# OOH NO .......... NOW WHAT EINSTEIN ?



## Dennisgrosen (Nov 14, 2009)

is the wood dust going to fall up … and

are we going to write the naturlaws one more time ?

it seems to be so that the relativitets terory is gone ….










scientist´s in europe had messurred a partikel to faster then the light

and now they have ask there college´s in Japan and USA to recalculate
to see if its right what they have messurred 16000 times the last two years

here is an article from a Danish newspaper just scroll down and translate

http://ekstrabladet.dk/nyheder/videnskab_og_teknik/article1625882.ece

take care
Dennis


----------



## lanwater (May 14, 2010)

I think it's an aberation in the measuring tools.

This said I have read many times that the relativity law needs some tweeking in light of recent discoveries.


----------



## superstretch (Jan 10, 2011)

Interesting, to say the least. I don't understand even a fraction of what goes on at places like CERN, etc, but it's awesome to see experiments of that nature being carried out.


----------



## GaryC (Dec 31, 2008)

I read that article earlier and it really is interesting. It's always interesting to see what comes of all the experiments and how things change. However, it's only interesting. My life won't change much. Even if the speed of light is determined to be only the second fastest thing measured, it's still faster than anything I can deal with. Practicle application…poo


----------



## CharlieM1958 (Nov 7, 2006)

Anyone who thought the speed of light was the fasting thing in the universe never opened their wallet in front of a teenager and watched the money fly out.


----------



## rowdy (Dec 22, 2008)

I am reading a book on anti-gravity…..just cannot put it down!


----------



## dakremer (Dec 8, 2009)

haha rowdy. that was funny!!


----------



## 280305 (Sep 28, 2008)

I read this earlier and am fascinated by the idea. I am looking forward to hearing the results of the verification.


----------



## scrollgirl (May 28, 2010)

The next thing you know, they are going to find out that we blondes are smarter than the average person!










Hummmm. . . You never know! 

Sheila


----------



## Bertha (Jan 10, 2011)

^huge lol, Shelia!


----------



## Viktor (Jan 15, 2009)

No, dust will not be falling upward.

There is a lot of confusion as to the meanings of words "fact" and "theory" that lead to various rhetorical fallacies. Many falsely believe that fact means "truth" and theory means "speculation" or use all of the above interchangeably leading to even more misunderstanding.

Scientific *fact is an objective and verifiable observation*, in contrast to *theory*, which *explains and interprets facts*. This is all there is to it. Theory can be refuted or adapted to explain newly discovered facts.

For example:
1) Light traveling at around 300000 km/sec is a fact. Nothing can exceed the speed of 300000 km/sec is a theory. (Note: it is called a *theory* of relativity).
2) Apple falling on the Newton's head is a fact (OK it would be hard to verify since the subject is dead). Gravity is the force behind it is a theory.

Whatever the scientists at CERN discover will not refute facts, but may refine or refute theories.

No reputable scientist (to my knowledge) ever stated that 300000 km/sec is a limit to anything that moves is a fact. This notion is a product of popular culture.


----------



## pierce85 (May 21, 2011)

Nicely put, Viktor! I agree. But let me offer this challenge. Can you make an observation statement that is not theoretically bound, i.e., can you state a fact without reliance upon some theoretical framework that makes sense of that fact?

By the way, at least for me, this is what makes this potential discovery so interesting.


----------



## Viktor (Jan 15, 2009)

Pierce85, probably not. You probably can't avoid some level of reliance on theories while obtaining other (unrelated) new facts. If I understand your question correctly. The keys thought are "objective" (independent of the observer) and "verifiable".
I guess I was responding to a smirk, commonly observed when a theory falls, that the science is no good, yada, yada, yada… That's the whole point! It is a system based on self improvement. It is when the theories don't change we are in trouble.


----------



## Viktor (Jan 15, 2009)

"If it's good enough for them that because you said it that it must be so then, from their subjective perspective it is fact. So when you say that there are elves in the forest, it is fact."

