Should we have listened to the concept of Ampere rather than to that of Faraday?
fitz
(Click link below:)
http://www.rbduncan.com/schrod.htm
This book was written by a mathematical physcist who was one of that
group who got us on the moon.
Benj
You mean one of the group who faked the moonshot? :)
It clearly is the theory of a mathematical physicist alright given
that it is the largest load of rubbish I've ever seen. The man should
first learn to speak English, and then discover that words actually
have meanings independent of those you personally assign and finally
he needs to go back on his meds. Lessee. Energy comes pouring from
only the past, space is "nothing" and force doesn't exist at all, but
even though force doesn't exist at all it actually arises between the
differences in "nothing" sometimes having "more nothing" and sometimes
"less nothing". Light actually travels easily through nothing and
basically reality is simply some math that only the math-elite can
understand and interpret for us low life grunts. Did you see the new
suit the Emperor bought?
Yep, I clearly know as little about "science' as the "debunkers" here
say I do. Silly me, I keep looking for cogent logic when "obviously
reality" is a mess that makes no sense to me at all. That can only
mean that I am stupid and they are brilliant! After all I had nothing
at all to do with a moon shot, faked or otherwise.
mike
fd6a5d...@z66g2000hsc.googlegroups.com>, bja...@iwaynet.net says...
> On Jul 29, 1:01 pm, fitz <zeus...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > Heres a person that thinks we should have.
> >
> > (Click link below:)
> >
> > http://www.rbduncan.com/schrod.htm
> >
> > This book was written by a mathematical physcist who was one of that
> > group who got us on the moon.
>
> You mean one of the group who faked the moonshot? :)
>
> It clearly is the theory of a mathematical physicist alright given
> that it is the largest load of rubbish I've ever seen.
But weren't you intrigued to attempt to understand the different nuances
that fitz was attemptinmg to apply to the text by his rather unique
typography? For example, is bold type more significant than italic? Is
red greater or lesser emphasis than green (or blue)? What about
underlining - where does that fit in the scale of emphasis? He may write
rubbish; but he does write it with brightly coloured crayons.
Mike
Jack Wang
"mike" <m....@irl.cri.replacethiswithnz> 写入消息
news:MPG.2304eadcf...@news.comnet.net.nz...