 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
Natural Science Forum / Physics / Relativity / November 2006What does the theory of relativity say about our sex-lives???
Does it mean that a larger cock, with more mass will affect timespace more than a tiny microcock? Therefore, a man with a larger cock can satisfy his sex-partner better, because the cock with more mass will affect timespace more and time will pass more slowly than with the microcock. That may explain a lot of sexual problems. Do you have problems ? There are elongation possibilities now ! > Does it mean that a larger cock, with more mass will affect > timespace more than a tiny microcock? [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > That may explain a lot of sexual problems. > Therefore, a man with a larger cock can satisfy his sex-partner > better, because the cock with more mass will affect timespace > more and time will pass more slowly than with the microcock. An extremely fat and/or dense guy will curve spacetime better. ---Tim Shuba--- Tim It is fun to watch this weasel twisting in the wind: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Contributions&target=Harald88 He's trying his darnest to put his spin on relativity. Luckily there are quite a few that slap him around. Need some more help flushing him out of wiki. Thanks > Does it mean that a larger cock, with more mass will affect > timespace more than a tiny microcock? [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > That may explain a lot of sexual problems. Relativity is about space and time. So if you want to get into a girls "special place" then you'll have to wait a large amount of time (more than 10 minutes). :) Pete | > Does it mean that a larger cock, with more mass will affect | > timespace more than a tiny microcock? [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] | | Pete How unpleasant you are, hypocrite Brown the peter. Too "unfare" to discuss this: http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/DominoEffect.GIF and enough time to waste on sexual innuendo. > How unpleasant you are, hypocrite Brown the peter. > Too "unfare" to discuss this: > http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/DominoEffect.GIF > and enough time to waste on sexual innuendo. I see that I didn't get something through to you. Very well. Here it is. Under no circumstances will you be able to entice me into a flame war by insulting me and due to your past and current use of insults and flaming there are no conditions that will entie me into discussing physics. Therefore let it be known that there are no circumstances that will cause me to post a message to androcles. Best wishes androcles Pete | > How unpleasant you are, hypocrite Brown the peter. | > Too "unfare" to discuss this: [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] | | Pete How unpleasant you are, flaming hypocritical illiterate coward. >> How unpleasant you are, hypocrite Brown the peter. Too "unfare" to >> discuss this: [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > Therefore let it be known that there are no circumstances that will cause > me to post a message to androcles. You know, he's not gonna believe that until you actually stop responding to his posts. Incidentally, Pete, you might want to get in the habit of looking at what groups you're cross-posting into when you reply to some of the goofier messages in this newsgroup. Your comment about girls was cross-posted to alt.recipes.babies, where I doubt it was on-topic. Zagmoon's idea of humor is apparently kind of toxic. BTW there's a missing subscript in the text in the above gif, thus rendering it totally nonsensical.  SignatureNospam becomes physicsinsights to fix the email I can be also contacted through http://www.physicsinsights.org > You know, he's not gonna believe that until you actually stop responding > to his posts. That was one last and final post and that was for me to make sure that whomever is reading that I'm stating a solid intention never to read or respond to androcles again. It's pretty much a fact that he ignores those but I'm okay with God at this point. :) > Incidentally, Pete, you might want to get in the habit of looking at what > groups you're cross-posting into when you reply to some of the goofier > messages in this newsgroup. Your comment about girls was cross-posted to > alt.recipes.babies, where I doubt it was on-topic. Zagmoon's idea of > humor is apparently kind of toxic. Ouch! Sorry folks. I had no idea. There is nothing in Google that I've seen yet which tells me which other groups this is going to. I will try to get Outlook Express Newsgroups working at which time I can see these things. > BTW there's a missing subscript in the text in the above gif, thus > rendering it totally nonsensical. Actually I was simply being a wiseass for a group laugh. I guess I shouldn't do that again when it comes to politically incorrect topics. Best wishes and thanks for the heads up sal. Pete > Does it mean that a larger cock, with more mass will affect > timespace more than a tiny microcock? [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > That may explain a lot of sexual problems. "Relativity" originally meant the social relationship between men and women, so you could be right. Social intercourse, y'know. |
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2009 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.