Questions on faster than light

On Aug 22, 8:00*am, "Dr. Mary Ruwart" wrote:
You stated that:

"And of course spacecraft traveling at 0.99999c --
or anything faster than about 0.10 c, it turns out --
verge on the ridiculous. *Even 0.10 c requires a vastly
better rocket (a theoreticalboron-hydrogen fusion affair)
than we have now. *Such a spacecraft might shave a year
or two off a round trip lasting two centuries to a system
10 lightyears distant. "

The best systems for thrust-to-weight ratio and minimal fuel storage
and using say, the 'easier' Helium-3 fusion, might be able to reach
0.1c. But now what happens if you run across a rock floating in space
at that speed? Not only do you have to get to that speed, you also
have to plan for what you do when something goes wrong. The part I
like the best is what you are going to do at your destination. You
must slow back down to non-relavistic velocities. What if there's
nothing for you to use at your destination to help you? (like oxygen
to breathe, or water to drink, or a place to live easily) You now must
get back up to 0.1c and go somewhere else.



Don't forget antimatter:

Interstellar travel is just an antimatter of time.
Energy from particle annihilation could cut voyages by light years.
Keay Davidson, Chronicle Science Writer
Sunday, August 8, 2004
"Matter/antimatter annihilation represents the 'ultimate' source of
stored energy for space propulsion," says a November 2002 report from
NASA's Marshall Space Flight Center in Alabama.
"Today's rockets use chemical fuel, which is too weak and heavy to
support an interstellar mission. The nearest stars are more than 20
trillion miles away; a trip by chemical rocket would take thousands of
years.
"By contrast, antimatter engines would accelerate so fast that the
mission would be much shorter. Howe and his colleagues have calculated
that with 17 grams of antimatter -- barely enough to hold in your hand
-- a robotic space probe could get to Alpha Centauri in 40 years. To
get there in a decade, the rocket would need at least four times as
much antimatter.
"Interstellar flight requires quantities of antiprotons that we can't
even imagine producing at this point," acknowledges Howe, whose firm
is largely funded by the NASA Institute of Advanced Concepts. But time
might change everything; he notes that in the early 1940s, there were
only "micrograms of enriched uranium (for nuclear bombs) available to
the world.
"At that time, if you said you'd need a ton of it, it would have
seemed impossible. But nowadays, we have so many tons of it, we've
quit making it."
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/articl...NG0984OM41.DTL


Considering the pace at which phyiscs is advancing I believe we will
know how to produce and store antimatter in large amounts within just
a few decades.


Bob Clark

On Sep 3, 4:28 pm, Robert Clark wrote:
On Aug 22, 8:00 am, "Dr. Mary Ruwart" wrote:



You stated that:

"And of course spacecraft traveling at 0.99999c --
or anything faster than about 0.10 c, it turns out --
verge on the ridiculous. Even 0.10 c requires a vastly
better rocket (a theoreticalboron-hydrogen fusion affair)
than we have now. Such a spacecraft might shave a year
or two off a round trip lasting two centuries to a system
10 lightyears distant. "

The best systems for thrust-to-weight ratio and minimal fuel storage
and using say, the 'easier' Helium-3 fusion, might be able to reach
0.1c. But now what happens if you run across a rock floating in space
at that speed? Not only do you have to get to that speed, you also
have to plan for what you do when something goes wrong. The part I
like the best is what you are going to do at your destination. You
must slow back down to non-relavistic velocities. What if there's
nothing for you to use at your destination to help you? (like oxygen
to breathe, or water to drink, or a place to live easily) You now must
get back up to 0.1c and go somewhere else.

Don't forget antimatter:

Interstellar travel is just an antimatter of time.
Energy from particle annihilation could cut voyages by light years.
Keay Davidson, Chronicle Science Writer
Sunday, August 8, 2004
"Matter/antimatter annihilation represents the 'ultimate' source of
stored energy for space propulsion," says a November 2002 report from
NASA's Marshall Space Flight Center in Alabama.
"Today's rockets use chemical fuel, which is too weak and heavy to
support an interstellar mission. The nearest stars are more than 20
trillion miles away; a trip by chemical rocket would take thousands of
years.
"By contrast, antimatter engines would accelerate so fast that the
mission would be much shorter. Howe and his colleagues have calculated
that with 17 grams of antimatter -- barely enough to hold in your hand
-- a robotic space probe could get to Alpha Centauri in 40 years. To
get there in a decade, the rocket would need at least four times as
much antimatter.
"Interstellar flight requires quantities of antiprotons that we can't
even imagine producing at this point," acknowledges Howe, whose firm
is largely funded by the NASA Institute of Advanced Concepts. But time
might change everything; he notes that in the early 1940s, there were
only "micrograms of enriched uranium (for nuclear bombs) available to
the world.
"At that time, if you said you'd need a ton of it, it would have
seemed impossible. But nowadays, we have so many tons of it, we've
quit making it."http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/chronicle/archive/200...

Considering the pace at which phyiscs is advancing I believe we will
know how to produce and store antimatter in large amounts within just
a few decades.

Bob Clark

It boggles the mind. I wonder what it is they are mistakingly calling
antimatter?

Dirac was of course completely wrong, there is no Dirac sea, there is
no antimatter, its all just pure rubbish.

The closest thing you have to an antimatter explosion is if you squish
a single bubble of quantum foam.

If you manage to flatten one, that is the strongest form of explosion.

Where that might also happen is in a black hole supernova. Where lots
of them get squished at the same time.

It turns out that not only Hawking radiation escapes a black hole,
eventually they also supernova.
http://www.space.com/scienceastronom...on_050105.html

http://www.cnn.com/TECH/space/9805/06/space.explosion/

And they can be caused by supernova explosions as well.
http://www.space.com/scienceastronom...ernova_wg.html

I honestly do not know what on earth they are referring to, when they
are referring to anti-matter, because there is no such thing.

There is some process going on that they are calling anti-matter, but
it is not anti-matter.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antimatter
Particle physics is like string theory. Just a bunch of bs.
And of course physicists know that.

If you need proof, then listen to what I listened to today from 2004
on the BBC, where Green was selling string theory to people who work
at CERN, and they are saying that stings, are tiny little filaments
inside particles, dot particles.
And they say that, to tag string theory, onto particles, which also
don't exist.

To give it credence as a free lunch as well. You know, to have a nice
easy life studying things that do not exist, and making electro
magnets, that are 29 km long.

Pure research as it were.

Dirac was a arithmetician, not a physicist, and he knew squat about
atoms, but because he said there should be more particles, he has been
embraced by the high energy physics community, although nothing he
ever said has ever been proven,.

"In 1933, following his 1931 paper on magnetic monopoles, Dirac showed
that the existence of a single magnetic monopole in the universe would
suffice to explain the observed quantization of electrical charge. In
1975[6] and 1982[7] intriguing results suggested the possible
detection of magnetic monopoles, but there is to date no convincing
evidence for their existence."

The Brits are the most incredible bull****ters in the universe. They
can use words from other people, to make you believe they know what
they are talking about, be touted as experts, get the Nobel Prize, and
it is complete utter nonsense.

Magnetic monopole. He doesn't even know what magnetism is.

As clueless as they come. Dotty as you please.

"In 1933, following his 1931 paper on magnetic monopoles, Dirac showed
that the existence of a single magnetic monopole in the universe would
suffice to explain the observed quantization of electrical charge. In
1975[6] and 1982[7] intriguing results suggested the possible
detection of magnetic monopoles, but there is to date no convincing
evidence for their existence."

The Brits are the most incredible bull****ters in the universe. They
can use words from other people, to make you believe they know what
they are talking about, be touted as experts, get the Nobel Prize, and
it is complete utter nonsense.

Magnetic monopole. He doesn't even know what magnetism is.

As clueless as they come. Dotty as you please.

Contrary to the logo at Cern laboratories, electrons are not little
pieces of dust, that orbit a nucleus.

You can't just do physics by proclamation and decree. You can't say
well they exist in shells only, because they exist in shells only.

That just shows you don't know what an electron is.

A nucleus, as it resists expansion, will send out a wave, a spherical
wave that will crest at the electron radius.

With the Hydrogen nucleus it will have the strength of one electron
and be equivalent to one Hertz.

The strength of all the waves emanating from the nuclei of the
elements.is divisible by that Hydrogen frequency.

One electron, and as you move up the periodic table, each element has
another electron.

