It appears that one of the aspects of this blog that appeals to many of you is when I make an observation or deduction that…
- Is absolutely, pretty much inarguably, true, and…
- Is absolutely, pretty much inarguably, contrary to what we are told by the various arms of the PTB.
- There is no # 3. 1 and 2 are all we need. (As a shorthand I call the stuff referred to in #2 ‘bullshit’. (by the way, it’s nice that I don’t any longer get a little red line/spelling correction under ‘bullshit’; the term has apparently been (grudgingly) accepted by the PTB as part of the vernacular.)
We won’t need this stuff today. Just common sense.
So okay. I do have a list of bullshit, but how to work it all in to this blog organically? I mean, where do I start? Conveniently, we have occasional commenters that, IMO, are working for the PTB and who come here to misdirect the conversation. But even if this is not the case, we still have a spring board to discussing HTWRW.
A commenter calling himself ‘Joe’ (whom I suspect is somehow related to ‘Sean’ from past posts) writes in the last post — presumably to ‘correct’ everything I wrote — the following:
Gas in an atmosphere will dissipate equally as you outline. But in a vacuum the strongest force at work is gravity which is an attractive force. Over enough time and with enough mass/atoms stars form. Those stars eventually die, the large ones explode and create the higher order elements that exist in the universe. It’s a byproduct of The fusion reaction and it’s been replicated on earth. Hydrogen bombs operate on fusion reaction. The really big stars are believed to collapse into black holes when they die. This is the generally accepted theory in science. It may not be 100% accurate or complete but the math and experimental evidence does support it.
Looks like something out of ‘Aliens’, right? No, it’s the best we can do to make a fusion reaction. And since the 1950s, it HAS NOT WORKED.
I say comments like this are ‘convenient’ because everything Joe writes here is high on my list of bullshit. And it’s all important stuff! (Joe’s paragraph would elicit a nod from virtually every scientist or academic on the planet. Mmmm! Oh, boy!)
Addendum: Joe’s comment also made me laugh, for this reason: It appears that he’s sort of given up. I mean it’s like he’s doing his job here, but by rote. He’s phoning it in, i.e., not even trying. No insults or explanations at all. Just weak and bald assertions. It’s like he sighed and ‘got on with his job’ – meaning repeating the mainstream bullshit — knowing it wasn’t going to fly here. (I don’t think ‘Joe’ is a bot, but only because a bot would try harder.)
A ‘fusion reactor.’ Trying to reproduce what they think goes on in the sun. What fools these mortals be!
According to mainstream (big bang) science, the first element to form when the universe cooled down a bit was hydrogen. In fact, aside from a bit of lithium (a tiny bit) hydrogen was all we had. It’s the simplest and lightest of the known elements. Now, according to Joe (and the mainstream), when hydrogen gets really hot and compressed it forms helium, the next lightest and simplest element. In the process a whole lot of energy is released. This is a ‘fusion’ reaction. This is what powers our sun and all the stars. This is what we’re told. It’s bullshit, as we’ll see.
Addendum: A ‘fission’ reaction is when an atom splits, likewise producing energy; the ‘atomic’ bombs that supposedly destroyed Hiroshima and Nagasaki were fission reactions (fission reactions are the type used in nuclear power plants). The ‘H-bomb’ is a fusion reaction and, again, as we’re told, is the energy-producing reaction deep inside our sun and indeed in all stars. But unlike an H-bomb, the fusion reaction inside our sun (we’re told) just keeps on giving. It is, in effect, a controlled reaction.
‘A system can not do work on itself.’ The sun knows this. Why doesn’t this guy?
According to the PTB (and ‘Joe’, their mouthpiece here for now), if we can harness the fusion of hydrogen (as in our sun and all stars), we would have ‘free energy,’ since hydrogen is so common here on earth (water is two hydrogen atoms, plus one of oxygen). Joe says we have created controlled fusion reaction here on earth. This is one of the many lies in Joe’s paragraph. Well, okay, it’s more of a de facto lie than an outright one. See, the PTB have been misdirecting us about free energy for almost a century, by continually claiming that fusion energy is just ‘around the corner’ (30 – 40 years ‘from now’ is the common claim, repeated down the decades). Check out this video and pay attention. This one is good too.
