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

Groups > sci.physics > #835390 > unrolled thread

How many basic forces in nature are there?

Back to article view | Back to sci.physics

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? Dhruv <tsp2opt@gmail.com> - 2021-11-10 08:23 -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? James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2021-11-10 08:23 -0800
            Re: How many basic forces in nature are there? Jim Pennino <jimp@gonzo.specsol.net> - 2021-11-10 09:09 -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? Paul Alsing <pnalsing@gmail.com> - 2021-11-11 15:27 -0800
          Re: How many basic forces in nature are there? James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2021-11-10 10:35 -0800
            Re: How many basic forces in nature are there? Jim Pennino <jimp@gonzo.specsol.net> - 2021-11-10 14:01 -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? Dhruv <tsp2opt@gmail.com> - 2021-11-10 08:25 -0800
    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? The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2021-11-11 10:28 -0800
        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
    Re: How many basic forces in nature are there? Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com> - 2021-11-12 15:12 -0800

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

#835483

In sci.physics The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
> Jim Pennino wrote:
>> 
>> In sci.physics The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>> 
>> <snip old crap>
>> 
>> > Lets for example you are looking for the nearest Martian. Do a Google search for
>> >
>> > Where is the nearest Martian?
>> >
>> > Google might have a little trouble...
>> 
>> Since google is nothing more than an index of phrases found in web pages
>> and it is highly unlikely that anyone on the planet has a web page about
>> the nearest Martian, anyone with the slightest bit of intelligence or
>> common sense would not expect much of anything for such a search.
> 
> Don't forget the 727,000,000, that includes you and many others here...

That would be 727,000,000 web pages about the sky being blue, which has
nothing to do with me or anyone else here.

> Hundreds of thousands upon hundreds of thousands.

That would be thousands of subject matter experts that disagree with what
you said your one source said.

You seem to have major cognitive issues.

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

#835494

Jim Pennino wrote:
> 
> In sci.physics The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
> > Jim Pennino wrote:
> >>
> >> In sci.physics The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
> >>
> >> <snip old crap>
> >>
> >> > Lets for example you are looking for the nearest Martian. Do a Google search for
> >> >
> >> > Where is the nearest Martian?
> >> >
> >> > Google might have a little trouble...
> >>
> >> Since google is nothing more than an index of phrases found in web pages
> >> and it is highly unlikely that anyone on the planet has a web page about
> >> the nearest Martian, anyone with the slightest bit of intelligence or
> >> common sense would not expect much of anything for such a search.
> >
> > Don't forget the 727,000,000, that includes you and many others here...
> 
> That would be 727,000,000 web pages about the sky being blue, which has
> nothing to do with me or anyone else here.


727,000,000? You 'also' seem to have a memory problem...are you one of
those people with one foot in the grave?  



-- 
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]

#835501

In sci.physics The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
> Jim Pennino wrote:
>> 
>> In sci.physics The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>> > Jim Pennino wrote:
>> >>
>> >> In sci.physics The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>> >>
>> >> <snip old crap>
>> >>
>> >> > Lets for example you are looking for the nearest Martian. Do a Google search for
>> >> >
>> >> > Where is the nearest Martian?
>> >> >
>> >> > Google might have a little trouble...
>> >>
>> >> Since google is nothing more than an index of phrases found in web pages
>> >> and it is highly unlikely that anyone on the planet has a web page about
>> >> the nearest Martian, anyone with the slightest bit of intelligence or
>> >> common sense would not expect much of anything for such a search.
>> >
>> > Don't forget the 727,000,000, that includes you and many others here...
>> 
>> That would be 727,000,000 web pages about the sky being blue, which has
>> nothing to do with me or anyone else here.
> 
> 
> 727,000,000? You 'also' seem to have a memory problem...are you one of
> those people with one foot in the grave?  
 
Since you keep dancing around from subject to subject, it becomes
difficult to keep such things in order.

So, that would be 727,000,000 web pages about the forces of nature,
which has nothing to do with me or anyone else here.


