The Flat Earth Society

Flat Earth Discussion Boards => Flat Earth General => Topic started by: Timeisup on June 29, 2020, 02:16:00 AM

Title: Pretending Subquarks actually exist!
Post by: Timeisup on June 29, 2020, 02:16:00 AM
Several users on this forum, one in particular, Sandokhan, uses a great amount of ‘data’ that masquerades as science. Rather than trying to deal with all the various terms he miss uses invents, for this thread we pick just one term he constantly misuses: subquarks.

The person in question uses this term over and over in his posts as though these things are actually real.

So what is a subquark? Who and where were they discovered?

Firstly sudquarks, or preons have NEVER been discovered. The only place they could have been discovered is either at CERN or some other large scale particle accelerator. To date no discovery of a subquark has ever been made.

Preons or subqurks were just and are just hypothetical and have never been detected by any experiment and remain just an idea that became popular 30 years ago and has since fallen out of favour among those who work in the field of exotic sub atomic particles. Do a search on subquarks and most of the papers on the subject will have been produced in the 1980s. CERN and what has been discovered about the sub atomic world science has put paid to the idea of a subquark existing.

CERN regularly puts out press releases like this one when new particles may have been discovered:

https://home.cern/news/news/physics/lhcb-experiment-discovers-two-perhaps-three-new-particles

https://home.cern/news/news/accelerators/discovery-new-class-particles-lhc

CERN or any other high energy facility has never discovered subquarks, they are not, as far as we currently know real, anyone who imagines they are real are wrong as no hard evidence currently exists in that no experiment ever carried out points to their existance.

Why people like Sandokhan constantly use them in his elaborate pseudoscience posts as though they are real just illustrates how far of the mark and pseudoscientific all his posts are.

Let’s be clear subquarks, as far as is know do NOT exist, have never been detected by any experiment ever carried out. Using them as though they exist in any argument at a stroke renders that argument null and void.

Wikipedia gives a list of all known and theorised particles
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_particles

Preons were suggested as subparticles of quarks and leptons, but modern collider experiments have all but ruled out their existence.

Science currently says preons or subquarks do not exist, so why does Sandokhan keep refering to them as though they do?
Title: Re: Pretending Subquarks actually exist!
Post by: Shifter on June 29, 2020, 02:41:38 AM
Science currently says preons or subquarks do not exist, so why does Sandokhan keep refering to them as though they do?

I like how you used the qualifier 'currently'.

So what if 'science' moves on and says they exist what will you say then? Do you do your own thinking or do you just parrot some talking heads?


Title: Re: Pretending Subquarks actually exist!
Post by: rvlvr on June 29, 2020, 03:39:20 AM
So sandokhan has verified their existence?
Title: Re: Pretending Subquarks actually exist!
Post by: Shifter on June 29, 2020, 03:40:42 AM
So sandokhan has verified their existence?

Does something need 'human verification' for it to exist?
Title: Re: Pretending Subquarks actually exist!
Post by: Timeisup on June 29, 2020, 03:43:31 AM
Science currently says preons or subquarks do not exist, so why does Sandokhan keep refering to them as though they do?

I like how you used the qualifier 'currently'.

So what if 'science' moves on and says they exist what will you say then? Do you do your own thinking or do you just parrot some talking heads?

I'm glad you like the use of the word 'currently'.  While recent experiments, which you can read about if you so wish, have pretty much killed the notion that subquarks exist, there is always a small chance with ever-improving technology that something smaller than a quark exists. Whether that will be a subquark or some string-like entity who can say.

All that I'm saying is that if you are going to invoke the use of science in an argument then lets stick to the known facts, and they currently say that subquarks have never been detected and what has been detected pretty much rule out their existence.

Like many scientific subjects, this is one where having 'an opinion' or a 'belief' is an utter waste of time as the subatomic world is nothing which we can experience or have knowledge about other than through the work of scientists who work in that field.
Title: Re: Pretending Subquarks actually exist!
Post by: Timeisup on June 29, 2020, 03:44:08 AM
So sandokhan has verified their existence?

That would be an impossibility.
Title: Re: Pretending Subquarks actually exist!
Post by: Timeisup on June 29, 2020, 03:44:47 AM
So sandokhan has verified their existence?

Does something need 'human verification' for it to exist?

What do you suggest as an alternative?
Title: Re: Pretending Subquarks actually exist!
Post by: rvlvr on June 29, 2020, 03:44:51 AM
So sandokhan has verified their existence?

Does something need 'human verification' for it to exist?
No, but I understood here we'd need them to be real for sandokhan to use them in whatever capacity it is he is using them in?
Title: Re: Pretending Subquarks actually exist!
Post by: Timeisup on June 29, 2020, 03:49:50 AM
So sandokhan has verified their existence?

Does something need 'human verification' for it to exist?
No, but I understood here we'd need them to be real for Sandakan to use them in whatever capacity it is he is using them in?

That's a fact that renders all his arguments where he invokes their existence null and void. Just as the existence of ancient texts such as the Doomsday Book or The Book Of Kells, to name but two, renders all his rewriting of European history nothing more than an absurd fiction. The man has an extensive track record of making things up. The use of subquarks and their imagined existence is just one of many examples.
Title: Re: Pretending Subquarks actually exist!
Post by: Solarwind on June 29, 2020, 03:53:09 AM
This might be a 'noob' question but as I understand it (and I might be wrong) this forum is primarily about discussing the evidence for and against FE theory compared to RE.  Evidence that is visually and immediately available to us observe in the world around us.

If that is true then where does the question of whether 'subquarks' or any other obscure aspects of particle or sub particle physics come into it?  Most people I know find it hard to explain what an atom is made of let alone a subquark.  More over many FEers seem to question the existence of atoms on the grounds of we cannot see them with our own eyes.  Yet here we are talking about the particles which make up the particles that atoms are made of!

It all sounds very clever but what does it actually mean and is any of it even relevant?
Title: Re: Pretending Subquarks actually exist!
Post by: sandokhan on June 29, 2020, 03:57:12 AM
What is this?

Of course subquarks and the fractional charges of electrons (preons) were discovered.

The correct quantum mechanical theory tells us everything we want about the universe.
Title: Re: Pretending Subquarks actually exist!
Post by: Timeisup on June 29, 2020, 04:00:27 AM
What is this?

Of course subquarks and the fractional charges of electrons (preons) were discovered.

The correct quantum mechanical theory tells us everything we want about the universe.

You think?  OK

Provide the date, the personnel who were involved, a link to the paper they produced, and the particle accelerator where this discovery was made.
Title: Re: Pretending Subquarks actually exist!
Post by: Timeisup on June 29, 2020, 04:02:20 AM
What is this?

Of course subquarks and the fractional charges of electrons (preons) were discovered.

The correct quantum mechanical theory tells us everything we want about the universe.

PS.
According to the scientists at CERN, subquarks and the argument for their existence was pretty much squashed out by many of the experiments they carried out.
Title: Re: Pretending Subquarks actually exist!
Post by: Timeisup on June 29, 2020, 04:07:59 AM
This might be a 'noob' question but as I understand it (and I might be wrong) this forum is primarily about discussing the evidence for and against FE theory compared to RE.  Evidence that is visually and immediately available to us observe in the world around us.

If that is true then where does the question of whether 'subquarks' or any other obscure aspects of particle or sub particle physics come into it?  Most people I know find it hard to explain what an atom is made of let alone a subquark.  More over many FEers seem to question the existence of atoms on the grounds of we cannot see them with our own eyes.  Yet here we are talking about the particles which make up the particles that atoms are made of!

It all sounds very clever but what does it actually mean and is any of it even relevant?

I know it sounds rather out the park, but Sandokhan tends to use many non-existent terms in his arguments as though they are real, subquarks just happens to be one of them.

It's not meant to sound clever it's intended to drill down to what is factual and what is not. Trying to argue with Sandokhan on wider issues is pretty much pointless, you only have to look at the pseudoscientific cut and paste smokescreens he puts up. Its possibly easier to tackle him on just one of the things he continually refers to in his wild arguments, subquarks is just one of them.
Title: Re: Pretending Subquarks actually exist!
Post by: rabinoz on June 29, 2020, 04:08:39 AM
It all sounds very clever but what does it actually mean and is any of it even relevant?
It's a fair question yet If you look at the one who raises subquarks, preons etc, is Sandokhan.
Somehow he comes up with his aether theory of "gravity" that he claims can only work on a flat Earth :o!

Work that one out!
Title: Re: Pretending Subquarks actually exist!
Post by: sandokhan on June 29, 2020, 04:13:18 AM
Is this supposed to be a joke?

Preons were discovered decades ago, in 1998 the Nobel prize was awarded for their discovery.

Subquarks were discovered at Fermilab in 1996.

Subquarks must exist as proven by knot theory.

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg1278981#msg1278981

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg2256867#msg2256867

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg2257440#msg2257440

Title: Re: Pretending Subquarks actually exist!
Post by: sandokhan on June 29, 2020, 04:14:48 AM
https://www.nobelprize.org/prizes/physics/1998/press-release/
Title: Re: Pretending Subquarks actually exist!
Post by: Timeisup on June 29, 2020, 04:18:49 AM
It all sounds very clever but what does it actually mean and is any of it even relevant?
It's a fair question yet If you look at the one who raises subquarks, preons etc, is Sandokhan.
Somehow he comes up with his aether theory of "gravity" that he claims can only work on a flat Earth :o!

Work that one out!

Not really.

If he is basing his argument on a non-existent entity then his argument as a result falls flat.  There is no doubt about it subquarks, however, you would like to twist the facts have never ever been detected. Sticking to facts, experiments carried out at CERN tend to lead to the conclusion that they dont exist. Remember the whole idea for their existence emerged in the 1980s before the CERN experiments ruled them out.

Its just one of the many things having an opinion matters, not a jot. The people who work in that sub-atomic field on a day to day basis say they don't exist, and that is good enough for me. Unless you have a particle accelerator in your back yard that can do more than 14TeV then it should be good enough for you.
Title: Re: Pretending Subquarks actually exist!
Post by: Shifter on June 29, 2020, 04:21:49 AM
Once upon a time people said the atom was the smallest possible thing  ::) ::) ::)

I mean, where do you think the name 'atom' came from!?  ::) ::) ::) Absolute bullshit
Title: Re: Pretending Subquarks actually exist!
Post by: Timeisup on June 29, 2020, 04:22:47 AM
https://www.nobelprize.org/prizes/physics/1998/press-release/

That's really interesting....but the one small problem is it has nothing to do with subquarks.

Try again. If you are going to post a link try next time to post a relevant one that actually addresses the point at hand.
Title: Re: Pretending Subquarks actually exist!
Post by: Timeisup on June 29, 2020, 04:28:07 AM
Once upon a time people said the atom was the smallest possible thing  ::) ::) ::)

I mean, where do you think the name 'atom' came from!?  ::) ::) ::) Absolute bullshit

They did...but it was people who said it! I thought that's what you objected to. People say a lot of things. People say things like they have contact with beings from the future! I know that sounds implausible, but it happens to be true. I think the moral is you need to be careful about what people you listen to.

On this occasion, I prefer to listed to people who work in the filed of the "sub atomic" rather than some Australian who claims to be in contact with and AI from the future.
What would you prefer?


You said:- "Does something need 'human verification' for it to exist?"

What I'm still asking is what is your alternative? as you failed to answer it on your first attempt.
Title: Re: Pretending Subquarks actually exist!
Post by: Timeisup on June 29, 2020, 04:29:28 AM
https://www.nobelprize.org/prizes/physics/1998/press-release/

What do you think of this one?
https://www.nobelprize.org/prizes/physics/2019/summary/

Or this
https://www.nobelprize.org/prizes/physics/2017/summary/

Or even this
https://www.nobelprize.org/prizes/physics/2013/summary/
Title: Re: Pretending Subquarks actually exist!
Post by: Shifter on June 29, 2020, 04:38:59 AM
Once upon a time people said the atom was the smallest possible thing  ::) ::) ::)

I mean, where do you think the name 'atom' came from!?  ::) ::) ::) Absolute bullshit

They did...but it was people who said it! I thought that's what you objected to. People say a lot of things. People say things like they have contact with beings from the future! I know that sounds implausible, but it happens to be true. I think the moral is you need to be careful about what people you listen to.

On this occasion, I prefer to listed to people who work in the filed of the "sub atomic" rather than some Australian who claims to be in contact with and AI from the future.
What would you prefer?


You said:- "Does something need 'human verification' for it to exist?"

What I'm still asking is what is your alternative? as you failed to answer it on your first attempt.

Yes and people today are saying quarks are the smallest thing. You included

As for an alternative to needing human verification for something to exist... LOL

Really? Did the universe exist before humans? I suppose magnetism didn't exist until humans somehow discovered it? Or anything else we have learned...

Things exist or they dont. Humans are irrelevant to the equation. Trust me, the universe could not have a single life form or observer inside it and it would continue as normal.
Title: Re: Pretending Subquarks actually exist!
Post by: rabinoz on June 29, 2020, 04:43:32 AM
It all sounds very clever but what does it actually mean and is any of it even relevant?
It's a fair question yet If you look at the one who raises subquarks, preons etc, is Sandokhan.
Somehow he comes up with his aether theory of "gravity" that he claims can only work on a flat Earth :o!

Work that one out!

Not really.

Its just one of the many things having an opinion matters, not a jot. The people who work in that sub-atomic field on a day to day basis say they don't exist, and that is good enough for me. Unless you have a particle accelerator in your back yard that can do more than 14TeV then it should be good enough for you.
I never gave an opinion on the existence or otherwise of subquarks or preons though the fact that they might not have yet been detected means nothing.

But what I did say was
Quote
the one who raises subquarks, preons etc, is Sandokhan.
Somehow he comes up with his aether theory of "gravity" that he claims can only work on a flat Earth
Title: Re: Pretending Subquarks actually exist!
Post by: Timeisup on June 29, 2020, 04:47:02 AM
Once upon a time people said the atom was the smallest possible thing  ::) ::) ::)

I mean, where do you think the name 'atom' came from!?  ::) ::) ::) Absolute bullshit

They did...but it was people who said it! I thought that's what you objected to. People say a lot of things. People say things like they have contact with beings from the future! I know that sounds implausible, but it happens to be true. I think the moral is you need to be careful about what people you listen to.

On this occasion, I prefer to listed to people who work in the filed of the "sub atomic" rather than some Australian who claims to be in contact with and AI from the future.
What would you prefer?


You said:- "Does something need 'human verification' for it to exist?"

What I'm still asking is what is your alternative? as you failed to answer it on your first attempt.

Yes and people today are saying quarks are the smallest thing. You included

As for an alternative to needing human verification for something to exist... LOL

Really? Did the universe exist before humans? I suppose magnetism didn't exist until humans somehow discovered it? Or anything else we have learned...

Things exist or they dont. Humans are irrelevant to the equation. Trust me, the universe could not have a single life form or observer inside it and it would continue as normal.

I'm saying no such thing. Other people are saying that who are in a position to say that. Its called expert opinion. Do you not believe in expert opinion?

The rest of what you say is irrelevant. What point are you trying to make?

The only reason why you know anything at all is through education that has used knowledge derived from the works of others. Lets be clear if you were reduced to knowing only what you yourself have discovered, you would be in one sorry state.

The 'logic' you are attempting to bring to bear on this question is totally illogical. as are some of the statements you make that have no relevance whatsoever to the question about the existance of subquarks.



Title: Re: Pretending Subquarks actually exist!
Post by: Timeisup on June 29, 2020, 04:48:52 AM
It all sounds very clever but what does it actually mean and is any of it even relevant?
It's a fair question yet If you look at the one who raises subquarks, preons etc, is Sandokhan.
Somehow he comes up with his aether theory of "gravity" that he claims can only work on a flat Earth :o!

Work that one out!

Not really.

Its just one of the many things having an opinion matters, not a jot. The people who work in that sub-atomic field on a day to day basis say they don't exist, and that is good enough for me. Unless you have a particle accelerator in your back yard that can do more than 14TeV then it should be good enough for you.
I never gave an opinion on the existence or otherwise of subquarks or preons though the fact that they might not have yet been detected means nothing.

But what I did say was
Quote
the one who raises subquarks, preons etc, is Sandokhan.
Somehow he comes up with his aether theory of "gravity" that he claims can only work on a flat Earth

I think the fact that they have never been detected is very significant, just as unicorns have never been detected, nor flying pigs. Or do you still think there is a case for airborne pork chops?
Title: Re: Pretending Subquarks actually exist!
Post by: Timeisup on June 29, 2020, 04:56:02 AM
Is this supposed to be a joke?

Preons were discovered decades ago, in 1998 the Nobel prize was awarded for their discovery.

Subquarks were discovered at Fermilab in 1996.

Subquarks must exist as proven by knot theory.

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg1278981#msg1278981

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg2256867#msg2256867

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg2257440#msg2257440

Only in your mind they must exist, whereas in reality they have never been detected.

IF you want to take part in discussions where we can all dream up things, then that's fine, but if you want to stick to only the facts then the fact is Subquarks have never ever been detected and the current thinking among those who work in the world of the subatomic is that recent experiments tend to point to them not existing.

You are in a position to carry on believing in their existence only because you want to and not because of any hard evidence as no such evidence actually exists. All you could come up with are theoretical papers from the 1980s that have all been pretty much dismissed as a blind alley.
Title: Re: Pretending Subquarks actually exist!
Post by: Shifter on June 29, 2020, 05:15:36 AM
Once upon a time people said the atom was the smallest possible thing  ::) ::) ::)

I mean, where do you think the name 'atom' came from!?  ::) ::) ::) Absolute bullshit

They did...but it was people who said it! I thought that's what you objected to. People say a lot of things. People say things like they have contact with beings from the future! I know that sounds implausible, but it happens to be true. I think the moral is you need to be careful about what people you listen to.

On this occasion, I prefer to listed to people who work in the filed of the "sub atomic" rather than some Australian who claims to be in contact with and AI from the future.
What would you prefer?


You said:- "Does something need 'human verification' for it to exist?"

What I'm still asking is what is your alternative? as you failed to answer it on your first attempt.

Yes and people today are saying quarks are the smallest thing. You included

As for an alternative to needing human verification for something to exist... LOL

Really? Did the universe exist before humans? I suppose magnetism didn't exist until humans somehow discovered it? Or anything else we have learned...

Things exist or they dont. Humans are irrelevant to the equation. Trust me, the universe could not have a single life form or observer inside it and it would continue as normal.

I'm saying no such thing. Other people are saying that who are in a position to say that. Its called expert opinion. Do you not believe in expert opinion?

The rest of what you say is irrelevant. What point are you trying to make?

The only reason why you know anything at all is through education that has used knowledge derived from the works of others. Lets be clear if you were reduced to knowing only what you yourself have discovered, you would be in one sorry state.

The 'logic' you are attempting to bring to bear on this question is totally illogical. as are some of the statements you make that have no relevance whatsoever to the question about the existance of subquarks.

Ahem

Quote from: author=Timeisup
You said:- "Does something need 'human verification' for it to exist?"

What I'm still asking is what is your alternative? as you failed to answer it on your first attempt.

What I said was completely relevant to your question asking about what I meant. Just because you dont like the answer doesn't mean you can write your preferred narrative. If you bothered to read what I actually wrote, I'm not advocating an alternative. You are. I'm simply saying, what is, is and humans are irrelevant whether or not we 'discover' them. Quarks didn't exist when we happened upon their existence. They have always been a thing.

Trying to write off my reply as illogical and irrelevant is just you sad way of demonstrating your lack of comprehension and your desire to 'win' at the cost of truth. To hell with that

So if some Nobel prize winning geek proclaims tomorrow that sub quarks have been discovered what will you say? That they exist now? Apparently you believe they dont exist because no one (you trust) has found evidence of them.

Why cant you at least hold a more sensible standpoint of being agnostic on these sorts of things. That way, you dont look stupid when someone presents you with more information. Also a scientist who is not agnostic (not talking the religious sense here) would be sitting too comfortably on his laurels never searching for anything that might upset his existing knowledge.

I wonder what the guy who named the atom would think about an atomic bomb lol. Atom means 'indivisible' afterall. What a dumbarse

Title: Re: Pretending Subquarks actually exist!
Post by: sokarul on June 29, 2020, 06:42:41 AM
https://www.nobelprize.org/prizes/physics/1998/press-release/

That's really interesting....but the one small problem is it has nothing to do with subquarks.

Try again. If you are going to post a link try next time to post a relevant one that actually addresses the point at hand.

You don’t see it? Electrons changing in a strong magnetic field means they always change and cause gravity. Duh.
Title: Re: Pretending Subquarks actually exist!
Post by: Timeisup on June 29, 2020, 06:51:23 AM
Once upon a time people said the atom was the smallest possible thing  ::) ::) ::)

I mean, where do you think the name 'atom' came from!?  ::) ::) ::) Absolute bullshit

They did...but it was people who said it! I thought that's what you objected to. People say a lot of things. People say things like they have contact with beings from the future! I know that sounds implausible, but it happens to be true. I think the moral is you need to be careful about what people you listen to.

On this occasion, I prefer to listed to people who work in the filed of the "sub atomic" rather than some Australian who claims to be in contact with and AI from the future.
What would you prefer?


You said:- "Does something need 'human verification' for it to exist?"

What I'm still asking is what is your alternative? as you failed to answer it on your first attempt.

Yes and people today are saying quarks are the smallest thing. You included

As for an alternative to needing human verification for something to exist... LOL

Really? Did the universe exist before humans? I suppose magnetism didn't exist until humans somehow discovered it? Or anything else we have learned...

Things exist or they dont. Humans are irrelevant to the equation. Trust me, the universe could not have a single life form or observer inside it and it would continue as normal.

I'm saying no such thing. Other people are saying that who are in a position to say that. Its called expert opinion. Do you not believe in expert opinion?

The rest of what you say is irrelevant. What point are you trying to make?

The only reason why you know anything at all is through education that has used knowledge derived from the works of others. Lets be clear if you were reduced to knowing only what you yourself have discovered, you would be in one sorry state.

The 'logic' you are attempting to bring to bear on this question is totally illogical. as are some of the statements you make that have no relevance whatsoever to the question about the existance of subquarks.

Ahem

Quote from: author=Timeisup
You said:- "Does something need 'human verification' for it to exist?"

What I'm still asking is what is your alternative? as you failed to answer it on your first attempt.

What I said was completely relevant to your question asking about what I meant. Just because you dont like the answer doesn't mean you can write your preferred narrative. If you bothered to read what I actually wrote, I'm not advocating an alternative. You are. I'm simply saying, what is, is and humans are irrelevant whether or not we 'discover' them. Quarks didn't exist when we happened upon their existence. They have always been a thing.

Trying to write off my reply as illogical and irrelevant is just you sad way of demonstrating your lack of comprehension and your desire to 'win' at the cost of truth. To hell with that

So if some Nobel prize winning geek proclaims tomorrow that sub quarks have been discovered what will you say? That they exist now? Apparently you believe they dont exist because no one (you trust) has found evidence of them.

Why cant you at least hold a more sensible standpoint of being agnostic on these sorts of things. That way, you dont look stupid when someone presents you with more information. Also a scientist who is not agnostic (not talking the religious sense here) would be sitting too comfortably on his laurels never searching for anything that might upset his existing knowledge.

I wonder what the guy who named the atom would think about an atomic bomb lol. Atom means 'indivisible' afterall. What a dumbarse

If those scientists you happen to call Geeks didn't bother spending their lives discovering how things work then you wouldn't be sitting there typing on your computer that owes its existence to a whole host of scientific discoveries. All the things discovered of course were there, that's why they are called discoveries!

The whole point of discovering things is to establish that they are there and then finding out how they work, and when its the subatomic that's the point at issue, that's why we are now able to build quantum computers, early days granted, and other devices that never existed until we discovered what was actually there, determined how it ticked then applied what we learned.

That's why we know that subquarks don't exist and you are able to type on a device that was brought into existence by us humans learning stuff then applying it. Cool isn't it? the application of knowledge.
Title: Re: Pretending Subquarks actually exist!
Post by: Timeisup on June 29, 2020, 07:00:55 AM
https://www.nobelprize.org/prizes/physics/1998/press-release/

That's really interesting....but the one small problem is it has nothing to do with subquarks.

Try again. If you are going to post a link try next time to post a relevant one that actually addresses the point at hand.

You don’t see it? Electrons changing in a strong magnetic field means they always change and cause gravity. Duh.

Im not sure if the Duh is directed at me but the 1998 Nobel prize has nothing to do with the discovery of subquarks. According to Scientific American:

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/the-1998-nobel-prizes/

According to the Nobel citation, the three researchers are receiving the award "for their discovery of a new form of quantum fluid with fractionally charged excitations." What they found was that electrons acting together in strong magnetic fields can form new types of "particles," with charges that are fractions of electron charges. "The contributions of the three laureates have thus led to yet another breakthrough in our understanding of quantum physics and to the development of new theoretical concepts of significance in many branches of modern physics," says The Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences.

Edwin Hall's initial finding was that when electrons moving along a metal strip are subjected to a magnetic field perpendicular to the plane of the strip, they are deflected toward the one side of the strip where they cause an excess electrical charge to build up. This Hall voltage is proportional to the strength of the magnetic field. The Hall effect can be used to determine the density of charge carriers (negative electrons or positive holes) in conductors and semi-conductors, and has become a standard tool in physics.

The Hall effect could easily be explained by the laws of classical physics until researchers started looking at it in two-dimensions. In 1980, Klaus von Klitzing of the Max-Planck-Institute for Solid State Research conducted experiments on the behavior of electrons confined to two dimensions at the interface between two semiconductors. These experiments took the Hall effect into the strange world of quantum mechanics where the electrons took on the properties of a fluid.
In this "quantum fluid," a plot of Hall resistance versus field strength was no longer linear: it had become a staircase. Klitzing's discovery of the "quantized Hall effect" won him the physics Nobel Prize in 1985; so precise were the steps, or quanta, that his experiment has been used to define the unit of electrical resistance.


Regardless of the 1998 Nobel Prize, Subquarks have never been detected. The fact that Sandokhan keeps refering to them as actually existing is a clear demonstration that he has a tendency to just makes things up to suit his own agenda.

If you or anyone else for that matter thinks they exist its a simple matter of pointing to, when, where and by whom they were discovered, along with a supporting paper.
Title: Re: Pretending Subquarks actually exist!
Post by: JJA on June 29, 2020, 07:09:37 AM
Science currently says preons or subquarks do not exist, so why does Sandokhan keep refering to them as though they do?

I like how you used the qualifier 'currently'.

So what if 'science' moves on and says they exist what will you say then? Do you do your own thinking or do you just parrot some talking heads?

I think he will do what I would do, and what most people would do, express wonder that we learned something new.

You, and most Flat Earthers and Geocentric believers seem to think that everyone else clings to a 'globe belief' like you do.  That's not at all the case.

Personally I would love to see the discovery of subquarks or new particles or the best... an experimental failure of Einstein or Quantum Mechanics.  That would be amazing, it would mean we uncovered new data that could lead to better theories, more knowledge, more technology, a better understanding of the universe. 

You seem to think I fear this for some reason.  If science moves on, I'll move on with it, just like people always do.  We don't think thunder is caused by angry Gods anymore.  We know disease is caused by viruses and bacteria and not evil spirits.

And subquarks is a personal belief of mine too.  PERSONALLY I don't think we have seen the end of physics.  I think there is another level, and one below that, and on and on.  I think the complexity of the universe is infinite.  Do I have any proof?  No.  It's just my faith.  And I'd never tell someone that verified experimental evidence is WRONG because of it.  I won't argue that YOUR ALL WRONG, there are sub-sub-sub-quarks!  It's just a belief. Just faith.

The only people who are denying science, are you guys.  The rest of us embrace change and new facts.  We just like them to be, actual facts.
Title: Re: Pretending Subquarks actually exist!
Post by: Shifter on June 29, 2020, 07:17:24 AM
Science currently says preons or subquarks do not exist, so why does Sandokhan keep refering to them as though they do?

I like how you used the qualifier 'currently'.

So what if 'science' moves on and says they exist what will you say then? Do you do your own thinking or do you just parrot some talking heads?

I think he will do what I would do, and what most people would do, express wonder that we learned something new.

You, and most Flat Earthers and Geocentric believers seem to think that everyone else clings to a 'globe belief' like you do.  That's not at all the case.

Personally I would love to see the discovery of subquarks or new particles or the best... an experimental failure of Einstein or Quantum Mechanics.  That would be amazing, it would mean we uncovered new data that could lead to better theories, more knowledge, more technology, a better understanding of the universe. 

You seem to think I fear this for some reason.  If science moves on, I'll move on with it, just like people always do.  We don't think thunder is caused by angry Gods anymore.  We know disease is caused by viruses and bacteria and not evil spirits.

And subquarks is a personal belief of mine too.  PERSONALLY I don't think we have seen the end of physics.  I think there is another level, and one below that, and on and on.  I think the complexity of the universe is infinite.  Do I have any proof?  No.  It's just my faith.  And I'd never tell someone that verified experimental evidence is WRONG because of it.  I won't argue that YOUR ALL WRONG, there are sub-sub-sub-quarks!  It's just a belief. Just faith.

The only people who are denying science, are you guys.  The rest of us embrace change and new facts.  We just like them to be, actual facts.

Leaving aside your last sentence, you seem more enlightened and open than this timeisup moron anyway
Title: Re: Pretending Subquarks actually exist!
Post by: Timeisup on June 29, 2020, 07:22:45 AM
Science currently says preons or subquarks do not exist, so why does Sandokhan keep refering to them as though they do?

I like how you used the qualifier 'currently'.

So what if 'science' moves on and says they exist what will you say then? Do you do your own thinking or do you just parrot some talking heads?

I think he will do what I would do, and what most people would do, express wonder that we learned something new.

You, and most Flat Earthers and Geocentric believers seem to think that everyone else clings to a 'globe belief' like you do.  That's not at all the case.

Personally I would love to see the discovery of subquarks or new particles or the best... an experimental failure of Einstein or Quantum Mechanics.  That would be amazing, it would mean we uncovered new data that could lead to better theories, more knowledge, more technology, a better understanding of the universe. 

You seem to think I fear this for some reason.  If science moves on, I'll move on with it, just like people always do.  We don't think thunder is caused by angry Gods anymore.  We know disease is caused by viruses and bacteria and not evil spirits.

And subquarks is a personal belief of mine too.  PERSONALLY I don't think we have seen the end of physics.  I think there is another level, and one below that, and on and on.  I think the complexity of the universe is infinite.  Do I have any proof?  No.  It's just my faith.  And I'd never tell someone that verified experimental evidence is WRONG because of it.  I won't argue that YOUR ALL WRONG, there are sub-sub-sub-quarks!  It's just a belief. Just faith.

The only people who are denying science, are you guys.  The rest of us embrace change and new facts.  We just like them to be, actual facts.

I agree as would most if not all other scientists.
Title: Re: Pretending Subquarks actually exist!
Post by: Timeisup on June 29, 2020, 07:23:32 AM
Science currently says preons or subquarks do not exist, so why does Sandokhan keep refering to them as though they do?

I like how you used the qualifier 'currently'.

So what if 'science' moves on and says they exist what will you say then? Do you do your own thinking or do you just parrot some talking heads?

I think he will do what I would do, and what most people would do, express wonder that we learned something new.

You, and most Flat Earthers and Geocentric believers seem to think that everyone else clings to a 'globe belief' like you do.  That's not at all the case.

