Into the Night
Verified User
Responding to IBDaMann is not responding to me, Sock.
LIF. Grow up. It is YOU denying and discarding science. Running away won't help you.
The greatest success story in physics
- Thread starter Cypress
- Start date
Responding to IBDaMann is not responding to me, Sock.
LIF. Grow up. It is YOU denying and discarding science. Running away won't help you.
Into the Night
Verified User
I guess you're easily bored, Sock. You cannot project YOUR problem on IBDaMann, myself, or gfm7175. YOUR problem is YOUR problem, Sock.
You could always stop posting so much shit.
He does not have the password to my account, Sock. You cannot project YOUR problem on anybody else.
Mocking is not science either, Sock.
Thanks IBDaman.
SOrry gfm. I didn't mean to respond to you incorrectly.
You're making progress.
You've backtracked away from claiming there is no such thing as the Standard Model and shifted to trying to verbally finesse what the SM represents.
Good attempt at trying to tiptoe away from your original claim!
I've been calling it a framework myself, because it's actually an overarching scientific scheme that includes a system of inter-related theories like quantum chromodynamics, quantum electrodynamics, the electroweak theory, and field and particle theory.
Our best explanation of physical reality.
What is the missing link to actual evolving in real time adapting as displaced being a reproduction that replaced one's 30 previous ancestors to their combined unique DNA carried conceived to decomposed now?
Into the Night
Verified User
Responding to me is not responding to IBDaMann. Apparently you have trouble with handling the controls, Sock.
Into the Night
Verified User
Responding to me is not responding to gfm7175. You are still having trouble with the controls, Sock.
You cannot project YOUR problems on me or anybody else.
Oh, thanks gfm. that's helpful.
Now, IBDaMan, don't be like that.
IBDaMann
Well-known member
Did you mean to write "schema" or should we go with "scheme" being your intended word?
Where do you see that in your artwork? Serious question.
You would have to be an active consumer of science journalism to grasp it.
The gauge bosons shown in all graphical illustrations of the Standard Model are the force carriers that mediate the interactions between forces, fields, and particles. The photon mediates the electromagnetic force (quantum electrodynamics), the gluon mediates the strong nuclear interactions with particles (quantum chromodynamics), and the W+, W-, and Z bosons mediate the interactions of the weak force (Electroweak theory). The Higgs field gives subatomic particles mass
IBDaMann
Well-known member
Nope. What is required to believe that artwork is a science model ... is precisely your level of science illiteracy. Your profound ignorance has made you extremely gullible, to the point that you become mesmerized by hyped mystery packaged in gibberbabble. If someone tells you something as absurd as "artwork is the greatest science achievement EV-AH" and that chemistry and classical physics has been falsified despite the accelerating technological advancement based thereon, you simply don't have the cognitive tools to even call boooooolsch't, much less understand why it's all patently false.
Here on JPP you have people who are willing to take the time to explain things to you, ... but you reject free knowledge in deference to disinformation that you readily absorb, simply because you find it on the internet. Perhaps you are aware that the world mocks idiots who believe everything they read on the internet, believing it to be gospel truth because it's on the internet. You are one of those idiots. So much so that you feel totally confident that you appear scholarly somehow by simply regurgitating whatever you read on the internet. As a result, you created a thread to announce your amazement at the great science achievement ... of some graphic art. The absurdity of what you were claiming never occurred to you. In fact, you double down on stupid whenever someone tries to help you.
If you'd like some suggestions as to some other absurdly ridiculous crap to regurgitate that is on the internet right now, just let me know and I'll be more than happy to lend a hand.
1. Please note that your artwork does not express this, therefore either you are gravely mistaken in your interpretation of the model, or your artwork isn't the model you think it is. This should be your first clue.
2. For anything to be a science model, it must predict nature. You keep avoiding this point ... precisely because your artwork doesn't predict nature in any way. Ergo, nobody can use it to develop any sort of technology to control nature. This should be your second clue.
Just think how much further along you'd be if you were to allow others to help you when you screw up.
Nope. No photons "mediate" anything. Check your artwork.
Nope, not according to your artwork.
Nope, not according to your artwork.
Nope. Energy and matter account for 100% of mass. E = m*c^2 hasn't changed. There is no Higgs boson in chemistry.
T. A. Gardner
Thread Killer
Perhaps it seems that way to the scientifically illiterate.
People who are scientifically literate and understand the important theories of modern science have a good grasp on the theories an image represents-->
I have a question... Why does this model show the 'Big Bang' as being mono-directional? The explosion of anything is far more random and omni-directional. That seems to me to present a problem...
Last edited:
BidenPresident
Verified User
It shows the evolution of the universe from the B.B. to today.
BidenPresident
Verified User
It shows the evolution of the universe from the B.B. to today.
And it is not an explosion. No physicist describes it that way.
T. A. Gardner
Thread Killer
You tard, it shows a universe that is expanding in one direction only. Explosions expand in all directions, not always equally, but in all directions. If it is an expansion based on energy, same thing. It is uni-directional, not omnidirectional.
BidenPresident
Verified User
You are too dumb for me.
Think of it as a single house wiring diagram. You want to keep it as simple as possible. Tweakers won't understand the full picture. The multiverse has numerous big bangs yet science only focuses on one.
You shouldn't have asked the question if you thought the answer would humiliate you and make you angry
Last edited: