Isolated BDSM Blurts - Roosters are Vicious

  • Thread starter La damnee elle la licorne
  • Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
It's time for some quiet sitting.

It has been said that Abraham Lincoln was once constipated for nearly two months.* You're in good company.


*There is no actual written record of either the constipation or the report of it. This is just a test of your ability to laugh at something completely senseless. Congratulations, you passed.
 
It has been said that Abraham Lincoln was once constipated for nearly two months.* You're in good company.


*There is no actual written record of either the constipation or the report of it. This is just a test of your ability to laugh at something completely senseless. Congratulations, you passed.

At least I passed something. #stillconstipated
 
At least I passed something. #stillconstipated


I hate to admit this but I'm becoming a pro at "manual extraction." I could give you a few, umm, tips.

It's too bad the husband and I were never in to the darker side of bathroom play. Our dreams would be fulfilled.
 
Not that anyone will care, but I'm not actually constipated. I was just being a good improv partner and running with the scenario mwy created. Thank you for your concern though, cookie and Far.
 
Not that anyone will care, but I'm not actually constipated. I was just being a good improv partner and running with the scenario mwy created. Thank you for your concern though, cookie and Far.

*doffs gloves and throws lube across the room*

You Party Pooper.
 
Not that anyone will care, but I'm not actually constipated. I was just being a good improv partner and running with the scenario mwy created. Thank you for your concern though, cookie and Far.

*doffs gloves and throws lube across the room*

You Party Pooper.

Whaaaaat? Ya little stinker.

*grabs lube mid-air, tosses it in purse*

(WTF is a quiet sitting)
 
Not that anyone will care, but I'm not actually constipated. I was just being a good improv partner and running with the scenario mwy created. Thank you for your concern though, cookie and Far.

So, you're saying I was pissing into the wind?
 
Well. No more of that, then. I may feel foolish temporarily, but I won't continue on that path.
 
My eyes aren't red this morning! And I think I drew on a decent eyebrow. They do look a little like I only had three hours sleep, which is pretty accurate. Right, I have my battledress on......I will meet this call to arms. Sunglasses down and quick March....

I've recently learned that the key to battle red everything in photos is black and white filter. Now I'm hoping for some kind of reverse enhanced reality that would allow you to turn your face black and white for all the people who see you. Oh wait, that's what make up is for. Kinda.

Have a nice battle. :)
 
It always puzzles me when I see a line of cars queuing to get into a full car park. I can't imagine having so much time that I could afford to waste it in such a pointless way :confused:
 
My eyes aren't red this morning! And I think I drew on a decent eyebrow. They do look a little like I only had three hours sleep, which is pretty accurate. Right, I have my battledress on......I will meet this call to arms. Sunglasses down and quick March....

Hoping for the best. :rose:
 
I don't know where now, but I seem to recall the most outlandish part of quantum theory as it was described to me was that observation had a real physical impact on the world at the quantum level... hence whether or not the cat's status can be determined from outside the box is as irrelevant to the experiment as whether or not the cat's status can be determined from the next state over; there is observation taking place inside the box, thus no superposition can exist, or else the scientist's own observation is irrelevant, and no superposition physically occurs ever.... or... if you're in to solipsism, there is only one observation that is relevant, and until THAT person observes it, the mere existence of the entire experiment is in superposition.

Perhaps it was poorly described to me, but if it's all only relevant to the mind of the experimenter; it sounds more like philosophy than science.

Another flaw of the premise; that there are no tests which could be done from outside the box, to ascertain whether or not the cat is alive or dead at any given moment. There's a pretty simple test; time. In the short term, you could say for certain that the cat is in fact dead by monitoring airflow. Spend enough time monitoring the airflow around the outside of the box, ascertaining that there is in fact no airflow in or out of the box. If there is airflow, one can test the chemical contents (the smell). If not; the likelyhood of the cat being alive rapidly approaches zero based on the size of the box. There again; describing the experiment using a living creature flaws the whole premise of the experiment, making the odds of it being alive not random, but on a probability curve that eventually reaches certainty.

As I said before; it's all better described as a coin flipped in the dark. Only a physicist would convolute it with a small goldsberg device just to wave away other physicists arguments about the randomness of the coin toss. Remove the cat and make it simply a question of whether or not the hammer triggered by the isotope has broken the vial of poison...

What I found really interesting though was the paradox that arises from the meta-superposition, that if the cat is dead, the broken/unbroken vial exists in superposition, but if not, then the cat has observed that it is not broken... I suppose there's the argument that it would be broken before the cat's death, the cat observes it breaking, it's superposition collapses before the cat dies, assuming the cat didn't die for some other reason before the vial was broken.

separate thought.... is the quantum superposition something that ONLY happens at the subatomic level? Ultimately flawing any attempt to put it in laymans terms by describing anything bigger?

In bold - Yes. Which is why I'm sure that using large objects to describe quantum processes must be wholly analogous. E.g that the cat or the coin doesn't refer to actual physical cats or coins, but represents something on a quantum level. In the case it would be the superposition of any given atom. (cat = atom, alive or dead = potential superpositions).

I remember a line from a mini documentary I watched on BBC about electrons a while ago and they said something along the lines of "To understand anything about quantum physics you basically have to completely disregard your entire expectations of how reality 'works'", and it's established that physics works differently on quantum- and macro- scales so it's probably safe to assume that quantum physics breaks down when it comes to large objects.
 
I remember a line from a mini documentary I watched on BBC about electrons a while ago and they said something along the lines of "To understand anything about quantum physics you basically have to completely disregard your entire expectations of how reality 'works'", and it's established that physics works differently on quantum- and macro- scales so it's probably safe to assume that quantum physics breaks down when it comes to large objects.


The problem is actually not "reality", but our perception of reality within a three-dimensional space. Quantum behavior makes no sense in a three-dimensional space, where two quantums are separated in three-dimensional space, but behave like they are not. Once you take more than three dimensions into account, everything starts to fit together, including why the fuck time can be relative.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top