The point of these videos (and why Joe is lying) is that it takes more energy to create a fusion reaction than you get out of it. And this has been going on since the 1950s. Hundreds of billions of dollars have been spent on fusion research. (Take a gander at the video links! They are… staggering in their implications!) And they can’t seem to figure out why it isn’t working. Well, as an answer to Joe’s untruth-laden comment, I’m going to spill the beans on why it hasn’t worked, and never will: The sun is not powered by a fusion reaction. Ditto all the stars in the heavens. So they are tying to recreate something that does not exist.
Addendum: To put it another way, do you think the sun would be involved in a process of energy creation wherein you have to put more energy in than you get as an end result? Would nature do that? I don’t think so!
Isn’t it amazing that you can come to this Mickey Mouse blog of mine and hear a truth of this importance? It’s a mind blower!
All those brilliant science gatekeepers you see on YT? When it comes to the sun, the are ‘Not even wrong’!
But can I prove what I’m saying? That the sun and stars are not powered by internal fusion reactions? Well, let’s give common sense a try.
Regarding star formation, ‘Joe’ agrees that gas will disperse in a room, as in my soda bottle example. Then he says this: ‘But in a vacuum the strongest force at work is gravity which is an attractive force.’ (And indeed, this is what mainstream physics will tell you. Joe has gotten his talking points right.)
Mmmm. Let’s think about this. In fact, let’s do a Net search for ‘Why does gas expand in a vacuum’ and see what we get…
Try this, from… Forbes Magazine! As mainstream as you can get! I’ll paste it in:
Imagine we raise the partition: The gas molecules expand to fill the larger space. Simple, right. Poof, there goes star formation!
‘Imagine you have a jar of air. Inside the jar are a bunch of air molecules and each of those air molecules has energy. They are constantly bouncing around the jar. They bounce off of each other and they bounce off of the sides or the jar. The average speed of an air molecule, at room temperature and pressure is 500 meters per second. That means the average air molecule, unobstructed, could travel the length of four and a half soccer fields in a single second.
Now imagine we transfer that same quantity of air into a larger jar. Each molecule is still buzzing around, bouncing off of other molecules and off of the sides of the jar. The volume of the gas has increased and its density has decreased.
Let’s make the jar bigger again.
Again, those air molecules are still bouncing around at high speed. There is more space available now, so they hit each other a bit less often, but they still bounce off of the sides and change direction. If this jar is about a meter across, then each molecule can bounce off of up to 500 sides in a single second. We can keep making the jar bigger, and they’ll keep bouncing.
So, let’s just delete the jar.
We’re looking at empty space because the air molecules have all, with no boundaries to stop them, expanded off of the screen.’ [Yes, the above is similar to my ‘soda bottle in a room’ tale. Great minds think alike!]
In other words, the gas cloud in a vacuum will disperse into the void, which is the opposite of ‘collapsing’ (to form a star).
Imagine little arrows pointing inward towards the centers of the molecules, then try to find the ‘center of mass’ of the cloud.
Seems like you’re wrong, Joe (as is everyone else in mainstream physics).
Let’s look at it from another angle: According to Joe’s theory, gravity must be the sum of the ‘gravities’ of all the gas molecules, right? If you picture a ‘cloud’ of molecules, each molecule is a source of gravity; ‘the cloud’ itself does not have gravity, except as the sum of the gravity of each individual gas molecule. This is common sense. Now look at the diagram with the little O’s representing molecules in a vacuum. Now picture little arrows around each O, pointing in, toward the center of the molecule (the ‘O’). This represents the gravity in a cloud of gas molecules. (The gravity of each molecule would be infinitesimally small, by the way; almost nonexistent. I’m just playing along with Joe’s ‘logic’. In point of fact, molecular motion is billions of times stronger than the gravity of any molecule.)
Now, looking at this cloud, Joe, please explain how gravity would cause it to collapse ‘inward’.
You know, I think I’ve just double disproved the ‘collapsing gas cloud’ standard model of star formation! Wild, no? Right here on this little blog!
But let’s have someone smarter than me prove it. I’ve taken a bit from the end of a lecture by Dr. Pierre-Marie Robitaille. Please watch and notice his frustration right at the very end, when he finishing responding to a question our friend ‘Joe’ might have asked.
You can hear it in his voice there at the end, how upset he is to have gotten a question like the one he answered, from a scientist-colleague. See, when Dr. Robitaille refers to the laws of thermodynamics, he is really referring to common sense, as in the expanding gas example I gave. That modern physics is running afoul of common sense is very frustrating to this learned man, and he has sacrificed a lot to try to straighten out his colleagues. He’s having a hard time. So am I.
