Dear Falco,
This is to be expected. Professor Khan.N.Singh and I have spent a significant amount of time studying this field, and what we are attempting to explore will understandably seem inaccessible to those without a solid academic background in the sciences, an understanding of philosophical hermeneutics, and a strong ability to parse intentionally esoteric and obfuscatory language designed to lampoon the subject's hypernumeracy resulting from a neurodevelopmental disorder. With that in mind, I will attach a simple diagram for illustrative purposes at the end of this post. However, what we are essentially saying is that a synthesis of quantum theory and a radical modification of Einstein's special relativity theory (E=mc²) are needed if we are to solve the paradox of Schrödinger's Matt and give an accurate measurement of True Canning Height (TCH).
As we have demonstrated, for the Canning THA to be correctly formulated we must factor in both the stated Canning height (CH) and the rate of the Canning height decline (CHD). Now, the problem we face here is that Einstein's general theory of relativity employs a non-Euclidean geometry - meaning that any space-time point can be transmuted into any other, which effectively blurs the distinction between observer and observed and results in us having to question what can exist in reality, needlessly complex 'wave function' descriptions, and the Copenhagen Interpretation of this paradox suggesting that Matt Canning's true height will remain in a superposition until he is forced to interact with the external world and reveal his actual, shoeless form. To overcome this I propose ignoring it, and reformulating Einstein's equation ( E=mc²) to mean: Elevation equals Matt Canning squared. This way, by taking the stated Canning height (5'9.5") applying the Canning THA (L*D)+(W/G))/(A^2) plus E=mc² (giving us x=±√169) minus the terminological inexactitudes (-5") and Canning height decline (1cm per decade, fixed for mathematical simplicity), we can conclude, through sheer conjecture and a non-observance of arithmetic, that the TCH is actually a diminutive 170.18 centimeters. Hardly surprising that one would go to such lengths to conceal the truth!
I am privileged to work alongside such a talented colleague.
Gentlemen, happy news! Our work on the paradoxical nature of the True Canning Height will appear as a series of lectures in: Herren Drs. Kahn.N.Singh und Meta-physical, "Vorlesungen über Schrödinger's Matt: Austisten Animadversionen,"
Erkenntnis. An International Journal of Scientific Philosophy (forthcoming, 2018-)
Addendum: In his famous
Confessions of a Man Tall Enough not to be Concerned with the Heights of Others, the lanky Augustine of Hippo gave us the following oft-quoted account of the TCH:
What is the True Canning Height? I know well enough what it is, provided that nobody asks me; but if I am asked what it is and try to explain, I am baffled. Why? Because if the TCH were always fixed and never shrinking at the rate of 1cm/decade, it would not be height but diminution. If, therefore, the present TCH is measured by the fact that it moves on to become its lesser, how can we say that even the present TCH
is, when the reason why it is is that it
is not? (p. 264).
Cheers!
