Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > sci.physics.relativity > #566426 > unrolled thread

How many basic forces in nature are there?

Back to article view | Back to sci.physics.relativity

Contents

  How many basic forces in nature are there?  The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2021-11-09 14:53 -0800
    Re: How many basic forces in nature are there? Clutterfreak <clutterfreakincarnate@gmail.com> - 2021-11-09 16:55 -0600
      There's only "eXergy". Jeff-Relf.Me  @. - 2021-11-09 16:35 -0800
      There's only "eXergy". Jeff-Relf.Me  @. - 2021-11-09 16:36 -0800
    Re: How many basic forces in nature are there? Jim Pennino <jimp@gonzo.specsol.net> - 2021-11-09 15:22 -0800
      Re: How many basic forces in nature are there? The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2021-11-09 21:36 -0800
        Re: How many basic forces in nature are there? Jim Pennino <jimp@gonzo.specsol.net> - 2021-11-10 07:19 -0800
          Re: How many basic forces in nature are there? The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2021-11-10 10:18 -0800
            Re: How many basic forces in nature are there? Clutterfreak <clutterfreakincarnate@gmail.com> - 2021-11-10 12:59 -0600
            Re: How many basic forces in nature are there? Jim Pennino <jimp@gonzo.specsol.net> - 2021-11-10 14:00 -0800
              Re: How many basic forces in nature are there? The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2021-11-10 15:07 -0800
                Re: How many basic forces in nature are there? Jim Pennino <jimp@gonzo.specsol.net> - 2021-11-10 17:11 -0800
                  Re: How many basic forces in nature are there? The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2021-11-10 21:32 -0800
                    Re: How many basic forces in nature are there? Jim Pennino <jimp@gonzo.specsol.net> - 2021-11-11 06:45 -0800
                      Re: How many basic forces in nature are there? whodat <whodaat@void.nowgre.com> - 2021-11-11 10:19 -0600
                        Re: How many basic forces in nature are there? Jim Pennino <jimp@gonzo.specsol.net> - 2021-11-11 08:57 -0800
                  Re: How many basic forces in nature are there? The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2021-11-10 21:36 -0800
                    Re: How many basic forces in nature are there? Jim Pennino <jimp@gonzo.specsol.net> - 2021-11-11 06:49 -0800
                      Re: How many basic forces in nature are there? The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2021-11-11 10:17 -0800
                        Re: How many basic forces in nature are there? Jim Pennino <jimp@gonzo.specsol.net> - 2021-11-11 10:48 -0800
                        Re: How many basic forces in nature are there? Clutterfreak <clutterfreakincarnate@gmail.com> - 2021-11-12 11:21 -0600
                          Re: How many basic forces in nature are there? The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2021-11-12 14:43 -0800
                            Re: How many basic forces in nature are there? Jim Pennino <jimp@gonzo.specsol.net> - 2021-11-12 16:23 -0800
    Re: How many basic forces in nature are there? Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2021-11-10 08:50 +0100
    Re: How many basic forces in nature are there? The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2021-11-10 10:54 -0800
      Re: How many basic forces in nature are there? Clutterfreak <clutterfreakincarnate@gmail.com> - 2021-11-10 13:07 -0600
        Re: How many basic forces in nature are there? The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2021-11-10 12:17 -0800
      Re: How many basic forces in nature are there? Jim Pennino <jimp@gonzo.specsol.net> - 2021-11-10 14:05 -0800
        Re: How many basic forces in nature are there? The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2021-11-10 15:32 -0800
          Re: How many basic forces in nature are there? Jim Pennino <jimp@gonzo.specsol.net> - 2021-11-10 17:13 -0800
        Re: How many basic forces in nature are there? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2021-11-11 13:11 +0000
          Re: How many basic forces in nature are there? Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2021-11-11 05:29 -0800
      Re: How many basic forces in nature are there? The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2021-11-11 10:28 -0800
        Re: How many basic forces in nature are there? "mitchr...@gmail.com" <mitchrae3323@gmail.com> - 2021-11-11 10:35 -0800
          Re: How many basic forces in nature are there? Gregor Bicha <cas@nbv.ca> - 2021-11-11 18:52 +0000
            Re: How many basic forces in nature are there? "mitchr...@gmail.com" <mitchrae3323@gmail.com> - 2021-11-11 10:57 -0800
              Re: How many basic forces in nature are there? Gregor Bicha <cas@nbv.ca> - 2021-11-11 19:12 +0000
        Re: How many basic forces in nature are there? Jim Pennino <jimp@gonzo.specsol.net> - 2021-11-11 10:50 -0800
        Re: How many basic forces in nature are there? The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2021-11-12 15:18 -0800
          Re: How many basic forces in nature are there? The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2021-11-12 22:46 -0800
            Re: How many basic forces in nature are there? The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2021-11-12 23:02 -0800
              Re: How many basic forces in nature are there? Jim Pennino <jimp@gonzo.specsol.net> - 2021-11-13 07:41 -0800