I ask you to now go to the full lecture for a more technical debunking of the ‘collapsing gas cloud’ standard model of star formation. Hell, I’ll make it even easier and embed it here:
Addendum: If you listen to Dr. Robitaille’s talk you will hear him use the words ‘intensive’ and ‘extensive’ in describing properties used in physics equations. Now it’s easy to get lost here if you’re not a physicist. But it’s really pretty simple. Consider these two properties to be like units of measurement. Feet as opposed to meters, say. Dr. R is merely saying, in effect, that if you use meters on one side of an equation, you have to use meters on the other side. You can’t mix feet with meters in an equation and expect to get the right answer. Or even simpler, we could use the ‘apples and oranges’ comparison. Okay? Okay. Now listen to the man. He’s not only brilliant but very courageous – like the kid in ‘The Emperor’s New Clothes.’
The ‘collapsing gas cloud’ standard model of star formation is what 99.9% of astronomers and cosmologists currently believe. Utter, complete nonsense. In other words, they are clueless as to the true nature of our very own sun! Yes, I’m going to use that word again: Implications!
I’ll add a ‘masonic floor’ to each post. This is from Spielberg’s ‘Lincoln.’ Trying to tell us something about ol’ Honest Abe, Stevie?
I’ll be back soon with more to say about HTWRW.
Allan
One of the things you might be wondering (and I hope you are) is how it could be that Forbes Magazine — which is as mainstream as you can get — could publish a scientific truth that puts the lie to the standard model of star formation, which is part of the very bedrock of modern science. Well, a better question is How does all of academia believe in the standard model to begin with? Answer one question and you’ve gotten to the root of it.
I mean: Is it really as simple as I make it out here? Because if it is this simple, it would seem to follow that we have a major problem with human nature. All I can say after some serious looking is that it pretty much is this simple, and yes we do have a major, major problem with human nature. It’s this problem that will likely equal the end of our species.
Shit. I still have not gotten around to why Possible Minds aggravated me…
One thing that Allan might like is that it separates time from space, and makes time an illusion created by the underlying fundamentals of reality (or something like that). It might take a few viewings, as it is a lot of information.
HEY HOOTEN: YOU DON’T GET TO LEAVE UNLIMITED COMMENTS. BTW, DO YOU HAVE A LIFE?
If you can’t tell me what specifically I am wrong about, then you are wasting everyone’s time. If I am so ignorant and misguided, what are you doing here, wasting your time and ours. I don’t have the energy or patience to go further responding to your crapola.
And I’ve warned you about you multiple comments and I’m warning you again.
Bow down before the (current) experts, clothed in shimmering degrees.
The majority of scientists — real scientists, for their day, and not just theologians — scoffed at Copernicus, too. At the time, all of physics (e.g., “why do things fall down?”) was predicated on the geocentric model. Heliocentrism meant they would have to throw out *everything* they thought they understood — and understood very well, mind you; there were only a few fiddly details yet to be worked out (how familiar…) And yet how wrong they were — even though their math was as correct as yours. You *can* mathematically describe the cosmos from the geocentric frame of reference; it’s bloody complex, of course, but the math works so it must be right….
Anyone with even a passing acquaintance of the *history* of scientific thought knows better than to regard *any* current theory as anything more than a working hypothesis.
“The most exciting phrase to hear in science, the one that heralds new discoveries, is not ‘Eureka!’ (I found it!) but ‘That’s funny …’ ”
— Isaac Asimov
Speaking of mental card houses, it’s the ones convinced that *this* time it *will* stand the test of time who are most likely to suffer when (not if) it gives way.
As in homomorphism? Gay hater! Just kidding. Do you think anyone will take the time to look it up and understand it? Probably not. My eyes kind of glazed over at the Wikipedia page. You are being concise, but I’m not sure people aren’t just passing over what you are trying to convey, and then responding with a bunch of whataboutisms. “Yeah, but what about …”. Ignoring your explanations as “smart people talk” that “doesn’t address the issue”. Or whatever.
