On Jul 28, 3:18 pm, purple <pur...@colorme.com> wrote:
> On 7/28/2010 4:32 PM, BURT wrote:
> > I challenge you to show they are attractive purple. I say science is > > wrong and that there is only one repulsive pole for both protons and > > electrons.
> You're making the claim. You have to provide the proof. > That's the way it works.
And you are arguing the opposite. If they are mutually attractive why do they need to be forced together? That is of course the proof. Please refute it.
> On Jul 28, 3:18 pm, purple<pur...@colorme.com> wrote: >> On 7/28/2010 4:32 PM, BURT wrote:
>>> I challenge you to show they are attractive purple. I say science is >>> wrong and that there is only one repulsive pole for both protons and >>> electrons.
>> You're making the claim. You have to provide the proof. >> That's the way it works.
> And you are arguing the opposite.
Wrong. I have taken no position at all.
> If they are mutually attractive why > do they need to be forced together? That is of course the proof. > Please refute it.
No, I have not taken any position, only stated that if you are to replace the model that exists you must provide a replacement model that differs, including sufficient proofs for that new model.
Since you do not sufficiently understand the existing model you are unable to create a new, different, one and provide the necessary proofs. If you understood the existing model you would not be claiming that it is wrong.
> > On Jul 28, 3:18 pm, purple<pur...@colorme.com> wrote: > >> On 7/28/2010 4:32 PM, BURT wrote:
> >>> I challenge you to show they are attractive purple. I say science is > >>> wrong and that there is only one repulsive pole for both protons and > >>> electrons.
> >> You're making the claim. You have to provide the proof. > >> That's the way it works.
> > And you are arguing the opposite.
> Wrong. I have taken no position at all.
> > If they are mutually attractive why > > do they need to be forced together? That is of course the proof. > > Please refute it.
> No, I have not taken any position, only stated that if you > are to replace the model that exists you must provide a > replacement model that differs, including sufficient proofs > for that new model.
> Since you do not sufficiently understand the existing model > you are unable to create a new, different, one and provide > the necessary proofs. If you understood the existing model > you would not be claiming that it is wrong.
I have stated the replacement model. Maybe you didn't notice that I stated it. All electric force is repulsive for proton and electrons which are not opposites only heavier sized versions of electric matter.
What I said is there is only one pole and it is electric repulsion for both the particles in the electric family: proton and electron.
> On Jul 28, 6:05 pm, purple<pur...@colorme.com> wrote: >> On 7/28/2010 5:35 PM, BURT wrote:
>>> On Jul 28, 3:18 pm, purple<pur...@colorme.com> wrote: >>>> On 7/28/2010 4:32 PM, BURT wrote:
>>>>> I challenge you to show they are attractive purple. I say science is >>>>> wrong and that there is only one repulsive pole for both protons and >>>>> electrons.
>>>> You're making the claim. You have to provide the proof. >>>> That's the way it works.
>>> And you are arguing the opposite.
>> Wrong. I have taken no position at all.
>>> If they are mutually attractive why >>> do they need to be forced together? That is of course the proof. >>> Please refute it.
>> No, I have not taken any position, only stated that if you >> are to replace the model that exists you must provide a >> replacement model that differs, including sufficient proofs >> for that new model.
>> Since you do not sufficiently understand the existing model >> you are unable to create a new, different, one and provide >> the necessary proofs. If you understood the existing model >> you would not be claiming that it is wrong.
> I have stated the replacement model. Maybe you didn't notice that I > stated it. All electric force is repulsive for proton and electrons > which are not opposites only heavier sized versions of electric > matter.
> What I said is there is only one pole and it is electric repulsion for > both the particles in the electric family: proton and electron.
You've made that claim repeatedly, but have offered no proof, no evidence, and not discussed how your ideas mesh with the rest of the models that describe nature.
What, for example, are you using to replace the model of an atom as simple as hydrogen? If the proton and the electron in that model repel one another, what holds them together in an atom?