Page 2 of 3 — ← Prev page 1 [2] 3  Next page →

#566614

On 11/11/2021 12:17 PM, The Starmaker wrote:
> Jim Pennino wrote:
>>
> 
> 
> 727,000,000? You 'also' seem to have a memory problem...are you one of
> those people with one foot in the grave?
> 
> 
> 

 From the pistol in 2016 he said he carried I figured he must be 90 
years old then. 95 now.

-- 
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#566650

Clutterfreak wrote:
> 
> On 11/11/2021 12:17 PM, The Starmaker wrote:
> > Jim Pennino wrote:
> >>
> >
> >
> > 727,000,000? You 'also' seem to have a memory problem...are you one of
> > those people with one foot in the grave?
> >
> >
> >
> 
>  From the pistol in 2016 he said he carried I figured he must be 90
> years old then. 95 now.

you mean dat colt 45 alec baldwin used with that great shooting he did
at the set?


i bet jim pennyno gots notches on it...





> 
> --
> This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
> https://www.avast.com/antivirus

-- 
The Starmaker -- To question the unquestionable, ask the unaskable,
 to think the unthinkable, mention the unmentionable, say the unsayable,
and challenge
 the unchallengeable.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#566652

In sci.physics The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
> Clutterfreak wrote:
>> 
>> On 11/11/2021 12:17 PM, The Starmaker wrote:
>> > Jim Pennino wrote:
>> >>
>> >
>> >
>> > 727,000,000? You 'also' seem to have a memory problem...are you one of
>> > those people with one foot in the grave?
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> 
>>  From the pistol in 2016 he said he carried I figured he must be 90
>> years old then. 95 now.
> 
> you mean dat colt 45 alec baldwin used with that great shooting he did
> at the set?
> 
> 
> i bet jim pennyno gots notches on it...
> 


This is what you get when a retarded moron has a conversation with a
delusional idiot living in a fantasy land.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#566446

Am 09.11.2021 um 23:53 schrieb The Starmaker:
> How many basic forces in nature are there? 3 or 4??
>
> It has to be one or the other, but which one, 3 or 4?
>
> Unless of course you people don't know, then nevermind.
>
> My information sez there are only 3..and 4 is wrong.
>
I don't know, if 'basic force' is actually a principle of nature.

What we call 'force' is usually the assumed reason for the observed 
behaviour of structures we call 'things'.

Most likely these things evolve by own rules into their future state and 
do not care about what we think.


TH

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#566475

The Starmaker wrote:
> 
> How many basic forces in nature are there? 3 or 4??
> 
> It has to be one or the other, but which one, 3 or 4?
> 
> Unless of course you people don't know, then nevermind.
> 
> My information sez there are only 3..and 4 is wrong.



Now, let me elaborate on 'my sources'..

it comes from a Regents Professor.


a Regents Professor
The title Regents Professor serves as recognition of the highest academic merit and is awarded to
faculty members who have made a unique contribution to the quality of the University through distinguished
accomplishments in teaching scholarship, research or creative work.

also, he is a theoretical physicist and cosmologist.


And he sez, "In actual fact, there are only three forces."



Now, I don't give a fuck what Google says or what 727,000,000 others think...

I'm only interested in facts...not lemming science.

Now, I repeat...those of yous who believe that there are only four  basic forces in nature are WRONG!



How many basic forces in nature are there? Do I hear a 3 from any of yous???? 


A factual 3? In actual fact, 3?










 
-- 
The Starmaker -- To question the unquestionable, ask the unaskable,
 to think the unthinkable, mention the unmentionable, say the unsayable, and challenge
 the unchallengeable.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#566480

On 11/10/2021 12:54 PM, The Starmaker wrote:
> And he sez, "In actual fact, there are only three forces."

