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

Groups > sci.physics > #645726 > unrolled thread

Why is there something?

Back to article view | Back to sci.physics

Contents

  Why is there something? alal65536@gmail.com - 2017-08-13 09:45 -0700
    Re: Why is there something? Serg io <invalid@invalid.com> - 2017-08-13 12:20 -0500
      Re: Why is there something? poraty350@gmail.com - 2017-08-19 00:11 -0700
    Re: Why is there something? "reber G=emc^2" <herbertglazier0@gmail.com> - 2017-08-13 10:22 -0700
      Re: Why is there something? "hanson" <hanson@quick.net> - 2017-08-13 12:07 -0700
    Re: Why is there something? The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2017-08-13 11:20 -0700
      Re: Why is there something? The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2017-08-13 12:23 -0700
        Re: Why is there something? Double-A <double-a3@hush.com> - 2017-08-13 14:07 -0700
          Re: Why is there something? The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2017-08-13 22:27 -0700
        Re: Why is there something? The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2017-08-14 11:46 -0700
          Re: Why is there something? The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2017-08-15 11:45 -0700
            Re: Why is there something? The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2017-08-15 13:17 -0700
              Re: Why is there something? Double-A <double-a3@hush.com> - 2017-08-15 13:48 -0700
                Re: Why is there something? The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2017-08-15 16:27 -0700
                  Re: Why is there something? The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2017-08-15 16:33 -0700
      Re: Why is there something? alal65536@gmail.com - 2017-08-13 13:56 -0700
        Re: Why is there something? Serg io <invalid@invalid.com> - 2017-08-13 16:21 -0500
        Re: Why is there something? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-08-13 18:05 -0500
          Re: Why is there something? alal65536@gmail.com - 2017-08-14 00:06 -0700
            Re: Why is there something? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-08-14 11:33 +0000
            Re: Why is there something? Arindam Banerjee <banerjeeadda1234@gmail.com> - 2017-08-14 05:00 -0700
              Re: Why is there something? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-08-14 12:38 +0000
                Re: Why is there something? Arindam Banerjee <banerjeeadda1234@gmail.com> - 2017-08-14 05:42 -0700
                  Re: Why is there something? Arindam Banerjee <banerjeeadda1234@gmail.com> - 2017-08-14 06:27 -0700
                  Re: Why is there something? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-08-14 08:44 -0500
                    Re: Why is there something? Arindam Banerjee <banerjeeadda1234@gmail.com> - 2017-08-14 19:06 -0700
                      Re: Why is there something? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-08-15 13:00 -0500
                      Re: Why is there something? benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2017-08-15 17:55 -0400
                        Re: Why is there something? The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2017-08-15 16:17 -0700
                        Re: Why is there something? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-08-15 23:36 +0000
                          Re: Why is there something? Arindam Banerjee <banerjeeadda1234@gmail.com> - 2017-08-15 17:38 -0700
                            Re: Why is there something? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-08-16 00:54 +0000
                              Re: Why is there something? benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2017-08-15 21:36 -0400
                                Re: Why is there something? The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2017-08-15 18:56 -0700
                                Re: Why is there something? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-08-16 03:34 +0000
                                  Re: Why is there something? benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2017-08-16 16:40 -0400
                                    Re: Why is there something? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-08-17 01:04 +0000
                                      Re: Why is there something? benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2017-08-16 21:54 -0400
