Page 1 of 1

Re: To NO ONE, in particular

Posted: Mon Aug 18, 2003 6:40 am
by Philip Locke
The fuck? Locke
Borelít o'Volus

To NO ONE, in particular

Posted: Mon Aug 18, 2003 7:33 am
by UnknownwonknU
Yes, look, it does seem like NO ONE is online. Go figure. Now, IÂ’m coming out of Shirlan. Yes, as a dragonish being, or whatnot. So, no one is left there. IÂ’d assume. But, there has to be somebody around for nobody.*shakes head*This is a bunch of nonsense. Or perhaps, things will make sense. Somewhere. Or nowhere, for that matter.*sighs*Well, this is a start. Don't know where this is all going. Sort of. I'm sure someone does, or no one. *sighs*

Re: To NO ONE, in particular

Posted: Mon Aug 18, 2003 11:33 pm
by UEC
I like him!.. or Her.. I like IT! E. Metzler (UEC)Duke of Brookshire"Never use a BOO/\/\ist as a diplomat" -- GSClicky Clicky..., Tiss for your own good ya know.

Re: To NO ONE, in particular

Posted: Wed Aug 20, 2003 9:01 am
by Zirandorthel
Unknown, just put in some more ellipses, and you'll be a shoe-in ZirandorthelThe Golden Darkness"In order to find his equal, an Irishman is forced to talk to God."-Stephen Braveheart Proud Citizen of Pyramodia

Re: To NO ONE, in particular

Posted: Wed Aug 20, 2003 9:29 am
by Gman Russell
Did someone spike the mangos...?

Re: To NO ONE, in particular

Posted: Wed Aug 20, 2003 9:53 am
by UnknownwonknU
*sighs*Okay, I can see I know no one. I just need to find some one. Perhaps there is one body that will show me.*moves*Moving into Straylight. Noone is there, somewhere. He, she, it? Never you mind, here. None of business here. Seeking it elsewhere, through Straylight.*sighs and chants in distant voice*I KNOW no one. There's no place like home.....la la la *smiles*

Re: To NO ONE, in particular

Posted: Wed Aug 20, 2003 11:09 am
by Philip Locke
Spiked mangos? Sounds delicious.Welcome, UnknownwonknU. Locke
Borelít o'Volus

Re: To NO ONE, in particular

Posted: Wed Aug 20, 2003 11:12 am
by UEC
I know you..... Somehow... you're name is greatly Familiar.... E. Metzler (UEC)Duke of Brookshire"Never use a BOO/\/\ist as a diplomat" -- GSClicky Clicky..., Tiss for your own good ya know.

Re: To NO ONE, in particular

Posted: Wed Aug 20, 2003 12:19 pm
by Gman Russell
Spiked mangos! lol that sounds yummy... until the passing out part...Welcome Mr. Unkown!

Re: To NO ONE, in particular

Posted: Wed Aug 20, 2003 3:55 pm
by david northworthy beckfor
i had a mango today...but it was not spiked David I Eric Vivian Northorthy Beckford KGCS KL OHDafitt Erick Wiffjan Nurtbefoon Bergsdrumfort"It's a dull man who can only find one way to spell a word"(Mark Twain)My Mission - To be a nuisence to all! (especialy to those I like!)

Re: To NO ONE, in particular

Posted: Wed Aug 20, 2003 5:48 pm
by UEC
Tasty.. aye? E. Metzler (UEC)Duke of Brookshire"Never use a BOO/\/\ist as a diplomat" -- GSClicky Clicky..., Tiss for your own good ya know.

Re: To NO ONE, in particular

Posted: Thu Aug 21, 2003 4:08 am
by Philip Locke
Erik, maybe the "unknown" is reminding you of JDS' "Superunknown5" login. Locke
Borelít o'Volus

