3800 I *HEART* THE EVIL RUSSIANS

[itlnrob]

THEY WILL PREVAIL FOREVER

Click to read more...

 

[MrT]

On the other hand,
This suggests that
It appears that
Furthermore,
We will bring evidence in favor of the following thesis:
To provide a constituent structure for T(Z,K),
From C1, it follows that
For any transformation which is sufficiently diversified in application to be of any interest,
Analogously,
Clearly,
Note that
Of course,
Suppose, for instance, that
Thus
With this clarification,
Conversely,
We have already seen that
By combining adjunctions and certain deformations,
I suggested that these results would follow from the assumption that
If the position of the trace in (99c) were only relatively inaccessible to movement,
However, this assumption is not correct, since
Comparing these examples with their parasitic gap counterparts in (96) and (97), we see that
In the discussion of resumptive pronouns following (81),
So far,
Nevertheless,
For one thing,
Summarizing, then, we assume that
A consequence of the approach just outlined is that
Presumably,
On our assumptions,
It may be, then, that
It must be emphasized, once again, that
Let us continue to suppose that
Notice, incidentally, that """
# List of LEADINs to buy time.

 

[UncleRam]

Originally posted by itlnrob@Jan 3 2006, 04:07 PM
THEY WILL PREVAIL FOREVER

[snapback]109165[/snapback]​

THE SAME AS VLADIMIR VLADIMIROVICH DRACULASKY PUTIN, FORMER HEAD OF THE KGB NOW THE PRESIDENT OF RUSSIA, YOU MUST HAVE RUN OUT OF PROZAC, COMRADE itinrob.

 

[chipmonk212121]

Originally posted by MrT@Jan 3 2006, 05:12 PM
On the other hand,
    This suggests that
    It appears that
    Furthermore,
    We will bring evidence in favor of the following thesis:
    To provide a constituent structure for T(Z,K),
    From C1, it follows that
    For any transformation which is sufficiently diversified in application to be of any interest,
    Analogously,
    Clearly,
    Note that
    Of course,
    Suppose, for instance, that
    Thus
    With this clarification,
    Conversely,
    We have already seen that
    By combining adjunctions and certain deformations,
    I suggested that these results would follow from the assumption that
    If the position of the trace in (99c) were only relatively inaccessible to movement,
    However, this assumption is not correct, since
    Comparing these examples with their parasitic gap counterparts in (96) and (97), we see that
    In the discussion of resumptive pronouns following (81),
    So far,
    Nevertheless,
    For one thing,
    Summarizing, then, we assume that
    A consequence of the approach just outlined is that
    Presumably,
    On our assumptions,
    It may be, then, that
    It must be emphasized, once again, that
    Let us continue to suppose that
    Notice, incidentally, that """
# List of LEADINs to buy time.

[snapback]109175[/snapback]​

wtf?

 

[preussenGTP]

i dont have anything against the Russians...
maybe 'ram boy' should get himself a Russian mailorder bride! :lolsign:

 

[MrT]

Originally posted by chipmonk212121+Jan 3 2006, 04:21 PM-->

<!--QuoteBegin-MrT

@Jan 3 2006, 05:12 PM
On the other hand,
    This suggests that
    It appears that
    Furthermore,
    We will bring evidence in favor of the following thesis:
    To provide a constituent structure for T(Z,K),
    From C1, it follows that
    For any transformation which is sufficiently diversified in application to be of any interest,
    Analogously,
    Clearly,
    Note that
    Of course,
    Suppose, for instance, that
    Thus
    With this clarification,
    Conversely,
    We have already seen that
    By combining adjunctions and certain deformations,
    I suggested that these results would follow from the assumption that
    If the position of the trace in (99c) were only relatively inaccessible to movement,
    However, this assumption is not correct, since
    Comparing these examples with their parasitic gap counterparts in (96) and (97), we see that
    In the discussion of resumptive pronouns following (81),
    So far,
    Nevertheless,
    For one thing,
    Summarizing, then, we assume that
    A consequence of the approach just outlined is that
    Presumably,
    On our assumptions,
    It may be, then, that
    It must be emphasized, once again, that
    Let us continue to suppose that
    Notice, incidentally, that """
# List of LEADINs to buy time.

[snapback]109175[/snapback]​

wtf?

[snapback]109178[/snapback]​

[/b]

irrelevant intervening contexts in selectional rules.

 

[UncleRam]

Originally posted by preussenGTP@Jan 3 2006, 05:43 PM
i dont have anything against the Russians...
maybe 'ram boy' should get himself a Russian mailorder bride! :lolsign:

[snapback]109185[/snapback]​

IN YOUR CASE, YOUR BIGGEST ADVERSARY IS IN THE MIRROR.

 

[MrT]

Once upon a time, a worm crawled quickly across the park and beneath the wood . Suddenly, It gamboled mercilessly into the spaceship and across the space shuttle . Then, finally, We manoevered mercilessly along the fence and along the national trade deficit . And they all lived happily ever after. The end.

 

[dsk727]

how many of these stupid "I heart WI" or "I heart russians" threads do we need??? Quit feeding the troll known as Uncle Ram people...

 

[UncleRam]

Originally posted by dsk727@Jan 3 2006, 06:21 PM
how many of these stupid "I heart WI" or "I heart russians" threads do we need??? Quit feeding the troll known as Uncle Ram people...

