causation (Introduction)

by GateKeeper , Friday, June 13, 2014, 18:13 (3604 days ago) @ David Turell


> > GK: No, I did not say that about anti matter. What I said is that based on how much we don't know it surprises me that scientist think that a math formula that predicts absolute uniformity is the way it should be.
> 
> Since it is a basic tenet of the standard model, it seems all knowledgeable scientists accept the lack of antimatter as something that should be explained and it isn't.
> 
> 
> > GK:Scientist? Trust and verify. Trust and verify. Some of the meanest people I know were considered very smart. Boy were they supervised when I showed I up. 
> > 
> > no, I am not sure. I am as sure as you and dwh. I lay out what we have. Tats where I start.
> 
> I am confused by the way you use the word 'supervised'. And you have explained that you never wonder why things are the way they are.-
I said that 2 post ago. That finding what happened is fine. saying it shouldn't have happened is another matter. I also said that thinking it shouldn't have happened is silly. They are two different line of thoughts.-"why it happened". I laid out what I know and then drew a conclusion off of that. There is a limited number of "if". I am not giving what i think. You guys are so close. If you guys close this gap by the same method I did then I feel better.-"supervised". My pet peeve is intellectual bullying. People taking advantage of what others don't know. When I show up I begin by using what the person knows to help them see. It's a bully free zone. -I am sorry for being confusing. I really don't even know why I write so bad. I am so bad, I don't know the rules I am breaking ... :)