Author Topic: Ask Edgar  (Read 175290 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Re: Ask Edgar
« Reply #135 on: January 26, 2009, 10:47:53 AM »

Offline Edgar

  • Kevin McHale
  • ************************
  • Posts: 24646
  • Tommy Points: 445
  • No contaban con mi astucia !!!
the office is once again open

  ;D
Once a CrotorNat always a CROTORNAT  2 times CB draft Champion 2009-2012

Nice to be back!

Re: Ask Edgar
« Reply #136 on: January 26, 2009, 12:12:46 PM »

Offline TripleThreat

  • The Green Kornet
  • Posts: 77
  • Tommy Points: 7
Dear Edgar,

My whole life I've been trying to figure out the answer to one of man's biggest mysteries. You're my last hope Edgar. The Universe is constantly expanding into nothing, or that is what I'm told, can something really expand into nothing? And if not, what is outside of the Universe?

Thanks,

Lost in Space

Re: Ask Edgar
« Reply #137 on: January 26, 2009, 01:30:08 PM »

Offline Edgar

  • Kevin McHale
  • ************************
  • Posts: 24646
  • Tommy Points: 445
  • No contaban con mi astucia !!!
Dear Edgar,

My whole life I've been trying to figure out the answer to one of man's biggest mysteries. You're my last hope Edgar. The Universe is constantly expanding into nothing, or that is what I'm told, can something really expand into nothing? And if not, what is outside of the Universe?

Thanks,

Lost in Space

Dear Lost in Space

First of all thanks for that deep question
A good friend of mine K appleget use to think like this
Quote
A definition of the universe is "the expansion of space/time". That is, mass of any dimension, resulting from the Big Bang, is either carrying space/time with it, or is being carried by space/time, as it expands out from the Big Bang. The expansion of space/time into what? The expansion into nothing. There is literally nothing for space/time to expand into. We really can't even say "nothing", because "nothing" is something, it's "nothing". There is less than nothing for the universe, or universes, to expand into. It is called hyperspace, because it is a concept beyond "space". So, could we be aware of another universe of three dimensions existing along beside us, but having no connection to us? No, because the space of our universe is not the space of their universe. There is less than nothing connecting us together, and hence, we cannot detect past, or through, what isn't there, to the other universe. The two, three dimensional universes are fellow travelers, but they are not aware of each other. Each universe exists separately in space. Let me use a paragraph to more clearly explain.

Let's consider a two dimensional universe, again, being approached by another two dimensional universe. We have stated that the two dimensional universes are bent into, at least, the third dimension, a balloon. But they only know two dimensions, a flat plane. They cannot look up, or down, to be aware of the approach of the other universe. It would seem the only possible means of detection would be if the other universe was approaching on a collision course, head on. But remember, the shape of this universe is like a balloon. There is no flat plane collision course which they can see beyond their universe. They are only looking around their universe, not outward from their universe. Because there are other dimensions which they are incapable of comprehending, they cannot detect another universe. And remember, as long as the laws of physics apply as we know them, what applies to one universe applies to other universes of varying dimensions.

This brings us to the idea about whether the universe can exist at all; or anyway exist by physics as we understand physics to be.

The reader has obviously noted we have been referring to space/time. In any universe you will have these two things, space and time. One cannot exist without the other. They are inseparable twins. If you have space, you will have points in that space, whether a universe exists or not. If there are points in that space, there is time between those points. On theother hand, if you have time, that means you have something in relation to something else, such as this point to that point. Time cannot be a factor involving just one point without eventually being that point in relation to some other point. And that means if space exists, there must be time in that space; and if time exists there must be space for its existence. They are inseparable twins.

When the Big Bang took place there was no space/time prior to the event. If there had been space/time prior to the event, that space/time would need to have been created somehow. But, it is said the Big Bang was the beginning of everything. It is not said that the creation of a place (space) for the Big Bang to take place was the beginning. Ergo, there was no place for the Big Bang to take place. Logic says that if there was no place for it too take place, then it did not take place.

Also, since it is said that the Big Bang was the "beginning" of everything, then that means there was no "before". You can not have a "before" if nothing existed to be a "before". If there was no "before", then there can be no "after". When it comes to time, there need be both, "before" and "after". I know that is a hard concept to swallow, and you would like to argue the point, but think about it honestly and fairly.

