ive heard a few different theories on blueballs...... a lot of them from idiots, lol. what is it exactly?
208187
Blue balls is when you don't get sex for awhile and your old lady is refusing to give up the goods!
99224
How does anyone believe that stuff?  That's like saying you can't think after eating or you'll pass out from lack of blood to the brain.  It's just a rumor the swimming pool owners started so people won't pee in the pool.
12349
actually they do not care at all if you believe it or not, they are just highly intelligent people who are using rational evidence to make theories.  i will share with you the most compelling piece of evidence which proves beyond any doubt that the universe is expanding.  and if the universe is expanding... well, it had to start somewhere right? it's just a logical conclusion formulated and agreed upon by very intelligent people, and they didnt just pull it out of their butts.\n\nso here is how we know the universe is expanding: the doppler effect. This is an effect observed with waves, most observably with sound and light waves. Basically, it says that waves moving toward you have a shorter wavelength, and waves moving away from you have a longer wavelength. \n(  (  (  (x)))) -->\nKind of like that, the waves are closer together at the front, kind of like they are being bunched up, they are staying closer to the object(x) since it is moving and getting closer to them. This is the Doppler effect. With sound waves, this effect means that coming toward you, sound waves have a shorter wavelength(notice that the distance between each wave is shorter) and a higher frequency(notice that more waves would pass a given point per second since they're closer together) the formula is v=fw where v is velocity, f is frequency and w is wavelength; as you can see, since v is constant(the speed of light) f and w are inversely proportional so when one goes up, the other goes down. This higher frequency results in a higher pitch of the sound. This has been easily observed with sound.  this means that the waves coming from an object moving away from you has a lower frequency.\n\nWhen dealing with light, these differences in wavelentgh and frequency actually leads to a change in color, because the different colors just correspond to different wavelengths of light.(speeds must be very high to observe these changes) When an object is moving toward us, the wavelength is shorter and the frequency is higher, so we observe a "blue shift" because blue has the highest frequency, and when an object is moving farther away, the frequency is lower and wavelenth is longer, so we observe a "red shift," since red has the highest frequency(lowest wavelength, it looks longer, see the 'diagram' i tried to represent above...) \n\nWell, we currently observe a red shift in other stars using strong telescopes, meaning that everything in any direction is getting farther and farther away from us and therefore, the universe is expanding.\n\ni hope i gave you some insight into some of the observations that are made before such a theory is created.  science has much evidence, which is why it is supported by so many intelligent people. scientists are very skeptical and will not believe anything unless proper evidence is presented to them, and even then will not really believe it, just admit that it may have happened that way. like the big bang theory, we didn't say "this is what happened, deal with it", we say "hey, it seems from the evidence that this is a possibility and makes a lot of sense... but it's still just a theory."
178639
That's the problem with the evolutionist's "theory" they say,"It was there and it exploded"No. Noooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo! Have u heard of Intelligent design? Yea most of it is "religious" but see, the word "Creation" means the making from nothing" so u can easily say that God created the universe.It's easy to believe since no scientific evidence is needed.If the bang did come about, why do planets spin in opposite directions? Look in the conservation of angular momentum. I'm not trying to make u christian, but i'm glad u see a flaw in,these theories of the bang, no one was around at the time to know, so how could they be right? I'm glad u asked. My name is Tyler from Kearney, Ne E-mail me @ meatballofall@yahoo.com if u have more to ask or want to know more.
597399
lol\nThat's a good one.\nNice theory.\n☺
120127
To be honest I'm really not sure.  I'll have to pay attention next time.  \n\nI would be interested in hearing about your theory!
9154
The exact nature of the ball lightning is still unknown. Some UFO enthusiasts, however, believe them to be some kind of intelligence or come from some kind of intelligence.
