You may hate white people but admit it...

Options
apocalyptica
apocalyptica Members Posts: 225
edited January 2011 in R & R (Religion and Race)
...Outside of probably asian races and maybe, just maybe, the middleeast if they got rid of their ? religion, the human race would be stagnant and eventually become extinct once our sun blows up and fry this earth. Africans and the hispanic races aren't going to be exploring the stars or space anytime soon. I highly doubt an african nation will ever get anything into space.

Picture says a thousand words

2nc10yu.jpg
«1

Comments

  • UPTOWN
    UPTOWN Members, Moderators, Writer Posts: 13,009 Regulator
    edited January 2011
    Options
    how stupid can you possibly be ???
  • dalyricalbandit
    dalyricalbandit Members, Moderators Posts: 67,918 Regulator
    edited January 2011
    Options
    no hate for the whitey
  • babafryo
    babafryo Members Posts: 679 ✭✭
    edited January 2011
    Options
    how stupid can you possibly be ???

    .................................
  • allreasoned_out
    allreasoned_out Members Posts: 2,696 ✭✭
    edited January 2011
    Options
    The t/s is a racist. A quick look at his threads makes this clear.

    But even so I'm not going to fool myself either. The black race, considered as a whole on a world-wide basis, is largely floundering. That's why I'm so deeply engaged with racial issues. Sadly, most young blacks seem not to care, especially young black males.

    I just have to smh.
  • Mr.Audigier216
    Mr.Audigier216 Members Posts: 4,905 ✭✭✭✭
    edited January 2011
    Options
    These ? spend billions on space exploration n its hungry kids in New York n Chicago......foh
  • J.Greenz
    J.Greenz Members Posts: 82
    edited January 2011
    Options
    These ? spend billions on space exploration n its hungry kids in New York n Chicago......foh

    We have all this genetically and mass manufactured food, and nobody trying to feed them smh.
  • Shizlansky
    Shizlansky Members Posts: 35,095 ✭✭✭✭✭
    edited January 2011
    Options
    These ? spend billions on space exploration n its hungry kids in New York n Chicago......foh

    exactly...

    . they exploring the stars and ? cuz they ? up mother earth..
  • KTULU IS BACK
    KTULU IS BACK Banned Users Posts: 6,617 ✭✭
    edited January 2011
    Options
    Young-Ice wrote: »
    whites suck at makin babehs

    this is actually the result of wealth

    studies show that every region that has achieved great wealth then experiences a population decline as people become less concerned with producing offspring and spend more time goofing off with their money

    how you think we took over the planet in the last 500 years without ? out a fuckload of white babies?



    and threadstarter is kinda racist, tbh
  • KTULU IS BACK
    KTULU IS BACK Banned Users Posts: 6,617 ✭✭
    edited January 2011
    Options
    Young-Ice wrote: »
    then why are the chinese reproducing so rapidly?

    if i recall, america has no wealth and owe most of what they have to them..

    americas reproducing just fine, you were talking about europe and their islamophobia

    china's reproducing exponentially because china already has a billion people

    chinas problem is that every time they've almost taken over the world, they've ? it up spectacularly because of cronyism and a culture of bullshitting to save face
  • KTULU IS BACK
    KTULU IS BACK Banned Users Posts: 6,617 ✭✭
    edited January 2011
    Options
    Young-Ice wrote: »
    america is reproducing fine because of immigration. word to spics and blacks.

    1. lol at blacks reproducing. your percentage of the US population has dropped.

