triumphs
[Top] [All Lists]

NOT - RE: Re:An innocent question

To: "'cloughbt@batman.flight.wpafb.af.mil'" <cloughbt@batman.flight.wpafb.af.mil>, ak627@dayton.wright.edu, triumphs@Autox.Team.Net
Subject: NOT - RE: Re:An innocent question
From: "Johnston, Leif" <leifj@proxicom.com>
Date: Mon, 16 Jun 1997 10:30:21 -0400
I am not sure it is resonable to call the untestable absense or presence
of holes an innocent question.  I like the smoke theory myself since you
can test for its presence by cutting the wire and seeing if it is there.

Leif
The smoking hole - 
'62 TR4 - the original innocent(huh?)

> -----Original Message-----
> From: cloughbt@batman.flight.wpafb.af.mil
> [SMTP:cloughbt@batman.flight.wpafb.af.mil]
> Sent: Friday, June 13, 1997 1:23 PM
> To:   ak627@dayton.wright.edu; triumphs@autox.team.net
> Subject:      Re: Re:An innocent question
> 
> >...but Bruce, aren't they only POTENTIAL holes, which you cannot
> >really test for, since the test itself might alter the result ??
> >
> >Tom Tweed
> >SW Ohio
> >`Heisenberg MIGHT have slept here, too !'
> 
> Tom,
> 
> I was so busy seeing if Schoedinger's cat was still alive I didn't
> notice!
> 
> Bruce "Einstein didn't believe it either" Clough

<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>
  • NOT - RE: Re:An innocent question, Johnston, Leif <=