Path: csiph.com!aioe.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail From: The Starmaker Newsgroups: sci.physics Subject: Re: Why is there something? Date: Tue, 15 Aug 2017 18:56:51 -0700 Organization: Aioe.org NNTP Server Lines: 68 Message-ID: <5993A663.179@ix.netcom.com> References: <75c7dfaa-960c-4465-85bb-2faec8b47035@googlegroups.com> <59909851.179D@ix.netcom.com> <7784400b-21a7-4a41-aece-a211543f31d6@googlegroups.com> <4ae8fab6-a35c-4345-aac3-3738e91acc62@googlegroups.com> <832d25a3-0c2e-4605-9067-353f0d954c9e@googlegroups.com> <59936db7$0$12039$b1db1813$2411a48f@news.astraweb.com> <057ff46e-4e5d-4e91-8707-e6f9944b603e@googlegroups.com> <5993a193$0$61900$c3e8da3$e074e489@news.astraweb.com> Reply-To: starmaker@ix.netcom.com NNTP-Posting-Host: X9ItFNC7Zcz4l6MobL/YRA.user.gioia.aioe.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Complaints-To: abuse@aioe.org X-Antivirus: Avast (VPS 170815-6, 08/15/2017), Outbound message X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.04Gold (WinNT; U) X-Notice: Filtered by postfilter v. 0.8.2 X-Antivirus-Status: Clean Xref: csiph.com sci.physics:646124 benj wrote: > > On 8/15/2017 8:54 PM, Odd Bodkin wrote: > > Arindam Banerjee wrote: > >> On Wednesday, August 16, 2017 at 9:36:17 AM UTC+10, Odd Bodkin wrote: > >>> benj wrote: > >>>> On 8/14/2017 10:06 PM, Arindam Banerjee wrote: > >>>>> On Monday, August 14, 2017 at 11:45:00 PM UTC+10, Odd Bodkin wrote: > >>>>>> On 8/14/17 7:42 AM, Arindam Banerjee wrote: > >>>>>>> On Monday, August 14, 2017 at 10:38:24 PM UTC+10, Odd Bodkin wrote: > >>>>>>>> Arindam Banerjee wrote: > >>>>>>>>> On Monday, August 14, 2017 at 5:06:42 PM UTC+10, alal...@gmail.com wrote: > >>>>>>>>>> On Monday, August 14, 2017 at 4:35:50 AM UTC+5:30, Odd Bodkin wrote: > >>>>>>>>>>> On 8/13/17 3:56 PM, alal65536@gmail.com wrote: > >>>>>>>>>>>> I didn't want to read the book, as last time I read a book on > >>>>>>>>>>>> cosmology, it wasted my time by discussing quarks. > >>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>> I've asked you what evidence you have that everything about quarks has > >>>>>>>>>>> been fabricated. You've produced nothing, absolutely nothing. So is > >>>>>>>>>>> there a reason you believe what you do? > >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> I may be lazy, but I am not a liar. Over time, perhaps you will learn > >>>>>>>>>> to trust me. How solid is the evidence you have seen on quarks? How > >>>>>>>>>> reliant are you on other people? > >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> Abhinav Lal > >>>>>>>>>> Writer & Investor > >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>> -- > >>>>>>>>>>> Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> Any theory worth anything must make valid predictions if that theory is > >>>>>>>>> to be considered scientific. > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> Which the theory of quarks does, many times over, verified in experiment > >>>>>>>> many times over. > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> Really. > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> Jet production in lepton and hadron colliders. > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> Mumbo-jumbo. > >>>>>> > >>>>>> No, it's not mumbo-jumbo. It's perfectly understandable, even to lay > >>>>>> readers. > >>>>> > >>>>> If it is perfectly understandable to lay readers then explain it in a few lines. > >>>>> > >>>> Sorry Banjo, But Odd doesn't do explanations. He just tells people to go > >>>> look it up in some book. > >>>> > >>> > >>> Because for explanations that take 40 or 50 pages, it makes sense to find > >>> them in a book, not on usenet. Obviously. > >> > >> obviously such explanations are not explanations but obfuscations. > > > > Seriously? You can't read 40-50 pages without getting confused? > > Your attention span is 30 min? > > Hey Boinker, nobody who isn't insane can read 40-50 pages of "modern" > physics without being confused. i get confused after 40-50 characters..who reads a page or pages??? If it is not on the first page of Google....