                                        Re: Why is there something? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-08-17 02:28 +0000
                                          Re: Why is there something? benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2017-08-17 17:24 -0400
                          Re: Why is there something? Mahipal <mahipal7638@gmail.com> - 2017-08-15 17:52 -0700
                            Re: Why is there something? benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2017-08-15 21:34 -0400
                              Re: Why is there something? Serg io <invalid@invalid.com> - 2017-08-15 21:25 -0500
                                Re: Why is there something? benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2017-08-16 16:38 -0400
                              Re: Why is there something? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-08-16 03:34 +0000
                              Re: Why is there something? Mahipal <mahipal7638@gmail.com> - 2017-08-16 08:14 -0700
                          Re: Why is there something? benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2017-08-15 21:24 -0400
                            Re: Why is there something? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-08-16 01:30 +0000
            Re: Why is there something? Serg io <invalid@invalid.com> - 2017-08-14 07:45 -0500
        Re: Why is there something? The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2017-08-13 22:28 -0700
    Re: Why is there something? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-08-13 18:04 -0500
    Re: Everything is nothing because the (4-D) timescape is static, immutable. alal65536@gmail.com - 2017-08-13 17:25 -0700
      Re: Everything is nothing because the (4-D) timescape is static, immutable. Serg io <invalid@invalid.com> - 2017-08-13 21:02 -0500
      Re: Everything is nothing because the (4-D) timescape is static, immutable. KCIR2 <rick_s7777777@yahoo.ca> - 2017-08-14 07:17 -0700
        Re: Everything is nothing because the (4-D) timescape is static, immutable. Arindam Banerjee <banerjeeadda1234@gmail.com> - 2017-08-14 19:13 -0700
          Re: Everything is nothing because the (4-D) timescape is static, immutable. benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2017-08-15 18:00 -0400
            Re: Everything is nothing because the (4-D) timescape is static, immutable. Arindam Banerjee <banerjeeadda1234@gmail.com> - 2017-08-15 15:38 -0700
              Re: Everything is nothing because the (4-D) timescape is static, immutable. benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2017-08-15 19:29 -0400
                Re: Everything is nothing because the (4-D) timescape is static, immutable. Arindam Banerjee <banerjeeadda1234@gmail.com> - 2017-08-15 17:37 -0700
                  Re: Everything is nothing because the (4-D) timescape is static, immutable. benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2017-08-15 21:41 -0400
                    Re: Everything is nothing because the (4-D) timescape is static, immutable. Arindam Banerjee <banerjeeadda1234@gmail.com> - 2017-08-15 18:56 -0700
                Re: Everything is nothing because the (4-D) timescape is static, immutable. Arindam Banerjee <banerjeeadda1234@gmail.com> - 2017-08-15 17:41 -0700
                  Re: Everything is nothing because the (4-D) timescape is static, immutable. benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2017-08-15 21:33 -0400
                    Re: Everything is nothing because the (4-D) timescape is static, immutable. Arindam Banerjee <banerjeeadda1234@gmail.com> - 2017-08-15 18:53 -0700
    Re: Why is there something? KCIR2 <rick_s7777777@yahoo.ca> - 2017-08-13 17:36 -0700
    Re: Everything is nothing because the (4-D) timescape is static, immutable. "F. Russell" <fr@random.info> - 2017-08-14 10:02 +0000
    Re: Why is there something? "Anthony Zen Pride Week" <sender@hotmail.com> - 2017-08-16 07:13 -0700
      Re: Why is there something? The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2017-08-16 07:29 -0700
        Re: Why is there something? The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2017-08-16 17:30 -0700
    Re: Why is there something? Mahipal <mahipal7638@gmail.com> - 2017-08-17 20:42 -0700
      Re: Why is there something? The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2017-08-17 22:49 -0700
        Re: Why is there something? Mahipal <mahipal7638@gmail.com> - 2017-08-18 08:14 -0700

