How many basic forces in nature are there? 3 or 4??

It has to be one or the other, but which one, 3 or 4?

Unless of course you people don't know, then nevermind.

My information sez there are only 3..and 4 is wrong.

--
The Starmaker -- To question the unquestionable, ask the unaskable,
to think the unthinkable, mention the unmentionable, say the unsayable, and challenge
the unchallengeable.

On 11/9/2021 4:53 PM, The Starmaker wrote:
> How many basic forces in nature are there? 3 or 4??
>
> It has to be one or the other, but which one, 3 or 4?
>
> Unless of course you people don't know, then nevermind.
>
> My information sez there are only 3..and 4 is wrong.
>
>
>
>

2 I think.

--
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus

In sci.physics The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
> How many basic forces in nature are there? 3 or 4??

Google "How many basic forces in nature are there"

About 727,000,000 results

Top hit: https://www.space.com/four-fundamental-forces.html

> It has to be one or the other, but which one, 3 or 4?
>
> Unless of course you people don't know, then nevermind.
>
> My information sez there are only 3..and 4 is wrong.
Your information is usually utter babbling nonsense.

Jim Pennino wrote:
>
> In sci.physics The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
> > How many basic forces in nature are there? 3 or 4??
>
> Google "How many basic forces in nature are there"
>
> About 727,000,000 results

I didn't ask how many times does the question pop up on Google...

>
> Top hit: https://www.space.com/four-fundamental-forces.html
>
> > It has to be one or the other, but which one, 3 or 4?
> >
> > Unless of course you people don't know, then nevermind.
> >
> > My information sez there are only 3..and 4 is wrong.
>
> Your information is usually utter babbling nonsense.

First you had to 'look it up on Google', meaning you didn't know the
answer

then you didn't answer 1,2,3,4,5...which means you doubbally don't know
the answer..

your response is a complete waste especially i wrote: "don't know, then
never mind."

but you still embarrassed yourself.

--
The Starmaker -- To question the unquestionable, ask the unaskable,
to think the unthinkable, mention the unmentionable, say the unsayable,
and challenge
the unchallengeable.

Am 09.11.2021 um 23:53 schrieb The Starmaker:
> How many basic forces in nature are there? 3 or 4??
>
> It has to be one or the other, but which one, 3 or 4?
>
> Unless of course you people don't know, then nevermind.
>
> My information sez there are only 3..and 4 is wrong.
>
I don't know, if 'basic force' is actually a principle of nature.

What we call 'force' is usually the assumed reason for the observed
behaviour of structures we call 'things'.

Most likely these things evolve by own rules into their future state and
do not care about what we think.

TH

In sci.physics The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
> Jim Pennino wrote:
>>
>> In sci.physics The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>> > How many basic forces in nature are there? 3 or 4??
>>
>> Google "How many basic forces in nature are there"
>>
>> About 727,000,000 results
>
> I didn't ask how many times does the question pop up on Google...

Google doesn't index questions, it indexes answers.

Which means there are about 727,000,000 ANSWERS to your question.

>>
>> Top hit: https://www.space.com/four-fundamental-forces.html
>>
>> > It has to be one or the other, but which one, 3 or 4?
>> >
>> > Unless of course you people don't know, then nevermind.
>> >
>> > My information sez there are only 3..and 4 is wrong.
>>
>> Your information is usually utter babbling nonsense.
>
>
> First you had to 'look it up on Google', meaning you didn't know the
> answer

The google look up was an object lesson for YOU to show YOU how trivial
it is to find the answer to YOUR question.

> then you didn't answer 1,2,3,4,5...which means you doubbally don't know
> the answer..
>
>
> your response is a complete waste especially i wrote: "don't know, then
> never mind."
>
> but you still embarrassed yourself.

It is you that has embarrassed yourself by not even knowing what it
is that google does.