The strength of the wave at the electron radius, which is the crest of
said wave, is equal to the number of electrons for that element.

And since the wave travels from the nucleus to the electron shell
radius, you can intercept it anywhere, even beyond the radius.
It all depends how much other energy is bombarding that nuclei from
other atoms or from the background.

The heavier an element, the more it resists expansion, the stronger
the wave it sends out.

And at the crest of that spherical wave, thats an electron, when it is
measured, to have the amount of energy, of an electron.

Negative charge is where two waves cancel each other out and create a
low pressure area, and positive charge is where two waves add up.

The nucleus is expanding, so it is going out along the t axis, which
is from the center to the electron shell radius, hence why they say
positrons are in the nucleus, because it is moving in that positive
direction.

There are no little pieces of rock down there. If there were, how on
earth would E-mc2?

There are no alpha particles either. Those are just Helium nuclei.

Take a children's pond, and put Styrofoam blocks in it, and set up
some bowling pins, on those blocks to tip over only when the waves are
strong enough to equal a representation of an electron.

Then make lots of vibrating waves in that pond, and when a bowling pin
topples, say there, look, there is an electron.

And yes, those bowling pins will fringe as well.

How on earth, could you in any way, get antimatter from all that?

The pins stand back up?

Thats all they are doing when they detect an electron. Looking for the
value of e, where they think it should be, and then using statistical
analysis, basing assumptions on how much energy will be where at what
time.

We can actually see atoms now, and even move atoms around and spell
words with them, and manipulate them with lasers, we can flatten the
energy out of them slowly draining it, by cooling them down, we can
make one big atom, out of a bunch of small separate atoms. Just by
getting them all in the same state, the nucleus bubble, will form one
large bubble.

I suppose it is just the terminology that throws people off.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bose_einstein_condensate

Pictures of atoms under a microscope.
http://tinyurl.com/5rsjvg

Something Rutherford couldn't do. Nor Dirac. Nor Niels Bohr.

How on earth, could you in any way, get antimatter from all that?

The pins stand back up?

Thats all they are doing when they detect an electron. Looking for the
value of e, where they think it should be, and then using statistical
analysis, basing assumptions on how much energy will be where at what
time.

We can actually see atoms now, and even move atoms around and spell
words with them, and manipulate them with lasers, we can flatten the
energy out of them slowly draining it, by cooling them down, we can
make one big atom, out of a bunch of small separate atoms. Just by
getting them all in the same state, the nucleus bubble, will form one
large bubble.

I suppose it is just the terminology that throws people off.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bose_einstein_condensate

Pictures of atoms under a microscope.http://tinyurl.com/5rsjvg

Something Rutherford couldn't do. Nor Dirac. Nor Niels Bohr.

"Dirac discovered the magnetic monopole solutions, the first
topological configuration in physics, and used them to give the modern
explanation of charge quantization. He developed constrained
quantization in the 1960s, identifying the general quantum rules for
arbitrary classical systems.

Dirac's quantum-field analysis of the vibrations of a membrane, in the
early 1960s, proved extremely useful to modern practitioners of
Superstring theory and its closely related successor, M-Theory.[18]"

So you see you can read this page on Dirac, and hear how he was
Lucasian professor, on of the greatest physicists that ever lived, and
all the rest, and if you actually don't know much about physics, you
will believe that he may have even taught Einstein a thing or two and
there should certainly be a statue of the man in some prominent place.
But those last two paragraphs say it all to anyone who actually knows
anything about how atoms actually work, etc.
Its complete fabricated nonsense. But thats good, when you are trying
to hide how things actually work from everyone.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_Dirac

All you have to do is read between the lines. Read that page and you
will see a mention of Hilbert Space.
Ahhhh.... nudge nudge wink wink say no more.

Hilbert Space, is hyper space, and hyper space, or Hilbert Space, is
where, the universe expands into, along the t axis.

As it does that, it sends waves out, in the quantum foam. Dark energy
to some, magnetism to others, the EM spectrum to yet others. Electro-
magnetic energy, depending on how it is interacting.

In the Hydrogen atom, the wave leaves the nucleus traveling at c, with
a force of G, and the wave will crest with an energy of e.

How elegant is that?

Thats reality.

On Sep 3, 10:06 pm, Rick wrote:
How on earth, could you in any way, get antimatter from all that?