523657
I agree with the previous post-I thought I could pull this one right out and I can't find a thing - though still looking.\n\nI am still looking on this....damn it must be some high government secrect...\n\nI have found out that while he was dying - he suffered greatly.\n\nok keep looking , i am getting booted out of the pc room but I wish you luck...if you ever do find out please email me and let me know at MY USER NAME at yahoo.com\n\nthanks,\n\nI really dont' know what it says - it just know that Leiden means sorrow or anguish, I know what his grave site said, how many kids he had, who studied under him, but not that he tripped on descartes shoes while being chased with a chain saw !!!!!!!\n\nI am beginning the t hink the man is still alive!  \n\nLOL
37548
Hi bigslow,\nI think it's just another way to confuse someone. Good Luck: Blueladybug
280291
I believe in the Big Bang theory and evolution.  No "one" caused the BB.  Scientists are still theorizing on what may have caused the BB.  \n\nI like the theory of BB's being commonplace and "new universes" being created.  Multiverses.  :-)
434183
Makes exactly the same amount of sense, doesn't it?\n\nThere is a certain kind of "logic" that is so off-base that you can't argue with it other than to throw up your hands and give up. That kind of  logic, which includes "how can 2 billion people be wrong" (which obviously doesn't include the Chinese) also asks irrefutable questions of the nature of "If 'BURD' doesn't spell bird, what does it spell?", and so forth.\n\nWhen you give up in disgust, they believe they have won an argument.\n\nWhat I also don't understand is that if the Creator wants me to believe certain things, why have perverts, idiots and outright criminals been appointed to the task of teaching me?
188255
Okay, I was had, and I am dumb A couple of readers have written in (and my thanks to them) to tell me that the “fight” between Michael Strahan and Tom Arnold on The Best Damn Sports Show was, in fact, an April Fools Joke. My congratulations to everyone involved. I didn’t think those guys were capable of such a quality ruse.\n\nSome commentors made some pretty good points about the inauthenticity, too. You’re a clever bunch, Deadspinners.\n\nThe entire set-up was a ruse, too. Tom Arnold didn’t even write a book. They went all out with this thing. Giants head coach Tom Coughlin and general manager Ernie Accorsi were briefed ahead of time that it would be happening, so they wouldn’t flip out.\n\nWell done, Best Damn Sports Show.
624908
sound like a case of the blue balls to me
626359
http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index;_ylt=AskXuePpa94gGx4SZ6MNFDfsy6IX?qid=20060614234609AACFh0S\n\nCheck out fs, pastorJ and ddead_alive's comments. One of them actually included the infamous "banana argument," which, unbeknownst to creationists, is the laughing stock of intelligent people everywhere.\n\nAnd also: http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index;_ylt=AkEkeuFumUCm_Sh38t1sUXzsy6IX?qid=20060611215843AAGeScT\n\nI provided scientific evidence refuting jayslug's idiotic claims, and he admitted that he completely ignored them, so I reiterated my scientific stance in the "Add a comment" part.\n\nAnd personally, I'm going to vomit if I have to read the word "evolutionist" one more time. The word is "scientist." Also, I'll hurl if I hear one more person say that there is no evidence for evolution, there is no science behind evolution, it is just a theory (which means it is accepted as a fact by the scientific community), and will never be proven (no theory in the history of science has been "proven").\n\nEdit (To Jackson): The "cop-out" theory that the universe has always existed is the most scientific and logical theory, and is accepted by most scientists. Due to the law of conservation of mass and energy, matter cannot be created or destroyed, and therefore, the matter that comprises the universe has always existed.\n\nAs far as the "life from lifelessness" goes, I'm guessing that you are unfamiliar with the famous Miller-Urey experiments, in which it was found that amino acids, the building blocks of life, can be produced from non-living elements. I would suggest you educate yourself before asking stupid questions. Start here:\nhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miller-Urey\n\nEdit (To g2gtech): I'm not totally sure (or at all sure) that this guy understands what the fossil record is, how minuscule of a time 500 years is in a geological sense, and, well, this person's last point is completely irrelevant to any evidence that I've ever heard regarding the theory of evolution.\n\nEdit (To birddawg): I would be highly interested in seeing your sources for the Albert Einstein quote, because I happen to have a few works of his, and he was an atheist.