On May 7, 4:28 pm, meekerdb <meeke...@verizon.net> wrote:
> On 5/7/2012 1:24 PM, Craig Weinberg wrote:
> > On May 7, 3:49 pm, meekerdb<meeke...@verizon.net> wrote:
> >> so by logic 1=3 implies anything at all.
> > You mean the indivisible unity of the three quark proton?
> > Craig
> First, nobody cares if you believe it, even if you're a physics graduate
> student. Second,
> it's just a model and physicists everywhere are trying to invent a better
> one. Third,
> it's a model that has been tested and found to work.
I do believe it, at least as a spatial representation of what matter
does or is at that level of microcosm. My personal conjecture is that
there is a progression from literal architecture to figurative
phenomenology the further you go into the microcosmic scale, but
that's beside the point. I was pointing quarks out as an example of
how physics is ok with a 1=3 logic. I'm not anti science, and I'm
certainly not pro religion, but I am anti Manicheanism. They both have
validity and they both overlook a significant portion of the cosmos.
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Everything List" group.
To post to this group, send email to email@example.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
For more options, visit this group at