Personally I would love to see the discovery of subquarks or new particles or the best... an experimental failure of Einstein or Quantum Mechanics.  That would be amazing, it would mean we uncovered new data that could lead to better theories, more knowledge, more technology, a better understanding of the universe. 

You seem to think I fear this for some reason.  If science moves on, I'll move on with it, just like people always do.  We don't think thunder is caused by angry Gods anymore.  We know disease is caused by viruses and bacteria and not evil spirits.

And subquarks is a personal belief of mine too.  PERSONALLY I don't think we have seen the end of physics.  I think there is another level, and one below that, and on and on.  I think the complexity of the universe is infinite.  Do I have any proof?  No.  It's just my faith.  And I'd never tell someone that verified experimental evidence is WRONG because of it.  I won't argue that YOUR ALL WRONG, there are sub-sub-sub-quarks!  It's just a belief. Just faith.

The only people who are denying science, are you guys.  The rest of us embrace change and new facts.  We just like them to be, actual facts.

Leaving aside your last sentence, you seem more enlightened and open than this timeisup moron anyway

That's bad. Why can't you keep your attacks for the other place.

The topic up for discussion is to do with the existence or not of subquarks or are you not able to understand such simple concepts.

Do you imagine subquarks exists?
Title: Re: Pretending Subquarks actually exist!
Post by: JJA on June 29, 2020, 07:38:24 AM
Science currently says preons or subquarks do not exist, so why does Sandokhan keep refering to them as though they do?

I like how you used the qualifier 'currently'.

So what if 'science' moves on and says they exist what will you say then? Do you do your own thinking or do you just parrot some talking heads?

I think he will do what I would do, and what most people would do, express wonder that we learned something new.

You, and most Flat Earthers and Geocentric believers seem to think that everyone else clings to a 'globe belief' like you do.  That's not at all the case.

Personally I would love to see the discovery of subquarks or new particles or the best... an experimental failure of Einstein or Quantum Mechanics.  That would be amazing, it would mean we uncovered new data that could lead to better theories, more knowledge, more technology, a better understanding of the universe. 

You seem to think I fear this for some reason.  If science moves on, I'll move on with it, just like people always do.  We don't think thunder is caused by angry Gods anymore.  We know disease is caused by viruses and bacteria and not evil spirits.

And subquarks is a personal belief of mine too.  PERSONALLY I don't think we have seen the end of physics.  I think there is another level, and one below that, and on and on.  I think the complexity of the universe is infinite.  Do I have any proof?  No.  It's just my faith.  And I'd never tell someone that verified experimental evidence is WRONG because of it.  I won't argue that YOUR ALL WRONG, there are sub-sub-sub-quarks!  It's just a belief. Just faith.

The only people who are denying science, are you guys.  The rest of us embrace change and new facts.  We just like them to be, actual facts.

Leaving aside your last sentence, you seem more enlightened and open than this timeisup moron anyway

Well it's true.  You can't claim the Earth is either flat or stationary and not deny science.

I'm not enlightened.  I'm just normal.  Most people when they learn that science disproved this theory or that idea go, "Oh, that's cool" and move on with their day.  They don't get angry because NASA paid off yet another scientist.

You can call Timeisup is a moron all you like, but it doesn't make him wrong.  I would bet if the world WAS proven to be flat, he would react the same way I would, with wonder and amazement and thrilled to see what we could discover.  That's normal. 
Title: Re: Pretending Subquarks actually exist!
Post by: Shifter on June 29, 2020, 07:38:59 AM
Science currently says preons or subquarks do not exist, so why does Sandokhan keep refering to them as though they do?

I like how you used the qualifier 'currently'.

So what if 'science' moves on and says they exist what will you say then? Do you do your own thinking or do you just parrot some talking heads?

I think he will do what I would do, and what most people would do, express wonder that we learned something new.

You, and most Flat Earthers and Geocentric believers seem to think that everyone else clings to a 'globe belief' like you do.  That's not at all the case.

Personally I would love to see the discovery of subquarks or new particles or the best... an experimental failure of Einstein or Quantum Mechanics.  That would be amazing, it would mean we uncovered new data that could lead to better theories, more knowledge, more technology, a better understanding of the universe. 

You seem to think I fear this for some reason.  If science moves on, I'll move on with it, just like people always do.  We don't think thunder is caused by angry Gods anymore.  We know disease is caused by viruses and bacteria and not evil spirits.

And subquarks is a personal belief of mine too.  PERSONALLY I don't think we have seen the end of physics.  I think there is another level, and one below that, and on and on.  I think the complexity of the universe is infinite.  Do I have any proof?  No.  It's just my faith.  And I'd never tell someone that verified experimental evidence is WRONG because of it.  I won't argue that YOUR ALL WRONG, there are sub-sub-sub-quarks!  It's just a belief. Just faith.

The only people who are denying science, are you guys.  The rest of us embrace change and new facts.  We just like them to be, actual facts.

Leaving aside your last sentence, you seem more enlightened and open than this timeisup moron anyway

That's bad. Why can't you keep your attacks for the other place.

The topic up for discussion is to do with the existence or not of subquarks or are you not able to understand such simple concepts.

Do you imagine subquarks exists?

What is so bad? No worse than your antagonism brought in every post of yours.

Some would argue that at current human understanding, the realm of the subatomic is anything but simple. It would be foolish of anyone to not imagine. Unless you are one of those people with aphantasia, then you cant help it
Title: Re: Pretending Subquarks actually exist!
Post by: Shifter on June 29, 2020, 07:42:12 AM
Science currently says preons or subquarks do not exist, so why does Sandokhan keep refering to them as though they do?

I like how you used the qualifier 'currently'.

So what if 'science' moves on and says they exist what will you say then? Do you do your own thinking or do you just parrot some talking heads?

I think he will do what I would do, and what most people would do, express wonder that we learned something new.

You, and most Flat Earthers and Geocentric believers seem to think that everyone else clings to a 'globe belief' like you do.  That's not at all the case.

Personally I would love to see the discovery of subquarks or new particles or the best... an experimental failure of Einstein or Quantum Mechanics.  That would be amazing, it would mean we uncovered new data that could lead to better theories, more knowledge, more technology, a better understanding of the universe. 

You seem to think I fear this for some reason.  If science moves on, I'll move on with it, just like people always do.  We don't think thunder is caused by angry Gods anymore.  We know disease is caused by viruses and bacteria and not evil spirits.

And subquarks is a personal belief of mine too.  PERSONALLY I don't think we have seen the end of physics.  I think there is another level, and one below that, and on and on.  I think the complexity of the universe is infinite.  Do I have any proof?  No.  It's just my faith.  And I'd never tell someone that verified experimental evidence is WRONG because of it.  I won't argue that YOUR ALL WRONG, there are sub-sub-sub-quarks!  It's just a belief. Just faith.

The only people who are denying science, are you guys.  The rest of us embrace change and new facts.  We just like them to be, actual facts.

Leaving aside your last sentence, you seem more enlightened and open than this timeisup moron anyway

Well it's true.  You can't claim the Earth is either flat or stationary and not deny science.

I'm not enlightened.  I'm just normal.  Most people when they learn that science disproved this theory or that idea go, "Oh, that's cool" and move on with their day.  They don't get angry because NASA paid off yet another scientist.

You can call Timeisup is a moron all you like, but it doesn't make him wrong.  I would bet if the world WAS proven to be flat, he would react the same way I would, with wonder and amazement and thrilled to see what we could discover.  That's normal.

My belief of the shape and nature of our world is also agnostic. There are no assurances. No certainty of information. Too much incomplete data to make any bold claims. We know that we have scratched less than a poofteenth of SFA about the universe. So to make claims, even if our puny minds and crappy tools (eyes) see something, it is not necessarily showing us how it is

I leave myself open to the possibility of anything.
Title: Re: Pretending Subquarks actually exist!
Post by: sokarul on June 29, 2020, 07:52:08 AM
https://www.nobelprize.org/prizes/physics/1998/press-release/

That's really interesting....but the one small problem is it has nothing to do with subquarks.

Try again. If you are going to post a link try next time to post a relevant one that actually addresses the point at hand.

You don’t see it? Electrons changing in a strong magnetic field means they always change and cause gravity. Duh.

Im not sure if the Duh is directed at me but the 1998 Nobel prize has nothing to do with the discovery of subquarks. According to Scientific American:

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/the-1998-nobel-prizes/

According to the Nobel citation, the three researchers are receiving the award "for their discovery of a new form of quantum fluid with fractionally charged excitations." What they found was that electrons acting together in strong magnetic fields can form new types of "particles," with charges that are fractions of electron charges. "The contributions of the three laureates have thus led to yet another breakthrough in our understanding of quantum physics and to the development of new theoretical concepts of significance in many branches of modern physics," says The Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences.

Edwin Hall's initial finding was that when electrons moving along a metal strip are subjected to a magnetic field perpendicular to the plane of the strip, they are deflected toward the one side of the strip where they cause an excess electrical charge to build up. This Hall voltage is proportional to the strength of the magnetic field. The Hall effect can be used to determine the density of charge carriers (negative electrons or positive holes) in conductors and semi-conductors, and has become a standard tool in physics.

The Hall effect could easily be explained by the laws of classical physics until researchers started looking at it in two-dimensions. In 1980, Klaus von Klitzing of the Max-Planck-Institute for Solid State Research conducted experiments on the behavior of electrons confined to two dimensions at the interface between two semiconductors. These experiments took the Hall effect into the strange world of quantum mechanics where the electrons took on the properties of a fluid.
In this "quantum fluid," a plot of Hall resistance versus field strength was no longer linear: it had become a staircase. Klitzing's discovery of the "quantized Hall effect" won him the physics Nobel Prize in 1985; so precise were the steps, or quanta, that his experiment has been used to define the unit of electrical resistance.


Regardless of the 1998 Nobel Prize, Subquarks have never been detected. The fact that Sandokhan keeps refering to them as actually existing is a clear demonstration that he has a tendency to just makes things up to suit his own agenda.

If you or anyone else for that matter thinks they exist its a simple matter of pointing to, when, where and by whom they were discovered, along with a supporting paper.

It was sarcasm. Sandokhan is misrepresenting a paper, which he always does.
Title: Re: Pretending Subquarks actually exist!
Post by: JJA on June 29, 2020, 08:32:33 AM
My belief of the shape and nature of our world is also agnostic. There are no assurances. No certainty of information. Too much incomplete data to make any bold claims. We know that we have scratched less than a poofteenth of SFA about the universe. So to make claims, even if our puny minds and crappy tools (eyes) see something, it is not necessarily showing us how it is

I leave myself open to the possibility of anything.

You seem to do the opposite, close yourself off to the reality of anything.

Denying everything isn't keeping an open mind.

The Earth is round, it orbits the Sun.  My hand has 5 fingers.  These are things known beyond a shadow of a doubt.  Those aren't bold claims, there is no uncertainty there.

Saying we don't know anything because we don't know everything is just plain denial.
Title: Re: Pretending Subquarks actually exist!
Post by: Code-Beta1234 on June 30, 2020, 11:29:12 AM
For example, DUFOUR/PRUNIER Experiment proved relativity false
Title: Re: Pretending Subquarks actually exist!
Post by: Code-Beta1234 on June 30, 2020, 11:41:13 AM
Sandokhan is building his AFET form nothing. He is alowed to have mistakes. That doesn't make him less trusted sourse. Mainstream science made so, so many mistakes in its history. So does that make it shitty? No? Then who do Sandokhan mistakes make him shitty sourse
Title: Re: Pretending Subquarks actually exist!
Post by: JJA on June 30, 2020, 11:48:47 AM
For example, DUFOUR/PRUNIER Experiment proved relativity false

Not true.

Those experiments were done 80 years ago, and were considered incorrect even back then.  If it was such an easy disproof of Relativity, follow up experiments would have been done.

"The Sagnac effect: correct and incorrect explanations"

"Different explanations for the Sagnac effect are discussed. It is shown that this effect is a consequence of the relativistic law of velocity composition and that it can also be explained adequately within the framework of general relativity. When certain restrictions on the rotational velocity are imposed, the Sagnac effect can be attributed to the difference in the time dilation (or phase change) of material particle wave functions in the scalar (or correspondingly vector) gravitational potential of the inertial forces in a rotating reference system for counterpropagating waves. It is also shown that all the nonrelativistic interpretations of the Sagnac effect, which are unfortunately sometimes found in scientific papers, monographs and textbooks, are wrong in principle, even though the results they yield are accurate up to relativistic corrections in some special cases."

Also...

"Sagnac effect has never been, and is not now, an anomaly. Nonetheless, there exist now, as in the past, some physicists that assert the inconsistency of the relativistic derivation of this formula. Moreover, it is of interest to note that the Sagnac effect was little known before its applications in aerospace navigation. The first historical reviews were written after the invention of the laser gyroscope. On the contrary, it is the interpretation problem that makes the Sagnac effect exists in the contemporary scientific literature.And so, we are left with some opened historiographical questions:

1)Why Lodge, who conceived the idea of the Sagnac experiment in 1892, never tried to make it and never quoted it after Sagnac did and why the English defenders of the existence of ether never quoted it in their discussions about relativity?

2) Vavilov said: “If the Sagnac phenomenon had been revealed earlier than the first results of the second order experiments were obtained, it would certainly have been considered a brilliant proof of the existence of the ether.” And I think that it is possible that it would have had more relevance than that it has had.

3)Why in the passage between research programs some experiments are used like experimentum crucis and others, like the Sagnac experiment, were not well known inside the scientific community?4) Why the anti relativistic French physicists didn’t really use the Sagnac effect as a rebuttal of Einstein’s theories?"


No experiment has disproved Relativity.   This is important!

The first researcher to do this will certainly get the Nobel prize and go down in history.  It's the Holy Grail of physics, to poke a hole in Einsteins theory.  And one day it will certainly happen, and when it does it will be front page news and we will get a whole new theory out of it.

But so far, this has not happened. Every experiment confirms it, again and again.
Title: Re: Pretending Subquarks actually exist!
Post by: JJA on June 30, 2020, 11:53:55 AM
Sandokhan is building his AFET form nothing. He is alowed to have mistakes. That doesn't make him less trusted sourse. Mainstream science made so, so many mistakes in its history. So does that make it shitty? No? Then who do Sandokhan mistakes make him shitty sourse

The difference is mainstream science discards ideas and experiments if proven wrong.

Sandokhan does not ever admit he's wrong.

That makes him a shitty source.

Mainstream science relies on other people duplicating experiments, cross checking your work, peer reviewing it looking for mistakes.

Sandokhan doesn't do any of this.

That makes him less trusted.

Anyone can come up with ideas. Anyone can suggest them. Sandokhan is insisting he is RIGHT and that all of mainstream science is wrong. That's what makes him a shitty, untrusted source. He isn't proposing a theory, he is telling everyone his theory is 100% correct even though all evidence says not.

That's why.
Title: Re: Pretending Subquarks actually exist!
Post by: sokarul on June 30, 2020, 11:58:31 AM
For example, DUFOUR/PRUNIER Experiment proved relativity false

That’s not how experiments work.
Title: Re: Pretending Subquarks actually exist!
Post by: Code-Beta1234 on June 30, 2020, 11:58:57 AM
Quote

No experiment has disproved Relativity.   This is important!

The first researcher to do this will certainly get the Nobel prize and go down in history.  It's the Holy Grail of physics, to poke a hole in Einsteins theory.  And one day it will certainly happen, and when it does it will be front page news and we will get a whole new theory out of it.

But so far, this has not happened. Every experiment confirms it, again and again

That is in my mind, stupid argument.

What if paper was published in some "opposing" country. Mainstream science is west science. What if paper was published in China, or Russia? Or in some 3. World country? One TV (that thing where host invites persion to talk about recent events) "show", on National TV (not some poor channel) invited Medical expert to talk abiut COVID-19. Soon, talk about corona became ideological talk, and Medical expert said that (he was detelied, but it was like 2 months ago, and I didn't remember) some Chinese paper was punlished in mid 1900. Few decades later, US scientist published paper talkkng about same thing and he was accepted, he made his fame (in medical srcles). Now, old Chinese paper was discovered few years ago. He didn't made it to the mainstream science.

It is Serbian program so you won't get anything, even if I got link. That medical expert was on same show multiple times, so I will have to watch some 10+ hours or context to find that ;D
Title: Re: Pretending Subquarks actually exist!
Post by: Code-Beta1234 on June 30, 2020, 12:00:39 PM
For example, DUFOUR/PRUNIER Experiment proved relativity false

That’s not how experiments work.

Ahhh, not Metaphysics. Who realy cares if I said "proved" or "is in support" or some other "correct" phrase
Title: Re: Pretending Subquarks actually exist!
Post by: Stash on June 30, 2020, 12:34:57 PM
Quote

No experiment has disproved Relativity.   This is important!

The first researcher to do this will certainly get the Nobel prize and go down in history.  It's the Holy Grail of physics, to poke a hole in Einsteins theory.  And one day it will certainly happen, and when it does it will be front page news and we will get a whole new theory out of it.

But so far, this has not happened. Every experiment confirms it, again and again

That is in my mind, stupid argument.

What if paper was published in some "opposing" country. Mainstream science is west science. What if paper was published in China, or Russia? Or in some 3. World country? One TV (that thing where host invites persion to talk about recent events) "show", on National TV (not some poor channel) invited Medical expert to talk abiut COVID-19. Soon, talk about corona became ideological talk, and Medical expert said that (he was detelied, but it was like 2 months ago, and I didn't remember) some Chinese paper was punlished in mid 1900. Few decades later, US scientist published paper talkkng about same thing and he was accepted, he made his fame (in medical srcles). Now, old Chinese paper was discovered few years ago. He didn't made it to the mainstream science.

It is Serbian program so you won't get anything, even if I got link. That medical expert was on same show multiple times, so I will have to watch some 10+ hours or context to find that ;D

What in the world are you rambling on about? Mainstream science is a west science? Plenty of chinese, russian, and croatian scientists publish mainstream articles in mainstream publications.

I'm sure there are million instances where someone has claimed some scientific finding and the person(s) who claimed the same thing afterward got the credit. But if you have a criticism, be specific with facts and evidence. Not just your musings.
Title: Re: Pretending Subquarks actually exist!
Post by: Timeisup on June 30, 2020, 02:57:21 PM
For example, DUFOUR/PRUNIER Experiment proved relativity false

That is rather a rash statement that lacks any real credibility. If you want to convince anyone then produce some evidence.
Title: Re: Pretending Subquarks actually exist!
Post by: JJA on June 30, 2020, 02:58:46 PM
Quote

No experiment has disproved Relativity.   This is important!

The first researcher to do this will certainly get the Nobel prize and go down in history.  It's the Holy Grail of physics, to poke a hole in Einsteins theory.  And one day it will certainly happen, and when it does it will be front page news and we will get a whole new theory out of it.

But so far, this has not happened. Every experiment confirms it, again and again

That is in my mind, stupid argument.

What if paper was published in some "opposing" country. Mainstream science is west science. What if paper was published in China, or Russia? Or in some 3. World country? One TV (that thing where host invites persion to talk about recent events) "show", on National TV (not some poor channel) invited Medical expert to talk abiut COVID-19. Soon, talk about corona became ideological talk, and Medical expert said that (he was detelied, but it was like 2 months ago, and I didn't remember) some Chinese paper was punlished in mid 1900. Few decades later, US scientist published paper talkkng about same thing and he was accepted, he made his fame (in medical srcles). Now, old Chinese paper was discovered few years ago. He didn't made it to the mainstream science.

It is Serbian program so you won't get anything, even if I got link. That medical expert was on same show multiple times, so I will have to watch some 10+ hours or context to find that ;D

There are no countries that "oppose" science.  China and Russia both publish tons of scientific papers in their own journals and in 'western' journals.

And disproving Relativity isn't some obscure field where something might get unnoticed.  It would be HUGE news.

Yeah, people steal stuff, happens all the time, and in science too.  Not disproving Relativity though, and the 'experiment' you mentioned was made by western scientist, 80 years ago.  It got noticed, other papers mentioned it, and it's flaws.

I would LOVE if Relativity got disproved, it would be extremely exciting!  But that 80 year old paper isn't it, sadly.  We have to wait.
Title: Re: Pretending Subquarks actually exist!
Post by: Timeisup on June 30, 2020, 03:04:07 PM
Sandokhan is building his AFET form nothing. He is alowed to have mistakes. That doesn't make him less trusted sourse. Mainstream science made so, so many mistakes in its history. So does that make it shitty? No? Then who do Sandokhan mistakes make him shitty sourse

The problem with Sandokhan is that he makes a number of claims such as :

He has designed and made a perpetual motion machine
Western history as we know it is false
The ancient Egyptians knew how to turn lead into gold
There are elements lighter than Hydrogen
Subquarks exist
Etc.....

The list goes on. When someone such as he continually makes such statements it may be wise to look carefully at what they say and take all of it with a liberal pinch of NaCl.


Title: Re: Pretending Subquarks actually exist!
Post by: JackBlack on June 30, 2020, 05:02:32 PM
What if paper was published in some "opposing" country. Mainstream science is west science. What if paper was published in China, or Russia? Or in some 3. World country?
Have you seen the list of Nobel Laureates?
People like Akira Yoshino, from Japan.
People like Konstantin Novoselov, a Russian living and working in Singapore?

Mainstream science is not just the west.
Title: Re: Pretending Subquarks actually exist!
Post by: Shifter on June 30, 2020, 05:05:52 PM
What if paper was published in some "opposing" country. Mainstream science is west science. What if paper was published in China, or Russia? Or in some 3. World country?
Have you seen the list of Nobel Laureates?
People like Akira Yoshino, from Japan.
People like Konstantin Novoselov, a Russian living and working in Singapore?

Mainstream science is not just the west.

How about that bitch from Burma, Aung San Suu Kyi? PEACE prize FFS. While she oversees a massacre and genocide

Nobel prizes or nominations mean nothing.

Title: Re: Pretending Subquarks actually exist!
Post by: markjo on June 30, 2020, 05:21:43 PM
What if paper was published in some "opposing" country. Mainstream science is west science. What if paper was published in China, or Russia? Or in some 3. World country?
Have you seen the list of Nobel Laureates?
People like Akira Yoshino, from Japan.
People like Konstantin Novoselov, a Russian living and working in Singapore?

Mainstream science is not just the west.

How about that bitch from Burma, Aung San Suu Kyi? PEACE prize FFS. While she oversees a massacre and genocide

Nobel prizes or nominations mean nothing.
I could be wrong, but I'm guessing that the Nobel committees for peace and physics use different criteria for judging their respective awards.
Title: Re: Pretending Subquarks actually exist!
Post by: sokarul on June 30, 2020, 05:25:22 PM
For example, DUFOUR/PRUNIER Experiment proved relativity false

That’s not how experiments work.

Ahhh, not Metaphysics. Who realy cares if I said "proved" or "is in support" or some other "correct" phrase
It’s actually quite important. If an experiment “fails”, it doesn’t prove the opposite.
Title: Re: Pretending Subquarks actually exist!
Post by: rabinoz on June 30, 2020, 07:36:10 PM
For example, DUFOUR/PRUNIER Experiment proved relativity false

That’s not how experiments work.

Ahhh, not Metaphysics. Who realy cares if I said "proved" or "is in support of" or some other "correct" phrase
The difference between "proved" and "is in support" is of great importance in mainstream science.

A scientific theory is never claimed to be proven because in so many cases later discoveries come along to show that theory to have been incomplete or even incorrect.

Take, for example, Newton's Laws of Motion and Universal Gravitation (They were "laws" and not "theories" but forget that for now.)

Nobody claimed that Newton's Laws were "proven" even though they proved extremely accurate in the prediction of what things on Earth do and in the future positions of planets.
Quote from: Jaume Gine
On the Origin of the Anomalous Precession of Mercury’s Perihelion by Jaume Gine (https://arxiv.org/pdf/physics/0510086.pdf)
1. Introduction
The problem of the anomalous precession of the Mercury’s perihelion appeared in 1859 when the French astronomer Le Verrier observed that the perihelion of the planet Mercury precesses at a slightly faster rate than can be accounted the Newtonian mechanics with the distribution
Newton's Laws seemed "proven" until 1859 when more accurate measurements showed a very slight discrepancy.

So the difference between "proved" and "is in support of" is very important.
Title: Re: Pretending Subquarks actually exist!
Post by: Heavenly Breeze on June 30, 2020, 08:51:01 PM
It all sounds very clever but what does it actually mean and is any of it even relevant?
It's a fair question yet If you look at the one who raises subquarks, preons etc, is Sandokhan.
Somehow he comes up with his aether theory of "gravity" that he claims can only work on a flat Earth :o!

Work that one out!

Not really.

Its just one of the many things having an opinion matters, not a jot. The people who work in that sub-atomic field on a day to day basis say they don't exist, and that is good enough for me. Unless you have a particle accelerator in your back yard that can do more than 14TeV then it should be good enough for you.
I never gave an opinion on the existence or otherwise of subquarks or preons though the fact that they might not have yet been detected means nothing.

But what I did say was
Quote
the one who raises subquarks, preons etc, is Sandokhan.
Somehow he comes up with his aether theory of "gravity" that he claims can only work on a flat Earth

I think the fact that they have never been detected is very significant, just as unicorns have never been detected, nor flying pigs. Or do you still think there is a case for airborne pork chops?

Um ... unicorns lived only 400 - 800 years ago, in what is now Siberia. There are reliable descriptions of these creatures, as well as their skeletons. This can be seen in museums in Russia.
Title: Re: Pretending Subquarks actually exist!
Post by: Timeisup on June 30, 2020, 11:51:37 PM
It all sounds very clever but what does it actually mean and is any of it even relevant?
It's a fair question yet If you look at the one who raises subquarks, preons etc, is Sandokhan.
Somehow he comes up with his aether theory of "gravity" that he claims can only work on a flat Earth :o!

Work that one out!

Not really.

Its just one of the many things having an opinion matters, not a jot. The people who work in that sub-atomic field on a day to day basis say they don't exist, and that is good enough for me. Unless you have a particle accelerator in your back yard that can do more than 14TeV then it should be good enough for you.
I never gave an opinion on the existence or otherwise of subquarks or preons though the fact that they might not have yet been detected means nothing.

But what I did say was
Quote
the one who raises subquarks, preons etc, is Sandokhan.
Somehow he comes up with his aether theory of "gravity" that he claims can only work on a flat Earth

I think the fact that they have never been detected is very significant, just as unicorns have never been detected, nor flying pigs. Or do you still think there is a case for airborne pork chops?

Um ... unicorns lived only 400 - 800 years ago, in what is now Siberia. There are reliable descriptions of these creatures, as well as their skeletons. This can be seen in museums in Russia.

No they didn’t, Unicorns are a figment of the imagination. What makes you think they existed 400-800 years ago?
Can you offer any verifiable evidence?
Title: Re: Pretending Subquarks actually exist!
Post by: rvlvr on July 01, 2020, 12:53:55 AM
https://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-46358789

Not quite unicorns, and around 39 000 years ago. But still closer to the mark than sandokhan's musings, I'd say.
Title: Re: Pretending Subquarks actually exist!
Post by: Code-Beta1234 on July 01, 2020, 01:03:33 AM
I guess he is talking about them
Title: Re: Pretending Subquarks actually exist!
Post by: JJA on July 01, 2020, 06:56:51 AM
Um ... unicorns lived only 400 - 800 years ago, in what is now Siberia. There are reliable descriptions of these creatures, as well as their skeletons. This can be seen in museums in Russia.

Giant rhino's certainly are neat, but I want a real pet unicorn to go with my pet dragon I keep in a shoebox.  I'm sure they would be friends.

Certainly looks like it would be easier to ride around than a narwhal.
Title: Re: Pretending Subquarks actually exist!
Post by: Timeisup on July 01, 2020, 07:47:31 AM
It looks like people pretty much believe what they want to believe in: subquarks, unicorns, bleach being a cure for coronavirus, perpetual motion machines, flat earth NASA conspiracy, etc, they are all pretty much the same. Some people just have that propensity to believe in the unbelievable regardless.
Title: Re: Pretending Subquarks actually exist!
Post by: Shifter on July 01, 2020, 01:12:47 PM
Um ... unicorns lived only 400 - 800 years ago, in what is now Siberia. There are reliable descriptions of these creatures, as well as their skeletons. This can be seen in museums in Russia.

Giant rhino's certainly are neat, but I want a real pet unicorn to go with my pet dragon I keep in a shoebox.  I'm sure they would be friends.

Certainly looks like it would be easier to ride around than a narwhal.

Cruel bastard. Let that dragon fly free. Not trapped in a shoe box! :)
Title: Re: Pretending Subquarks actually exist!
Post by: Code-Beta1234 on July 01, 2020, 03:05:59 PM
If I am going to be honest: sandokhan isn't right at many things. But he is right right on saganac (Hatch agreed, and Kassner falied to debunk Seleri paradox) and for now his zeta zeros
Title: Re: Pretending Subquarks actually exist!
Post by: rabinoz on July 01, 2020, 04:20:23 PM
If I am going to be honest: sandokhan isn't right at many things.
"Sandokhan isn't right at many things" and he's totally screwed up on Sagnac effect.
He doesn't even understand the difference between the Sagnac effect and the Coriolis effect!

Quote from: Code-Beta1234
But he is right right on saganac (Hatch agreed, and Kassner falied to debunk Seleri paradox) and for now his zeta zeros
No, he's not!
Hatch just claimed that Neil Ashby's explanations were wrong but Ronald Hatch claims that relativity is also incorrect.

No, Kassner did not fail to debunk any paradox! There is no paradox if you realise that Einstein's Special Relativity was only intended to apply to inertial systems!

And what on earth have "zeta zeros" got to do with anything?
Title: Re: Pretending Subquarks actually exist!
Post by: JackBlack on July 01, 2020, 04:21:52 PM
But he is right right on saganac (Hatch agreed, and Kassner falied to debunk Seleri paradox)
How?
Perhaps you can go to the thread on Sagnac and defend his claims, as he was unable to do so?
Hatch agreed with what? That the predictions of relativity? That Earth rotates about its axis?
The only thing even bordering on supporting Sandokhan is his attempt to provide a justification for relativity using "Modified Lorentz Ether Theory (MLET)" and calling SRT "magic".
But why should anyone even value that over Sandokhan just saying it when it is just his claims, not published in any credible peer reviewed journal?

As for the Seleri pardox of Kassner effect or whatever you want to call it, like I already said, that is nothing more than the twin paradox.

He is has provided nothing to support his claim of a missing orbital Sagnac effect, or the Sagnac refuting relativity, or there being 2 fundamentally different effects which both produce a time shift.

He is not right on the Sagnac effect at all.
Title: Re: Pretending Subquarks actually exist!
Post by: Timeisup on July 02, 2020, 01:48:43 AM
If I am going to be honest: sandokhan isn't right at many things. But he is right right on saganac (Hatch agreed, and Kassner falied to debunk Seleri paradox) and for now his zeta zeros

He’s not right on Sagnac. He’s never carried out the experiment himself and has chosen to misrepresent the findings of those who have. It’s no secret, go read about it.
Title: Re: Pretending Subquarks actually exist!
Post by: Timeisup on July 03, 2020, 02:35:55 AM
As Sandokhan has failed to answer my question in regard to the alleged discovery of the non-existent subquarks I think we can safely assume that he realises how wrong he was about them. Subquarks, as far as science has been able to tell, do not exist.
Title: Re: Pretending Subquarks actually exist!
Post by: Bullwinkle on July 04, 2020, 10:27:01 PM
As Sandokhan has failed to answer my question in regard to the alleged discovery of the non-existent subquarks I think we can safely assume that he realises how wrong he was about them. Subquarks, as far as science has been able to tell, do not exist.