That's information out of 1960s (after Abdusalam unified two of the four 
forces). I think since then they've unified them down to two.

Point is, gravity by all probability is some much higher order 
approximations in one of the other three forces which always can be 
dropped for its insignificance except under just one condition! The 
condition that the amount of matter involved be fantastically large. 
Only then this previously dropped term becomes significant to consider.



-- 
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#566487

Clutterfreak wrote:
> 
> On 11/10/2021 12:54 PM, The Starmaker wrote:
> > And he sez, "In actual fact, there are only three forces."
> 
> That's information out of 1960s (after Abdusalam unified two of the four
> forces). I think since then they've unified them down to two.

My information is dated: September , 2021


> 
> Point is, gravity by all probability is some much higher order
> approximations in one of the other three forces which always can be
> dropped for its insignificance except under just one condition! The
> condition that the amount of matter involved be fantastically large.
> Only then this previously dropped term becomes significant to consider.
> 
> --
> This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
> https://www.avast.com/antivirus

-- 
The Starmaker -- To question the unquestionable, ask the unaskable,
 to think the unthinkable, mention the unmentionable, say the unsayable,
and challenge
 the unchallengeable.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#566499

In sci.physics The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
> The Starmaker wrote:
>> 
>> How many basic forces in nature are there? 3 or 4??
>> 
>> It has to be one or the other, but which one, 3 or 4?
>> 
>> Unless of course you people don't know, then nevermind.
>> 
>> My information sez there are only 3..and 4 is wrong.
> 
> 
> 
> Now, let me elaborate on 'my sources'..
> 
> it comes from a Regents Professor.

That would be a source, not sources.

As this one source is at odds with thousands upon thousands of experts
in the field, I would have to come to the conclusion that your one
source is suspect or you have no clue what this one source actually
says.

<snip moron babble>

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#566502

Jim Pennino wrote:
> 
> In sci.physics The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
> > The Starmaker wrote:
> >>
> >> How many basic forces in nature are there? 3 or 4??
> >>
> >> It has to be one or the other, but which one, 3 or 4?
> >>
> >> Unless of course you people don't know, then nevermind.
> >>
> >> My information sez there are only 3..and 4 is wrong.
> >
> >
> >
> > Now, let me elaborate on 'my sources'..
> >
> > it comes from a Regents Professor.
> 
> That would be a source, not sources.
> 
> As this one source is at odds with thousands upon thousands of experts
> in the field, 


You don't seem to know how many Regents Professor theoretical physicist and cosmologist exist.




The most one university have is...one. 


Certaintly not thousands and thousands...

How much is "thousands upon thousands"??? Is dat like one on top of each other?? 


Is "upon"...math? How much is 2 plus 2 on top of two????


13
13
13
13
13
13
13
_____
28

Is that how your "upon" math works?   7 x 13 = 28

3 x 7 = 21, 1 x 7 = 7...7 upon 21 = 28


You sound like you had the same math teacher I had!






>I would have to come to the conclusion that your one
> source is suspect or you have no clue what this one source actually
> says.
> 
> <snip moron babble>

-- 
The Starmaker -- To question the unquestionable, ask the unaskable,
 to think the unthinkable, mention the unmentionable, say the unsayable, and challenge
 the unchallengeable.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#566511

In sci.physics The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
> Jim Pennino wrote:
>> 
>> In sci.physics The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>> > The Starmaker wrote:
>> >>
>> >> How many basic forces in nature are there? 3 or 4??
>> >>
>> >> It has to be one or the other, but which one, 3 or 4?
>> >>
>> >> Unless of course you people don't know, then nevermind.
>> >>
>> >> My information sez there are only 3..and 4 is wrong.
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > Now, let me elaborate on 'my sources'..
>> >
>> > it comes from a Regents Professor.
>> 
>> That would be a source, not sources.
>> 
>> As this one source is at odds with thousands upon thousands of experts
>> in the field, 
> 
> 
> You don't seem to know how many Regents Professor theoretical physicist and cosmologist exist.

What difference does it make to the point presented, i.e. YOU have one
source which is, according to you, at odds with the thousands upon
thousands of other experts in the field.