Do you also maintain that the model of an atom is wrong? What replaces it then?
> > On Jul 28, 6:05 pm, purple<pur...@colorme.com> wrote: > >> On 7/28/2010 5:35 PM, BURT wrote:
> >>> On Jul 28, 3:18 pm, purple<pur...@colorme.com> wrote: > >>>> On 7/28/2010 4:32 PM, BURT wrote:
> >>>>> I challenge you to show they are attractive purple. I say science is > >>>>> wrong and that there is only one repulsive pole for both protons and > >>>>> electrons.
> >>>> You're making the claim. You have to provide the proof. > >>>> That's the way it works.
> >>> And you are arguing the opposite.
> >> Wrong. I have taken no position at all.
> >>> If they are mutually attractive why > >>> do they need to be forced together? That is of course the proof. > >>> Please refute it.
> >> No, I have not taken any position, only stated that if you > >> are to replace the model that exists you must provide a > >> replacement model that differs, including sufficient proofs > >> for that new model.
> >> Since you do not sufficiently understand the existing model > >> you are unable to create a new, different, one and provide > >> the necessary proofs. If you understood the existing model > >> you would not be claiming that it is wrong.
> > I have stated the replacement model. Maybe you didn't notice that I > > stated it. All electric force is repulsive for proton and electrons > > which are not opposites only heavier sized versions of electric > > matter.
> > What I said is there is only one pole and it is electric repulsion for > > both the particles in the electric family: proton and electron.
> You've made that claim repeatedly, but have offered no proof, > no evidence, and not discussed how your ideas mesh with the > rest of the models that describe nature.
> What, for example, are you using to replace the model of an atom > as simple as hydrogen? If the proton and the electron in that > model repel one another, what holds them together in an atom?
> Do you also maintain that the model of an atom is wrong? What > replaces it then?- Hide quoted text -
> - Show quoted text -
Why would you think that our first model is complete and right? No. Science is young and has much wrong with it. There is a better model comming since the basis of Quantum Mechanics is changing.
If you think the proton and electron attract then give such a measurement of them comming together because of it.
> On Jul 28, 8:45 pm, purple <pur...@colorme.com> wrote:
> > On 7/28/2010 8:43 PM, BURT wrote:
> > > On Jul 28, 6:05 pm, purple<pur...@colorme.com> wrote: > > >> On 7/28/2010 5:35 PM, BURT wrote:
> > >>> On Jul 28, 3:18 pm, purple<pur...@colorme.com> wrote: > > >>>> On 7/28/2010 4:32 PM, BURT wrote:
> > >>>>> I challenge you to show they are attractive purple. I say science is > > >>>>> wrong and that there is only one repulsive pole for both protons and > > >>>>> electrons.
> > >>>> You're making the claim. You have to provide the proof. > > >>>> That's the way it works.
> > >>> And you are arguing the opposite.
> > >> Wrong. I have taken no position at all.
> > >>> If they are mutually attractive why > > >>> do they need to be forced together? That is of course the proof. > > >>> Please refute it.
> > >> No, I have not taken any position, only stated that if you > > >> are to replace the model that exists you must provide a > > >> replacement model that differs, including sufficient proofs > > >> for that new model.
> > >> Since you do not sufficiently understand the existing model > > >> you are unable to create a new, different, one and provide > > >> the necessary proofs. If you understood the existing model > > >> you would not be claiming that it is wrong.
> > > I have stated the replacement model. Maybe you didn't notice that I > > > stated it. All electric force is repulsive for proton and electrons > > > which are not opposites only heavier sized versions of electric > > > matter.
> > > What I said is there is only one pole and it is electric repulsion for > > > both the particles in the electric family: proton and electron.
> > You've made that claim repeatedly, but have offered no proof, > > no evidence, and not discussed how your ideas mesh with the > > rest of the models that describe nature.
> > What, for example, are you using to replace the model of an atom > > as simple as hydrogen? If the proton and the electron in that > > model repel one another, what holds them together in an atom?