So cocksure of yourself.

Remember when the elements were Earth, Wind, Fire and Water?
Your arrogance is chrome plated.   ::)


Title: Re: Pretending Subquarks actually exist!
Post by: Timeisup on July 05, 2020, 02:11:01 AM
As Sandokhan has failed to answer my question in regard to the alleged discovery of the non-existent subquarks I think we can safely assume that he realises how wrong he was about them. Subquarks, as far as science has been able to tell, do not exist.


So cocksure of yourself.

Remember when the elements were Earth, Wind, Fire and Water?
Your arrogance is chrome plated.   ::)

I really don’t understand you people. It’s not I who have done the research, it’s not I who works at CERN, it’s not I who say due to all the accumulated evidence it’s pretty unlikely  that subquarks exist. I am just looking at  the best available evidence produced by the experts and presenting it.

If you have an issue with the findings these experts have revealed, why not take it up with them?

This is the problem on so many of these discussions, the evidence is constantly ignored in favour of cheap personal jibes, your comment being a perfect example, with no attempt to examine the evidence.
Title: Re: Pretending Subquarks actually exist!
Post by: Bullwinkle on July 05, 2020, 02:29:33 AM

If you have an issue with the findings these experts have revealed, why not take it up with them?

Nobody has actually yet discovered the smallest possible unit of matter.
Title: Re: Pretending Subquarks actually exist!
Post by: Shifter on July 05, 2020, 02:42:01 AM
As Sandokhan has failed to answer my question in regard to the alleged discovery of the non-existent subquarks I think we can safely assume that he realises how wrong he was about them. Subquarks, as far as science has been able to tell, do not exist.


So cocksure of yourself.

Remember when the elements were Earth, Wind, Fire and Water?
Your arrogance is chrome plated.   ::)

I really don’t understand you people. It’s not I who have done the research, it’s not I who works at CERN, it’s not I who say due to all the accumulated evidence it’s pretty unlikely  that subquarks exist. I am just looking at  the best available evidence produced by the experts and presenting it.

If you have an issue with the findings these experts have revealed, why not take it up with them?

This is the problem on so many of these discussions, the evidence is constantly ignored in favour of cheap personal jibes, your comment being a perfect example, with no attempt to examine the evidence.

Ask yourself why people bother working at CERN or the LHC etc if we already know all there is to know

You say 'It's unlikely subquarks exist'. OK, so we should just pack everything up then?
Title: Re: Pretending Subquarks actually exist!
Post by: JJA on July 05, 2020, 04:39:22 AM

If you have an issue with the findings these experts have revealed, why not take it up with them?

Nobody has actually yet discovered the smallest possible unit of matter.

Exactly. There is no evidence (yet) for subquarks, so they don't exist. Just as there is no evidence for baby dragons existing.

Sandokhan claiming they do exist is not based in reality.  Sure, he COULD be right. Just like I could be right claiming quarks are made up of baby dragons. Who knows.

If Sandokhan simply said he had a theory, and this MIGHT be how matter is actually made, that wouldn't be a problem.

He claims it as 100% absolute truth, and that CERN and scientists are all wrong or liars.

That's the proiblem.
Title: Re: Pretending Subquarks actually exist!
Post by: Shifter on July 05, 2020, 05:05:23 AM

If you have an issue with the findings these experts have revealed, why not take it up with them?

Nobody has actually yet discovered the smallest possible unit of matter.

Exactly. There is no evidence (yet) for subquarks, so they don't exist. Just as there is no evidence for baby dragons existing.

Sandokhan claiming they do exist is not based in reality.  Sure, he COULD be right. Just like I could be right claiming quarks are made up of baby dragons. Who knows.

If Sandokhan simply said he had a theory, and this MIGHT be how matter is actually made, that wouldn't be a problem.

He claims it as 100% absolute truth, and that CERN and scientists are all wrong or liars.

That's the proiblem.

Did Earths Magnetic field not exist until we discovered it? Did gravity not exist until an apple bumped some twerp on the noggin?

It always existed

If a sub quark exists, and even a sub sub quark, it exists. Just because we mere humans occupying but SFA of a poofteenth of the universe haven't found out about it, doesn't alter the fundamental properties of the universe

Also, baby dragons exist
https://www.newscientist.com/article/2107670-first-baby-dragons-hatched-in-captivity-reach-adolescence/
Title: Re: Pretending Subquarks actually exist!
Post by: JackBlack on July 05, 2020, 06:03:49 AM
I really don’t understand you people. It’s not I who have done the research, it’s not I who works at CERN, it’s not I who say due to all the accumulated evidence it’s pretty unlikely  that subquarks exist. I am just looking at  the best available evidence produced by the experts and presenting it.
And prior to the discovery of quarks, the same could be said for them, even with some people speculating they exist.
Personally, I like the idea of subquarks as providing an explanation of how quarks can change from one type to another, emitting an electron and antineutrino in the process.
That idea seems much better than having it emit a gluon which causes it to change with the gluon then just breaking apart into the electron and anti-neutrino.

Even if those gluons are actually subquarks (but their energy is far too low).

If you have an issue with the findings these experts have revealed, why not take it up with them?
Just like many FEers here, you need to understand the difference between your claims and your interpretation of what the experts say; and what the experts actually say.

People disagreeing with you doesn't mean they are disagreeing with the experts.
Title: Re: Pretending Subquarks actually exist!
Post by: JJA on July 05, 2020, 12:14:46 PM

If you have an issue with the findings these experts have revealed, why not take it up with them?

Nobody has actually yet discovered the smallest possible unit of matter.

Exactly. There is no evidence (yet) for subquarks, so they don't exist. Just as there is no evidence for baby dragons existing.

Sandokhan claiming they do exist is not based in reality.  Sure, he COULD be right. Just like I could be right claiming quarks are made up of baby dragons. Who knows.

If Sandokhan simply said he had a theory, and this MIGHT be how matter is actually made, that wouldn't be a problem.

He claims it as 100% absolute truth, and that CERN and scientists are all wrong or liars.

That's the proiblem.

Did Earths Magnetic field not exist until we discovered it? Did gravity not exist until an apple bumped some twerp on the noggin?

It always existed

If a sub quark exists, and even a sub sub quark, it exists. Just because we mere humans occupying but SFA of a poofteenth of the universe haven't found out about it, doesn't alter the fundamental properties of the universe

Do you not understand the difference between.

1. I think there are things that make up quarks, and we will eventually discover them. Here are some ideas on what they could be.

and

2. Subquarks are real, exactly as I describe, and all of science is wrong, as is anyone who disagrees! I have no evidence, I just had a dream about them.

You really don't see any difference?  Anything COULD be right, but I'm not going to believe in rainbow farting magical unicorns and sentient, fire breathing flying 100 ton dragons any time soon.
Title: Re: Pretending Subquarks actually exist!
Post by: Shifter on July 05, 2020, 12:45:55 PM

If you have an issue with the findings these experts have revealed, why not take it up with them?

Nobody has actually yet discovered the smallest possible unit of matter.

Exactly. There is no evidence (yet) for subquarks, so they don't exist. Just as there is no evidence for baby dragons existing.

Sandokhan claiming they do exist is not based in reality.  Sure, he COULD be right. Just like I could be right claiming quarks are made up of baby dragons. Who knows.

If Sandokhan simply said he had a theory, and this MIGHT be how matter is actually made, that wouldn't be a problem.

He claims it as 100% absolute truth, and that CERN and scientists are all wrong or liars.

That's the proiblem.

Did Earths Magnetic field not exist until we discovered it? Did gravity not exist until an apple bumped some twerp on the noggin?

It always existed

If a sub quark exists, and even a sub sub quark, it exists. Just because we mere humans occupying but SFA of a poofteenth of the universe haven't found out about it, doesn't alter the fundamental properties of the universe

Do you not understand the difference between.

1. I think there are things that make up quarks, and we will eventually discover them. Here are some ideas on what they could be.

and

2. Subquarks are real, exactly as I describe, and all of science is wrong, as is anyone who disagrees! I have no evidence, I just had a dream about them.

You really don't see any difference?  Anything COULD be right, but I'm not going to believe in rainbow farting magical unicorns and sentient, fire breathing flying 100 ton dragons any time soon.

You argued that a lack of evidence for something = non existence. I disagree
Title: Re: Pretending Subquarks actually exist!
Post by: NotSoSkeptical on July 05, 2020, 12:50:06 PM

If you have an issue with the findings these experts have revealed, why not take it up with them?

Nobody has actually yet discovered the smallest possible unit of matter.

Exactly. There is no evidence (yet) for subquarks, so they don't exist. Just as there is no evidence for baby dragons existing.

Sandokhan claiming they do exist is not based in reality.  Sure, he COULD be right. Just like I could be right claiming quarks are made up of baby dragons. Who knows.

If Sandokhan simply said he had a theory, and this MIGHT be how matter is actually made, that wouldn't be a problem.

He claims it as 100% absolute truth, and that CERN and scientists are all wrong or liars.

That's the proiblem.

Did Earths Magnetic field not exist until we discovered it? Did gravity not exist until an apple bumped some twerp on the noggin?

It always existed

If a sub quark exists, and even a sub sub quark, it exists. Just because we mere humans occupying but SFA of a poofteenth of the universe haven't found out about it, doesn't alter the fundamental properties of the universe

Do you not understand the difference between.

1. I think there are things that make up quarks, and we will eventually discover them. Here are some ideas on what they could be.

and

2. Subquarks are real, exactly as I describe, and all of science is wrong, as is anyone who disagrees! I have no evidence, I just had a dream about them.

You really don't see any difference?  Anything COULD be right, but I'm not going to believe in rainbow farting magical unicorns and sentient, fire breathing flying 100 ton dragons any time soon.

You argued that a lack of evidence for something = non existence. I disagree

No he isn't.  Did you fail reading comprehension? 
Title: Re: Pretending Subquarks actually exist!
Post by: Shifter on July 05, 2020, 12:52:51 PM

If you have an issue with the findings these experts have revealed, why not take it up with them?

Nobody has actually yet discovered the smallest possible unit of matter.

Exactly. There is no evidence (yet) for subquarks, so they don't exist. Just as there is no evidence for baby dragons existing.

Sandokhan claiming they do exist is not based in reality.  Sure, he COULD be right. Just like I could be right claiming quarks are made up of baby dragons. Who knows.

If Sandokhan simply said he had a theory, and this MIGHT be how matter is actually made, that wouldn't be a problem.

He claims it as 100% absolute truth, and that CERN and scientists are all wrong or liars.

That's the proiblem.

Did Earths Magnetic field not exist until we discovered it? Did gravity not exist until an apple bumped some twerp on the noggin?

It always existed

If a sub quark exists, and even a sub sub quark, it exists. Just because we mere humans occupying but SFA of a poofteenth of the universe haven't found out about it, doesn't alter the fundamental properties of the universe

Do you not understand the difference between.

1. I think there are things that make up quarks, and we will eventually discover them. Here are some ideas on what they could be.

and

2. Subquarks are real, exactly as I describe, and all of science is wrong, as is anyone who disagrees! I have no evidence, I just had a dream about them.

You really don't see any difference?  Anything COULD be right, but I'm not going to believe in rainbow farting magical unicorns and sentient, fire breathing flying 100 ton dragons any time soon.

You argued that a lack of evidence for something = non existence. I disagree

No he isn't.  Did you fail reading comprehension?

No. But you clearly did. He said

Quote
There is no evidence (yet) for subquarks, so they don't exist

This is akin to the earth's magnetic field not existing until we found evidence for it. Or any other discovery.

Title: Re: Pretending Subquarks actually exist!
Post by: NotSoSkeptical on July 05, 2020, 01:34:35 PM

If you have an issue with the findings these experts have revealed, why not take it up with them?

Nobody has actually yet discovered the smallest possible unit of matter.

Exactly. There is no evidence (yet) for subquarks, so they don't exist. Just as there is no evidence for baby dragons existing.

Sandokhan claiming they do exist is not based in reality.  Sure, he COULD be right. Just like I could be right claiming quarks are made up of baby dragons. Who knows.

If Sandokhan simply said he had a theory, and this MIGHT be how matter is actually made, that wouldn't be a problem.

He claims it as 100% absolute truth, and that CERN and scientists are all wrong or liars.

That's the proiblem.

Did Earths Magnetic field not exist until we discovered it? Did gravity not exist until an apple bumped some twerp on the noggin?

It always existed

If a sub quark exists, and even a sub sub quark, it exists. Just because we mere humans occupying but SFA of a poofteenth of the universe haven't found out about it, doesn't alter the fundamental properties of the universe

Do you not understand the difference between.

1. I think there are things that make up quarks, and we will eventually discover them. Here are some ideas on what they could be.

and

2. Subquarks are real, exactly as I describe, and all of science is wrong, as is anyone who disagrees! I have no evidence, I just had a dream about them.

You really don't see any difference?  Anything COULD be right, but I'm not going to believe in rainbow farting magical unicorns and sentient, fire breathing flying 100 ton dragons any time soon.

You argued that a lack of evidence for something = non existence. I disagree

No he isn't.  Did you fail reading comprehension?

No. But you clearly did. He said

Quote
There is no evidence (yet) for subquarks, so they don't exist

This is akin to the earth's magnetic field not existing until we found evidence for it. Or any other discovery.

No it isn't.

Nice try though.
 

Title: Re: Pretending Subquarks actually exist!
Post by: Shifter on July 05, 2020, 01:42:20 PM
Ok retard, you tell us whatever twisted logic is running through your head rom teh statement

"there is no evidence (yet) for 'x' so it don't exist"

Because if English was indeed a language you are versed in. It states that only when evidence for something is found, does something exist

So before Magnetism was discovered 'it did not exist yet'


He is claiming because we haven't found anything smaller than a quark, that it doesn't exist yet. So if we one day find it, it finally exists?

No. It would have always existed. Us not finding evidence has no bearing on whether something exists or not. If the universe never had a single observer, it would continue to exist and be the same. It doesn't need us
Title: Re: Pretending Subquarks actually exist!
Post by: Stash on July 05, 2020, 02:02:48 PM
Ok retard, you tell us whatever twisted logic is running through your head rom teh statement

"there is no evidence (yet) for 'x' so it don't exist"

Because if English was indeed a language you are versed in. It states that only when evidence for something is found, does something exist

So before Magnetism was discovered 'it did not exist yet'


He is claiming because we haven't found anything smaller than a quark, that it doesn't exist yet. So if we one day find it, it finally exists?

No. It would have always existed. Us not finding evidence has no bearing on whether something exists or not. If the universe never had a single observer, it would continue to exist and be the same. It doesn't need us

You mean the "if a tree falls in the forest..." gambit?
Title: Re: Pretending Subquarks actually exist!
Post by: NotSoSkeptical on July 05, 2020, 02:10:01 PM
Ok retard, you tell us whatever twisted logic is running through your head rom teh statement

"there is no evidence (yet) for 'x' so it don't exist"

Because if English was indeed a language you are versed in. It states that only when evidence for something is found, does something exist

So before Magnetism was discovered 'it did not exist yet'


He is claiming because we haven't found anything smaller than a quark, that it doesn't exist yet. So if we one day find it, it finally exists?

No. It would have always existed. Us not finding evidence has no bearing on whether something exists or not. If the universe never had a single observer, it would continue to exist and be the same. It doesn't need us

Retard....

Quote
I think there are things that make up quarks, and we will eventually discover them.

A subquark is theoretical.  It's existence hasn't been proven.  It may or may not exist.  Your example of Earth's Magnetic Field was also theoretical until it was proven.  And while the magnetic field has always existed, scientifically it wasn't proven to exist until it was.  If subquarks are found to actual exist, they won't be theoretical.  Until then, there is no proof of it's existence and thus only exists in theory, not actuality.


If the evidence for (x) is never found, can you scientifically say they actually exist.


Title: Re: Pretending Subquarks actually exist!
Post by: Shifter on July 05, 2020, 02:38:37 PM
Ok retard, you tell us whatever twisted logic is running through your head rom teh statement

"there is no evidence (yet) for 'x' so it don't exist"

Because if English was indeed a language you are versed in. It states that only when evidence for something is found, does something exist

So before Magnetism was discovered 'it did not exist yet'


He is claiming because we haven't found anything smaller than a quark, that it doesn't exist yet. So if we one day find it, it finally exists?

No. It would have always existed. Us not finding evidence has no bearing on whether something exists or not. If the universe never had a single observer, it would continue to exist and be the same. It doesn't need us

Retard....

Quote
I think there are things that make up quarks, and we will eventually discover them.

A subquark is theoretical.  It's existence hasn't been proven.  It may or may not exist.  Your example of Earth's Magnetic Field was also theoretical until it was proven.  And while the magnetic field has always existed, scientifically it wasn't proven to exist until it was.  If subquarks are found to actual exist, they won't be theoretical.  Until then, there is no proof of it's existence and thus only exists in theory, not actuality.


If the evidence for (x) is never found, can you scientifically say they actually exist.

Our science and limited intellect doesn't care.

If the most intelligent animal on Earth was a dog, earth would still have a magnetic field. If the universe had no observers, everything would still be as it is.

If there are sub quarks in existence but we go extinct before we find it, they still exist. Always did. The fundamental properties of the universe don't cater for our intellect.
Title: Re: Pretending Subquarks actually exist!
Post by: Timeisup on July 05, 2020, 02:39:43 PM

If you have an issue with the findings these experts have revealed, why not take it up with them?

Nobody has actually yet discovered the smallest possible unit of matter.

Well looks like all the experts at CERN would not agree with you.
Tell me what kind of experiments have you been doing in the area of subatomic particles to make such a comment? If you have some ground breaking research perhaps you #ho7ld concider publishing it?
Title: Re: Pretending Subquarks actually exist!
Post by: Timeisup on July 05, 2020, 02:46:00 PM
As Sandokhan has failed to answer my question in regard to the alleged discovery of the non-existent subquarks I think we can safely assume that he realises how wrong he was about them. Subquarks, as far as science has been able to tell, do not exist.


So cocksure of yourself.

Remember when the elements were Earth, Wind, Fire and Water?
Your arrogance is chrome plated.   ::)

I really don’t understand you people. It’s not I who have done the research, it’s not I who works at CERN, it’s not I who say due to all the accumulated evidence it’s pretty unlikely  that subquarks exist. I am just looking at  the best available evidence produced by the experts and presenting it.

If you have an issue with the findings these experts have revealed, why not take it up with them?

This is the problem on so many of these discussions, the evidence is constantly ignored in favour of cheap personal jibes, your comment being a perfect example, with no attempt to examine the evidence.

Ask yourself why people bother working at CERN or the LHC etc if we already know all there is to know

You say 'It's unlikely subquarks exist'. OK, so we should just pack everything up then?

You misunderstand, the LHC is located at CERN. You also misunderstand why the do what they do, it’s because we don’t know all there is to know. How could we? Why do you suppose research is ongoing is every scientific disciple?

I don’t understand why people, like get so upset over stating our current understanding of the subatomic world. Like many other areas of science it’s not something you can have an opinion on.

Title: Re: Pretending Subquarks actually exist!
Post by: sokarul on July 05, 2020, 02:48:45 PM
Shifter just squawks to feel smarter than he actually is.
Title: Re: Pretending Subquarks actually exist!
Post by: Shifter on July 05, 2020, 02:50:37 PM
Shifter just squawks to feel smarter than he actually is.

The above was a pathetic squawk brought to you by sokarul.

Title: Re: Pretending Subquarks actually exist!
Post by: Timeisup on July 05, 2020, 02:51:20 PM
Ok retard, you tell us whatever twisted logic is running through your head rom teh statement

"there is no evidence (yet) for 'x' so it don't exist"

Because if English was indeed a language you are versed in. It states that only when evidence for something is found, does something exist

So before Magnetism was discovered 'it did not exist yet'


He is claiming because we haven't found anything smaller than a quark, that it doesn't exist yet. So if we one day find it, it finally exists?

No. It would have always existed. Us not finding evidence has no bearing on whether something exists or not. If the universe never had a single observer, it would continue to exist and be the same. It doesn't need us

You totally misunderstand the situation. Ou care to read any relevant research on the subject what it says, and I’ll make it simple for you to understand, What they have found rules out the existence of subquarks.  If you don’t like it tough.
Title: Re: Pretending Subquarks actually exist!
Post by: JJA on July 05, 2020, 02:51:40 PM

If you have an issue with the findings these experts have revealed, why not take it up with them?

Nobody has actually yet discovered the smallest possible unit of matter.

Exactly. There is no evidence (yet) for subquarks, so they don't exist. Just as there is no evidence for baby dragons existing.

Sandokhan claiming they do exist is not based in reality.  Sure, he COULD be right. Just like I could be right claiming quarks are made up of baby dragons. Who knows.

If Sandokhan simply said he had a theory, and this MIGHT be how matter is actually made, that wouldn't be a problem.

He claims it as 100% absolute truth, and that CERN and scientists are all wrong or liars.

That's the proiblem.

Did Earths Magnetic field not exist until we discovered it? Did gravity not exist until an apple bumped some twerp on the noggin?

It always existed

If a sub quark exists, and even a sub sub quark, it exists. Just because we mere humans occupying but SFA of a poofteenth of the universe haven't found out about it, doesn't alter the fundamental properties of the universe

Do you not understand the difference between.

1. I think there are things that make up quarks, and we will eventually discover them. Here are some ideas on what they could be.

and

2. Subquarks are real, exactly as I describe, and all of science is wrong, as is anyone who disagrees! I have no evidence, I just had a dream about them.

You really don't see any difference?  Anything COULD be right, but I'm not going to believe in rainbow farting magical unicorns and sentient, fire breathing flying 100 ton dragons any time soon.

You argued that a lack of evidence for something = non existence. I disagree

That's not what I'm arguing and you know it.

Could subquarks exist?  Sure.

Does Sandokhan know they exist for a fact, and have proof that all of science is wrong? No.

There is no EVIDENCE that subquarks exist. Until there is, it's all speculation and hypothesizing. Posting pictures someone saw in a dream and saying they are real, that's wrong.
Title: Re: Pretending Subquarks actually exist!
Post by: Shifter on July 05, 2020, 02:54:42 PM
Ok retard, you tell us whatever twisted logic is running through your head rom teh statement

"there is no evidence (yet) for 'x' so it don't exist"

Because if English was indeed a language you are versed in. It states that only when evidence for something is found, does something exist

So before Magnetism was discovered 'it did not exist yet'


He is claiming because we haven't found anything smaller than a quark, that it doesn't exist yet. So if we one day find it, it finally exists?

No. It would have always existed. Us not finding evidence has no bearing on whether something exists or not. If the universe never had a single observer, it would continue to exist and be the same. It doesn't need us

You totally misunderstand the situation. Ou care to read any relevant research on the subject what it says, and I’ll make it simple for you to understand, What they have found rules out the existence of subquarks.  If you don’t like it tough.

Found on a particular data set which is still up in the air as to whether it is correct or complete

Next week we may learn something that throws much of what we think we know in doubt.

You don't know

There could be properties of the universe that humans may never grasp or comprehend. You don't like it, tough
Title: Re: Pretending Subquarks actually exist!
Post by: sokarul on July 05, 2020, 03:05:03 PM
He said it best:  “ I don’t understand why people, like get so upset over stating our current understanding of the subatomic world. ”
Title: Re: Pretending Subquarks actually exist!
Post by: Shifter on July 05, 2020, 03:06:44 PM
He said it best:  “ I don’t understand why people, like get so upset over stating our current understanding of the subatomic world. ”

Because our current understanding is not the zenith of understanding. Far from it.

Making assumptions that 'x' doesn't exist because our current understanding says so is stupid

We don't know what we don't know
Title: Re: Pretending Subquarks actually exist!
Post by: JJA on July 05, 2020, 03:08:00 PM
Making assumptions that 'x' doesn't exist because our current understanding says so is stupid

Making assumptions that 'x' does exist because Sandokhan says so is stupid
Title: Re: Pretending Subquarks actually exist!
Post by: sokarul on July 05, 2020, 03:09:23 PM
He said it best:  “ I don’t understand why people, like get so upset over stating our current understanding of the subatomic world. ”

Because our current understanding is not the zenith of understanding. Far from it.

Making assumptions that 'x' doesn't exist because our current understanding says so is stupid

We don't know what we don't know
Stating currently accepted theory is not making assumptions.
Title: Re: Pretending Subquarks actually exist!
Post by: Shifter on July 05, 2020, 03:17:43 PM
He said it best:  “ I don’t understand why people, like get so upset over stating our current understanding of the subatomic world. ”

Because our current understanding is not the zenith of understanding. Far from it.

Making assumptions that 'x' doesn't exist because our current understanding says so is stupid

We don't know what we don't know
Stating currently accepted theory is not making assumptions.

Yeah. The qualifier being 'current'

Not something you can give an answer and set in stone now
Title: Re: Pretending Subquarks actually exist!
Post by: JackBlack on July 05, 2020, 03:17:57 PM
A subquark is theoretical.  It's existence hasn't been proven.  It may or may not exist.  Your example of Earth's Magnetic Field was also theoretical until it was proven.  And while the magnetic field has always existed, scientifically it wasn't proven to exist until it was.  If subquarks are found to actual exist, they won't be theoretical.  Until then, there is no proof of it's existence and thus only exists in theory, not actuality.
No, not how it works.
Again, using the magnetic field as an example, even before it was discovered/proven, it still existed, in reality/actuality.

Things don't just magically begin to exist when evidence of them are found.

That means subquarks either exist or they don't.
Not having evidence of their existence does not mean they don't exist.
Finding evidence of their existence wont magically make them exist.

Well looks like all the experts at CERN would not agree with you.
Really?
Or is it just your claim/interpretation of these experts that doesn't agree?

Do you have simple statements from them where they clearly say that quarks are the smallest building block of matter and that they do not have any sub-components?
If not, then again, it isn't the experts that are being disagreed with.

You misunderstand, the LHC is located at CERN.
Nope, that would still be you. CERN is an organisation, not a location.

You also misunderstand why the do what they do, it’s because we don’t know all there is to know. How could we? Why do you suppose research is ongoing is every scientific disciple?
I don’t understand why people, like get so upset over stating our current understanding of the subatomic world.
And again, that would be you.
You act like we know everything and thus us not having evidence for something means it doesn't exist.
You are not simply stating our current understanding of the subatomic world. You are stating as if there is no other possibility.

That is not how it works.

What they have found rules out the existence of subquarks.  If you don’t like it tough.
Care to provide a link to this research which clearly shows (and states) that the existence of subquarks has been ruled out?
Or is this just like your claim of all those research papers which prove that gravity would cause the collapse of an infinite plane?
Title: Re: Pretending Subquarks actually exist!
Post by: sokarul on July 05, 2020, 03:20:06 PM
He said it best:  “ I don’t understand why people, like get so upset over stating our current understanding of the subatomic world. ”

Because our current understanding is not the zenith of understanding. Far from it.

Making assumptions that 'x' doesn't exist because our current understanding says so is stupid

We don't know what we don't know
Stating currently accepted theory is not making assumptions.

Yeah. The qualifier being 'current'

Not something you can give an answer and set in stone now

“Current theory” does no mean absolute. No one is claiming it does.
Title: Re: Pretending Subquarks actually exist!
Post by: Shifter on July 05, 2020, 03:25:11 PM
He said it best:  “ I don’t understand why people, like get so upset over stating our current understanding of the subatomic world. ”

Because our current understanding is not the zenith of understanding. Far from it.

Making assumptions that 'x' doesn't exist because our current understanding says so is stupid

We don't know what we don't know
Stating currently accepted theory is not making assumptions.

Yeah. The qualifier being 'current'

Not something you can give an answer and set in stone now

“Current theory” does no mean absolute. No one is claiming it does.

Except for the people stating definitively that something doesn't exist because the current theory says so....
Title: Re: Pretending Subquarks actually exist!
Post by: Timeisup on July 06, 2020, 05:33:16 AM
He said it best:  “ I don’t understand why people, like get so upset over stating our current understanding of the subatomic world. ”

Because our current understanding is not the zenith of understanding. Far from it.

Making assumptions that 'x' doesn't exist because our current understanding says so is stupid

We don't know what we don't know
Stating currently accepted theory is not making assumptions.

Yeah. The qualifier being 'current'

Not something you can give an answer and set in stone now

“Current theory” does no mean absolute. No one is claiming it does.

Except for the people stating definitively that something doesn't exist because the current theory says so....

Are you saying they do exist? and if you do where is the evidence that supports your claim.
Title: Re: Pretending Subquarks actually exist!
Post by: sandokhan on July 06, 2020, 05:38:39 AM
I have posted the experimental and theoretical evidence for the evidence of the existence of subquarks right from my first message in this thread.

Subquarks were discovered in 1996 at Fermilab.

Plenty of papers which discuss their properties were subsequently published.

The Nobel prize was awarded for the discovery of the fractal charge particles which make up an electron, the preon.

Preon = subquark.

Very simple.
Title: Re: Pretending Subquarks actually exist!
Post by: Timeisup on July 06, 2020, 05:48:18 AM
I have posted the experimental and theoretical evidence for the evidence of the existence of subquarks right from my first message in this thread.

Subquarks were discovered in 1996 at Fermilab.

Plenty of papers which discuss their properties were subsequently published.

The Nobel prize was awarded for the discovery of the fractal charge particles which make up an electron, the preon.

Preon = subquark.

Very simple.

No, they were not. Subquarks have never been discovered. You're just making up 'factoids' again. What cant you just stick to the truth?

Post the paper and experimental results. I doubt you will be able to do that, but let's see what you can come up with.

All the discoveries over the last 50 years at Fermilab
https://news.fnal.gov/2017/06/50-years-discoveries-innovations-fermilab/

Top quark...yes......Subquark ...a resounding NO.

Try again.


Homework score:    F-
Title: Re: Pretending Subquarks actually exist!
Post by: NotSoSkeptical on July 06, 2020, 05:50:40 AM
A subquark is theoretical.  It's existence hasn't been proven.  It may or may not exist.  Your example of Earth's Magnetic Field was also theoretical until it was proven.  And while the magnetic field has always existed, scientifically it wasn't proven to exist until it was.  If subquarks are found to actual exist, they won't be theoretical.  Until then, there is no proof of it's existence and thus only exists in theory, not actuality.
No, not how it works.
Again, using the magnetic field as an example, even before it was discovered/proven, it still existed, in reality/actuality.

Things don't just magically begin to exist when evidence of them are found.

That means subquarks either exist or they don't.
Not having evidence of their existence does not mean they don't exist.
Finding evidence of their existence wont magically make them exist.

I never said things magically begin to exist when evidence of them are found.  See BOLD.

There is a difference between accepting that a mechanism (Y) exists and accepting that the mechanism is the theoretical (X).  (X) being theoretically means it could or could not exist.  Saying that (X) does not exist as it hasn't been definitively proven has no bearing on the existence of (Y).



Title: Re: Pretending Subquarks actually exist!
Post by: Timeisup on July 06, 2020, 05:51:41 AM
I have posted the experimental and theoretical evidence for the evidence of the existence of subquarks right from my first message in this thread.

Subquarks were discovered in 1996 at Fermilab.

Plenty of papers which discuss their properties were subsequently published.