And since there was no space where it could take place, and no time for it to occur, then logic (again that word) says it did not happen. But here you and I are. How do you explain that? I have no idea. But a dream occupies no space either, and a dream also plays hell with time. Yet that dream is reality at the time you visualize it. The space and time, no matter how warped each is, is real in that dream. If you question that idea, just think about the appearance of reality in some pleasurable or not so pleasurable dreams you have experienced. Perhaps time and space do not really exist. Remember, if one does not exist, neither does the other. Perhaps they are just something our brain developed for us to make sense of our surroundings. Maybe everything happened at once, instantaneously, so instantaneously that time and space were not involved. It only seems to us that they exist because that is the way our minds work. No space exists because it logically can't, and no time exists because it logically can't. If there is no space, there is no place; and if there is no time, there is no existence. That would be one explanation for deja vue, or however you spell it. Reality is only a dream, but to whom or what, created by whom or what, and for what reason. And please don't tell me loneliness.

And since we are on the idea of time. Science is trying to get us back to the Big Bang itself in order to understand the chain of events from the very first hint of a bang. Right now they are within .00000(forty some zeros) of a second of the beginning. But can they ever get back to that point. Probably not. Within increased gravity time and light slow down. This is true to the point that the difference in time has been measured between a clock on top of a sky scraper, and a clock on the street. The clock on the street will run slower because of increased gravity closer to the center of the earth. That means that back at the time of the Big Bang, when the universe was smaller than a proton, all that now creates all the gravity in the universe was located in that one unbelievably small spot, in a different form, of course, than today. This means that if there could have been an outside observer, which is impossible since there was not a place for an outside observer to be if one had been around, but if there had been one, he would notice everything going much slower as time retreated backward in reverse to that original BANG. In fact time would slow down so much as you reverse it backwards to that original BANG, that time probably becomes infinite. In other words, science will probably never be able to trace back to the time of the BANG itself because of that probable infinity of time. It is like trying to find the absolute center of a circle. A stronger microscope will constantly allow you to get more to the middle.

And another thing. Did you ever wonder about Einstein's idea that no matter which way you go, if you travel in a straight line far enough in this universe, you will end up where you started? And did you ever ask somebody, who was supposed to know the answer, "why" that was? And did they tell you, as though you were some sort of an idiot for not knowing the obvious, "because space is curved". And you felt too put down to ask the obvious next question, "What do you mean space is curved and what does that have to do with anything anyway?" So you just walked away, no wiser than before, but feeling pretty stupid. What has recently passed for a highly intelligent answer, kind of like saying time is the fourth dimension, is that you return to the place of origin because space is curved, even maybe like a "saddle". I really like that one. But, having been the victim of that answer, and having noticed on the mentors face that I was to now be satisfied with my new knowledge, and was not to play the role of an idiot any more, and quit wasting his time with such asinine questions. I walked away pondering my obvious lack of comprehension.

Well, chances are that if you have also asked that question you have learned the "expert" was no wiser than yourself because most of them don't know what "space is curved" means or why it should have any effect. They just know that is the proper answer to give, because it sounds impressive. But, I don't care if the universe is shaped like a saddle, or even if it is shaped like the horse itself; that answer explains absolutely nothing. If a creature lived in a universe shaped like a saddle and started traveling in order to reach the edge of his universe, and instead found that he had traveled right back to the point from which he started, I submit to you he was a two dimensional creature, traveling around his universe which was of a balloon shape (a balloon can be smashed down into the shape of a saddle); not a three dimensional creature who would be traveling through, not around, his universe. Such a creature, traveling through his universe, would reach the edge, or surface, and attempt to peer into the frontiers beyond, but of course he couldn't. His three dimension vision would only allow him to look back upon his three dimensional universe. There is no way he could be aware he had reached the 'edge' of his universe. Our three dimensional universe being bent into the  
shape of a saddle, or any other three dimensional shape, is not the answer to Einstein's theory.