Yes, I’m leaving a few comments today, because I plan on leaving less in the future. Yippee.
interesting site about what’s up with the very rare sun
https://reasons.org/explore/blogs/todays-new-reason-to-believe/read/tnrtb/2002/03/31/rare-sun
Good link. I like Guillermo and have read his book, The Priviledged Planet.’ Only problem with him is his standard model view of the sun — and this is a big problem. See Sky Scholar and Electric Universe for the true nature of the sun. And be advised that commenters who use ad hominems and straw man arguments re EU are virtually guaranteed to be govt moles. They have no specific arguments. Pls notice that.
In reply to Mellyrn THX1138 writes:
Comment:
When I was a young boy, I had read every science fact and science fiction book in the Ellenville Public Library. They were placed in separate places in the library.
Of course, being so young, I did not have the judgment to determine what was fact and what was fiction.
Now, in hindsight, I have come to realize that those supposedly factual science books where in fact science fiction books. Now I know that scientific theories are nothing more than science fiction stories. But they are told as if they’re absolute fact and true.
Hey, Sean, remember this from my Open Letter to Sam Harris, regarding the phony ‘Pale Blue Dot’ photo from NASA:
I gave a government shill (mole) who comments on my blog a full post of his own, with no interference from me, if he’d explain why no stars are visible in the photograph. This guy, ‘Sean’, who could not keep his trap shut in his misdirection on other subjects (over 2,000 words of NLP blabbing on the previous post), suddenly disappeared. Poof! I suspect something like this would happen with you, Mr. Harris, in a similar situation, i.e., if you were truly ‘cornered’ on a matter of vital interest to the PTB. The reason this doesn’t happen, though, is that you are careful in your choosing of speaking venues — they are all deep state sponsored media or alt media.
You have some bull shit to say in every one of my posts, yet you STILL haven’t answered a question posed right in one of the posts. A question that sort of says it all about you.
Does ANYONE doubt that this guy is on a govt salary? Sean, don’t you understand that every comment you make gives you away still further, in effect running counter to your bosses agenda? Have they noticed? Is your job in jeopardy?
Again:
You have some bull shit to say in every one of my posts, yet you STILL haven’t answered a question posed right in one of the posts. A question that sort of says it all about you.
Answer the question or get off the blog.
I always thought blogs worked differently than that. Are you sure you’re not thinking of a survey? You are literally demanding people explain ultra complex concepts in a short form that a six year old can understand, and then telling people to leave when they (obviously) can’t do it to your satisfaction. You need an email message list, not a blog. You are expecting the world to bend around you.
Sean and Joe are crying b/c I deleted their ad hominem comments but neither has dealt with Dr. R’s talk (video in the post). And with Sean, he posts a comment within minutes of this blog’s appearance, with nothing to say. These two are either idiots (ID/JITS) or govt shills/moles. No doubt whatsoever.
My blog. I’ll delete irrelevant comments in a heartbeat. Go somewhere else if you don’t like it.
If he’s deleted comments that are mere repetitions of “mainstream science says X and here’s the pretty math to prove it”, then housekeeping = cowardice in your world and I’m glad I won’t be visiting you any time soon.
From _The Space Child’s Mother Goose_:
This is the Theory Jack built.
This is the Flaw
That lay in the Theory Jack built.
This is the Mummery
Hiding the Flaw
That lay in the Theory Jack built.
This is the Summary
Based on the Mummery
Hiding the Flaw
That lay in the Theory Jack built.
This is Constant K
That saved the Summary
Based on the Mummery
Hiding the Flaw
That lay in the Theory Jack built.
This is the Erudite Verbal Haze
Cloaking Constant K
That saved the Summary
Based on the Mummery
Hiding the Flaw
That lay in the Theory Jack built.
This is the Turn of a Plausible Phrase
That thickened the Erudite Verbal Haze
Cloaking Constant K
That saved the Summary
Based on the Mummery
Hiding the Flaw
That lay in the Theory Jack built.
This is Chaotic Confusion and Bluff
That hung on the Turn of a Plausible Phrase
That thickened the Erudite Verbal Haze
Cloaking Constant K
That saved the Summary
Based on the Mummery
Hiding the Flaw
That lay in the Theory Jack built.
This is the Cybernetics and Stuff
That covered Chaotic Confusion and Bluff
That hung on the Turn of a Plausible Phrase
And thickened the Erudite Verbal Haze
Cloaking Constant K
That saved the Summary
Based on the Mummery
Hiding the Flaw
That lay in the Theory Jack built.
This is the Button to Start the Machine
Made with the Cybernetics and Stuff
That covered Chaotic Confusion and Bluff
That hung on the Turn of a Plausible Phrase
And thickened the Erudite Verbal Haze
Cloaking Constant K
That saved the Summary
Based on the Mummery
Hiding the Flaw
That lay in the Theory Jack built.
This is the Space Child with Brow Serene
Who pushed the Button to Start the Machine
That, made with the Cybernetics and Stuff,
Without Confusion, exposed the Bluff
That hung on the Turn of a Plausible Phrase
And, shredding the Erudite Verbal Haze
Cloaking Constant K,
Wrecked the Summary
Based on the Mummery
Hiding the Flaw,
Demolished the Theory Jack built.
https://www.amazon.com/Space-Childs-Mother-Goose/dp/1930900465
Icarus, Prometheus, Adam and Eve all those myth point to one thing…dont try to fly to high….or you will burn your wings
Speaking Of Sun and weather I have been listening to SuspiciousObservers
I hope they are righteous people because he seems like a smart group and the info is interesting.
Today he mentioned they will be using the US Power Grid as a giant antenna to track Solar Storms. He seems to say that our weather is directly connected to Sun activity.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6Thp_0z9NYE
Sorry left off the link
Yeah, Doug, I’m subscribed to SuspiciousObservers and believe they are very much onto an aspect of HTWRW. Their series on a possible coming extinction event is a must-see.
All my degrees are in the mail.
The simpler an explanation is .. the closer to the truth.
I understand that all of a sudden there is a shortage of Helium ?
And it’s always follow the money.
Our human nature {species} has been lied to and manipulated for so long it’s a wonder there’s any truth left to be recognized.
KISS ……
IMHO Stars are semi fixed Portals of energy existing between here(this visible universe) and the Dark Realm. stars are plasma disko ball’s, a giant electric arc furnace that is created by the tension between this realm of light that we exist in and the shiny black void this realm is built upon. BTW Tesla said there are beings on the other side, and im guessing he figured out that nothing is truly free in that energy exchange as well. what am i saying? heck i dont even know for sure…Aloha
If Tesla said it, it could be true, and the way you phrase it… sounds plausible!
As much as I distrust Miles Mathis with his history, peerage & agents stuff, I think there is something to his theory about the sun.
He theorizes the solar system picks up electromagnetic energy while it is moving through space, around the galaxy. This would put energy “creation” to the outer shell of the sun, and e.g. logically explain why sun spots are colder (less radiant).
Now going to watch Robitaille’s full talk …
Yeah, I separate MM’s physics from his other stuff — who knows how many people are involved, and I have to admit his stuff on the tides is pretty interesting. Strange world, when a govt black op tells us some truths, or maybe does…
And, pay close attention to Dr. R. If you have to look up stuff (like ‘intensive’ and ‘extensive’) i suggest you do so.
Did Vermeer originate the Masonic floor?
I don’t know the origin but it represents all kinds of things, good and evil, obviously, but more than that.
“Sometimes a cigar is just a cigar.” (Yeah, I know, Freud — but he’s still got a point here.)
My people were blue-collar western-Pennsylvanians, not a Mason among ’em, and Grandma’s kitchen floor was black-and-white linoleum tiles. It’s a simple design. Masons may have *co-opted* it for symbolism, and fancy media producers may be Masonic tools, but it’s still a very basic pattern.
My money says a black-and-white Masonic floor exists, or existed, in some particular location, some significant room somewhere, and Mason-influenced art is a nod to the *place* (and thereby Masonry), rather than to a meaning of the pattern itself.
http://web.mit.edu/12.004/TheLastHandout/PastHandouts/Chap13.Formation.pdf
just looked at that. saw this:
If the central regions of molecular clouds are gravitationally bound
Never saw anything about how this cloud could be gravitationally bound.
seems to be pretty worthless.
What if Eleanor Roosevelt could fly?
Is this the best you can do, Sean? Feels like you’re throwing in the towel like ‘Joe’.
Allan, I’ve noticed this ‘Sean’ entity never answers any questions directly to refute any of the obvious truths and still hasn’t answered you from the previous blog https://blog.banditobooks.com/two-seans-one-question/
Allan is Jean Valjean. Sean is Javert. Elementary.
“The Earth is observably and demonstrably flat.” Nathan Oakley.
Gravity = Magic.
That’s the equation.
Yes, Gravity can glue an ocean to the surface of a spinning ball but still allow coffee to spill out of a polystyrene cup and scald your crotch as you drive around a corner,
Yep, it sure can!
