[Joanna Lytton-Vasey]

Re: Primer on the pseudo mystical science of quantum mechanics

Words that end in -icle are always suspect and somehow childish. The only ones that make sense seem to be article, chronicle, and (if you'll pardon me for mentioning it) testicle. Everything else could more clearly be described by adding the prefix "very small" or the suffix "-let".

I've never seen a coronavirus--have you?

Maybe everyone would just calm down if we renamed it the virusicle?


As to the rest of your post, I can only add "Yes, Brother!"

[WWJDnow]

Re: Primer on the pseudo mystical science of quantum mechanics

Words that end in -icle are always suspect and somehow childish. The only ones that make sense seem to be article, chronicle, and (if you'll pardon me for mentioning it) testicle. Everything else could more clearly be described by adding the prefix "very small" or the suffix "-let".
Maybe everyone would just calm down if we renamed it the virusicle?


As to the rest of your post, I can only add "Yes, Brother!"

Point well taken, Sister Joanna.

From this day hence, I shall refer to "cuticles" as "cutlets."

[MitzaLizalor]

Re: Primer on the pseudo mystical science of quantum mechanics

Words that end in -icle are always suspect and somehow childish. … Maybe everyone would just calm down if we renamed it the virusicle?

Wasn't there a word "animalcule" at one time? What happened to them?

Perhaps a few will remember a report that "molecules" had been "photographed" a year or so ago. Well, 2013 according to the Smithsonian magazine. It involved the putative C₂₆H₁₄ compound and "What A Surprise" the new blurry pictures are virtually identical to the line drawings worked out centuries ago! That's how long it took to announce a new instrument up to the task. Let's say the pope decided to announce molecular physics as a new dogma: would any one even blink? He has not done so because even that miserable troglodyte understands that if particles can exist today, trapped somehow in their own wavelength (a concept very familiar to popes) but evaporate tomorrow, any molecular dogmas would run into problems casting his entire creed into doubt. In this model, physics is a branch of chemistry, originally known as ALCHEMY a demonic heresy seeking transmutation of metals.

For the First Time, See What the Most Basic Chemistry Actually Looks Like¹
(the Smithsonian spouted)

“How convenient,” I thought. The whole thing reminded me of the way soap bubbles join together. It's easy enough to make some with food dye added and swipe a sheet of white card through the air to trap some like taking early-morning spiders' webs (although silver paint & black card is more usual then) then drip a few drops of pigment on to enhance the effect. Anyone could do it! The second heavily tinted picture² is from a different "experiment" in both cases see links below. I've even seen pictures of the universe on a large scale that look very similar to slow motion bubble bursts that are easy enough to find so I won't include those. Are they suggesting the cosmos has intersecting bubbles we can't detect which rupture into our dimensions producing a distribution we call the quantum universe of particles?

Stand well back, folks. Pope Frank is about to have a dogma attack!


1. https://www.smithsonianmag.com/smart...like-87651443/

2. https://www.newscientist.com/article...nces-captured/

[Dr. Anthony J. Toole]

Re: Primer on the pseudo mystical science of quantum mechanics

Sister, these ghostly images produced by scientists are not at all convincing. It looks like a bunch of kids' bricks. Let's see them try something like this:

[James Hutchins]

Re: Primer on the pseudo mystical science of quantum mechanics

In 1905 Albert Einstein predicted that light was made of particles. It took only a few years for other scientists to argue with him and tell him he was wrong (this process is grandiosely referred to as the scientific method). What scientists finally agreed on - pending further application of the scientific method - was that there is no such thing as a particle. Instead everything is a wave, or wave packet. Like a wave-like particle, you know?

The way scientists describe the wave packet is that nobody understands it. It is naive to ask what it is or what the hell anyone's talking about, lest a scientific methodological assessment be made of one's intelligence. The wave packet is obtained from solving an equation - again, it is important not to ask impertinent questions about the equation. In actuality, there are many equations: Schroedinger, Klein-Gordan, Dirac, and it's imperative to use the correct one in a given context, that being the one which minimizes the chance of anyone asking a question about one's use of it.

Ghostly waves fill the universe until they are popped by *mumble mumble* at which time they instantly look like particles, which is why naive fools in the past used to talk about particles. Although no scientist can fully explain the theory, it is universally understood that somebody somewhere probably in Europe can explain it in a German accent therefore it is correct. That ends the introductory primer but I'll be happy to field questions for anyone ignorant who can't be bothered to do their own work.

I am not a 'scientist'. While I did get a masters degree from Princeton in Organic Chemistry, my goal was to be able to disprove eviloution. Feel free to locate my thesis paper where I studied a jar of peanut butter and checked it to see if a person ever climbed out. spoiler alert, no, no person.
Back on topic, it is obvious to event the simplest of people that light is the result of God smiling and the glint in His Everlasting Eyes(r). It is when He is looking down upon His people with a penetrating and all seeing Perfect Gaze(c) that light is the brightest. The heat we feel from His Love all summer long is a bounty from His Good Grace(tm). The more heat He gives, the more we can know Her loves us.
All the rest of 'quantum wrenching' is just doublespeak made up by people that want to take advantage of sensible God fearing folk.

[Dr. Anthony J. Toole]

Re: Primer on the pseudo mystical science of quantum mechanics

I do remember that particular thesis - very tidy. I think it made the front page of several scholarly journals that I cited in my divorce briefings. Only to explain for the nth time these women shouldn't organize my stuff, don't touch my stuff, stay in your own space! Uhh... congratulations, I didn't know that was your work. I like tidy work, no loose ends to unravel the whole charade.

[James Hutchins]

Re: Primer on the pseudo mystical science of quantum mechanics

I do remember that particular thesis - very tidy. I think it made the front page of several scholarly journals that I cited in my divorce briefings. Only to explain for the nth time these women shouldn't organize my stuff, don't touch my stuff, stay in your own space! Uhh... congratulations, I didn't know that was your work. I like tidy work, no loose ends to unravel the whole charade.

Thank, very kind words. All my life, I have strived to be open minded and impartial. However, once I have irrefutable proof, I will not be swayed.
This is why, with unequivocal righteous, God is at the helm. There is no other possible explanation for creation of everything and the natural order of things.
Consider this (as I did, with no bias what so ever). Man has spent over 2,000 years to 'figure it all out. A woman could easily change a light bulb that span of time. Yet no man 'has the answer' except Christianity does and always has. There is empirical proof God created everything in just six days. Most men cannot assemble an Ikea shelf unit in that amount of time.
Some so called 'scientists' try and tell us it takes a week for the light from the sun to reach Gods Earth. If there were true, that would mean He made it all in utter darkness or 'dark matter' if you will.
No, I follow the facts. I do not try and make my crazed beliefs direct a explanation to fit.