\nFrom The Princeton University Press:\n\n"It was, of course, a lie what you read about my religious convictions, a lie which is being systematically repeated. I do not believe in a personal God and have never denied this but expressed it quite clearly. If something is in me that can be called religious, then it is the unbounded admiration for the structure of the world so far as our science can reveal it."\n\nAnd from The New York Times:\n\n"I cannot imagine a God who rewards and punishes the objects of his creation, whose purposes are modeled after our own--a God, in short, who is but a reflection of human frailty. Neither can I believe that the individual survives the death of his body, although feeble souls harbor such thoughts through fear or ridiculous egotisms."\n\nAnd from The New York Times Magazine, in an article entitled "Religion and Science":\n\n"It seems to me that the idea of a personal God is an anthropological concept which I cannot take seriously. I also cannot imagine some will or goal outside the human sphere...Science has been charged with undermining morality, but the charge is unjust. A man's ethical behavior should be based effectually on sympathy, education, and social ties and needs; no religious basis is necessary. Man would indeed be in a poor way if he had to be restrained by fear of punishment and hope of reward after death."\n\nAnd as far as other famous scientists go, Steven Hawking, Carl Sagan, Thomas Alva Edison, Sigmund Freud, Francis Crick, James Watson, Richard Feynman, Albert Schweitzer, Ernst Mayr, Charles Proteus Steinmetz and Thomas Szasz are all either atheists, or highly skeptical of the idea of god and
206630
All I've heard is that 'there's good rockin' tonight'.\n\nGotta go...got this sudden urge for some 'cream of wheat' cereal.\n\nBy the way 'keypitreal' thank you sooo much for enlightening all of us. If only all of us could be as intelligent as you. Stupid me...I though 'trailertrash' was joking...I feel so stupid now.
278827
You betcha, my friend--sitting in upper reserved, section 327, with a perfect view.  Beautiful day by the bay, not much wind, and every other hard-hit ball to center died before it got anywhere today--which is why we knew Barry's shot was heading out: it was still rising over right-center.  But as with everything in baseball, you need context: Byung-Yung Kim owned the Giants today.  It was 6-0 Rockies when Bonds came up, and there were already 2 out, with Steve Finley on first.  Kim had walked Bonds his first AB, but with a 6 run lead he looked like he was going after him.  Count went full, and we all thought, here comes another walk....The other remarkable thing was that during each pitch there was almost total silence in the yard--nobody was cheering, everybody went quiet, like they didn't want any distractions.  Never heard anything like it...And then of course all hell broke loose when he hit it.  Some guy in the right-center bleachers had a glove on it and misplayed it, and the ball dropped over the side of the section onto the concessions below.  And some other guy who was in line for a beer saw it rolling his way and picked it up.  (True!)\n\nI know there's going to be a lot of screaming about steroids, and cheating, and racism, and asterisks, and who was better, and why, and bla bla bla....You know what?  I don't think there's a sports record you couldn't taint if you looked close enough.  To me, it's about the drama of the moment, and this one had it.  Lucky to be there.  (But glad it's over....oh, and the Rockies won anyway....)\n\nP.S.: I'm with you on the steroids thing.  Strength is fine, but as anyone who's ever hit a baseball knows, a half inch either way on the bat, and you have either a very strong popup or a very strong ground ball.  The reason hitting a baseball is the hardest thing to do in sports is because the hitter has exactly half a second from the time the ball is released to decide where it's going, and whether to swing or not--and if you do swing, you're as likely to miss as to hit, and if you do hit, 7 out of 10 times you'll be out.  Steroids may give you bulk, but they don't give you eyesight or bat speed.  Not that I'm saying Bonds--or anyone else who ever played the game--is totally clean.  But I just think the effect of steroids on home runs is overrated.\n\nAs for unfair comparisons: how many home runs would Babe Ruth have hit if he'd had to play against pitchers like Bob Gibson, Juan Marichal, Dave Stewart, Pedro Martinez, Dontrelle Willis...?\n\nP.P.S:  Aaron's record is safe.  Watched Bonds' play in left decline enough to know: his knees won't carry him the 3 seasons he'd need now to reach 755.
185617
I wouldn't consider catching a baseball miraculous, has to do with physics, gravity, eye-hand coordination. No, that would not be a miracle, that would be compentency.\nAnyways, people are quick to dismiss miracles because acknowledging that it was in fact a miracle implies that there is a higher being above us having a guiding hand in the lives we live. So its only fitting that they would not acknowledge such "miracles" and simply cast them off as coincidence or give simple explanations.