|
Why are you so fixated with this paper? It's an interesting theory and all taken from a physics standpoint - problem is that the physics in question isn't operating in a vacuum as it were. The problem really comes down to placing the paper's conslusions in context - if everything in the paper is true, then you need to explain the "why" - but if the "why" is outlandish, illogical, or unfeasable then you have to question the conclusions that led you to try and explain the "why".
It actually a pretty pertinent issue considering the number of academic papers (archaeologica) I've seen that argued some solid science ot facts, but fell apart when trying to place the conclusion in a greater context.
__________________
Λ Χ Α
University of Toronto Alum
EE755
"Cave ab homine unius libri"
|
Threaded Mode