--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" <jst...@...> wrote: > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, ruthsimplicity <no_reply@> wrote: > <snip. > > Quantum mechanics explains a lot, but the big problems > > arise when trying to form a unified field theory, which > > Hawking and others continue to struggle with. But > > there is no unified field theory yet, despite what > > Haglin says. As the quote in the first post says, > > ". . . if there's something about the physical world > > that quantum mechanics isn't telling you, it doesn't > > follow that those gaps can be filled with poetry." > > Mystical answers are not necessarily the correct > > answers. > > > > Quantum Mechanics is often misused to explain more > > than it does. Consciousness is a big example. And > > classical physics still explains behavior of "large" > > objects. Classical physics isn't wrong, it just isn't > > the whole picture. > > As usual, Ruth doesn't dare quote me, but she figures > she's responding to the post of mine that John was > commenting on.
As usual, terrified of not being the center of attention, Judy tries to start Yet Another Argument with Ruth, who is *also* ignoring her. Ruth was talking about the *subject*, and ignoring the idiotic compulsive arguer who was trying to make the subject ALL ABOUT HER. > Perhaps she should have read what I wrote instead of > making assumptions about it: Classic Judy: "This subject isn't about the subject. It's all about ME. Don't you GET that? You HAVE to read everything I wrote, and then reply stupidly to it so that I can argue with you and point out how REEEALLLY REEEALLLY STOOOPID you are. Don't you understand how things WORK on FFL?" Keep ignoring the sour bitch, Ruth. In this case and in ALL cases as far as I can tell, the subject is about the subject, and Judy is not worth *being* that subject. She's become Willytex, trying to butt into ongoing conversations *for no other reason* than to start an argument.