> > Do you also maintain that the model of an atom is wrong? What > > replaces it then?- Hide quoted text -
> > - Show quoted text -
> Why would you think that our first model is complete and right? > No. Science is young and has much wrong with it. > There is a better model comming since the basis of Quantum Mechanics > is changing.
> If you think the proton and electron attract then give such a > measurement of them comming together because of it.
> Mitch Raemsch- Hide quoted text -
> - Show quoted text -
As to what holds the atom together that is the particles electric bond energy to their shells.
> On Jul 28, 8:45 pm, purple<pur...@colorme.com> wrote: > Why would you think that our first model is complete and right? > No. Science is young and has much wrong with it. > There is a better model comming since the basis of Quantum Mechanics > is changing.
> If you think the proton and electron attract then give such a > measurement of them comming together because of it.
I have no beliefs and have stipulated none. You have beliefs you have stated and you seem unable to provide any proof or evidence supporting your beliefs.
Since you think that a proton and an electron repel one another it is for you to develop the model by providing proofs and evidence. How many times must we go around on this simple issue?
> On Jul 29, 12:17 pm, BURT<macromi...@yahoo.com> wrote: >> On Jul 28, 8:45 pm, purple<pur...@colorme.com> wrote:
>>> On 7/28/2010 8:43 PM, BURT wrote:
>>>> On Jul 28, 6:05 pm, purple<pur...@colorme.com> wrote: >>>>> On 7/28/2010 5:35 PM, BURT wrote:
>>>>>> On Jul 28, 3:18 pm, purple<pur...@colorme.com> wrote: >>>>>>> On 7/28/2010 4:32 PM, BURT wrote:
>>>>>>>> I challenge you to show they are attractive purple. I say science is >>>>>>>> wrong and that there is only one repulsive pole for both protons and >>>>>>>> electrons.
>>>>>>> You're making the claim. You have to provide the proof. >>>>>>> That's the way it works.
>>>>>> And you are arguing the opposite.
>>>>> Wrong. I have taken no position at all.
>>>>>> If they are mutually attractive why >>>>>> do they need to be forced together? That is of course the proof. >>>>>> Please refute it.
>>>>> No, I have not taken any position, only stated that if you >>>>> are to replace the model that exists you must provide a >>>>> replacement model that differs, including sufficient proofs >>>>> for that new model.
>>>>> Since you do not sufficiently understand the existing model >>>>> you are unable to create a new, different, one and provide >>>>> the necessary proofs. If you understood the existing model >>>>> you would not be claiming that it is wrong.
>>>> I have stated the replacement model. Maybe you didn't notice that I >>>> stated it. All electric force is repulsive for proton and electrons >>>> which are not opposites only heavier sized versions of electric >>>> matter.
>>>> What I said is there is only one pole and it is electric repulsion for >>>> both the particles in the electric family: proton and electron.
>>> You've made that claim repeatedly, but have offered no proof, >>> no evidence, and not discussed how your ideas mesh with the >>> rest of the models that describe nature.
>>> What, for example, are you using to replace the model of an atom >>> as simple as hydrogen? If the proton and the electron in that >>> model repel one another, what holds them together in an atom?
>>> Do you also maintain that the model of an atom is wrong? What >>> replaces it then?- Hide quoted text -
>>> - Show quoted text -
>> Why would you think that our first model is complete and right? >> No. Science is young and has much wrong with it. >> There is a better model comming since the basis of Quantum Mechanics >> is changing.
>> If you think the proton and electron attract then give such a >> measurement of them comming together because of it.
>> Mitch Raemsch- Hide quoted text -
>> - Show quoted text -
> As to what holds the atom together that is the particles electric bond > energy to their shells.
You appear to be creating a new force that is not part of any existing model. Therefore you must fully describe what you are suggesting along with proofs.
