What I told about quantum physics apply to other fields of sciences as well. The guy who wrote this book seems to have serious problems with any science, it seems, especially with, ironically, biology.
The book is a non-nonsensical joke. Scientifically it’s value is 0. But truth be said, the book doesn’t have to have any scientific value. Im sure it produced enough dollars to make the author and publisher happy.
We need definitions so we can understand each other. If we cant have a common frame of reference for our terms, as defined, then we can have very few chances of understanding each others. Hence, it is recommended not to blur definitions, and adhere to the widely accepted sense.
Just for the sake of other ppl understanding you mean “black” not “white” when you say “black”
Indeed, science has a lot to catch up in explaining some experiments or observed phenomena.
Explain the aforementioned phenomena by pseudo-science is not “catch-up”. Its a joke.
Im tired of idiots who cant understand a exponential function teaching others about quantum mechanics. They cant understand first 2 pages from a quantum mechanics course, their math is at grade 5 level, but they do use quantum mechanics to explain their theories. See the irony ?
Even is science has to catch-up, trying to prove that 1+1 is not 2 using misnomers is laughable. Label a phenomena “unexplained yet” and we can work together to explain it.
Use grade 5 math to show its quantum mechanics and you’ll be the laughing stock of physicians.
scientifically breakthrough where at no time in history based on misnomers. All major discoveries where made by ppl extraordinary committed to their work and with very strong bases in their field.
It is true that sometimes takes young bright minds to bypass the inertia of older scientific minds, such as in the case of DNA structure discover by James D. Watson and Francis Crick , but nevertheless, breakthroughs are never based on phony facts, deceit and misnomers.
Pakewi and Jamirok, let’s get a practical example, I’m very interested in your approach. Let’s suppose, as it happened to me some months ago, that I’ve got a partial rupture of the rectus femoris (pretty big, 2.5 cm) and also the RF tendon is partially (mildly) damaged. I go to the physio and the recovery time with the “normal” approach (rest, pool, manual therapy etc.) is more or less 3 months (and it was that long). I come to your office asking for a faster/better solution. What would you do in terms of methodics?
My point was any difference in my treatment skill since then would be small, as it is a sub-set of more than 30 yrs at it, while the ARP experience was only a matter of days when we did the comparison. I have no doubt about the potential of ARP type wave forms in your hands.
I also have no doubt that your abilities with this modality will move dramatically ahead of the vast majority of ARP operators, including instructors - and I suspect they have already.
I know you’re one of the brightest minds out there and I hope we can hook up in the spring so I can see more for myself.
Looking forward to creating together an ARP based CFTS,Charlie! I may have the basics already in place,but your insight and art will always make the difference!