<snip babbling idiocy>

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#566520

Jim Pennino <jimp@gonzo.specsol.net> wrote:
> In sci.physics The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>> The Starmaker wrote:
>>> 
>>> How many basic forces in nature are there? 3 or 4??
>>> 
>>> It has to be one or the other, but which one, 3 or 4?
>>> 
>>> Unless of course you people don't know, then nevermind.
>>> 
>>> My information sez there are only 3..and 4 is wrong.
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> Now, let me elaborate on 'my sources'..
>> 
>> it comes from a Regents Professor.
> 
> That would be a source, not sources.
> 
> As this one source is at odds with thousands upon thousands of experts
> in the field, I would have to come to the conclusion that your one
> source is suspect or you have no clue what this one source actually
> says.
> 
> <snip moron babble>
> 
> 
> 

Everybody knows that it’s a controversy if you can find a source on the
internet that says it’s not true. 

Look at all these controversial issues:

We landed on the Moon.

The earth isn’t flat.

Dinosaurs existed over a hundred million years ago, not just within the
last 6600 years. 

Aliens did not build the Pyramids. 

China is an independent nation, not a secret consortium of the Illuminati. 

-- 
Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#566521

On Thursday, 11 November 2021 at 14:12:00 UTC+1, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
> Jim Pennino <ji...@gonzo.specsol.net> wrote: 
> > In sci.physics The Starmaker <star...@ix.netcom.com> wrote: 
> >> The Starmaker wrote: 
> >>> 
> >>> How many basic forces in nature are there? 3 or 4?? 
> >>> 
> >>> It has to be one or the other, but which one, 3 or 4? 
> >>> 
> >>> Unless of course you people don't know, then nevermind. 
> >>> 
> >>> My information sez there are only 3..and 4 is wrong. 
> >> 
> >> 
> >> 
> >> Now, let me elaborate on 'my sources'.. 
> >> 
> >> it comes from a Regents Professor. 
> > 
> > That would be a source, not sources. 
> > 
> > As this one source is at odds with thousands upon thousands of experts 
> > in the field, I would have to come to the conclusion that your one 
> > source is suspect or you have no clue what this one source actually 
> > says. 
> > 
> > <snip moron babble> 
> > 
> > 
> >
> Everybody knows that it’s a controversy if you can find a source on the 
> internet that says it’s not true. 
> 
> Look at all these controversial issues: 
> 
> We landed on the Moon. 
> 
> The earth isn’t flat. 
> 
> Dinosaurs existed over a hundred million years ago, not just within the 
> last 6600 years. 
> 
> Aliens did not build the Pyramids. 
> 
> China is an independent nation, not a secret consortium of the Illuminati. 

Even 2000 years old Euclidean mathematics has found 
some morons denying it.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#566550

The Starmaker wrote:
> 
> The Starmaker wrote:
> >
> > How many basic forces in nature are there? 3 or 4??
> >
> > It has to be one or the other, but which one, 3 or 4?
> >
> > Unless of course you people don't know, then nevermind.
> >
> > My information sez there are only 3..and 4 is wrong.
> 
> Now, let me elaborate on 'my sources'..
> 
> it comes from a Regents Professor.
> 
> a Regents Professor
> The title Regents Professor serves as recognition of the highest academic merit and is awarded to
> faculty members who have made a unique contribution to the quality of the University through distinguished
> accomplishments in teaching scholarship, research or creative work.
> 
> also, he is a theoretical physicist and cosmologist.
> 
> And he sez, "In actual fact, there are only three forces."
> 
> Now, I don't give a fuck what Google says or what 727,000,000 others think...
> 
> I'm only interested in facts...not lemming science.
> 
> Now, I repeat...those of yous who believe that there are only four  basic forces in nature are WRONG!
> 
> How many basic forces in nature are there? Do I hear a 3 from any of yous????
> 
> A factual 3? In actual fact, 3?
> 

Now imagine if you will, that if Stephen Hawking were alive today and he said..."In actual fact, there are only three forces." Would you believe him (regardless what Google claims)????


> 
> --
> The Starmaker -- To question the unquestionable, ask the unaskable,
>  to think the unthinkable, mention the unmentionable, say the unsayable, and challenge
>  the unchallengeable.

-- 
The Starmaker -- To question the unquestionable, ask the unaskable,
 to think the unthinkable, mention the unmentionable, say the unsayable, and challenge
 the unchallengeable.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#566551

Is isotopic decay identical to the Weak force?
Man's called them the splitting of the atom...
Should that not be a same phenomenon
for both? Why a force for one and not
the other?