    2. mexicans do be making babies on the regular, but like i said, this is due to socioeconomic factors.

    white people with money have skiing and water polo to do. mexicans have nothing to do for entertainment besides ? without rubbers.
  • TimroD
    TimroD Confirm Email Posts: 1,685 ✭✭
    edited January 2011
    Options
    im in europe but i dont care if muslims take over
    some of my muslim homies try to convert me but nah i cant do thattt
  • Beware
    Beware Members Posts: 1,083 ✭✭✭
    edited January 2011
    Options
    TimroD wrote: »
    im in europe but i dont care if muslims take over
    some of my muslim homies try to convert me but nah i cant do thattt

    im in europe too, and its true theres a shitload of muslims over here.

    im in belgium (im italian though) where you at?
  • TimroD
    TimroD Confirm Email Posts: 1,685 ✭✭
    edited January 2011
    Options
    Beware wrote: »
    im in europe too, and its true theres a shitload of muslims over here.

    im in belgium (im italian though) where you at?


    yea im in switzerland and theres of course discussion bout mosques, burkas, halal, minarets etc.. but all of that doesnt concern me some of my best friends are muslim
  • anthony7q
    anthony7q Members Posts: 782
    edited January 2011
    Options
    ...Outside of probably asian races and maybe, just maybe, the middleeast if they got rid of their ? religion, the human race would be stagnant and eventually become extinct once our sun blows up and fry this earth. Africans and the hispanic races aren't going to be exploring the stars or space anytime soon. I highly doubt an african nation will ever get anything into space.

    Picture says a thousand words

    2nc10yu.jpg

    Taken from Black Roots Science E-Book


    There are 125 billion trillion trillion atoms in the earth.
    How many stars are there in the universe?
    125 billion trillion trillion.
    2. Same number as atoms in the earth.
    As below, so above.
    The earth is a model of the universe that ? presents to us
    to enable us to comprehend the universe and its stars. For
    the earth, the atoms are its stars.
    3. How big is the universe?
    We can find the answer by asking, how big is the earth?
    And what is its proportion of size in relation to the atom? In
    other words, how much bigger than the atom is the earth?
    4. The atom is 1/4 millionth of an inch across, which in miles
    is 4 trillionths. The earth is 7,900 miles across.
    The proportion of size is 7,900/4 trillionths = 2,000 trillion.
    That means the earth is 2,000 trillion times bigger than the
    atom.
    5. What this tells us, according to the law, is that the
    universe is 2,000 trillion times bigger than the solar system.
    So its size is 2,000 trillion x 7,900 million = 16 trillion trillion.
    The universe is 16 trillion trillion miles across and has 125
    billion trillion trillion stars.
    TWe must ignore the lies of modern scientists if we are to
    discover the truth about the creation of the universe. They
    say that 4.5 billion years ago there was a huge kaboom.
    A big bang.
    Our Ancestors never mentioned any bang, big or small.
    7. Ignore the bang and consider this:
    The law of creation is the law of cycles, which says the end
    point is the same as the beginning point, and the cycle
    repeats. A flower starts with a seed and ends with a seed, so
    that it may start again and continue forever. The cycle starts
    with the electron and ends with the universe. It ends where
    it began, so that it may start again and continue, without
    beginning and without end.
    8. If the earth is a mini-universe, is it not intuitive to think
    that it was a full universe at the beginning? And if the
    electron is a mini-earth, could it not have been a full earth
    also? If the universe is made of star systems and star systems
    are made of atoms, does that not say atoms are the
    original star systems of the beginning?
    9. The present universe originated from the universe of the
    past, and that one from the one before. There never was a
    time when a universe did not exist. Just as people are born
    of people, and flowers come from flowers, so also do
    universes come from universes. There is no beginning and
    no end. It has always been, and ever shall be.
    10. Our Ancestors teach the story of creation as follows:
    Long, long ago the earth was a full-size universe. Its present
    atoms were the stars of that universe, and they were 125
    billion trillion trillion in number, filling space farther than the
    eye could see, stretching across that universe, which was 16
    trillion trillion miles across. Just like every flower grows in its
    season and reaches full maturity, the universe has its season
    also, called its duration. At the end it reaches full maturity.
    11. When that universe of our Ancestors reached full
    maturity, it was time for it to give birth to a new universe, to
    continue the cycle of creation. Just as a flower folds itself
    into a tiny seed, which later unfolds into a full-fledged
    flower, so did the previous universe fold into a single earth.
    ? , whose Mind is infinite, and to whom star systems are as
    atoms in size, gathered all these stars into a single sphere
    which became our earth. The stars of that entire previous
    universe became the atoms of the new earth.
    12. That is how the first earth of a new universe is always
    created. Then new stars filled the space around that earth,
    and our universe came into being.
    13. There is no big bang in the creation of a new universe,
    just as there is none in the growth of a flower. When it is time
    to create a new universe, ? simply expands His Mind until
    the whole universe appears to be the size of a single earth.
    At that point the stars appear to be the size of atoms. The
    whole universe becomes one earth, and new stars are
    created all around it.
    14. Not only are the atoms of our earth identical to star
    systems, but they were actually the star systems of that
    universe of our Ancestors. Our electrons were Their planets
    on which They lived. When the purpose of that universe was
    completed, the Minds of our Ancestors expanded to an
    unimaginable extent, such that They could see the entire
    universe as a single sphere the size of our earth. That sphere
    became our earth and our Ancestors made themselves
    new bodies from its substance. They became its first
    Inhabitants. They are the Original People called the First
    BLACKROOTS SCIENCE
    44
    Gods. We, as Black people, are Their descendants. Our
    lineage stretches all the way back to Them.
    That is the story of how They created our universe.
    15. Here's a question to consider. If all the stars of the
    previous universe are used to form the first earth, where do
    all the new stars around it come from?
  • Chike
    Chike Members Posts: 2,702 ✭✭✭
    edited January 2011
    Options
    ...Outside of probably asian races and maybe, just maybe, the middleeast if they got rid of their ? religion, the human race would be stagnant and eventually become extinct once our sun blows up and fry this earth. Africans and the hispanic races aren't going to be exploring the stars or space anytime soon. I highly doubt an african nation will ever get anything into space.