Page 2 of 4 — ← Prev page 1 [2] 3 4  Next page →

#645853

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.

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

#645854

Arindam Banerjee <banerjeeadda1234@gmail.com> 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. Jet production in lepton and hadron colliders. Deep
inelastic scattering in lepton-hadron interactions. J/psi, upsilon and
omega-minus production. Etc, etc, etc. 

Now, what evidence that they do not exist? 

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

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

#645855

On Monday, August 14, 2017 at 10:38:24 PM UTC+10, Odd Bodkin wrote:
> Arindam Banerjee <banerjeeadda1234@gmail.com> 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.

 Deep
> inelastic scattering in lepton-hadron interactions.

More mumbo-jumbo.

 J/psi, upsilon and
> omega-minus production. Etc, etc, etc. 

Same as elves, trolls, fairies, goblins, witches, etc. etc. etc.
 
> Now, what evidence that they do not exist? 

The need for mumbo-jumbo and fairy tales to justify their existence.
> 
> -- 
> Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables

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

#645858

On Monday, August 14, 2017 at 10:42:45 PM UTC+10, Arindam Banerjee wrote:
> On Monday, August 14, 2017 at 10:38:24 PM UTC+10, Odd Bodkin wrote:
> > Arindam Banerjee <banerjeeadda1234@gmail.com> 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.
> 
>  Deep
> > inelastic scattering in lepton-hadron interactions.
> 
> More mumbo-jumbo.
> 
>  J/psi, upsilon and
> > omega-minus production. Etc, etc, etc. 
> 
> Same as elves, trolls, fairies, goblins, witches, etc. etc. etc.
>  
> > Now, what evidence that they do not exist? 
> 
> The need for mumbo-jumbo and fairy tales to justify their existence.
> > 
> > -- 
> > Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables

From a link given by Sergio, 

https://astarmathsandphysics.com/a-level-physics-notes/particle-physics/2946-evidence-for-quarks.html

the following quote

Electron diffraction experiments. High energy, hence short wavelength electrons are fired at a material. The electrons behave like waves (wave particle duality) and are diffracted when they hit the target. The diffraction pattern of the diffracted electrons can be used to estimate the size and shape of particles in the target. The electrons have to be high energy because there exists an inverse relationship between wavelength – which needs to be about the same size of the distances between the particles being investigated – and energy. The results of these experiments indicate that protons have internal structure, and that the electrons are being scattered by particles that mave charges that are a fraction of the charge on an electron. This implies that protons are not fundamental particles but are composed of more fundamental particles, and similarly for neutrons.


***

From the aetheric perspective:

When the electrons (mass with charge) hits the material, a dipole is 
formed with the electron charge and the positive nucleus of the material.

The aether is vibrated suitably with the changing electric field. Which 
creates a changing magnetic field, which creates a changing electric field,
and so on.

Thus there is photon emitted.

This photon shows the diffraction process normal to electromagnetic waves.

Yes, it could be that the electron is made up of even smaller particles.
Just as the proton could be made up of even smaller particles.
That way, what we call a electron or proton is just a kind of average mass.
It could well be that at the fundamental level matter is in sort of lumps,
which can go down to very small sizes.

So simple.

Cheers,
Arindam Banerjee

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

#645861

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 <banerjeeadda1234@gmail.com> 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. It's unwise to call anything you're not familiar with mumbo-jumbo.

> 
>   Deep
>> inelastic scattering in lepton-hadron interactions.
> 
> More mumbo-jumbo.

Same thing.

> 
>   J/psi, upsilon and
>> omega-minus production. Etc, etc, etc.
> 
> Same as elves, trolls, fairies, goblins, witches, etc. etc. etc.

Well, just because you're unfamiliar with them or the plain proof of 
them doesn't justify you calling them myths.

>   
>> Now, what evidence that they do not exist?
> 
> The need for mumbo-jumbo and fairy tales to justify their existence.
>>
>> -- 
>> Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
> 


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

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

#645956

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 <banerjeeadda1234@gmail.com> 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.

