Quantum analysis Duca - page 61

New comment
 
Maxim Dmitrievsky:

that's exactly what I wrote above )

Our job is either to get this thread deleted or no one cares. There is no informative content here, much less useful.

+++

One minute difference) Totally agree with what was said.

 
Nikolai Semko:

I want to be supportive.
I know exactly what you're talking about.

It's nice to know that there are like-minded people.

And don't pay any attention to this fuss. "The mouths of truth are dark to the uninitiated."

I myself have been talking about channels for a long time, and there is hardly anyone on this forum who has a higher density of posts with the word "channel" than I do, well, except for you.

I agree, this is one of the most important results of this theory.
 
Олег avtomat:


Oleg, well, agree that it is much more interesting to go into detail and analyse the theory than to just retell it, as TC does. Or am I wrong?

Okay, I'm not going to argue, because everyone has become a bit touchy... I'm out of here.

 
Dmitry Fedoseev:
Why is it that all the smartest people understand everything but cannot say anything?

so it's all been said, there's nothing to add.

If you put out the code of the grail, the grail ceases to be the grail. This follows from the theory of the grail itself.
The grail only works in the hands of its Creator.

And the problem is that the Creator has a burning desire to share it.

But he realizes that there is only one way to share it so as not to harm the Grail itself - to create Creators.
But that isotericism has set in. Creation of the Creator by Creation of the Creator....

 
Nikolai Semko:

so much has already been said, there is nothing to add.

If you put out the code of the grail, the grail ceases to be it. This follows from the theory of the grail itself.
The Grail only works in the hands of its Creator.

And the problem is that the Creator has a burning desire to share it.

But he understands that there is only one way to share it, so as not to damage the grail itself - to create Creators.
But that isotericism has set in. Creation of the Creator by Creation of the Creator....

You forgot to add an "amen" at the end.

 
Ivan Butko:

There are a lot of you mathematicians too. Alexander_K is the only one)))

You should take the subject apart by the nuts.

I'm not a mathematician)) It's just that the topic might have been interesting, but I see some bullshit going on instead of its development by TC.

So we need to find out if this is it ... or is it OK ))))

(but it looks like it has already been figured out, including on earlier pages).

 
Alexander_K:

Oleg, well, agree that it is much more interesting to go into detail and analyse the theory than to just retell it, as TC does. Or am I wrong?

Okay, I'm not going to argue, because everyone has become a bit touchy... I'm out of here.

What subtleties, physicist, you can't even grasp a brief outline of the basics. I'm already contemplating whether to talk about quantum coherent beam and inertial-free quantum averaging here... Or should I change the venue to a less rabid one... I will think about it.
 

QuantumBob:

Or change the site just as fiercely... I'll think about it.

Bad dancer...

 
QuantumBob:
What subtleties, physicist, you don't even understand a brief outline of the basics. I'm already contemplating whether to talk about quantum beam and inertial-free averaging here... Or should I change the venue to an equally rabid one... I will think about it.

Typical response ))))

Make the audience feel a sense of loss and then play on it)))))))

You're giving yourself away point by point ))

 
Dmitry Fedoseev:

You forgot to add "amen" at the end.

I am not a religious man, but a Believer.

Amen is for the religious. :))

By the way, cool recursion made...

It's like one example of "Creation by Creation by Creation"

1...545556575859606162636465666768...81
New comment