Jim Pennino wrote:
>
> In sci.physics The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
> > Jim Pennino wrote:
> >>
> >> In sci.physics The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
> >> > How many basic forces in nature are there? 3 or 4??
> >>
> >> Google "How many basic forces in nature are there"
> >>
> >> About 727,000,000 results
> >
> > I didn't ask how many times does the question pop up on Google...
>
> Google doesn't index questions, it indexes answers.
>
> Which means there are about 727,000,000 ANSWERS to your question.
>
> >>
> >> Top hit: https://www.space.com/four-fundamental-forces.html
> >>
> >> > It has to be one or the other, but which one, 3 or 4?
> >> >
> >> > Unless of course you people don't know, then nevermind.
> >> >
> >> > My information sez there are only 3..and 4 is wrong.
> >>
> >> Your information is usually utter babbling nonsense.
> >
> >
> > First you had to 'look it up on Google', meaning you didn't know the
> > answer
>
> The google look up was an object lesson for YOU to show YOU how trivial
> it is to find the answer to YOUR question.
>
> > then you didn't answer 1,2,3,4,5...which means you doubbally don't know
> > the answer..
> >
> >
> > your response is a complete waste especially i wrote: "don't know, then
> > never mind."
> >
> > but you still embarrassed yourself.
>
> It is you that has embarrassed yourself by not even knowing what it
> is that google does.

MY GOSH, you're useless!

Google admits they don't have the answers. Google admits they don't know the truth.

If you do a simple search for Why Is The Sky Blue?

First Google will try to figure out what is your question you are asking before you even finish asking the question!

Then they have their own:

People also ask :

question

question

question

question

and the answers that pop up can be relevant, irrelevant, accurate, in accurate, true or untrue...

it doesn't matter to Google.

They still make money with MISINFORMATION!

But, the truth is...You don't know how many basic forces in nature are there.

and still we haven't got a number from you. Why? You doubbally doubbally don't know.

In other words, 727,000,000 answers on Google is...wrong!

But what does Google care?

You're just a ...lemming.

(but i love the game)

--
The Starmaker -- To question the unquestionable, ask the unaskable,
to think the unthinkable, mention the unmentionable, say the unsayable, and challenge
the unchallengeable.

The Starmaker wrote:
>
> How many basic forces in nature are there? 3 or 4??
>
> It has to be one or the other, but which one, 3 or 4?
>
> Unless of course you people don't know, then nevermind.
>
> My information sez there are only 3..and 4 is wrong.

Now, let me elaborate on 'my sources'..

it comes from a Regents Professor.

a Regents Professor
The title Regents Professor serves as recognition of the highest academic merit and is awarded to
faculty members who have made a unique contribution to the quality of the University through distinguished
accomplishments in teaching scholarship, research or creative work.

also, he is a theoretical physicist and cosmologist.

And he sez, "In actual fact, there are only three forces."

Now, I don't give a fuck what Google says or what 727,000,000 others think...

I'm only interested in facts...not lemming science.

Now, I repeat...those of yous who believe that there are only four basic forces in nature are WRONG!

How many basic forces in nature are there? Do I hear a 3 from any of yous????

A factual 3? In actual fact, 3?

--
The Starmaker -- To question the unquestionable, ask the unaskable,
to think the unthinkable, mention the unmentionable, say the unsayable, and challenge
the unchallengeable.

On 11/10/2021 12:18 PM, The Starmaker wrote:
> MY GOSH, you're useless!

"Jim Pennino" can indeed be replaced with a nauseating clump of infected
_pustulence_ , and absolutely _nothing_ in this world will suffer the
slightest change from what it was before.

This shit is some _nonentity_.

--
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus

On 11/10/2021 12:54 PM, The Starmaker wrote:
> And he sez, "In actual fact, there are only three forces."

That's information out of 1960s (after Abdusalam unified two of the four
forces). I think since then they've unified them down to two.

Point is, gravity by all probability is some much higher order
approximations in one of the other three forces which always can be
dropped for its insignificance except under just one condition! The
condition that the amount of matter involved be fantastically large.
Only then this previously dropped term becomes significant to consider.

--
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus

Clutterfreak wrote:
>
> On 11/10/2021 12:54 PM, The Starmaker wrote:
> > And he sez, "In actual fact, there are only three forces."
>
> That's information out of 1960s (after Abdusalam unified two of the four
> forces). I think since then they've unified them down to two.

My information is dated: September , 2021

>
> Point is, gravity by all probability is some much higher order
> approximations in one of the other three forces which always can be
> dropped for its insignificance except under just one condition! The
> condition that the amount of matter involved be fantastically large.
> Only then this previously dropped term becomes significant to consider.
>
> --
> This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
> https://www.avast.com/antivirus

--
The Starmaker -- To question the unquestionable, ask the unaskable,
to think the unthinkable, mention the unmentionable, say the unsayable,
and challenge
the unchallengeable.

In sci.physics The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
> Jim Pennino wrote:
>>
>> In sci.physics The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>> > Jim Pennino wrote:
>> >>
>> >> In sci.physics The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>> >> > How many basic forces in nature are there? 3 or 4??
>> >>
>> >> Google "How many basic forces in nature are there"
>> >>
>> >> About 727,000,000 results
>> >
>> > I didn't ask how many times does the question pop up on Google...
>>
>> Google doesn't index questions, it indexes answers.
>>
>> Which means there are about 727,000,000 ANSWERS to your question.
>>
>> >>
>> >> Top hit: https://www.space.com/four-fundamental-forces.html
>> >>
>> >> > It has to be one or the other, but which one, 3 or 4?
>> >> >
>> >> > Unless of course you people don't know, then nevermind.
>> >> >
>> >> > My information sez there are only 3..and 4 is wrong.
>> >>
>> >> Your information is usually utter babbling nonsense.
>> >
>> >
>> > First you had to 'look it up on Google', meaning you didn't know the
>> > answer
>>
>> The google look up was an object lesson for YOU to show YOU how trivial
>> it is to find the answer to YOUR question.
>>
>> > then you didn't answer 1,2,3,4,5...which means you doubbally don't know
>> > the answer..
>> >
>> >
>> > your response is a complete waste especially i wrote: "don't know, then
>> > never mind."
>> >
>> > but you still embarrassed yourself.
>>
>> It is you that has embarrassed yourself by not even knowing what it
>> is that google does.
>
>
>
> MY GOSH, you're useless!
>
> Google admits they don't have the answers. Google admits they don't know the truth.

No shit?

This is news to you?

Google is nothing more than an indexing service of information it finds
on web sites.

It is up to the end user to decide if the information found is correct
or even relevant to the question.

> If you do a simple search for Why Is The Sky Blue?

Google Why Is The Sky Blue

First response: a web page from the Royal Museums Greenwich which goes
into great detail about why the Earth's sky is blue.

<snip ignorant moron babble>

In sci.physics The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
> The Starmaker wrote:
>>
>> How many basic forces in nature are there? 3 or 4??
>>
>> It has to be one or the other, but which one, 3 or 4?
>>
>> Unless of course you people don't know, then nevermind.
>>
>> My information sez there are only 3..and 4 is wrong.
>
>
>
> Now, let me elaborate on 'my sources'..
>
> it comes from a Regents Professor.

That would be a source, not sources.

As this one source is at odds with thousands upon thousands of experts
in the field, I would have to come to the conclusion that your one
source is suspect or you have no clue what this one source actually
says.

<snip moron babble>

Jim Pennino wrote:
>
> In sci.physics The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
> > Jim Pennino wrote:
> >>
> >> In sci.physics The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
> >> > Jim Pennino wrote:
> >> >>
> >> >> In sci.physics The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
> >> >> > How many basic forces in nature are there? 3 or 4??
> >> >>
> >> >> Google "How many basic forces in nature are there"
> >> >>
> >> >> About 727,000,000 results
> >> >
> >> > I didn't ask how many times does the question pop up on Google...
> >>
> >> Google doesn't index questions, it indexes answers.
> >>
> >> Which means there are about 727,000,000 ANSWERS to your question.
> >>
> >> >>
> >> >> Top hit: https://www.space.com/four-fundamental-forces.html
> >> >>
> >> >> > It has to be one or the other, but which one, 3 or 4?
> >> >> >
> >> >> > Unless of course you people don't know, then nevermind.
> >> >> >
> >> >> > My information sez there are only 3..and 4 is wrong.
> >> >>
> >> >> Your information is usually utter babbling nonsense.
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > First you had to 'look it up on Google', meaning you didn't know the
> >> > answer
> >>
> >> The google look up was an object lesson for YOU to show YOU how trivial
> >> it is to find the answer to YOUR question.
> >>
> >> > then you didn't answer 1,2,3,4,5...which means you doubbally don't know
> >> > the answer..
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > your response is a complete waste especially i wrote: "don't know, then
> >> > never mind."
> >> >
> >> > but you still embarrassed yourself.
> >>
> >> It is you that has embarrassed yourself by not even knowing what it
> >> is that google does.
> >
> >
> >
> > MY GOSH, you're useless!
> >
> > Google admits they don't have the answers. Google admits they don't know the truth.
>
> No shit?
>
> This is news to you?
>
> Google is nothing more than an indexing service of information it finds
> on web sites.
>
> It is up to the end user to decide if the information found is correct
> or even relevant to the question.
>
> > If you do a simple search for Why Is The Sky Blue?
>
> Google Why Is The Sky Blue
>
> First response: a web page from the Royal Museums Greenwich which goes
> into great detail about why the Earth's sky is blue.
>
> <snip ignorant moron babble>

