Atheists, here is a 'balls' question ---even for all--- (page 18)

Viviane

Vivian, does the RYTHM method of contra-CONCEPTION ring a bell for you? A ~ monthly cycle, that sweeps like a standing waves through families, a cycle that varies more than 5% especially as when you start PUSHING 50 ?

Yes, it's also notoriously unreliable. I would thinlk a 90 year old man would know that, but then, you think ovaries are related to standing waves, so... no, you don't know that.

so the LIAR comment is based on my age remarks. please cut& paste [which my skills do not allow], where I wrote: Iam 90 or to that effect. thanks

It's been posted many times. Just stop being a weasel. Before you were uneducated, now you are just a liar.

prologos

re the unkind, badly thought-out "utter nonsense" remark:

when my son --1/ 5.2848101 my age*-- comes home from school, we will try to post the reference I provided but you obviously did not read. Utter nonsense NOT. he did that for us to debunk the "no science with 5% spread" by posting typical science graph.

scientific papers about how the Balls in the universe generate/ respond to resonances, possibly galactic, surely solar.

Since the painful cycle is so strangely and loosely ~~~tied to the tide-charts, and the Tides are seen to be ~standing waves UNDER the moon, the comparison is not far fetched.

Even the Spiral- arm structures in Galaxies are standing, not moving waves.and

it is in THEM that star-conception star-births take place. see or move to CONNECTIONS thread.

* taking your advise to be precise seriously.

Viviane

re the unkind, badly thought-out "utter nonsense" remark:

Stop whining.

when my son --1/ 5.2848101 my age-- comes home from school, we will try to post the reference I provided but you obviously did not read. Utter nonsense NOT. he did that for us to debunk the "no science with 5% spread" by posting typical science graph.

You tried to claim a spread in data points was the same as a 5% spread in predictions of a law. Good luck with that.

scientific papers about how the Balls in the universe generate/ respond to resonances, possibly galactic, surely solar.

Not an actual sentence.

Since the painful cycle is so strangely and loosely ~~~tied to the tide-charts, and the Tides are seen to be ~standing waves UNDER the moon, the comparison is not far fetched.

It actually ranges from 20 to 35 days, not really on a lunar cycle.

Even the Spiral- arm structures in Galaxies are standing, not moving waves.

They aren't waves at all. Utter nonsense from you.

it is in THEM that star-conception star-births take place. see CONNECTIONS thread.

Actually, most star formation occurs elsewhere. Are you seriously trying to connect menstrual cycles with orbital distances with galactic arms with stellar nurseries? KWAZY!

* taking your advise to be precise seriously.

Keep trying.

prologos

We wiil not easily learn what really goes on if we do not mentally WORK at i ourselves. teaching ourselfs.

If my wording: "Balls" "Stationary Waves" "PUSHING 50 & 90" --- have sometimes double attendre, an outragious flavour, that is a sub-conscious reflex

in me that triggers rejection, but, with the right Eyes, upon reflection elicits the "AHA" response.

If this is not a scientific forum, but I try to keep my assertions, wordings, well within published data. including

The MODIFIED, AMENDED, IMPROVED, bode idea.

prologos

not whyning, winning:

Spiral arms are prominent, because they shine, have Luster that is coming from rather ~young stars. great BALLS of nuclear fire, that formed in these arms.

The spiral arms ARE standing, stationary PRESSURE WAVES, through which the galaxies mass rotates, revolves. justlike

The Tides are staionary, moon-bound waves, through which the Oceans, crust rotates, revolves,

That all these phenomena have obviously a common pattern to them, does not in my mind or statements mean that one or the other directly CAUSED them.

Hormones do NOT CAUSE the moon, or the milky way to have standing waves, even if it FEELS like* it, sometimes. [ I liked the hormones generated when looking at the moon together]

Viviane

We wiil not easily learn what really goes on if we do not mentally WORK at i ourselves. teaching ourselfs.

If my wording: "Balls" "Stationary Waves" "PUSHING 50 & 90" --- have sometimes double attendre, an outragious flavour, that is a sub-conscious reflex

You're making stuff up to support your uneducated ideas with zero support and trying to claim old age as an excuse. Please stop.

in me that triggers rejection, but, with the right Eyes, upon reflection elicits the "AHA" response.

AHA! You keep making stuff up!

If this is not a scientific forum, but I try to keep my assertions, wordings, well within published data. including

The MODIFIED, AMENDED, IMPROVED, bode idea.

You have yet to show the modified, amended and improved Bode-Titius hypotheses that can predict anything. Simply retrofitting it match observations (and at that having to have your basic math corrected) isn't much of anything useful. What can your amended, improved and modifiied hypothesis predict?

Viviane

Spiral arms are prominent, because they shine, have Luster that is coming from rather ~young stars. great BALLS of nuclear fire, that formed in these arms.

Citation required.

The spiral arms ARE standing, stationary PRESSURE WAVES, through which the galaxies mass rotates, revolves.

Utter nonsense. You don't grasp what a pressure wave is, much less what a galactic arm or pressure wave is. Citation required.

The Tides are staionary, moon-bound waves, through which the Oceans, crust rotates, revolves,

Already debunked nonsense.

That all these phenomena have obviously a common pattern to them, does not in my mind or statements mean that one or the other directly CAUSED them.

Utter nonsense AND not what you were earlier claiming. Stop lying.

Hormones do NOT CAUSE the moon, or the milky way to have standing waves, even if it FEELS like* it, sometimes. [ I liked the hormones generated when looking at the moon together]

Then you shouldn't have tried to link them. Also, as a reminder, when you were claiming you had a 2 year old (or the time you claimed you were off by a factor of 4 on her age), talking about her menstrual cycle was and is creepy.

prologos

re: my little, ~2.167 year old daughter, a ball of pure delight:

You must have misread, or it must have been a typo*: * cut& paste citation please ; but

I do not recall having written that this late-arrival daughter is mature, though my others are!

do not females carry, or develop earlier, a full set of ova/balls, as contrasted with the males' wigglers that are produced from scratch, stored only temporarily?

If she is an really early starter, which is possible with her outstanding beauty already showing, I might yet live to see a grandchild from her, given the longevity history in my family.

I hope lurkers love to learn. you are bringing out great comic and cosmic stuff here.

Viviane

do not females carry, or develop earlier, a full set of ova/balls, as contrasted with the males' wigglers that are produced from scratch, stored only temporarily?

Stop. You got caught lying, misrepresenting data, changing your story and now are just embarassing yourself.

prologos

correct me if I am wrong, so others will learn from my mistaken beliefs, and:

you set yourself up to be corrected in a big way.[again]

kindergarten-grade teachers correcting astronomy exams.

it is amazing that the back and forth has shown the many kind of BALL games, periodicly governed there are in the universe form the one=cell to the big-bang marble size universe. and the many rules, like the planetary sequrnce arose from the laws, that was*

and is.

petic license allowed.

Atheists, here is a 'balls' question ---even for all---

Share this