Deutsch English Français Italiano |
<8634ryno35.fsf@example.com> View for Bookmarking (what is this?) Look up another Usenet article |
Path: ...!news.mixmin.net!weretis.net!feeder8.news.weretis.net!newsfeed.xs3.de!nntp-feed.chiark.greenend.org.uk!ewrotcd!news.eyrie.org!beagle.ediacara.org!.POSTED.beagle.ediacara.org!not-for-mail From: Richmond <dnomhcir@gmx.com> Newsgroups: talk.origins Subject: Re: Evidence v Conclusions Date: Sat, 06 Apr 2024 23:06:06 +0100 Organization: Frantic Sender: to%beagle.ediacara.org Approved: moderator@beagle.ediacara.org Message-ID: <8634ryno35.fsf@example.com> References: <1tf21jdg30uru7c2ossq8j6ifrqdcefh0l@4ax.com> <86o7amocxq.fsf@example.com> <ecbdbe72b12496cecb6d807b77b50cd8@www.novabbs.com> <86frvyo80g.fsf@example.com> <481bea446c3d6f3930fed32d0a94e807@www.novabbs.com> <86bk6mo5lp.fsf@example.com> <86mdnZK4n5kZ6Yz7nZ2dnZfqnPqdnZ2d@giganews.com> <867chao3c2.fsf@example.com> <slrnv13elf.3gf.jj@iridium.wf32df> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain Injection-Info: beagle.ediacara.org; posting-host="beagle.ediacara.org:3.132.105.89"; logging-data="70922"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@beagle.ediacara.org" User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/28.2 (gnu/linux) To: talk-origins@moderators.isc.org Cancel-Lock: sha1:TTJirCCNip1POZV/fTKIxVsogFA= sha1:uch8YTof6wuI2tk2HeMkq+gR05g= Return-Path: <news@reader6.news.weretis.net> X-Original-To: talk-origins@ediacara.org Delivered-To: talk-origins@ediacara.org id A8F6F22976C; Sat, 6 Apr 2024 18:06:07 -0400 (EDT) by beagle.ediacara.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8852B229758 for <talk-origins@ediacara.org>; Sat, 6 Apr 2024 18:06:05 -0400 (EDT) id 41BBB5DCE2; Sat, 6 Apr 2024 22:06:11 +0000 (UTC) Delivered-To: talk-origins@moderators.isc.org by mod-relay-1.kamens.us (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 2033A5DCC9 for <talk-origins@moderators.isc.org>; Sat, 6 Apr 2024 22:06:11 +0000 (UTC) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (2048 bits) server-digest SHA256) (No client certificate requested) by pmx.weretis.net (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 5EC3C3E8AE for <talk-origins@moderators.isc.org>; Sun, 7 Apr 2024 00:06:07 +0200 (CEST) id 4DE913E869; Sun, 7 Apr 2024 00:06:07 +0200 (CEST) X-User-ID: eJwNyMkRACEIBMCUHI5BwkF2yT8EfXVVuxLsMDrNx+cTQOjbsWrbKj0GzUDqc+LttHTKqfmzaBfzqRAs Bytes: 5659 Lines: 77 Jim Jackson <jj@franjam.org.uk> writes: > On 2024-04-06, Richmond <dnomhcir@gmx.com> wrote: >> *Hemidactylus* <ecphoric@allspamis.invalid> writes: >> >>> Richmond <dnomhcir@gmx.com> wrote: >>>> j.nobel.daggett@gmail.com (LDagget) writes: >>>> >>>>> Richmond wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> j.nobel.daggett@gmail.com (LDagget) writes: >>>>> >>>>>>> That's quite false as there exist many different independent >>>>>>> lines of evidence for the existence of electrons beyond modeling >>>>>>> the flow of electricity. >>>>> >>>>>> Yes there are, but people often offer electricity, or worse >>>>>> still, television, as evidence. >>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Are you even aware of who JJ Thomson is? If so, do you >>>>>>> understand >>>>> >>>>>> Oh it's you again. Are you even aware the standard model is a >>>>>> model? >>>>> >>>>> Cathode ray tubes don't produce models, they produce electron >>>>> beams. >>>>> >>>>> The data interpretation doesn't require the standard model of >>>>> particle physics. Neither do slit experiments. What it looks like >>>>> is there's a lack of evidence that you understand either bit of >>>>> evidence. Or have ever seen that evidence? I'm guessing you never >>>>> looked. I guess as long as you play see no, hear no, speak no >>>>> games, your assertion will survive your personal belief system. >>>> >>>> What are you talking about you gormless fuckwit? >>>> >>> And there we have it. >> >> The problem with this group is people argue with imaginary >> people. You see at the end there he talks about my personal belief >> system, and yet he has no idea what it is. I said that people >> interpret electricity as evidence of electrons, and he says that is >> false, but I know it is true, I have spoken to such people. >> > > He said more than that - and you know it. I didn't say that that was *all* he said, and you know it. The rest of what he said was irrelevent and aimed mainly at people who have never been to school. Does everyone who believes in God believe it because of earthquakes and eclipses? no, but some people do. Does the fact that other people believe in God for other reasons mean that no one believes it because of earthquakes and eclipses? no, that's a silly assumption. Does everyone who believes in electrons believe in them because of electricity? no, but some people do. Does the fact that some people believe in them for other reasons mean that no one believes in them because of electricity? no, that's a silly assumption. None of this has anything to do with me. He's arguing with the voices in his head. "Cathode ray tubes don't produce models, they produce electron beams." - Simple begging the question, how does he know they produce electron beams and not beams of something else? The slit experiments show that whatever is going through the slit behaves like a wave as if it has gone through both slits, unless you intercept it, and then it is like a particle. It doesn't prove anything about what it is that is going through the slits, that's more begging the question. The electron is a theoretical particle, no one really knows if it exists or what it is. The model makes accurate predictions, and you can believe they exist on that basis if you like, but you don't know, and you don't have any proof.