Except it will not be a fact in scientific sense by definition (I believe pierce85 was talking about scientific facts). Scientific fact has to be *objective* i.e. independent of the observer. You have to be able to find an independent party to verify it.


----------



## Dennisgrosen (Nov 14, 2009)

Sheila …. LOL
you have to wait until hollywood proofe it as they have done so many times 
with traveling faster than the speed of light

Rowdy … ) are you still hoovering over the armchair wondering why it feels so soft

Gary  count me in I´m so lazy that I don´t even come near to breake the sound barrier

Charlie then you don´t have been around my vallet .... they dissapeer faster than I can earn them :-(

All incl. Viktor , Pierce , Cr1 
Superstrech even one for you here I think 
its a little light to havey article about Einsteins different theory´s and his life 
very interressting 
sorry you have to translate this one too … but its a Danish author on this one

http://www.rostra.dk/louis/andreart/Einstein.html

Dennis


----------



## FatherHooligan (Mar 27, 2008)

I think it is very interesting how the fellows who made the observations are asking others to find the flaws in their methods, equipment, procedures etc. They know that this may change some fundamental understandings so are really looking for the, what they are certain exist, flaws in their results. A pretty cool illustration of how the scientific world works. I like how in the CNN article where I first read about this, someone made the observation that this 'discovery' wouldn't affect the price of a loaf of bread but it was still an extremely interesting set of observations.


----------



## DMIHOMECENTER (Mar 5, 2011)

These neutrinos just path through the earth without even slowing down, yet they do have mass. They are not rare by any means, just hard to measure lol. Wikipedia says " Every second, in the region of the Earth, about 65 billion (6.5×1010) solar neutrinos pass through every square centimeter perpendicular to the direction of the sun."

According to relativity, if neutrinos are massless, they must travel at the speed of light. However, if they carry a mass, they cannot reach the speed of light.

The gist of the uproar is that they know they have mass …and now they have first evidence that they are faster than light.


----------



## 280305 (Sep 28, 2008)

If the results are verified, perhaps this "cheating" particle should be renamed the Rosie Ruiz particle.


----------



## pierce85 (May 21, 2011)

Viktor - yes, my question was somewhat rhetorical. If we understand facts to be true statements of particular states of affairs (events, things in the world, etc.), we're left with the task of figuring out what makes such statements true. In other words, what makes facts facts. We can't say, it's things in the world that make things in the world true without begging the question. You need something else and that's where theories come into play, however rudimentary. In short, everything we think to be true or false is theory laden.

In the case of these faster-than-light neutrinos, "we" really can't properly explain these events (states of affairs) within the context of Einstein's special theory of relativity because the theory says they're impossible - they can't happen. But apparently they did happen and the discoverers claim they have evidence of that. So what's the problem?

Well, how do you know that you've observed an event that is theoretically impossible? You've observed something for sure, but what exactly have you observed? Simply put, how can you know what it is you're looking at if you're not in a position (theoryless) to properly explain what it is that you're looking at?

The beauty of science, as Viktor points out, is that these conundrums are what science thrives on. Changing ideas, new ways of thinking, and falsification are the bread and butter of science. For me, the exciting part of this potential discovery is being around to watch the emergence of a paradigm-shifting theory that explains these events, one that may surpass perhaps the greatest scientific discovery of all time, Einstein's special theory of relativity.

Cool stuff.


----------



## 280305 (Sep 28, 2008)

At least in mathematics, you always have to assume that some things are true in order to get started. For instance, the natural numbers, {0,1,2,...} and their arithmetic are founded on the Peano axioms. You take them on faith.

But then some wise guy like Kurt Gödel comes along and ruins all the fun!


----------



## Dark_Lightning (Nov 20, 2009)

I think you have the cart before the horse, cr1. The Scientific Method is based on inductive logic. Induction is used to infer a theory and will yield new information. The "fact" if you will, is that the theory is a description of the observed phenomenon, thus only as good as an accumulation of observations. What we end up with is a description that is "good enough" to predict future events. Given enough information, we can predict WAY into the future, say when comets will return based on some pretty tight astronomical observations.