 

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

#835555

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]

#835570

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]

#835574

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]

#835527

On Thursday, November 11, 2021 at 7:46:20 AM UTC-8, Jim Pennino wrote:
> In sci.physics The Starmaker <star...@ix.netcom.com> wrote: 
> > Jim Pennino wrote: 
> >> 
> >> In sci.physics The Starmaker <star...@ix.netcom.com> wrote: 
> >> 
> >> <snip old crap> 
> >> 
> >> > Lets for example you are looking for the nearest Martian. Do a Google search for 
> >> > 
> >> > Where is the nearest Martian? 
> >> > 
> >> > Google might have a little trouble... 
> >> 
> >> Since google is nothing more than an index of phrases found in web pages 
> >> and it is highly unlikely that anyone on the planet has a web page about 
> >> the nearest Martian, anyone with the slightest bit of intelligence or 
> >> common sense would not expect much of anything for such a search. 
> > 
> > Don't forget the 727,000,000, that includes you and many others here...
> That would be 727,000,000 web pages about the sky being blue, which has 
> nothing to do with me or anyone else here.
> > Hundreds of thousands upon hundreds of thousands.
> That would be thousands of subject matter experts that disagree with what 
> you said your one source said. 
> 
> You seem to have major cognitive issues.

Ya think?

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

#835448

On Wednesday, November 10, 2021 at 7:31:12 AM UTC-8, Jim Pennino wrote:
> In sci.physics The Starmaker <star...@ix.netcom.com> wrote: 
> > Jim Pennino wrote: 
> >> 
> >> In sci.physics The Starmaker <star...@ix.netcom.com> wrote: 
> >> > How many basic forces in nature are there? 3 or 4?? 
> >> 
> >> Google "How many basic forces in nature are there" 
> >> 
> >> About 727,000,000 results 
> > 
> > I didn't ask how many times does the question pop up on Google...
> Google doesn't index questions, it indexes answers. 
> 
> Which means there are about 727,000,000 ANSWERS to your question.
> >> 
> >> Top hit: https://www.space.com/four-fundamental-forces.html 
> >> 
> >> > 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. 
> >> 
> >> Your information is usually utter babbling nonsense. 
> > 
> > 
> > First you had to 'look it up on Google', meaning you didn't know the 
> > answer
> The google look up was an object lesson for YOU to show YOU how trivial 
> it is to find the answer to YOUR question.
> > then you didn't answer 1,2,3,4,5...which means you doubbally don't know 
> > the answer.. 
> > 
> > 
> > your response is a complete waste especially i wrote: "don't know, then 
> > never mind." 
> > 
> > but you still embarrassed yourself.
> It is you that has embarrassed yourself by not even knowing what it 
> is that google does.

Imagine the stupidity of the masses like Pennino who think doing a Google search is like doing an experiment.  

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

#835459

James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Wednesday, November 10, 2021 at 7:31:12 AM UTC-8, Jim Pennino wrote:
>> In sci.physics The Starmaker <star...@ix.netcom.com> wrote: 
>> > Jim Pennino wrote: 
>> >> 
>> >> In sci.physics The Starmaker <star...@ix.netcom.com> wrote: 
>> >> > How many basic forces in nature are there? 3 or 4?? 
>> >> 
>> >> Google "How many basic forces in nature are there" 
>> >> 
>> >> About 727,000,000 results 
>> > 
>> > I didn't ask how many times does the question pop up on Google...
>> Google doesn't index questions, it indexes answers. 
>> 
>> Which means there are about 727,000,000 ANSWERS to your question.
>> >> 
>> >> Top hit: https://www.space.com/four-fundamental-forces.html 
>> >> 
>> >> > 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. 
>> >> 
>> >> Your information is usually utter babbling nonsense. 
>> > 
>> > 
>> > First you had to 'look it up on Google', meaning you didn't know the 
>> > answer
>> The google look up was an object lesson for YOU to show YOU how trivial 
>> it is to find the answer to YOUR question.
>> > then you didn't answer 1,2,3,4,5...which means you doubbally don't know 
>> > the answer.. 
>> > 
>> > 
>> > your response is a complete waste especially i wrote: "don't know, then 
>> > never mind." 
>> > 
>> > but you still embarrassed yourself.
>> It is you that has embarrassed yourself by not even knowing what it 
>> is that google does.
> 
> Imagine the stupidity of the masses like Pennino who think doing a Google search is like doing an experiment.  

No one other than you thinks that and you think that because you are a
delusional fuckwit that doesn't know the meaning of the word expiriment.

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

#835416

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]

#835435

On Tuesday, November 9, 2021 at 2:53:11 PM UTC-8, 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. 

Well, I have seen reports that a fifth may have been discovered recently

https://www.sciencealert.com/physicists-may-have-discovered-new-force-of-nature-in-lhc-experiment

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

#835452

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]

#835454

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]

#835455

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]

#835460

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]

#835463

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]

#835467

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]

#835495

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]

#835500

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]

#835573

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]

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

Back to top | Article view | sci.physics

csiph-web