|
ATOMS
Mar 30, 2013 0:55:19 GMT
Post by cheeesfreeex on Mar 30, 2013 0:55:19 GMT
I've never seen one. When I'm chopping wood I've never split one. I don't believe they exist. Anyone got any evidence to the contrary?
|
|
|
ATOMS
Mar 30, 2013 1:07:15 GMT
Post by Deleted on Mar 30, 2013 1:07:15 GMT
No I haven't , but I buy my specs off the market at £ 2 a go....
|
|
|
ATOMS
Mar 30, 2013 1:07:48 GMT
Post by Deleted on Mar 30, 2013 1:07:48 GMT
No I haven't , but I buy my specs off the market at £ 2 a go....
|
|
|
ATOMS
Mar 30, 2013 8:43:28 GMT
via mobile
Post by RichieBarkerOut! on Mar 30, 2013 8:43:28 GMT
I've never seen one. When I'm chopping wood I've never split one. I don't believe they exist. Anyone got any evidence to the contrary? You need a sharper axe.
|
|
|
ATOMS
Mar 30, 2013 11:08:16 GMT
Post by 828492 on Mar 30, 2013 11:08:16 GMT
I am a Tom.
|
|
|
ATOMS
Mar 30, 2013 16:38:25 GMT
Post by iglugluk on Mar 30, 2013 16:38:25 GMT
I've never seen you so , therefore you probably do not exist either and I'm just answering my own meta=self via the conduit of actively dreaming my own personal infinity. oh and Yes.......No.....probably......nothings real anyway, but you know that already due to the fact that you are really me, or maybe you're dreaming me.
|
|
|
ATOMS
Mar 30, 2013 16:41:12 GMT
Post by Okie Stokie. on Mar 30, 2013 16:41:12 GMT
I've never seen you so , therefore you probably do not exist either and I'm just answering my own meta=self via the conduit of actively dreaming my own personal infinity. oh and Yes.......No.....probably......nothings real anyway, but you know that already due to the fact that you are really me, or maybe you're dreaming me. WHAT. smiley-gen164 smiley-gen164
|
|
|
ATOMS
Mar 30, 2013 16:50:15 GMT
Post by iglugluk on Mar 30, 2013 16:50:15 GMT
I've never seen you so , therefore you probably do not exist either and I'm just answering my own meta=self via the conduit of actively dreaming my own personal infinity. oh and Yes.......No.....probably......nothings real anyway, but you know that already due to the fact that you are really me, or maybe you're dreaming me. WHAT. smiley-gen164 smiley-gen164 You know already deep inside 'cause I'm you too, or is it 3? smiley-face-thumb
|
|
|
ATOMS
Mar 30, 2013 17:14:41 GMT
Post by Okie Stokie. on Mar 30, 2013 17:14:41 GMT
WHAT. smiley-gen164 smiley-gen164 You know already deep inside 'cause I'm you too, or is it 3? smiley-face-thumb It could be The number 42.
|
|
|
ATOMS
Mar 30, 2013 17:20:02 GMT
Post by iglugluk on Mar 30, 2013 17:20:02 GMT
You know already deep inside 'cause I'm you too, or is it 3? smiley-face-thumb It could be The number 42. Ask the mice.
|
|
|
ATOMS
Mar 30, 2013 17:30:39 GMT
Post by Okie Stokie. on Mar 30, 2013 17:30:39 GMT
It could be The number 42. Ask the mice. I have They said Forty-two is a pronic number and an abundant number; its prime factorization 2 · 3 · 7 makes it the second sphenic number and also the second of the form { 2 · 3 · r }. As with all sphenic numbers of this form, the aliquot sum is abundant by 12. 42 is also the second sphenic number to be bracketed by twin primes; 30 is also a pronic number and also rests between two primes. 42 has a 14 member aliquot sequence 42, 54, 66, 78, 90, 144, 259, 45, 33, 15, 9, 4, 3, 1, 0 and is itself part of the aliquot sequence commencing with the first sphenic number 30. Further, 42 is the 10th member of the 3-aliquot tree. It is the third primary pseudoperfect number.
