Jump to content
CUNTS CORNER TWITTER ACCOUNT ID @CuntsCorner ×
Donations towards site upkeep will be thankfully received and faithfully applied....

New year's Eve TV programmes


Guest

Recommended Posts

Guest Snatch
2 minutes ago, Roadkill said:

We were discussing a mutually interesting topic. Voyager is one of my favourite things to talk about. After Chernobyl and Fukushima.

Fucking riveting topic Chernobyl

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Snatch
53 minutes ago, Roadkill said:

I think so. Did you know they still used the other reactors in the plant till the mid 2000's? Even after there was a fire in another containment building.

Really? Bastards.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Cuntybaws said:

I think that Gary Seven and TMA-1 have a lot to answer for. You surely don't believe this load of old bollocks?

I don't know who or what either of those things are. I'm not saying it's a legit thing I was just hoping for your opinion on it. "Load of old bollocks" is as good an answer as any.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, Alfie Noakes said:

Zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz! Sorry drifted off there RK, that was like skinning the hull of the Titanic, rivetting.

Graphite tips on the control rods caused a spike in temperature when they made contact with the already boiling water in the reactor, but it was also the fact that they'd removed the rods far past safe levels before starting the test, allowing water into the channels where the rods should have gone. This caused massive pressure build up in areas of the reactor that were never designed to take such stress and meant the shell of the reactor couldn't hold together.

It's a good thing the japs build better reactors than the Soviets. Their only problem at Fukushima was that they didn't build a good enough venting system, so when the reactor got too hot thanks to a power failure (of all things) the roof of the containment building was blown clean off exposing the bare surface of the luckily still intact reactor.

 

Crazy, eh?

Steely Dan isn't the only one who can write big.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Extremecunt
2 hours ago, Roadkill said:

What have you figured out, Ex?

Think I may be getting murdered today no joke. I stumbled upon your group by accident. But I see my adjacent world now. My mind is fucked now. Arrest at 9am ? How did you fuck the world so bad? I understand your TV programming also. Guess you all won't accept an apology.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Lady Penelope
51 minutes ago, Extremecunt said:

Think I may be getting murdered today no joke. I stumbled upon your group by accident. But I see my adjacent world now. My mind is fucked now. Arrest at 9am ? How did you fuck the world so bad? I understand your TV programming also. Guess you all won't accept an apology.

Good .. now fuck off and die.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Alfie Noakes
5 hours ago, Roadkill said:

Graphite tips on the control rods caused a spike in temperature when they made contact with the already boiling water in the reactor, but it was also the fact that they'd removed the rods far past safe levels before starting the test, allowing water into the channels where the rods should have gone. This caused massive pressure build up in areas of the reactor that were never designed to take such stress and meant the shell of the reactor couldn't hold together.

It's a good thing the japs build better reactors than the Soviets. Their only problem at Fukushima was that they didn't build a good enough venting system, so when the reactor got too hot thanks to a power failure (of all things) the roof of the containment building was blown clean off exposing the bare surface of the luckily still intact reactor.

 

Crazy, eh?

Steely Dan isn't the only one who can write big.

Roadkill may I just answer you here?  

We live in a wonderfully complex universe, and we are curious about it by nature. Time and again we have wondered--- why are we here? Where did we and the world come from? What is the world made of? It is our privilege to live in a time when enormous progress has been made towards finding some of the answers. String theory is our most recent attempt to answer the last (and part of the second) question.

So, what is the world made of? Ordinary matter is made of atoms, which are in turn made of just three basic components: electrons whirling around a nucleus composed of neutrons and protons. The electron is a truly fundamental particle (it is one of a family of particles known as leptons), but neutrons and protons are made of smaller particles, known as quarks. Quarks are, as far as we know, truly elementary.

Our current knowledge about the subatomic composition of the universe is summarized in what is known as the Standard Model of particle physics. It describes both the fundamental building blocks out of which the world is made, and the forces through which these blocks interact. There are twelve basic building blocks. Six of these are quarks--- they go by the interesting names of up, down, charm, strange, bottom and top. (A proton, for instance, is made of two up quarks and one down quark.) The other six are leptons--- these include the electron and its two heavier siblings, the muon and the tauon, as well as three neutrinos.

There are four fundamental forces in the universe: gravity, electromagnetism, and the weak and strong nuclear forces. Each of these is produced by fundamental particles that act as carriers of the force. The most familiar of these is the photon, a particle of light, which is the mediator of electromagnetic forces. (This means that, for instance, a magnet attracts a nail because both objects exchange photons.) The graviton is the particle associated with gravity. The strong force is carried by eight particles known as gluons. Finally, the weak force is transmitted by three particles, the W+, the W- , and the Z.

The behavior of all of these particles and forces is described with impeccable precision by the Standard Model, with one notable exception: gravity. For technical reasons, the gravitational force, the most familiar in our every day lives, has proven very difficult to describe microscopically. This has been for many years one of the most important problems in theoretical physics-- to formulate a quantum theory of gravity.

In the last few decades, string theory has emerged as the most promising candidate for a microscopic theory of gravity. And it is infinitely more ambitious than that: it attempts to provide a complete, unified, and consistent description of the fundamental structure of our universe. (For this reason it is sometimes, quite arrogantly, called a 'Theory of Everything').

The essential idea behind string theory is this: all of the different 'fundamental ' particles of the Standard Model are really just different manifestations of one basic object: a string. How can that be? Well, we would ordinarily picture an electron, for instance, as a point with no internal structure. A point cannot do anything but move. But, if string theory is correct, then under an extremely powerful 'microscope' we would realize that the electron is not really a point, but a tiny loop of string. A string can do something aside from moving--- it can oscillate in different ways. If it oscillates a certain way, then from a distance, unable to tell it is really a string, we see an electron. But if it oscillates some other way, well, then we call it a photon, or a quark, or a ... you get the idea. So, if string theory is correct, the entire world is made of strings!

