Does my asshole after scallops and chocolate milk count?

If your asshole counts after scallops and chocolate milk, you should take it out on the talk show circuit.

<iframe src='https://gfycat.com/ifr/CarefulFrequentDrafthorse' frameborder='0' scrolling='no' allowfullscreen width='640' height='412'></iframe><p> <a href="https://gfycat.com/carefulfrequentdrafthorse">via Gfycat</a></p>

The short answer is, yes. Kim Kardashian's vagina is real.

Black holes are just a space time embedded within Space time. The space time you exist in is almost certainly embedded in something else.

Mark Davis is the diamond:eek:

I believe they do; and possibly our entire universe exists in the singularity within.

Just so much we don't know about pretty much everything...

Dang...the off season really sucks. LOL ROFL

We've all found that out about your mom

Sent from my SM-S906U1 using Tapatalk

The scientific papers were linked to ArXiv. This is where scientists or members of ChiefsPlanet can upload work prior to being published in a peer-reviewed journal.

I read most of it but it's doesn't sound like it's refuting the existence of a phenomenon. It sounds like it's saying how we classify it is wrong and we don't really understand it.

Google Hope Solo's vagina

My understanding would half agree wIth you. As I understand it, she’s agreeing with the general understanding of a star collapse. Current theory is that as a star dies, it collapses on itself to become extremely dense, dense to the point that not even light escapes it. She agrees with the process of the star collapse but she argues that as the star collapses, it sheds mass via radiation, which answers an anomaly we have not understood about black holes. Nobody doubts they emit massive radiation but there was not a way to reconcile the apparent diminution of the star with Einstein’s theory that matter is neither lost nor destroyed but that it assumes another form.

So she’s not disputing collapsing stars but she says the math shows the mass “lost” from the collapse is not because the collapsing star becomes so dense but rather that the mass is converted into radiation. This massive emission of radiation explains why astronomers can’t see anything - there’s nothing to see because it’s been converted to energy.

But, I freely admit I’m no astro physicist. I could be mis-understanding her point. It is certainly far afield from what I normally study. What I find interesting is that even “settled” science isn’t so settled, so, I posted it here. Glad some are reading and responding to this. Thank you for an intelligent response.

There's no hope in that

That is so me. I will look at one thing and plan to go to bed and then more suggested videos pop up and I watch them as well and before long I am an hour past my bedtime.