So let's try to see if we can come up with something which makes some sense. We are not saying this is what Einstein meant; we are just attempting a possible explanation. God forbid we should try to understand Albert. But, before we attempt a more complicated explanation, let's do, for now, accept that any attempt to reach the outer edge of the universe by a traveler is going to be subject to universal gravitation. This means while traveling in the attempt to go outward, gravitational pull will be pulling on the attempt, and while it appears that the attempt is going in a straight line, it is going more like a comet in our solar system. It ends up more like an elliptical orbit, going back nearly to the point of origin.

Now let us try a more thoughtful approach to the problem. Let us go back to the Big Bang, which is called that because we can compare it to all which has happened since, and it certainly was a big bang. However at the time it occurred there was nothing to compare it to, and it could have been referred to as the big burp. (Another reason why it was a wise thing to read this paper.)

Anyway, back at the Big Bang (Burp), let us consider a one dimension universe being created. We typically think of a long straight line of only a forward and back movement, with the Big Bang having occurred in the middle. But it could not happen that way. (________.________) By that we mean, the Big Bang happening where the period is, and the end result is a one dimensional universe continuing from one end of the line to the other, through the period. In order for things to happen that way the Big Bang would have been a continuous explosion, constantly creating the one dimensional universe in both directions, until the Big Bang quit banging. But we are told it was one Big Bang, and not a continuous explosion. That means that instead of a continuous straight line forward and back. It would have kicked off two singularities in both directions. (. . .) The Big Bang occurring where the middle period is, with the two singularities where the outside periods are. While a singularity may contain any number of any dimensional universes, it is not what we are looking for. (But please remember this example because, as you have probably already guessed, it is a very intriguing concept.) So how do we get a one dimensional universe?

We have a Big Bang. As you know, an explosion can give off some thing like a, for lack of a better term, smoke ring. (O) Now, put the Big Bang in the middle of that circle which is expanding outward. Nobody said a one dimensional universe had to be a straight line. That circle is a one dimension line going only forward and back, around where the Big Bang (Burp) took place. Therefore, it has the qualifications for a one dimensional universe. A one dimension creature says, "I wonder where the edge of my universe is". And he starts walking until he reaches the edge. But lo and behold, he ends up where he started. He is completely    

perplexed. He does not understand that his universe of one dimensional mass is a circle, containing two dimensions, including right and left. Suppose the Big Bang kicked off an object like an expanding balloon, with the Big Bang having occurred in the middle. That would be the same as a two dimensional universe, except that instead of being like a flat bed sheet, it would be like the balloon. And the two dimensional creature wonders the same thing about the edge of his universe. In his attempts to walk to the edge, he too ends up back where he started from with a perplexed expression. (Evidently a perplexed expression needs only one or two dimensions to accomplish.) He does not understand his universe of two dimensional mass has three dimensions, including up and down. And suppose the Big Bang kicked off an object shaped like an expanding (?). It would be just like our three dimensional universe, except that it is not shaped like a solid ball, it is shaped like a (?). And the three dimensional creature also wonders about the edge of his universe with the same efforts previously explained. Only instead of walking, he uses a starship (Enterprise) to go where no man has gone before, the edge of the universe. And surprise, surprise, surprise, he ends up back where he started. Because he doesn't understand his universe of three dimensional mass actually has four dimensions, including yik and yak. And there you have a possible explanation. As the great man said; the universe is curved and you will end up back where you started.

But, just for the sake of another argument, let us return to the idea of gravitational pull on the attempt to reach the edge of the universe. Let us suppose the attempt uses universal escape velocity. Does he then escape his universe, since he can obviously escape gravitation, and with sufficient speed and power, reach the edge. No, I think not. I think that then he, himself, becomes the edge of his expanding universe. He does not leave it; he becomes his universe's forward scout in that particular direction. But he is still a part of his universe, having warped his universe in the direction he is going.

I would like to pose a question. Is there anything left at the point, (I use the word "point" loosely) where the Big Bang (Burp) took place. Logic says that all has expanded outward in all dimensions from that "point". Little is left at the point in the air where the grenade exploded. Why would there be much left where the Big Bang took place. Is there then a near vacuum in that spot? Nature abhors a vacuum? Does that mean the "steady state theory" applies after all? The "steady state theory" says that as matter becomes sparser in an area because of expansion, other material is formed to take its place. And, it seems that enough energy can form mass. So, is the "steady state theory" viable, or is there an empty expanding hole in the spot where the Big Bang took place?