|
|
|
ATOMS
Mar 30, 2013 18:20:40 GMT
Post by iglugluk on Mar 30, 2013 18:20:40 GMT
I have They said Forty-two is a pronic number and an abundant number; its prime factorization 2 · 3 · 7 makes it the second sphenic number and also the second of the form { 2 · 3 · r }. As with all sphenic numbers of this form, the aliquot sum is abundant by 12. 42 is also the second sphenic number to be bracketed by twin primes; 30 is also a pronic number and also rests between two primes. 42 has a 14 member aliquot sequence 42, 54, 66, 78, 90, 144, 259, 45, 33, 15, 9, 4, 3, 1, 0 and is itself part of the aliquot sequence commencing with the first sphenic number 30. Further, 42 is the 10th member of the 3-aliquot tree. It is the third primary pseudoperfect number. Good stuff...... God is a mathematician afterall. Mice are notoriously unreliable, however th_tumbleweed
|
|
|
ATOMS
Mar 30, 2013 21:26:00 GMT
Post by cheeesfreeex on Mar 30, 2013 21:26:00 GMT
tHANKYOU GENTLEMAN, NOT THAT ANY OF THAT HELPS, in any way... but at least the cogs are going around, and there is an indefinable beauty in sums.... more evidence.. I can see through air, {usually}, if it's maDe of stuff, how on earth does that werk.?
|
|
|
ATOMS
Mar 30, 2013 21:30:17 GMT
Post by cheeesfreeex on Mar 30, 2013 21:30:17 GMT
dee why by dee ex.
|
|
|
ATOMS
Mar 30, 2013 21:44:10 GMT
Post by Deleted on Mar 30, 2013 21:44:10 GMT
I have They said Forty-two is a pronic number and an abundant number; its prime factorization 2 · 3 · 7 makes it the second sphenic number and also the second of the form { 2 · 3 · r }. As with all sphenic numbers of this form, the aliquot sum is abundant by 12. 42 is also the second sphenic number to be bracketed by twin primes; 30 is also a pronic number and also rests between two primes. 42 has a 14 member aliquot sequence 42, 54, 66, 78, 90, 144, 259, 45, 33, 15, 9, 4, 3, 1, 0 and is itself part of the aliquot sequence commencing with the first sphenic number 30. Further, 42 is the 10th member of the 3-aliquot tree. It is the third primary pseudoperfect number. It's just a case of oblong numbers basically isn't. It
|
|
|
ATOMS
Mar 30, 2013 22:00:32 GMT
Post by Okie Stokie. on Mar 30, 2013 22:00:32 GMT
I have They said Forty-two is a pronic number and an abundant number; its prime factorization 2 · 3 · 7 makes it the second sphenic number and also the second of the form { 2 · 3 · r }. As with all sphenic numbers of this form, the aliquot sum is abundant by 12. 42 is also the second sphenic number to be bracketed by twin primes; 30 is also a pronic number and also rests between two primes. 42 has a 14 member aliquot sequence 42, 54, 66, 78, 90, 144, 259, 45, 33, 15, 9, 4, 3, 1, 0 and is itself part of the aliquot sequence commencing with the first sphenic number 30. Further, 42 is the 10th member of the 3-aliquot tree. It is the third primary pseudoperfect number. It's just a case of oblong numbers basically isn't. It Yes Bispham,These numbers are sometimes called oblong because they are analogous to polygonal numbers in this way:
|
|
|
ATOMS
Mar 30, 2013 23:11:36 GMT
Post by Deleted on Mar 30, 2013 23:11:36 GMT
It's just a case of oblong numbers basically isn't. It Yes Bispham,These numbers are sometimes called oblong because they are analogous to polygonal numbers in this way: You may be surprised to know .....that I knew that ! smiley-face-thumb
|
|
|
ATOMS
Mar 31, 2013 0:13:40 GMT
Post by Okie Stokie. on Mar 31, 2013 0:13:40 GMT
Yes Bispham,These numbers are sometimes called oblong because they are analogous to polygonal numbers in this way: You may be surprised to know .....that I knew that ! smiley-face-thumb I am not surprised at all. smiley-face-thumb
|
|
|
ATOMS
Mar 31, 2013 0:20:33 GMT
Post by Deleted on Mar 31, 2013 0:20:33 GMT
You may be surprised to know .....that I knew that ! smiley-face-thumb I am not surprised at all. smiley-face-thumb I don't know how to take that !
