slider and i use the term tech support.
we don't know much what we are actually
referring to but it seems like it might
be the originator. whatever that might
be is where we look. shorty referred to
it as 'it'. Everybody else is lazy and
just call in God. The grand architect of
the Universe is so big that it is unknowable.
slider and i use the term tech support.
we don't know much what we are actually
referring to but it seems like it might
be the originator. whatever that might
be is where we look. shorty referred to
it as 'it'. Everybody else is lazy and
just call in God. The grand architect of
the Universe is so big that it is unknowable.
slider and i use the term tech support.
we don't know much what we are actually
referring to but it seems like it might
be the originator. whatever that might
be is where we look. shorty referred to
it as 'it'. Everybody else is lazy and
just call in God. The grand architect of
the Universe is so big that it is unknowable.
### - ultimately, i think/conjecture that it's all totally random; as
random as say what happens when you throw a bucket of oil and a bucket of >water into the same tub and it all then swirls together in a scintillating >rainbow colours mix... to then take (or to attempt to take) a measurement
of why one particular molecule of that mix is in the exact position & >proportion it is compared to the rest of it + the chances of it all being
so at that particular and precise moment in time; would likely equally all >add up to equally infinitesimal fractions & probabilities as those thang >marvels (is marveling) at and then reading into it that it's all so >completely unlikely that there simply 'has' to be some
purposeful/intelligent 'design' to it all?
On Fri, 29 Sep 2017 16:41:53 +0100, slider <slider@nanashram.com>
wrote:
slider and i use the term tech support.
we don't know much what we are actually
referring to but it seems like it might
be the originator. whatever that might
be is where we look. shorty referred to
it as 'it'. Everybody else is lazy and
just call in God. The grand architect of
the Universe is so big that it is unknowable.
### - ultimately, i think/conjecture that it's all totally random; as
random as say what happens when you throw a bucket of oil and a bucket
of
water into the same tub and it all then swirls together in a
scintillating
rainbow colours mix... to then take (or to attempt to take) a
measurement
of why one particular molecule of that mix is in the exact position &
proportion it is compared to the rest of it + the chances of it all
being
so at that particular and precise moment in time; would likely equally
all
add up to equally infinitesimal fractions & probabilities as those thang
marvels (is marveling) at and then reading into it that it's all so
completely unlikely that there simply 'has' to be some
purposeful/intelligent 'design' to it all?
Slider you are MISSING THE FUCKING POINT!!
I wonder why I bother.
I'll spell out the point below, nice and slow and simple. You need to
do what I do, which is read it and re-read it UNTIL IT SINKS IN!
On Sat, 30 Sep 2017 03:30:28 +0100, thang ornerythinchus ><thangolossus@gmail.com> wrote:
On Fri, 29 Sep 2017 16:41:53 +0100, slider <slider@nanashram.com>
wrote:
slider and i use the term tech support.
we don't know much what we are actually
referring to but it seems like it might
be the originator. whatever that might
be is where we look. shorty referred to
it as 'it'. Everybody else is lazy and
just call in God. The grand architect of
the Universe is so big that it is unknowable.
### - ultimately, i think/conjecture that it's all totally random; as
random as say what happens when you throw a bucket of oil and a bucket
of
water into the same tub and it all then swirls together in a
scintillating
rainbow colours mix... to then take (or to attempt to take) a
measurement
of why one particular molecule of that mix is in the exact position &
proportion it is compared to the rest of it + the chances of it all
being
so at that particular and precise moment in time; would likely equally
all
add up to equally infinitesimal fractions & probabilities as those thang >>> marvels (is marveling) at and then reading into it that it's all so
completely unlikely that there simply 'has' to be some
purposeful/intelligent 'design' to it all?
Slider you are MISSING THE FUCKING POINT!!
I wonder why I bother.
### - neither do i when you 'completely overlook' the point i DID make lol >:)))
and it's NOT that i didn't understand you OR the holy 'standard model' you >worship! i know as much about it as just about any well read layman on the >matter probably does...
PLUS, i know only TOO WELL what the vast majority of scientists today >BELIEVE!
and in fact, offered you an 'alternate' explanation! actually a more
LIKELY one!
WHICH you totally ignored in favour of reiterating the standard model, >chapter and fucking verse like a demented parrot! LOL :)
AND am NOT gonna explain it to you either!
it was ALL there, and IF you're REALLY too dense to be able to understand
a simple metaphor that even a CHILD could grasp, then it's just too bad!
for YOU!
coz it's YOU that needs to KEEP reading it until it finally sinks in hah!