Perhaps the most remarkable thing about string theory is that such a simple idea works--- it is possible to derive (an extension of) the Standard Model (which has been verified experimentally with incredible precision) from a theory of strings. But it should also be said that, to date, there is no direct experimental evidence that string theory itself is the correct description of Nature. This is mostly due to the fact that string theory is still under development. We know bits and pieces of it, but we do not yet see the whole picture, and we are therefore unable to make definite predictions. In recent years many exciting developments have taken place, radically improving our understanding of what the theory is.

 

Anyone can write big Rk if it is a cut and paste, rehashed or edited.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Extremecunt
11 minutes ago, Alfie Noakes said:

Roadkill may I just answer you here?  

We live in a wonderfully complex universe, and we are curious about it by nature. Time and again we have wondered--- why are we here? Where did we and the world come from? What is the world made of? It is our privilege to live in a time when enormous progress has been made towards finding some of the answers. String theory is our most recent attempt to answer the last (and part of the second) question.

So, what is the world made of? Ordinary matter is made of atoms, which are in turn made of just three basic components: electrons whirling around a nucleus composed of neutrons and protons. The electron is a truly fundamental particle (it is one of a family of particles known as leptons), but neutrons and protons are made of smaller particles, known as quarks. Quarks are, as far as we know, truly elementary.

Our current knowledge about the subatomic composition of the universe is summarized in what is known as the Standard Model of particle physics. It describes both the fundamental building blocks out of which the world is made, and the forces through which these blocks interact. There are twelve basic building blocks. Six of these are quarks--- they go by the interesting names of up, down, charm, strange, bottom and top. (A proton, for instance, is made of two up quarks and one down quark.) The other six are leptons--- these include the electron and its two heavier siblings, the muon and the tauon, as well as three neutrinos.

There are four fundamental forces in the universe: gravity, electromagnetism, and the weak and strong nuclear forces. Each of these is produced by fundamental particles that act as carriers of the force. The most familiar of these is the photon, a particle of light, which is the mediator of electromagnetic forces. (This means that, for instance, a magnet attracts a nail because both objects exchange photons.) The graviton is the particle associated with gravity. The strong force is carried by eight particles known as gluons. Finally, the weak force is transmitted by three particles, the W+, the W- , and the Z.

The behavior of all of these particles and forces is described with impeccable precision by the Standard Model, with one notable exception: gravity. For technical reasons, the gravitational force, the most familiar in our every day lives, has proven very difficult to describe microscopically. This has been for many years one of the most important problems in theoretical physics-- to formulate a quantum theory of gravity.

In the last few decades, string theory has emerged as the most promising candidate for a microscopic theory of gravity. And it is infinitely more ambitious than that: it attempts to provide a complete, unified, and consistent description of the fundamental structure of our universe. (For this reason it is sometimes, quite arrogantly, called a 'Theory of Everything').

The essential idea behind string theory is this: all of the different 'fundamental ' particles of the Standard Model are really just different manifestations of one basic object: a string. How can that be? Well, we would ordinarily picture an electron, for instance, as a point with no internal structure. A point cannot do anything but move. But, if string theory is correct, then under an extremely powerful 'microscope' we would realize that the electron is not really a point, but a tiny loop of string. A string can do something aside from moving--- it can oscillate in different ways. If it oscillates a certain way, then from a distance, unable to tell it is really a string, we see an electron. But if it oscillates some other way, well, then we call it a photon, or a quark, or a ... you get the idea. So, if string theory is correct, the entire world is made of strings!

Perhaps the most remarkable thing about string theory is that such a simple idea works--- it is possible to derive (an extension of) the Standard Model (which has been verified experimentally with incredible precision) from a theory of strings. But it should also be said that, to date, there is no direct experimental evidence that string theory itself is the correct description of Nature. This is mostly due to the fact that string theory is still under development. We know bits and pieces of it, but we do not yet see the whole picture, and we are therefore unable to make definite predictions. In recent years many exciting developments have taken place, radically improving our understanding of what the theory is.

 

Anyone can write big Rk if it is a cut and paste, rehashed or edited.

Guessing your almost here. That one mind boggled me in a mobile nucleur kind of way. I just need I little more help to understand.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Alfie Noakes
12 minutes ago, Extremecunt said:

Guessing your almost here. That one mind boggled me in a mobile nucleur kind of way. I just need I little more help to understand.

It is a hugely mind boggling subject that could mean that if everything is oscillating between states then punkape is oscillating between being a complete twat and a total cunt.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

26 minutes ago, Alfie Noakes said:

It is a hugely mind boggling subject that could mean that if everything is oscillating between states then punkape is oscillating between being a complete twat and a total cunt.

Hello Peasant.

I'm off to play golf at one of my elite clubs shortly.

I play at the sort of club you will never get asked to join or be a member of.I'm going to the West Indies soon to play golf and I'll let you know how I get on.

In the meantime I hope you contract cholera and measles to go with your existing Aquired Immune Deficiency Syndrome.

 

 

lol.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Lady Penelope
34 minutes ago, Extremecunt said:

Guessing your almost here. That one mind boggled me in a mobile nucleur kind of way. I just need I little more help to understand.

FUCK OFF

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Lady Penelope
Just now, Punkape said:

Hello Peasant.

I'm off to play golf at one of my elite clubs shortly.

I play at the sort of club you will never get asked to join or be a member of.I'm going to the West Indies soon to play golf and I'll let you know how I get on.

In the meantime I hope you contract cholera and measles to go with your existing Aquired Immune deficiency syndrome.

 

 

lol.

FUCK OFF

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...