> > On Jul 29, 12:17 pm, BURT<macromi...@yahoo.com> wrote: > >> On Jul 28, 8:45 pm, purple<pur...@colorme.com> wrote:
> >>> On 7/28/2010 8:43 PM, BURT wrote:
> >>>> On Jul 28, 6:05 pm, purple<pur...@colorme.com> wrote: > >>>>> On 7/28/2010 5:35 PM, BURT wrote:
> >>>>>> On Jul 28, 3:18 pm, purple<pur...@colorme.com> wrote: > >>>>>>> On 7/28/2010 4:32 PM, BURT wrote:
> >>>>>>>> I challenge you to show they are attractive purple. I say science is > >>>>>>>> wrong and that there is only one repulsive pole for both protons and > >>>>>>>> electrons.
> >>>>>>> You're making the claim. You have to provide the proof. > >>>>>>> That's the way it works.
> >>>>>> And you are arguing the opposite.
> >>>>> Wrong. I have taken no position at all.
> >>>>>> If they are mutually attractive why > >>>>>> do they need to be forced together? That is of course the proof. > >>>>>> Please refute it.
> >>>>> No, I have not taken any position, only stated that if you > >>>>> are to replace the model that exists you must provide a > >>>>> replacement model that differs, including sufficient proofs > >>>>> for that new model.
> >>>>> Since you do not sufficiently understand the existing model > >>>>> you are unable to create a new, different, one and provide > >>>>> the necessary proofs. If you understood the existing model > >>>>> you would not be claiming that it is wrong.
> >>>> I have stated the replacement model. Maybe you didn't notice that I > >>>> stated it. All electric force is repulsive for proton and electrons > >>>> which are not opposites only heavier sized versions of electric > >>>> matter.
> >>>> What I said is there is only one pole and it is electric repulsion for > >>>> both the particles in the electric family: proton and electron.
> >>> You've made that claim repeatedly, but have offered no proof, > >>> no evidence, and not discussed how your ideas mesh with the > >>> rest of the models that describe nature.
> >>> What, for example, are you using to replace the model of an atom > >>> as simple as hydrogen? If the proton and the electron in that > >>> model repel one another, what holds them together in an atom?
> >>> Do you also maintain that the model of an atom is wrong? What > >>> replaces it then?- Hide quoted text -
> >>> - Show quoted text -
> >> Why would you think that our first model is complete and right? > >> No. Science is young and has much wrong with it. > >> There is a better model comming since the basis of Quantum Mechanics > >> is changing.
> >> If you think the proton and electron attract then give such a > >> measurement of them comming together because of it.
> >> Mitch Raemsch- Hide quoted text -
> >> - Show quoted text -
> > As to what holds the atom together that is the particles electric bond > > energy to their shells.
> You appear to be creating a new force that is not part of any existing > model. Therefore you must fully describe what you are suggesting along > with proofs.- Hide quoted text -
> - Show quoted text -
The electrons don't bond to the nucleus. They bond to their eelctron shells by elctric field energy. I challenge you on that.
> > On Jul 28, 8:45 pm, purple<pur...@colorme.com> wrote: > > Why would you think that our first model is complete and right? > > No. Science is young and has much wrong with it. > > There is a better model comming since the basis of Quantum Mechanics > > is changing.
> > If you think the proton and electron attract then give such a > > measurement of them comming together because of it.
> I have no beliefs and have stipulated none. You have beliefs you > have stated and you seem unable to provide any proof or evidence > supporting your beliefs.
> Since you think that a proton and an electron repel one another > it is for you to develop the model by providing proofs and > evidence. How many times must we go around on this simple issue?
If you have no opinion then why would you even argue? No. If electrons and protons are attractive they would come together. But that has to be forced and that means that the physics is wrong.
> On Jul 29, 5:49 pm, purple<pur...@colorme.com> wrote: >> You appear to be creating a new force that is not part of any existing >> model. Therefore you must fully describe what you are suggesting along >> with proofs.-
> The electrons don't bond to the nucleus. They bond to their eelctron > shells by elctric field energy. I challenge you on that.
> Mitch Raemsch
You can't challenge me, it isn't my idea, you have to prove it.
How many times will it take for you to understand that if you propose a new theory you are the one who has to prove it. If you cannot prove it, you should shut up.
> On Jul 29, 5:47 pm, purple<pur...@colorme.com> wrote: >> On 7/29/2010 2:17 PM, BURT wrote:
>>> On Jul 28, 8:45 pm, purple<pur...@colorme.com> wrote: >>> Why would you think that our first model is complete and right? >>> No. Science is young and has much wrong with it. >>> There is a better model comming since the basis of Quantum Mechanics >>> is changing.
>>> If you think the proton and electron attract then give such a >>> measurement of them comming together because of it.
>> I have no beliefs and have stipulated none. You have beliefs you >> have stated and you seem unable to provide any proof or evidence >> supporting your beliefs.
>> Since you think that a proton and an electron repel one another >> it is for you to develop the model by providing proofs and >> evidence. How many times must we go around on this simple issue?
> If you have no opinion then why would you even argue?
I'm not arguing. I keep asking you for proof and you never seem to have any. The only thing you do is keep propounding increasingly stupid ideas.
> No. If electrons and protons are attractive they would come together. > But that has to be forced and that means that the physics is wrong.
Prove that you're right. Stating simple conclusions doesn't do that.
> > On Jul 29, 5:49 pm, purple<pur...@colorme.com> wrote: > >> You appear to be creating a new force that is not part of any existing > >> model. Therefore you must fully describe what you are suggesting along > >> with proofs.-
> > The electrons don't bond to the nucleus. They bond to their eelctron > > shells by elctric field energy. I challenge you on that.
> > Mitch Raemsch
> You can't challenge me, it isn't my idea, you have to prove it.
> How many times will it take for you to understand that if you > propose a new theory you are the one who has to prove it. If > you cannot prove it, you should shut up.
> Now, where's your proof?
The proof is their attraction never brings them together. I challenge by that.
> On Jul 29, 9:05 pm, purple<pur...@colorme.com> wrote: >> On 7/29/2010 7:52 PM, BURT wrote:
>>> On Jul 29, 5:49 pm, purple<pur...@colorme.com> wrote: >>>> You appear to be creating a new force that is not part of any existing >>>> model. Therefore you must fully describe what you are suggesting along >>>> with proofs.-
>>> The electrons don't bond to the nucleus. They bond to their eelctron >>> shells by elctric field energy. I challenge you on that.
>>> Mitch Raemsch
>> You can't challenge me, it isn't my idea, you have to prove it.
>> How many times will it take for you to understand that if you >> propose a new theory you are the one who has to prove it. If >> you cannot prove it, you should shut up.
>> Now, where's your proof?
> The proof is their attraction never brings them together. > I challenge by that.
> > On Jul 29, 9:05 pm, purple<pur...@colorme.com> wrote: > >> On 7/29/2010 7:52 PM, BURT wrote:
> >>> On Jul 29, 5:49 pm, purple<pur...@colorme.com> wrote: > >>>> You appear to be creating a new force that is not part of any existing > >>>> model. Therefore you must fully describe what you are suggesting along > >>>> with proofs.-
> >>> The electrons don't bond to the nucleus. They bond to their eelctron > >>> shells by elctric field energy. I challenge you on that.
> >>> Mitch Raemsch
> >> You can't challenge me, it isn't my idea, you have to prove it.
> >> How many times will it take for you to understand that if you > >> propose a new theory you are the one who has to prove it. If > >> you cannot prove it, you should shut up.
> >> Now, where's your proof?
The proof is their attraction never brings them together. I challenge by that.