:)
ALL you can see IS your holy model!?! duh!
fuck the standard model! (laughing...)
it's all a CROCK of fabricated/tweaked shit! :)))
and the higgs (or at least what they're 'calling' the higgs) is bullshit
too!
it's too light! that, or they've gotten the physics of the whole thing >completely wrong in the first instance (which IS more than likely after
all!) and the standard model is crap!
i.e., chances are... dark matter, dark energy & dark flow... don't exist!
are merely the 'presumed' result of a very faulty model! (a 95% hole in
the model itself!?! some fucking model! lol)
and is, imho, 'as naive' as newtons theories eventually turned out to be!
as is string theory! (nearly drove einstein nuts trying to make that crap >'fit' lol)
but please, DO carry-on THUMPING your holy bible at me lol (cracking up...)
YOU might BELIEVE in it, but i don't believe in anything!
and certainly NOT that pile of 'mostly incomplete' BS! (95% incomplete! go >figure!:)))
lol get back to me when ya finally manage to 'squeeze' infinity into >something finite ok?
i WONT, however, be holding my breath in the meantime! LOL! ;)
***
(SNIP thang's pile of utter parrot-droppings! hah! :)))
I'll spell out the point below, nice and slow and simple. You need to
do what I do, which is read it and re-read it UNTIL IT SINKS IN!
(LOL, actually thinks he knows something! :))))))
On Fri, 29 Sep 2017 16:41:53 +0100, slider <slider@nanashram.com>
wrote:
slider and i use the term tech support.
we don't know much what we are actually
referring to but it seems like it might
be the originator. whatever that might
be is where we look. shorty referred to
it as 'it'. Everybody else is lazy and
just call in God. The grand architect of
the Universe is so big that it is unknowable.
### - ultimately, i think/conjecture that it's all totally random; as
random as say what happens when you throw a bucket of oil and a bucket of
water into the same tub and it all then swirls together in a scintillating >> rainbow colours mix... to then take (or to attempt to take) a measurement
of why one particular molecule of that mix is in the exact position &
proportion it is compared to the rest of it + the chances of it all being
so at that particular and precise moment in time; would likely equally all >> add up to equally infinitesimal fractions & probabilities as those thang
marvels (is marveling) at and then reading into it that it's all so
completely unlikely that there simply 'has' to be some
purposeful/intelligent 'design' to it all?
Slider you are MISSING THE FUCKING POINT!!
I wonder why I bother.
I'll spell out the point below, nice and slow and simple. You need to
do what I do, which is read it and re-read it UNTIL IT SINKS IN!
This is where science is today, in 2017. It is light years from where science was 10 years ago, even 5 years ago. This is what the vast
majority of scientists believe is the case, now, today. Your bullshit "think/conjecture" (whatever the fuck that means) has nothing to do
with anything.
Apply self discipline. Apply rigor. Read the following. Re-read it
if you don't get it, until you DO get it. You can do this, ok?
1. **Everything** is made of just three particles - the electron, the
up quark and the down quark. THIS IS FACT. The proton is one down
quark + two up quarks; the neutron is one up quark and two down
quarks; the electron is just the electron. These combinations make
the atom. Different numbers of protons make the elements. Different
numbers of neutrons make the isotopes. But they all, atoms, elements
and isotopes, are made just of electrons, up quarks and down quarks.
(note: the other particles such as charm, top, strange and bottom- and
the two with weird charges of +2/3 and -1/2- exist only in particle accelerators and this is a mystery itself, why have these other two generations of particles when the entire universe only uses the
aforesaid electron, up and down quarks? Solve that one and you get
more than the fucking Nobel Prize :)
2. In our universe, the three particles have specific masses - the up
and down quarks are exactly 4.5 and 9.4 times the mass of the
electron. We don't know why. What we can do is hypotesise universes
in which the masses of the fundamental three particles are different,
from slightly different right up to the masses required to collapse
into a black hole. We can plot these masses on ordinary axes - X and
Y and see what effects there are on chemistry. We need chemistry in a universe in order to permit the existence of LIFE.
3. Particle mass is measured in electronvolts. The electron, up
quark and down quark (don't forget, everything in the universe is made
of these three fundamental particles) have 0.510,998,928, 2.3 and 4.8 megalectronvolts (MeV) respectively. What happens if the electron
has, say, 0.510,998,92*7* MeV, or the difference between the up and
down quarks (which is 4.8 - 2.3=2.5 MeV) is 2.6 MeV? Can life still
occur, or can even chemistry still occur? Or will we have a universe
with only hydrogen in it, or only helium, or not even that - just
protons in an infinited thinning soup for all eternity?
(Note: the difference between up and down quark masses is used to
generate just one of two axes, otherwise we would have three axes
which would very much complicate things :)
4. These two axes have been plotted. The vertical axis (the
difference between the masses of the up and down quarks) can extend
from 0 to the Planck Mass (the limit of our theories) - it will extend
from a point at 0 right up to about 20,000 or so LIGHT YEARS!! The horizontal (electron mass) also extends from 0 right up to 20,000 or
so LIGHT YEARS!!
5. Yet our universe's electron, up and down quark masses reside in a
small isosceles triangle the base of which is about an inch in height
and the sides of which are about half an inch or so. So, the masses
alone of the three particles which give rise to an inhabitable
universe capable of chemistry are possible only in less than a square
inch of a graph the area of which is HALF A BILLION SQUARE LIGHT
YEARS!!!!
6. For instance, if on this 20,000 light year scale one increases and decreases the masses of the electron, up and down quark just within a
metre or so vertically and horizontally we end up with, in no
particular order - no protons or neutons but a new particle called
the delta, with only one chemical reaction possible; a hydrogen only universe, with only one chemical reaction possible; a neutron only
universe with no chemical reactions possible - and so on. Extend the
changes to say a light year, and we are in the realms of no particles
at all and no forces, just quarks with immense masses or the same with electrons.
7. So, the probability if THIS is the ONLY UNIVERSE of the three
fundamental particles assuming the values they do in less than a
square inch out of a possible 400,000,000 square light years is -
well, it's FUCKING SMALLER THAN YOUR CHANCE OF WINNING LOTTO A
THOUSAND TIMES IN A ROW!!
8. That, effectively, is impossible. This universe therefore did not
arise by chance IF IT IS THE ONLY UNIVERSE.
9. There are many other variables which can be tweaked such as the
strength of the four fundamental forces, the strong, weak,
electromagnetic and force of gravity. Change any of these and things
fall apart completely.
10. What about the personalities of the fundamental forces? The
quantised "spin" (dividing particles into bosons and fermions) for
instance? Why do the particles have these integer and non-integer
values specifically? If they differed then the universe, again, would
be dead.
11. Then there are the constants - pi, why does it have the value it
does (which is so far uncalculable)? Or Avogadro's constant? You get
the idea...
Oh yes, we've calculated within the limits of our knowledge the mass
of the Higgs Boson - 10^18 GeV!! This takes into account the mass contributions from the quantum vacuum (yep, stuff coming into
existence from nothing, a bit like universes). However, this is not
correct - life could not form nor a stable universe if this was
correct. There is an unknown mechanism which slices off the
contributions of the quantum vacuum fluctuations down to the
observable value which gives our fundamental particles the low masses
we observe and which are necessary for life. This could be anything,
we simply don't know. In a universe with a different "value" to this
unknown "mechanism", the mass of the Higgs Boson would differ and the
masses of the fundamental particles would sterilise any possibility of
life, chemistry or indeed stability. Our universe would be a soup of something at best.
So, our universe emerging with the values which it has and which are necessary for chemistry and life are so small that you could write a
zero on every particle in the observed universe, preceded by a ".",
and you would still have a greater chance of that probability
crystalising than the universe itself emerging spontaneously...
UNLESS - there are infinite universes and we inhabit one of them
because in infinity, sooner or MUCH LATER, a universe in which these
values exist WILL EMERGE. This is the multiverse theory.
UNLESS - this universe has been crafted so as to permit stability,
chemistry and life. This is the design theory.
TAKE YOUR CHOICE.
Now, slider, if you've followed the above (re-read the cunt, you dill,
until you DO) - doesn't this make your life easier? You can narrow
down your questing for meaning into two simple choices - multiverse or design.
If you choose multiverse, you don't need a designer and you most
certainly don't need a god or an "it" or anything like that.
If you choose design, then you need to start to ask other questions -
if we have a design, there must be a designer. That designer, is it a machine, an advanced human(ity), a "god" (whatever that means) and so
on. That's a fucking rabbit hole if ever I saw one.
Choose multiverse. You live in an infinity of other universes in this selection (and you die an infinite number of times in every possible
way). I do.
Brain, show you have some "brain" and try to follow the above. It's
not that hard.
Listen: We are here to fart around.
Don't let anybody tell you any different.
Kurt Vonnegut, Jr., Timequake
---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. https://www.avast.com/antivirus
Am 30.09.2017 um 04:30 schrieb thang ornerythinchus:
On Fri, 29 Sep 2017 16:41:53 +0100, slider <slider@nanashram.com>
wrote:
slider and i use the term tech support.
we don't know much what we are actually
referring to but it seems like it might
be the originator. whatever that might
be is where we look. shorty referred to
it as 'it'. Everybody else is lazy and
just call in God. The grand architect of
the Universe is so big that it is unknowable.
### - ultimately, i think/conjecture that it's all totally random; as
random as say what happens when you throw a bucket of oil and a
bucket of
water into the same tub and it all then swirls together in a
scintillating
rainbow colours mix... to then take (or to attempt to take) a
measurement
of why one particular molecule of that mix is in the exact position &
proportion it is compared to the rest of it + the chances of it all
being
so at that particular and precise moment in time; would likely
equally all
add up to equally infinitesimal fractions & probabilities as those thang >>> marvels (is marveling) at and then reading into it that it's all so
completely unlikely that there simply 'has' to be some
purposeful/intelligent 'design' to it all?
Slider you are MISSING THE FUCKING POINT!!
I wonder why I bother.
I'll spell out the point below, nice and slow and simple. You need to
do what I do, which is read it and re-read it UNTIL IT SINKS IN!
This is where science is today, in 2017. It is light years from where
science was 10 years ago, even 5 years ago. This is what the vast
majority of scientists believe is the case, now, today. Your bullshit
"think/conjecture" (whatever the fuck that means) has nothing to do
with anything.
Apply self discipline. Apply rigor. Read the following. Re-read it
if you don't get it, until you DO get it. You can do this, ok?
1. **Everything** is made of just three particles - the electron, the
up quark and the down quark. THIS IS FACT. The proton is one down
Ever heard of stringtheory? And go away with that reactive and proactive shit!
quark + two up quarks; the neutron is one up quark and two down
quarks; the electron is just the electron. These combinations make
the atom. Different numbers of protons make the elements. Different
numbers of neutrons make the isotopes. But they all, atoms, elements
and isotopes, are made just of electrons, up quarks and down quarks.
(note: the other particles such as charm, top, strange and bottom- and
the two with weird charges of +2/3 and -1/2- exist only in particle
accelerators and this is a mystery itself, why have these other two
generations of particles when the entire universe only uses the
aforesaid electron, up and down quarks? Solve that one and you get
more than the fucking Nobel Prize :)
2. In our universe, the three particles have specific masses - the up
and down quarks are exactly 4.5 and 9.4 times the mass of the
electron. We don't know why. What we can do is hypotesise universes
in which the masses of the fundamental three particles are different,
from slightly different right up to the masses required to collapse
into a black hole. We can plot these masses on ordinary axes - X and
Y and see what effects there are on chemistry. We need chemistry in a
universe in order to permit the existence of LIFE.
3. Particle mass is measured in electronvolts. The electron, up
quark and down quark (don't forget, everything in the universe is made
of these three fundamental particles) have 0.510,998,928, 2.3 and 4.8
megalectronvolts (MeV) respectively. What happens if the electron
has, say, 0.510,998,92*7* MeV, or the difference between the up and
down quarks (which is 4.8 - 2.3=2.5 MeV) is 2.6 MeV? Can life still
occur, or can even chemistry still occur? Or will we have a universe
with only hydrogen in it, or only helium, or not even that - just
protons in an infinited thinning soup for all eternity?
(Note: the difference between up and down quark masses is used to
generate just one of two axes, otherwise we would have three axes
which would very much complicate things :)
4. These two axes have been plotted. The vertical axis (the
difference between the masses of the up and down quarks) can extend
from 0 to the Planck Mass (the limit of our theories) - it will extend
from a point at 0 right up to about 20,000 or so LIGHT YEARS!! The
horizontal (electron mass) also extends from 0 right up to 20,000 or
so LIGHT YEARS!!
5. Yet our universe's electron, up and down quark masses reside in a
small isosceles triangle the base of which is about an inch in height
and the sides of which are about half an inch or so. So, the masses
alone of the three particles which give rise to an inhabitable
universe capable of chemistry are possible only in less than a square
inch of a graph the area of which is HALF A BILLION SQUARE LIGHT
YEARS!!!!
6. For instance, if on this 20,000 light year scale one increases and
decreases the masses of the electron, up and down quark just within a
metre or so vertically and horizontally we end up with, in no
particular order - no protons or neutons but a new particle called
the delta, with only one chemical reaction possible; a hydrogen only
universe, with only one chemical reaction possible; a neutron only
universe with no chemical reactions possible - and so on. Extend the
changes to say a light year, and we are in the realms of no particles
at all and no forces, just quarks with immense masses or the same with
electrons.
7. So, the probability if THIS is the ONLY UNIVERSE of the three
fundamental particles assuming the values they do in less than a
square inch out of a possible 400,000,000 square light years is -
well, it's FUCKING SMALLER THAN YOUR CHANCE OF WINNING LOTTO A
THOUSAND TIMES IN A ROW!!
8. That, effectively, is impossible. This universe therefore did not
arise by chance IF IT IS THE ONLY UNIVERSE.
9. There are many other variables which can be tweaked such as the
strength of the four fundamental forces, the strong, weak,
electromagnetic and force of gravity. Change any of these and things
fall apart completely.
10. What about the personalities of the fundamental forces? The
quantised "spin" (dividing particles into bosons and fermions) for
instance? Why do the particles have these integer and non-integer
values specifically? If they differed then the universe, again, would
be dead.
11. Then there are the constants - pi, why does it have the value it
does (which is so far uncalculable)? Or Avogadro's constant? You get
the idea...
Oh yes, we've calculated within the limits of our knowledge the mass
of the Higgs Boson - 10^18 GeV!! This takes into account the mass
contributions from the quantum vacuum (yep, stuff coming into
existence from nothing, a bit like universes). However, this is not
correct - life could not form nor a stable universe if this was
correct. There is an unknown mechanism which slices off the
contributions of the quantum vacuum fluctuations down to the
observable value which gives our fundamental particles the low masses
we observe and which are necessary for life. This could be anything,
we simply don't know. In a universe with a different "value" to this
unknown "mechanism", the mass of the Higgs Boson would differ and the
masses of the fundamental particles would sterilise any possibility of
life, chemistry or indeed stability. Our universe would be a soup of
something at best.
So, our universe emerging with the values which it has and which are
necessary for chemistry and life are so small that you could write a
zero on every particle in the observed universe, preceded by a ".",
and you would still have a greater chance of that probability
crystalising than the universe itself emerging spontaneously...
UNLESS - there are infinite universes and we inhabit one of them
because in infinity, sooner or MUCH LATER, a universe in which these
values exist WILL EMERGE. This is the multiverse theory.
UNLESS - this universe has been crafted so as to permit stability,
chemistry and life. This is the design theory.
TAKE YOUR CHOICE.
Now, slider, if you've followed the above (re-read the cunt, you dill,
until you DO) - doesn't this make your life easier? You can narrow
down your questing for meaning into two simple choices - multiverse or
design.
If you choose multiverse, you don't need a designer and you most
certainly don't need a god or an "it" or anything like that.
If you choose design, then you need to start to ask other questions -
if we have a design, there must be a designer. That designer, is it a
machine, an advanced human(ity), a "god" (whatever that means) and so
on. That's a fucking rabbit hole if ever I saw one.
Choose multiverse. You live in an infinity of other universes in this
selection (and you die an infinite number of times in every possible
way). I do.
Brain, show you have some "brain" and try to follow the above. It's
not that hard.
Listen: We are here to fart around.
Don't let anybody tell you any different.
Kurt Vonnegut, Jr., Timequake
---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus
Am 30.09.2017 um 13:50 schrieb Angel Love:
Am 30.09.2017 um 04:30 schrieb thang ornerythinchus:
On Fri, 29 Sep 2017 16:41:53 +0100, slider <slider@nanashram.com>Ever heard of stringtheory? And go away with that reactive and
wrote:
slider and i use the term tech support.
we don't know much what we are actually
referring to but it seems like it might
be the originator. whatever that might
be is where we look. shorty referred to
it as 'it'. Everybody else is lazy and
just call in God. The grand architect of
the Universe is so big that it is unknowable.
### - ultimately, i think/conjecture that it's all totally random; as
random as say what happens when you throw a bucket of oil and a
bucket of
water into the same tub and it all then swirls together in a
scintillating
rainbow colours mix... to then take (or to attempt to take) a
measurement
of why one particular molecule of that mix is in the exact position &
proportion it is compared to the rest of it + the chances of it all
being
so at that particular and precise moment in time; would likely
equally all
add up to equally infinitesimal fractions & probabilities as those
thang
marvels (is marveling) at and then reading into it that it's all so
completely unlikely that there simply 'has' to be some
purposeful/intelligent 'design' to it all?
Slider you are MISSING THE FUCKING POINT!!
I wonder why I bother.
I'll spell out the point below, nice and slow and simple. You need to
do what I do, which is read it and re-read it UNTIL IT SINKS IN!
This is where science is today, in 2017. It is light years from where
science was 10 years ago, even 5 years ago. This is what the vast
majority of scientists believe is the case, now, today. Your bullshit
"think/conjecture" (whatever the fuck that means) has nothing to do
with anything.
Apply self discipline. Apply rigor. Read the following. Re-read it
if you don't get it, until you DO get it. You can do this, ok?
1. **Everything** is made of just three particles - the electron, the
up quark and the down quark. THIS IS FACT. The proton is one down
proactive shit!
quark + two up quarks; the neutron is one up quark and two down
quarks; the electron is just the electron. These combinations make
the atom. Different numbers of protons make the elements. Different
numbers of neutrons make the isotopes. But they all, atoms, elements
and isotopes, are made just of electrons, up quarks and down quarks.
What is a photon made of?
On Sat, 30 Sep 2017 09:32:55 +0100, slider <slider@nanashram.com>
wrote:
On Sat, 30 Sep 2017 03:30:28 +0100, thang ornerythinchus
<thangolossus@gmail.com> wrote:
On Fri, 29 Sep 2017 16:41:53 +0100, slider <slider@nanashram.com>
wrote:
slider and i use the term tech support.
we don't know much what we are actually
referring to but it seems like it might
be the originator. whatever that might
be is where we look. shorty referred to
it as 'it'. Everybody else is lazy and
just call in God. The grand architect of
the Universe is so big that it is unknowable.
### - ultimately, i think/conjecture that it's all totally random; as
random as say what happens when you throw a bucket of oil and a bucket >>>> of
water into the same tub and it all then swirls together in a
scintillating
rainbow colours mix... to then take (or to attempt to take) a
measurement
of why one particular molecule of that mix is in the exact position &
proportion it is compared to the rest of it + the chances of it all
being
so at that particular and precise moment in time; would likely equally >>>> all
add up to equally infinitesimal fractions & probabilities as those
thang
marvels (is marveling) at and then reading into it that it's all so
completely unlikely that there simply 'has' to be some
purposeful/intelligent 'design' to it all?
Slider you are MISSING THE FUCKING POINT!!
I wonder why I bother.
### - neither do i when you 'completely overlook' the point i DID make
lol
:)))
and it's NOT that i didn't understand you OR the holy 'standard model'
you
worship! i know as much about it as just about any well read layman on
the
matter probably does...
PLUS, i know only TOO WELL what the vast majority of scientists today
BELIEVE!
and in fact, offered you an 'alternate' explanation! actually a more
LIKELY one!
WHICH you totally ignored in favour of reiterating the standard model,
chapter and fucking verse like a demented parrot! LOL :)
AND am NOT gonna explain it to you either!
it was ALL there, and IF you're REALLY too dense to be able to
understand
a simple metaphor that even a CHILD could grasp, then it's just too bad!
for YOU!
coz it's YOU that needs to KEEP reading it until it finally sinks in
hah!
:)
ALL you can see IS your holy model!?! duh!
fuck the standard model! (laughing...)
it's all a CROCK of fabricated/tweaked shit! :)))
and the higgs (or at least what they're 'calling' the higgs) is bullshit
too!
it's too light! that, or they've gotten the physics of the whole thing
completely wrong in the first instance (which IS more than likely after
all!) and the standard model is crap!
i.e., chances are... dark matter, dark energy & dark flow... don't
exist!
are merely the 'presumed' result of a very faulty model! (a 95% hole in
the model itself!?! some fucking model! lol)
and is, imho, 'as naive' as newtons theories eventually turned out to
be!
as is string theory! (nearly drove einstein nuts trying to make that
crap
'fit' lol)
but please, DO carry-on THUMPING your holy bible at me lol (cracking
up...)
YOU might BELIEVE in it, but i don't believe in anything!
and certainly NOT that pile of 'mostly incomplete' BS! (95% incomplete!
go
figure!:)))
lol get back to me when ya finally manage to 'squeeze' infinity into
something finite ok?
i WONT, however, be holding my breath in the meantime! LOL! ;)
***
(SNIP thang's pile of utter parrot-droppings! hah! :)))
I'll spell out the point below, nice and slow and simple. You need to
do what I do, which is read it and re-read it UNTIL IT SINKS IN!
(LOL, actually thinks he knows something! :))))))
Your response reeks of hysteria.
Too much for you to assimilate?
so, and I think I overestimated you, too bad for you I guess. You'll
never know anything of real value if you don't put the effort in but
if you simply cannot, then true value is forevermore out of reach for
you. In this case, I truly feel sorry for you. Carry on dreaming :)
On the other hand, I'm willing to put a little more work into your
case but not a lot more, ok? I suggest you read what I wrote again
until it sinks in and then come back here with something that doesn't
paint you as an irredeemable lowbrow. Just try, and I'll give you
another chance :)
Am 30.09.2017 um 13:50 schrieb Angel Love:
Am 30.09.2017 um 04:30 schrieb thang ornerythinchus:
On Fri, 29 Sep 2017 16:41:53 +0100, slider <slider@nanashram.com>
wrote:
slider and i use the term tech support.
we don't know much what we are actually
referring to but it seems like it might
be the originator. whatever that might
be is where we look. shorty referred to
it as 'it'. Everybody else is lazy and
just call in God. The grand architect of
the Universe is so big that it is unknowable.
### - ultimately, i think/conjecture that it's all totally random; as
random as say what happens when you throw a bucket of oil and a
bucket of
water into the same tub and it all then swirls together in a
scintillating
rainbow colours mix... to then take (or to attempt to take) a
measurement
of why one particular molecule of that mix is in the exact position &
proportion it is compared to the rest of it + the chances of it all
being
so at that particular and precise moment in time; would likely
equally all
add up to equally infinitesimal fractions & probabilities as those thang >>>> marvels (is marveling) at and then reading into it that it's all so
completely unlikely that there simply 'has' to be some
purposeful/intelligent 'design' to it all?
Slider you are MISSING THE FUCKING POINT!!
I wonder why I bother.
I'll spell out the point below, nice and slow and simple. You need to
do what I do, which is read it and re-read it UNTIL IT SINKS IN!
This is where science is today, in 2017. It is light years from where
science was 10 years ago, even 5 years ago. This is what the vast
majority of scientists believe is the case, now, today. Your bullshit
"think/conjecture" (whatever the fuck that means) has nothing to do
with anything.
Apply self discipline. Apply rigor. Read the following. Re-read it >>> if you don't get it, until you DO get it. You can do this, ok?
1. **Everything** is made of just three particles - the electron, the
up quark and the down quark. THIS IS FACT. The proton is one down
Ever heard of stringtheory? And go away with that reactive and proactive
shit!
quark + two up quarks; the neutron is one up quark and two down
quarks; the electron is just the electron. These combinations make
the atom. Different numbers of protons make the elements. Different
numbers of neutrons make the isotopes. But they all, atoms, elements
and isotopes, are made just of electrons, up quarks and down quarks.
What is a photon made of?
(note: the other particles such as charm, top, strange and bottom- and
the two with weird charges of +2/3 and -1/2- exist only in particle
accelerators and this is a mystery itself, why have these other two
generations of particles when the entire universe only uses the
aforesaid electron, up and down quarks? Solve that one and you get
more than the fucking Nobel Prize :)
2. In our universe, the three particles have specific masses - the up
and down quarks are exactly 4.5 and 9.4 times the mass of the
electron. We don't know why. What we can do is hypotesise universes
in which the masses of the fundamental three particles are different,
from slightly different right up to the masses required to collapse
into a black hole. We can plot these masses on ordinary axes - X and
Y and see what effects there are on chemistry. We need chemistry in a
universe in order to permit the existence of LIFE.
3. Particle mass is measured in electronvolts. The electron, up
quark and down quark (don't forget, everything in the universe is made
of these three fundamental particles) have 0.510,998,928, 2.3 and 4.8
megalectronvolts (MeV) respectively. What happens if the electron
has, say, 0.510,998,92*7* MeV, or the difference between the up and
down quarks (which is 4.8 - 2.3=2.5 MeV) is 2.6 MeV? Can life still
occur, or can even chemistry still occur? Or will we have a universe
with only hydrogen in it, or only helium, or not even that - just
protons in an infinited thinning soup for all eternity?
(Note: the difference between up and down quark masses is used to
generate just one of two axes, otherwise we would have three axes
which would very much complicate things :)
4. These two axes have been plotted. The vertical axis (the
difference between the masses of the up and down quarks) can extend
from 0 to the Planck Mass (the limit of our theories) - it will extend
from a point at 0 right up to about 20,000 or so LIGHT YEARS!! The
horizontal (electron mass) also extends from 0 right up to 20,000 or
so LIGHT YEARS!!