|
|
|
ATOMS
Mar 31, 2013 0:28:34 GMT
Post by cheeesfreeex on Mar 31, 2013 0:28:34 GMT
It doesn't seem like we've solved one of life's great imponderables just yet, though there has been a fantastic utilization of smileys... Not really evidence, more a question: what do ATOMS taste of, if they are real? I am genuinely trying to collect evidence for the prosecution. summat to do with the final reckoning and that...
|
|
|
ATOMS
Mar 31, 2013 0:44:46 GMT
Post by Okie Stokie. on Mar 31, 2013 0:44:46 GMT
It doesn't seem like we've solved one of life's great imponderables just yet, though there has been a fantastic utilization of smilies... Not really evidence, more a question: what do ATOMS taste of, if they are real? I am genuinely trying to collect evidence for the prosecution. summat to do with the final reckoning and that... I supposed they taste A bit like CHICKEN. 39
|
|
|
ATOMS
Mar 31, 2013 10:21:18 GMT
Post by jonah77 on Mar 31, 2013 10:21:18 GMT
It doesn't seem like we've solved one of life's great imponderables just yet, though there has been a fantastic utilization of smilies... Not really evidence, more a question: what do ATOMS taste of, if they are real? I am genuinely trying to collect evidence for the prosecution. summat to do with the final reckoning and that... I supposed they taste A bit like CHICKEN. 39 It's pork,actually.
|
|
|
ATOMS
Apr 1, 2013 0:06:41 GMT
Post by cheeesfreeex on Apr 1, 2013 0:06:41 GMT
With it being Easter and that I had a bird within a bird within a bird within a bird within a bird within a bird within a bird earlier. Still contemplating the relevance.
|
|
|
ATOMS
Apr 1, 2013 0:09:23 GMT
Post by Deleted on Apr 1, 2013 0:09:23 GMT
With it being Easter and that I had a bird within a bird within a bird within a bird within a bird within a bird within a bird earlier. Still contemplating the relevance. There isn't any really ? That type of roast is more suited to the game season and Christmas
|
|
|
ATOMS
Apr 1, 2013 0:16:51 GMT
Post by Okie Stokie. on Apr 1, 2013 0:16:51 GMT
I haven't got a pair ATOMS but I have got a pair of CONVERSE If that's ok.
|
|
|
ATOMS
Apr 1, 2013 0:27:00 GMT
Post by cheeesfreeex on Apr 1, 2013 0:27:00 GMT
Goldcrest to Cormorant. fill in the gaps..... seasonal bird.
only a ruse to keep me from spouting nogger...
|
|
|
ATOMS
Apr 1, 2013 0:31:28 GMT
Post by Deleted on Apr 1, 2013 0:31:28 GMT
Goldcrest to Cormorant. fill in the gaps..... seasonal bird. only a ruse to keep me from spouting nogger... Anything is better than that at the moment mate ....
|
|
|
ATOMS
Apr 1, 2013 22:28:48 GMT
Post by cheeesfreeex on Apr 1, 2013 22:28:48 GMT
A~T~OM~~~~~S. god damn you. Unfortunately the thirst for knowledge only complicates matter. Some clever type said earlier that 'light' isn't made of atoms, I'm lost.
|
|
|
ATOMS
Apr 2, 2013 10:12:14 GMT
Post by Okie Stokie. on Apr 2, 2013 10:12:14 GMT
|
|
|
ATOMS
Apr 2, 2013 22:36:03 GMT
Post by cheeesfreeex on Apr 2, 2013 22:36:03 GMT
Thanks for that, I havn't bothered following up that link, partly because I can't get them things to work on me computah, and partly because I presumed you were trying to link me to the Coxchild.. I believe in ATOMS more than I believe in that supercilious smug shite. Thanks anyway.. TV shows aren't admissable as evidence are they? Even if you use up the BBC budget travelling across the known globe to prove your point. Things can only get better. Apparently. Tight atom denier.
|
|