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 1 of 3  [1] 2 3  Next page →

#835390 — How many basic forces in nature are there?

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.




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

[toc] | [next] | [standalone]

#835391

On 11/9/2021 4:53 PM, 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.
> 
> 
> 
> 


2 I think.

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

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

#835400 — There's only "eXergy".

Re: How many basic forces in nature are there? 3 or 4??

There's only "eXergy"
( energy that can do "work", force * distance ).

From our perspective, clocks tick ever-slower the closer
they are to the start of the Big Bang but, locally, 
they tick normally, as they do here.

Life is a riddle with few answers;
so we make (useful/probable) assumptions e.g.:

  No entropy at the ( infinitely precise ) start of the Big Bang; 
  i.e. infinite "eXergy" ( energy that can do "work", force * distance ); 
  e.g. infinite gravitational and/or electromagnetic energy.

"God" (nature) programmed us to consume residual eXergy as 
the cosmos goes from infinitely  hot/dense to infinitely  cold/sparse.

SuperDeterminism is the most probable,  and the most useful,  assumption.
Life is everything, yet nothing.

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

#835401 — There's only "eXergy".

Re: How many basic forces in nature are there? 3 or 4??

There's only "eXergy"
( energy that can do "work", force * distance ).

From our perspective, clocks tick ever-slower the closer
they are to the start of the Big Bang but, locally, 
they tick normally, as they do here.

Life is a riddle with few answers;
so we make (useful/probable) assumptions e.g.:

  No entropy at the ( infinitely precise ) start of the Big Bang; 
  i.e. infinite "eXergy" ( energy that can do "work", force * distance ); 
  e.g. infinite gravitational and/or electromagnetic energy.

"God" (nature) programmed us to consume residual eXergy as 
the cosmos goes from infinitely  hot/dense to infinitely  cold/sparse.

SuperDeterminism is the most probable,  and the most useful,  assumption.
Life is everything, yet nothing.

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

#835433

On Tuesday, November 9, 2021 at 2:55:40 PM UTC-8, Clutterfreak wrote:
> On 11/9/2021 4:53 PM, 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. 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> >
> 2 I think. 

You've been talking to Arindam haven't you

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

#835398

In sci.physics The Starmaker <starmaker@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

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.

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

#835413

Jim Pennino wrote:
> 
> In sci.physics The Starmaker <starmaker@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... 


> 
> 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

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.









-- 
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]

#835429

In sci.physics The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
> Jim Pennino wrote:
>> 
>> In sci.physics The Starmaker <starmaker@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.

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

#835434

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.

No moron, it just mean that the number of times the word was found on the internet.

You really should leave science to scientists.

James McGinn / Genius

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

#835442

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.
> 
> No moron, it just mean that the number of times the word was found on the internet.

No moron, it means the number of web sites where the phrase "basic forces
in nature" was found.

> 
> You really should leave science to scientists.

Are there any scientists there in the home with you?

If so, ask one of them how a google lookup is science and is any
different than looking at the index of a book.

> 
> James McGinn / Delusional Halfwit
> 

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

#835446

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:
> >> > 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.



MY GOSH, you're useless!

Google admits they don't have the answers. Google admits they don't know the truth.

If you do a simple search for Why Is The Sky Blue?

First Google will try to figure out what is your question you are asking before you even finish asking the question!

Then they have their own:

People also ask  :

question

question

question

question



and the answers that pop up can be relevant, irrelevant, accurate, in accurate, true or untrue...

it doesn't matter to Google.


They still make money with MISINFORMATION!



But, the truth is...You don't know how many basic forces in nature are there.



and still we haven't got a number from you. Why?  You doubbally doubbally don't know. 


In other words, 727,000,000 answers on Google is...wrong!


But what does Google care?


You're just a ...lemming.


(but i love the game)




-- 
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]

#835453

On 11/10/2021 12:18 PM, The Starmaker wrote:
> MY GOSH, you're useless!


"Jim Pennino" can indeed be replaced with a nauseating clump of infected 
_pustulence_ , and absolutely _nothing_ in this world will suffer the 
slightest change from what it was before.

