Science Forums: Bignose - Viewing Profile - Science Forums

I believe that history says that the German scientists who invented petroleum jelly were looking for a way to make it edible. That doesn't mean that it is a good idea to eat though, in my opinion.

newts, on 25 May 2012 - 11:39 PM, said:

tone does not convey well in this medium. You have to be careful when you write jokes, because they are not always easily identifiable as such. That is part of the reason these things are common:

newts, on 25 May 2012 - 10:53 PM, said:

and you've pretty much ignored all of it. You certainly haven't demonstrated how your idea comes anywhere close to replicating the many thousands of reported experimental evidence. Sure, even if I accept your masses of the particles -- which has many additional unanswered questions that you refused to answer in that other thread -- that is 1 teeny tiny piece of the puzzle. What about all the evidence for quarks? I mean, seriously -- there are thousands and thousands of pages published with evidence. Surely you can show how your idea fits with more than just kind-of sort-of maybe-if-I-squint a list of masses. Especially since your theory predicts lots of experiments that haven't been found.

newts, on 25 May 2012 - 10:53 PM, said:

Funny guy. A regular laugh riot.

I do not need to be insulted by you. I've been very patient and have not insulted you and tried numerous times to show you things I gave you the benefit of the doubt on -- that is, that I thought maybe you had just missed or misunderstood.

But, now, I am convinced you are trolling. The repeated ignorance of the evidence is enough for me, and the repeated ignoring of answering questions leaves no doubt.

newts, on 24 May 2012 - 09:18 PM, said:

How exactly is the evidence for neutrinos stronger than the evidence for quarks? Or to put it another way, why reject the evidence for quarks (of which there is quite a significant amount, despite your reluctance to actually, you know, look at it) but accept neutrinos? You want to argue Higgs boson? Fine. That is at least fair, while it remains undetected. But, to lump quarks in that same category is simply putting your fingers in your ears, and shouting 'LA LA LA LA LA'. Or to put THAT another way, it is using a tactic a 4 year old would use. Or a troll. Which I am still reasonably convinced that you are, because of your abject reluctance to look at evidence, reluctance to attempt to learn anything about the model you think you can replace, and reluctance to answer direct questions. If that is not trolling behavior, what is it?

newts, on 21 May 2012 - 10:28 PM, said:

If this is your definition of 'time travel', then no, most physicists do not believe in the H. G. Wells' storytelling version of time travel.

Therefore, what I have asked of you has not been fulfilled. To remind you: please provide an example of some wide-held belief that the majority of physicists have that is based on faith alone.