As long as we are on the Big Bang, we should consider something else. If there was one Big Bang, there is no reason why there couldn't be an infinite (I use the word infinite loosely) number of Big Bangs. An outside observer (using the impossible as an example) might make note of them popping off all over the place. But the inside observer (using yourself as   
an example) would see nothing because, again, he can't see through what is not there to the next Big Bang. This next sentence is only a hypothesis since we don't know for sure all the physics involved in a Big Bang. Big Bangs could even be going off in the midst of our own universe without our making note of them, for the same reason a two dimensional creature could pass through another two dimensional universe without any being aware of his achievement.

Also, the Big Bang might have kicked off an infinite number of rings, balloons, (?)s, and who knows what else. All of them existing among and amid each other. None of them would be in any way be aware of the others.

Also, the Big Bang may have kicked off an infinite number of singularities, a whole bunch of little blips, each unknowable to the others, and each containing universes of infinite numbers of dimensions.

But before we end our theorizing, let's consider one more thing,

Sometimes lumpy gravy is good, most generally when the lumps are little tidbits which make the sauce more savory. However, a good cook most generally tries their best to avoid lumpy gravy. It does not take a rocket scientist to understand why the lumpy phenomenon happens. Careful observation of the combining of ingredients, along with observing the manner in which those ingredients tend to accrete in the pan during the process, is not only a treat to the nose, but also a clue to events on the cosmic scale.

We have been told, by those much more intelligent than us, that the universe is not pure in form. By that I mean the one dimensional ring universe is not a perfect shaped ring; the two dimensional balloon universe is not a perfect shaped balloon; the three dimensional-----well you get the point. In other words, all universes are lumpy. And, what's more, apparently the cook didn't care.

We may be able to detect the cause for lumpy gravy, but we are not yet able to do so for the lumpy universe. But, if we again watch the gravy being formed, we can get an idea of what might have happened to the universe as it was also being formed. The gravy we understand, but why the universe did not remain pure in form is more of a mystery to us. Astrophysicists have done an excellent job trying to make it understandable, but it just doesn't soak in as it should. For whatever reason, the universe, as it was rounding out its shape, tended to accumulate patches of mass in places, causing more density here than there, or there than here. And the more imbalance there was, naturally, gravity saw to it that the more imbalance there became. We ended up very lumpy.

Now, since the Big Bang, or Little Pop depending upon your point of observation, was, as far as we know, attempting to toss everything out in all directions evenly, these lumps hindered that attempt. Very good    theories can be set forth to say the lumps were thrown further, faster, or that the less dense mass was thrown further, faster. These theories are based upon things like dense matter vs. light matter; matter vs. antimatter; positive matter vs. negative matter; and probably things we know nothing about as of yet. But, irregardless of what was being thrown outward at the greatest speed, the universe had become lumpy; it was not pure in form. And to add to the confusion, because there were some spots of considerable less density, there were dimples as well. Lumps and dimples; we weren't pretty anymore.

In order to explain the effect this would have, let us consider a two dimensional balloon universe. (It's easier to understand the circumstances of those beneath us.) The two dimensional creature thinks his universe is, as we have inferred previously, a flat plane. Little does the poor ignorant fellow know that his universe is bent into the third dimension, and is shaped like a balloon. He does not know that his two dimensional vision is detecting sights coming at him around a curve. Finally however, we are able to convince him of the rightness of our argument. But then we tell him that his balloon has lumps and dimples. Indignantly he asks how this can be when he obviously detects no such flaws. He doesn't understand that his two dimensional vision is still operating the same as before. The sights are coming at him up and over lumps, and down and up dimples, as though they were flat planes. He lives on a balloon covered with lumps and dimples, and what he detects with his two dimensional vision is existence on a flat plane.

We have been told by those who know, there are wrinkles in the universe. Now we can see the truth of there teachings. But this enlightenment we now possess leads to further theories.

If for instance, our two dimensional creature is standing on one side of a dimple, or wrinkle, and he sees a gorgeous creature opposite him on the other side, he thinks, looking down one side of the wrinkle and up the other as though he was looking straight ahead on a flat plane, that she is some distance away. So he might as well forget about her. But now we know this is not so. Actually that gorgeous creature is very close, just across the wrinkle. But his universe does not occupy the space of that wrinkle, and in order for him to take that shortcut, he must use the third dimension, which he does not understand and cannot do.