The pins stand back up?

Thats all they are doing when they detect an electron. Looking for the
value of e, where they think it should be, and then using statistical
analysis, basing assumptions on how much energy will be where at what
time.

We can actually see atoms now, and even move atoms around and spell
words with them, and manipulate them with lasers, we can flatten the
energy out of them slowly draining it, by cooling them down, we can
make one big atom, out of a bunch of small separate atoms. Just by
getting them all in the same state, the nucleus bubble, will form one
large bubble.

I suppose it is just the terminology that throws people off.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bose_einstein_condensate

Pictures of atoms under a microscope.http://tinyurl.com/5rsjvg

Something Rutherford couldn't do. Nor Dirac. Nor Niels Bohr.

"Dirac discovered the magnetic monopole solutions, the first
topological configuration in physics, and used them to give the modern
explanation of charge quantization. He developed constrained
quantization in the 1960s, identifying the general quantum rules for
arbitrary classical systems.

Dirac's quantum-field analysis of the vibrations of a membrane, in the
early 1960s, proved extremely useful to modern practitioners of
Superstring theory and its closely related successor, M-Theory.[18]"

So you see you can read this page on Dirac, and hear how he was
Lucasian professor, on of the greatest physicists that ever lived, and
all the rest, and if you actually don't know much about physics, you
will believe that he may have even taught Einstein a thing or two and
there should certainly be a statue of the man in some prominent place.
But those last two paragraphs say it all to anyone who actually knows
anything about how atoms actually work, etc.
Its complete fabricated nonsense. But thats good, when you are trying
to hide how things actually work from everyone.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_Dirac

All you have to do is read between the lines. Read that page and you
will see a mention of Hilbert Space.
Ahhhh.... nudge nudge wink wink say no more.

Hilbert Space, is hyper space, and hyper space, or Hilbert Space, is
where, the universe expands into, along the t axis.

As it does that, it sends waves out, in the quantum foam. Dark energy
to some, magnetism to others, the EM spectrum to yet others. Electro-
magnetic energy, depending on how it is interacting.

In the Hydrogen atom, the wave leaves the nucleus traveling at c, with
a force of G, and the wave will crest with an energy of e.

How elegant is that?

Thats reality.

So what a real string is, what string theory is supposed to be is
this...

Imagine a line, like a ray, from the center of the nucleus out to the
electron shell.

Now imagine that is a string. Like a guitar string, that is vibrating.
If you examine that string closely, you will see it is wavy.

Now imagine that as you get closer to the center of the nucleus, the
wave crests are smaller, and as you move away from the nucleus the
wave crests get larger.

At the nucleus radius, that level of energy is equivalent to one of
the four forces.

At the Electron radius, it is equivalent to the electron.

And on it goes past that onto infinity, as em waves just keep on
going. And the next crest will be weaker, and farther away, and in
accordance with the inverse square law.

The string itself, is on the t axis. As expansion of the universe, is
on that same axis, and the age of the universe is determined by how
long it takes for it to expand and how much it has expanded on that
axis.

Gravity is also on that axis. As the nuclei expand, they are pushing
outward and if you are in the way of that, or standing on it, you will
feel pressure under your feet. The force of gravity.

The only thing that has mass, is the quantum foam and nuclei have
mass, because they contain quantum foam.
EM energy is just a wave in quantum foam.
A photon is a wave packet, a transverse wave as opposed to a spherical
wave.
When two spherical waves interact, they send out a transverse wave,
and that is a photon, a wave packet.
They are all quantized, because the quantum foam is quantized.
One Plank length in diameter.

But people in particle physics, confuse intrinsic mass, with other
types of mass like accelerated mass, or even mass that is borrowed and
so they say the electron has mass.

So that people will think it is a type of dust particle with magic
dust on it called charge.

Em waves don't have intrinsic mass.
Is light an EM wave? Yes. How about X rays? Yes. Gamma Rays? Yes,
magnetism? Yes. Electricity? yes.
Em waves travel at c, because they have no intrinsic mass.

