[Dr. Anthony J. Toole]

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.

[WWJDnow]

The scientists tell us that nothing is anywhere until it is magically somewhere and, if it is somewhere, you can't tell how fast it's moving or it disappears. Then they gussy this nonsense up in a bunch of math so that nobody can understand it. What kind of fools do they take us for?

If quantum mechanics were true, God would have put it in the Bible.

[Dr. Anthony J. Toole]

Originally Posted by WWJDnow

What kind of fools do they take us for?

Thank you for your question, Brother. The kind of fools they take us for is the kind that will pay for them to breathlessly reimagine the paradigm in academic-industrial partnerships using trans-disciplinary AI technology. Aka hiring a Chinese postdoc to download TensorFlow and fiddle with it until the data looks right.

[Joanna Lytton-Vasey]

Before I make a fool of myself, can someone explain to me (a) what exactly a paradigm is and (b) how do you pronounce it? Because I am getting conflicting answers from my children and the older boys are laughing.

[Dr. Anthony J. Toole]

Originally Posted by Joanna Lytton-Vasey

Before I make a fool of myself, can someone explain to me (a) what exactly a paradigm is and (b) how do you pronounce it? Because I am getting conflicting answers from my children and the older boys are laughing.

English is like quantum mechanics in many ways. We have silent letters that mysteriously potentiate like a collapsed wave-function when saying words such as "paradigmatic". You'll know when you say it right because others will avoid saying that word afterwards in case they erroneously contradict you or timidly repeat your error, revealing themselves as not knowing how to pronounce it. The boys are too young to understand this advanced technique, obviously.

[Dolores de Barriga]

Originally Posted by Dr. Anthony J. Toole

English is like quantum mechanics in many ways. We have silent letters that mysteriously potentiate like a collapsed wave-function when saying words such as "paradigmatic". You'll know when you say it right because others will avoid saying that word afterwards in case they erroneously contradict you or timidly repeat your error, revealing themselves as not knowing how to pronounce it. The boys are too young to understand this advanced technique, obviously.

Thank you Doctor Toole. You have just explained, in a single sentence, why I'm having trouble with so many American vowels: it's because the nuances of pronunciation are as complicated as quantum physics.

[Dr. Anthony J. Toole]

Originally Posted by Dolores de Barriga

Thank you Doctor Toole. You have just explained, in a single sentence, why I'm having trouble with so many American vowels: it's because the nuances of pronunciation are as complicated as quantum physics.

You're welcome Dolores. The paradigm is enigmatic. Pragmatic, phlegmatic but never diaphragmatic.

[WWJDnow]

Originally Posted by Joanna Lytton-Vasey

Before I make a fool of myself, can someone explain to me (a) what exactly a paradigm is and (b) how do you pronounce it? Because I am getting conflicting answers from my children and the older boys are laughing.

A paradigm is 20 cents.

[WilliamJenningsBryan]

I spent quite a few years trying to grasp this Heisenberg stuff - wave/particle duality and all that crap. You can't really know anything unless you "observe" it - which tends to make some sense. Then things turn obtuse for awhile - "collapse of the probability wave", what does that mean?

One day, all of a sudden, it hit me - that's why we use the expression on the internet "pictures or it didn't happen". That's why I know Democrats are liars - they mostly don't have pictures or proof of anything (well, we did get pictures of Anthony Weiner's weiner).


Then there is Bell's Theorum - you know, the universe is "non-local". Some call it "quantum entanglement", and I'm assured by a famous astrophysicist that it's true (not that nigra Neil deGrasse Tyson). Lately I've been trying to use it to stop my neighbor's dogs from barking all night, but it hasn't worked.

[MitzaLizalor]

Originally Posted by Dr. Anthony J. Toole

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.

If there's no such thing as a particle [yellow highlighted in quote] then it would take zero time to move (it) from one location to another. It wouldn't matter whether you were observing it (in Casper, WY) or an alien (on MACS J1149+2223) from the wave packet's point of view [highlighted in magenta] so could there in fact only be one wave packet making its appearance at all required locations, presumably where observations were taking place, before relocating in zero time? All locations could be covered in zero time although seeming to be different times to us. Have I got that right?

[Phil Ander]

When Jesus speaks to me, I never really considered whether this was by waves or particles. Since no one else in close vicinity hears Him at the same time, it must be by particles directed to me alone. There is a finite number of particles, but not of waves, so this explains why not everyone hears Jesus speaking first hand, and why we True Christians™ have to spread Jesus's word by sound waves to non particle enabled fellow citizens

Particle Phil

[MitzaLizalor]

Are you saying sound involves waves or particles?

[Joanna Lytton-Vasey]

Originally Posted by MitzaLizalor

Are you saying sound involves waves or particles?

Yes, Sister, I think he is.

[MitzaLizalor]

So ears only have location some of the time?

[WWJDnow]

Particles (as the term is used in physics) aren't real. Things are what they are because that's the way God made them, not because they're made up of "atoms" and "molecules" and whatnot. Nobody has ever seen an atom, so why should anyone believe the "scientists" who tell us they exist?

It's the same as the lies these so-called scientists tell about the coronavirus hoax. I've never seen a coronavirus--have you? So maybe somebody can explain why we are shutting down the economy and wearing uncomfortable masks and getting microchipped three times in the vaccination clinics to "protect" against something that isn't really there. We True Christians™ demand proof before we will believe!

Once Donald Trump is reinstated as President in December, he'll fire the secular "scientists" in the government, replace them with with people who share President Trump's Biblical worldview, and straighten these things out once and for all.

[Joanna Lytton-Vasey]

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]

Originally Posted by Joanna Lytton-Vasey

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]

Originally Posted by Joanna Lytton-Vasey

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]

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]

Originally Posted by Dr. Anthony J. Toole

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®. It is when He is looking down upon His people with a penetrating and all seeing Perfect Gaze© that light is the brightest. The heat we feel from His Love all summer long is a bounty from His Good Grace™. 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.