Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > sci.physics > #550597
| From | benj <none@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Newsgroups | sci.physics |
| Subject | Re: BJ vs Science |
| References | (8 earlier) <n901a9$vk0$2@gioia.aioe.org> <75c97224-fb89-42aa-bc51-5a956e4d59db@googlegroups.com> <n903c4$1395$2@gioia.aioe.org> <0d24b098-9017-499c-bcbb-00edd667704b@googlegroups.com> <n904sg$16ld$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| Message-ID | <FGSsy.255295$kN.59287@fx11.iad> (permalink) |
| Organization | TeraNews.com |
| Date | 2016-02-04 20:13 -0500 |
On 02/04/2016 01:22 PM, Odd Bodkin wrote:
> On 2/4/2016 12:06 PM, john wrote:
>> No, but that doesn't mean it couldn't happen
>> and that we shouldn't spend billions
>> trying to observe it, no matter how illogical.
>
> Well, John, illogical is in the eye of the beholder, isn't it?
> After all, you thought that two electrons being bound in the same helium
> atom if they repel each other is also illogical; when in fact, all that
> came out of that was that you had forgotten the two protons are there
> too, and that the attraction of two protons outweighs outweighs the
> repulsion of one other electron.
>
> So..... illogical??? Or just you not thinking clearly about it?
>
> And as to how much money should be spent on something you don't think
> clearly about .... you've never answered the question how much money you
> think is the maximum that should be spent on such things. All you say is
> "too much, too much" but you don't ever seem to have a line you can
> point to.
>
>> Yes- that's your argument
Well there sure seems to be a thing called "too much money". The LHC
surely seems to be too much money. Well, the hype and promises were
great too, like a presidential election but the delivery so far as been
mostly on the level with all political promises.
I find it interesting that the USA supercollider was canceled by
Congress of all people! Cripes if those guys who spend money like
pouring water got shamed into cutting off the funds it must have been a
REALLY huge boondoggle.
Indeed, Boinker the problem with large science funding in the first
place is that it attracts people who are expert in spending money and
not people who are able to discover things. Science you see, Odd always
begins between the ears and a bunch of taxpayer money just attracts
incompetent clowns like you o waste as much of that money as they can,
while claiming as much credit as they can and while producing no results
of any consequence. And THAT situation would be far better if the money
were used for spraying mosquitoes rather than paying toy makers like you
to play word games.
--
___ ___ ___ ___
/\ \ /\ \ /\__\ /\ \
/::\ \ /::\ \ /::| | \:\ \
/:/\:\ \ /:/\:\ \ /:|:| | ___ /::\__\
/::\~\:\__\ /::\~\:\ \ /:/|:| |__ /\ /:/\/__/
/:/\:\ \:|__| /:/\:\ \:\__\ /:/ |:| /\__\ \:\/:/ /
\:\~\:\/:/ / \:\~\:\ \/__/ \/__|:|/:/ / \::/ /
\:\ \::/ / \:\ \:\__\ |:/:/ / \/__/
\:\/:/ / \:\ \/__/ |::/ /
\::/__/ \:\__\ /:/ /
~~ \/__/ \/__/
Back to sci.physics | Previous | Next — Previous in thread | Next in thread | Find similar | Unroll thread
BJ vs Science HVAC <mr.hvac@gmail.com> - 2016-02-04 03:43 -0800
BJ vs Science john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2016-02-04 06:02 -0800
BJ vs Science HVAC <mr.hvac@gmail.com> - 2016-02-04 06:34 -0800
BJ vs Science john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2016-02-04 06:44 -0800
BJ vs Science HVAC <mr.hvac@gmail.com> - 2016-02-04 07:58 -0800
BJ vs Science john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2016-02-04 08:26 -0800
BJ vs Science HVAC <mr.hvac@gmail.com> - 2016-02-04 08:30 -0800
BJ vs Science john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2016-02-04 08:43 -0800
BJ vs Science HVAC <mr.hvac@gmail.com> - 2016-02-04 09:09 -0800
Re: BJ vs Science Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-02-04 11:21 -0600
Re: BJ vs Science john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2016-02-04 09:36 -0800
Re: BJ vs Science Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-02-04 11:56 -0600
Re: BJ vs Science john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2016-02-04 10:06 -0800
Re: BJ vs Science Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-02-04 12:22 -0600
Re: BJ vs Science benj <none@gmail.com> - 2016-02-04 20:13 -0500
Re: BJ vs Science Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-02-05 07:03 -0600
Re: BJ vs Science john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2016-02-05 06:25 -0800
Re: BJ vs Science Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-02-05 08:51 -0600
Re: BJ vs Science john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2016-02-05 08:19 -0800
Re: BJ vs Science Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-02-05 13:48 -0600
Re: BJ vs Science benj <nobody@gmail.com> - 2016-02-06 00:56 -0500
Re: BJ vs Science john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2016-02-06 03:19 -0800
Re: BJ vs Science benj <nobody@gmail.com> - 2016-02-05 11:09 -0500
Re: BJ vs Science john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2016-02-05 08:32 -0800
Re: BJ vs Science HVAC <mr.hvac@gmail.com> - 2016-02-05 09:01 -0800
Re: BJ vs Science john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2016-02-05 09:10 -0800
Re: BJ vs Science HVAC <mr.hvac@gmail.com> - 2016-02-05 10:00 -0800
Re: BJ vs Science Mahipal <mahipal7638@gmail.com> - 2016-02-05 10:07 -0800
Re: BJ vs Science john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2016-02-05 10:53 -0800
Re: BJ vs Science Mahipal <mahipal7638@gmail.com> - 2016-02-05 11:07 -0800
Re: BJ vs Science benj <nobody@gmail.com> - 2016-02-06 00:15 -0500
Re: BJ vs Science benj <nobody@gmail.com> - 2016-02-06 00:11 -0500
Re: BJ vs Science benj <nobody@gmail.com> - 2016-02-06 00:08 -0500
Re: BJ vs Science benj <nobody@gmail.com> - 2016-02-06 00:07 -0500
Re: BJ vs Science benj <nobody@gmail.com> - 2016-02-06 00:06 -0500
Re: BJ vs Science HVAC <mr.hvac@gmail.com> - 2016-02-05 07:48 -0800
Re: BJ vs Science benj <nobody@gmail.com> - 2016-02-05 23:47 -0500
Re: BJ vs Science benj <nobody@gmail.com> - 2016-02-05 11:08 -0500
csiph-web