    Picture says a thousand words

    2nc10yu.jpg



    The fact that you think humans will still exist 6 billion years from now confirms how moronic you just are. Also, the problem with white people is they're too destructive.... they only create and invent in order to destroy and conquer.... But what they tend to forget, is that they are not immune to their own destructive ways. They will never get to the point of space exploration on a fantastic level before wiping themselves out. Europeans have a monopoly on the world right now, and is the only reason other non light skinned races have not been able to 'keep up' technologically. It has nothing to do with cultural intelligence.
  • TX_Made713
    TX_Made713 Members Posts: 3,954 ✭✭
    edited January 2011
    Options
    so space age travel is restricted only for white people? laff
  • fiat_money
    fiat_money Members Posts: 16,654 ✭✭✭✭✭
    edited January 2011
    Options
    anthony7q wrote: »
    Taken from Black Roots Science E-Book


    There are 125 billion trillion trillion atoms in the earth.
    How many stars are there in the universe?
    125 billion trillion trillion...
    So I'll call ? here, for a few reasons in fact. Firstly, they have no way of knowing the number of stars in the universe.

    Secondly, the usage of "billion trillion trillion" pretty much shows they are not familiar with scientific notation, or that this is not a true scientific publication. Instead of saying "billion trillion trillion", they could've said "decillion" or "10^33". They likely used it because it sounds like a big number.

    But thirdly, and most importantly, they clearly have a limited knowledge of molecular science to say there's only 125,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 or 1.25x10^35 or 125 decillion atoms in the Earth.

    However I won't just say that, I'll show it.

    This example will use the known capacity of oil tankers to determine if "1.25x10^35" accurately represents the number of atoms in the Earth -

    The minimum tonnage of a typical ULCC tanker is 320,000 tonnes. ULCC tankers actually hold up to 550,000 tonnes, but since part of that value accounts for non-oil weight, I'll use the minimum amount to be conservative. One tonne is 1000 kg, which is 1000000 grams. Therefore the typical minimum tonnage is 3.2x10^11 grams of oil. So for these calculations "T" will equal 3.2x10^11.
    On average, oil is composed of 85% carbon, 12% hydrogen, 1.05% nitrogen, 0.8% oxygen, 0.55% sulfur, and less than 0.1% metal. These values will be represented by "P/100", or the percent divided by 100.