The Nobel prize was awarded for the discovery of the fractal charge particles which make up an electron, the preon.

Preon = subquark.

Very simple.


Supplemental question.

Please post links to the plenty of papers that deal with the DISCOVERY of the preon and not any THEORETICAL  stuff that has since been debunked.

thanks.

Title: Re: Pretending Subquarks actually exist!
Post by: sandokhan on July 06, 2020, 05:52:49 AM
Is this supposed to be a joke?

Preons were discovered decades ago, in 1998 the Nobel prize was awarded for their discovery.

Subquarks were discovered at Fermilab in 1996.

Subquarks must exist as proven by knot theory.

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg1278981#msg1278981

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg2256867#msg2256867

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg2257440#msg2257440

Title: Re: Pretending Subquarks actually exist!
Post by: Shifter on July 06, 2020, 05:54:00 AM
He said it best:  “ I don’t understand why people, like get so upset over stating our current understanding of the subatomic world. ”

Because our current understanding is not the zenith of understanding. Far from it.

Making assumptions that 'x' doesn't exist because our current understanding says so is stupid

We don't know what we don't know
Stating currently accepted theory is not making assumptions.

Yeah. The qualifier being 'current'

Not something you can give an answer and set in stone now

“Current theory” does no mean absolute. No one is claiming it does.

Except for the people stating definitively that something doesn't exist because the current theory says so....

Are you saying they do exist? and if you do where is the evidence that supports your claim.

It would be better for one to say 'I believe based on our current level of understanding the existence for a sub quark is implausible'

Instead of

'We dont have the evidence it exists, therefore it does not exist'
Title: Re: Pretending Subquarks actually exist!
Post by: sandokhan on July 06, 2020, 05:56:00 AM
'Science' magazine in February 1996 reported - American researchers have said, they found that collisions between quarks in a particle accelerator were unexpectedly violent. William Carithers, of Fermi National Accelerator Laboratory, in Batavia, Illinois, told 'Science': “This is just the sort of effect you would see if quarks were not fundamental particles, but had some sort of internal structure.”

 Chris Hill, theorist at Fermilab, indicated the view in “New Scientist” | 11 May 1996 | page 29 | “It would suggest that whatever lies inside the quarks is incredibly tightly bound, in a way that theory can’t yet accommodate.” On the 1st March 1997 - in an article in 'New Scientist' on page 14 - results from DESY, the German Electron Synchrotron pointed to the existence of what is described as a “leptoquark”. Robin Marshall of the University of Manchester, who was involved in the work, said “The leptoquark is a bizarre object that we don’t understand completely”. Researchers said this “could mean that quarks and leptons are not fundamental particles after all, but are made up of even smaller particles”.
Title: Re: Pretending Subquarks actually exist!
Post by: Timeisup on July 06, 2020, 05:56:17 AM
I have posted the experimental and theoretical evidence for the evidence of the existence of subquarks right from my first message in this thread.

Subquarks were discovered in 1996 at Fermilab.

Plenty of papers which discuss their properties were subsequently published.

The Nobel prize was awarded for the discovery of the fractal charge particles which make up an electron, the preon.

Preon = subquark.

Very simple.


This is just to clarify the situation. NO discovery of the subquark or preon was ever made at Fermilab in 1997 or any other year.

Search their database of discoveries....not there.....very simple.
Title: Re: Pretending Subquarks actually exist!
Post by: Timeisup on July 06, 2020, 06:00:11 AM
'Science' magazine in February 1996 reported - American researchers have said, they found that collisions between quarks in a particle accelerator were unexpectedly violent. William Carithers, of Fermi National Accelerator Laboratory, in Batavia, Illinois, told 'Science': “This is just the sort of effect you would see if quarks were not fundamental particles, but had some sort of internal structure.”

 Chris Hill, theorist at Fermilab, indicated the view in “New Scientist” | 11 May 1996 | page 29 | “It would suggest that whatever lies inside the quarks is incredibly tightly bound, in a way that theory can’t yet accommodate.” On the 1st March 1997 - in an article in 'New Scientist' on page 14 - results from DESY, the German Electron Synchrotron pointed to the existence of what is described as a “leptoquark”. Robin Marshall of the University of Manchester, who was involved in the work, said “The leptoquark is a bizarre object that we don’t understand completely”. Researchers said this “could mean that quarks and leptons are not fundamental particles after all, but are made up of even smaller particles”.


People say a lot of things. BUt let stick to the facts.
You said subquarks were discovered in 1997 at Fermilab. Fermilab and the historical facts don't agree with you.

Let's make it quite clear subquarks have never been discovered either at Fermilab or CERN or any other place either in 1997 or any other year. It never happened regardless of how you would like to re-write science history.
Title: Re: Pretending Subquarks actually exist!
Post by: sandokhan on July 06, 2020, 06:02:41 AM
When are you going to learn to do your homework?

https://journals.aps.org/prd/abstract/10.1103/PhysRevD.55.R2521

Has the substructure of quarks been found by the Collider Detector at Fermilab?
Keiichi Akama and Hidezumi Terazawa
Phys. Rev. D 55, R2521(R) – Published 1 March 1997

https://arxiv.org/pdf/hep-ph/9608279.pdf


http://web.ihep.su/library/pubs/tconf99/ps/teraz.pdf


'Science' magazine in February 1996 reported - American researchers have said, they found that collisions between quarks in a particle accelerator were unexpectedly violent. William Carithers, of Fermi National Accelerator Laboratory, in Batavia, Illinois, told 'Science': “This is just the sort of effect you would see if quarks were not fundamental particles, but had some sort of internal structure.”

 Chris Hill, theorist at Fermilab, indicated the view in “New Scientist” | 11 May 1996 | page 29 | “It would suggest that whatever lies inside the quarks is incredibly tightly bound, in a way that theory can’t yet accommodate.” On the 1st March 1997 - in an article in 'New Scientist' on page 14 - results from DESY, the German Electron Synchrotron pointed to the existence of what is described as a “leptoquark”. Robin Marshall of the University of Manchester, who was involved in the work, said “The leptoquark is a bizarre object that we don’t understand completely”. Researchers said this “could mean that quarks and leptons are not fundamental particles after all, but are made up of even smaller particles”.
Title: Re: Pretending Subquarks actually exist!
Post by: Shifter on July 06, 2020, 06:04:17 AM
I have posted the experimental and theoretical evidence for the evidence of the existence of subquarks right from my first message in this thread.

Subquarks were discovered in 1996 at Fermilab.

Plenty of papers which discuss their properties were subsequently published.

The Nobel prize was awarded for the discovery of the fractal charge particles which make up an electron, the preon.

Preon = subquark.

Very simple.


This is just to clarify the situation. NO discovery of the subquark or preon was ever made at Fermilab in 1997 or any other year.

Search their database of discoveries....not there.....very simple.

So does that mean a sub quark does not exist? Because it's not at Fermilab? lol

The universe doesn't give a damn about our observations. If it exists. It exists. Hell there could be a sub preon. 'Strings' could be a thing. Just because we cant tangibly observe or play with them doesn't mean anything. The universe is what it is. Observers or not.

You dont have the information to dismiss a sub quark out of hand. If you do, then why are you here? Where is your Nobel prize that you can share with company like Aung San Suu Kyi?
Title: Re: Pretending Subquarks actually exist!
Post by: Shifter on July 06, 2020, 06:07:22 AM
When are you going to learn to do your homework?

https://journals.aps.org/prd/abstract/10.1103/PhysRevD.55.R2521

Has the substructure of quarks been found by the Collider Detector at Fermilab?
Keiichi Akama and Hidezumi Terazawa
Phys. Rev. D 55, R2521(R) – Published 1 March 1997

https://arxiv.org/pdf/hep-ph/9608279.pdf


http://web.ihep.su/library/pubs/tconf99/ps/teraz.pdf


'Science' magazine in February 1996 reported - American researchers have said, they found that collisions between quarks in a particle accelerator were unexpectedly violent. William Carithers, of Fermi National Accelerator Laboratory, in Batavia, Illinois, told 'Science': “This is just the sort of effect you would see if quarks were not fundamental particles, but had some sort of internal structure.”

 Chris Hill, theorist at Fermilab, indicated the view in “New Scientist” | 11 May 1996 | page 29 | “It would suggest that whatever lies inside the quarks is incredibly tightly bound, in a way that theory can’t yet accommodate.” On the 1st March 1997 - in an article in 'New Scientist' on page 14 - results from DESY, the German Electron Synchrotron pointed to the existence of what is described as a “leptoquark”. Robin Marshall of the University of Manchester, who was involved in the work, said “The leptoquark is a bizarre object that we don’t understand completely”. Researchers said this “could mean that quarks and leptons are not fundamental particles after all, but are made up of even smaller particles”.


It seems there are a lot of scientists who are theorizing that sub quarks are indeed possible and that to actually see one is not going to be a real surprise

Well this Timeisup guy will be surprised. He's the only one not following the scientists. Not looking at the research

He probably thought the Higgs Boson was impossible, did not exist until it was found. What would the universe do with us to find these things!
Title: Re: Pretending Subquarks actually exist!
Post by: Timeisup on July 06, 2020, 06:08:25 AM
When are you going to learn to do your homework?

https://journals.aps.org/prd/abstract/10.1103/PhysRevD.55.R2521

Has the substructure of quarks been found by the Collider Detector at Fermilab?
Keiichi Akama and Hidezumi Terazawa
Phys. Rev. D 55, R2521(R) – Published 1 March 1997

https://arxiv.org/pdf/hep-ph/9608279.pdf


http://web.ihep.su/library/pubs/tconf99/ps/teraz.pdf


'Science' magazine in February 1996 reported - American researchers have said, they found that collisions between quarks in a particle accelerator were unexpectedly violent. William Carithers, of Fermi National Accelerator Laboratory, in Batavia, Illinois, told 'Science': “This is just the sort of effect you would see if quarks were not fundamental particles, but had some sort of internal structure.”

 Chris Hill, theorist at Fermilab, indicated the view in “New Scientist” | 11 May 1996 | page 29 | “It would suggest that whatever lies inside the quarks is incredibly tightly bound, in a way that theory can’t yet accommodate.” On the 1st March 1997 - in an article in 'New Scientist' on page 14 - results from DESY, the German Electron Synchrotron pointed to the existence of what is described as a “leptoquark”. Robin Marshall of the University of Manchester, who was involved in the work, said “The leptoquark is a bizarre object that we don’t understand completely”. Researchers said this “could mean that quarks and leptons are not fundamental particles after all, but are made up of even smaller particles”.

Can you not read... it asks the question......and the answer to the question is a resounding no. What is it about historical facts that you don't like?

Once more you evade the truth. You said subquarks were discovered at Fermilab in 1997... That was a deliberate lie as they were not. That is a fact

Regardless of the bits of old theory that has since been superseded, subquarks have never ever been discovered. That is a fact. Just own up to the truth.
Title: Re: Pretending Subquarks actually exist!
Post by: Timeisup on July 06, 2020, 06:12:39 AM
The challenge to Sandokhan is to provide a link to the actual paper produced by scientists in 1997 from Fermilab that detail the DISCOVERY of the subquark and not some speculative piece of journalism.

Fermilab produces press releases of all their discoveries and NO press release was ever produced for the discovery of the subquark.....WHY? because it was never discovered.

Let's stick to the facts.
Title: Re: Pretending Subquarks actually exist!
Post by: Shifter on July 06, 2020, 06:15:39 AM
The challenge to Sandokhan is to provide a link to the actual paper produced by scientists in 1997 from Fermilab that detail the DISCOVERY of the subquark and not some speculative piece of journalism.

Fermilab produces press releases of all their discoveries and NO press release was ever produced for the discovery of the subquark.....WHY? because it was never discovered.

Let's stick to the facts.

Do you have any information that says subquarks can not possibly exist?
Title: Re: Pretending Subquarks actually exist!
Post by: Timeisup on July 06, 2020, 06:17:20 AM
Here is a list of all the sub-atomic  Discoveries made.

https://www.fnal.gov/pub/science/particle-physics/key-discoveries.html

Note:
No subquark discovery can be found on the list. Ask yourself the question why?

The answer is very simple.
Title: Re: Pretending Subquarks actually exist!
Post by: Timeisup on July 06, 2020, 06:19:42 AM
The challenge to Sandokhan is to provide a link to the actual paper produced by scientists in 1997 from Fermilab that detail the DISCOVERY of the subquark and not some speculative piece of journalism.

Fermilab produces press releases of all their discoveries and NO press release was ever produced for the discovery of the subquark.....WHY? because it was never discovered.

Let's stick to the facts.

Do you have any information that says subquarks can not possibly exist?

Do you?
Title: Re: Pretending Subquarks actually exist!
Post by: sandokhan on July 06, 2020, 06:23:34 AM
and the answer to the question is a resounding no.

Not at all.

https://arxiv.org/pdf/hep-ph/9608279.pdf

You have to explain the significant excess of jet transverse energies which indicate the quark substructure.

One of the authors (H.T.) also wishes to thank Professor Stanley J. Brodsky and all the other staff members, especially Professors James D. Bjorken and Michael Peskin, of Theoretical Physics Group at Stanford Linear Accelerator Center, Stanford University not only for their useful discussions on the substructure of quarks but also for their warm hospitalities extended to him during his visit in July, 1996 when this work was completed.

Imagine this: the best quantum physicists in the world, at Stanford and at Fermilab, already have a clear idea of the substructure of quarks.
Title: Re: Pretending Subquarks actually exist!
Post by: Timeisup on July 06, 2020, 06:28:13 AM
and the answer to the question is a resounding no.

Not at all.

https://arxiv.org/pdf/hep-ph/9608279.pdf

You have to explain the significant excess of jet transverse energies which indicate the quark substructure.

One of the authors (H.T.) also wishes to thank Professor Stanley J. Brodsky and all the other staff members, especially Professors James D. Bjorken and Michael Peskin, of Theoretical Physics Group at Stanford Linear Accelerator Center, Stanford University not only for their useful discussions on the substructure of quarks but also for their warm hospitalities extended to him during his visit in July, 1996 when this work was completed.

Imagine this: the best quantum physicists in the world, at Stanford and at Fermilab, already have a clear idea of the substructure of quarks.

Are you deliberately being stupid?

I have to explain nothing, you have to provide a 1997 subquark discovery paper.
I asked for a link to the paper that describes the DISCOVERY.....not some speculative tripe.

Can you not tell the difference between actual DISCOVERY and speculation?

Once more, provide the paper that lays out the 1997 DISCOVERY, you allege happened, or admit you are WRONG.

No more stonewalling no more giving irrelevant information.
Title: Re: Pretending Subquarks actually exist!
Post by: Timeisup on July 06, 2020, 06:34:05 AM
Some factual information.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_particle_discoveries

Note:
There is no subquark discovery listed....WHY?  because it has never been discovered.
Title: Re: Pretending Subquarks actually exist!
Post by: Shifter on July 06, 2020, 06:45:38 AM
The challenge to Sandokhan is to provide a link to the actual paper produced by scientists in 1997 from Fermilab that detail the DISCOVERY of the subquark and not some speculative piece of journalism.

Fermilab produces press releases of all their discoveries and NO press release was ever produced for the discovery of the subquark.....WHY? because it was never discovered.

Let's stick to the facts.

Do you have any information that says subquarks can not possibly exist?

Do you?

Not what I asked. Don't deflect given your the one that's getting antsy at others not answering precisely to your liking

Do you have any information that says subquarks can not possibly exist?
Title: Re: Pretending Subquarks actually exist!
Post by: sandokhan on July 06, 2020, 06:47:49 AM
You are a clown.

Here is your lie:


Firstly sudquarks, or preons have NEVER been discovered.

But preons were discovered in 1982! Those are the subquarks (substructure of the electron).

So you had no idea that preons were actually discovered.

Which makes you a clown.

https://www.nobelprize.org/prizes/physics/1998/press-release/

Title: Re: Pretending Subquarks actually exist!
Post by: sandokhan on July 06, 2020, 06:56:08 AM
PREONS ARE SUBQUARKS!

https://books.google.ro/books?id=Q8ghAQAAIAAJ&pg=PA182&lpg=PA182&dq=preons+are+subquarks&source=bl&ots=qhviVBtmOf&sig=ACfU3U2oNRMttcgrkrS9Z3sO3gxKVsNRwQ&hl=en&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwjMspTY4rjqAhU9i8MKHetnDRIQ6AEwDHoECAwQAQ#v=onepage&q=preons%20are%20subquarks&f=false

https://books.google.ro/books?id=Yfj5tWG-SVIC&pg=PA350&lpg=PA350&dq=preons+are+subquarks&source=bl&ots=0sy6u_zvR7&sig=ACfU3U3scFnnAK8_bTuWehPxGI3Xlwekbg&hl=en&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwjMspTY4rjqAhU9i8MKHetnDRIQ6AEwCXoECAkQAQ#v=onepage&q=preons%20are%20subquarks&f=false

https://www.physicsforums.com/threads/preons-and-subquarks.945976/


From 1979:

Subquark Model of Leptons and Quarks

https://inis.iaea.org/collection/NCLCollectionStore/_Public/11/554/11554108.pdf

page 2: preons or subquarks
Title: Re: Pretending Subquarks actually exist!
Post by: Timeisup on July 06, 2020, 06:58:32 AM
You are a clown.

Here is your lie:


Firstly sudquarks, or preons have NEVER been discovered.

But preons were discovered in 1982! Those are the subquarks (substructure of the electron).

So you had no idea that preons were actually discovered.

Which makes you a clown.

https://www.nobelprize.org/prizes/physics/1998/press-release/


A clown is a Nobel profession, while there is no excuse for being a liar.

How about stopping the stonewalling and provide the 1997 paper you appear to imagine exists....you cant hence the stonewalling.

How about sticking to the facts and stop telling lies.
Title: Re: Pretending Subquarks actually exist!
Post by: Shifter on July 06, 2020, 07:01:22 AM
Cowardly deflecting the questions


Do you have any information that says subquarks can not possibly exist?
Title: Re: Pretending Subquarks actually exist!
Post by: Timeisup on July 06, 2020, 07:02:00 AM
PREONS ARE SUBQUARKS!

https://books.google.ro/books?id=Q8ghAQAAIAAJ&pg=PA182&lpg=PA182&dq=preons+are+subquarks&source=bl&ots=qhviVBtmOf&sig=ACfU3U2oNRMttcgrkrS9Z3sO3gxKVsNRwQ&hl=en&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwjMspTY4rjqAhU9i8MKHetnDRIQ6AEwDHoECAwQAQ#v=onepage&q=preons%20are%20subquarks&f=false

https://books.google.ro/books?id=Yfj5tWG-SVIC&pg=PA350&lpg=PA350&dq=preons+are+subquarks&source=bl&ots=0sy6u_zvR7&sig=ACfU3U3scFnnAK8_bTuWehPxGI3Xlwekbg&hl=en&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwjMspTY4rjqAhU9i8MKHetnDRIQ6AEwCXoECAkQAQ#v=onepage&q=preons%20are%20subquarks&f=false

https://www.physicsforums.com/threads/preons-and-subquarks.945976/


From 1979:

Subquark Model of Leptons and Quarks

https://inis.iaea.org/collection/NCLCollectionStore/_Public/11/554/11554108.pdf

page 2: preons or subquarks

You are at it again...telling lies and stonewalling.


Where is the link to the Fermilab 1997 paper you say exists?

I know it doesn't exist, the world knows it doesn't exist, hence all the stonewalling and lying from your side.

When are you going to admit the claim you made about a 1997 discovery of subquarks at Fermilab was either a lie, or you were just wrong the choice is yours.

You are either stupid or a liar. Choose which you prefer.
Title: Re: Pretending Subquarks actually exist!
Post by: Timeisup on July 06, 2020, 07:03:50 AM
Cowardly deflecting the questions


Do you have any information that says subquarks can not possibly exist?

Do you?
Title: Re: Pretending Subquarks actually exist!
Post by: Timeisup on July 06, 2020, 07:07:13 AM
Again I repeat my challenge to Sadokhan.

Provide the link to the 1997 discovery of subquarks at Fermilab that you claim took place. If it happened as you claimed it should be easy to find.
Title: Re: Pretending Subquarks actually exist!
Post by: sandokhan on July 06, 2020, 07:09:31 AM
Subquarks/preons were discovered in 1982!

You have the Nobel prize paper from 1998 clearly explaining the discovery of particles with fractional charge, the preons.

You said that they were never discovered.

So you are clown.

PREONS ARE SUBQUARKS!

https://books.google.ro/books?id=Q8ghAQAAIAAJ&pg=PA182&lpg=PA182&dq=preons+are+subquarks&source=bl&ots=qhviVBtmOf&sig=ACfU3U2oNRMttcgrkrS9Z3sO3gxKVsNRwQ&hl=en&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwjMspTY4rjqAhU9i8MKHetnDRIQ6AEwDHoECAwQAQ#v=onepage&q=preons%20are%20subquarks&f=false

https://books.google.ro/books?id=Yfj5tWG-SVIC&pg=PA350&lpg=PA350&dq=preons+are+subquarks&source=bl&ots=0sy6u_zvR7&sig=ACfU3U3scFnnAK8_bTuWehPxGI3Xlwekbg&hl=en&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwjMspTY4rjqAhU9i8MKHetnDRIQ6AEwCXoECAkQAQ#v=onepage&q=preons%20are%20subquarks&f=false

https://www.physicsforums.com/threads/preons-and-subquarks.945976/


From 1979:

Subquark Model of Leptons and Quarks

https://inis.iaea.org/collection/NCLCollectionStore/_Public/11/554/11554108.pdf

page 2: preons or subquarks


It much easier to discover the fractional charge of an electron, than to attempt the same thing with a quark.
Title: Re: Pretending Subquarks actually exist!
Post by: Timeisup on July 06, 2020, 07:15:15 AM
Subquarks/preons were discovered in 1982!

You have the Nobel prize paper from 1998 clearly explaining the discovery of particles with fractional charge, the preons.

You said that they were never discovered.

So you are clown.

PREONS ARE SUBQUARKS!

https://books.google.ro/books?id=Q8ghAQAAIAAJ&pg=PA182&lpg=PA182&dq=preons+are+subquarks&source=bl&ots=qhviVBtmOf&sig=ACfU3U2oNRMttcgrkrS9Z3sO3gxKVsNRwQ&hl=en&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwjMspTY4rjqAhU9i8MKHetnDRIQ6AEwDHoECAwQAQ#v=onepage&q=preons%20are%20subquarks&f=false

https://books.google.ro/books?id=Yfj5tWG-SVIC&pg=PA350&lpg=PA350&dq=preons+are+subquarks&source=bl&ots=0sy6u_zvR7&sig=ACfU3U3scFnnAK8_bTuWehPxGI3Xlwekbg&hl=en&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwjMspTY4rjqAhU9i8MKHetnDRIQ6AEwCXoECAkQAQ#v=onepage&q=preons%20are%20subquarks&f=false

https://www.physicsforums.com/threads/preons-and-subquarks.945976/


From 1979:

Subquark Model of Leptons and Quarks

https://inis.iaea.org/collection/NCLCollectionStore/_Public/11/554/11554108.pdf

page 2: preons or subquarks


It much easier to discover the fractional charge of an electron, than to attempt the same thing with a quark.

I thought you said 1997 at Fermilab....changing your story now?

You are mistaken....possibly you can't read properly. Subquarks regardless of what you imagine, and you can't even imagine the year right, have NEVER been discovered.
Title: Re: Pretending Subquarks actually exist!
Post by: Timeisup on July 06, 2020, 07:17:27 AM
Subquarks/preons were discovered in 1982!

You have the Nobel prize paper from 1998 clearly explaining the discovery of particles with fractional charge, the preons.

You said that they were never discovered.

So you are clown.

PREONS ARE SUBQUARKS!

https://books.google.ro/books?id=Q8ghAQAAIAAJ&pg=PA182&lpg=PA182&dq=preons+are+subquarks&source=bl&ots=qhviVBtmOf&sig=ACfU3U2oNRMttcgrkrS9Z3sO3gxKVsNRwQ&hl=en&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwjMspTY4rjqAhU9i8MKHetnDRIQ6AEwDHoECAwQAQ#v=onepage&q=preons%20are%20subquarks&f=false

https://books.google.ro/books?id=Yfj5tWG-SVIC&pg=PA350&lpg=PA350&dq=preons+are+subquarks&source=bl&ots=0sy6u_zvR7&sig=ACfU3U3scFnnAK8_bTuWehPxGI3Xlwekbg&hl=en&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwjMspTY4rjqAhU9i8MKHetnDRIQ6AEwCXoECAkQAQ#v=onepage&q=preons%20are%20subquarks&f=false

https://www.physicsforums.com/threads/preons-and-subquarks.945976/


From 1979:

Subquark Model of Leptons and Quarks

https://inis.iaea.org/collection/NCLCollectionStore/_Public/11/554/11554108.pdf

page 2: preons or subquarks


It much easier to discover the fractional charge of an electron, than to attempt the same thing with a quark.

Speculation and DISCOVERY are two different things.

Have you found either the 1982 paper or the 1997 paper, either will do.

How do you account for your imaginary figments being missing from this list?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_particle_discoveries

Title: Re: Pretending Subquarks actually exist!
Post by: Shifter on July 06, 2020, 07:18:11 AM
Cowardly deflecting the questions


Do you have any information that says subquarks can not possibly exist?

Do you?

Wow, scared to actually answer a question because you know the only reasonable answer that doesn't make you look like a dick is that you dont know and cant rule their existence out
Title: Re: Pretending Subquarks actually exist!
Post by: Timeisup on July 06, 2020, 07:20:23 AM
Subquarks/preons were discovered in 1982!

You have the Nobel prize paper from 1998 clearly explaining the discovery of particles with fractional charge, the preons.

You said that they were never discovered.

So you are clown.

PREONS ARE SUBQUARKS!

https://books.google.ro/books?id=Q8ghAQAAIAAJ&pg=PA182&lpg=PA182&dq=preons+are+subquarks&source=bl&ots=qhviVBtmOf&sig=ACfU3U2oNRMttcgrkrS9Z3sO3gxKVsNRwQ&hl=en&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwjMspTY4rjqAhU9i8MKHetnDRIQ6AEwDHoECAwQAQ#v=onepage&q=preons%20are%20subquarks&f=false

https://books.google.ro/books?id=Yfj5tWG-SVIC&pg=PA350&lpg=PA350&dq=preons+are+subquarks&source=bl&ots=0sy6u_zvR7&sig=ACfU3U3scFnnAK8_bTuWehPxGI3Xlwekbg&hl=en&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwjMspTY4rjqAhU9i8MKHetnDRIQ6AEwCXoECAkQAQ#v=onepage&q=preons%20are%20subquarks&f=false

https://www.physicsforums.com/threads/preons-and-subquarks.945976/


From 1979:

Subquark Model of Leptons and Quarks

https://inis.iaea.org/collection/NCLCollectionStore/_Public/11/554/11554108.pdf

page 2: preons or subquarks


It much easier to discover the fractional charge of an electron, than to attempt the same thing with a quark.


You really have to do some homework on telling the difference between scientific speculation and actual scientific discovery. The two are very very different.

homework score
F-
Title: Re: Pretending Subquarks actually exist!
Post by: sandokhan on July 06, 2020, 07:21:08 AM
You need to update that incomplete list.

https://www.nobelprize.org/prizes/physics/1998/press-release/

Fractional charges of an electron, preons, were actually discovered.

Title: Re: Pretending Subquarks actually exist!
Post by: Timeisup on July 06, 2020, 07:21:32 AM
Cowardly deflecting the questions


Do you have any information that says subquarks can not possibly exist?

Do you?

Wow, scared to actually answer a question because you know the only reasonable answer that doesn't make you look like a dick is that you dont know and cant rule their existence out

You should watch your language.
Title: Re: Pretending Subquarks actually exist!
Post by: Timeisup on July 06, 2020, 07:23:02 AM
You need to update that incomplete list.

https://www.nobelprize.org/prizes/physics/1998/press-release/

Fractional charges of an electron, preons, were actually discovered.

You need to provide the links to the papers you imagine exist. The list needs no updating.
Did you find either preons or subquarks on it?..........

thought not.

I think that makes you WRONG.
Title: Re: Pretending Subquarks actually exist!
Post by: Timeisup on July 06, 2020, 07:24:51 AM
You need to update that incomplete list.

https://www.nobelprize.org/prizes/physics/1998/press-release/

Fractional charges of an electron, preons, were actually discovered.

You can keep posting an irrelevant link all you want. How about a link to the one that details the discovery you imagined happened in whichever year your imagination thinks it happened.
Title: Re: Pretending Subquarks actually exist!
Post by: Shifter on July 06, 2020, 07:25:42 AM
Cowardly deflecting the questions


Do you have any information that says subquarks can not possibly exist?

Do you?

Wow, scared to actually answer a question because you know the only reasonable answer that doesn't make you look like a dick is that you dont know and cant rule their existence out

You should watch your language.

And you should watch your level of antagonism in a Flat Earth General thread. This is not the debate forum. And if you read my sentence in context you would know that I didn't call you the word. I saved you from it lol. You're welcome
Title: Re: Pretending Subquarks actually exist!
Post by: sandokhan on July 06, 2020, 07:29:59 AM
I do not imagine anything at all.

You said that preons were NEVER discovered.

But they were:

https://www.nobelprize.org/prizes/physics/1998/press-release/

The wikipedia list is woefully incomplete.

As is your homework.

Splitting the electron, by B. Daviss, New Scientist, 31 January 1998, p. 36.

Fractionally charged quasiparticles signal their presence with noise, by G. P. Collins, Physics Today, November 1997, p. 17.

In 1995, the fractional charge of Laughlin quasiparticles was measured directly in a quantum antidot electrometer at Stony Brook University, New York.

In 1997, two groups of physicists at the Weizmann Institute of Science in Rehovot, Israel, and at the Commissariat à l'énergie atomique laboratory near Paris, detected such quasiparticles carrying an electric current, through measuring quantum shot noise.

J. Martin; S. Ilani; B. Verdene; J. Smet; V. Umansky; D. Mahalu; D. Schuh; G. Abstreiter; A. Yacoby (2004). "Localization of Fractionally Charged Quasi Particles".

Title: Re: Pretending Subquarks actually exist!
Post by: NotSoSkeptical on July 06, 2020, 07:36:27 AM
You need to update that incomplete list.

https://www.nobelprize.org/prizes/physics/1998/press-release/

Fractional charges of an electron, preons, were actually discovered.

That's not what it says....

Quote
The three researchers are being awarded the Nobel Prize for discovering that electrons acting together in strong magnetic fields can form new types of “particles”, with charges that are fractions of electron charges.

Further down in the link you provided..

Quote
Direct demonstration of quasiparticles
The discovery and the explanation of the fractional quantum Hall effect in 1982-83 may be said to represent an indirect demonstration of the new quantum fluid and its fractionally charged quasiparticles. Several research groups have recently succeeded in observing these new particles directly (see reference list). This has for instance taken place in experiments where very small variations in a current have been ascribable to individual quasiparticles flowing through the circuit. These measurements, comparable to distinguishing the sound of individual hailstones during a hailstorm and determining that they are only a fraction of their normal size, were made possible by the astonishing development of microelectronics since this year’s three laureates made their pioneering contributions. The measurements may be viewed as the conclusive verification of their discoveries.

No where does it say they discovered Preons or Subquarks.
Title: Re: Pretending Subquarks actually exist!
Post by: Timeisup on July 06, 2020, 07:36:53 AM
I do not imagine anything at all.

You said that preons were NEVER discovered.

But they were:

https://www.nobelprize.org/prizes/physics/1998/press-release/

The wikipedia list is woefully incomplete.

As is your homework.

Splitting the electron, by B. Daviss, New Scientist, 31 January 1998, p. 36.

Fractionally charged quasiparticles signal their presence with noise, by G. P. Collins, Physics Today, November 1997, p. 17.

In 1995, the fractional charge of Laughlin quasiparticles was measured directly in a quantum antidot electrometer at Stony Brook University, New York.

In 1997, two groups of physicists at the Weizmann Institute of Science in Rehovot, Israel, and at the Commissariat à l'énergie atomique laboratory near Paris, detected such quasiparticles carrying an electric current, through measuring quantum shot noise.

J. Martin; S. Ilani; B. Verdene; J. Smet; V. Umansky; D. Mahalu; D. Schuh; G. Abstreiter; A. Yacoby (2004). "Localization of Fractionally Charged Quasi Particles".

Irrelevant

Where is the link to the 1997 discovery you claimed or imagined happened in 1997 (1982 etc) at Fermilab? Why do you keep avoiding it?

Title: Re: Pretending Subquarks actually exist!
Post by: sandokhan on July 06, 2020, 07:39:48 AM
Fractional charges of electrons are called preons (quasi particles).
Title: Re: Pretending Subquarks actually exist!
Post by: NotSoSkeptical on July 06, 2020, 07:41:45 AM
Fractional charges of electrons are called preons (quasi particles).

So electrons create preons?

And preons/subquarks are quasi particles.

Quasi particles are particles that seem to be particles but aren't really.

As in Quasi: "seemingly; apparently but not really."   OR   "being partly or almost."

So Preons and subquarks aren't particles.

Thanks for clarifying.

Just for reference:

Quote
In particle physics, preons are point particles, theorized as sub-components of quarks, and leptons.

You should actually take the time and read what is in your link.
Title: Re: Pretending Subquarks actually exist!
Post by: sandokhan on July 06, 2020, 07:50:02 AM
No.

(http://www.subtleenergies.com/ormus/oc/fig001.gif)

HYDROGEN ATOM: 18 SUBQUARKS - 9 LAEVOROTATORY AND 9 DEXTROROTATORY subquarks

A proton is made up of NINE laevorotatory subquarks - an electron is actually comprised of NINE dextrorotatory subquarks (called now preons).

However, modern science has mistakenly named a SINGLE dextrorotatory subquark as an electron and has ascribed THE TOTAL charge of the NINE corresponding subquarks as the total negative charge of a single electron, thus confusing the whole matter.


What the scientists discovered were actual preons/subquarks, but they ascribe the total negative charge to the electron, which is the actual preon.

The preons create the "electron".

And no one knows where the mass of the electron comes from.


http://library.uc.edu.kh/userfiles/pdf/42.What%20is%20the%20electron.pdf (pgs. 126-154)

This is discussed in the next section, where it is shown to represent about 0.1% of the total electron energy. But this leaves 99.9% unaccounted-for. There must be a non-electromagnetic mass—a new state of matter that is not observed in our familiar macroscopic world. We label it here as mechanical matter, just to give it a name. This mechanical matter is required to have several distinctive properties, which we enumerate here: (1) It forms 99.9% of the mass of the electron.
Title: Re: Pretending Subquarks actually exist!
Post by: Code-Beta1234 on July 06, 2020, 07:58:51 AM
Many papers sandokhan linked point at subquarks and preons. They didn't find them, but ovservations point at them

If it looks like a duck, quacks like a duck, then it is duck
Title: Re: Pretending Subquarks actually exist!
Post by: NotSoSkeptical on July 06, 2020, 08:04:01 AM
What do you mean, No?

You said that Preons/Subquarks are quasi particles.

Per your link...

Quote
The three researchers are being awarded the Nobel Prize for discovering that electrons acting together in strong magnetic fields can form new types of “particles”, with charges that are fractions of electron charges.

Electrons acting together created new types of "particles" (quasiparticles), with charges that are fractions of electron charges.

That's literally what it says.

Electrons created these quasi particles, which you said are preons.  So electrons create preons.

How is that no?

If that is wrong, then you should stop linking to it and saying they discovered preons.  Per your own statements, those quasi particles  are preons/subquarks.  Per the nobel prize they won, they created those quasi particles using extremely low temperatures and electromagnetism.  So they created preons/subquarks.

And quasiparticles by definition are not particles.

Title: Re: Pretending Subquarks actually exist!
Post by: NotSoSkeptical on July 06, 2020, 08:05:39 AM
Many papers sandokhan linked point at subquarks and preons. Thry didn't fibd them, but ovservations point at them

If it looks like a duck, quacks like a duck, then it is duck

You didn't read the link either.
Title: Re: Pretending Subquarks actually exist!
Post by: Shifter on July 06, 2020, 08:21:07 AM
Many papers sandokhan linked point at subquarks and preons. Thry didn't fibd them, but ovservations point at them

If it looks like a duck, quacks like a duck, then it is duck

You didn't read the link either.

And your confirmation bias selectively chose what you wanted to read

The scientists studying this stuff speculate that there is something to the quark we dont know about. Just because we dont have the tech, data or understanding to figure it out, does not mean the answer to whether a sub quark exists is a resounding and definite NO

No one here telling us all that sub quarks aren't real has any information to definitively state that. A lack of evidence of something does not imply lack of existence.

Title: Re: Pretending Subquarks actually exist!
Post by: NotSoSkeptical on July 06, 2020, 08:28:45 AM
Many papers sandokhan linked point at subquarks and preons. Thry didn't fibd them, but ovservations point at them

If it looks like a duck, quacks like a duck, then it is duck

You didn't read the link either.

And your confirmation bias selectively chose what you wanted to read

The scientists studying this stuff speculate that there is something to the quark we dont know about. Just because we dont have the tech, data or understanding to figure it out, does not mean the answer to whether a sub quark exists is a resounding and definite NO

No one here telling us all that sub quarks aren't real has any information to definitively state that. A lack of evidence of something does not imply lack of existence.

You didn't read the nobel prize link either.
Title: Re: Pretending Subquarks actually exist!
Post by: rvlvr on July 06, 2020, 08:28:57 AM
I am confused.

https://en.m.wiktionary.org/wiki/subquark#:~:text=Noun,of%20quarks%20(and%20leptons).

Why does it say hypothetical if they have been found? It this some odd conspircy, too? To hide the shape of the Earth or the chronology we know?
Title: Re: Pretending Subquarks actually exist!
Post by: Shifter on July 06, 2020, 08:31:06 AM
Many papers sandokhan linked point at subquarks and preons. Thry didn't fibd them, but ovservations point at them

If it looks like a duck, quacks like a duck, then it is duck

You didn't read the link either.

And your confirmation bias selectively chose what you wanted to read

The scientists studying this stuff speculate that there is something to the quark we dont know about. Just because we dont have the tech, data or understanding to figure it out, does not mean the answer to whether a sub quark exists is a resounding and definite NO

No one here telling us all that sub quarks aren't real has any information to definitively state that. A lack of evidence of something does not imply lack of existence.

You didn't read the nobel prize link either.

Another coward who cant bring himself to say 'I dont know if they exist or not but we dont have all the information to rule one way or the other'
Title: Re: Pretending Subquarks actually exist!
Post by: sandokhan on July 06, 2020, 08:34:46 AM
Electrons, as described by modern science, have nine preons with fractional charges.

Now, the proof from mathematics, that gravitons/antigravitons (subquarks) must exist, using knot theory:


https://cds.cern.ch/record/223258/files/9202054.pdf

Gravitons and Loops

Abhay Ashtekar, Carlo Rovelli and Lee Smolin

The “reality conditions” are realized by an inner product that is chiral asymmetric, resulting in a chiral asymmetric ordering for the Hamiltonian, and, in an asymmetric description of the left and right handed gravitons.

The first step towards this goal is to recast the Fock description of graviton also in terms of closed loops.


https://arxiv.org/pdf/1010.3552.pdf

Chiral vacuum fluctuations in quantum gravity

Is made up of the right handed positive frequency of the graviton and the left handed negative frequency of the anti-graviton.



https://inis.iaea.org/collection/NCLCollectionStore/_Public/13/643/13643701.pdf

Subquarks-Possibly the Most Fundamental Form of Matter

A model of "subquark pregeometry" in which the graviton is also a composite of a subquark-antisubquark pair: Einstein's gravity is a quantum effect of matter.

Everything is made of subquarks and every force is due to them.


https://academic.oup.com/ptp/article/64/4/1494/1924776

Magnetic Moments of Composite Leptons and Quarks in a Dynamical Subquark Model
Title: Re: Pretending Subquarks actually exist!
Post by: NotSoSkeptical on July 06, 2020, 08:39:01 AM
Many papers sandokhan linked point at subquarks and preons. Thry didn't fibd them, but ovservations point at them

If it looks like a duck, quacks like a duck, then it is duck

You didn't read the link either.

And your confirmation bias selectively chose what you wanted to read

The scientists studying this stuff speculate that there is something to the quark we dont know about. Just because we dont have the tech, data or understanding to figure it out, does not mean the answer to whether a sub quark exists is a resounding and definite NO

No one here telling us all that sub quarks aren't real has any information to definitively state that. A lack of evidence of something does not imply lack of existence.

You didn't read the nobel prize link either.

Another coward who cant bring himself to say 'I dont know if they exist or not but we dont have all the information to rule one way or the other'

I didn't say that they couldn't exist, I just said that they haven't been proven to exist.  Hypothetical Existence doesn't mean they exist.

A mechanism exist, but that mechanism being subquarks is not definitive.  Saying subquarks dont' exist, doesn't negate that a mechanism exists.
Title: Re: Pretending Subquarks actually exist!
Post by: sandokhan on July 06, 2020, 08:51:22 AM
I just said that they haven't been proven to exist.

But they have.


https://cds.cern.ch/record/223258/files/9202054.pdf

Gravitons and Loops

Abhay Ashtekar, Carlo Rovelli and Lee Smolin

The “reality conditions” are realized by an inner product that is chiral asymmetric, resulting in a chiral asymmetric ordering for the Hamiltonian, and, in an asymmetric description of the left and right handed gravitons.

The first step towards this goal is to recast the Fock description of graviton also in terms of closed loops.



https://inis.iaea.org/collection/NCLCollectionStore/_Public/13/643/13643701.pdf

Subquarks-Possibly the Most Fundamental Form of Matter

A model of "subquark pregeometry" in which the graviton is also a composite of a subquark-antisubquark pair: Einstein's gravity is a quantum effect of matter.

Everything is made of subquarks and every force is due to them.
Title: Re: Pretending Subquarks actually exist!
Post by: rvlvr on July 06, 2020, 08:54:38 AM
Where does it state there we have found subquarks in so many words?
Title: Re: Pretending Subquarks actually exist!
Post by: Timeisup on July 06, 2020, 09:46:58 AM
I just said that they haven't been proven to exist.

But they have.


https://cds.cern.ch/record/223258/files/9202054.pdf

Gravitons and Loops

Abhay Ashtekar, Carlo Rovelli and Lee Smolin

The “reality conditions” are realized by an inner product that is chiral asymmetric, resulting in a chiral asymmetric ordering for the Hamiltonian, and, in an asymmetric description of the left and right handed gravitons.

The first step towards this goal is to recast the Fock description of graviton also in terms of closed loops.



https://inis.iaea.org/collection/NCLCollectionStore/_Public/13/643/13643701.pdf

Subquarks-Possibly the Most Fundamental Form of Matter

A model of "subquark pregeometry" in which the graviton is also a composite of a subquark-antisubquark pair: Einstein's gravity is a quantum effect of matter.

Everything is made of subquarks and every force is due to them.

You have proven nothing. the truth is here, proof that you of course deny.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_particle_discoveries

Your claim that subquarks were discovered in 1997 at Fermilab has been shown to be a lie on your part. Nothing you have provided points to a discovery of subquarks ever having been made.

You have dismally failed to provide evidence of their discovery at Fermilab in 1997 mainly because they were never ever discovered anywhere.

In place of evidence of their discovery, which is, of course, an impossibility instead all you provide is a number of journalistic articles and other irrelevances which merely give nothing but speculation, speculation that your tunnel vision mind wants to see desperately as proof. But it is not.

Right from the first post you have, failed, failed, and failed yet again to provide proof of the discovery of subquarks.  Why don't you give up and admit you are wrong?
Title: Re: Pretending Subquarks actually exist!
Post by: Timeisup on July 06, 2020, 09:49:43 AM
I just said that they haven't been proven to exist.

But they have.


https://cds.cern.ch/record/223258/files/9202054.pdf

Gravitons and Loops

Abhay Ashtekar, Carlo Rovelli and Lee Smolin

The “reality conditions” are realized by an inner product that is chiral asymmetric, resulting in a chiral asymmetric ordering for the Hamiltonian, and, in an asymmetric description of the left and right handed gravitons.

The first step towards this goal is to recast the Fock description of graviton also in terms of closed loops.



https://inis.iaea.org/collection/NCLCollectionStore/_Public/13/643/13643701.pdf

Subquarks-Possibly the Most Fundamental Form of Matter

A model of "subquark pregeometry" in which the graviton is also a composite of a subquark-antisubquark pair: Einstein's gravity is a quantum effect of matter.

Everything is made of subquarks and every force is due to them.

While we are on the topic of Subquarks never having been discovered, gravitons too are mere speculation. You lie once more. Is there no end to your lies?
Title: Re: Pretending Subquarks actually exist!
Post by: Shifter on July 06, 2020, 09:54:51 AM
I just said that they haven't been proven to exist.

But they have.


https://cds.cern.ch/record/223258/files/9202054.pdf

Gravitons and Loops

Abhay Ashtekar, Carlo Rovelli and Lee Smolin

The “reality conditions” are realized by an inner product that is chiral asymmetric, resulting in a chiral asymmetric ordering for the Hamiltonian, and, in an asymmetric description of the left and right handed gravitons.

The first step towards this goal is to recast the Fock description of graviton also in terms of closed loops.



https://inis.iaea.org/collection/NCLCollectionStore/_Public/13/643/13643701.pdf

Subquarks-Possibly the Most Fundamental Form of Matter

A model of "subquark pregeometry" in which the graviton is also a composite of a subquark-antisubquark pair: Einstein's gravity is a quantum effect of matter.

Everything is made of subquarks and every force is due to them.

While we are on the topic of Subquarks never having been discovered, gravitons too are mere speculation. You lie once more. Is there no end to your lies?

Christ, he talks about a particular model that uses gravitons and you fly off the handle about gravitons

How many models of physics are theoretical using theoretical particles?

Did you rubbish anyone who speculated about the 'Higgs-Boson' in models before they found evidence for it? Grow up.
Title: Re: Pretending Subquarks actually exist!
Post by: Timeisup on July 06, 2020, 10:01:30 AM
I just said that they haven't been proven to exist.

But they have.


https://cds.cern.ch/record/223258/files/9202054.pdf

Gravitons and Loops

Abhay Ashtekar, Carlo Rovelli and Lee Smolin

The “reality conditions” are realized by an inner product that is chiral asymmetric, resulting in a chiral asymmetric ordering for the Hamiltonian, and, in an asymmetric description of the left and right handed gravitons.

The first step towards this goal is to recast the Fock description of graviton also in terms of closed loops.



https://inis.iaea.org/collection/NCLCollectionStore/_Public/13/643/13643701.pdf

Subquarks-Possibly the Most Fundamental Form of Matter

A model of "subquark pregeometry" in which the graviton is also a composite of a subquark-antisubquark pair: Einstein's gravity is a quantum effect of matter.

Everything is made of subquarks and every force is due to them.

You're coming over as being pretty shaken in so much as your post makes no sense whatsoever. Why don't you just admit the fact that subquarks have never ever been conclusively discovered as a result of any experiment conducted here on earth, and that no paper circa 1997, or any other date has ever been produced that describes their discovery?

If such a paper had existed describing such a discovery, don't you think you would have presented it by now? The fact you've not speaks volumes.


Instead, all you have are a series of pretty old speculative papers from over 30 years ago that have pretty much been shown to be incorrect due to the work at both CERN and Fermilab.

Admit you are wrong.

Title: Re: Pretending Subquarks actually exist!
Post by: Shifter on July 06, 2020, 10:08:52 AM
I just said that they haven't been proven to exist.

But they have.


https://cds.cern.ch/record/223258/files/9202054.pdf

Gravitons and Loops

Abhay Ashtekar, Carlo Rovelli and Lee Smolin

The “reality conditions” are realized by an inner product that is chiral asymmetric, resulting in a chiral asymmetric ordering for the Hamiltonian, and, in an asymmetric description of the left and right handed gravitons.

The first step towards this goal is to recast the Fock description of graviton also in terms of closed loops.



https://inis.iaea.org/collection/NCLCollectionStore/_Public/13/643/13643701.pdf

Subquarks-Possibly the Most Fundamental Form of Matter

A model of "subquark pregeometry" in which the graviton is also a composite of a subquark-antisubquark pair: Einstein's gravity is a quantum effect of matter.

Everything is made of subquarks and every force is due to them.

While we are on the topic of Subquarks never having been discovered, gravitons too are mere speculation. You lie once more. Is there no end to your lies?

Christ, he talks about a particular model that uses gravitons and you fly off the handle about gravitons

How many models of physics are theoretical using theoretical particles?

Did you rubbish anyone who speculated about the 'Higgs-Boson' in models before they found evidence for it? Grow up.

Were not speaking about handles, but if you do please use one on the way out.

So you choose to deflect the fact your argument is ridiculous as you are debating against a model in physics. A model which uses perfectly legitimate and recognized subquarks and gravitons etc

And yet you still cant answer what information you have to say the existence of such particles is impossible.

This is not the board you can use to bully and antagonise other members for your pleasure. Go use Angry Ranting for that
Title: Re: Pretending Subquarks actually exist!
Post by: Code-Beta1234 on July 06, 2020, 10:23:15 AM
Shifter is right. The  subquarks exsist as sandokhan papers pointed out, but even if papers are wrong, no experiment can 100% prove something inpossible
Title: Re: Pretending Subquarks actually exist!
Post by: JJA on July 06, 2020, 10:44:28 AM
I just said that they haven't been proven to exist.

But they have.


https://cds.cern.ch/record/223258/files/9202054.pdf

Gravitons and Loops

Abhay Ashtekar, Carlo Rovelli and Lee Smolin

The “reality conditions” are realized by an inner product that is chiral asymmetric, resulting in a chiral asymmetric ordering for the Hamiltonian, and, in an asymmetric description of the left and right handed gravitons.

The first step towards this goal is to recast the Fock description of graviton also in terms of closed loops.



https://inis.iaea.org/collection/NCLCollectionStore/_Public/13/643/13643701.pdf

Subquarks-Possibly the Most Fundamental Form of Matter

A model of "subquark pregeometry" in which the graviton is also a composite of a subquark-antisubquark pair: Einstein's gravity is a quantum effect of matter.

Everything is made of subquarks and every force is due to them.

While we are on the topic of Subquarks never having been discovered, gravitons too are mere speculation. You lie once more. Is there no end to your lies?

Christ, he talks about a particular model that uses gravitons and you fly off the handle about gravitons

How many models of physics are theoretical using theoretical particles?

Did you rubbish anyone who speculated about the 'Higgs-Boson' in models before they found evidence for it? Grow up.

You continue to fail to recognize the difference between speculating something exists, and claiming as a fact that it does.

Read Sandokhan's post again.  He's not speculating.  He's insisting that they do exist.  He's insisting that they have been proven to exist.

They have not.

They are theoretical. They may exist, subquarks may exist, magic talking fire breathing dragons may exist. Claim they DO exist and have proof, prepare to be argued with if you can't hand over a baby dragon for inspection.
Title: Re: Pretending Subquarks actually exist!
Post by: sandokhan on July 06, 2020, 10:50:06 AM
The exact formula for the Biefeld-Brown effect was derived in 1917 by Hermann Weyl.

It is true irrespective of any experiments that might or not be carried out.

Dr. Ashtekar's proof of the existence of gravitons/antigravitons (subquarks) is an exact proof, irrespective of any experiments that would be carried out later in time.

The existence of preons (subquarks) was proven experimentally in 1982, see the Nobel prize paper for 1998.

It is much easier to use electrons (gravitons) to infer the existence of its substructure, than to use quarks (from protons) to accomplish the same thing.

This thread is over.
Title: Re: Pretending Subquarks actually exist!
Post by: Stash on July 06, 2020, 11:01:32 AM
It is true irrespective of any experiments that might or not be carried out.

How does this work in science?
Title: Re: Pretending Subquarks actually exist!
Post by: Timeisup on July 06, 2020, 12:59:35 PM
Shifter is right. The  subquarks exsist as sandokhan papers pointed out, but even if papers are wrong, no experiment can 100% prove something inpossible

What is wrong with some people?

Fact 1:- Subquarks were theorised in the early 1980s

Fact 2:- Subquarks have NEVER, thats NEVER, just in case you failed to see the first one, ever in the history of recorded history been discovered.

Fact 3:- Since the 1980s experiments both at CERN and Fermilab has cast serious doubt on subquarks existing.

Now it all depends if you like facts or prefer just to make things up. But those are the facts of the matter.

Some Aditional Facts

Sandokhan said subquarks were discovered at Fermilab in 1997, that is not true, he was either lying or confused.
Sandokhan later said subquarks were discovered in the 1980s!, that also is not true again lying or confused.

In case you were not able to follow that, just remember subquarks have NEVER been discovered anywhere, any time.

Its pretty simple really. If you don't believe me feel free to go look it up. Its no secret.
Title: Re: Pretending Subquarks actually exist!
Post by: Timeisup on July 06, 2020, 01:02:11 PM
The exact formula for the Biefeld-Brown effect was derived in 1917 by Hermann Weyl.

It is true irrespective of any experiments that might or not be carried out.

Dr. Ashtekar's proof of the existence of gravitons/antigravitons (subquarks) is an exact proof, irrespective of any experiments that would be carried out later in time.

The existence of preons (subquarks) was proven experimentally in 1982, see the Nobel prize paper for 1998.

It is much easier to use electrons (gravitons) to infer the existence of its substructure, than to use quarks (from protons) to accomplish the same thing.

This thread is over.

Rubbish.

The thread is not over and you are Wrong and a liar to boot.

Just a reminder, a timeline of the discovery of all Subatomic particles:-

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_particle_discoveries

Note:-
No gravitons, no subquarks.

I wish people would stick to the known facts rather than making their own ones up.
Title: Re: Pretending Subquarks actually exist!
Post by: Shifter on July 06, 2020, 01:05:34 PM
In case you were not able to follow that, just remember subquarks have NEVER been discovered anywhere, any time.

Are you speaking for every potential alien race anywhere in the universe at any time point?

Because that's a pretty big claim to make. You don't know it's not been discovered before.

A lack of evidence does not mean an absence of existence. Remember if a sub quark exists, then it exists. It would exist even if the universe had no observers in it. Once again it doesn't need 'Timeisups' validation to start existing.

Title: Re: Pretending Subquarks actually exist!
Post by: Timeisup on July 06, 2020, 01:16:21 PM
Just to clarify things.

Additional Fact:-
Nowhere in the known universe have subquarks been discovered.

You are of course at liberty to disagree by posting a link to a verified scientific paper describing how the subquark was discovered, but as it hasn't been discovered, at least not on planet earth! you will find a hard time finding such a paper. But feel free to look farther afield.
Title: Re: Pretending Subquarks actually exist!
Post by: Shifter on July 06, 2020, 01:26:04 PM
Just to clarify things.

Additional Fact:-
Nowhere in the known universe have subquarks been discovered.

You are of course at liberty to disagree by posting a link to a verified scientific paper describing how the subquark was discovered, but as it hasn't been discovered, at least not on planet earth! you will find a hard time finding such a paper. But feel free to look farther afield.

So you have 'checked the known universe' have you? Ha! And you rag on an ASI. You're claiming omniscience lol

Seriously did you check the entire universe at every point in time? Maybe a species of alien discovered it a few hundred million years ago in the Triangulam galaxy. You better go check to make sure
Title: Re: Pretending Subquarks actually exist!
Post by: Timeisup on July 06, 2020, 02:33:32 PM
Clarification.

For the known universe, please read places we actually know, places we have actually set foot on, places we actually know not just distant stars we have looked at or distant exo planets we have inferred from analysis of data.

The clue was in the word known.

I hope that clears things up.
Title: Re: Pretending Subquarks actually exist!
Post by: Shifter on July 06, 2020, 02:42:38 PM
Clarification.

For the known universe, please read places we actually know, places we have actually set foot on, places we actually know not just distant stars we have looked at or distant exo planets we have inferred from analysis of data.

The clue was in the word known.

I hope that clears things up.

The 'known' universe is far more than planet Earth

Also you said 'at any time'. This infers you checked every corner for all time to make sure a race didn't find it as Nd then go extinct

The point is you don't have the data to make such a bold claim

Again, physics doesn't need observers to exist. Nothing needs your validation
Title: Re: Pretending Subquarks actually exist!
Post by: sokarul on July 06, 2020, 02:58:41 PM
Sandokhan couldn’t be more wrong. Subquarks are not a thing. Quarks alongs with gluons make up protons and neutrons. Electrons are not related to quarks. Fermi lab did not find otherwise. Sandokhan deliberately misrepresents research all the time. He is the last person you should look to for science knowledge.
Title: Re: Pretending Subquarks actually exist!
Post by: Timeisup on July 06, 2020, 03:10:16 PM
Clarification.

For the known universe, please read places we actually know, places we have actually set foot on, places we actually know not just distant stars we have looked at or distant exo planets we have inferred from analysis of data.

The clue was in the word known.

I hope that clears things up.

The 'known' universe is far more than planet Earth

Also you said 'at any time'. This infers you checked every corner for all time to make sure a race didn't find it as Nd then go extinct

The point is you don't have the data to make such a bold claim

Again, physics doesn't need observers to exist. Nothing needs your validation

Have you always had problems with the concept of discovery? Let me hep you:-

‘the process of finding information, a place, or an object, especially for the first time, or the thing that is found’

Looks like you have a similar problem with, known, let me help you:-
‘recognized, familiar, or within the scope of knowledge’

It’s really pretty simple once you get the hang of it.
Title: Re: Pretending Subquarks actually exist!
Post by: Shifter on July 06, 2020, 03:18:21 PM
Clarification.

For the known universe, please read places we actually know, places we have actually set foot on, places we actually know not just distant stars we have looked at or distant exo planets we have inferred from analysis of data.

The clue was in the word known.

I hope that clears things up.

The 'known' universe is far more than planet Earth

Also you said 'at any time'. This infers you checked every corner for all time to make sure a race didn't find it as Nd then go extinct

The point is you don't have the data to make such a bold claim

Again, physics doesn't need observers to exist. Nothing needs your validation

Have you always had problems with the concept of discovery? Let me hep you:-

‘the process of finding information, a place, or an object, especially for the first time, or the thing that is found’

Looks like you have a similar problem with, known, let me help you:-
‘recognized, familiar, or within the scope of knowledge’

It’s really pretty simple once you get the hang of it.

You are claiming if something hasn't been discovered, it doesn't exist. Nonsense

And our known universe is the observable portion of it. We know it exists. We know it has trillions of galaxies and many more planets. It's not like our planet is surrounded by a black hole and we have no information outside of it

You don't know another civilisation may have discovered it. Also you mentioned 'at any time'. This suggests your particular knowledge is greater than everyone else's. How can you be sure no one / thing has not found it?

Why be so broad ('known universe') when you could have just narrowed it to the human race.

You're just being ridiculous.

The simple answer is that we don't have enough data to say either way whether sub quarks exist or not. We don't have the information.

And what if we never get the information? Or it's something that is beyond the scope of anyone/thing to observe?

It changes nothing. If they exist, they exist, whether we discover them or not. If they don't, they don't. No matter, I guess we will endlessly look for it anyway
Title: Re: Pretending Subquarks actually exist!
Post by: Timeisup on July 06, 2020, 03:23:05 PM
Fact:

I think now that’s all cleared that we can safely say that subquarks have NOT been FOUND or DISCOVERED experimentally in either CERN, Fermilab or any other ‘ high energy atom smasher’ located on planet earth or any other planet we have visited and are in regular contact with.

Again, anyone is at liberty to check this fact as the information that supports the above is freely available.

Title: Re: Pretending Subquarks actually exist!
Post by: Timeisup on July 06, 2020, 03:30:38 PM
‘You are claiming if something hasn't been discovered, it doesn't exist. Nonsense’

Still having a problem with the meaning of ‘discovered’ I see.

Just think about discovering a boil on your bum. The boil was obviously there before you discovered it. Discovering it made it known to you.

Now think about subquarks, they have never been discovered, even after looking. That would be like looking for a boil on your bum and not finding one. If that were the case it would in all likely hood point to your bum being a boil free zone. Same applies to subquarks, we’ve looked, there not there.

Simple.

Title: Re: Pretending Subquarks actually exist!
Post by: Shifter on July 06, 2020, 03:32:43 PM
‘You are claiming if something hasn't been discovered, it doesn't exist. Nonsense’

Still having a problem with the meaning of ‘discovered’ I see.

Just think about discovering a boil on your bum. The boil was obviously there before you discovered it. Discovering it made it known to you.

Now think about subquarks, they have never been discovered, even after looking. That would be like looking for a boil on your bum and not finding one. If that were the case it would in all likely hood point to your bum being a boil free zone. Same applies to subquarks, we’ve looked, there not there.

Simple.

Do you believe we have all the data regarding physics and the technology and intellect at our disposal to make that assertion with 100% confidence?
Title: Re: Pretending Subquarks actually exist!
Post by: Timeisup on July 06, 2020, 03:38:19 PM
‘You are claiming if something hasn't been discovered, it doesn't exist. Nonsense’

Still having a problem with the meaning of ‘discovered’ I see.

Just think about discovering a boil on your bum. The boil was obviously there before you discovered it. Discovering it made it known to you.

Now think about subquarks, they have never been discovered, even after looking. That would be like looking for a boil on your bum and not finding one. If that were the case it would in all likely hood point to your bum being a boil free zone. Same applies to subquarks, we’ve looked, there not there.

Simple.

Do you believe we have all the data regarding physics and the technology and intellect at our disposal to make that assertion with 100% confidence?

I take it you:

Have internet access

Can do a simple search

Can read

If you can answer yes to all three then you have the power to answer your own question.

One thing you need to remember it’s a matter that you can have no opinion on. The subatomic world is closed to you, you have no knowledge of it and can have no knowledge of it other that that delivered to you by the experts in that field. It follows therefore you have to accept what they say on the matter. Currently they are saying subquarks are not there, there is no sign of them, even after looking really hard for them. End off, no subquarks discovered.

If you don’t like the answer tough.
Title: Re: Pretending Subquarks actually exist!
Post by: JJA on July 06, 2020, 03:52:11 PM
‘You are claiming if something hasn't been discovered, it doesn't exist. Nonsense’

Still having a problem with the meaning of ‘discovered’ I see.

Just think about discovering a boil on your bum. The boil was obviously there before you discovered it. Discovering it made it known to you.

Now think about subquarks, they have never been discovered, even after looking. That would be like looking for a boil on your bum and not finding one. If that were the case it would in all likely hood point to your bum being a boil free zone. Same applies to subquarks, we’ve looked, there not there.