"Color" is merely an arbitrary word we use to describe the different wavelengths of visible light (a tiny chunk of the electromagnetic spectrum) that we give an intrinsic name.

Calling science "shamanism" is casting about for an argument, imo. If you think science is shamanism, go ahead and ignore modern medicine when you are sick, and go for the cat.

Oh, yeah, I'm feeling too lazy to look- what is the name of that tribe in Brazil?


----------



## DMIHOMECENTER (Mar 5, 2011)

@Cr1, LMAO at "I'll buy you a beer - - if we still have mouths and take nourishment orally." :=)

Since we live ONLY to make poop (we work to eat, and eat to make poop, and we die as soon as we stop making them), I believe the date for a drink may stand. ;=)

At least we as a race are getting the facts better than before (when it was what ever some king or book allowed to be "true").

Problem is we'll destroy it all before we figure out how it all really works.


----------



## Dennisgrosen (Nov 14, 2009)

that was a good one Cr1

Dennis


----------



## Viktor (Jan 15, 2009)

Cr1, just more rhetorical mess.

Science and shamanism have different approaches to cognition, that's all. Confusing them or thinking that one is an extension (or an elaborate form) of the other is as fallacious as your confusion of facts and theory.

Science is a method that starts from observation and proceeds to theory, which is tested by making hopefully useful predictions (excellent point, AtomJack). Shamanism works in reverse, starting from an idea, *nothing* else needed.

This approach does not make science right, or ultimate, or true, or done evolving, or any other superlative or misconception that you seem to ascribe to an imaginary popular opinion. Neither does it imply that "scientific facts" are "truth".

Now, if a shaman was to notice that treating sick to a particular herb makes them feel better with reasonable consistency, he would be employing a scientific method and be an early scientist if you will.

*"But not terribly long ago it was a gathering scientific fact that you could tell a person's predispositions toward honesty, integrity, diligence, obedience, and other personality traits just by feeling the shape of their skull."*

Yes, there was such a hypothesis. Researchers gathered tons of "facts" (observations) over a century or so. Too bad nobody could show any relationship or better yet make a prediction of personal traits based on the skull shape. Consequently the hypothesis was ditched. So, yes, you are right, science works.


----------



## DMIHOMECENTER (Mar 5, 2011)

I disagree. I can tell you that somebody with a really thick and ridged forehead is much more likely to club you to death that snipe you from 1000 yards. I'm just sayin'...


----------



## Viktor (Jan 15, 2009)

*"Well, how do you know that you've observed an event that is theoretically impossible? You've observed something for sure, but what exactly have you observed? Simply put, how can you know what it is you're looking at if you're not in a position (theoryless) to properly explain what it is that you're looking at?"*

Have mercy, pierce85, my mind isn't made of rubber (grasping his small head). I don't really feel qualified to answer this question. After all, I don't know hoarse poo from deer poo. What do I know about science!


----------



## Viktor (Jan 15, 2009)

You are splitting hairs (on my skull), David Grimes.  Yes, actually there was some use from phrenology.


----------



## Letorix (Jul 19, 2011)

With the number of variables involved, 16,000 observations is not enough to be conclusive.

That said, I must BE WAY behind on today's physics. I thought we were stumbling trying to detect neutrinos consistently. If there were an array of many distributed detectors, and more many more observations then I'd give this more than a laugh.

The dramatization that's been occurring at these facilities to generate funding in the last 10 years is borderline unscrupulous.

To me this is a very sad statement that reflects the morals of the times.


----------



## Cosmicsniper (Oct 2, 2009)

Can facts be measured outside of theory itself? I don't think so. Even our measurement of "mass" depends on our reliance in a gravitational constant that is derived from gravitational theory itself. How might our concept change if we ever truly understand the dimensions of space/time? And how might we regard "mass" once we figure out "dark matter" and "dark energy," hypotheses that cannot even become "theory" until we have the tools to measure and understand them? After all, the amount of known mass within the universe is not nearly enough to explain the amount of energy it contains.

