12-23-2011, 02:06 AM
Being from Texas, I know that the 666 burger (actually the four sixes, which is a ranch Burk Burnett won in a poker game with...four sixes) is really the corporate death burger as this is the only burger to have teeth, thus being capable of eating you, but actually does so through the excretion of acidic juices of LUST (Lucrative Unilateral System of Trade).
Now to the meat of the matter.
It is not "instant" that should be up for debate, it is "available". "Instant" is an a priori fact in this poem (not to mention relative), it is the assumption that said "instants" can be, or not be "available". The question then becomes, what does a non-available instant look like and what is the ratio of available to non-available instants, and does it resemble the grill work on the cattle-catcher, if attached to a train, or cattle-guard if embedded in the ground, and do angels on a cattle-catcher serve the same basic (notice I said basic) function that gargoyles do on a building, that is to say, increase its value. And... does this depend on the inverse square law as it applies to the Higgs Boson, since it is necessary that all the fundamental (notice I said fundamental)forces must in fact be unified in order to make any headway in this synthetic a priori assumption that instants can be made in one of two flavors, thus explaining the "frozen" aspect as a function of time dilation, without which it would render (that is to extract gluons from) this desert confection much less attractive, which of course would be a CP violation, especially as it relates to the strong nuclear force. Now as to the facts of this. The answer is yes, if one can create a Bose-Einstein condensate of instants it could be possible by alternate tuning of a pair of non-entangled lasers to kick instants out of the condensate and by noting which responded to which laser determine if instants come in two flavors, i.e., available and non-available, thus determining if the idea of "available instants" is in fact a legitimate conjecture.
Re: Leanne's comment, I have no hairs to split.
Re: Ed's comment about pulling. Well that would be nice, but one rarely finds that sort of congeniality nowadays.
Dale
Now to the meat of the matter.
It is not "instant" that should be up for debate, it is "available". "Instant" is an a priori fact in this poem (not to mention relative), it is the assumption that said "instants" can be, or not be "available". The question then becomes, what does a non-available instant look like and what is the ratio of available to non-available instants, and does it resemble the grill work on the cattle-catcher, if attached to a train, or cattle-guard if embedded in the ground, and do angels on a cattle-catcher serve the same basic (notice I said basic) function that gargoyles do on a building, that is to say, increase its value. And... does this depend on the inverse square law as it applies to the Higgs Boson, since it is necessary that all the fundamental (notice I said fundamental)forces must in fact be unified in order to make any headway in this synthetic a priori assumption that instants can be made in one of two flavors, thus explaining the "frozen" aspect as a function of time dilation, without which it would render (that is to extract gluons from) this desert confection much less attractive, which of course would be a CP violation, especially as it relates to the strong nuclear force. Now as to the facts of this. The answer is yes, if one can create a Bose-Einstein condensate of instants it could be possible by alternate tuning of a pair of non-entangled lasers to kick instants out of the condensate and by noting which responded to which laser determine if instants come in two flavors, i.e., available and non-available, thus determining if the idea of "available instants" is in fact a legitimate conjecture.
Re: Leanne's comment, I have no hairs to split.
Re: Ed's comment about pulling. Well that would be nice, but one rarely finds that sort of congeniality nowadays.
Dale
How long after picking up the brush, the first masterpiece?
The goal is not to obfuscate that which is clear, but make clear that which isn't.
The goal is not to obfuscate that which is clear, but make clear that which isn't.