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

#646030

On 8/14/17 9:06 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 <banerjeeadda1234@gmail.com> 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.
> 

Lay readers can read more than a few lines. This lay reader reads whole 
books on the subject. For recommendations about jet production in lepton 
colliders, I suggest:
Ferbel and Das: Introduction to Nuclear and Particle Physics
Martin and Shaw: Particle Physics
Perl: High Energy Hadron Physics
Perkins: Introduction to High Energy Physics

If you want it in a few lines, you're going to get a superficial 
explanation:
If there are internal constituents inside the proton, this is like 
having BBs inside a cloth bag. If you aim bullets at this bag, there is 
a measurable difference between hitting an undifferentiated bag and a 
bag with hard objects inside. This is called deep inelastic scattering. 
The measured results are consistent with the bag with hard objects 
inside. Moreover, the angular distribution of the scattered hard 
objects, and the energy spectrum of the scattered hard objects, both 
depend on the nature of the interaction between those constituents. QCD 
made firm predictions of what those spectra would look like -- 
QUANTITATIVELY -- and the results matched. Morever, the antiscreening of 
this interaction between the constituents predicted that some of the 
energy of the collision would go to the production of particles that 
"dress" the outgoing constituent, in a characteristic profile peaked 
around the constituent but extending into the angular region between the 
peaks, and this profile was also QUANTITATIVELY predicted. All of the 
quantitative predictions matched measurements, giving great confidence 
that the QCD model for the constituents is correct. There IS NO 
COMPETING MODEL that gets these QUANTITATIVE distributions correct. Nor 
do you even HAVE a QUANTITATIVE prediction for these distributions, just 
some qualitative handwaving.

For details and elaboration, refer to the books like a competent and 
genuinely interested lay reader would. Any other response is the 
hallmark of the cowardly or lazy.

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

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

#646062

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 <banerjeeadda1234@gmail.com> 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.

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

#646084

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 <banerjeeadda1234@gmail.com> 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.


explainations are subject to 'alternative explainations' and the odd
only wants one explaination...The Way of The Odd, or the Highway.

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

#646090

benj <benj@nobody.net> 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 <banerjeeadda1234@gmail.com> 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. 

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

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

#646101

On Wednesday, August 16, 2017 at 9:36:17 AM UTC+10, Odd Bodkin wrote:
> benj <benj@nobody.net> 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 <banerjeeadda1234@gmail.com> 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. 
> 
> -- 
> Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables

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

#646105

Arindam Banerjee <banerjeeadda1234@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Wednesday, August 16, 2017 at 9:36:17 AM UTC+10, Odd Bodkin wrote:
>> benj <benj@nobody.net> 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 <banerjeeadda1234@gmail.com> 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?

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



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

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

#646117

On 8/15/2017 8:54 PM, Odd Bodkin wrote:
> Arindam Banerjee <banerjeeadda1234@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Wednesday, August 16, 2017 at 9:36:17 AM UTC+10, Odd Bodkin wrote:
>>> benj <benj@nobody.net> 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 <banerjeeadda1234@gmail.com> 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.

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

#646124

benj wrote:
> 
> On 8/15/2017 8:54 PM, Odd Bodkin wrote:
> > Arindam Banerjee <banerjeeadda1234@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> On Wednesday, August 16, 2017 at 9:36:17 AM UTC+10, Odd Bodkin wrote:
> >>> benj <benj@nobody.net> 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 <banerjeeadda1234@gmail.com> 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....

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

#646130

benj <benj@nobody.net> wrote:
> On 8/15/2017 8:54 PM, Odd Bodkin wrote:
>> Arindam Banerjee <banerjeeadda1234@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> On Wednesday, August 16, 2017 at 9:36:17 AM UTC+10, Odd Bodkin wrote:
>>>> benj <benj@nobody.net> 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 <banerjeeadda1234@gmail.com> 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.
> 
> 

Speak for yourself, Ben, it's not that complicated. 
Sour grapes?

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

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

#646199

On 8/15/2017 11:34 PM, Odd Bodkin wrote:
> benj <benj@nobody.net> wrote:
>> On 8/15/2017 8:54 PM, Odd Bodkin wrote:
>>> Arindam Banerjee <banerjeeadda1234@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> On Wednesday, August 16, 2017 at 9:36:17 AM UTC+10, Odd Bodkin wrote:
>>>>> benj <benj@nobody.net> 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 <banerjeeadda1234@gmail.com> 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.
>>
>>
> 
> Speak for yourself, Ben, it's not that complicated.
> Sour grapes?
> 
Try to explain "probability waves in nothing at all" to us again....