Lets for example you are looking for the nearest Martian. Do a Google search for

Where is the nearest Martian?

Google might have a little trouble...

if you looking for the nearest Venusian from planet Venus..

Where is the nearest Venusian?

Google might have a little trouble...

I get Venus Massage Parlor.

--
The Starmaker -- To question the unquestionable, ask the unaskable,
to think the unthinkable, mention the unmentionable, say the unsayable, and challenge
the unchallengeable.

Jim Pennino wrote:
>
> In sci.physics The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
> > The Starmaker wrote:
> >>
> >> How many basic forces in nature are there? 3 or 4??
> >>
> >> It has to be one or the other, but which one, 3 or 4?
> >>
> >> Unless of course you people don't know, then nevermind.
> >>
> >> My information sez there are only 3..and 4 is wrong.
> >
> >
> >
> > Now, let me elaborate on 'my sources'..
> >
> > it comes from a Regents Professor.
>
> That would be a source, not sources.
>
> As this one source is at odds with thousands upon thousands of experts
> in the field,

You don't seem to know how many Regents Professor theoretical physicist and cosmologist exist.

The most one university have is...one.

Certaintly not thousands and thousands...

How much is "thousands upon thousands"??? Is dat like one on top of each other??

Is "upon"...math? How much is 2 plus 2 on top of two????

13
13
13
13
13
13
13
_____
28

Is that how your "upon" math works? 7 x 13 = 28

3 x 7 = 21, 1 x 7 = 7...7 upon 21 = 28

You sound like you had the same math teacher I had!

>I would have to come to the conclusion that your one
> source is suspect or you have no clue what this one source actually
> says.
>
> <snip moron babble>

--
The Starmaker -- To question the unquestionable, ask the unaskable,
to think the unthinkable, mention the unmentionable, say the unsayable, and challenge
the unchallengeable.

In sci.physics The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> wrote:

<snip old crap>

> Lets for example you are looking for the nearest Martian. Do a Google search for
>
> Where is the nearest Martian?
>
> Google might have a little trouble...

Since google is nothing more than an index of phrases found in web pages
and it is highly unlikely that anyone on the planet has a web page about
the nearest Martian, anyone with the slightest bit of intelligence or
common sense would not expect much of anything for such a search.

Likewise for other idiotic phrases like "five headed dog" or
"intelligent usenet posts by starmaker".

<snip remaining idiotic drivel?

In sci.physics The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
> Jim Pennino wrote:
>>
>> In sci.physics The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>> > The Starmaker wrote:
>> >>
>> >> How many basic forces in nature are there? 3 or 4??
>> >>
>> >> It has to be one or the other, but which one, 3 or 4?
>> >>
>> >> Unless of course you people don't know, then nevermind.
>> >>
>> >> My information sez there are only 3..and 4 is wrong.
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > Now, let me elaborate on 'my sources'..
>> >
>> > it comes from a Regents Professor.
>>
>> That would be a source, not sources.
>>
>> As this one source is at odds with thousands upon thousands of experts
>> in the field,
>
>
> You don't seem to know how many Regents Professor theoretical physicist and cosmologist exist.

What difference does it make to the point presented, i.e. YOU have one
source which is, according to you, at odds with the thousands upon
thousands of other experts in the field.

