Biomimetics, Micro-design, Arctium minus et al Hook and Velcro – A PhD and a Virtual Textbook on Biological Attachment Mechanisms and their Mimicking

Home » Uncategorized » INTO: () Some more Physica for the Newt and his Grewt – 2/2/2017

INTO: () Some more Physica for the Newt and his Grewt – 2/2/2017

To continue where Yelena left off this evenink.  (Starting time 05h41 GMT)

I will begin by saying it is impossible to do this for I have not seen her work but I will continue it here and then she can do it and then I will later since I have a singing lesson later.

There is a fault with your eyeline, Sir Stephen and that is why you are not able to grasp the fundamental which she has illustrated so well, by which bravely in the face of your sarcasm and wit.

It is about time you admitted you are useless and unable to grasp a fundamental which has been bugging you for some time – you don;t understand the physics of propulsion since you never did fluid mechanics.

It is about time you admitted your limitation since a physics grad you will always be and that goes for all you Physica at Cambridge DAMP – you do not understand propulsion and it is your downfall and your limitation all of you.

Physics is not enough and why you did it – since it is easier than engineering and you know that, all of you.  Astrophysics too is a little easier too though you won;t know it until you try engineering such as chem. eng. and realize it is fucking difficult to master and then pass exams in it all in one year, then for four years continuous.  It is Extremely time intensive and much much more difficult that physics itself but it is all ego, not so Steven of Bath Uni?

To continue:

X is the prime and not the fut and that makes it real and not x-wise and not right-wise and that goes to show you are all a about to fail your physics exam cos Stephen Hawking explained it to you wrong and that is a wrong thing to do.

If you take the wrong and the reed and then get the red you have what w call a mixture, you agree student?

Then  if you take a right and then a ray you get a red and that means you have a ront and a rontu and that makes for the red and the rod but not the root and that means all the rest are about to be fall and that make the two and the fall the same and that is all we can say about it unless there are about to be a new and a newn and a newn is not the ren but the rent and that makes for the rest of the tie and not the ret of it.

So it equals the same and not the ret so do it now and get the answer or not, so to speak, since it is all uncertain.

It is about Heisenburg we are talking Stephen and Steve and it is about the uncertainty principle in propulsion and that makes it all high fallutin’ but marginally better than the end result which is here: (Pause)

Over to Yelena at Cambridge DAMP who has completed this work (it is 06h48 GMT now) but I will continue for corroboration.

So…it takes a lot of time to do this so here goes.

The answer is:

Jom and Jer.


Bruce E Saunders

soon to be regarded as

Bryte Saunderssen

Copyright Bruce E Saunders 2017

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

Blog Stats

  • 10,980 hits

Top Clicks

  • None
%d bloggers like this: