Jump to content

Science is all about religion?


ukgazzer
 Share

Recommended Posts

<br />Do you classify skepticism as a religion?<br /><br /><br />Forum rule: assertions require support. Please provide some proof of this.<br />
<br /><br /><br />

 

It is true that assertions require support. Therefore the proper request would be Please provide some support.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

H G Wells' time travel, is the only type of time travel,

 

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The question asks: "Is it unscientific to believe that theories should be expressed in a language that is consistent with other theories as well as providing solid maths?"

 

The question at the root of this thread seems to have mixed maths up with science. The greatest achievement of "science" was the discovery of germs and the theory that hygiene would greatly reduce disease. Without this discovery the life expectancy in cities would be about 45. Where is the maths in that? Most science is worded in everyday language and goes little further than arithmetic in its analyses.

 

Most scientists have little more knowledge of the Platonic approach to science so beloved of mathematicians and philosophers than the average vicar. See my previous post for an analysis of Platonic and Empirical science.

 

 

On a separate point:

 

newts: "it is proof that Carroll is a fool". You may disagree with Carroll but refrain from insults.

 

Time travel into the past seemingly involves paradoxes and these are probably evidence that our understanding of the universe is incomplete. Special Relativity places a barrier to time travel into the past but permits travel into other people's futures. Subatomic particles are routinely travelling into your future and can be observed to do this (ie: time dilation and twin paradox).

 

General Relativity (GR) suggests that we can travel into our own past. However, it is well known that GR is to some extent incompatible with quantum theory and hence necessarily incomplete. We can only speculate about what would happen if a traveller were able to navigate along a loop back to their own past - certainly it creates two possible outcomes for the future of the traveller and world at the moment of arrival so would each become a separate quantum reality? Who knows? Nobody at present because this is at the boundary between science fact and scientific hypotheses.

Edited by mindless
Link to comment
Share on other sites

There is no absolute proof that it is impossible for a frog to magically turn into a prince, but to a rational mind it is just a fairy story like time travel.

 

Appeal to ridicule is a logical fallacy and thus an unconvincing argument.

 

The only reason people take the time travel idea more seriously than the frog, is that they have been taught to. The fact that Sean Carroll believes in time travel, is not proof that it is right, it is proof that Carroll is a fool. The fact that you cite his article, shows that you prefer to rely on the authority of your religious leaders rather than making up your mind based on the experimental evidence.

 

ad hominem doesn't fly as an argument, either. Did you actually read the link? I ask because you've completely missed the point. Closed timelike curves are part of GR, a theory which has been well-tested, so there is a theoretical prediction in place. (Unlike, say, a frog turning into a prince). Whether you could warp spacetime sufficiently to do this is still an open question.

 

Finding phenomena that are predicted by theory and then going out and testing them is a pretty standard part of science. But that's the thing — you go out and test them. How is that religion?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Do you classify skepticism as a religion?

Everybody behaves religiously, but it is not too much of a problem if people are honest and acknowledge it; as the expression goes "the fool doth think he is wise, but the wise man knows himself to be a fool". The worst of religions are science, secularism and atheism; because their believers seem so convinced that these things are part of the one true faith, that they are completely unable to accept them as religions at all. Therefore they feel a religious duty to incite hatred against unbelievers; and in the case of the secular religious extremists in western governments, a religious duty to jail for blasphemy, people who criticise those policies which are destroying the world and turning humans back into savages.

 

Scepticism is not overtly a religion; but people who claim to be sceptics certainly behave religiously, because they always choose to be sceptical about nonsense like astrology and homeopathy, which are universally rejected by mainstream science, but totally unsceptical about the nonsense accepted by mainstream science. A sceptic seems to be just a form of militant science-believer, who sets out to expose the nonsense of other belief systems, but blindly accepts any nonsense that is incorporated in mainstream science.

 

It is true that assertions require support. Therefore the proper request would be Please provide some support.