5. Yet our universe's electron, up and down quark masses reside in a
small isosceles triangle the base of which is about an inch in height
and the sides of which are about half an inch or so. So, the masses
alone of the three particles which give rise to an inhabitable
universe capable of chemistry are possible only in less than a square
inch of a graph the area of which is HALF A BILLION SQUARE LIGHT
YEARS!!!!
6. For instance, if on this 20,000 light year scale one increases and
decreases the masses of the electron, up and down quark just within a
metre or so vertically and horizontally we end up with, in no
particular order - no protons or neutons but a new particle called
the delta, with only one chemical reaction possible; a hydrogen only
universe, with only one chemical reaction possible; a neutron only
universe with no chemical reactions possible - and so on. Extend the
changes to say a light year, and we are in the realms of no particles
at all and no forces, just quarks with immense masses or the same with
electrons.
7. So, the probability if THIS is the ONLY UNIVERSE of the three
fundamental particles assuming the values they do in less than a
square inch out of a possible 400,000,000 square light years is -
well, it's FUCKING SMALLER THAN YOUR CHANCE OF WINNING LOTTO A
THOUSAND TIMES IN A ROW!!
8. That, effectively, is impossible. This universe therefore did not >>> arise by chance IF IT IS THE ONLY UNIVERSE.
9. There are many other variables which can be tweaked such as the
strength of the four fundamental forces, the strong, weak,
electromagnetic and force of gravity. Change any of these and things
fall apart completely.
10. What about the personalities of the fundamental forces? The
quantised "spin" (dividing particles into bosons and fermions) for
instance? Why do the particles have these integer and non-integer
values specifically? If they differed then the universe, again, would
be dead.
11. Then there are the constants - pi, why does it have the value it
does (which is so far uncalculable)? Or Avogadro's constant? You get >>> the idea...
Oh yes, we've calculated within the limits of our knowledge the mass
of the Higgs Boson - 10^18 GeV!! This takes into account the mass
contributions from the quantum vacuum (yep, stuff coming into
existence from nothing, a bit like universes). However, this is not
correct - life could not form nor a stable universe if this was
correct. There is an unknown mechanism which slices off the
contributions of the quantum vacuum fluctuations down to the
observable value which gives our fundamental particles the low masses
we observe and which are necessary for life. This could be anything,
we simply don't know. In a universe with a different "value" to this
unknown "mechanism", the mass of the Higgs Boson would differ and the
masses of the fundamental particles would sterilise any possibility of
life, chemistry or indeed stability. Our universe would be a soup of
something at best.
So, our universe emerging with the values which it has and which are
necessary for chemistry and life are so small that you could write a
zero on every particle in the observed universe, preceded by a ".",
and you would still have a greater chance of that probability
crystalising than the universe itself emerging spontaneously...
UNLESS - there are infinite universes and we inhabit one of them
because in infinity, sooner or MUCH LATER, a universe in which these
values exist WILL EMERGE. This is the multiverse theory.
UNLESS - this universe has been crafted so as to permit stability,
chemistry and life. This is the design theory.
TAKE YOUR CHOICE.
Now, slider, if you've followed the above (re-read the cunt, you dill,
until you DO) - doesn't this make your life easier? You can narrow
down your questing for meaning into two simple choices - multiverse or
design.
If you choose multiverse, you don't need a designer and you most
certainly don't need a god or an "it" or anything like that.
If you choose design, then you need to start to ask other questions -
if we have a design, there must be a designer. That designer, is it a
machine, an advanced human(ity), a "god" (whatever that means) and so
on. That's a fucking rabbit hole if ever I saw one.
Choose multiverse. You live in an infinity of other universes in this
selection (and you die an infinite number of times in every possible
way). I do.
Brain, show you have some "brain" and try to follow the above. It's
not that hard.
Listen: We are here to fart around.
Don't let anybody tell you any different.
Kurt Vonnegut, Jr., Timequake
---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus
Why ask stupid questions which are completely OT?
Photons don't have charge. They are not matter. They don't have rest
mass. They are both particle and wave. They carry the electromagnetic
wavelengths.
Am 30.09.2017 um 16:28 schrieb thang ornerythinchus:
Why ask stupid questions which are completely OT?
Photons don't have charge. They are not matter. They don't have rest
mass. They are both particle and wave. They carry the electromagnetic
particle->matter?
wavelengths.
| Sysop: | sneaky |
|---|---|
| Location: | Ashburton,NZ |
| Users: | 31 |
| Nodes: | 8 (0 / 8) |
| Uptime: | 117:50:53 |
| Calls: | 2,073 |
| Calls today: | 3 |
| Files: | 11,135 |
| Messages: | 947,269 |