Path: csiph.com!au2pb.net!usenet.blueworldhosting.com!feeder01.blueworldhosting.com!peer01.iad.highwinds-media.com!news.highwinds-media.com!feed-me.highwinds-media.com!nntp.club.cc.cmu.edu!micro-heart-of-gold.mit.edu!newsswitch.lcs.mit.edu!nntp.TheWorld.com!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney)
Newsgroups: sci.physics
Subject: Re: Do we need a new theory of gravity?
Date: Mon, 16 Nov 2015 16:59:01 +0000 (UTC)
Organization: The World : www.TheWorld.com : Since 1989
Lines: 27
Message-ID: <n2d20l$i60$1@pcls7.std.com>
References: <w-mdnVDcJbvSLtrLnZ2dnUU7-U-dnZ2d@giganews.com>  <pan.2015.11.14.22.43.16@localhost.localdomain> <MYydnQg-Lt5cINrLnZ2dnUU7-R-dnZ2d@giganews.com>  <pan.2015.11.14.23.24.28@localhost.localdomain> <5_OdncEOX4zfXtrLnZ2dnUU7-VednZ2d@giganews.com>  <pan.2015.11.15.00.06.28@localhost.localdomain> <9d14e7e6-050e-4a9b-9d19-d8ac4e5ba28d@googlegroups.com>  <n28qrr$ith$1@pcls7.std.com> <b4e967e6-6839-48de-8574-1bd157b7547b@googlegroups.com>  <n2a82r$gg1$1@pcls7.std.com> <122d7496-1152-4595-a243-cdac96e6b8c6@googlegroups.com>  <n2baa5$o4a$1@pcls7.std.com> <51317ce8-b0cb-4630-b6c5-2ecc3ea7407d@googlegroups.com>  <n2cvdg$g1n$2@pcls7.std.com> <3efda0f8-ba2b-4a98-8d5f-59c57f8fba85@googlegroups.com>
NNTP-Posting-Host: shell01.theworld.com
X-Trace: pcls7.std.com 1447693141 18624 192.74.137.71 (16 Nov 2015 16:59:01 GMT)
X-Complaints-To: abuse@TheWorld.com
NNTP-Posting-Date: Mon, 16 Nov 2015 16:59:01 +0000 (UTC)
User-Agent: nn/6.6.5
X-Received-Bytes: 2032
X-Received-Body-CRC: 2628415420
Xref: csiph.com sci.physics:533497

john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> writes:

>And?
>Which of the absurdities in
>Standard Model is "established fact"?

It is you with the laughable "established facts", not science.  In 
science, a theory can only be disproved, not proved as an "established 
fact".

>DM?
>DE?
>BH?
>"Point particles"?
>"Virtual particles"?
>"Warped Spacetime"?
>"Delocalized" electrons?

These all have fair to substantial amounts of evidence that support them,
without any evidence that refutes them.

If you don't like these, disprove them.  Don't just pull some spinny
things out of your ass and claim that this is how the universe works.

>"Wormholes"?

Speculation.