> On Jul 30, 2:25 am, purple<pur...@colorme.com> wrote: >> On 7/29/2010 11:08 PM, BURT wrote:
>>> On Jul 29, 9:05 pm, purple<pur...@colorme.com> wrote: >>>> On 7/29/2010 7:52 PM, BURT wrote:
>>>>> On Jul 29, 5:49 pm, purple<pur...@colorme.com> wrote: >>>>>> You appear to be creating a new force that is not part of any existing >>>>>> model. Therefore you must fully describe what you are suggesting along >>>>>> with proofs.-
>>>>> The electrons don't bond to the nucleus. They bond to their eelctron >>>>> shells by elctric field energy. I challenge you on that.
>>>>> Mitch Raemsch
>>>> You can't challenge me, it isn't my idea, you have to prove it.
>>>> How many times will it take for you to understand that if you >>>> propose a new theory you are the one who has to prove it. If >>>> you cannot prove it, you should shut up.
>>>> Now, where's your proof?
> The proof is their attraction never brings them together. > I challenge by that.
>> It is not proof.
> What other evidence for attraction can there be?
Let's take a larger model with some similarities, and some equivalence, to the atomic model, our solar system.
> > On Jul 30, 2:25 am, purple<pur...@colorme.com> wrote: > >> On 7/29/2010 11:08 PM, BURT wrote:
> >>> On Jul 29, 9:05 pm, purple<pur...@colorme.com> wrote: > >>>> On 7/29/2010 7:52 PM, BURT wrote:
> >>>>> On Jul 29, 5:49 pm, purple<pur...@colorme.com> wrote: > >>>>>> You appear to be creating a new force that is not part of any existing > >>>>>> model. Therefore you must fully describe what you are suggesting along > >>>>>> with proofs.-
> >>>>> The electrons don't bond to the nucleus. They bond to their eelctron > >>>>> shells by elctric field energy. I challenge you on that.
> >>>>> Mitch Raemsch
> >>>> You can't challenge me, it isn't my idea, you have to prove it.
> >>>> How many times will it take for you to understand that if you > >>>> propose a new theory you are the one who has to prove it. If > >>>> you cannot prove it, you should shut up.
> >>>> Now, where's your proof?
> > The proof is their attraction never brings them together. > > I challenge by that.
> >> It is not proof.
> > What other evidence for attraction can there be?
> Let's take a larger model with some similarities, and some equivalence, > to the atomic model, our solar system.
> On Jul 30, 5:35 pm, purple<pur...@colorme.com> wrote: >> On 7/30/2010 2:01 PM, BURT wrote:
>>> On Jul 30, 2:25 am, purple<pur...@colorme.com> wrote: >>>> On 7/29/2010 11:08 PM, BURT wrote:
>>>>> On Jul 29, 9:05 pm, purple<pur...@colorme.com> wrote: >>>>>> On 7/29/2010 7:52 PM, BURT wrote:
>>>>>>> On Jul 29, 5:49 pm, purple<pur...@colorme.com> wrote: >>>>>>>> You appear to be creating a new force that is not part of any existing >>>>>>>> model. Therefore you must fully describe what you are suggesting along >>>>>>>> with proofs.-
>>>>>>> The electrons don't bond to the nucleus. They bond to their eelctron >>>>>>> shells by elctric field energy. I challenge you on that.
>>>>>>> Mitch Raemsch
>>>>>> You can't challenge me, it isn't my idea, you have to prove it.
>>>>>> How many times will it take for you to understand that if you >>>>>> propose a new theory you are the one who has to prove it. If >>>>>> you cannot prove it, you should shut up.
>>>>>> Now, where's your proof?
>>> The proof is their attraction never brings them together. >>> I challenge by that.
>>>> It is not proof.
>>> What other evidence for attraction can there be?
>> Let's take a larger model with some similarities, and some equivalence, >> to the atomic model, our solar system.
> If they never come together by their attraction then it doesn't even > count.
All you're saying is that scientific principles don't count whenever they conflict with your views.
I once knew an insane woman who declared that the rules that regulated how people behave don't apply to her. I asked her why that was so. She said she didn't know, but that's the way things are.