Re: To NO ONE, in particular

Posted: Thu Aug 21, 2003 6:30 am
by UnknownwonknU
*waves excitedly*HI All! Yeah, you see, maybe, that sometimes it takes oneboday to make a difference. See, here, actually resides a collective of bodies, therefore, everybody. And somewhere else, there is no body, but one body which in turn, doesn't necessarily calculate into the overall scheme of things. But then that leads to dimensional analysis and universality theory.*sighs*This isn't supposed to make sense on most levels, but will on one.*IDEA!*What about colliodial particulate entropic theory?! See, if you have two particles and their masses don't equal, but relativily they do. However, if you have a massive particle that collides with a tiny particle it most likely absorbs the little particle without much notice or difference being produced. Whereas, the little particle absorbs most of the impact due to the imbalance of weights. NOW, *rubs hands together in excitement* after time, and many half-life's later, the massive particle is divveed up into smaller somewhat "lesser" particles, perhaps the size of the original tiny particle. And theoretically the smaller particle grew into the massisve, but not in any "real" physical sense but only in theory. So, here the what-was massive particle has been reduced to be the equal and the what-was tiny particle was oxidized to be the equal to the originating colliding particles in the story. Therefore, balance is achieved and it is at this point that a great BANG of energy is required to fuse the two now-tiny particles together for, well, an eternity. The big bang theory basically, an exploding star, so to speak.*sighs heavily*

Re: To NO ONE, in particular

Posted: Thu Aug 21, 2003 6:33 am
by Zirandorthel
*waves back, then fortunately falls into a five-minute long coma before he can be exposed to all that science babble*Hey, it's the sign of Satan!! ZirandorthelThe Golden DarknessNiirus Tinenetuwar"In order to find his equal, an Irishman is forced to talk to God."-Stephen Braveheart

Re: To NO ONE, in particular

Posted: Thu Aug 21, 2003 7:18 am
by Philip Locke
That is why Peter Little should never be able to take physics. Locke
Borelít o'Volus

Re: To NO ONE, in particular

Posted: Sat Aug 23, 2003 4:17 pm
by UEC
In a VERY odd way.. that made perfect sense to me.. and I'm not sure how...But I was a bit confused at how you figure the small particle was increasing in size.. or was it simply.. remaining the same, as the large particle shrank and equaled it in size... E. Metzler (UEC)Duke of Brookshire"Never use a BOO/\/\ist as a diplomat" -- GSClicky Clicky..., Tiss for your own good ya know.

Re: To NO ONE, in particular

Posted: Sun Aug 24, 2003 8:53 am
by Gryphon the Pure
this is probably totally on the wrong track... but...what did this ever have to do with Oxidation? Are these protons we're dealing with, and in that case are you implying that protons come in various sizes and charges? Or are you suggesting this at the atomic level, in which these are nuclei sans electrons? But in that case, these "particles" are not in fact singular particles, but rather a collection of particles, in which case, the absorption of another particle would not only increase the mass of both parties (whee... punnism) involved, but also increase the numerical value in both population and charge? But then the relative masses would remain entirely the same, unless you were to count the absorption or emmittance of a photon or two, which only changes the relative masses by a small amount, and only occurs at the instant of absorption... Or given this situation, are you referring to a photon and a particle, specifically an electron, in which case their relative masses are not equal. Also, in this case, the electron absorbs much of the impact of the collision, and uses the kinetic energy absorbed to move to a higher energy level within an atom. In this case however, the electron has no half-life, and remains an electron. And then there's quarks, but I don't want to go there... not enough patience...so anyhow, I guess what I'm really trying to say is...WTF do you mean by "Particle?" Raised by a family of Griffins in the forests of Llanowar, this young mage is rumored to be the sole male born of the Serra tribe.

Re: To NO ONE, in particular

Posted: Sun Aug 24, 2003 10:25 pm
by UEC
Maybe he meant...err... a mass of some element... E. Metzler (UEC)Duke of Brookshire"Never use a BOO/\/\ist as a diplomat" -- GSClicky Clicky..., Tiss for your own good ya know.

Re: To NO ONE, in particular

Posted: Wed Aug 27, 2003 3:53 am
by UnknownwonknU
Well, "particle", relatively speaking, can be anything from a massive object to a speck. Could be two massives colliding at the same instance as two specks...*goes back and reads what wrote*Huh? YEah, this is strange. *shrugs*Now, how does this all relate?! *ponders to self*

Re: To NO ONE, in particular

Posted: Wed Aug 27, 2003 7:51 pm
by UEC
Mangos? E. Metzler (UEC)Duke of Brookshire"Never use a BOO/\/\ist as a diplomat" -- GSClicky Clicky..., Tiss for your own good ya know.