OK, let’s start.

Why are you even here, right now?

Because of physics, theoretical or not, or art – or ?


What if we go one by one and ask everyone?

What if?


Is that Theoretical or “theoretically”?

Theoretically, you may have already taken this class.

Class, nigga?

Today’s lesson, let’s all say “today’s [] lesson”.

Now where do we begin?

Where or when?

That’s not an Art.

An art.

Fair enough.

All we need is?

The physics, Mr. F.

cualquier-cosa, kids.


Don’t say someone told me to call you that.

Don’t say that?

You can think it, can’t you?

Think it?

Can you think for yourselves?

All of us?


Thinking versus Saying.

That’s physics?           

Who would say that?

Not following.

Perfect, I’m a failure.  We can start off with the physics now.

Why the physics?

Because you know art and you know theoretically there’s more than 5 of us doing this right now.

Yet –

“Only one of us could possibly be typing?”

In your best Richard Feynman, just admit, Mr. F’s class was never as good as the Feynman Lectures.

Dick, why are you worrying about that?

Mr. F – why can he swear yet we cannot?

Who said you can’t?

Why –

If you can think, aren’t you interacting in some way with the physical universe around wherever your thoughts exist?


If it’s you?

Then who said “you”?

Physically, someone “said” ‘you’ can’t put those next two eachother, yet, they could have said “too”.


I think I’m following, but you better get to it unless this is a “blog post.”

A blog post?

What year is it?

To you too.

To you all.

For whom?

If your thoughts are interacting with the universe beyond yourself, whoever you are, or – just an individual person – then you’re only talking a magnitude of scale for your so-called “talking.”

A magnitude of scale?

Theoretically or Technically?

I’d prefer it in plain English.

What’s “plain” mean in this context?

Did you teach anything about physics to any of us at all?

No time for the theoretical shit he says.

There’s no such thing as the “art” of theoretical physics.

Care to jest?

To jest?

I said to “venture a guess.”

Did you switch up your grammar on purpose?

Which of one us?

Never do that without allowing Word to undo e.e. cummings without the ee dude

So, basically, you are saying there is not such thing as an “art” of “theoretical” physics specifically?

If a doctor told you, “this is more of an art than a science,” would you trust them?

Theoretically or –

No, worry not, or fear not, “be safe but never careful” they said, “what’s the difference between ‘accuracy’ and ‘precision’ right now?” – no worries.

Punctuation matter much?

Why would punctuation play any role whatsoever in whether or not there is such a thing at all as an “art of theoretical physics.”

Theoretically there may be AND it may.

If it’s written down anywhere, silly.


Who you calling silly?

Don’t worry, as long as there’s only three or more of us, who can trace?


A fresh ass copy of “The Art of Theoretical Physics”?

So this is a book?

A book?

A wager.

A wager on a wage?




Well what the – don’t say – “The Art of Technical Physics”


The Art of Theoretical Physics could never by the same thing as The Art of Technical Physics.


You handcopied it with three persons using a type writer who – share two hands.

Two hands typing?

Hand writing.

Hand writing?

Three hands.

Two ears.

Three hands, dude.

Nigga, don’t worry about typing with three hands.

Can’t say that here.

Why not?

You let someone get away with that?

Get away with what?

I’m not following.

Theoretical physics or technical Physics?

Well, which is it?!


There’s no such thing as an art to theoretical physics or there is.

Anymore than there’s an art to technical physics –

– I never said that.