Remember, what is true for one dimension is true for all. This means there are shortcuts in our own universe just as the experts have been trying to tell us for years. But how does a creature go about utilizing a shortcut without use of the next highest dimension? Obviously, that usage is not available to us at the present, and based upon our present knowledge of physics, never will be. But is there some other method? This is one of the wormhole theories espoused by some.

Let us suppose, in the side of that two dimensional wrinkle, or dimple, there was a two dimensional black hole. Because of its great gravitational  mass, it is going to be attracted to everything around it, sucking in two dimensional mass like a football player at a training table. But then what happens? A black hole is part of its universe, not apart from its universe. There is a possibility it would, at that point violate the laws of its universe, exiting the snarfed up mass beyond the boundaries of its two dimensional universal home, expanding that two dimensional universe to match the expansion of the exiting mass. It might expand across the dimple, but only if it could somehow reach an opposite pole of some type on the other side. If there was a possibility this would happen, I believe the two black holes would polarize and connect, creating the proverbial wormhole. Again, I believe the polarization would be a necessity. Thus would the shortcut to the other side of the dimple be created. But it would not seem to be a part of the two dimensional universe, since the connection could not be detected. Now, how such a wormhole could be utilized is another matter.

A shortcut can only be used if it is still a part of the universe being traversed. It is not possible, again with our present understanding of physics, to "jump", or cross great distances utilizing higher dimensions.

One more thing we should consider, these lumps and dimples probably penetrate a multitude of higher dimensions. For example; a one dimensional ring universe would not only have lumps and dimples extending to the right and left (second dimension) of the ring, but up and down as well (third dimension). But the creature of that one dimensional ringed universe would only perceive, with his one dimensional vision, line ahead sight, his universe as a straight line.

All this means, our universe, shaped into the fourth dimension, is not of a pure form. It has lumps and dimples making short distances look as though they are much longer. But we cannot detect the lumps and dimples with our present knowledge, nor can we utilize a wormhole, if such things exist. The lumps and dimples extending into higher dimensions are a given; the wormholes are only a possibility.

There is something else we must consider before dropping this topic for the moment, and that is the string theory. The newest bit of gossip around any campus would have to do with the M theory which makes many predictions of what should be expected if the string theory is to hold water. One of the ideas is that the vibrating strings are loose ends, each end locked into its universe, but, gravitons are closed strings, not locked into any universe. The equation predictions are that a graviton of such a nature would be able to pass from one universe to another. This assumes parallel universes and higher dimensions of which we have been speaking. This would explain the elusive graviton very well. However, I believe there is one more quality needed to explain this concept. I believe the graviton must be of no mass, nor of any dimensions. A crazy concept. But if vibrating strings are responsible for everything of which we have knowledge, why not a closed string which vibrates to create no mass or dimension? It would seem that only then would it be able to pass from universe to universe  being applicable in a universe of whatever dimension it might find itself. The graviton would then be the cosmological particle acting the same in all universes of any type. It would be the cosmological unifier.

There is one other concept discussed in the string theory of which I would like to take some interest, and that is the membrane, or brane theory. It is proposed that the big bang, or little pop, might have been created by two membranes, upon one of which several universes might exist, bumping into each other, causing this huge big bang. My problem is that one membrane should pass right thru another without any reaction. There does seem to be considerable discussion about this concept.

I THINK WE CAN SEE THAT THE COSMOS IS BEYOND THE UNDERSTANDING OF MAN. WE CAN'T EVEN UNDERSTAND SOMETHING AS SIMPLE AS THE FOURTH DIMENSION, EVEN THOUGH WE HAVE ALL SORTS OF CLUES ABOUT OBJECTS WHICH WOULD EXIST IN SUCH A PLACE. IF WE CANNOT UNDERSTAND OUR COSMOLOGICAL HISTORY AND ENVIRONMENT, IS IT POSSIBLE THAT WE ARE BEING SOMEWHAT CONCEITED TO THINK WE MUST BE ABLE TO UNDERSTAND THE POWER BEHIND IT ALL. IF THE COSMOS IS BEYOND THE UNDERSTANDING OF MAN, THEN LOGIC DICTATES THAT WHATEVER TYPE OF POWER IS BEHIND IT IS ALSO BEYOND THAT UNDERSTANDING.