Simple.

Do you believe we have all the data regarding physics and the technology and intellect at our disposal to make that assertion with 100% confidence?

I take it you:

Have internet access

Can do a simple search

Can read

If you can answer yes to all three then you have the power to answer your own question.

One thing you need to remember it’s a matter that you can have no opinion on. The subatomic world is closed to you, you have no knowledge of it and can have no knowledge of it other that that delivered to you by the experts in that field. It follows therefore you have to accept what they say on the matter. Currently they are saying subquarks are not there, there is no sign of them, even after looking really hard for them. End off, no subquarks discovered.

If you don’t like the answer tough.

Shifter is a massive troll.

He will continue to argue, and eventually start demanding that you prove that there are no alien researchers in Area 51 working on subquarks and raising baby dragons in shoeboxes.  Lost cause.
Title: Re: Pretending Subquarks actually exist!
Post by: Shifter on July 06, 2020, 04:04:51 PM
Stop embarrassing yourselves. You have no idea what the limits are. Not even the greatest egg heads know. Thats why they research! (duh!)

When the atom was discovered, scientists thought that was the smallest. That's why they called it 'atom' (literally means indivisible).

Who is to say what we might learn 100 years from now. I'm saying you cant dismiss a sub quark out of hand because we don't have all the data to make that claim. Maybe one day we will. Or maybe it will be forever out of reach to us. That changes nothing

Scientists today say they haven't found it. That doesn't mean the research ends. I mean imagine they ended the research when they found the atom. 'oh it means indivisible so I guess that's it then'.

How is my agnostic view on the matter trolling? You guys need to grow up.


Title: Re: Pretending Subquarks actually exist!
Post by: Xphilll on July 06, 2020, 04:26:20 PM
Stop embarrassing yourselves. You have no idea what the limits are. Not even the greatest egg heads know. Thats why they research! (duh!)

When the atom was discovered, scientists thought that was the smallest. That's why they called it 'atom' (literally means indivisible).

Who is to say what we might learn 100 years from now. I'm saying you cant dismiss a sub quark out of hand because we don't have all the data to make that claim. Maybe one day we will. Or maybe it will be forever out of reach to us. That changes nothing

Scientists today say they haven't found it. That doesn't mean the research ends. I mean imagine they ended the research when they found the atom. 'oh it means indivisible so I guess that's it then'.

How is my agnostic view on the matter trolling? You guys need to grow up.
You are trolling and you know it, stop being such a hypocrite. Going off on a tangent about alien races and timelines while you know exactly what is meant is trolling. Thats what you like to do and everyone knows it.

You said it yourself, subquarks have not been discovered yet while Sandy says they have. This is what this post is about.
Title: Re: Pretending Subquarks actually exist!
Post by: JackBlack on July 06, 2020, 04:34:47 PM
I have posted the experimental and theoretical evidence for the evidence of the existence of subquarks right from my first message in this thread.
Subquarks were discovered in 1996 at Fermilab.
The Nobel prize was awarded for the discovery of the fractal charge particles which make up an electron, the preon.
No, they weren't.
You are yet to provide any actual paper indicating such.
The Nobel prize was not awarded for anything like that.
Instead it was awarded for electrons interacting in magnetic fields to produce quasiparticles with fractional charges.
These were not real particles. These were not the components of electrons or quarks.
In fact, they are quite the opposite, being composed of electrons.

Do you actually understand that fundamental contradiction?
You are claiming a particle which is made from X, is actually a sub-component of X, i.e. that X is a sub-sub-component of itself.
In the world of reality, that makes no sense at all.

You can easily read the press release to see all that:
https://www.nobelprize.org/prizes/physics/1998/press-release/
Quote
These quasiparticles are not particles in the normal sense but a result of the common dance of electrons in the quantum fluid

This has already been pointed out to you before.
Yet again you are blatantly lying about actual science to pretend your garbage is justified.

When are you going to learn to do your homework?
https://journals.aps.org/prd/abstract/10.1103/PhysRevD.55.R2521
When will you learn to actually do your homework, rather than just skimming through to find anything you think might support you.

Where in the paper does it indicate any actual evidence of subquarks?
Have you even bothered reading the paper? Or did you just pay attention to the title and assume that it must support you?

A subquark is theoretical.  It's existence hasn't been proven.  It may or may not exist.  Your example of Earth's Magnetic Field was also theoretical until it was proven.  And while the magnetic field has always existed, scientifically it wasn't proven to exist until it was. If subquarks are found to actual exist, they won't be theoretical.  Until then, there is no proof of it's existence and thus only exists in theory, not actuality.
I never said things magically begin to exist when evidence of them are found.  See BOLD.
How about you read what I have bolded.
You quite clearly indicated that until there is proof of existence they do not exist in actuality, i.e. they don't actually exist.

So no, you quite clearly indicated that things will magically start existing when proof of their existence is discovered.

Can you not read... it asks the question......and the answer to the question is a resounding no.
Was that your answer, or the paper's answer?
Based upon what I read of the paper their answer appears to be a resounding maybe.
They provided an explanation for the observed results on the basis of a substructure of quarks. While that is not evidence of subquarks (as it isn't making predictions and testing them and instead is entirely post-hoc), it is also not a resounding no.

Just to clarify things.
Additional Fact:-
Nowhere in the known universe have subquarks been discovered.
I don't think you understand what that means.
The known universe includes a very large portion of the universe, including distant stars and the planets around them, which could have sentient alien life which could have discovered subquarks.
Being part of the known universe does not mean we know everything about it.

The clue was in the word known.
Yes, which means we know about it, not everything about it.

Looks like you have a similar problem with, known, let me help you:-
‘recognized, familiar, or within the scope of knowledge’
Yes, for example, Proxima Centuri is within the scope of knowledge.
We know about it.
In fact, we even know about Proxima Centuri b, a potentially habitable planet which could potential have sentient life on it.
They are within the known universe.

It’s really pretty simple once you get the hang of it.

Currently they are saying subquarks are not there
Again, where?
Is that what they are actually saying, or just what you are claiming they are saying?
Title: Re: Pretending Subquarks actually exist!
Post by: Shifter on July 06, 2020, 04:35:44 PM
Stop embarrassing yourselves. You have no idea what the limits are. Not even the greatest egg heads know. Thats why they research! (duh!)

When the atom was discovered, scientists thought that was the smallest. That's why they called it 'atom' (literally means indivisible).

Who is to say what we might learn 100 years from now. I'm saying you cant dismiss a sub quark out of hand because we don't have all the data to make that claim. Maybe one day we will. Or maybe it will be forever out of reach to us. That changes nothing

Scientists today say they haven't found it. That doesn't mean the research ends. I mean imagine they ended the research when they found the atom. 'oh it means indivisible so I guess that's it then'.

How is my agnostic view on the matter trolling? You guys need to grow up.
You are trolling and you know it, stop being such a hypocrite. Going off on a tangent about alien races and timelines while you know exactly what is meant is trolling. Thats what you like to do and everyone knows it.

You said it yourself, subquarks have not been discovered yet while Sandy says they have. This is what this post is about.

My issue is the assertion that something doesn't exist if we haven't discovered it

So before we discovered and understood how the earth's magnetic field worked, what was protecting the inhabitants of Earth? Because by the same logic applied here, the Earth's magnetic field didn't exist

And calling people trolls like this is just a lame way of trying to stub an argument you feel you are losing. Seriously get over it

We don't know if sub quarks exist. That is the answer

The answer is not: 'Sub quarks don't exist.' Why? Because we don't know. That's why we keep studying. Researching. Experimenting etc
Title: Re: Pretending Subquarks actually exist!
Post by: JJA on July 06, 2020, 04:42:08 PM
Stop embarrassing yourselves. You have no idea what the limits are. Not even the greatest egg heads know. Thats why they research! (duh!)

When the atom was discovered, scientists thought that was the smallest. That's why they called it 'atom' (literally means indivisible).

Who is to say what we might learn 100 years from now. I'm saying you cant dismiss a sub quark out of hand because we don't have all the data to make that claim. Maybe one day we will. Or maybe it will be forever out of reach to us. That changes nothing

Scientists today say they haven't found it. That doesn't mean the research ends. I mean imagine they ended the research when they found the atom. 'oh it means indivisible so I guess that's it then'.

How is my agnostic view on the matter trolling? You guys need to grow up.

It's trolling because most of us are saying that there is no evidence subquarks exist, which is completely true.

Because you keep ignoring the fact that Sandokhan is insisting it's a FACT that they exist, and THAT is what we have a problem with.

I'd love to see new elementary particles discovered, it would be awesome. But it's just plain wrong for Sandokhan to claim they DO exist, and wrong for you to keep insisting he isn't wrong.

We have been over this again again again. He has no evidence on his side, we do NOT know subquarks exist. Maybe they do, but we do NOT KNOW.  So nobody, not even Sandokhan can claim they do.  Not until they are found, if they exist. 

Can you at least agree that Sandokhan does not have PROOF that subquarks exist? Nobody is going to make you say that CAN'T exist, just that right now, nobody has found one.
Title: Re: Pretending Subquarks actually exist!
Post by: Shifter on July 06, 2020, 04:51:14 PM
Stop embarrassing yourselves. You have no idea what the limits are. Not even the greatest egg heads know. Thats why they research! (duh!)

When the atom was discovered, scientists thought that was the smallest. That's why they called it 'atom' (literally means indivisible).

Who is to say what we might learn 100 years from now. I'm saying you cant dismiss a sub quark out of hand because we don't have all the data to make that claim. Maybe one day we will. Or maybe it will be forever out of reach to us. That changes nothing

Scientists today say they haven't found it. That doesn't mean the research ends. I mean imagine they ended the research when they found the atom. 'oh it means indivisible so I guess that's it then'.

How is my agnostic view on the matter trolling? You guys need to grow up.

It's trolling because most of us are saying that there is no evidence subquarks exist, which is completely true.

Because you keep ignoring the fact that Sandokhan is insisting it's a FACT that they exist, and THAT is what we have a problem with.

I'd love to see new elementary particles discovered, it would be awesome. But it's just plain wrong for Sandokhan to claim they DO exist, and wrong for you to keep insisting he isn't wrong.

We have been over this again again again. He has no evidence on his side, we do NOT know subquarks exist. Maybe they do, but we do NOT KNOW.  So nobody, not even Sandokhan can claim they do.  Not until they are found, if they exist. 

Can you at least agree that Sandokhan does not have PROOF that subquarks exist? Nobody is going to make you say that CAN'T exist, just that right now, nobody has found one.

I have my belief which is agnostic on the matter, Timeisup has his belief which is they don't exist and Sandokhan has his that says they do. So why am I the one trolling? Even you say we don't know which honestly when it comes to science (especially this deep into physics) is a far more sensible approach then a flat out 'it doesn't exist'. That is my take

I won't give a definitive answer yes or no. But this is science and the unknown. There is more optimism for believing that there is something, then a flat out rejection out of hand. Have humans really reached peak knowledge?
Title: Re: Pretending Subquarks actually exist!
Post by: JJA on July 06, 2020, 05:02:01 PM
Stop embarrassing yourselves. You have no idea what the limits are. Not even the greatest egg heads know. Thats why they research! (duh!)

When the atom was discovered, scientists thought that was the smallest. That's why they called it 'atom' (literally means indivisible).

Who is to say what we might learn 100 years from now. I'm saying you cant dismiss a sub quark out of hand because we don't have all the data to make that claim. Maybe one day we will. Or maybe it will be forever out of reach to us. That changes nothing

Scientists today say they haven't found it. That doesn't mean the research ends. I mean imagine they ended the research when they found the atom. 'oh it means indivisible so I guess that's it then'.

How is my agnostic view on the matter trolling? You guys need to grow up.

It's trolling because most of us are saying that there is no evidence subquarks exist, which is completely true.

Because you keep ignoring the fact that Sandokhan is insisting it's a FACT that they exist, and THAT is what we have a problem with.

I'd love to see new elementary particles discovered, it would be awesome. But it's just plain wrong for Sandokhan to claim they DO exist, and wrong for you to keep insisting he isn't wrong.

We have been over this again again again. He has no evidence on his side, we do NOT know subquarks exist. Maybe they do, but we do NOT KNOW.  So nobody, not even Sandokhan can claim they do.  Not until they are found, if they exist. 

Can you at least agree that Sandokhan does not have PROOF that subquarks exist? Nobody is going to make you say that CAN'T exist, just that right now, nobody has found one.

I have my belief which is agnostic on the matter, Timeisup has his belief which is they don't exist and Sandokhan has his that says they do. So why am I the one trolling? Even you say we don't know which honestly when it comes to science (especially this deep into physics) is a far more sensible approach then a flat out 'it doesn't exist'. That is my take

I won't give a definitive answer yes or no. But this is science and the unknown. There is more optimism for believing that there is something, then a flat out rejection out of hand. Have humans really reached peak knowledge?

If you were truly agnostic, you would be telling Sandokhan he can't know for sure subquarks exist.

You have no problem telling me things don't exist if I claim they do. If I tell you it's a FACT that the Earth is a sphere, you come back and say I can't know that.

Why can't you do the same with Sandokhan? That's what make your behavior look like a troll, you change your standards based on who is talking.
Title: Re: Pretending Subquarks actually exist!
Post by: Shifter on July 06, 2020, 05:07:45 PM
Stop embarrassing yourselves. You have no idea what the limits are. Not even the greatest egg heads know. Thats why they research! (duh!)

When the atom was discovered, scientists thought that was the smallest. That's why they called it 'atom' (literally means indivisible).

Who is to say what we might learn 100 years from now. I'm saying you cant dismiss a sub quark out of hand because we don't have all the data to make that claim. Maybe one day we will. Or maybe it will be forever out of reach to us. That changes nothing

Scientists today say they haven't found it. That doesn't mean the research ends. I mean imagine they ended the research when they found the atom. 'oh it means indivisible so I guess that's it then'.

How is my agnostic view on the matter trolling? You guys need to grow up.

It's trolling because most of us are saying that there is no evidence subquarks exist, which is completely true.

Because you keep ignoring the fact that Sandokhan is insisting it's a FACT that they exist, and THAT is what we have a problem with.

I'd love to see new elementary particles discovered, it would be awesome. But it's just plain wrong for Sandokhan to claim they DO exist, and wrong for you to keep insisting he isn't wrong.

We have been over this again again again. He has no evidence on his side, we do NOT know subquarks exist. Maybe they do, but we do NOT KNOW.  So nobody, not even Sandokhan can claim they do.  Not until they are found, if they exist. 

Can you at least agree that Sandokhan does not have PROOF that subquarks exist? Nobody is going to make you say that CAN'T exist, just that right now, nobody has found one.

I have my belief which is agnostic on the matter, Timeisup has his belief which is they don't exist and Sandokhan has his that says they do. So why am I the one trolling? Even you say we don't know which honestly when it comes to science (especially this deep into physics) is a far more sensible approach then a flat out 'it doesn't exist'. That is my take

I won't give a definitive answer yes or no. But this is science and the unknown. There is more optimism for believing that there is something, then a flat out rejection out of hand. Have humans really reached peak knowledge?

If you were truly agnostic, you would be telling Sandokhan he can't know for sure subquarks exist.

You have no problem telling me things don't exist if I claim they do. If I tell you it's a FACT that the Earth is a sphere, you come back and say I can't know that.

Why can't you do the same with Sandokhan? That's what make your behavior look like a troll, you change your standards based on who is talking.

He has not addressed me and I have made my claims and beliefs on here quite known as it is. I'm talking to the people who are addressing/antagonising me

If Sandokhan wants to tell me I'm wrong I have no problem stating my beliefs directly to him. Difference is I won't be a dick about it. You and especially Timeisup are quite rude to him. This is not even a debate board and neither of you are here in good faith.
Title: Re: Pretending Subquarks actually exist!
Post by: NotSoSkeptical on July 06, 2020, 06:27:05 PM
A subquark is theoretical.  It's existence hasn't been proven.  It may or may not exist.  Your example of Earth's Magnetic Field was also theoretical until it was proven.  And while the magnetic field has always existed, scientifically it wasn't proven to exist until it was. If subquarks are found to actual exist, they won't be theoretical.  Until then, there is no proof of it's existence and thus only exists in theory, not actuality.
I never said things magically begin to exist when evidence of them are found.  See BOLD.
How about you read what I have bolded.
You quite clearly indicated that until there is proof of existence they do not exist in actuality, i.e. they don't actually exist.

So no, you quite clearly indicated that things will magically start existing when proof of their existence is discovered.

No, your interpretation is incorrect.  You are equating my statement as upon proof that suddenly they exist.  Proof confirms existence.  You can't say something definitively exists if there is no proof that it exists, which is why I said it exists theoretically, but not actually.  There is no confirmation of actual existence.  That doesn't mean if it does actually exist it magically comes into existence upon proof.  You are arguing semantics.

Do unicorns exist?

What about pixies?

What about Thor, Loki, and Odin?  Do they exist?

What about the Greek and Roman gods and demi-gods?  Do they exist?

What about the Minotaur?

You are playing semantics based on hindsight.  Yes magnetic fields exist and have been proven.

Until you have proof of existence, you can't definitively say they exist.  That's why I said they only exist theoretically, actual existence is not proven, ie non-existent.
Title: Re: Pretending Subquarks actually exist!
Post by: Stash on July 06, 2020, 07:24:35 PM
I just said that they haven't been proven to exist.

But they have.

https://inis.iaea.org/collection/NCLCollectionStore/_Public/13/643/13643701.pdf

Subquarks-Possibly the Most Fundamental Form of Matter

A model of "subquark pregeometry" in which the graviton is also a composite of a subquark-antisubquark pair: Einstein's gravity is a quantum effect of matter.

Everything is made of subquarks and every force is due to them.


And then from the conclusion of the paper cited - The author "believes" they exist:

"In conclusion, as I have discussed in this talk, a few of the fundamental problems in subquark models have been solved, but most of them still remain to be solved. I believe that subquarks are there and working. Much more efforts would be needed before finding the true theory of subquarks, which may be the final theory in physics.”

So no, Sandy is wrong. They have not been proven to exist. For some reason he misinterprets a paper regarding the theory of their existence with actually being found to exist. It doesn’t mean they don’t exist it just means that Sandy is incorrect in saying that they have been proven to exist. It doesn’t really seem that complicated.
Title: Re: Pretending Subquarks actually exist!
Post by: sandokhan on July 06, 2020, 09:59:54 PM
As I said, preons/subquarks were discovered: the list on wikipedia is incomplete.

Here is the paper to prove it:

J. Martin; S. Ilani; B. Verdene; J. Smet; V. Umansky; D. Mahalu; D. Schuh; G. Abstreiter; A. Yacoby (2004). "Localization of Fractionally Charged Quasi Particles".

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/15310895/

An outstanding question pertaining to the microscopic properties of the fractional quantum Hall effect is understanding the nature of the particles that participate in the localization but that do not contribute to electronic transport. By using a scanning single electron transistor, we imaged the individual localized states in the fractional quantum Hall regime and determined the charge of the localizing particles. Highlighting the symmetry between filling factors 1/3 and 2/3, our measurements show that quasi-particles with fractional charge e* = e/3 localize in space to submicrometer dimensions, where e is the electron charge.

http://yacoby.physics.harvard.edu/Publications/Localization%20of%20Fractionally%20Charged%20Quasi%20Particles_2004.pdf

Our results constitute direct evidence that quasi-particles with charge e/3 localize at
1/3 and 2/3. Moreover, our results highlight the symmetry between filling factors 1/3 and 2/3, indicating directly that at 2/3 the quasiparticle charge is e/3.

One can clearly see that the step height in the fractional regime is only about 1/3
of the step height in the integer regime, confirming the localization of quasi-particles with e* e/3 for both 1/3 and 2/3.


"Quasiparticle, in physics, a disturbance, in a medium, that behaves as a particle and that may conveniently be regarded as one. "

"This "electron with a different mass" is called an "electron quasiparticle"."


It is much easier to access the preons in an electron, than it would be to try the same thing using quarks (protons).
Title: Re: Pretending Subquarks actually exist!
Post by: Stash on July 06, 2020, 10:17:10 PM
As I said, preons/subquarks were discovered: the list on wikipedia is incomplete.

Here is the paper to prove it:

J. Martin; S. Ilani; B. Verdene; J. Smet; V. Umansky; D. Mahalu; D. Schuh; G. Abstreiter; A. Yacoby (2004). "Localization of Fractionally Charged Quasi Particles".

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/15310895/

An outstanding question pertaining to the microscopic properties of the fractional quantum Hall effect is understanding the nature of the particles that participate in the localization but that do not contribute to electronic transport. By using a scanning single electron transistor, we imaged the individual localized states in the fractional quantum Hall regime and determined the charge of the localizing particles. Highlighting the symmetry between filling factors 1/3 and 2/3, our measurements show that quasi-particles with fractional charge e* = e/3 localize in space to submicrometer dimensions, where e is the electron charge.

http://yacoby.physics.harvard.edu/Publications/Localization%20of%20Fractionally%20Charged%20Quasi%20Particles_2004.pdf

Our results constitute direct evidence that quasi-particles with charge e/3 localize at
1/3 and 2/3. Moreover, our results highlight the symmetry between filling factors 1/3 and 2/3, indicating directly that at 2/3 the quasiparticle charge is e/3.

One can clearly see that the step height in the fractional regime is only about 1/3
of the step height in the integer regime, confirming the localization of quasi-particles with e* e/3 for both 1/3 and 2/3.


"Quasiparticle, in physics, a disturbance, in a medium, that behaves as a particle and that may conveniently be regarded as one. "

"This "electron with a different mass" is called an "electron quasiparticle"."


It is much easier to access the preons in an electron, than it would be to try the same thing using quarks (protons).

Nothing about subquarks in all of this. Sorry, we just haven't been able to snare one yet. So as it stands, they are not yet "proven" to exist. Simple as that.
Title: Re: Pretending Subquarks actually exist!
Post by: sandokhan on July 06, 2020, 10:29:57 PM
Preons are subquarks.

PREONS ARE SUBQUARKS!

https://books.google.ro/books?id=Q8ghAQAAIAAJ&pg=PA182&lpg=PA182&dq=preons+are+subquarks&source=bl&ots=qhviVBtmOf&sig=ACfU3U2oNRMttcgrkrS9Z3sO3gxKVsNRwQ&hl=en&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwjMspTY4rjqAhU9i8MKHetnDRIQ6AEwDHoECAwQAQ#v=onepage&q=preons%20are%20subquarks&f=false

https://books.google.ro/books?id=Yfj5tWG-SVIC&pg=PA350&lpg=PA350&dq=preons+are+subquarks&source=bl&ots=0sy6u_zvR7&sig=ACfU3U3scFnnAK8_bTuWehPxGI3Xlwekbg&hl=en&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwjMspTY4rjqAhU9i8MKHetnDRIQ6AEwCXoECAkQAQ#v=onepage&q=preons%20are%20subquarks&f=false

https://www.physicsforums.com/threads/preons-and-subquarks.945976/


From 1979:

Subquark Model of Leptons and Quarks

https://inis.iaea.org/collection/NCLCollectionStore/_Public/11/554/11554108.pdf

page 2: preons or subquarks
Title: Re: Pretending Subquarks actually exist!
Post by: Stash on July 06, 2020, 10:38:44 PM
Preons are subquarks.

PREONS ARE SUBQUARKS!

https://books.google.ro/books?id=Q8ghAQAAIAAJ&pg=PA182&lpg=PA182&dq=preons+are+subquarks&source=bl&ots=qhviVBtmOf&sig=ACfU3U2oNRMttcgrkrS9Z3sO3gxKVsNRwQ&hl=en&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwjMspTY4rjqAhU9i8MKHetnDRIQ6AEwDHoECAwQAQ#v=onepage&q=preons%20are%20subquarks&f=false

https://books.google.ro/books?id=Yfj5tWG-SVIC&pg=PA350&lpg=PA350&dq=preons+are+subquarks&source=bl&ots=0sy6u_zvR7&sig=ACfU3U3scFnnAK8_bTuWehPxGI3Xlwekbg&hl=en&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwjMspTY4rjqAhU9i8MKHetnDRIQ6AEwCXoECAkQAQ#v=onepage&q=preons%20are%20subquarks&f=false

https://www.physicsforums.com/threads/preons-and-subquarks.945976/


From 1979:

Subquark Model of Leptons and Quarks

https://inis.iaea.org/collection/NCLCollectionStore/_Public/11/554/11554108.pdf

page 2: preons or subquarks

Models and theory. Hopefully the Large Hadron Collider will tease them out. In the mean time, as it stands, they are not yet "proven" to exist. Simple as that.
Title: Re: Pretending Subquarks actually exist!
Post by: sandokhan on July 06, 2020, 10:46:32 PM
Saying that they do not exist is no longer an option.

I have both the theoretical and experimental proofs.

Here is the paper to prove it:

J. Martin; S. Ilani; B. Verdene; J. Smet; V. Umansky; D. Mahalu; D. Schuh; G. Abstreiter; A. Yacoby (2004). "Localization of Fractionally Charged Quasi Particles".

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/15310895/

An outstanding question pertaining to the microscopic properties of the fractional quantum Hall effect is understanding the nature of the particles that participate in the localization but that do not contribute to electronic transport. By using a scanning single electron transistor, we imaged the individual localized states in the fractional quantum Hall regime and determined the charge of the localizing particles. Highlighting the symmetry between filling factors 1/3 and 2/3, our measurements show that quasi-particles with fractional charge e* = e/3 localize in space to submicrometer dimensions, where e is the electron charge.

http://yacoby.physics.harvard.edu/Publications/Localization%20of%20Fractionally%20Charged%20Quasi%20Particles_2004.pdf

Our results constitute direct evidence that quasi-particles with charge e/3 localize at
1/3 and 2/3. Moreover, our results highlight the symmetry between filling factors 1/3 and 2/3, indicating directly that at 2/3 the quasiparticle charge is e/3.

One can clearly see that the step height in the fractional regime is only about 1/3
of the step height in the integer regime, confirming the localization of quasi-particles with e* e/3 for both 1/3 and 2/3.


"Quasiparticle, in physics, a disturbance, in a medium, that behaves as a particle and that may conveniently be regarded as one. "

"This "electron with a different mass" is called an "electron quasiparticle"."


It is much easier to access the preons in an electron, than it would be to try the same thing using quarks (protons).
Title: Re: Pretending Subquarks actually exist!
Post by: Stash on July 06, 2020, 10:56:04 PM
Saying that they do not exist is no longer an option.

I have both the theoretical and experimental proofs.

Here is the paper to prove it:

J. Martin; S. Ilani; B. Verdene; J. Smet; V. Umansky; D. Mahalu; D. Schuh; G. Abstreiter; A. Yacoby (2004). "Localization of Fractionally Charged Quasi Particles".

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/15310895/

An outstanding question pertaining to the microscopic properties of the fractional quantum Hall effect is understanding the nature of the particles that participate in the localization but that do not contribute to electronic transport. By using a scanning single electron transistor, we imaged the individual localized states in the fractional quantum Hall regime and determined the charge of the localizing particles. Highlighting the symmetry between filling factors 1/3 and 2/3, our measurements show that quasi-particles with fractional charge e* = e/3 localize in space to submicrometer dimensions, where e is the electron charge.

http://yacoby.physics.harvard.edu/Publications/Localization%20of%20Fractionally%20Charged%20Quasi%20Particles_2004.pdf

Our results constitute direct evidence that quasi-particles with charge e/3 localize at
1/3 and 2/3. Moreover, our results highlight the symmetry between filling factors 1/3 and 2/3, indicating directly that at 2/3 the quasiparticle charge is e/3.

One can clearly see that the step height in the fractional regime is only about 1/3
of the step height in the integer regime, confirming the localization of quasi-particles with e* e/3 for both 1/3 and 2/3.


"Quasiparticle, in physics, a disturbance, in a medium, that behaves as a particle and that may conveniently be regarded as one. "

"This "electron with a different mass" is called an "electron quasiparticle"."


It is much easier to access the preons in an electron, than it would be to try the same thing using quarks (protons).

Nope, still nothing about theorized sub-quarks. Sorry, you're trying to convince us you can make lead into gold and we all know you can't do that. Sub-quarks may exist, but it has not yet been proven.
Title: Re: Pretending Subquarks actually exist!
Post by: sandokhan on July 06, 2020, 11:14:46 PM
You are trolling the thread.

How many times do we have to go through this?

Preons are subquarks, that is what they are called for electrons.

Electron substructure = preons

Quark substructure = subquark

One and the same thing.

I have the references which prove this very point.

Your stubbornness is without merit.
Title: Re: Pretending Subquarks actually exist!
Post by: Stash on July 06, 2020, 11:42:30 PM
You are trolling the thread.

How many times do we have to go through this?

Preons are subquarks, that is what they are called for electrons.

Electron substructure = preons

Quark substructure = subquark

One and the same thing.

I have the references which prove this very point.

Your stubbornness is without merit.

So far your references don't prove anything of the sort. All I'm saying is that sub-quarks may exist. But they have not been proven yet to exist as of this date in 2020. Simple as that.
Title: Re: Pretending Subquarks actually exist!
Post by: sandokhan on July 06, 2020, 11:44:30 PM
Preons are subquarks.

Can you understand this much?

This is what modern science says, not me, and I have the references.

Preons (substructure of the electrons) have been discovered, plenty of experimental evidence.

That is why your statement is without merit.
Title: Re: Pretending Subquarks actually exist!
Post by: Shifter on July 06, 2020, 11:55:48 PM
You are trolling the thread.

How many times do we have to go through this?

Preons are subquarks, that is what they are called for electrons.

Electron substructure = preons

Quark substructure = subquark

One and the same thing.

I have the references which prove this very point.

Your stubbornness is without merit.

So far your references don't prove anything of the sort. All I'm saying is that sub-quarks may exist. But they have not been proven yet to exist as of this date in 2020. Simple as that.

Perhaps you can both claim a win? The experiments observed something that goes beyond explaining a quark. We haven't physically identified it as definitive like something we can tangibly play with or observe like the atom but clearly by our own observations, something is missing from the puzzle. Consider a sub quark to be smaller than a quark - whatever it is or whatever we call it on the future

Same was true of the illusive 'God particle' we had models that worked with their inclusions and despite not having found it, the theory helped better our understanding. Once we observed it, it simply confirmed a lot of models rather than write new ones (though I'm sure it's discovery helped even further)

Scientists will tell you there is a 'Planet 9' or something in the far reaches of the solar system with a huge mass despite never having observed it directly. Why? Because of the way other objects behave around there

Scientists say the universe is mostly made up of 'dark matter/energy' despite never having observed it. Why? Because of the behaviour of things we can observe.

So perhaps you could say the same is true of the quark. We have seen behaviour which hints at something further. Maybe in the future it will be deemed a sub quark. Or another term coined. Whatever it is I think this argument is not worth the deep seeded animosity for each other. Consider yourselves both right as a point of semantics dividing the opinion.
Title: Re: Pretending Subquarks actually exist!
Post by: Stash on July 07, 2020, 12:00:13 AM
Preons are subquarks.

Can you understand this much?

This is what modern science says, not me, and I have the references.

Preons (substructure of the electrons) have been discovered, plenty of experimental evidence.

That is why your statement is without merit.

Yes I can understand it's a theory, a construct, a model. But to date, we haven't proven the existence. You understand the difference, right?
Title: Re: Pretending Subquarks actually exist!
Post by: sandokhan on July 07, 2020, 12:07:10 AM
Saying that they do not exist is no longer an option.

Here is the paper to prove it:

J. Martin; S. Ilani; B. Verdene; J. Smet; V. Umansky; D. Mahalu; D. Schuh; G. Abstreiter; A. Yacoby (2004). "Localization of Fractionally Charged Quasi Particles".

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/15310895/

An outstanding question pertaining to the microscopic properties of the fractional quantum Hall effect is understanding the nature of the particles that participate in the localization but that do not contribute to electronic transport. By using a scanning single electron transistor, we imaged the individual localized states in the fractional quantum Hall regime and determined the charge of the localizing particles. Highlighting the symmetry between filling factors 1/3 and 2/3, our measurements show that quasi-particles with fractional charge e* = e/3 localize in space to submicrometer dimensions, where e is the electron charge.

http://yacoby.physics.harvard.edu/Publications/Localization%20of%20Fractionally%20Charged%20Quasi%20Particles_2004.pdf

Our results constitute direct evidence that quasi-particles with charge e/3 localize at
1/3 and 2/3. Moreover, our results highlight the symmetry between filling factors 1/3 and 2/3, indicating directly that at 2/3 the quasiparticle charge is e/3.

One can clearly see that the step height in the fractional regime is only about 1/3
of the step height in the integer regime, confirming the localization of quasi-particles with e* e/3 for both 1/3 and 2/3.


"Quasiparticle, in physics, a disturbance, in a medium, that behaves as a particle and that may conveniently be regarded as one. "

"This "electron with a different mass" is called an "electron quasiparticle"."


It is much easier to access the preons in an electron, than it would be to try the same thing using quarks (protons).
Title: Re: Pretending Subquarks actually exist!
Post by: Stash on July 07, 2020, 12:19:38 AM
Saying that they do not exist is no longer an option.

Here is the paper to prove it:

J. Martin; S. Ilani; B. Verdene; J. Smet; V. Umansky; D. Mahalu; D. Schuh; G. Abstreiter; A. Yacoby (2004). "Localization of Fractionally Charged Quasi Particles".

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/15310895/

An outstanding question pertaining to the microscopic properties of the fractional quantum Hall effect is understanding the nature of the particles that participate in the localization but that do not contribute to electronic transport. By using a scanning single electron transistor, we imaged the individual localized states in the fractional quantum Hall regime and determined the charge of the localizing particles. Highlighting the symmetry between filling factors 1/3 and 2/3, our measurements show that quasi-particles with fractional charge e* = e/3 localize in space to submicrometer dimensions, where e is the electron charge.

http://yacoby.physics.harvard.edu/Publications/Localization%20of%20Fractionally%20Charged%20Quasi%20Particles_2004.pdf

Our results constitute direct evidence that quasi-particles with charge e/3 localize at
1/3 and 2/3. Moreover, our results highlight the symmetry between filling factors 1/3 and 2/3, indicating directly that at 2/3 the quasiparticle charge is e/3.

One can clearly see that the step height in the fractional regime is only about 1/3
of the step height in the integer regime, confirming the localization of quasi-particles with e* e/3 for both 1/3 and 2/3.


"Quasiparticle, in physics, a disturbance, in a medium, that behaves as a particle and that may conveniently be regarded as one. "

"This "electron with a different mass" is called an "electron quasiparticle"."


It is much easier to access the preons in an electron, than it would be to try the same thing using quarks (protons).

Again, the only current option; hypothetical, theoretical, construct, model. None of your papers claim other than theory. Not proven to exist. Simple as that.

(https://i.imgur.com/bgSeoyv.png)
Title: Re: Pretending Subquarks actually exist!
Post by: Code-Beta1234 on July 07, 2020, 12:21:13 AM
Didn't somebody claim preons aren't real?
Title: Re: Pretending Subquarks actually exist!
Post by: sandokhan on July 07, 2020, 12:21:58 AM
The list from wikipedia is wrong.

It must be updated in view of the referenced paper.

No doubt about it: preons have been discovered.
Title: Re: Pretending Subquarks actually exist!
Post by: Timeisup on July 07, 2020, 12:25:07 AM
This thread gives a clear example of how the facts mean little or nothing to some people. These people would, for reasons known only to themselves, prefer to ignore the facts and make up their own.

It is crystal clear that subquarks have NEVER been discovered by any subatomic experiment. A look at what subatomic particles have been discovered will confirm that. (Fact)

A simple subquark search will reveal many speculative papers about them from the 1980s, but NONE will detail their discovery. (Fact)

Sandokhan stated they had been discovered at Fermilab in 1997 this was of course a lie and false. No discovery of subquarks has ever been made at Fermilab. (Fact)

CERN provides a picture of our current understanding of the subatomic world or standard model and it does not include subquarks.
https://home.cern/science/physics/standard-model

If Sandokhan is going to invoke science he should at least get his basic facts right rather than, as he constantly appears to do, is make his own up.

Subquarks have NEVER been discovered, and that is a fact.
Title: Re: Pretending Subquarks actually exist!
Post by: Code-Beta1234 on July 07, 2020, 12:28:05 AM
The list from wikipedia is wrong.

It must be updated in view of the referenced paper.

No doubt about it: preons have been discovered.

Preons are in list
Title: Re: Pretending Subquarks actually exist!
Post by: Timeisup on July 07, 2020, 12:30:37 AM
The list from wikipedia is wrong.

It must be updated in view of the referenced paper.

No doubt about it: preons have been discovered.

Why do you keep lying and ignoring the facts. That is the real question at hand.
Subquarks were never discovered at Fermilab in 1997. Why did you tell such an outrageous lie as it’s so easy to check?

Why do you continue to tell lie after lie when the true facts are obvious to everyone? Subquarks were a belief back in the 1980s, read any of the papers! They were never discovered.....it was all speculation.

You have clearly demonstrated that you cant understand scientific papers, tell fact from fiction or more sadly tell the truth.
Title: Re: Pretending Subquarks actually exist!
Post by: Stash on July 07, 2020, 12:31:10 AM
The list from wikipedia is wrong.

It must be updated in view of the referenced paper.

No doubt about it: preons have been discovered.

Preons are in list

Yes, under "hypothetical".
Title: Re: Pretending Subquarks actually exist!
Post by: Timeisup on July 07, 2020, 12:32:17 AM
The list from wikipedia is wrong.

It must be updated in view of the referenced paper.

No doubt about it: preons have been discovered.

You are WRONG again preons have NEVER been discovered. Stop misrepresenting science.
Title: Re: Pretending Subquarks actually exist!
Post by: Stash on July 07, 2020, 12:33:41 AM
The list from wikipedia is wrong.

It must be updated in view of the referenced paper.

No doubt about it: preons have been discovered.

No doubt about it, no one has even remotely claimed that. But hey, anyone can update wikipedia. Go for it.
Title: Re: Pretending Subquarks actually exist!
Post by: sandokhan on July 07, 2020, 12:36:37 AM
But they were discovered in 1996 at Fermilab.

Everyone was talking about it.

The paper was published, detailing the discovery.

It's nobody's fault but that belonging to the wikipedia editors for not having included this monumental discovery.

You are a liar.

You have been provided the paper from 1997 clearly proving that no other explanation is possible: the substructure of the quark has been discovered.

You are trolling this thread.

The paper from 2004 says that preons have been discovered.

Preons = subquarks.


'Science' magazine in February 1996 reported - American researchers have said, they found that collisions between quarks in a particle accelerator were unexpectedly violent. William Carithers, of Fermi National Accelerator Laboratory, in Batavia, Illinois, told 'Science': “This is just the sort of effect you would see if quarks were not fundamental particles, but had some sort of internal structure.”

 Chris Hill, theorist at Fermilab, indicated the view in “New Scientist” | 11 May 1996 | page 29 | “It would suggest that whatever lies inside the quarks is incredibly tightly bound, in a way that theory can’t yet accommodate.” On the 1st March 1997 - in an article in 'New Scientist' on page 14 - results from DESY, the German Electron Synchrotron pointed to the existence of what is described as a “leptoquark”. Robin Marshall of the University of Manchester, who was involved in the work, said “The leptoquark is a bizarre object that we don’t understand completely”. Researchers said this “could mean that quarks and leptons are not fundamental particles after all, but are made up of even smaller particles”.

Can you read English?

The clear substructure of the quark was discovered in 1996, I did not lie at all.


https://journals.aps.org/prd/abstract/10.1103/PhysRevD.55.R2521

Has the substructure of quarks been found by the Collider Detector at Fermilab?
Keiichi Akama and Hidezumi Terazawa
Phys. Rev. D 55, R2521(R) – Published 1 March 1997

https://arxiv.org/pdf/hep-ph/9608279.pdf


http://web.ihep.su/library/pubs/tconf99/ps/teraz.pdf


You think the peer reviewers at the Physics Review journal would let this paper pass without knowing full well what happened at Fermilab?

So cut the crap.
Title: Re: Pretending Subquarks actually exist!
Post by: sandokhan on July 07, 2020, 12:38:48 AM
You are WRONG again preons have NEVER been discovered. Stop misrepresenting science.


You are a liar.


As I said, preons/subquarks were discovered: the list on wikipedia is incomplete.

Here is the paper to prove it:

J. Martin; S. Ilani; B. Verdene; J. Smet; V. Umansky; D. Mahalu; D. Schuh; G. Abstreiter; A. Yacoby (2004). "Localization of Fractionally Charged Quasi Particles".

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/15310895/

An outstanding question pertaining to the microscopic properties of the fractional quantum Hall effect is understanding the nature of the particles that participate in the localization but that do not contribute to electronic transport. By using a scanning single electron transistor, we imaged the individual localized states in the fractional quantum Hall regime and determined the charge of the localizing particles. Highlighting the symmetry between filling factors 1/3 and 2/3, our measurements show that quasi-particles with fractional charge e* = e/3 localize in space to submicrometer dimensions, where e is the electron charge.

http://yacoby.physics.harvard.edu/Publications/Localization%20of%20Fractionally%20Charged%20Quasi%20Particles_2004.pdf

Our results constitute direct evidence that quasi-particles with charge e/3 localize at
1/3 and 2/3. Moreover, our results highlight the symmetry between filling factors 1/3 and 2/3, indicating directly that at 2/3 the quasiparticle charge is e/3.

One can clearly see that the step height in the fractional regime is only about 1/3
of the step height in the integer regime, confirming the localization of quasi-particles with e* e/3 for both 1/3 and 2/3.


"Quasiparticle, in physics, a disturbance, in a medium, that behaves as a particle and that may conveniently be regarded as one. "

"This "electron with a different mass" is called an "electron quasiparticle"."


It is much easier to access the preons in an electron, than it would be to try the same thing using quarks (protons).


Can one of the mods/admin take care of timeisup? He is trolling this thread unabated.
Title: Re: Pretending Subquarks actually exist!
Post by: Timeisup on July 07, 2020, 12:44:08 AM
But they were discovered in 1996 at Fermilab.

Everyone was talking about it.

The paper was published, detailing the discovery.

It's nobody's fault but that belonging to the wikipedia editors for not having included this monumental discovery.

You are a liar.

You have been provided the paper from 1997 clearly proving that no other explanation is possible: the substructure of the quark has been discovered.

You are trolling this thread.

The paper from 2004 says that preons have been discovered.

Preons = subquarks.


'Science' magazine in February 1996 reported - American researchers have said, they found that collisions between quarks in a particle accelerator were unexpectedly violent. William Carithers, of Fermi National Accelerator Laboratory, in Batavia, Illinois, told 'Science': “This is just the sort of effect you would see if quarks were not fundamental particles, but had some sort of internal structure.”

 Chris Hill, theorist at Fermilab, indicated the view in “New Scientist” | 11 May 1996 | page 29 | “It would suggest that whatever lies inside the quarks is incredibly tightly bound, in a way that theory can’t yet accommodate.” On the 1st March 1997 - in an article in 'New Scientist' on page 14 - results from DESY, the German Electron Synchrotron pointed to the existence of what is described as a “leptoquark”. Robin Marshall of the University of Manchester, who was involved in the work, said “The leptoquark is a bizarre object that we don’t understand completely”. Researchers said this “could mean that quarks and leptons are not fundamental particles after all, but are made up of even smaller particles”.

Can you read English?

The clear substructure of the quark was discovered in 1996, I did not lie at all.


https://journals.aps.org/prd/abstract/10.1103/PhysRevD.55.R2521

Has the substructure of quarks been found by the Collider Detector at Fermilab?
Keiichi Akama and Hidezumi Terazawa
Phys. Rev. D 55, R2521(R) – Published 1 March 1997

https://arxiv.org/pdf/hep-ph/9608279.pdf


http://web.ihep.su/library/pubs/tconf99/ps/teraz.pdf


You think the peer reviewers at the Physics Review journal would let this paper pass without knowing full well what happened at Fermilab?

So cut the crap.

So far you have said discovered n 1997; 1998, and sometime in the 1980s! You can’t even get your story right for your lies.

There is no reference to any such discovery at Fermilab, once more you lie and misrepresent the truth.

Here is the truth that exposes your lies.

https://www.fnal.gov/pub/science/particle-physics/key-discoveries.html

No discovery of subquarks at Fermilab!

Title: Re: Pretending Subquarks actually exist!
Post by: Timeisup on July 07, 2020, 12:46:45 AM
You are WRONG again preons have NEVER been discovered. Stop misrepresenting science.


You are a liar.


As I said, preons/subquarks were discovered: the list on wikipedia is incomplete.

Here is the paper to prove it:

J. Martin; S. Ilani; B. Verdene; J. Smet; V. Umansky; D. Mahalu; D. Schuh; G. Abstreiter; A. Yacoby (2004). "Localization of Fractionally Charged Quasi Particles".

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/15310895/

An outstanding question pertaining to the microscopic properties of the fractional quantum Hall effect is understanding the nature of the particles that participate in the localization but that do not contribute to electronic transport. By using a scanning single electron transistor, we imaged the individual localized states in the fractional quantum Hall regime and determined the charge of the localizing particles. Highlighting the symmetry between filling factors 1/3 and 2/3, our measurements show that quasi-particles with fractional charge e* = e/3 localize in space to submicrometer dimensions, where e is the electron charge.

http://yacoby.physics.harvard.edu/Publications/Localization%20of%20Fractionally%20Charged%20Quasi%20Particles_2004.pdf

Our results constitute direct evidence that quasi-particles with charge e/3 localize at
1/3 and 2/3. Moreover, our results highlight the symmetry between filling factors 1/3 and 2/3, indicating directly that at 2/3 the quasiparticle charge is e/3.

One can clearly see that the step height in the fractional regime is only about 1/3
of the step height in the integer regime, confirming the localization of quasi-particles with e* e/3 for both 1/3 and 2/3.


"Quasiparticle, in physics, a disturbance, in a medium, that behaves as a particle and that may conveniently be regarded as one. "

"This "electron with a different mass" is called an "electron quasiparticle"."


It is much easier to access the preons in an electron, than it would be to try the same thing using quarks (protons).


Can one of the mods/admin take care of timeisup? He is trolling this thread unabated.

If you call sticking to the known facts and presenting the truth trolling, then I suppose I am guilty.

What you are guilty of is ignoring the facts, ignoring the truth, and telling a succession of lies.
Title: Re: Pretending Subquarks actually exist!
Post by: Timeisup on July 07, 2020, 12:49:57 AM
But they were discovered in 1996 at Fermilab.

Everyone was talking about it.

The paper was published, detailing the discovery.

It's nobody's fault but that belonging to the wikipedia editors for not having included this monumental discovery.

All you

You are a liar.

You have been provided the paper from 1997 clearly proving that no other explanation is possible: the substructure of the quark has been discovered.

You are trolling this thread.

The paper from 2004 says that preons have been discovered.

Preons = subquarks.


'Science' magazine in February 1996 reported - American researchers have said, they found that collisions between quarks in a particle accelerator were unexpectedly violent. William Carithers, of Fermi National Accelerator Laboratory, in Batavia, Illinois, told 'Science': “This is just the sort of effect you would see if quarks were not fundamental particles, but had some sort of internal structure.”

 Chris Hill, theorist at Fermilab, indicated the view in “New Scientist” | 11 May 1996 | page 29 | “It would suggest that whatever lies inside the quarks is incredibly tightly bound, in a way that theory can’t yet accommodate.” On the 1st March 1997 - in an article in 'New Scientist' on page 14 - results from DESY, the German Electron Synchrotron pointed to the existence of what is described as a “leptoquark”. Robin Marshall of the University of Manchester, who was involved in the work, said “The leptoquark is a bizarre object that we don’t understand completely”. Researchers said this “could mean that quarks and leptons are not fundamental particles after all, but are made up of even smaller particles”.

Can you read English?

The clear substructure of the quark was discovered in 1996, I did not lie at all.


https://journals.aps.org/prd/abstract/10.1103/PhysRevD.55.R2521

Has the substructure of quarks been found by the Collider Detector at Fermilab?
Keiichi Akama and Hidezumi Terazawa
Phys. Rev. D 55, R2521(R) – Published 1 March 1997

https://arxiv.org/pdf/hep-ph/9608279.pdf


http://web.ihep.su/library/pubs/tconf99/ps/teraz.pdf


You think the peer reviewers at the Physics Review journal would let this paper pass without knowing full well what happened at Fermilab?

So cut the crap.

All you have to do is provide the Fermilab press release of the discovery, which you can’t as it doesn’t exist.
OR
Provide a link to the paper detailing the discovery, which again you can’t as it does not exist.

Why do you continue to tell such outrageous lies as the truth of the matter is easy to check?
https://www.fnal.gov/pub/science/particle-physics/key-discoveries.html
Title: Re: Pretending Subquarks actually exist!
Post by: Code-Beta1234 on July 07, 2020, 01:02:12 AM
But he just did
Title: Re: Pretending Subquarks actually exist!
Post by: Timeisup on July 07, 2020, 01:05:50 AM
This is a list of all the discoveries made at Fermilab from their own website.

https://www.fnal.gov/pub/science/particle-physics/key-discoveries.html

A quick look will reveal Subquarks were never discovered there. The question is why does Sandokhan keep maintaining they were?
Title: Re: Pretending Subquarks actually exist!
Post by: Timeisup on July 07, 2020, 01:07:07 AM
But he just did

No he did not. If you can read, read this and show me where it makes mention of subquarks!

https://www.fnal.gov/pub/science/particle-physics/key-discoveries.html
Title: Re: Pretending Subquarks actually exist!
Post by: Code-Beta1234 on July 07, 2020, 01:10:31 AM
His paper
Title: Re: Pretending Subquarks actually exist!
Post by: Timeisup on July 07, 2020, 01:16:35 AM
His paper

If you wish to troll to it someplace else. If you are unable to stick to the facts then post elsewhere. If you care to read the subject of any of the papers Sandokhan posted, none of them deal with the discovery of subquarks. If you think they do then is points to you having a severe comprehension problem.
Title: Re: Pretending Subquarks actually exist!
Post by: Stash on July 07, 2020, 01:21:31 AM
His paper

But they were discovered in 1996 at Fermilab.

See for yourself at Fermilab:

https://www.fnal.gov/pub/science/particle-physics/key-discoveries.html
Title: Re: Pretending Subquarks actually exist!
Post by: Code-Beta1234 on July 07, 2020, 01:27:44 AM
But they were discovered in 1996 at Fermilab.

Everyone was talking about it.

The paper was published, detailing the discovery.

It's nobody's fault but that belonging to the wikipedia editors for not having included this monumental discovery.

You are a liar.

You have been provided the paper from 1997 clearly proving that no other explanation is possible: the substructure of the quark has been discovered.

You are trolling this thread.

The paper from 2004 says that preons have been discovered.

Preons = subquarks.


'Science' magazine in February 1996 reported - American researchers have said, they found that collisions between quarks in a particle accelerator were unexpectedly violent. William Carithers, of Fermi National Accelerator Laboratory, in Batavia, Illinois, told 'Science': “This is just the sort of effect you would see if quarks were not fundamental particles, but had some sort of internal structure.”

 Chris Hill, theorist at Fermilab, indicated the view in “New Scientist” | 11 May 1996 | page 29 | “It would suggest that whatever lies inside the quarks is incredibly tightly bound, in a way that theory can’t yet accommodate.” On the 1st March 1997 - in an article in 'New Scientist' on page 14 - results from DESY, the German Electron Synchrotron pointed to the existence of what is described as a “leptoquark”. Robin Marshall of the University of Manchester, who was involved in the work, said “The leptoquark is a bizarre object that we don’t understand completely”. Researchers said this “could mean that quarks and leptons are not fundamental particles after all, but are made up of even smaller particles”.

Can you read English?

The clear substructure of the quark was discovered in 1996, I did not lie at all.


https://journals.aps.org/prd/abstract/10.1103/PhysRevD.55.R2521

Has the substructure of quarks been found by the Collider Detector at Fermilab?
Keiichi Akama and Hidezumi Terazawa
Phys. Rev. D 55, R2521(R) – Published 1 March 1997

https://arxiv.org/pdf/hep-ph/9608279.pdf


http://web.ihep.su/library/pubs/tconf99/ps/teraz.pdf


You think the peer reviewers at the Physics Review journal would let this paper pass without knowing full well what happened at Fermilab?

So cut the crap.
Title: Re: Pretending Subquarks actually exist!
Post by: Timeisup on July 07, 2020, 01:28:29 AM
Perhaps Sandokhan should read this:-
https://www.fnal.gov/pub/science/inquiring/questions/quark.html



The link extracted:

Is a quark a sound particle?
You Wrote:

I am not a scientist; however, I have become curious about the quark.

I'm sure you're extremely busy, but if you would placate me for a moment I would be most appreciative. My minuscule physics aptitude is limited to some vague experience that I recall dreading in high school for about 9 months everyday during third period. Therefore, if you opt to respond to my quest for knowledge please use only the most simple of lay terms. I do recall from my college freshman chemistry course (1964) that there is a Valance Chart, and that atoms consisted of protons, neutrons and electrons.

For the past few days I have been scouring the Internet for a description, or definition of a quark. I was told that a quark is composed of sound particles, or is a sound particle. I have read that a quark and gluons hold the nucleus of atoms together.

Would you please shed some light on this for me? Or even direct me to a web site that is geared to those who are science challenged.

Thank you for your time, and I hope that you had a nice holiday.

Sincerely,
Guy Obert

Dear Guy,

Happy New Year! Thanks for your inquiry.

Both protons and neutrons are made out of quarks and gluons. However, we don't know whether quarks and gluons are made of anything, or whether they are the ultimate building blocks of the universe. The quarks - based on present-day knowledge - have nothing to do with sound (vibrations of air molecules). However, some (yet unproven) theories suggest that they might be vibrations of a multi-dimensional space. The theory is called Superstring Theory.

To learn more about the subject, I recommend the following Web pages:

Introduction to quarks and gluons:
http://particleadventure.org/particleadventure/frameless/pn_fund.html

Introduction to Superstring Theory:
http://particleadventure.org/particleadventure/frameless/string.html

or in more detail:
http://www.superstringtheory.com/

I hope this helps. Thanks for your interest,

Kurt Riesselmann, Physicist
Fermilab Public Affairs

Title: Re: Pretending Subquarks actually exist!
Post by: Stash on July 07, 2020, 01:34:42 AM

Do you have something to add?
Title: Re: Pretending Subquarks actually exist!
Post by: sandokhan on July 07, 2020, 01:49:38 AM
Is this supposed to be a joke? A response from the public affairs dept.?

Here are the real physicists who actually conducted the experiment at Fermilab have to say:

'Science' magazine in February 1996 reported - American researchers have said, they found that collisions between quarks in a particle accelerator were unexpectedly violent. William Carithers, of Fermi National Accelerator Laboratory, in Batavia, Illinois, told 'Science': “This is just the sort of effect you would see if quarks were not fundamental particles, but had some sort of internal structure.”

Chris Hill, theorist at Fermilab, indicated the view in “New Scientist” | 11 May 1996 | page 29 | “It would suggest that whatever lies inside the quarks is incredibly tightly bound, in a way that theory can’t yet accommodate.” On the 1st March 1997 - in an article in 'New Scientist' on page 14 - results from DESY, the German Electron Synchrotron pointed to the existence of what is described as a “leptoquark”. Robin Marshall of the University of Manchester, who was involved in the work, said “The leptoquark is a bizarre object that we don’t understand completely”. Researchers said this “could mean that quarks and leptons are not fundamental particles after all, but are made up of even smaller particles”.

This alone makes you a liar.

The list has to be updated.

Here is the paper that actually proves the substructure of the quark, using the experiments carried out at Fermilab:


https://journals.aps.org/prd/abstract/10.1103/PhysRevD.55.R2521

Has the substructure of quarks been found by the Collider Detector at Fermilab?
Keiichi Akama and Hidezumi Terazawa
Phys. Rev. D 55, R2521(R) – Published 1 March 1997

https://arxiv.org/pdf/hep-ph/9608279.pdf


http://web.ihep.su/library/pubs/tconf99/ps/teraz.pdf


You think the peer reviewers at the Physics Review journal would let this paper pass without knowing full well what happened at Fermilab?


You said emphatically that preons were never discovered.

I provided the reference from 2004 which does say that they were discovered.

Preons = subquarks.

Someone has to update that list.


However, I need not resort to any experimental evidence.

All I have to do is provide the absolute proof coming from knot theory that subquarks must exist, see the paper by Dr. Ashtekar, one of the top quantum physicists of all time.
Title: Re: Pretending Subquarks actually exist!
Post by: Code-Beta1234 on July 07, 2020, 01:50:04 AM

Do you have something to add?

Talkibg about paper of fermilab discovery.
Title: Re: Pretending Subquarks actually exist!
Post by: Stash on July 07, 2020, 01:57:19 AM

Do you have something to add?

Talkibg about paper of fermilab discovery.

What about it? Go check the Fermilab site with the list of discoveries yourself.
Title: Re: Pretending Subquarks actually exist!
Post by: Timeisup on July 07, 2020, 02:00:53 AM
Normally a debate with Sandokhan can be a torturous affair with him presenting pages and pages of cut and pasted bits and pieces along with numerous links. Drilling down to see the flaws in his arguments and seperating the wheat from the chaff can be an exercise  in futility.

On this occasion both the question and answer are clear cut.

The question, Did scientists at Fermilab discover subquarks in 1997; or any other year?

The answer, No.

The proof, Fermilab’s own website.

https://www.fnal.gov/pub/science/inquiring/questions/quark.html
https://www.fnal.gov/pub/science/particle-physics/key-discoveries.html

It’s not really a question for debate. The truth is there if you care to read it.

The facts surrounding wether or not subquarks actually exist remains to be seen. In the 1980s, before CERN got going many scientists thought it was a strong possibility. The number of papers on that subject mainly date from that time. Science has since moved on and the evidence to date appears to point to there being no subquarks. The jury I suppose is still out, but what is a cast iron irrefutable fact is that they have NEVER been discovered. To say they were discovered at Fermilab in 1997 is nothing More than a lie.
Title: Re: Pretending Subquarks actually exist!
Post by: Code-Beta1234 on July 07, 2020, 02:01:57 AM

Do you have something to add?

Talkibg about paper of fermilab discovery.

What about it? Go check the Fermilab site with the list of discoveries yourself.

Come on. They published paper pointing at subquarks
Title: Re: Pretending Subquarks actually exist!
Post by: Stash on July 07, 2020, 02:06:47 AM

Do you have something to add?

Talkibg about paper of fermilab discovery.

What about it? Go check the Fermilab site with the list of discoveries yourself.

Come on. They published paper pointing at subquarks

Who did? Fermilab? Where?
Title: Re: Pretending Subquarks actually exist!
Post by: Timeisup on July 07, 2020, 02:07:41 AM
Is this supposed to be a joke? A response from the public affairs dept.?

Here are the real physicists who actually conducted the experiment at Fermilab have to say:

'Science' magazine in February 1996 reported - American researchers have said, they found that collisions between quarks in a particle accelerator were unexpectedly violent. William Carithers, of Fermi National Accelerator Laboratory, in Batavia, Illinois, told 'Science': “This is just the sort of effect you would see if quarks were not fundamental particles, but had some sort of internal structure.”

Chris Hill, theorist at Fermilab, indicated the view in “New Scientist” | 11 May 1996 | page 29 | “It would suggest that whatever lies inside the quarks is incredibly tightly bound, in a way that theory can’t yet accommodate.” On the 1st March 1997 - in an article in 'New Scientist' on page 14 - results from DESY, the German Electron Synchrotron pointed to the existence of what is described as a “leptoquark”. Robin Marshall of the University of Manchester, who was involved in the work, said “The leptoquark is a bizarre object that we don’t understand completely”. Researchers said this “could mean that quarks and leptons are not fundamental particles after all, but are made up of even smaller particles”.

This alone makes you a liar.

The list has to be updated.

Here is the paper that actually proves the substructure of the quark, using the experiments carried out at Fermilab:


https://journals.aps.org/prd/abstract/10.1103/PhysRevD.55.R2521

Has the substructure of quarks been found by the Collider Detector at Fermilab?
Keiichi Akama and Hidezumi Terazawa
Phys. Rev. D 55, R2521(R) – Published 1 March 1997

https://arxiv.org/pdf/hep-ph/9608279.pdf


http://web.ihep.su/library/pubs/tconf99/ps/teraz.pdf


You think the peer reviewers at the Physics Review journal would let this paper pass without knowing full well what happened at Fermilab?


You said emphatically that preons were never discovered.

I provided the reference from 2004 which does say that they were discovered.

Preons = subquarks.

Someone has to update that list.


However, I need not resort to any experimental evidence.

All I have to do is provide the absolute proof coming from knot theory that subquarks must exist, see the paper by Dr. Ashtekar, one of the top quantum physicists of all time.

You fail to understand the truth. You fail to tell fact from fiction.
Look at Fermilab's own website, there is nothing on the website that points to them discovering subquarks in 1997 let alone any other year.

There has never been a discovery of subquarks, can you not grasp that simple fact?

Where is the Fermilab press release and paper on the discovery that you keep failing to produce!

The reason why you keep failing to produce it is because it does not exist.

You are clearly delusional.
Title: Re: Pretending Subquarks actually exist!
Post by: JackBlack on July 07, 2020, 02:08:28 AM
No, your interpretation is incorrect. You are equating my statement as upon proof that suddenly they exist.
If my "interpretation" is incorrect, it means your statement is not in English.
I am equating your statement like that because you are saying until proof is provided they do not exist in actuality.
That isn't just saying they are unproven or there is no proof of their existence. That is saying they do not exist.

That's why I said they only exist theoretically, actual existence is not proven, ie non-existent.
Not proven, and non-existence are fundamentally different things.

So what do you actually want to say? That they are not proven to exist (but may exist), or that they do not exist?


As I said
As has been repeatedly pointed out, you saying something is worthless. It doesn't magically make it true.

Here is the paper to prove it:
Again, that has already been dealt with. These are composite quasi-particles, made (in part) from electrons. They are not sub-components of electrons.
Again, repeatedly claiming this paper proves subquarks are real is nothing more than a blatant lie.

Preons are subquarks
And the paper you repeatedly cling to uses neither.


But he just did
No, he didn't.
He provided a reference to a paper on quasiparticles made from electronics and strong magnetic fields.
These are not subquarks.
He is lying when he claims they are.
He is lying when he claims this paper shows the discovery of subquarks.