Atoms are unstable instead of a force...

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#566554

mitchr...@gmail.com wrote:

> Is isotopic decay identical to the Weak force?
> Man's called them the splitting of the atom...
> Should that not be a same phenomenon for both? Why a force for one and
> not the other? Atoms are unstable instead of a force...

you confuse ions with isotopes. Which country are you?

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#566555

On Thursday, November 11, 2021 at 10:52:03 AM UTC-8, Gregor Bicha wrote:
> mitchr...@gmail.com wrote: 
> 
> > Is isotopic decay identical to the Weak force? 
> > Man's called them the splitting of the atom... 
> > Should that not be a same phenomenon for both? Why a force for one and 
> > not the other? Atoms are unstable instead of a force...
> you confuse ions with isotopes. Which country are you?

No. Isotopes are unstable not ions you moron...

Mitchell Raemsch

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#566560

mitchr...@gmail.com wrote:

> On Thursday, November 11, 2021 at 10:52:03 AM UTC-8, Gregor Bicha wrote:
>> mitchr...@gmail.com wrote:
>> 
>> > Is isotopic decay identical to the Weak force?
>> > Man's called them the splitting of the atom...
>> > Should that not be a same phenomenon for both? Why a force for one
>> > and not the other? Atoms are unstable instead of a force...
>> you confuse ions with isotopes. Which country are you?
> 
> No. Isotopes are unstable not ions you moron...

but ions give you emf, electrostatics etc, which is a force. Carbon 
dating isn't a force.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#566556

In sci.physics The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
> The Starmaker wrote:
>> 
>> The Starmaker wrote:
>> >
>> > How many basic forces in nature are there? 3 or 4??
>> >
>> > It has to be one or the other, but which one, 3 or 4?
>> >
>> > Unless of course you people don't know, then nevermind.
>> >
>> > My information sez there are only 3..and 4 is wrong.
>> 
>> Now, let me elaborate on 'my sources'..
>> 
>> it comes from a Regents Professor.
>> 
>> a Regents Professor
>> The title Regents Professor serves as recognition of the highest academic merit and is awarded to
>> faculty members who have made a unique contribution to the quality of the University through distinguished
>> accomplishments in teaching scholarship, research or creative work.
>> 
>> also, he is a theoretical physicist and cosmologist.
>> 
>> And he sez, "In actual fact, there are only three forces."
>> 
>> Now, I don't give a fuck what Google says or what 727,000,000 others think...
>> 
>> I'm only interested in facts...not lemming science.
>> 
>> Now, I repeat...those of yous who believe that there are only four  basic forces in nature are WRONG!
>> 
>> How many basic forces in nature are there? Do I hear a 3 from any of yous????
>> 
>> A factual 3? In actual fact, 3?
>> 
> 
> Now imagine if you will, that if Stephen Hawking were alive today and he said..."In actual fact, there are only three forces." Would you believe him (regardless what Google claims)????
> 

Since Stephen Hawking would never say such a thing, this is just moronic
arm waving on your part.


>> The Starmaker -- To question the unquestionable, ask the unaskable,
>>  to think the unthinkable, mention the unmentionable, say the unsayable, and challenge
>>  the unchallengeable.

To babble nonsense and moronic drivel.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#566651

https://www.google.com/search?tbm=bks&q=paul+davies+what%27s+eating+the+universe+and+is+there+something+magical+about+four+%28really+three%29


or
goto

Google Books

https://books.google.com/?hl=en&tab=wp


and insert this in the search bar: 

paul davies what's eating the universe and is there something magical about four (really three)