This shit is some _nonentity_.

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

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

#835457

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:
>> >> > 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.
> 
> 
> 
> MY GOSH, you're useless!
> 
> Google admits they don't have the answers. Google admits they don't know the truth.

No shit?

This is news to you?

Google is nothing more than an indexing service of information it finds
on web sites.

It is up to the end user to decide if the information found is correct
or even relevant to the question.

> If you do a simple search for Why Is The Sky Blue?

Google Why Is The Sky Blue

First response: a web page from the Royal Museums Greenwich which goes
into great detail about why the Earth's sky is blue.

<snip ignorant moron babble>

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

#835462

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:
> >> > Jim Pennino wrote:
> >> >>
> >> >> In sci.physics The Starmaker <starmaker@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.
> >
> >
> >
> > MY GOSH, you're useless!
> >
> > Google admits they don't have the answers. Google admits they don't know the truth.
> 
> No shit?
> 
> This is news to you?
> 
> Google is nothing more than an indexing service of information it finds
> on web sites.
> 
> It is up to the end user to decide if the information found is correct
> or even relevant to the question.
> 
> > If you do a simple search for Why Is The Sky Blue?
> 
> Google Why Is The Sky Blue
> 
> First response: a web page from the Royal Museums Greenwich which goes
> into great detail about why the Earth's sky is blue.
> 
> <snip ignorant moron babble>

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...

if you looking for the nearest Venusian from planet Venus..

Where is the nearest Venusian?

Google might have a little trouble...


I get Venus Massage Parlor.








-- 
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]

#835466

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.

Likewise for other idiotic phrases like "five headed dog" or
"intelligent usenet posts by starmaker".

<snip remaining idiotic drivel?

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

#835473

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.
> 
> Likewise for other idiotic phrases like "five headed dog" or
> "intelligent usenet posts by starmaker".
> 
> <snip remaining idiotic drivel?


Are you saying there are no Martians?


-- 
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]

#835484

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.
>> 
>> Likewise for other idiotic phrases like "five headed dog" or
>> "intelligent usenet posts by starmaker".
>> 
>> <snip remaining idiotic drivel?
> 
> 
> Are you saying there are no Martians?
 
What I said was "it is highly unlikely that anyone on the planet has a
web page about the nearest Martian", so there would be nothing for
google to index.

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

#835486

On 11/11/2021 8:45 AM, 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.
>>>
>>> Likewise for other idiotic phrases like "five headed dog" or
>>> "intelligent usenet posts by starmaker".
>>>
>>> <snip remaining idiotic drivel?
>>
>>
>> Are you saying there are no Martians?
>   
> What I said was "it is highly unlikely that anyone on the planet has a
> web page about the nearest Martian", so there would be nothing for
> google to index.
> 

google "nearest martian"  313,000,000 hits

Bear in mind that google prefers to yield information even when the
information merely superficially resembles the query.

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

#835490

In sci.physics whodat <whodaat@void.nowgre.com> wrote:
> On 11/11/2021 8:45 AM, 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.
>>>>
>>>> Likewise for other idiotic phrases like "five headed dog" or
>>>> "intelligent usenet posts by starmaker".
>>>>
>>>> <snip remaining idiotic drivel?
>>>
>>>
>>> Are you saying there are no Martians?
>>   
>> What I said was "it is highly unlikely that anyone on the planet has a
>> web page about the nearest Martian", so there would be nothing for
>> google to index.
>> 
> 
> google "nearest martian"  313,000,000 hits
> 
> Bear in mind that google prefers to yield information even when the
> information merely superficially resembles the query.

Yes, and a quick look shows that the vast majority of the links returned
are about the relative orbital positions of Earth and Mars with a few
links about businesses with Martian in their name.

This validates my earlier statements, i.e.:

1. The end user needs to validate that the links returned are actually
relevant to the question as written.

2. Nobody has a web site talking about Martians.

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

#835474

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...


Hundreds of thousands upon hundreds of thousands.


-- 
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 1 of 3  [1] 2 3  Next page →

Back to top | Article view | sci.physics

csiph-web