In other words, we can measure facts scientifically as long as we have a ruler, scale, or clock. However, those measurements only occur in this "construct," and even then they might not be exacting measurements. Even "time" differs depending upon one's location relative to objects with differing masses.

Proper science is ultimately measured, verified, and repeatable…but it only explains the facts of the world within this construct as we currently understand them. As the construct gets further defined, the facts can, and will, indeed change. Science itself makes no attempts to hypothesize beyond what is observable…only by observation can you develop a hypothesis.

Matters of philosophy are totally beyond the domain of science…it must take small, sequential, and individual steps in order to make great strides. It cannot skip steps in an effort to experiment on what is unobservable, and will therefore never catch up to philosophy itself…since philosophy attempts to expand the construct without regard to science. Science can help to verify philosophy, but philosophy can have zero impact on science.

However, I disagree with Cr1 in his shaman analogy…even if certain theories become discredited, those doing the science, and the world that follows it, would be excited to see old boundaries passed and new frontiers explored. It doesn't discredit the science, or its method, itself.

My $.02, of course.


----------



## Roger Clark aka Rex (Dec 30, 2008)

I answered this post 3 weeks ago.


----------



## DMIHOMECENTER (Mar 5, 2011)

The thread is only 3 days old, Rex. You time travel, don't you ?


----------



## Roger Clark aka Rex (Dec 30, 2008)

Of course, doesn't everyone? BTW I answered your question several times before in the past 2 weeks.


----------



## DMIHOMECENTER (Mar 5, 2011)

Rex, I read and appreciate every wise word you post, but what specific question have you had to answer several times ?


----------



## Roger Clark aka Rex (Dec 30, 2008)

David,
I can't recall, it was in a different Dementia


----------



## DMIHOMECENTER (Mar 5, 2011)

I really represent that remark ! Yeah, I been there… got mugged. Can't remember what they took, so I don't miss it. And can't report it. ;=)


----------



## patron (Apr 2, 2009)

as i see it

time is the only ilusion

everything else
seems to be working just fine

whether we understand it or not

does a moth live a full life

do we

how long is eternity

are we in 'heaven' already
savoring creation

one piece at a 'time' forever ?


----------



## Roger Clark aka Rex (Dec 30, 2008)

David G,
Yes, I remember the mugging well. The scoundrel got away with a load of cash, a Fender strat and a small dog.
Let me know if you want these items back.
BTW You don't have a Fender Jazz Bass going begging - do you?


----------



## CharlieM1958 (Nov 7, 2006)

This morning I ran into a friend of mine, Carl Brans, a respected physicist and co-author of the Brans-Dicke theory of relativity, which is a refinement of Einsteins general relativity developed in the 60's.

He told me neither he nor 98% of other physicists he knows think there is any truth to the faster-than-light claim. He followed up our short conversation with an email a little while ago, in which he stated the following:

The main reason for much skepticism at this
point is that for many years astrophysicists
claim to have seen light AND neutrinos from
big events, such as supernovae, very close
to simultaneously. Since the distance/time of
travel of these two types of radiation is in
the order of a thousand or million light years,
a difference of only a few seconds in the
arrival times on earth would only mean one
part in a zillion difference, or, the speed of
neutrinos is that of light to withing one
part in a zillion (that is my name for a number
too big for me to remember). But these
guys claim the difference is MUCH bigger than
that. so there is more confidence in the many
astrophysical observations rather than these
relatively short distance local ones.


----------



## GaryC (Dec 31, 2008)

I agree with somebody….completely!


----------



## Letorix (Jul 19, 2011)

Like I said Charlie, this announcement is a HUGE load of crap. 16k thousand observations in two years from one location of detectors? Give me a freaking break. Heads should roll and people fired, I'm all for this research. But this shakes my confidence in their credibility WAAAAAYYYYY TOOOO MUCH!