HOW VAIN MUST MAN BE, TO THINK HE CAN UNDERSTAND THE ENTIRE COSMOS, AS WELL AS THE POWER, WHATEVER IT IS, BEHIND THAT COSMOS.

But we must try, it is our nature.


So after that
I decided to beleive in
other frien of mine
Mr Will smith

Universe is expandind into a locker
and outside is MIB office


 ;D
Saludos

Edgar
« Last Edit: January 26, 2009, 01:38:57 PM by Edgar »
Once a CrotorNat always a CROTORNAT  2 times CB draft Champion 2009-2012

Nice to be back!

Re: Ask Edgar
« Reply #138 on: January 26, 2009, 01:40:32 PM »

Offline KCattheStripe

  • Danny Ainge
  • **********
  • Posts: 10726
  • Tommy Points: 830
Dear Edgar:

When did Rajon Rondo become overrated? For that matter, when did he become rated?

Re: Ask Edgar
« Reply #139 on: January 26, 2009, 01:48:38 PM »

Offline RebusRankin

  • Satch Sanders
  • *********
  • Posts: 9143
  • Tommy Points: 923
Dear Edgar,

I am a die hard Celtics fan. Recently, I met a girl. She is stop traffic beautiful, rich, generous, intelligent, has a great sense of humour and loves sports. However she is a Lakers fan. What do I do?

Confused in Green

Re: Ask Edgar
« Reply #140 on: January 26, 2009, 03:42:35 PM »

Offline Edgar

  • Kevin McHale
  • ************************
  • Posts: 24646
  • Tommy Points: 445
  • No contaban con mi astucia !!!
Dear Edgar:

When did Rajon Rondo become overrated? For that matter, when did he become rated?

Dear KC

1) Rated

Circa 2002


2) Overloved
(Never Overrated)



Circa 2008

Saludos

Edgar
Once a CrotorNat always a CROTORNAT  2 times CB draft Champion 2009-2012

Nice to be back!

Re: Ask Edgar
« Reply #141 on: January 26, 2009, 04:28:59 PM »

Offline Prof. Clutch

  • Bailey Howell
  • **
  • Posts: 2199
  • Tommy Points: 237
  • Mind Games
Edgar,
in the alternative universe where all of the horrible things that have happened to the celtics in the last 23 or so years didn't happen, what would the current celtics roster be?

Thanks,

Señor Clutch

Re: Ask Edgar
« Reply #142 on: January 26, 2009, 08:21:58 PM »

Offline wdleehi

  • In The Rafters
  • James Naismith
  • *********************************
  • Posts: 34023
  • Tommy Points: 1607
  • Basketball is Newtonian Physics
Dear Edgar

What would you do if you met a JIBBOO?

Re: Ask Edgar
« Reply #143 on: January 26, 2009, 08:46:50 PM »

Offline Redz

  • Punner
  • Global Moderator
  • Bill Russell
  • ******************************
  • Posts: 30897
  • Tommy Points: 3765
  • Yup
Oh Fantabulous One,

I have just been granted 3 wishes.  Whatever ever shall I command? (and don't say give them to Edgar  ;) , Hobbs maybe, but not Edgar  ;D )

Dilapidatedly yours,

Redz
Yup

Re: Ask Edgar
« Reply #144 on: January 27, 2009, 08:37:33 AM »

Offline Edgar

  • Kevin McHale
  • ************************
  • Posts: 24646
  • Tommy Points: 445
  • No contaban con mi astucia !!!
Dear Edgar,

I am a die hard Celtics fan. Recently, I met a girl. She is stop traffic beautiful, rich, generous, intelligent, has a great sense of humour and loves sports. However she is a Lakers fan. What do I do?

Confused in Green


Dear Confused in Green


Shes beautifull 10%                 So who cares at first sight the color of the shirt
Shes rich      99% kidding man 10%  So ure just saying you will be

Shes generous   20%                  So she will probably give all the money to you
loves sports    30%                 So you will probably spend it on Celtics and she will join you

Great sense of humor 20%            So she will probably be happy about it and she will read "Ask Edgar" when u told her to.