They are waves in the quantum foam. The reason things with mass cannot
go c, is they cannot plow through the quantum foam.
At c, it locks up if you try to plow through it. You hit a solid mass.
An immovable solid mass.
Because the quantum foam bubbles interact with each other.
Your space ship, cannot go c through the quantum foam. If you remove
some, like in a black hole, and you make a worm hole through it, so
there is no quantum foam, then ok, you can go c, or take a shortcut
through it like in the movies.
Through hyperspace, or Hilbert Space, that area that has no foam in
it.
Its not just on the outer edges of the universe either, it is between
each bubble.
That is what they are expanding into.
Hyper space has no resistance, so they all can expand in accordance
with whatever pressure they are under alone.
From each other pressing against them. There is nothing in hyperspace.
Not even energy waves, because energy waves are waves in quantum foam.

If you wanted to send something without mass faster than light, well
thats been done in the laboratory.

One simple way of sending information faster than light, is to use
compression and send compressed blocks at c.
Use your zip utility to unzip the file and you have sent more
information, than you would have, if you sent that information along
that same line.
The time it should have taken, would be maybe 20% longer, so you have
exceeded the speed of light by 20%.

Thats just an example.
If you send it through a wormhole, then distance has little meaning.
Where there is no quantum foam, there is no space-time, like in
Hilbert Space.

One simple way of sending information faster than light, is to use
compression and send compressed blocks at c.
Use your zip utility to unzip the file and you have sent more
information, than you would have, if you sent that information along
that same line.
The time it should have taken, would be maybe 20% longer, so you have
exceeded the speed of light by 20%.

Thats just an example.
If you send it through a wormhole, then distance has little meaning.
Where there is no quantum foam, there is no space-time, like in
Hilbert Space.

So ok, to use the proper physics method, to describe a string like
that, you would want to use a different analogy, to make it more
confusing.

So you imagine a nucleus, with a transparent shell around it, and then
take a cross section of that. Now that shell is a spherical wave, so
really a guitar string doesn't apply. What does, is in the string was
compressed, at the crest, and expanded in the trough, between the
nucleus and the shell. And then you would say it is red shifted, and
it is blue shifted.
To describe that compression and expansion of that wave.

And then to include particle physicists, you need to find a way to
make up a particle for them, that you can predict they can find.

Something that requires a larger collider would be perfect. And so you
need to predict that if you measure the level of energy at some point,
you will know what that amount of energy is, and be able to make
predictions about it.
and well string theory makes no predictions, because, well, it merely
describes, what is already known.

On Sep 4, 1:18 am, Rick wrote:
One simple way of sending information faster than light, is to use
compression and send compressed blocks at c.
Use your zip utility to unzip the file and you have sent more
information, than you would have, if you sent that information along
that same line.
The time it should have taken, would be maybe 20% longer, so you have
exceeded the speed of light by 20%.

Thats just an example.
If you send it through a wormhole, then distance has little meaning.
Where there is no quantum foam, there is no space-time, like in
Hilbert Space.

So ok, to use the proper physics method, to describe a string like
that, you would want to use a different analogy, to make it more
confusing.

So you imagine a nucleus, with a transparent shell around it, and then
take a cross section of that. Now that shell is a spherical wave, so
really a guitar string doesn't apply. What does, is in the string was
compressed, at the crest, and expanded in the trough, between the
nucleus and the shell. And then you would say it is red shifted, and
it is blue shifted.
To describe that compression and expansion of that wave.

And then to include particle physicists, you need to find a way to
make up a particle for them, that you can predict they can find.

Something that requires a larger collider would be perfect. And so you
need to predict that if you measure the level of energy at some point,
you will know what that amount of energy is, and be able to make
predictions about it.
and well string theory makes no predictions, because, well, it merely
describes, what is already known.

And some of the best humor in physics, is the interaction between high
energy particle physics and string theory.

The particle people will say that Dirac did the math, and he said,
there must be an anti particle for every particle.
The math demands it.

And the string theory people will say, that they have their own math,
and it tells us that there must be 7 or 13 dimensions, and the math
demands it.

And the particle physicists say, well if there are more than 3, then
they must be very small, because we haven't seen them!

And the string theorists will say, oh yes, they are very very mall, in
fact, they may be inside the particles!

And on it goes.

And then to include particle physicists, you need to find a way to
make up a particle for them, that you can predict they can find.

Something that requires a larger collider would be perfect. And so you
need to predict that if you measure the level of energy at some point,
you will know what that amount of energy is, and be able to make
predictions about it.
and well string theory makes no predictions, because, well, it merely
describes, what is already known.

