No cow ever shits bull shit. They always shit cow shit. Therefore your reasoning is flawed.
On Sat, Jun 8, 2013 at 1:46 PM, Alain Sepeda <[email protected]> wrote: > Those miracles could be translated in Cowboy language : > > People who have seen animal in the sky are drunk because > > 1- no cow have wing > 2- even with wings flying cows would dump bullshit and you will find some > on the roofs > 3- you should find linear tracks of cows running to take-off > > This what cowboys science say, and there is no alternative. > > > > > 2013/6/8 Harry Veeder <[email protected]> > >> >> >> On Fri, Jun 7, 2013 at 11:35 PM, Eric Walker <[email protected]>wrote: >> >>> On Fri, Jun 7, 2013 at 8:23 PM, Harry Veeder <[email protected]>wrote: >>> >>> Thanks. Take your time, but it would be nice to read the source. >>>> >>> >>> The headings that set out the three "miracles" in his book are (pp. >>> 111-13): >>> >>> 1. Fusion-rate miracle >>> 2. Branching-ratio miracle >>> 3. Concealed-nuclear-products miracle >>> >>> He goes into further detail on each of these, and I do not see a >>> succinct summary anywhere. For (1), he is referring to the problem of >>> overcoming Coulomb repulsion. For (2), he's talking about how you'd have >>> to significantly decrease the rate of the d+d→3He+p and d+d→t+n branches, >>> which are normally ~50 percent each, and increase the d+d→4He+ɣ reaction, >>> which is normally minuscule (on this point I think he's mistaken). For >>> (3), he's concerned about missing gamma rays, among other things. >>> >>> Eric >>> >>> >> Does he classify them as miracles because he considers them impossible >> or extremely improbable? >> It seems to me if he was certain they were impossible he would >> have explicitly mentioned violation of conservation of momentum/energy >> since >> modern physics considers that impossible in no uncertain terms. >> >> BTW, if a possible but extremely improbable event is miraculous, is an >> impossible event monstrous? >> >> Harry >> >> >> > >
