To Seattle Truth and Frank Zindarsic,
I've enjoyed Seattle Truth's recent video series, partially for their originality, rebelliousness, and the fact that they attempt to convey to the common man and woman certain mathematical principles pertaining to mysterious ways of quantum physics - and occasionally through the creativity of rap. The accuracy of what has been put to rap-speak is of course open to debate. I realize that Seattle Truth, and perhaps Frank Zindarsic as well, are not asking for the collective wisdom coming from this group, what I have often called the Vort Collective. Nevertheless, since Seattle Truth continues to post commentary here I feel compelled to personally suggest that instead of patronizing "Mr. Jonsey"s skepticism a more effective approach would be to prepare an informed response to what appears to be a fundamental disagreement pertaining to the measured size of the proton radius. The charge has been made that the size of proton radius has been misinterpreted (less charitably stated: conveniently altered) in order to suit Frank Zindarsic's theories. IMO, this issue must be addressed. I'm gathering the impression that much of Frank's unique theory is fundamentally built on what is considered to be the correct measured size of the proton's radius. If these measurements remain in dispute, if Frank cannot effectively convince his audience as to why we should take his measurements as the correct one I believe Mr. Zindarsic will continue have an exceedingly difficult time making headway. Mr. Jones offers a practical suggestion, that Mr. Zindarsic: > ...return to the Lab and find the rock-solid > experiment that blows his critics (me) > out of the water. Jones follows up with: > You have the skills to do that Frank, and you > are smarter than I am and most of us here are, > but you are not smarter than all of us. * * * I'll now offer up some personal observations, some that might be perceived to be at Seattle Truth's expense. In my own experience I've come realize the following personal truth - that while fighting "the good cause" is indeed a worthy mission to tackle in life, acquiring the wisdom to discern the difference between fighting for "an informed cause" versus fighting for "an unformed cause" can be one of most difficult lessons in life to learn. In my own muddled (and occasionally checkered) past I know I'm guilty of having fought my share of battles I initially perceived as being "worthy" but later learned were less informed than what I had initially assumed. Nevertheless, to eventually discover my mistakes, however embarrassing they might have been to acknowledge, is how I suspect we all slowly learn the art of discernment. There are no free passes (or guarantees) when one is shopping around for a worthy cause in which to base one life's mission on. Combine that with impatience and a zeal to start fighting the battle prematurely, and one is likely to sow the seeds of encountering another rudely felt "learning experience". I don't know if Frank Zindarsic's theory is correct or not. The question I hope Seattle Truth (and Frank Zindarsic) will never stop asking themselves is: Do they know for sure if Zindarsic's theory is correct. Verifying one's suspicions is the only way I know of in regards to resolving such conundrums. Regards Steven Vincent Johnson www.OrionWorks.com www.zazzle.com/orionworks