And some of the best humor in physics, is the interaction between high
energy particle physics and string theory.

The particle people will say that Dirac did the math, and he said,
there must be an anti particle for every particle.
The math demands it.

And the string theory people will say, that they have their own math,
and it tells us that there must be 7 or 13 dimensions, and the math
demands it.

And the particle physicists say, well if there are more than 3, then
they must be very small, because we haven't seen them!

And the string theorists will say, oh yes, they are very very mall, in
fact, they may be inside the particles!

And on it goes.

And so then is out, a dimension? Is t a dimension, because a 3 D cube
expanding has a direction it expands which is outward.

Einstein said yes, you can call that a dimension.

So what does a 4D cube look like? A cube inside a cube.

So then is there a 5th! dimension?

Yes, that space it is expanding into. Hilbert Space, is the 5th
dimension.

And so then OMG are there any more?

Yes.

Inside the nucleus bubble, since the nucleus is expanding, if you
chase back, along t, inside, you have the in, dimension.

so what does a 6 dimensional object look like?

A cube, in a cube in a cube, in the void of space, past the edge of
the known universe.
With the cube in the center, being at now, the smaller one inside
being the past, the larger on the future, and the area outside the
box, the 5th dimension.

But how they are ordered or numbered is up to the individual.

So are there any more?

Well Hilbert Space, is n dimensional space.

Since we are talking about math, Hilbert did not say, that it was just
one dimension, it refers to all dimensions other than 3.

It is applicable to extra dimensionality. So then what about the
multiverse?
n dimensional space. If the atoms which the cubes are made of, are
vibrating at one set of frequencies, what happens, if we offset a
duplicate set of cubes, by one half cycle?

Well it could be essentially sharing the same space but because
everything is on a different frequency, it is invisible and doesn't
interact with our set of frequencies.

And then how many offset frequencies might there be?

A multiverse full of them. Hence n dimensional space.
Where n is an unknown quantity, but similar in nature to the spectrum
of light.

Rick wrote:
And then to include particle physicists, you need to find a way to
make up a particle for them, that you can predict they can find.

Something that requires a larger collider would be perfect. And so
you need to predict that if you measure the level of energy at some
point, you will know what that amount of energy is, and be able to
make predictions about it.
and well string theory makes no predictions, because, well, it
merely describes, what is already known.

And some of the best humor in physics, is the interaction between
high energy particle physics and string theory.

The particle people will say that Dirac did the math, and he said,
there must be an anti particle for every particle.
The math demands it.

And the string theory people will say, that they have their own math,
and it tells us that there must be 7 or 13 dimensions, and the math
demands it.

And the particle physicists say, well if there are more than 3, then
they must be very small, because we haven't seen them!

And the string theorists will say, oh yes, they are very very mall,
in fact, they may be inside the particles!

And on it goes.

And so then is out, a dimension? Is t a dimension, because a 3 D cube
expanding has a direction it expands which is outward.

Einstein said yes, you can call that a dimension.

And that is precisely where Einstein fooled them all.
Time is a counting method. (It is not a physical dimension)
Calling it a physical dimension in "physics" has been the biggest
trick pulled on physics ever.
Why is it not a physical dimension you may ask?
Simple.
Time is a counting method that counts the motion of an object
in a physical dimension.
It is an abstract dimension of the motion of an object in
a physical dimension.
All clocks do is count a motion of an object moving a distance.
The distance is the physical, the "count" is the abstract.
All the fools horses and all the fools men couldn't put
"physics" together again.
Maybe soon they will.
But they should start with.
The clock malfunctioned.

--
James M Driscoll Jr
Creator of the Clock Malfunction Theory
Spaceman

And then how many offset frequencies might there be?

A multiverse full of them. Hence n dimensional space.
Where n is an unknown quantity, but similar in nature to the spectrum
of light.

So you see Dirac, just attached a failing particle physics, on to the
back, of the quantum physics turtle.
And for that he gained wide acclaim for saving so much bacon and
generating so much industry.
But what he failed to realize waS...
(thats your cue, this is where you also attach your strings to quantum
theory, instead of trying to attach them, to the many dotted creature
on the turtles back.)

and it is not as if it was all complete nonsense, because of course it
is all written down and studied, so how could it be???