the belief that “no two snowflakes are alike” is
(obviously) a fabrication [i]
by s. now - in order to prove that “no two snowflakes are identical,” one would have to
determine “criteria” from which to compare snowflakes.
- assuming
that criteria existed, one would then need a device that was sensitive
enough to measure possible snowflakes differences.
- measurement
would have to be a process, since snowflakes “change” (size, shape,
composition) during a snowflake lifetime.
in other words, the device would have to fly.
- the
measuring device would have to be so tiny that it would not disturb the
flightpath of any other snowflake.
it would have to be operated remotely.
- the
device (or “billions upon billions of devices”) would have to measure each and every
snowflake, in order to compare each to each.
- the
device would have to measure every snowflake that falls during every
snowstorm on earth. it would also
have to measure every snowflake that has ever fallen, and every snowflake that will ever fall. in
other words, the device would need to engage in time-travel.
- the
device would have to visit every other planet in the Uni-Verse that had
the slightest potential for a snowstorm.
- the
device would have to measure every snowflake of all time, throughout its un-i-que snowflake-lifetime (e.g. during its descent), and store the data of every other snowflake, and then
compare/contrast.
note: the same could be said for
fingerprints,
d.n.a., and several other phenomena that are allegedly “unique.”
soooooo… once we buy-into the idea that
“no two are identical,” we’ve
probably been snowed.
__________________________
martino, j. (1.5-8.2009). the belief that "no two snowflakes are alike" is obviously a fabrication. book 65: ‘neau news is G∞d news. © 2009 by joal martino