This thread is about science being a religion, so if any of my posts are not about this, perhaps they should be flagged as being off topic. Mostly I have concentrated on time travel, since it is the most flagrant religious nonsense included in the physics belief system. However probably the strongest proof that physics is a religion; is that if anybody says so, physics-believers get annoyed and demand proof, despite the fact that they know full well that they will ignore any proof offered and just continue to believe what they always have.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Everybody behaves religiously, but it is not too much of a problem if people are honest and acknowledge it; as the expression goes "the fool doth think he is wise, but the wise man knows himself to be a fool". The worst of religions are science, secularism and atheism; because their believers seem so convinced that these things are part of the one true faith, that they are completely unable to accept them as religions at all. Therefore they feel a religious duty to incite hatred against unbelievers; and in the case of the secular religious extremists in western governments, a religious duty to jail for blasphemy, people who criticise those policies which are destroying the world and turning humans back into savages.

 

You seem to be going out of your way to be offensive and incite some kind of angry response with your ranting, so I will simply say this:

 

All people, regardless of their espoused religious belief, or lack thereof, have the capacity to do the things you just described. Implying that all members of a particular group behave in such a manner is both a logical fallacy (since I have never sought to incite hatred of anyone nor do I possess the power to jail anyone), and down right insulting.

 

Also, secular religious extremists seems a bit of an oxymoron to me, since secular is, by definition, non-religious in nature.

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Everybody behaves religiously, but it is not too much of a problem if people are honest and acknowledge it; as the expression goes "the fool doth think he is wise, but the wise man knows himself to be a fool".

this is an unsupported assertion based on your prejudices rather than actual reality.

 

The worst of religions are science, secularism and atheism; because their believers seem so convinced that these things are part of the one true faith, that they are completely unable to accept them as religions at all.
As opposed to real religious believers who are tolerant and forgiving to other religions? Open your eyes and acknowledge the grief and pain caused by religious division around the world.

 

Therefore they feel a religious duty to incite hatred against unbelievers; and in the case of the secular religious extremists in western governments, a religious duty to jail for blasphemy, people who criticise those policies which are destroying the world and turning humans back into savages.
Now you are ranting.

 

Scepticism is not overtly a religion; but people who claim to be sceptics certainly behave religiously, because they always choose to be sceptical about nonsense like astrology and homeopathy, which are universally rejected by mainstream science, but totally unsceptical about the nonsense accepted by mainstream science.
I admit I do not understand the details of the Stress Energy Tensor - but I don't believe in it religiously, I think it is most probably right because people who I trust (and who have studied it and the predictions it allows to be made) confirm that it is the best we have at the moment.

 

A sceptic seems to be just a form of militant science-believer, who sets out to expose the nonsense of other belief systems, but blindly accepts any nonsense that is incorporated in mainstream science.
Only if you use a completely erroneous and slanted definition of sceptic. If someone blindly accepts anything they are not a sceptic.

 

This thread is about science being a religion, so if any of my posts are not about this, perhaps they should be flagged as being off topic. Mostly I have concentrated on time travel, since it is the most flagrant religious nonsense included in the physics belief system. However probably the strongest proof that physics is a religion; is that if anybody says so, physics-believers get annoyed and demand proof, despite the fact that they know full well that they will ignore any proof offered and just continue to believe what they always have.
You haven't offered any proof other than bald assertions.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The worst of religions are science, secularism and atheism; because their believers seem so convinced that these things are part of the one true faith, that they are completely unable to accept them as religions at all. Therefore they feel a religious duty to incite hatred against unbelievers; and in the case of the secular religious extremists in western governments, a religious duty to jail for blasphemy, people who criticise those policies which are destroying the world and turning humans back into savages.

 

Asserted without evidence. Could it be that your "science is a religion" is itself just a religion?

 

However probably the strongest proof that physics is a religion; is that if anybody says so, physics-believers get annoyed and demand proof, despite the fact that they know full well that they will ignore any proof offered and just continue to believe what they always have.

 

Sour grapes is the best you can do? We are to believe (take on faith) that you have this wonderful proof, but we'd just dismiss it, were it to be offered? Therefore that's proof in itself?

 

Beg the question much?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<br />Everybody behaves religiously, .
Do you actually believe that by merely writing something down it becomes the truth? Your lack of providing an arguement to support your claims tells me that you can't provide one. And any scientist here knows that when you respond to this post without actually providing the evidence everyone keeps asking you for will have more evidence that you have zero evidence. So let me thank you in advance for demonstrating my point.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

You may disagree with Carroll but refrain from insults.

I am not sure about the definition of ad hominem, but I did take most christian care to avoid insulting Swansont. That fact that people get upset about a comment directed at somebody not on this forum, merely because he is a physicist, is religious behaviour. I am sure Carroll is a good mathematician, but that is no guard against gullibility which afflicts us all. I certainly did not intend to imply that Carroll's mental faculties are down amidst the likes of Cameron or Obama.

 

You are right that scientific theories need to start with verbal logic, it is just that maths is a tool with which to fully explore the consequences of such logic. The problem arises when people try to reverse this process and use maths to draw unfounded inferences about the nature of the universe. The fact that you are using the maths of relativity to infer the possibility of time travel, seems to contradict your earlier point about the limitations of maths.

 

I have never sought to incite hatred of anyone

I cannot respond to everyone, but many people have made excellent points, which have refined my thinking; being irreligious myself, I can change my mind at any point without hurting my brain. It was an error by me to broaden the debate so much, but the fact that any different opinion is met with immediate hostility, is evidence of the religious nature of humans.

 

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.

If you are arguing that the nearest real event to time travel, is the speeding up of GPS clocks, then we can agree on that. If the majority of physicists hold this view, then surely they should condemn the wormhole fantasists, not offer them tacit support.

 

Appeal to ridicule is a logical fallacy and thus an unconvincing argument.

 

ad hominem doesn't fly as an argument, either. Did you actually read the link? I ask because you've completely missed the point. Closed timelike curves are part of GR, a theory which has been well-tested, so there is a theoretical prediction in place. (Unlike, say, a frog turning into a prince). Whether you could warp spacetime sufficiently to do this is still an open question.

 

Finding phenomena that are predicted by theory and then going out and testing them is a pretty standard part of science. But that's the thing you go out and test them. How is that religion?

I cannot positively prove that time travel is impossible, any more than Dawkins can positively prove that it is impossible for a frog to turn into a prince. Really the onus is on anybody who thinks there is some validity in the idea, to suggest some kind of experiment which could theoretically show that time travel had taken place. Clearly it would be impossible for me to devise an experiment to directly refute time travel.

Edited by newts
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I am not sure about the definition of ad hominem, but I did take most christian care to avoid insulting Swansont. That fact that people get upset about a comment directed at somebody not on this forum, merely because he is a physicist, is religious behaviour. I am sure Carroll is a good mathematician, but that is no guard against gullibility which afflicts us all. I certainly did not intend to imply that Carroll's mental faculties are down amidst the likes of Cameron or Obama.

The insulting nature of your post was due to the fact that you put many of the posters here in the same group as someone you called a fool - and more seriously you claimed to show that SwansonT's state of mind and beliefs rendered his argument invalid. This second section is typical ad hom which does not need to be insulting - it just needs to challenge an argument through a characterisation of the opponent or his/her state of mind.

 

I cannot respond to everyone, but many people have made excellent points, which have refined my thinking; being irreligious myself, I can change my mind at any point without hurting my brain. It was an error by me to broaden the debate so much, but the fact that any different opinion is met with immediate hostility, is evidence of the religious nature of humans.
It is in your last sentence quoted above that your great fallacy lies. The hostility (let's be clear there has been no real hostility - but you have received an admittedly robust response) is not due to a religious belief system; it is because you are challenging something important. I would react, as would many other here, with just as much vigor - probably more - if you challenged the idea that the races, or the sexes should have equality of opportunity; and that's not a religious belief of mine, it's just something I think is very important and which I am willing to spend time and effort explaining and defending. Whilst the reaction may have an outward similarity to a religious response the motivation behind it is completely different. You have launched a controversial, unsupported, and illogical attack on a system that many posters here think is important, progressive, and the correct way to search for knowledge and understanding; you have selected (by posting here) a group of scientists and enthusiasts who love to debate and discuss matters scientific - why would we not respond with gusto, there is no need to postulate religious attachment.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I am not sure about the definition of ad hominem, but I did take most christian care to avoid insulting Swansont. That fact that people get upset about a comment directed at somebody not on this forum, merely because he is a physicist, is religious behaviour. I am sure Carroll is a good mathematician, but that is no guard against gullibility which afflicts us all. I certainly did not intend to imply that Carroll's mental faculties are down amidst the likes of Cameron or Obama.

 

I don't think anyone claimed that you insulted me. You called Sean Carroll a fool. In a way that's worse, because AFAIK he is not a member here, and so could not defend himself from such accusations. As was pointed out, it's against the rules — the secular rules. It is also ad hominem because you used this characterization as an excuse to not deal with the factual aspects of the arguments.

 

You are right that scientific theories need to start with verbal logic, it is just that maths is a tool with which to fully explore the consequences of such logic. The problem arises when people try to reverse this process and use maths to draw unfounded inferences about the nature of the universe. The fact that you are using the maths of relativity to infer the possibility of time travel, seems to contradict your earlier point about the limitations of maths.

 

But that's the subtlety you are ignoring: the possibility of time travel vs the reality of time travel. Nobody is claiming that time travel (of the non-trivial variety) is happening, only that is is a possibility under current theory. And that is a factual statement — closed timelike curves are a solution under GR. And outrageous things, e.g. antimatter, have been discovered because they were possible under a theory and then someone went and looked for them. So, where's the faith? You keep making an assertion, but have avoided backing it up.

 

I cannot positively prove that time travel is impossible, any more than Dawkins can positively prove that it is impossible for a frog to turn into a prince. Really the onus is on anybody who thinks there is some validity in the idea, to suggest some kind of experiment which could theoretically show that time travel had taken place. Clearly it would be impossible for me to devise an experiment to directly refute time travel.

 

Dawkins has the advantage in that there is no mechanism that would permit a frog to turn into a prince; that's why it is safe for him to conclude that it is fantasy. You have provided no such ammunition for your claim. Until you can find some, perhaps you should stop making it. Argument from personal incredulity is another logical fallacy, and carries no weight in making your point.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I am not sure about the definition of ad hominem, but I did take most christian care to avoid insulting Swansont.

!

Moderator Note

The ad hominem fallacy is attacking the person directly instead of attacking their ideas and arguments. It's not permitted here. And if you state that someone's argument is foolish, be prepared to back that assertion up, or admit that it's just your opinion. This goes for EVERYONE.

 

Let me take this opportunity to mention that there are many assertions being made that require supportive evidence, and calls for such are being mostly ignored. This is a science forum, and even though this thread is in our Speculations section, anything stated as true must have evidence in support of it, otherwise the thread is meaningless. Again, this applies to EVERYONE.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

False! None of these are religions. Time to support such assertions.

You are seeking to argue over the definition of the word 'religion'. My assertion is that all human belief systems contain things that are untrue. Obviously most people would disagree, and say that applies to all belief systems apart from their own. I really need to stick to trying to show that the concept of time travel has no basis in fact, and that it is similar in nature to other religious myths.

 

The ad hominem fallacy is attacking the person directly instead of attacking their ideas and arguments. It's not permitted here. And if you state that someone's argument is foolish, be prepared to back that assertion up, or admit that it's just your opinion. This goes for EVERYONE.

My mistake was to make too many assertions, it was an experiment I will try not to repeat. It was not intended as an ad hominem attack, only to signify that he was deluded about time travel. Those defending time travel, have so far failed to say what they mean by it, or suggest any way in which it would be possible to tell if it had occurred. Some have rejected H G Wells time travel, but have refused to specify what any other type of time travel might entail.

 

I admit I do not understand the details of the Stress Energy Tensor - but I don't believe in it religiously, I think it is most probably right because people who I trust (and who have studied it and the predictions it allows to be made) confirm that it is the best we have at the moment.

That is my definition of religious acceptance. In many ways we have no option other than to trust experts, however unless some people are prepared to consider objections to current theory, it is difficult for physics to progress. A really sound theory, like the theory of atoms, can be a long time in the making, but once accepted will largely escape criticism.

 

outrageous things, e.g. antimatter, have been discovered because they were possible under a theory and then someone went and looked for them.

The story goes, that Dirac saw that there was another solution to his equation for the electron. However he could just as easily have noted that since positive charges exist, there might be a positive charge with the same mass as an electron. It was less a mathematical deduction, more an example of ingenuity.

 

Dawkins has the advantage in that there is no mechanism that would permit a frog to turn into a prince; that's why it is safe for him to conclude that it is fantasy. You have provided no such ammunition for your claim. Until you can find some, perhaps you should stop making it. Argument from personal incredulity is another logical fallacy, and carries no weight in making your point.

One argument against Jesus turning water into wine, is that it would necessarily involve nuclear reactions to produce new elements such as carbon. Similarly one might argue that there are not enough atoms in a frog to create a prince. One argument against time travel is that we cannot go back to yesterday, because yesterday no longer exists, since all the atoms in the universe have moved in the last 24 hours. So too we cannot get to tomorrow until the earth has rotated about its axis.

 

Those are all equally logical arguments, but people who have been taught to believe in the Bible, or the literal truth of Einstein's relativity, probably would not agree; and might even find the comparison offensive. You seem to define logical fallacy, and appealing to ridicule, as comparing things you do believe in, to things you do not believe in. I actually find all 3 examples similarly absurd; but humans are religious creatures, so it is unlikely anybody will agree.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You are seeking to argue over the definition of the word 'religion'. My assertion is that all human belief systems contain things that are untrue. Obviously most people would disagree, and say that applies to all belief systems apart from their own. I really need to stick to trying to show that the concept of time travel has no basis in fact, and that it is similar in nature to other religious myths.

None of those things you called belief systems are belief systems at all and they are not religions. You've made an assertion and the rules here require you to support it. Support it or retract it!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

None of those things you called belief systems are belief systems at all and they are not religions. You've made an assertion and the rules here require you to support it. Support it or retract it!

I want to retract the bit that upset Greg H, about inciting hatred against unbelievers, as it is not generally true. I was referring to things like the way that some atheists respond to Dawkins' call to ridicule infidel Christians.

 

Obviously you do not consider the things you believe in to just be religions. I do not think that anybody who genuinely believes would consider their faith to be just a religious belief. Surely the whole point is that at some level they should genuinely think it is true. For instance some people are defending time travel as though they really think it might some day be possible.

 

The evidence that I do not believe in physics religiously, is that I accept the existence of electrons, positrons, photons, neutrinos, mesons, baryons, and a form of aether; but reject imaginary beings like quarks, gluons and Higgs bosons. If you do not believe religiously in science, atheism or secularism, you should be able to say what parts you disagree with, in order to show that you have formed your own opinions rather than blindly accepting everything you have been taught. The Archbishop of Canterbury doubts the nativity, which suggests he does not really believe in Christianity religiously; however he does appear to believe in secularism religiously, as he only ever criticises government policy for not being extreme enough.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The evidence that I do not believe in physics religiously, is that I accept the existence of electrons, positrons, photons, neutrinos, mesons, baryons, and a form of aether; but reject imaginary beings like quarks, gluons and Higgs bosons.

 

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?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The evidence that I do not believe in physics religiously, is that I accept the existence of electrons, positrons, photons, neutrinos, mesons, baryons, and a form of aether; but reject imaginary beings like quarks, gluons and Higgs bosons. If you do not believe religiously in science, atheism or secularism, you should be able to say what parts you disagree with, in order to show that you have formed your own opinions rather than blindly accepting everything you have been taught.