Something I’ve long wondered is why we believe in “stellar evolution” at all. Whatever a star is, it’s been pretty much the same for as long as we have looked at it.
We have observed big red stars, tiny white stars, little yellow ones, and the like. We’ve never seen a little yellow one expand into a giant red one, and then burn out.
I suspect that, somewhere in the gravitational-collapse/fusion story, someone saw (or thought he saw) a mathematical path from one kind of star to another. So I think, once we get clear of the gravity story, the story of how stars change (‘cos everything does) will be different.
Here’s my take on the problem with human nature:
99.44% of the time we have one of 2/two reactions, one positive, one negative, to a new idea.
The negative reaction takes one of two forms:
N1: It doesn’t even register. “In one ear and out the other,” kind of thing. It’s usually first.
N2: If it can be made to register, then our reaction is violent (subtly violent, among the more sophisticated believers) denial.
The positive reaction? We glom onto the new thing as if it were The Answer To Everything, from war&poverty to teenage acne. And we’re back to negative reactions to anything contradicting this.
But we do have that tiny, 0.56% window, where we can learn something.
The higher our tolerance for uncertainty, the larger our window of opportunity for learning. Most of us find “I don’t know” uncomfortable, if not downright terrifying. And real learning requires that, even when we’re pretty sure we’re on the right track, we hold whatever-it-is as no more than a working hypothesis for a weary long time.
(give yourself a cookie if you recognize the origin of my bogus 99.44% statistic; better yet, give yourself a nice hot bath….)
“Ivory soap,” says polvo as he looks around for the jar of cookies. It seems somebody has left the lid off the jar and all the cookies have bounced off each other and escaped. No… wait… I found a small hot dense cookie in the bottom of the jar. They must have gravitated.
Good point about stellar evolution. They have SEEN nothing of stellar evolution and make assumptions with literally nothing backing it up. Reminiscent of Darwinism.
“Gas in an atmosphere/vacuum”? Come on guys. You can stop just here. Every gas is in a vacuum (except if it is dissolved in a liquid) because what is between the molecules if not vacuum? That’s how gas is defined. The amount unit for gases is Mol. Atmosphere is also gas or mixture of gases if you ignore the dust. All that Joe entity writes is crap. Why bother?
Joe and Sean are here to misdirect our conversations. But seems to me they have pretty much given up. Good.
Thanks Allan, spot on. I Just finished the two YT vids you recommended re the state of fusion research and the money-chaser researchers. What a sorry-ass bunch of nincompoops, useful idiots or whatever they want to call themselves with all their nifty gadgetry helping to pump up their egos.
I’ve seen this nonsense in computer software, it’s called “vaporware”! Sell someth’n you ain’t got all with the theft of our tax dollars.
Most folks are not aware of the horrendous wastefulness of the hunt for fusion energy. It’s misdirection, of course, from true free energy, and anti-gravity, which has been secretly around since probably the 1950s, when the research suddenly went dark. Now we never hear about it. It’s so obvious that many of the ‘UFO’s (especially the triangular TR3-Bs) are exactly that. Anti-grav and free energy are likely closely related.
What are you doing on this blog? You’re not smart enough to be a govt shill, so what is the point?
I have nothing to do with “Joe” or any other commenting entity.
No matter it’s out of economic interest to sell ignorance on this blog by generating controversy or simply paranoiac episodes with delusion of grandeur, these instances are being documented.
I also suggest Allan publish “Joe”‘s commenting email address under legal circumstances.
The mistake of Allan’s ‘thought’ experiment lies in failure to understand that star formation from a gas cloud is dependent upon force of gravity exceeding dispersive forces due to thermal gas pressure. A detailed explanation of Jeans criterion and calculations including gravitational potential:
http://web.mit.edu/12.004/TheLastHandout/PastHandouts/Chap13.Formation.pdf
You are a piece of work, Sean. I hardly hit ‘Publish’ and you have a comment ready. Do you do anything other than keep an eye on my blog and make questionable comments? Do you have any opinion about Dr R’s talk, which is somewhat more important than my thought experiment? I eagerly await your response.
This brilliant formula just came to me in a flash of insight:
Sean = ID/JIT
Nuff Said…
Note from ACW: The initials are Kentuck-ese (where I am now and Logan was until recently) for ‘idiot’.