Theos-Talk Archives (March 2002 Message tt00403)

In a message dated 03/22/02 4:07:18 PM, bri_mue@yahoo.com writes:

(snip - inconclusive non sequitur references) 
>Superstrings are mentioned also in the chanelled Set Material, but 
>for a good history of "zero point" energy atempted aplications see:
> 
> http://www.phact.org/e/dennis4.html

Is this another example of your sidewise, innuendo loaded and non sequitur 
referenced pseudo "arguments by association" to make people believe that your 
denial of everything you don't understand about science and theosophy has any 
validity -- other than troll-like harping on the invalidity of theosophical 
metaphysics and HPB's teachings about it, as well as my claims that 
Superstring/M-brane theory seems to be getting close to at least verifying if 
not proving their fundamental correctness? 

To give at least some credibility to your apparently ersatz arguments please 
quote what the "channeled Set(h) Material" said about "Superstrings" (now 
M-branes) as theorized by reputable contemporary physicists. And, also tell 
us what the above web site about unproved or phony perpetual motion machines 
has to do with Superstring theories or "zero point energy applications"? I 
didn't see any mention of those words in the above site -- nor even any 
scientific data referring to such scientific theories or their (at this time, 
speculative, although mathematically well grounded) potential applications -- 
which, incidentally, have nothing to do with "perpetual motion."

LHM