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

#646235

benj <benj@nobody.net> wrote:
> On 8/15/2017 11:34 PM, Odd Bodkin wrote:
>> benj <benj@nobody.net> wrote:
>>> On 8/15/2017 8:54 PM, Odd Bodkin wrote:
>>>> Arindam Banerjee <banerjeeadda1234@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>> On Wednesday, August 16, 2017 at 9:36:17 AM UTC+10, Odd Bodkin wrote:
>>>>>> benj <benj@nobody.net> 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 <banerjeeadda1234@gmail.com> 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.
>>> 
>>> 
>> 
>> Speak for yourself, Ben, it's not that complicated.
>> Sour grapes?
>> 
> Try to explain "probability waves in nothing at all" to us again....
> 

Why? That's a phrase you made up. 

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

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

#646241

On 8/16/2017 9:04 PM, Odd Bodkin wrote:
> benj <benj@nobody.net> wrote:
>> On 8/15/2017 11:34 PM, Odd Bodkin wrote:
>>> benj <benj@nobody.net> wrote:
>>>> On 8/15/2017 8:54 PM, Odd Bodkin wrote:
>>>>> Arindam Banerjee <banerjeeadda1234@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>> On Wednesday, August 16, 2017 at 9:36:17 AM UTC+10, Odd Bodkin wrote:
>>>>>>> benj <benj@nobody.net> 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 <banerjeeadda1234@gmail.com> 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.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>> Speak for yourself, Ben, it's not that complicated.
>>> Sour grapes?
>>>
>> Try to explain "probability waves in nothing at all" to us again....
>>
> 
> Why? That's a phrase you made up.
> 
It is a phrase that EXACTLY describes what physics believes is reality. 
You argue it all the time. What is the significance of Quantum 
wavefunctions? I'm sure this is over your head but the wavefuntions 
times their complex conjugate gives the probability density of finding 
reality! Do you not agree? Of course you do. So if these are waves (by 
YOUR made up definition of obeying the wave equation) and their 
significance is probability density, then they are obviously 
"probability waves". You agree? And finally we must ask then what is the 
"medium" for general "probability waves". In truth nobody has the 
slightest clue what in hell a "probability wave" is, but nevertheless 
they (you) strongly assert and believe that these waves do not propagate 
in the aether. In fact you deny aether exists! You say it is a fantasy. 
There is nothing there at all! Is this not correct? Of course I'm right.

So my phrase is obviously a CLEAR description of what you truly believe 
and promote as physics. Can you deny it without lying? Didn't think so.

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

#646250

benj <benj@nobody.net> wrote:
> On 8/16/2017 9:04 PM, Odd Bodkin wrote:
>> benj <benj@nobody.net> wrote:
>>> On 8/15/2017 11:34 PM, Odd Bodkin wrote:
>>>> benj <benj@nobody.net> wrote:
>>>>> On 8/15/2017 8:54 PM, Odd Bodkin wrote:
>>>>>> Arindam Banerjee <banerjeeadda1234@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>> On Wednesday, August 16, 2017 at 9:36:17 AM UTC+10, Odd Bodkin wrote:
>>>>>>>> benj <benj@nobody.net> 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 <banerjeeadda1234@gmail.com> 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.
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> Speak for yourself, Ben, it's not that complicated.
>>>> Sour grapes?
>>>> 
>>> Try to explain "probability waves in nothing at all" to us again....
>>> 
>> 
>> Why? That's a phrase you made up.
>> 
> It is a phrase that EXACTLY describes what physics believes is reality. 

 No. It's a phrase that you made up and is inaccurate. It is fabricated
propaganda by you. 