Gravity, electrostatic attraction, and other scientific "rules" are generally universal. To deny them, without having something that you can prove is a valid replacement, is a form of insanity.
Why do you keep posting this shit? Are your keepers bored playing with you?
> > On Jul 30, 5:35 pm, purple<pur...@colorme.com> wrote: > >> On 7/30/2010 2:01 PM, BURT wrote:
> >>> On Jul 30, 2:25 am, purple<pur...@colorme.com> wrote: > >>>> On 7/29/2010 11:08 PM, BURT wrote:
> >>>>> On Jul 29, 9:05 pm, purple<pur...@colorme.com> wrote: > >>>>>> On 7/29/2010 7:52 PM, BURT wrote:
> >>>>>>> On Jul 29, 5:49 pm, purple<pur...@colorme.com> wrote: > >>>>>>>> You appear to be creating a new force that is not part of any existing > >>>>>>>> model. Therefore you must fully describe what you are suggesting along > >>>>>>>> with proofs.-
> >>>>>>> The electrons don't bond to the nucleus. They bond to their eelctron > >>>>>>> shells by elctric field energy. I challenge you on that.
> >>>>>>> Mitch Raemsch
> >>>>>> You can't challenge me, it isn't my idea, you have to prove it.
> >>>>>> How many times will it take for you to understand that if you > >>>>>> propose a new theory you are the one who has to prove it. If > >>>>>> you cannot prove it, you should shut up.
> >>>>>> Now, where's your proof?
> >>> The proof is their attraction never brings them together. > >>> I challenge by that.
> >>>> It is not proof.
> >>> What other evidence for attraction can there be?
> >> Let's take a larger model with some similarities, and some equivalence, > >> to the atomic model, our solar system.
> > If they never come together by their attraction then it doesn't even > > count.
> All you're saying is that scientific principles don't count whenever > they conflict with your views.
> I once knew an insane woman who declared that the rules that regulated > how people behave don't apply to her. I asked her why that was so. She > said she didn't know, but that's the way things are.
> Gravity, electrostatic attraction, and other scientific "rules" are > generally universal. To deny them, without having something that you > can prove is a valid replacement, is a form of insanity.
> Why do you keep posting this shit? Are your keepers bored playing > with you?- Hide quoted text -
> - Show quoted text -
If they never come together without huge force what is the evidence that they attract?
>>> If they never come together by their attraction then it doesn't even >>> count.
>> All you're saying is that scientific principles don't count whenever >> they conflict with your views.
>> I once knew an insane woman who declared that the rules that regulated >> how people behave don't apply to her. I asked her why that was so. She >> said she didn't know, but that's the way things are.
>> Gravity, electrostatic attraction, and other scientific "rules" are >> generally universal. To deny them, without having something that you >> can prove is a valid replacement, is a form of insanity.
>> Why do you keep posting this shit? Are your keepers bored playing >> with you?
> If they never come together without huge force what is the evidence > that they attract?
> Mitch Raemsch
You obviously don't have the entry level knowledge to continue in such discussions. I will not engage you any further till you do. Bye!
> > On Jul 31, 9:45 am, purple<pur...@colorme.com> wrote:
> [...]
> >>> If they never come together by their attraction then it doesn't even > >>> count.
> >> All you're saying is that scientific principles don't count whenever > >> they conflict with your views.
> >> I once knew an insane woman who declared that the rules that regulated > >> how people behave don't apply to her. I asked her why that was so. She > >> said she didn't know, but that's the way things are.
> >> Gravity, electrostatic attraction, and other scientific "rules" are > >> generally universal. To deny them, without having something that you > >> can prove is a valid replacement, is a form of insanity.
> >> Why do you keep posting this shit? Are your keepers bored playing > >> with you?
> > If they never come together without huge force what is the evidence > > that they attract?
> > Mitch Raemsch
> You obviously don't have the entry level knowledge to continue > in such discussions. I will not engage you any further till > you do. Bye!
|
