XPost: sci.physics.relativity, sci.physics.particle   
   From: poutnik@privacy.invalid   
      
   In article posted Tue, 05 Jun 2012 15:53:02 +0200   
    Jeroen Belleman says..   
   >   
   > On 2012-06-05 00:26, Poutnik wrote:   
   > > In article posted Mon, 4 Jun 2012 10:32:53 -0700 (PDT)   
   > >   Katsumoto Sakuraba says..   
   > >>   
   > >> On Jun 3, 3:53 pm, Poutnik  wrote:   
   > >>> In article posted Sun, 3 Jun 2012 06:43:05 -0700 (PDT)   
   > >>>   Katsumoto Sakuraba says..   
   > >>>   
   > >>>>> By far the best place to start is:   
   > >>>   
   > >>>>>          Feynman, _QED_. This is a non-mathematical introduction to the   
   > >>>>>          basic concepts of QED.   
   > >>>   
   > >>>>> Tom Roberts   
   > >>>   
   > >>>> why, the mathematical one makes no sense?   
   > >>>   
   > >>> Is guessing why so hard ?   
   > >>>   
   > >>> --   
   > >>> Poutnik   
   > >>   
   > >> this means exactly what?   
   > >>   
   > >> QED has no mathematical beauty as well   
   > >>   
   > >> good bye   
   > >   
   > > Unfortunately, it works...   
   > >   
   >   
   > So did epicycles.   
   >   
   > Jeroen Belleman   
      
   but, in opposite to epicycles, it explains AND very precisely quantizes   
   some phenomenas, not being possible by former theories.   
      
   --   
   Poutnik   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)