> You argue it all the time. What is the significance of Quantum 
> wavefunctions? I'm sure this is over your head but the wavefuntions 
> times their complex conjugate gives the probability density of finding 
> reality! Do you not agree? Of course you do. So if these are waves (by 
> YOUR made up definition of obeying the wave equation) and their 
> significance is probability density, then they are obviously 
> "probability waves". You agree? And finally we must ask then what is the 
> "medium" for general "probability waves". In truth nobody has the 
> slightest clue what in hell a "probability wave" is, but nevertheless 
> they (you) strongly assert and believe that these waves do not propagate 
> in the aether. In fact you deny aether exists! You say it is a fantasy. 

Fine up to here

> There is nothing there at all! Is this not correct? Of course I'm right.

Nope. False dichotomy. Your propaganda is a false choice between aether and
nothing at all. Sorry, dude, not the only options. Dipshit. 

> 
> So my phrase is obviously a CLEAR description of what you truly believe 
> and promote as physics. Can you deny it without lying? Didn't think so.
> 



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

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

#646367

On 8/16/2017 10:28 PM, Odd Bodkin wrote:
> benj <benj@nobody.net> wrote:
>> On 8/16/2017 9:04 PM, Odd Bodkin wrote:
>>> benj <benj@nobody.net> wrote:
>>>> On 8/15/2017 11:34 PM, Odd Bodkin wrote:
>>>>> benj <benj@nobody.net> wrote:
>>>>>> On 8/15/2017 8:54 PM, Odd Bodkin wrote:
>>>>>>> Arindam Banerjee <banerjeeadda1234@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>> On Wednesday, August 16, 2017 at 9:36:17 AM UTC+10, Odd Bodkin wrote:
>>>>>>>>> benj <benj@nobody.net> 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 <banerjeeadda1234@gmail.com> 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.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Speak for yourself, Ben, it's not that complicated.
>>>>> Sour grapes?
>>>>>
>>>> Try to explain "probability waves in nothing at all" to us again....
>>>>
>>>
>>> Why? That's a phrase you made up.
>>>
>> It is a phrase that EXACTLY describes what physics believes is reality.
> 
>   No. It's a phrase that you made up and is inaccurate. It is fabricated
> propaganda by you.
> 
>> You argue it all the time. What is the significance of Quantum
>> wavefunctions? I'm sure this is over your head but the wavefuntions
>> times their complex conjugate gives the probability density of finding
>> reality! Do you not agree? Of course you do. So if these are waves (by
>> YOUR made up definition of obeying the wave equation) and their
>> significance is probability density, then they are obviously
>> "probability waves". You agree? And finally we must ask then what is the
>> "medium" for general "probability waves". In truth nobody has the
>> slightest clue what in hell a "probability wave" is, but nevertheless
>> they (you) strongly assert and believe that these waves do not propagate
>> in the aether. In fact you deny aether exists! You say it is a fantasy.
> 
> Fine up to here
> 
>> There is nothing there at all! Is this not correct? Of course I'm right.
> 
> Nope. False dichotomy. Your propaganda is a false choice between aether and
> nothing at all. Sorry, dude, not the only options. Dipshit.

You are as stupid as a box of hammers. You actually agree that my 
statement is correct except for the fact that you say aether does not 
exist (which leaves space empty or we could call whatever is in there 
"aether") Yet you say empty space is NOT "nothing at all" Well is space 
is something? Then what is it? You just babble on with your gibberish 
and nonsense of "probability waves" in no medium, that just "exist" 
because you say they do! No wonder you love HVAC. This is as stupid and 
ignorant and as far from actual science as it gets. Yes, you really are 
an incompetent amateur. Worse than "amateur" you are a rank beginner. 
You need to just shut the fuck up and listen for a while and try to 
learn some science. Christ! John and probably even McFly know more real 
science than you. And then you have the confused senility to call a 
accurate description of what you believe "propaganda"? Well, I suppose I 
can't argue with that. Clearly propaganda is what you think is science.

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

Page 2 of 4 — ← Prev page 1 [2] 3 4  Next page →

Back to top | Article view | sci.physics

csiph-web