|
} Ok. Now let's start with our first assumption that the Miami Dolphins
} beat the Chicago Bears. As can be shown in the theory of Improbability
} this is a hypothesis that can be safely discarded, since its
} probability is less than
}
} / oo
} | dx
} | ---------------------- * Om(x^2)
} | | x - y + eps |^alpha
} -oo/
}
} where alpha is the assumed quadrupole moment of the football and Om
} such a complicated function that it is impossible to compute this
} integral even using a coffee machine. A numerical analysis, however,
} leads to the result that this integral must be less than
}
} |
} |
} eps^y |
} |
} | y = sqrt(pi^e)
}
} where pi is pi and e is the base of the Briggs logarithms (contrary to
} the usual but wrong notation of e=2.718...). As now can be easily
} seen, following the results of Beckstein/Konotisho and
} Vaarhonen/McTalhon (1893, 1995, respectively) this has a value so
} small that, as we pointed out before, can be discarded, forgotten and
} buried. A recent work of Geller/Uri even shows that eps < 0.
}
} Second: Dan Quayle's favorite color is not blue. I will not point out
} here how to prove it, but simply believe me. I know it. It is not
} blue. So even this argument needn't be brought into consideration.
}
} Third: The question "who gives a damn" is central to our results.
} Well, it is general knowledge that Clark Gable can be ruled out,
} following a statement given during a conference shortly after the end
} of the US civil war. Mao can even be regarded as not coming into
} consideration, as he's pretty dead. No statements have been made by
} R.Nixon, thus avoiding a compromising situation. All these test
} results could lead to the premature conclusion that there does not
} exist some person giving a damn. But we now have a nonconstructive
} proof that there *is* some person:
}
} Lemma 1: There exists a person giving a damn.
}
} Proof: John Everny Fields III, an oil man from Texas was witnessed
} [Smith/Smith/Wesson,32] saying "I give a damn for it!", QED.
}
} The nonconstructivity of this Lemma follows from the usage of the
} choice axiom concerning witnesses [Calabrese/De Camorra,33].
}
} Now to the last problem. A naive conclusion using classical physics
} would immediately yield that both particles will happily pass each
} other without even touching, since they have negligible size and the
} chances to hit B by A are very, very small. So the inherent absurdity
} of this result can only be overcome by using quantum physical
} considerations. Since quantum physics is a little abstract and
} difficult to understand, it is now general use to formulate it in a
} more modern fashion that was introduced by Einman and can easily be
} applied to arbitrarily complicated problems, keeping the diffeomorphic
} structure of quantum problems intact, as could be shown in full rigour
} by Ngorongoro/Van der Velt.
}
} First of all, without loss of generality, let us assume that both
} particles are of opposite sex. This leads to nonvanishing terms in the
} nondiagonal elements of the scattering matrix. That is, after an
} interaction process of the particles one of them (or both) may be in a
} different state as before. Of course, this depends on the relative
} moon phase of the particles. The different state can be accompanied by
} the creation of new particles or even by pair creation, if the initial
} kinetic energy of A and B was high enough. Of course the kinetic
} energy need not be as high, if the attractive potential in the initial
} state is long ranged and fulfils the Passion (85) equation. Under
} certain - very rare - circumstances pair creation can lead to
} permanent stability; these strange effect is under current research
} (Nancy/Reagan 88, Bush/Bush ?)
}
} If you have difficulties imagining particles with different sexes try
} thinking of spin-up-spin-down particles. Of course, what we said above
} holds only for fermionic particles. For bosonic particles completely
} different equations hold. A main effect is a clustering which is often
} followed by strong geotranslational forces (the so-called
} Francisco/Andrea-effect). There are several conceptual
} interconnections with the weak and the strong nuclear forces; these
} are going to be used in the international EMR-project (earth's magnet
} removal project). Nearby application of nuclear force can be assumed
} to interfere heavily (as you pointed out correctly), so always check
} with your doctor, your drugstore and your funeral home.
}
} You owe me some handwaving argument.
|
![[IO]](https://kinzler.com/picons/db/domains/org/internetoracle/unknown/face.gif){kind=small}
