Yep, exactly. The square root of negetive one is key to string theory. On Thu, May 20, 2010 at 7:11 AM, Roderick T. Beaman < crazylibertar...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > > You got it, baby, you got it. > > And, from what I know, within that non-linear math existence, much of it > reduces to a linearity. > > Interestingly, I read, about 30 years ago, that physicists had reduced some > principle to two solutions, one involving an imaginary number, the square > root of -1. They discarded that choice and just pursued the real number. > Years later, they discovered another phenomena and when they re-examined the > equation, they realized that had they pursued the imaginary choice, they > would have discovered the phenomena and its solution those years before. > > I do not know the truth of that but it is interresting. > > > > Roderick T. Beaman,D.O. > Board Certified Family Physician > Protect freedom. Disarm the government. > > > ------------------------------ > *From:* earl reese <earljre...@gmail.com> > *To:* LibertarianExchange@yahoogroups.com > *Sent:* Thu, May 20, 2010 3:35:37 AM > > *Subject:* Re: [LibertarianExchange] Elena Kagan > > > > It doesn't matter. Physics has pretty much proved reality exists in > non-linear math anyway. > > Math could be an example (as stated) and that part makes sense. But what > really makes sense (to me) is the elegant. "Do you believe in the > Constitution as written in the meaning of the day(s) in which it was > written?" "If so do are you willing to reverse settled decisions that are > not within that reasoning". > > > On Wed, May 19, 2010 at 6:55 AM, Roderick T. Beaman <crazylibertarian@ > yahoo.com <crazylibertar...@yahoo.com>> wrote: > >> >> >> Constitutional law is supposed to be legitimized by the Constitution. >> Nominees should be versed in how decisions are arrived at, not just the >> decisions. >> >> Our philosophy of law should be stated. And if judges have to cite the >> philosophy, they might arrive at a different decision. >> >> It woujld be like this. If there is one fault in the chain of reasoning, >> all the following conclusions are incorrect. Math would be an example. If >> there is a flaw, then the rest of the conclusions are suspect. >> >> Roderick T. Beaman,D.O. >> Board Certified Family Physician >> Protect freedom. Disarm the government. >> >> >> ------------------------------ >> *From:* earl reese <earljre...@gmail. com <earljre...@gmail.com>> >> *To:* LibertarianExchange @yahoogroups. >> com<LibertarianExchange@yahoogroups.com> >> *Sent:* Wed, May 19, 2010 3:42:46 AM >> *Subject:* Re: [LibertarianExchang e] Elena Kagan >> >> >> >> Agreed but what is the difference between the law which the Constitution >> makes possible and the philosophy of law as allowed by the Constitution? >> I'm a little slow and this question is not meant to be rhetorical. I need >> help here. >> >> On Thu, May 13, 2010 at 11:55 AM, Roderick T. Beaman <crazylibertarian@ >> yahoo.com <crazylibertar...@yahoo.com>> wrote: >> >>> >>> >>> >>> When Pres. Barack Obama presented Elena Kagan as his next Supreme Court >>> nominee, he cited her expertise in constitution law. He did not cite her >>> expertise in the Constitution, only constitutional law. >>> >>> As one pundit has observed, I think it was Gary North, law schools teach >>> case law, not philosophy of law. I think something is wrong with that. >>> >>> Roderick T. Beaman,D.O. >>> Board Certified Family Physician >>> Protect freedom. Disarm the government. >>> >>> >> >> >> -- >> Earl >> >> One hundred victories in one hundred battles is not the most skillful. >> Seizing the enemy without fighting is the most skillful. >> >> Never will those who wage war tire of deception. >> >> Sun Wu (Tzu) >> >> >> >> > > > -- > Earl > > T]he government of the United States is a definite government, confined to > specified objects. It is not like the state governments, whose powers are > more general. Charity is no part of the legislative duty of the government. > > James Madison > > Never will those who wage war tire of deception. > > Sun Wu (Tzu) > > > > > -- Earl T]he government of the United States is a definite government, confined to specified objects. It is not like the state governments, whose powers are more general. Charity is no part of the legislative duty of the government. James Madison Never will those who wage war tire of deception. Sun Wu (Tzu)