    To calculate the number of atoms per mass of a substance, we use Avogrado's number (which is 6.022x10^23) and the Atomic Weight (which varies by element). The atomic weights of carbon, hydrogen, nitrogen, oxygen, and sulfur are 12.011, 1.008, 14.007, 15.999, and 32.06, respectively. These will be represented as "A" and "W". Metal will be excluded because it is both vague and will add a nominal amount of atoms to the overall total.

    So, to recap:
    T=3.2x10^11 grams
    A=6.022x10^23
    P/100 is the average percentage of an element in crude oil
    W is the atomic weight of an element
    N will be the number of atoms

    The formula for calculating the number (N) of atoms in a mass (M) of an element is "(M/W)*A=N". In this case, M is equal to T, so the formula becomes:
    (T/W)*A=N
    When allowing the percentage to vary, the formula becomes:
    (T/W)*A*P/100=N
    When substituting the constants, the formula becomes:
    ((3.2x10^11)/W)*6.022x10^23*P/100=N
    The final formula is derived by multiplying the constants:
    ((1.92704x10^35)/W)*P/100=N

    Using this formula, it is calculated that, in average crude oil, there are:
    1.36736575x10^34 atoms of Carbon
    2.294095238x10^34 atoms of Hydrogen
    1.444557721x10^32 atoms of Nitrogen
    9.63580223x10^31 atoms of Oxygen
    3.305901435x10^31 atoms of Sulfur

    When adding them all together, the value is 36888482688749998271359957583527936 or 3.688848268874999827135995758352793x10^34.

    Finally, when dividing the proposed number of atoms in the entire Earth by the number of atoms in the oil held by a typical ULCC tanker, the expression is:
    (1.25x10^35)/(3.688848268874999827135995758352793x10^34)=3.388591528

    From this, we can conclude that 4 ULCC tankers filled with oil carry more atoms than the amount of atoms in the entire Earth.

    This, of course, is impossible. Thus, based on the first line alone, the "Black Roots Science E-Book" is ? .
  • anthony7q
    anthony7q Members Posts: 782
    edited January 2011
    Options
    fiat_money wrote: »
    So I'll call ? here, for a few reasons in fact. Firstly, they have no way of knowing the number of stars in the universe.

    Secondly, the usage of "billion trillion trillion" pretty much shows they are not familiar with scientific notation, or that this is not a true scientific publication. Instead of saying "billion trillion trillion", they could've said "decillion" or "10^33". They likely used it because it sounds like a big number.

    But thirdly, and most importantly, they clearly have a limited knowledge of molecular science to say there's only 125,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 or 1.25x10^35 or 125 decillion atoms in the Earth.

    However I won't just say that, I'll show it.

    This example will use the known capacity of oil tankers to determine if "1.25x10^35" accurately represents the number of atoms in the Earth -

    The minimum tonnage of a typical ULCC tanker is 320,000 tonnes. ULCC tankers actually hold up to 550,000 tonnes, but since part of that value accounts for non-oil weight, I'll use the minimum amount to be conservative. One tonne is 1000 kg, which is 1000000 grams. Therefore the typical minimum tonnage is 3.2x10^11 grams of oil. So for these calculations "T" will equal 3.2x10^11.
    On average, oil is composed of 85% carbon, 12% hydrogen, 1.05% nitrogen, 0.8% oxygen, 0.55% sulfur, and less than 0.1% metal. These values will be represented by "P/100", or the percent divided by 100.

    To calculate the number of atoms per mass of a substance, we use Avogrado's number (which is 6.022x10^23) and the Atomic Weight (which varies by element). The atomic weights of carbon, hydrogen, nitrogen, oxygen, and sulfur are 12.011, 1.008, 14.007, 15.999, and 32.06, respectively. These will be represented as "A" and "W". Metal will be excluded because it is both vague and will add a nominal amount of atoms to the overall total.