 

 

We don't have to blindly accept everything that has been taught or said by the experts and that doesn't mean we have to go on making our own opinions, we can dig deeper and try to understand what is it that they are doing

 

 

"It does not make any difference how beautiful your guess is. It does not make any difference how smart you are, who made the guess, or what his name is if it disagrees with experiment it is wrong. That is all there is to it."

-Richard Feynman

 

 

The reasoning for believing in the existence of quarks from what I read is that there is indirect evidence for quarks and it is something to do with a process called bremsstrahlung.

 

http://www.websterworld.com/websterworld/scitreas/f/fundamentalparticles166.html

 

How to find a Top quark - Essay

 

How is it appropriate to call two years of hard work from physicists to analyse the data to test various hypotheses as pure faith i.e wanting to believe what you want to believe and also why are you comparing science with religion indicating as though science is somehow higher than religion, even religious scholars spend years of time in figuring out the truth, stop defacing religion.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think science and religion go hand in hand and are not contradictions to each other at all.

For instance, a physicist may believe in God. He or she may study the universe to gain a

better understanding of who or what God is. In my view, religion is like an inactive method of

learning about God whereas science takes a more active role in discovering God. Some of the

problems, for example, that physicists, 'scientists,' try to answer is "how did the universe come

into being," which they explain this with the big bang theory. However, that is not necessarily

saying that the big bang created the universe, because what put the big bang into motion?

Could that be God?

 

If this makes sense to anyone let me know. I tried to explain how I see it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

How exactly is the evidence for neutrinos stronger than the evidence for quarks?

I have some doubts about the newer types of neutrino; but in neutron decay, an electron can be emitted with a continuous range of energies, meaning that 0-1.5 electron masses of energy must be somehow dispersed. If it was dispersed by a photon, that would have been detected; so unless like Bohr you think the energy might have magically disappeared, surely the energy must have been converted into some kind of hard-to-detect photon-like wave. In my theory this wave cannot have any rest mass, which is also consistent with the mainstream view. Arguments about quarks would be better on the other thread; but the point I was making is that people should seek to challenge existing ideas, partly because some of them are bound to be wrong, and partly because it is only when I set out to disprove a correct theory, that I fully understand what is right about it.

 

Or a troll. Which I am still reasonably convinced that you are, because of your abject reluctance to look at evidence,

So you are arguing that I have spent hours analysing particle masses merely to wind you up? And have you checked the experimental evidence supporting my theory? http://squishtheory....research-paper/

 

willful ignorance

Please do not be so hard on Bignose, he is doing his best.

 

why are you comparing science with religion indicating as though science is somehow higher than religion, even religious scholars spend years of time in figuring out the truth, stop defacing religion.

Not I. It is the atheist's suit that Christians are gullible fools, and that science-believers are intellectually superior beings that think for themselves. My contention is that saying that people who follow a different belief system are inferior, is the very essence of religious behaviour; it is however a natural instinct, which only Christianity has sought to counteract. I see science and Christianity as the most civilising of influences; however, regrettably, the integrity of both have been eroded by atheistic and secular beliefs.

 

In my view, religion is like an inactive method of

learning about God whereas science takes a more active role in discovering God.

I think that is very much how people like Newton saw things. Historically, and even with Einstein, the word 'God' has tended to be seen as almost synonymous with the universe. It is only really the ignorant atheists, who keep asserting that God is some kind of fairy in the sky. Also I prefer not to think of God as separate from the universe, because that seems to make things unnecessarily complicated. Rather I think of the universe as an everlasting organism that collapses in a big squish, then expands back out in a big bang, in a continually repeating cycle for all eternity. That model still contains paradoxes, but it is certainly better than the idea of the universe suddenly exploding out of nothing, or Hawking's idea that it was created by gravity.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Arguments about quarks would be better on the other thread

 

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.

 

Please do not be so hard on Bignose, he is doing his best.

 

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Funny guy. A regular laugh riot.

 

I do not need to be insulted by you.

It was never an insult, it was a joke. The comment was directly below your post. Why do science-believers take things so seriously?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.