[snapback]109198[/snapback]​

IT'S ANGEL TO YOU, NOT TROLL. BUT THEN AGAIN YOU DON'T SHOW ANY SELF-RESPECT FOR YOURSELF BY YOUR OWN SELF-DESCRIPTION. YOU SEEM PROUD OF DESCRIBING YOURSELF, AS SHALL WE SAY, A WOMAN THAT WOULD BE FAR LESS THAN PLEASANT.

 

[jk99gtp]

Originally posted by MrT@Jan 3 2006, 04:12 PM
On the other hand,
    This suggests that
    It appears that
    Furthermore,
    We will bring evidence in favor of the following thesis:
    To provide a constituent structure for T(Z,K),
    From C1, it follows that
    For any transformation which is sufficiently diversified in application to be of any interest,
    Analogously,
    Clearly,
    Note that
    Of course,
    Suppose, for instance, that
    Thus
    With this clarification,
    Conversely,
    We have already seen that
    By combining adjunctions and certain deformations,
    I suggested that these results would follow from the assumption that
    If the position of the trace in (99c) were only relatively inaccessible to movement,
    However, this assumption is not correct, since
    Comparing these examples with their parasitic gap counterparts in (96) and (97), we see that
    In the discussion of resumptive pronouns following (81),
    So far,
    Nevertheless,
    For one thing,
    Summarizing, then, we assume that
    A consequence of the approach just outlined is that
    Presumably,
    On our assumptions,
    It may be, then, that
    It must be emphasized, once again, that
    Let us continue to suppose that
    Notice, incidentally, that """
# List of LEADINs to buy time.

[snapback]109175[/snapback]​

I tend to agree to disagree on this theory. Here is what I think at least...

The acceleration due to gravity at the Earth's surface, denoted g, is a little under 10 m/s2 (metres per second squared). This means that, ignoring air resistance, an object falling freely near the earth's surface increases in speed by a little under 10 m/s (around 22 mph) for each second of its descent. Thus, an object starting from rest will attain a speed of 10 m/s after one second, 20 m/s after two seconds, and so on. In practice air resistance has an increasingly large effect at higher speeds, dramatically curtailing the actual speed of objects falling over larger distances. The earth itself experiences an equal and opposite force to that of the falling object, meaning that the earth also accelerates towards the object. However, because of the immense mass of the earth this acceleration is vanishingly small.
The Gravity Field and Steady-State Ocean Circulation Explorer project (GOCE) will measure high-accuracy gravity gradients and provide a global model of the Earth's gravity field and of the geoid. (ESA image)
Enlarge
The Gravity Field and Steady-State Ocean Circulation Explorer project (GOCE) will measure high-accuracy gravity gradients and provide a global model of the Earth's gravity field and of the geoid. (ESA image)

Precise values of g vary depending on the location on the Earth's surface. The standard acceleration due to gravity at the Earth's surface is, by definition, 9.80665 m/s2. This quantity is known variously as gn, ge (though this sometimes means the normal equatorial value on Earth, 9.78033 m/s²), g0, gee, or simply g (which is also used for the variable local value). The variation in gravitational strength per unit distance is measured in inverse seconds squared or in eotvoses, a cgs unit of gravitational gradient.

Non-gravitational acceleration of a roughly similar order of magnitude, such as is experienced in an aircraft or racing car, is often stated in multiples of g. When used as a measurement unit, the quantity is often called "gee", as g can be mistaken for g, the gram symbol.

Local variations in the strength of the Earth's gravity arise because the earth is not a perfect sphere and is not of uniform density. In particular, gravity is weaker at lower latitudes (i.e. nearer the equator). This is for two reasons: the earth's equatorial bulge, and the centrifugal force caused by the earth's rotation, which imparts an upwards force opposing gravity and diminishing its apparent effect. In combination, these effects mean that sea-level gravitational acceleration increases from 9.780 m/s² at the equator to 9.832 m/s² at the poles, so an object will weigh about 0.5% more at the poles than at the equator [1]. See Gee for further information.

Local variations in topography (such as the presence of mountains) and geology (the density of rocks in the vicinity) also influence the gravitional field to a small extent. In addition, the apparent strength of gravity is affected by the relative positions of the Moon and the Sun, whose gravitational effects (also the cause of the tides) can either augment or oppose that of the Earth. Typical variations are 2 µm/s² (0.2 mGal) over the course of a day.

Gravity decreases with altitude (since greater altitude means greater distance from the earth's centre). All other things being equal, an increase in altitude from sea level to the top of Mount Everest (8,850 metres) causes a weight decrease of about 0.28%. It is a common misconception that astronauts in orbit are weightless because they have flown high enough to "escape" the earth's gravity. In fact, at an altitude of 250 miles (roughly the height that the space shuttle flies) gravity is still nearly 90% as strong as at the earth's surface, and weightlessness actually occurs because orbiting objects are in free fall.

If the earth was of perfectly uniform composition then, during a descent to the centre of the earth, gravity would decrease linearly with distance, reaching zero at the centre. In reality, the gravitational field peaks within the Earth at the core-mantle boundary where it has a value of 10.7 m/s².

 

[ThaLord]

although there isn't anything bad per se in these threads.. they are a complete waste of bandwidth.. and they are annoying to all.. please refrain from making these posts... UNCLERAM, THIS MEANS YOU. Keep them to a real low roar.