Errors or Not?

Feb 5, 2016

Errors or Not?

Richard:

Long ago I noticed that the physics proclaimed on this forum was in error.

You may recall the claim that the proton contains 6 quarks. Most recently a climate cycle of 11,500 years has been claimed.

So Keyster science should not be trusted.

JJ

The only error was in your wild imagination. The three known quarks within the proton do not account for even half the mass so something else has to be there. Scientists at Cern realize this and are now looking for the particles that may account for the extra mass. One theory is that each quark is accompanied by an anti quark or some other unknown particle.

Saying I am wrong when science neither proves or disproves my position, but does give evidence, is far from you finding an error.

As far as the 11,500 year cycle goes. It is a popular theory that the last ice age cycle of note ended about 11,500 years ago and we are due for another one. The exact period of the cycles of the major and minor ice ages are not known with exactness so if you claim to have exact knowledge on this then you are smoking the wrong stuff.

Here is a link to my argument that demolished the supposed error that you think you found.

LINK

Finally, I do not ask anyone to trust anything I say, but encourage them to check my words out with known facts and their own souls and reasoning.

***

Richard:

Sorry to have to say this on your birthday but your most disappointing characteristic is that you refuse to ever admit that you are incorrect even when it is very obvious. Even in the Alex Jones/CNN case after being told by several of your devotees, in the end you still held that CNN could have done it.

JJ

If someone comes up with reliable information that proves me wrong I’ll admit it right away. For instance I stood corrected on a point or two in the double slit experiment discussed here which I did not understand completely. I see the picture a lot better now. But if someone comes up with an opinion as to which research or theory is most accurate which disagrees with my opinion or conclusion then nothing has been proven right or wrong. When all the data is not known there is no way to prove who is right or wrong.

Take this CNN photo you brought up. Here were my final remarks on the matter.

The claim being made wasn’t that the doctored photo was on the internet or CNN’s website, but on the broadcast news. If this is true then no Google search would turn this up unless someone has the original news clips. I cannot find a sign of the original video newsclips anywhere and the CNN site has nothing on it supporting or refuting this story.

Since we have no hard proof that CNN doctored this or any other image we’ll have to give them the benefit of the doubt. Message #77640

Since the original newsclips were never produced we can never know for sure about that photo. I gave CNN the benefit of the doubt, but that was the best anyone could honestly do without seeing the original footage.

In the future if you disagree with me that is fine, but don’t expect me to change my opinion unless you provide some proof or strong reason.

Copyright 2016 by J J Dewey

Index for Recent Posts

Easy Access to All the Writings

Register at Freeread Here

Log on to Freeread Here

For Free Book go HERE and other books HERE

Check out JJ’s Political Blog HERE

JJ’s Amazon page HERE

Join JJ’s Study class HERE

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

*

code