the least of which is,
> > as you go faster and approach those "relativistic" speeds, your mass
> > increases as a function of the speed you're going. So the faster you go,
> > the more power it takes to push your ship, until you've achieved so much
> > velocity that your mass is so great that you no longer have enough power
> > to go any faster. And that happens WAY before you get to even the
> > tiniest fraction of the actual speed of light.
> >
> > And your accelerate-at-one-gravity, flip, decelerate-at-one-gravity
> > works fine for local addresses, but if you were to try to go, say, 25-30
> > light years, your velocity at the flip would theoretically be about
> > fivve times the speed of light - and you can't go faster than light,
> > because if you do... you *become* light. Bzzzt, sorry, try again.
> >
> > > Of course; to the rest of the universe, it would still take the
> > > distance in light years, in years, times whatever...??? ( 2

09-30-2007, 12:53 AM

On Sep 29, 11:25 pm, Forge <[Only registered and activated users can see links. ]> wrote:
> Well! See if *I* ever offer any helpful advice to someone posting
> massive idiocy on Usenet.
>

You just break my ****ing heart you dildo.

09-30-2007, 11:15 PM

When I saw the subject line, I thought someone was looking in my
window.

Yours on the run,
Oz

--
Posted via a free Usenet account from [Only registered and activated users can see links. ]