    So, to recap:
    T=3.2x10^11 grams
    A=6.022x10^23
    P/100 is the average percentage of an element in crude oil
    W is the atomic weight of an element
    N will be the number of atoms

    The formula for calculating the number (N) of atoms in a mass (M) of an element is "(M/W)*A=N". In this case, M is equal to T, so the formula becomes:
    (T/W)*A=N
    When allowing the percentage to vary, the formula becomes:
    (T/W)*A*P/100=N
    When substituting the constants, the formula becomes:
    ((3.2x10^11)/W)*6.022x10^23*P/100=N
    The final formula is derived by multiplying the constants:
    ((1.92704x10^35)/W)*P/100=N

    Using this formula, it is calculated that, in average crude oil, there are:
    1.36736575x10^34 atoms of Carbon
    2.294095238x10^34 atoms of Hydrogen
    1.444557721x10^32 atoms of Nitrogen
    9.63580223x10^31 atoms of Oxygen
    3.305901435x10^31 atoms of Sulfur

    When adding them all together, the value is 36888482688749998271359957583527936 or 3.688848268874999827135995758352793x10^34.

    Finally, when dividing the proposed number of atoms in the entire Earth by the number of atoms in the oil held by a typical ULCC tanker, the expression is:
    (1.25x10^35)/(3.688848268874999827135995758352793x10^34)=3.388591528

    From this, we can conclude that 4 ULCC tankers filled with oil carry more atoms than the amount of atoms in the entire Earth.

    This, of course, is impossible. Thus, based on the first line alone, the "Black Roots Science E-Book" is ? .

    According to the storyteller from South Africa he is translating what he was taught by his elders in his tribe so that we as Americans can kind of understand what he's talking about. I you had read the entire book you would have known that. Every educated man and woman have been taught the western knowledge of the current rulers of this worrld. But that knowledge is only limited to the past 6,000 years. african knowledge goes back much futher than that.

    But props to you anyway. You're obviously a sharp brother.
  • whar67
    whar67 Members Posts: 542
    edited January 2011
    Options
    anthony7q wrote:
    Taken from Black Roots Science E-Book


    There are 125 billion trillion trillion atoms in the earth.

    125 x 10^9 x 10^12 x 10^12 = 125 x 10^34

    125 x 10^34 = 1.25 x 10^36

    Total mass of earth 1.3 x 10^25 (Jens Gundlach and Stephen Merkowitz from the University of Washington)

    Average atomic weight of matter on the earth 40 (this is an estimate)

    Grams per pound 454.

    Number of moles in per pound of 'earth' 454/40 = 11.35

    Number of atoms per pound 11.35 x 6.02^23 = 68.3 X 10^23.

    Total atoms of earth = 1.3x10^25 X 68.3X10^23 = 88.79x10^48 = 8.88x10^49

    I think you should get a proper science book. If you do not appreciate non-African sources anything by Neil deGrasse Tyson should be helpful.

    *Should have read the last few posts as Fiat Money already covers this. He even correctly calculated the number of atoms suggested at 1.25x10^35*
  • fiat_money
    fiat_money Members Posts: 16,654 ✭✭✭✭✭
    edited January 2011
    Options
    anthony7q wrote: »
    According to the storyteller from South Africa he is translating what he was taught by his elders in his tribe so that we as Americans can kind of understand what he's talking about. I you had read the entire book you would have known that. Every educated man and woman have been taught the western knowledge of the current rulers of this worrld. But that knowledge is only limited to the past 6,000 years. african knowledge goes back much futher than that.

    But props to you anyway. You're obviously a sharp brother.
    I watched the entire video, and while it was amusing, it did nothing to disprove the physics/chemistry I just used. In fact, assuming all of its assertions or true, it doesn't refute "western knowledge", it just says Africa used it first.