----------



## 280305 (Sep 28, 2008)

Charlie,

Thanks for passing that on. That is a strong argument.

Of course, we are dealing with the European Neutrino here, which is probably a faster subspecies .


----------



## Dennisgrosen (Nov 14, 2009)

thats why we european like our mancaves the development goes too fast to jump on 

Dennis


----------



## DMIHOMECENTER (Mar 5, 2011)

faster European Neutrino = smaller, lighter, and less drag from hair and/or robust appendages. ;=)

I concur.


----------



## Viktor (Jan 15, 2009)

Charlie, the problem with astrophysicists claim is that number of their observations is also small. So far the only confirmed direct measurement of neutrinos coming from a big event was supernova SN1987A. 24 (that is twenty four) particles have been detected (still a large peak over the background). The flux of neutrinos from the sun and other sources is continuous and not helpful in resolving light/neutrino speed question.
So far it is one shaky claim against another while we are watching and rubbing our hands with glee.


----------



## CharlieM1958 (Nov 7, 2006)

My only real interest in this is to determine if it is actually possible for someone to be so fast that he could flip off the bedrom light switch and get under the covers before it gets dark.


----------



## Viktor (Jan 15, 2009)

Instead of chasing that fancy fast European light, get yourself a slower Chinese knockoff.


----------



## GregD (Oct 24, 2009)

Geez, Charlie, just install "The Clapper" already.


----------



## Bertha (Jan 10, 2011)

Are these the same sensors that detect global warming?


----------



## patron (Apr 2, 2009)

maybe these guys 
are using low wattage bulbs

to read their meters by

so that light seems slower


----------



## GregD (Oct 24, 2009)

cr1 -

I can see that science and shamanism share some fundamental limitations. In both cases the practitioners are humans which are themselves limited in many ways. Nevertheless, the differences are profound.

*"Problem is Viktor that the popular thinking among most lay folk, especially of the secularist bent, is that they have in fact elevated what they imagine to be science to the status of a modern secularist deity."*

This practice isn't science. Seems to me to be more of a shamanism thing.

*"Yet they always started out with a hypothesis and a null hypothesis. 
Sounds like they started with a preconception or two to me."*

Whether or not it is science depends entirely on what happened *after* that. But I suspect you already know that.

I suppose you have a point somewhere, but I don't see it. As a research engineer, my one arrogance is the conclusion that the scientific method has (by far) the best chance (of all the alternatives that I know about) of producing the best possible understanding of the physical world that humans are capable of devising. Except for that my personal efforts to "do science" have been very humbling experiences. Overwhelmingly the results have been a deeper appreciation of what I don't know and what I cannot do. This also gives me a deeper appreciation of what *others* probably don't know, and what *others* probably cannot do. So in the end I'm happy to place *my* bet on what I understand to be science, especially if you are placing *your* bet on some other flavor of "shamanism".


----------



## Dennisgrosen (Nov 14, 2009)

what light ….. there is so dark here …. someone most have hit the switch to off long time ago :-(


----------



## patron (Apr 2, 2009)

stand in a field in a storm

and wait for lightning

take home the burning wood
(be sure to pick it up 
by the cold end)


----------



## Dennisgrosen (Nov 14, 2009)

thank you for the idea David 
just the right tip for a neanderthaler like me ….. lol

Dennis


----------



## PutnamEco (May 27, 2009)

Old news










via: Reddit


----------



## Letorix (Jul 19, 2011)

FYI Neutrons are in the center on an atom, neutrinos are the by product of destroying a neutron. It's been many years, not sure if a proton or electron contains one..but I know a neutron does.

These guys are bombarding particles like no tomorrow, the amount of info they collect is enormous. 16k obs is so freaking ridiculous in comparison to the number of 'events' and the fact they only one set of detectors recorded…is what makes it all nuts.

