# A Scientist letter to his girlfriend

Atomic reactor street,
Science sector.

My dear,
It has been a very long time since my senses have exchanged messages with my brain to write a letter to you.
You are present in all the four chambers of my heart and ur beautiful image is printed on the retina of my eyes. I want your musical voice to keep my ear drums vibrating like a tunning fork. I have grown your favourite roses in my garden so that their smell will keep on entering my nasal passage and the charming colour of their corolla reminds me of your cheeks and lips. The enchanting color of your iris attracts me like an electron which is attracted to nucleus but the fear of your father repels me with equal force.
Yesterday ur presence in the party made my heart beat at the rate of 172 beats/sec.The velocity of my blood flow increased at the rate of 15m/sec. and became 80m/sec.Your personality attracted me like the centripetal force but the medulla oblongata of my brain compels me to convert this centripetal force into centrifugal force and now I am revolving around ur house like an electron in its orbit. Whenever I see your father a wave of fear having simple harmonic motion passes through my vertebral column and my heart beats are reduced to one half of the original. At the moment, a covalent bond having sigma orbital exist between us.But in the future I hope it will be change into an ionic bond.

As to every action, there is an equal and opposite reaction. Therefore , I hope u too love me with the same magnitude of love.
In the end ur affection is directly to the product of our love and inversely proportional to the square of ur father€ ’²s hate.
Your affection = (constant) your love * my love /(ur father€ ’²s hate)2
EQUATION:-
A=K L1L2/(H)2

From ur,

gravitational pull.

From scientist girlfriend

My Dear,

Your thesis brought a mild sense of interest to me, which I rate as a value of approximately 4.5631 on the Poppler-Kodiac scale. While activiating the appropiate synapic connections regarding, originality, and showing some intellectual vigor, I unfortunately consider it of little consequence.

This is due to, in part to the lax concepts used in the composition of the said document. Need I relate the lack of medical data recording the phenomenon of "retinal imprinting", except in cases of extreme medical trauma? Or the lack of objective studies done exposing the genuine cases of "musical voices". You may also note that the membranous nature of the eardrum differentiates greatly from the metallic structure of the tuning fork, giving different waveforms that can be examined by the Fourier transformation. You did not apply relativistic corrections to your gravitational assessments. But the fatal error is of your incorrect description of electronic orbital behaviour. Simple uncertainty principle shows the great differences here, and you misplace the fundamental equation by implicating an exact position and momentum. You have no justification for this without utilising diffraction and interference experiments.

Secondly, you showed an unbecoming naivety in your experimental technique. For example, your failure to give uncertainty factors in blood velocity measurements is unforgivable, and you failed the quantify correctly the time you last enacted correspondance. You also failed to conduct any peer review, and did not allow details to give reproducibility tests on your conclusions.

Thirdly, you have failed to rectify your most critical flaw in your hypothesis - that I do not apply the adjective "attractive" to you.

Good bye.

PS...

P.S: "centrifugal force" ...tsk tsk

Originally posted by FZ+
My Dear,

Your thesis brought a mild sense of interest to me, which I rate as a value of approximately 4.5631 on the Poppler-Kodiac scale. While activiating the appropiate synapic connections regarding, originality, and showing some intellectual vigor, I unfortunately consider it of little consequence.

This is due to, in part to the lax concepts used in the composition of the said document. Need I relate the lack of medical data recording the phenomenon of "retinal imprinting", except in cases of extreme medical trauma? Or the lack of objective studies done exposing the genuine cases of "musical voices". You may also note that the membranous nature of the eardrum differentiates greatly from the metallic structure of the tuning fork, giving different waveforms that can be examined by the Fourier transformation. You did not apply relativistic corrections to your gravitational assessments. But the fatal error is of your incorrect description of electronic orbital behaviour. Simple uncertainty principle shows the great differences here, and you misplace the fundamental equation by implicating an exact position and momentum. You have no justification for this without utilising diffraction and interference experiments.

Secondly, you showed an unbecoming naivety in your experimental technique. For example, your failure to give uncertainty factors in blood velocity measurements is unforgivable, and you failed the quantify correctly the time you last enacted correspondance. You also failed to conduct any peer review, and did not allow details to give reproducibility tests on your conclusions.

Thirdly, you have failed to rectify your most critical flaw in your hypothesis - that I do not apply the adjective "attractive" to you.

Good bye.