    So, even with the aid (if it can be considered as such) of the video, the "Black Roots Science E-Book" is still ? .
  • anthony7q
    anthony7q Members Posts: 782
    edited January 2011
    Options
    whar67 wrote: »
    125 x 10^9 x 10^12 x 10^12 = 125 x 10^34

    125 x 10^34 = 1.25 x 10^36

    Total mass of earth 1.3 x 10^25 (Jens Gundlach and Stephen Merkowitz from the University of Washington)

    Average atomic weight of matter on the earth 40 (this is an estimate)

    Grams per pound 454.

    Number of moles in per pound of 'earth' 454/40 = 11.35

    Number of atoms per pound 11.35 x 6.02^23 = 68.3 X 10^23.

    Total atoms of earth = 1.3x10^25 X 68.3X10^23 = 88.79x10^48 = 8.88x10^49

    I think you should get a proper science book. If you do not appreciate non-African sources anything by Neil deGrasse Tyson should be helpful.


    I don't need a Science book because I understand what he was trying to say even if the calculations is off. He is from Africa and the translation from his language to the gutter English language is probably off. But I'm a student not a scholar.
  • anthony7q
    anthony7q Members Posts: 782
    edited January 2011
    Options
    fiat_money wrote: »
    I watched the entire video, and while it was amusing, it did nothing to disprove the physics/chemistry I just used. In fact, assuming all of its assertions or true, it doesn't refute "western knowledge", it just says Africa used it first.

    So, even with the aid (if it can be considered as such) of the video, the "Black Roots Science E-Book" is still ? .

    I was referring to reading the entire E-Book. You can't throw out the baby with the bath water. I too questions some of the things he says. Same thing goes for the bible or any religious text or book for that matter.
  • fiat_money
    fiat_money Members Posts: 16,654 ✭✭✭✭✭
    edited January 2011
    Options
    anthony7q wrote: »
    I was referring to reading the entire E-Book. You can't throw out the baby with the bath water. I too questions some of the things he says. Same thing goes for the bible or any religious text or book for that matter.
    Why read the entire e-book? If I saw such a mistake in one of my Physics books or my Chemistry book, I'd be done with it. I wouldn't think, "Although it fails at basic molecular science, neglects basic physical principles, and makes unsubstantiated claims about things which aren't known, I'll still read this science book.". It's one thing to have a typo here or there or use the wrong units occasionally, but if a science book fails to demonstrate knowledge/understanding of the simplest of things within the subject matter, it loses its credibility.
  • anthony7q
    anthony7q Members Posts: 782
    edited January 2011
    Options
    fiat_money wrote: »
    I watched the entire video, and while it was amusing, it did nothing to disprove the physics/chemistry I just used. In fact, assuming all of its assertions or true, it doesn't refute "western knowledge", it just says Africa used it first.

    So, even with the aid (if it can be considered as such) of the video, the "Black Roots Science E-Book" is still ? .

    I don't want to keep beating a dead horse in the ground but not only did Africa did it first they master it. But because the Romans, Arabs and others was so eager to conquer Egypt because of their blind hate for Blacks they destroyed all of the evidence. Some of the white people even agree with me:


    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hEoZso225Us&playnext=1&list=PL4447BBE6A6AED029&index=93
  • fiat_money
    fiat_money Members Posts: 16,654 ✭✭✭✭✭
    edited January 2011
    Options
    anthony7q wrote: »
    I don't want to keep beating a dead horse in the ground but not only did Africa did it first they master it...
    This would still do nothing to disprove western/modern science nor the physics/chemistry I used earlier.

    For example: The video from your previous post asserts that what is known today as the "pythagorean theorem" was initially conceived and used in Egypt, and subsequently "stolen" by others. However, this doesn't mean that the pythagorean theorem is incorrect or that A^2+B^2=C^2 can't be used to calculate the length of the sides of a right triangle.