FYI neutrinos became a read for me 30 years ago, the fact they could pass through an earth size piece of lead effortlessly always stuck in my head.


----------



## DMIHOMECENTER (Mar 5, 2011)

I can neither turn on nor turn off my light switch by flipping it off. I tried. I really did.


----------



## patron (Apr 2, 2009)

i don't think there is a switch
you can flip the finger to
from across the room
(like the cousin
to the clapper)

topa may know

but i've been wrong before
(i just can't remember when)


----------



## littlecope (Oct 23, 2008)

This whole speed of light business leaves me in the dark…
If I understood Einstein correctly, his explanation for the inviolability of its speed was simple… Light is only our perception of events… and events happen in their own time…
Anything faster, and we would be viewing events before they occur… a preposterous notion, in the area of science fiction…
Einstein said that no law precludes traveling almost the speed of light however, and his theories abounded with what one would perceive traveling at such speeds…
Time is merely the order in which events occur, while time measurement is an entirely human invention, and very localized, being related only to our own planet's rotation and its orbit around our Sun… A very useful invention nonetheless!!
All of that, from a twelve year old dawdling on his way to school, observing a cart and a bicycle approaching an intersection… and wondering, what if???


----------



## patron (Apr 2, 2009)

as shakespeare would have asked

what is in the cart
and who is riding the bicycle

if you left toledo
walking at 2 mph
and i got on a bicycle
in houston
traveling at 10 mph

where is the intersection
where we meet

that is the question


----------



## littlecope (Oct 23, 2008)

As George Carlin observed,
When two planes nearly collide
it's called a "Near Miss" 
when in reality, it's a "Near Hit"!!


----------



## patron (Apr 2, 2009)

you have a point

why walk or ride a bike

when you can fly

and eat peanuts


----------



## littlecope (Oct 23, 2008)

David, have you been following the relatively new "String Theory"?
One part of me says that physicists have too much time on their hands, 
the other finds it fascinating…
Rope-a-Dope, I guess…
It doesn't much matter, in the workaday world… Does it?


----------



## patron (Apr 2, 2009)

i do know how to untangle cords and string
i used to get a quarter
for clearing fishing lines
for the guys 
so i could go to the saturday matinee

on a boat
you can tie off a line and throw it behind
the water will let it unwind
pull it in and undo any knots

just don't get it caught
in the propeller


----------



## CharlieM1958 (Nov 7, 2006)

*"I can neither turn on nor turn off my light switch by flipping it off. I tried. I really did."*

David: You must concentrate harder.


----------



## Roger Clark aka Rex (Dec 30, 2008)

Charlie:

And maybe not so flippant?


----------



## DMIHOMECENTER (Mar 5, 2011)

@patron, they would intersect at Texarkana (on the Texas side) just in front of Cattleman's steak house.


----------



## Viktor (Jan 15, 2009)

*"These guys are bombarding particles like no tomorrow, the amount of info they collect is enormous. 16k obs is so freaking ridiculous in comparison to the number of 'events' and the fact they only one set of detectors recorded…is what makes it all nuts."*

Letorix, what exactly is your problem with the 16k? Sure, more is better, but what do you think was the number of "events"? Do you have an idea of the efficiency of that detector? We are talking about neutrinos, right?


----------



## Grandpa (Jan 28, 2011)

Viktor, I just read the above post and I think you are looking at UFO's….LOL Not making fun but I have seen one and I couldn't explain what I saw. Was it impossible….well, I guess it wasn't if it happened was it? Good read anyway. BTW I have dust falling up in my shop all the time. Might be left by the UFO I guess.


----------



## GaryC (Dec 31, 2008)

David, the Cattlemans is on the Ark side. You'd be in front the Orr house on the Texas side.


