Can anyone tell me whether this is for real?
It's relevant to that previous post. You know-- the one you gave up reading.
UPDATE: A friend of mine who actually understands the math had this to say:
The first law seems arbitrary and prejudicial in its nature. It models an "observation" that is questionable at best. The rest seems to flow from that. Personally, I think it's crap. The formulas the guy throws in make some sense in context if you accept his givens. But you decide for yourself if you think the context is proper.
My overall impression is that this is pure crap. But that's just my take.
I think it's bogus math that sounds legit arguing for an agenda.
_
No comments:
Post a Comment