<snip babbling idiocy>

Jim Pennino wrote:
>
> In sci.physics The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>
> <snip old crap>
>
> > Lets for example you are looking for the nearest Martian. Do a Google search for
> >
> > Where is the nearest Martian?
> >
> > Google might have a little trouble...
>
> Since google is nothing more than an index of phrases found in web pages
> and it is highly unlikely that anyone on the planet has a web page about
> the nearest Martian, anyone with the slightest bit of intelligence or
> common sense would not expect much of anything for such a search.
>
> Likewise for other idiotic phrases like "five headed dog" or
> "intelligent usenet posts by starmaker".
>
> <snip remaining idiotic drivel?

Are you saying there are no Martians?

--
The Starmaker -- To question the unquestionable, ask the unaskable,
to think the unthinkable, mention the unmentionable, say the unsayable,
and challenge
the unchallengeable.

Jim Pennino wrote:
>
> In sci.physics The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>
> <snip old crap>
>
> > Lets for example you are looking for the nearest Martian. Do a Google search for
> >
> > Where is the nearest Martian?
> >
> > Google might have a little trouble...
>
> Since google is nothing more than an index of phrases found in web pages
> and it is highly unlikely that anyone on the planet has a web page about
> the nearest Martian, anyone with the slightest bit of intelligence or
> common sense would not expect much of anything for such a search.

Don't forget the 727,000,000, that includes you and many others here...

Hundreds of thousands upon hundreds of thousands.

--
The Starmaker -- To question the unquestionable, ask the unaskable,
to think the unthinkable, mention the unmentionable, say the unsayable,
and challenge
the unchallengeable.

Jim Pennino <jimp@gonzo.specsol.net> wrote:
> In sci.physics The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>> The Starmaker wrote:
>>>
>>> How many basic forces in nature are there? 3 or 4??
>>>
>>> It has to be one or the other, but which one, 3 or 4?
>>>
>>> Unless of course you people don't know, then nevermind.
>>>
>>> My information sez there are only 3..and 4 is wrong.
>>
>>
>>
>> Now, let me elaborate on 'my sources'..
>>
>> it comes from a Regents Professor.
>
> That would be a source, not sources.
>
> As this one source is at odds with thousands upon thousands of experts
> in the field, I would have to come to the conclusion that your one
> source is suspect or you have no clue what this one source actually
> says.
>
> <snip moron babble>
>
>
>

Everybody knows that it’s a controversy if you can find a source on the
internet that says it’s not true.

Look at all these controversial issues:

We landed on the Moon.

The earth isn’t flat.

Dinosaurs existed over a hundred million years ago, not just within the
last 6600 years.

Aliens did not build the Pyramids.

China is an independent nation, not a secret consortium of the Illuminati.

--
Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables

On Thursday, 11 November 2021 at 14:12:00 UTC+1, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
> Jim Pennino <ji...@gonzo.specsol.net> wrote:
> > In sci.physics The Starmaker <star...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
> >> The Starmaker wrote:
> >>>
> >>> How many basic forces in nature are there? 3 or 4??
> >>>
> >>> It has to be one or the other, but which one, 3 or 4?
> >>>
> >>> Unless of course you people don't know, then nevermind.
> >>>
> >>> My information sez there are only 3..and 4 is wrong.
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> Now, let me elaborate on 'my sources'..
> >>
> >> it comes from a Regents Professor.
> >
> > That would be a source, not sources.
> >
> > As this one source is at odds with thousands upon thousands of experts
> > in the field, I would have to come to the conclusion that your one
> > source is suspect or you have no clue what this one source actually
> > says.
> >
> > <snip moron babble>
> >
> >
> >
> Everybody knows that it’s a controversy if you can find a source on the
> internet that says it’s not true.
>
> Look at all these controversial issues:
>
> We landed on the Moon.
>
> The earth isn’t flat.
>
> Dinosaurs existed over a hundred million years ago, not just within the
> last 6600 years.
>
> Aliens did not build the Pyramids.
>
> China is an independent nation, not a secret consortium of the Illuminati..

Even 2000 years old Euclidean mathematics has found
some morons denying it.