Shes a laker fan (-)90%        BIG PROBLEMS

But you say

Shes intelligent   So after reading Ask Edgar and Join you to a couple of celtics game she will be a celtic too






Saludos

Edgar
Once a CrotorNat always a CROTORNAT  2 times CB draft Champion 2009-2012

Nice to be back!

Re: Ask Edgar
« Reply #145 on: January 27, 2009, 09:06:16 AM »

Offline Edgar

  • Kevin McHale
  • ************************
  • Posts: 24646
  • Tommy Points: 445
  • No contaban con mi astucia !!!
Edgar,
in the alternative universe where all of the horrible things that have happened to the celtics in the last 23 or so years didn't happen, what would the current celtics roster be?

Thanks,

Seņor Clutch

Dear
Seņor Clutch

Starters

PG:  Rajon Rondo   PPG 10.9 RPG 4.90 APG 8.0 EFF + 18.02
SG: Ray Allen    PPG 18.1 RPG 3.40 APG 2.7 EFF + 16.93
SF:  Paul Pierce   PPG 19.1 RPG 5.70 APG 3.7 EFF + 18.66
PF:  Kevin Garnett  PPG 16.1 RPG 9.20 APG 2.6 EFF + 21.98
C:    Kendrick Perkins  PPG 8.6 RPG 8.10 BPG  1.7 EFF + 14.05

=back to back

Saludos

Edgar
Once a CrotorNat always a CROTORNAT  2 times CB draft Champion 2009-2012

Nice to be back!

Re: Ask Edgar
« Reply #146 on: January 27, 2009, 09:20:31 AM »

Offline Hoyo de Monterrey

  • Don Chaney
  • *
  • Posts: 1981
  • Tommy Points: 669
Dear Edgar,

When do I play next?

Sincerely,

Roger Mason, San Antonio Spurs
"Let me call him," Floyd said.

The man shook his head. "O.J. doesn't give out his cell," he said. "He'll call you."

Re: Ask Edgar
« Reply #147 on: January 27, 2009, 09:36:44 AM »

Offline Edgar

  • Kevin McHale
  • ************************
  • Posts: 24646
  • Tommy Points: 445
  • No contaban con mi astucia !!!
Dear Edgar,

When do I play next?

Sincerely,

Roger Mason, San Antonio Spurs

Dear Roger Mason
from the San Antonio Spurs

 ;D ;D ;D

    :-[

Saludos

Edgar

p.s. did u realize how many of my neurons ( both of them) are in this thread!!...lol
Once a CrotorNat always a CROTORNAT  2 times CB draft Champion 2009-2012

Nice to be back!

Re: Ask Edgar
« Reply #148 on: January 27, 2009, 09:38:14 AM »

Offline Edgar

  • Kevin McHale
  • ************************
  • Posts: 24646
  • Tommy Points: 445
  • No contaban con mi astucia !!!
Dear Edgar

What would you do if you met a JIBBOO?

Dear Wide Load

Well in case you don't know what's proper to do
I'll tell you the truth cause it's all very new
When you meet a Jibbo, he'll feel out of place
so be friendly and ask if he's got a myspace

of course u have to take in count that

As Jiboos are pretty scary, and i mean scary, is probably run away then change my pants.
 ;D

Saludos

Edgar
Once a CrotorNat always a CROTORNAT  2 times CB draft Champion 2009-2012

Nice to be back!

Re: Ask Edgar
« Reply #149 on: January 27, 2009, 09:56:04 AM »

Offline Edgar

  • Kevin McHale
  • ************************
  • Posts: 24646
  • Tommy Points: 445
  • No contaban con mi astucia !!!
Oh Fantabulous One,

I have just been granted 3 wishes.  Whatever ever shall I command? (and don't say give them to Edgar  ;) , Hobbs maybe, but not Edgar  ;D )

Dilapidatedly yours,

Redz


Dear Redz

I try the methafisic approach
the world peace approach
the rich dude approach
and after trying all of them
and thinking
and meditating hard


The answer came in the way of....


3 ponies  ;D

Saludos

Edgar
Once a CrotorNat always a CROTORNAT  2 times CB draft Champion 2009-2012

Nice to be back!