Re: Science and Equations


"George Dishman" <george@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:eidei6$93u$1@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
|
| "Hexenmeister" <Headmaster@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
| news:VWd2h.78610$3x1.40435@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
| >
| > "George Dishman" <george@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
| > news:eibacq$fn$2@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
| > |
| > | "Hexenmeister" <Headmaster@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
| > | news:9Z52h.98672$lT5.96218@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
| > | >
| > | > "Rob" <rloldershaw@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
| > | > news:1162404555.600370.227060@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
| > | > | George Dishman wrote:
| > | > | >
| > | > | > Mass of an electron: 9.1093826 * 10^-28 g
| > | > | >
| > | > | > The upper limit for the mass of a neutrino is
| > | > | > around 10^-33 g so what is the significance
| > | > | > of your version of the Planck mass if there
| > | > | > are mundane objects far less massive?
| > | > |
| > | > |
| > | > | I am sorry, but the reasoning of your argument here seems a bit
| > daft.
| > | >
| > | >
| > | > |
| > | > | I would ask objective, scientifically-minded readers to check out
| > the
| > | > | two versions for the Planck scale, which are posted above, and
draw
| > | > | your own conclusions.
| > | > |
| > | >
| > | > Dishman is as daft as they come.
| > | > Nobody can measure a gram to 35 decimal places.
| > |
| > | Clueless as always, the value above only has 8 significant
| > | digits which is the measurement accuracy required.
| > |
| > | George
| >
| > 10^-28 is lot of decimal places, dumb***.
|
| It's even more if you measure

There is no "if", I said you can't measure it, shithead.
Nobody can measure a gram to 35 decimal places.
Dishman is as FUCKING STUPID as they come.





.

Quantcast