In sci.physics The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
> Jim Pennino wrote:
>>
>> In sci.physics The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>>
>> <snip old crap>
>>
>> > Lets for example you are looking for the nearest Martian. Do a Google search for
>> >
>> > Where is the nearest Martian?
>> >
>> > Google might have a little trouble...
>>
>> Since google is nothing more than an index of phrases found in web pages
>> and it is highly unlikely that anyone on the planet has a web page about
>> the nearest Martian, anyone with the slightest bit of intelligence or
>> common sense would not expect much of anything for such a search.
>
> Don't forget the 727,000,000, that includes you and many others here...

That would be 727,000,000 web pages about the sky being blue, which has
nothing to do with me or anyone else here.

> Hundreds of thousands upon hundreds of thousands.

That would be thousands of subject matter experts that disagree with what
you said your one source said.

You seem to have major cognitive issues.

In sci.physics The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
> Jim Pennino wrote:
>>
>> In sci.physics The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>>
>> <snip old crap>
>>
>> > Lets for example you are looking for the nearest Martian. Do a Google search for
>> >
>> > Where is the nearest Martian?
>> >
>> > Google might have a little trouble...
>>
>> Since google is nothing more than an index of phrases found in web pages
>> and it is highly unlikely that anyone on the planet has a web page about
>> the nearest Martian, anyone with the slightest bit of intelligence or
>> common sense would not expect much of anything for such a search.
>>
>> Likewise for other idiotic phrases like "five headed dog" or
>> "intelligent usenet posts by starmaker".
>>
>> <snip remaining idiotic drivel?
>
>
> Are you saying there are no Martians?
What I said was "it is highly unlikely that anyone on the planet has a
web page about the nearest Martian", so there would be nothing for
google to index.

On 11/11/2021 8:45 AM, Jim Pennino wrote:
> In sci.physics The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>> Jim Pennino wrote:
>>>
>>> In sci.physics The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> <snip old crap>
>>>
>>>> Lets for example you are looking for the nearest Martian. Do a Google search for
>>>>
>>>> Where is the nearest Martian?
>>>>
>>>> Google might have a little trouble...
>>>
>>> Since google is nothing more than an index of phrases found in web pages
>>> and it is highly unlikely that anyone on the planet has a web page about
>>> the nearest Martian, anyone with the slightest bit of intelligence or
>>> common sense would not expect much of anything for such a search.
>>>
>>> Likewise for other idiotic phrases like "five headed dog" or
>>> "intelligent usenet posts by starmaker".
>>>
>>> <snip remaining idiotic drivel?
>>
>>
>> Are you saying there are no Martians?
>
> What I said was "it is highly unlikely that anyone on the planet has a
> web page about the nearest Martian", so there would be nothing for
> google to index.
>

google "nearest martian" 313,000,000 hits

Bear in mind that google prefers to yield information even when the
information merely superficially resembles the query.

In sci.physics whodat <whodaat@void.nowgre.com> wrote:
> On 11/11/2021 8:45 AM, Jim Pennino wrote:
>> In sci.physics The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>>> Jim Pennino wrote:
>>>>
>>>> In sci.physics The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> <snip old crap>
>>>>
>>>>> Lets for example you are looking for the nearest Martian. Do a Google search for
>>>>>
>>>>> Where is the nearest Martian?
>>>>>
>>>>> Google might have a little trouble...
>>>>
>>>> Since google is nothing more than an index of phrases found in web pages
>>>> and it is highly unlikely that anyone on the planet has a web page about
>>>> the nearest Martian, anyone with the slightest bit of intelligence or
>>>> common sense would not expect much of anything for such a search.
>>>>
>>>> Likewise for other idiotic phrases like "five headed dog" or
>>>> "intelligent usenet posts by starmaker".
>>>>
>>>> <snip remaining idiotic drivel?
>>>
>>>
>>> Are you saying there are no Martians?
>>
>> What I said was "it is highly unlikely that anyone on the planet has a
>> web page about the nearest Martian", so there would be nothing for
>> google to index.
>>
>
> google "nearest martian" 313,000,000 hits
>
> Bear in mind that google prefers to yield information even when the
> information merely superficially resembles the query.

Yes, and a quick look shows that the vast majority of the links returned
are about the relative orbital positions of Earth and Mars with a few
links about businesses with Martian in their name.

This validates my earlier statements, i.e.:

1. The end user needs to validate that the links returned are actually
relevant to the question as written.

2. Nobody has a web site talking about Martians.