----------



## patron (Apr 2, 2009)

that sounds expensive gary

i'll wait at the border

in the taco bell


----------



## DMIHOMECENTER (Mar 5, 2011)

@gary, my bad. An order of rooster fries on the house for you… ;=)


----------



## GaryC (Dec 31, 2008)

Naw…now so bad David. It's a car dealorship. And, better to go on down town to Zapadas if you want good mex food
Thanks for the offer David. Think I'll just stay home. Got pork loin cookin


----------



## Letorix (Jul 19, 2011)

Ummm Viktor, they're smashing the hell out of particles, marking those events, then going over the to data collected at the sensor and saying gee did we get any hits during any of our event time frames? Gee how about the other detectors around the world? Well gee we only have a hand full that match up if we do that, so we better just use the one that gives us the most. Oh and don't tell anyone but they marked those particular ones pink so they could tell they came from CERN, and not from any other locations….

So how does 16k become significant when dealing with millions or billions possible 10s or 100s of billions of events over 2 years plus all of the naturally generated neutrinos hitting those sensors? Its all BS just like when they announced they thought they found the Higgs particle.

It's so laughable, I mean really.


----------



## Letorix (Jul 19, 2011)

I thought magnetism was another word for lust.


----------



## roman (Sep 28, 2007)

the thought of the square root of a negative integer being possible is indeed intriguing to the least


----------



## DMIHOMECENTER (Mar 5, 2011)

no, Letorix, that's shagnetism.


----------



## Dennisgrosen (Nov 14, 2009)

want to know about magnetisme or all the other tismer thats confusing people 
when talking about magnetisme 
look at the link to wiki here then I´m sure you are confused after reading 
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magnetism

Dennis


----------



## CharlieM1958 (Nov 7, 2006)

I thought magnetism was the force responsible for sucking my cash into Lee Valley's bank account.


----------



## Roger Clark aka Rex (Dec 30, 2008)

Charlie,
It's an attractive subject for people who are poles apart.


----------



## CharlieM1958 (Nov 7, 2006)

Roger, please leave Polish people out of this. We don't need to get personal.


----------



## Dennisgrosen (Nov 14, 2009)

no Charlie that valletisme you thought of 

Dennis


----------



## Roger Clark aka Rex (Dec 30, 2008)

My oh My, so many new high tech words being here, most of which are Greek or Latin to me.
On Monday, at the hospital for my tests, the doc told me they even have a legal name for lesbianism. The medical term for it is Strapadictome.


----------



## GaryC (Dec 31, 2008)

Charlie, you must be holding out on your teenagers if you have money to support Lee Valley….lol


----------



## CharlieM1958 (Nov 7, 2006)

Gary, what used to be my teenagers are now 25 and 22, and EMPLOYED! Yippeeeeee!!!!!


----------



## DMIHOMECENTER (Mar 5, 2011)

++ for employed young adult of-spring


----------



## Roger Clark aka Rex (Dec 30, 2008)

Charlie,
But do they still live with you?


----------



## Letorix (Jul 19, 2011)

Roger I think you meant that her magnetism makes your compass point north, and surely you two aren't poles (plural) apart.


----------



## DMIHOMECENTER (Mar 5, 2011)

@Rex, The species is defined as Carpetae Munchus Lickalotopi


----------



## CharlieM1958 (Nov 7, 2006)

Roger, the oldest one (my son) still lives at home. But he's easy to live with, and comes in handy when I need to move something heavy.


----------



## Roger Clark aka Rex (Dec 30, 2008)

Charlie,
You are so lucky, I wish I had a billfold heavy enough to need two people to pick it up.


----------



## Den (Sep 1, 2009)

if a car was traveling at the speed of light and you turn on the headlights, would it do any good??? I just don't know…...


----------



## Dennisgrosen (Nov 14, 2009)

that´s a good one Den )

Dennis


----------



## DMIHOMECENTER (Mar 5, 2011)

The headlights would appear to be off. The tail lights, however would make little poot noises shining against the grain and all.


----------



## Dennisgrosen (Nov 14, 2009)

then we better travel in daylight then …...................


----------



## patron (Apr 2, 2009)

*The tail lights, however would make little poot noises *

i thought that was the music of the universe


----------

