Re: quark theory response

Jerry Wayne Decker ( )
Tue, 10 Aug 1999 14:01:49 -0700 (PDT)

Hi Ren et al!

I have to agree. I've seen a very blurry image of
what is said to be an atom and I think one of a quark,
and I hear the discussions about quarks and black
holes but I see them as distractions from what is real
and engineerable with our current technology.

In other words, in my opinion, we've got a lot of more
important discoveries to make than things we can't

Kind of the same thing with free energy, zpe/aether
and gravity but there are numerous reports of people
who did stumble on something, so I think by
correlation and some experiments we can pin down
something, even a simple demonstration to prove it.

We haven't sent a space probe into a black hole, nor
as far as I know have we been able to engineer or
physically verify the existence of quarks though there
appears to be something there, but for my money, its
all speculation and pretty much a waste of my
time...sorry, I'm not out to flame anyone or their
interests, just that mine don't extend to some things.

With regard to quarks, Keely said everything broke
down into subsets of three, even atoms and sub atoms
which fits the quark descriptions but heck we can't
even engineer macro anomalies with any degree of
repeatability so I just can't see worrying about black
holes and quarks.

I guess there are little pieces, bigger pieces and
GIANT PIECES...I can only TRY to handle the bigger
pieces with my resources....seeya!


Please respond to
as I am writing from my work email of!
Do You Yahoo!?
Bid and sell for free at