The Starmaker wrote:
> 
> The Starmaker wrote:
> >
> > The Starmaker wrote:
> > >
> > > How many basic forces in nature are there? 3 or 4??
> > >
> > > It has to be one or the other, but which one, 3 or 4?
> > >
> > > Unless of course you people don't know, then nevermind.
> > >
> > > My information sez there are only 3..and 4 is wrong.
> >
> > Now, let me elaborate on 'my sources'..
> >
> > it comes from a Regents Professor.
> >
> > a Regents Professor
> > The title Regents Professor serves as recognition of the highest academic merit and is awarded to
> > faculty members who have made a unique contribution to the quality of the University through distinguished
> > accomplishments in teaching scholarship, research or creative work.
> >
> > also, he is a theoretical physicist and cosmologist.
> >
> > And he sez, "In actual fact, there are only three forces."
> >
> > Now, I don't give a fuck what Google says or what 727,000,000 others think...
> >
> > I'm only interested in facts...not lemming science.
> >
> > Now, I repeat...those of yous who believe that there are only four  basic forces in nature are WRONG!
> >
> > How many basic forces in nature are there? Do I hear a 3 from any of yous????
> >
> > A factual 3? In actual fact, 3?
> >
> 
> Now imagine if you will, that if Stephen Hawking were alive today and he said..."In actual fact, there are only three forces." Would you believe him (regardless what Google claims)????
> 
> >
> > --
> > The Starmaker -- To question the unquestionable, ask the unaskable,
> >  to think the unthinkable, mention the unmentionable, say the unsayable, and challenge
> >  the unchallengeable.
> 
> --
> The Starmaker -- To question the unquestionable, ask the unaskable,
>  to think the unthinkable, mention the unmentionable, say the unsayable, and challenge
>  the unchallengeable.

-- 
The Starmaker -- To question the unquestionable, ask the unaskable,
 to think the unthinkable, mention the unmentionable, say the unsayable, and challenge
 the unchallengeable.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#566660

https://www.google.com/search?tbm=bks&q=paul+davies+what%27s+eating+the+universe+whittled+down+to+three

The Starmaker wrote:
> 
> https://www.google.com/search?tbm=bks&q=paul+davies+what%27s+eating+the+universe+and+is+there+something+magical+about+four+%28really+three%29
> 
> or
> goto
> 
> Google Books
> 
> https://books.google.com/?hl=en&tab=wp
> 
> and insert this in the search bar:
> 
> paul davies what's eating the universe and is there something magical about four (really three)
> 
> The Starmaker wrote:
> >
> > The Starmaker wrote:
> > >
> > > The Starmaker wrote:
> > > >
> > > > How many basic forces in nature are there? 3 or 4??
> > > >
> > > > It has to be one or the other, but which one, 3 or 4?
> > > >
> > > > Unless of course you people don't know, then nevermind.
> > > >
> > > > My information sez there are only 3..and 4 is wrong.
> > >
> > > Now, let me elaborate on 'my sources'..
> > >
> > > it comes from a Regents Professor.
> > >
> > > a Regents Professor
> > > The title Regents Professor serves as recognition of the highest academic merit and is awarded to
> > > faculty members who have made a unique contribution to the quality of the University through distinguished
> > > accomplishments in teaching scholarship, research or creative work.
> > >
> > > also, he is a theoretical physicist and cosmologist.
> > >
> > > And he sez, "In actual fact, there are only three forces."
> > >
> > > Now, I don't give a fuck what Google says or what 727,000,000 others think...
> > >
> > > I'm only interested in facts...not lemming science.
> > >
> > > Now, I repeat...those of yous who believe that there are only four  basic forces in nature are WRONG!
> > >
> > > How many basic forces in nature are there? Do I hear a 3 from any of yous????
> > >
> > > A factual 3? In actual fact, 3?
> > >
> >
> > Now imagine if you will, that if Stephen Hawking were alive today and he said..."In actual fact, there are only three forces." Would you believe him (regardless what Google claims)????
> >
> > >
> > > --
> > > The Starmaker -- To question the unquestionable, ask the unaskable,
> > >  to think the unthinkable, mention the unmentionable, say the unsayable, and challenge
> > >  the unchallengeable.
> >
> > --
> > The Starmaker -- To question the unquestionable, ask the unaskable,
> >  to think the unthinkable, mention the unmentionable, say the unsayable, and challenge
> >  the unchallengeable.
> 
> --
> The Starmaker -- To question the unquestionable, ask the unaskable,
>  to think the unthinkable, mention the unmentionable, say the unsayable, and challenge
>  the unchallengeable.

-- 
The Starmaker -- To question the unquestionable, ask the unaskable,
 to think the unthinkable, mention the unmentionable, say the unsayable, and challenge
 the unchallengeable.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

Page 2 of 3 — ← Prev page 1 [2] 3  Next page →

Back to top | Article view | sci.physics.relativity

csiph-web