On May 7, 4:28 pm, meekerdb <[email protected]> wrote: > On 5/7/2012 1:24 PM, Craig Weinberg wrote: > > > On May 7, 3:49 pm, meekerdb<[email protected]> 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. Craig -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected]. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