Come on. They published paper pointing at subquarks
Provide a link to the paper and clearly point out where in the paper they show evidence of subquarks, not just copying Sandy's crap.
Title: Re: Pretending Subquarks actually exist!
Post by: Timeisup on July 07, 2020, 02:09:06 AM

Do you have something to add?

Talkibg about paper of fermilab discovery.

What about it? Go check the Fermilab site with the list of discoveries yourself.

Come on. They published paper pointing at subquarks

Pointing at equals speculation which is not the same as a discovery! Are you unable to grasp that simple point?
Title: Re: Pretending Subquarks actually exist!
Post by: sandokhan on July 07, 2020, 02:15:11 AM
Look at Fermilab's own website.

Here are the scientists which actually performed the experiment:

'Science' magazine in February 1996 reported - American researchers have said, they found that collisions between quarks in a particle accelerator were unexpectedly violent. William Carithers, of Fermi National Accelerator Laboratory, in Batavia, Illinois, told 'Science': “This is just the sort of effect you would see if quarks were not fundamental particles, but had some sort of internal structure.”

Chris Hill, theorist at Fermilab, indicated the view in “New Scientist” | 11 May 1996 | page 29 | “It would suggest that whatever lies inside the quarks is incredibly tightly bound, in a way that theory can’t yet accommodate.” On the 1st March 1997 - in an article in 'New Scientist' on page 14 - results from DESY, the German Electron Synchrotron pointed to the existence of what is described as a “leptoquark”. Robin Marshall of the University of Manchester, who was involved in the work, said “The leptoquark is a bizarre object that we don’t understand completely”. Researchers said this “could mean that quarks and leptons are not fundamental particles after all, but are made up of even smaller particles”.

This alone makes you a liar.

The list has to be updated.

Why was it not updated? Because there are vested interests which at that time signaled clearly that the discovery was not to be publicized any further.

That did not stop these physicists to publish this paper:


https://journals.aps.org/prd/abstract/10.1103/PhysRevD.55.R2521

Has the substructure of quarks been found by the Collider Detector at Fermilab?
Keiichi Akama and Hidezumi Terazawa
Phys. Rev. D 55, R2521(R) – Published 1 March 1997

https://arxiv.org/pdf/hep-ph/9608279.pdf


http://web.ihep.su/library/pubs/tconf99/ps/teraz.pdf


You think the peer reviewers at the Physics Review journal would let this paper pass without knowing full well what happened at Fermilab?

You said that preons were never discovered.

I provided the paper which says that they were discovered.

So who is delusional? It is you!

All you have is an list which has not been updated.


These are composite quasi-particles, made (in part) from electrons. They are not sub-components of electrons.

Cut the crap you miserable liar.

Aren't you tired of continuously lying to everyone here?

WTF is wrong with you?

J. Martin; S. Ilani; B. Verdene; J. Smet; V. Umansky; D. Mahalu; D. Schuh; G. Abstreiter; A. Yacoby (2004). "Localization of Fractionally Charged Quasi Particles".

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/15310895/

An outstanding question pertaining to the microscopic properties of the fractional quantum Hall effect is understanding the nature of the particles that participate in the localization but that do not contribute to electronic transport. By using a scanning single electron transistor, we imaged the individual localized states in the fractional quantum Hall regime and determined the charge of the localizing particles. Highlighting the symmetry between filling factors 1/3 and 2/3, our measurements show that quasi-particles with fractional charge e* = e/3 localize in space to submicrometer dimensions, where e is the electron charge.

http://yacoby.physics.harvard.edu/Publications/Localization%20of%20Fractionally%20Charged%20Quasi%20Particles_2004.pdf

Our results constitute direct evidence that quasi-particles with charge e/3 localize at
1/3 and 2/3. Moreover, our results highlight the symmetry between filling factors 1/3 and 2/3, indicating directly that at 2/3 the quasiparticle charge is e/3.

One can clearly see that the step height in the fractional regime is only about 1/3
of the step height in the integer regime, confirming the localization of quasi-particles with e* e/3 for both 1/3 and 2/3.


"Quasiparticle, in physics, a disturbance, in a medium, that behaves as a particle and that may conveniently be regarded as one. "

"This "electron with a different mass" is called an "electron quasiparticle"."


You are a miserable and wretched liar.
Title: Re: Pretending Subquarks actually exist!
Post by: Timeisup on July 07, 2020, 02:19:27 AM
All smokescreen all rubbish.

All you have to do is provide a link from Fermilab!
Why don’t you do that?
Because it doesn’t exist!

Why bother putting out a continual stream of irrelevant garbage, when the truth is there for all to see.

The truth being, you are an idiot sir, who is unable to tell the truth from their own concocted cobbled together fiction.
Title: Re: Pretending Subquarks actually exist!
Post by: JackBlack on July 07, 2020, 02:20:40 AM
These are composite quasi-particles, made (in part) from electrons. They are not sub-components of electrons.
Cut the crap you miserable liar.
Aren't you tired of continuously lying to everyone here?
WTF is wrong with you?
I'm not the one lying here. You are, as you do in basically every thread.

So you should be asking yourself what is wrong with you.

Repeating the same lies wont magically make them true.

Again, they are composite particles, made of electrons. They are not the subcomponents of electrons.
Now stop lying.
Title: Re: Pretending Subquarks actually exist!
Post by: Timeisup on July 07, 2020, 02:21:16 AM
Look at Fermilab's own website.

Here are the scientists which actually performed the experiment:

'Science' magazine in February 1996 reported - American researchers have said, they found that collisions between quarks in a particle accelerator were unexpectedly violent. William Carithers, of Fermi National Accelerator Laboratory, in Batavia, Illinois, told 'Science': “This is just the sort of effect you would see if quarks were not fundamental particles, but had some sort of internal structure.”

Chris Hill, theorist at Fermilab, indicated the view in “New Scientist” | 11 May 1996 | page 29 | “It would suggest that whatever lies inside the quarks is incredibly tightly bound, in a way that theory can’t yet accommodate.” On the 1st March 1997 - in an article in 'New Scientist' on page 14 - results from DESY, the German Electron Synchrotron pointed to the existence of what is described as a “leptoquark”. Robin Marshall of the University of Manchester, who was involved in the work, said “The leptoquark is a bizarre object that we don’t understand completely”. Researchers said this “could mean that quarks and leptons are not fundamental particles after all, but are made up of even smaller particles”.

This alone makes you a liar.

The list has to be updated.

Why was it not updated? Because there are vested interests which at that time signaled clearly that the discovery was not to be publicized any further.

That did not stop these physicists to publish this paper:


https://journals.aps.org/prd/abstract/10.1103/PhysRevD.55.R2521

Has the substructure of quarks been found by the Collider Detector at Fermilab?
Keiichi Akama and Hidezumi Terazawa
Phys. Rev. D 55, R2521(R) – Published 1 March 1997

https://arxiv.org/pdf/hep-ph/9608279.pdf


http://web.ihep.su/library/pubs/tconf99/ps/teraz.pdf


You think the peer reviewers at the Physics Review journal would let this paper pass without knowing full well what happened at Fermilab?

You said that preons were never discovered.

I provided the paper which says that they were discovered.

So who is delusional? It is you!

All you have is an list which has not been updated.


These are composite quasi-particles, made (in part) from electrons. They are not sub-components of electrons.

Cut the crap you miserable liar.

Aren't you tired of continuously lying to everyone here?

WTF is wrong with you?

J. Martin; S. Ilani; B. Verdene; J. Smet; V. Umansky; D. Mahalu; D. Schuh; G. Abstreiter; A. Yacoby (2004). "Localization of Fractionally Charged Quasi Particles".

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/15310895/

An outstanding question pertaining to the microscopic properties of the fractional quantum Hall effect is understanding the nature of the particles that participate in the localization but that do not contribute to electronic transport. By using a scanning single electron transistor, we imaged the individual localized states in the fractional quantum Hall regime and determined the charge of the localizing particles. Highlighting the symmetry between filling factors 1/3 and 2/3, our measurements show that quasi-particles with fractional charge e* = e/3 localize in space to submicrometer dimensions, where e is the electron charge.

http://yacoby.physics.harvard.edu/Publications/Localization%20of%20Fractionally%20Charged%20Quasi%20Particles_2004.pdf

Our results constitute direct evidence that quasi-particles with charge e/3 localize at
1/3 and 2/3. Moreover, our results highlight the symmetry between filling factors 1/3 and 2/3, indicating directly that at 2/3 the quasiparticle charge is e/3.

One can clearly see that the step height in the fractional regime is only about 1/3
of the step height in the integer regime, confirming the localization of quasi-particles with e* e/3 for both 1/3 and 2/3.


"Quasiparticle, in physics, a disturbance, in a medium, that behaves as a particle and that may conveniently be regarded as one. "

"This "electron with a different mass" is called an "electron quasiparticle"."


You are a miserable and wretched liar.

Irrelevant!

Where is the nonexistent Fermilab link?
Title: Re: Pretending Subquarks actually exist!
Post by: Stash on July 07, 2020, 02:23:03 AM
You have a thing for misrepresenting sources/references. Over, and over, and over again. Case in point:

Look at Fermilab's own website.

Here are the scientists which actually performed the experiment:

'Science' magazine in February 1996 reported - American researchers have said, they found that collisions between quarks in a particle accelerator were unexpectedly violent. William Carithers, of Fermi National Accelerator Laboratory, in Batavia, Illinois, told 'Science': “This is just the sort of effect you would see if quarks were not fundamental particles, but had some sort of internal structure.”

This is actually from ‘Popular Science’ not ‘Science'. So from a layman’s magazine about cool science stuff, not a journal. And the quote:

"This is just the sort of effect you would see if quarks were not fundamental particles, but had some sort of internal structure,  explains CDF
spokesman William Carithers.” Is followed by:

"Everyone involved with the project agrees that it is much too early to tell what, if anything, the latest findings mean. The DO team suspects the CDF team's findings could be explained by making only minor adjustments in the way momentum is apportioned among subatomic fragments. "It's possible,” says one Fermilab physicist, "that we are beginning to see new physics in this experiment."

https://books.google.com/books?id=QmYEAAAAMBAJ&pg=PA32&lpg=PA32&dq=This+is+just+the+sort+of+effect+you+would+see+if+quarks+were+not+fundamental+particles,+but+had+some+sort+of+internal+structure.&source=bl&ots=sKg9TksqXv&sig=ACfU3U3ww48aSXEcQz1PwvAQ2qE9Ovmf0Q&hl=en&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwi7j_et3brqAhUENH0KHYv7D1wQ6AEwAHoECAkQAQ#v=onepage&q&f=false

Careful, you really shouldn't be referring to anyone else as a miserable and wretched liar.
Title: Re: Pretending Subquarks actually exist!
Post by: Timeisup on July 07, 2020, 02:26:14 AM
This thread is going off on a spinning charged particle tangent.

Have subquarks been discovered?

No

Where they ever discovered at Fermilab in 1997?

Again no.

Proof, look at Fermilab’s own website.

Is Sandokhan a habitual liar?

Yes.

Proof

He continues to maintain subquarks were discovered at Fermilab In 1997, which is not true.

The fact that he keeps saying this is clear proof he is lying.

A look at Fermilab’s own website will confirm this.

Title: Re: Pretending Subquarks actually exist!
Post by: sandokhan on July 07, 2020, 02:27:39 AM
STFU you clown.

You said that preons were not discovered.

You were pretty sure about that.

Yet, I was able to provide the very paper which says they were discovered.

So you are an idiot.

On top of a very misinformed person.

All you have to do is provide a link from Fermilab!

Science' magazine in February 1996 reported - American researchers have said, they found that collisions between quarks in a particle accelerator were unexpectedly violent. William Carithers, of Fermi National Accelerator Laboratory, in Batavia, Illinois, told 'Science': “This is just the sort of effect you would see if quarks were not fundamental particles, but had some sort of internal structure.”

Chris Hill, theorist at Fermilab, indicated the view in “New Scientist” | 11 May 1996 | page 29 | “It would suggest that whatever lies inside the quarks is incredibly tightly bound, in a way that theory can’t yet accommodate.” On the 1st March 1997 - in an article in 'New Scientist' on page 14 - results from DESY, the German Electron Synchrotron pointed to the existence of what is described as a “leptoquark”. Robin Marshall of the University of Manchester, who was involved in the work, said “The leptoquark is a bizarre object that we don’t understand completely”. Researchers said this “could mean that quarks and leptons are not fundamental particles after all, but are made up of even smaller particles”.


Go ahead and call Fermilab and ask them why they did not publish these results.


Again, they are composite particles, made of electrons.

STFU you moron.


http://yacoby.physics.harvard.edu/Publications/Localization%20of%20Fractionally%20Charged%20Quasi%20Particles_2004.pdf

Our results constitute direct evidence that quasi-particles with charge e/3 localize at
1/3 and 2/3. Moreover, our results highlight the symmetry between filling factors 1/3 and 2/3, indicating directly that at 2/3 the quasiparticle charge is e/3.

One can clearly see that the step height in the fractional regime is only about 1/3
of the step height in the integer regime, confirming the localization of quasi-particles with e* e/3 for both 1/3 and 2/3.


Preon-quarkel structure of the electrons:

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=quarter-electrons-may-enable-quantum-computer


Every science student is taught that the indivisible unit of charge is that of the electron. But 2 years ago, scientists found that charge sometimes shatters into "quasi-particles" that have one-third the fundamental charge. And in this week's issue of Nature, researchers announce they have spotted one-fifth-charge quasi-particles--a decisive finding suggesting that its time to change any physics textbooks still claiming that electron charge is indivisible.

https://web.archive.org/web/20130621182913/http://news.sciencemag.org/sciencenow/1999/05/19-01.html


You moron!

The fractional charges make up the electron!

Not the other way around.



Careful, you really shouldn't be referring to anyone else as a miserable and wretched liar.

STFU you clown.

Don't you think everyone here has had enough of your f*cking trolling which you do every day?

J. Martin; S. Ilani; B. Verdene; J. Smet; V. Umansky; D. Mahalu; D. Schuh; G. Abstreiter; A. Yacoby (2004). "Localization of Fractionally Charged Quasi Particles".

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/15310895/

An outstanding question pertaining to the microscopic properties of the fractional quantum Hall effect is understanding the nature of the particles that participate in the localization but that do not contribute to electronic transport. By using a scanning single electron transistor, we imaged the individual localized states in the fractional quantum Hall regime and determined the charge of the localizing particles. Highlighting the symmetry between filling factors 1/3 and 2/3, our measurements show that quasi-particles with fractional charge e* = e/3 localize in space to submicrometer dimensions, where e is the electron charge.

http://yacoby.physics.harvard.edu/Publications/Localization%20of%20Fractionally%20Charged%20Quasi%20Particles_2004.pdf

Our results constitute direct evidence that quasi-particles with charge e/3 localize at
1/3 and 2/3. Moreover, our results highlight the symmetry between filling factors 1/3 and 2/3, indicating directly that at 2/3 the quasiparticle charge is e/3.

One can clearly see that the step height in the fractional regime is only about 1/3
of the step height in the integer regime, confirming the localization of quasi-particles with e* e/3 for both 1/3 and 2/3.


"Quasiparticle, in physics, a disturbance, in a medium, that behaves as a particle and that may conveniently be regarded as one. "

"This "electron with a different mass" is called an "electron quasiparticle"."


You are a miserable and wretched liar.
Title: Re: Pretending Subquarks actually exist!
Post by: Timeisup on July 07, 2020, 02:29:15 AM
STFU you clown.

You said that preons were not discovered.

You were pretty sure about that.

Yet, I was able to provide the very paper which says they were discovered.

So you are an idiot.

On top of a very misinformed person.

All you have to do is provide a link from Fermilab!

Science' magazine in February 1996 reported - American researchers have said, they found that collisions between quarks in a particle accelerator were unexpectedly violent. William Carithers, of Fermi National Accelerator Laboratory, in Batavia, Illinois, told 'Science': “This is just the sort of effect you would see if quarks were not fundamental particles, but had some sort of internal structure.”

Chris Hill, theorist at Fermilab, indicated the view in “New Scientist” | 11 May 1996 | page 29 | “It would suggest that whatever lies inside the quarks is incredibly tightly bound, in a way that theory can’t yet accommodate.” On the 1st March 1997 - in an article in 'New Scientist' on page 14 - results from DESY, the German Electron Synchrotron pointed to the existence of what is described as a “leptoquark”. Robin Marshall of the University of Manchester, who was involved in the work, said “The leptoquark is a bizarre object that we don’t understand completely”. Researchers said this “could mean that quarks and leptons are not fundamental particles after all, but are made up of even smaller particles”.


Go ahead and call Fermilab and ask them why they did not publish these results.


Again, they are composite particles, made of electrons.

STFU you moron.


http://yacoby.physics.harvard.edu/Publications/Localization%20of%20Fractionally%20Charged%20Quasi%20Particles_2004.pdf

Our results constitute direct evidence that quasi-particles with charge e/3 localize at
1/3 and 2/3. Moreover, our results highlight the symmetry between filling factors 1/3 and 2/3, indicating directly that at 2/3 the quasiparticle charge is e/3.

One can clearly see that the step height in the fractional regime is only about 1/3
of the step height in the integer regime, confirming the localization of quasi-particles with e* e/3 for both 1/3 and 2/3.


Preon-quarkel structure of the electrons:

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=quarter-electrons-may-enable-quantum-computer


Every science student is taught that the indivisible unit of charge is that of the electron. But 2 years ago, scientists found that charge sometimes shatters into "quasi-particles" that have one-third the fundamental charge. And in this week's issue of Nature, researchers announce they have spotted one-fifth-charge quasi-particles--a decisive finding suggesting that its time to change any physics textbooks still claiming that electron charge is indivisible.

https://web.archive.org/web/20130621182913/http://news.sciencemag.org/sciencenow/1999/05/19-01.html


You moron!

The fractional charges make up the electron!

Not the other way around.



Careful, you really shouldn't be referring to anyone else as a miserable and wretched liar.

STFU you clown.

Don't you think everyone here has had enough of your f*cking trolling which you do every day?

J. Martin; S. Ilani; B. Verdene; J. Smet; V. Umansky; D. Mahalu; D. Schuh; G. Abstreiter; A. Yacoby (2004). "Localization of Fractionally Charged Quasi Particles".

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/15310895/

An outstanding question pertaining to the microscopic properties of the fractional quantum Hall effect is understanding the nature of the particles that participate in the localization but that do not contribute to electronic transport. By using a scanning single electron transistor, we imaged the individual localized states in the fractional quantum Hall regime and determined the charge of the localizing particles. Highlighting the symmetry between filling factors 1/3 and 2/3, our measurements show that quasi-particles with fractional charge e* = e/3 localize in space to submicrometer dimensions, where e is the electron charge.

http://yacoby.physics.harvard.edu/Publications/Localization%20of%20Fractionally%20Charged%20Quasi%20Particles_2004.pdf

Our results constitute direct evidence that quasi-particles with charge e/3 localize at
1/3 and 2/3. Moreover, our results highlight the symmetry between filling factors 1/3 and 2/3, indicating directly that at 2/3 the quasiparticle charge is e/3.

One can clearly see that the step height in the fractional regime is only about 1/3
of the step height in the integer regime, confirming the localization of quasi-particles with e* e/3 for both 1/3 and 2/3.


"Quasiparticle, in physics, a disturbance, in a medium, that behaves as a particle and that may conveniently be regarded as one. "

"This "electron with a different mass" is called an "electron quasiparticle"."


You are a miserable and wretched liar.

Yet more evasive rubbish.

Where is the fictional 1997 paper you claim exists?
Title: Re: Pretending Subquarks actually exist!
Post by: sandokhan on July 07, 2020, 02:31:21 AM
Right here:

Science' magazine in February 1996 reported - American researchers have said, they found that collisions between quarks in a particle accelerator were unexpectedly violent. William Carithers, of Fermi National Accelerator Laboratory, in Batavia, Illinois, told 'Science': “This is just the sort of effect you would see if quarks were not fundamental particles, but had some sort of internal structure.”

Chris Hill, theorist at Fermilab, indicated the view in “New Scientist” | 11 May 1996 | page 29 | “It would suggest that whatever lies inside the quarks is incredibly tightly bound, in a way that theory can’t yet accommodate.” On the 1st March 1997 - in an article in 'New Scientist' on page 14 - results from DESY, the German Electron Synchrotron pointed to the existence of what is described as a “leptoquark”. Robin Marshall of the University of Manchester, who was involved in the work, said “The leptoquark is a bizarre object that we don’t understand completely”. Researchers said this “could mean that quarks and leptons are not fundamental particles after all, but are made up of even smaller particles”.



https://journals.aps.org/prd/abstract/10.1103/PhysRevD.55.R2521

Has the substructure of quarks been found by the Collider Detector at Fermilab?
Keiichi Akama and Hidezumi Terazawa
Phys. Rev. D 55, R2521(R) – Published 1 March 1997

https://arxiv.org/pdf/hep-ph/9608279.pdf


http://web.ihep.su/library/pubs/tconf99/ps/teraz.pdf


You think the peer reviewers at the Physics Review journal would let this paper pass without knowing full well what happened at Fermilab?


Now, it's your turn to refute that paper.

You say the paper does not exist.

I have just provided the reference.

Go ahead and refute the findings of the paper.
Title: Re: Pretending Subquarks actually exist!
Post by: sandokhan on July 07, 2020, 02:51:19 AM
I was able to retrieve the ORIGINAL PAPER PUBLISHED BY FERMILAB IN 1996!

Now, let's see WTF you are going to do.

https://arxiv.org/pdf/hep-ex/9601008.pdf

No single experimental source of systematic uncertainty can account for the high-ET excess.

The presence of quark substructure could appear as an enhancement of the cross section at high ET .

Above 200 GeV, the jet cross section is significantly higher than the NLO predictions. The data over the full ET range are very precise. They provide powerful constraints on QCD, and demand a reevaluation of theoretical predictions and uncertainties within and beyond the Standard Model.

Title: Re: Pretending Subquarks actually exist!
Post by: Code-Beta1234 on July 07, 2020, 02:57:30 AM
Neither subquark or preon apear in paper. Idk
Title: Re: Pretending Subquarks actually exist!
Post by: Stash on July 07, 2020, 02:58:12 AM
I was able to retrieve the ORIGINAL PAPER PUBLISHED BY FERMILAB IN 1996!

Now, let's see WTF you are going to do.

https://arxiv.org/pdf/hep-ex/9601008.pdf

No single experimental source of systematic uncertainty can account for the high-ET excess.

The presence of quark substructure could appear as an enhancement of the cross section at high ET .

Above 200 GeV, the jet cross section is significantly higher than the NLO predictions. The data over the full ET range are very precise. They provide powerful constraints on QCD, and demand a reevaluation of theoretical predictions and uncertainties within and beyond the Standard Model.

Nope, nothing in there about proving the existence of sub-quarks. Just evaluations regarding the theories and constructs. Sorry.

As well the Fermilab site doesn't mention anything about proving the existence of sub-quarks. One would think they would had they done so.
Title: Re: Pretending Subquarks actually exist!
Post by: sandokhan on July 07, 2020, 03:02:57 AM
Quark substructure = subquarks.


https://arxiv.org/pdf/hep-ex/9601008.pdf

No single experimental source of systematic uncertainty can account for the high-ET excess.

The presence of quark substructure could appear as an enhancement of the cross section at high ET .

Above 200 GeV, the jet cross section is significantly higher than the NLO predictions. The data over the full ET range are very precise. They provide powerful constraints on QCD, and demand a reevaluation of theoretical predictions and uncertainties within and beyond the Standard Model.
Title: Re: Pretending Subquarks actually exist!
Post by: JackBlack on July 07, 2020, 03:48:48 AM
STFU you clown.
You said that preons were not discovered.
You were pretty sure about that.
Yet, I was able to provide the very paper which says they were discovered.
No, you were able to lie and falsely claim to provide a paper which says they were discovered.

The paper does not actually say they were discovered.

Now how about you stop with the lies?

Where in the paper does it claim they are the subcomponents of electrons or quarks rather than quasiparticles made from electrons? NO WHERE!
That is your blatant lie to pretend it supports you.

I was able to retrieve the ORIGINAL PAPER PUBLISHED BY FERMILAB IN 1996!
Which still doesn't support your lies.
Saying the presence of substructure could do something is not showing that this substructure exists.
Title: Re: Pretending Subquarks actually exist!
Post by: sandokhan on July 07, 2020, 04:04:40 AM
The substructure of the electrons = fractional charges particles called preons.

J. Martin; S. Ilani; B. Verdene; J. Smet; V. Umansky; D. Mahalu; D. Schuh; G. Abstreiter; A. Yacoby (2004). "Localization of Fractionally Charged Quasi Particles".

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/15310895/

An outstanding question pertaining to the microscopic properties of the fractional quantum Hall effect is understanding the nature of the particles that participate in the localization but that do not contribute to electronic transport. By using a scanning single electron transistor, we imaged the individual localized states in the fractional quantum Hall regime and determined the charge of the localizing particles. Highlighting the symmetry between filling factors 1/3 and 2/3, our measurements show that quasi-particles with fractional charge e* = e/3 localize in space to submicrometer dimensions, where e is the electron charge.

http://yacoby.physics.harvard.edu/Publications/Localization%20of%20Fractionally%20Charged%20Quasi%20Particles_2004.pdf

Our results constitute direct evidence that quasi-particles with charge e/3 localize at
1/3 and 2/3. Moreover, our results highlight the symmetry between filling factors 1/3 and 2/3, indicating directly that at 2/3 the quasiparticle charge is e/3.

One can clearly see that the step height in the fractional regime is only about 1/3
of the step height in the integer regime, confirming the localization of quasi-particles with e* e/3 for both 1/3 and 2/3.


"Quasiparticle, in physics, a disturbance, in a medium, that behaves as a particle and that may conveniently be regarded as one. "

"This "electron with a different mass" is called an "electron quasiparticle"."

Preon-quarkel structure of the electrons:

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=quarter-electrons-may-enable-quantum-computer


Every science student is taught that the indivisible unit of charge is that of the electron. But 2 years ago, scientists found that charge sometimes shatters into "quasi-particles" that have one-third the fundamental charge. And in this week's issue of Nature, researchers announce they have spotted one-fifth-charge quasi-particles--a decisive finding suggesting that its time to change any physics textbooks still claiming that electron charge is indivisible.

https://web.archive.org/web/20130621182913/http://news.sciencemag.org/sciencenow/1999/05/19-01.html


Quark substructure = subquarks.


https://arxiv.org/pdf/hep-ex/9601008.pdf

No single experimental source of systematic uncertainty can account for the high-ET excess.

The presence of quark substructure could appear as an enhancement of the cross section at high ET .

Above 200 GeV, the jet cross section is significantly higher than the NLO predictions. The data over the full ET range are very precise. They provide powerful constraints on QCD, and demand a reevaluation of theoretical predictions and uncertainties within and beyond the Standard Model.
Title: Re: Pretending Subquarks actually exist!
Post by: Timeisup on July 07, 2020, 04:14:45 AM
Right here:

Science' magazine in February 1996 reported - American researchers have said, they found that collisions between quarks in a particle accelerator were unexpectedly violent. William Carithers, of Fermi National Accelerator Laboratory, in Batavia, Illinois, told 'Science': “This is just the sort of effect you would see if quarks were not fundamental particles, but had some sort of internal structure.”

Chris Hill, theorist at Fermilab, indicated the view in “New Scientist” | 11 May 1996 | page 29 | “It would suggest that whatever lies inside the quarks is incredibly tightly bound, in a way that theory can’t yet accommodate.” On the 1st March 1997 - in an article in 'New Scientist' on page 14 - results from DESY, the German Electron Synchrotron pointed to the existence of what is described as a “leptoquark”. Robin Marshall of the University of Manchester, who was involved in the work, said “The leptoquark is a bizarre object that we don’t understand completely”. Researchers said this “could mean that quarks and leptons are not fundamental particles after all, but are made up of even smaller particles”.



https://journals.aps.org/prd/abstract/10.1103/PhysRevD.55.R2521

Has the substructure of quarks been found by the Collider Detector at Fermilab?
Keiichi Akama and Hidezumi Terazawa
Phys. Rev. D 55, R2521(R) – Published 1 March 1997

https://arxiv.org/pdf/hep-ph/9608279.pdf


http://web.ihep.su/library/pubs/tconf99/ps/teraz.pdf


You think the peer reviewers at the Physics Review journal would let this paper pass without knowing full well what happened at Fermilab?


Now, it's your turn to refute that paper.

You say the paper does not exist.

I have just provided the reference.

Go ahead and refute the findings of the paper.

You have provided nothing that deals with your claim that in 1997 the discovery of subquarks was made at Fermilab. That claim is false according to Fermilab and that makes you nothing but a deceptive barefaced compulsive liar.

Subquarks have NEVER been discovered and that is an unequivocal fact.

You even have the gall to say that Fermilab did discover subquarks and decided to keep it a secret from the world!

"Go ahead and call Fermilab and ask them why they did not publish these results"

When are you ever going to admit you are wrong and that you are nothing but a compulsive liar, the truth of the matter is for all to see?

The Lie.
You claimed subquarks were discovered in 1997 at Fermilab

The Truth
They were never discovered at Fermilab or anywhere else.

The Evidence
Fermilab's own website and your failure to provide one shred of evidence.



Title: Re: Pretending Subquarks actually exist!
Post by: Timeisup on July 07, 2020, 04:18:11 AM
From Sandokhan's own post.

Has the substructure of quarks been found by the Collider Detector at Fermilab?

The answer is of course no. As Sandokhan does not like the answer he refuses to believe it. He would argue black was white and maintain he was right. On this occasion, he is most definitely wrong.
Title: Re: Pretending Subquarks actually exist!
Post by: sandokhan on July 07, 2020, 04:27:06 AM
Cut the crap.

Here is the very paper published by Fermilab which describes their discovery of the QUARK SUBSTRUCTURE:

Quark substructure = subquarks.


https://arxiv.org/pdf/hep-ex/9601008.pdf

No single experimental source of systematic uncertainty can account for the high-ET excess.

The presence of quark substructure could appear as an enhancement of the cross section at high ET .

Above 200 GeV, the jet cross section is significantly higher than the NLO predictions. The data over the full ET range are very precise. They provide powerful constraints on QCD, and demand a reevaluation of theoretical predictions and uncertainties within and beyond the Standard Model.


What are you going to do now, deny the findings published by Fermilab?

Title: Re: Pretending Subquarks actually exist!
Post by: Timeisup on July 07, 2020, 04:40:06 AM
When it comes to the world of the subatomic none of us can really pass any comment on what is true or not, we have to believe in the work of the professional scientists who spend their lives working in that complex field.

What they have to say on things like 'gravitons' is clear.
https://home.cern/science/physics/extra-dimensions-gravitons-and-tiny-black-holes

"Some theorists suggest that a particle called the “graviton” is associated with gravity in the same way as the photon is associated with the electromagnetic force. If gravitons exist, it should be possible to create them at the LHC, but they would rapidly disappear into extra dimensions. Collisions in particle accelerators always create balanced events – just like fireworks – with particles flying out in all directions. A graviton might escape our detectors, leaving an empty zone that we notice as an imbalance in momentum and energy in the event. We would need to carefully study the properties of the missing object to work out whether it is a graviton escaping to another dimension or something else. This method of searching for missing energy in events is also used to look for dark matter or supersymmetric particles"

The clue is...if they exist. As far as they can tell the existence of a graviton is just speculation and no more as they have never, according to the experts at CERN been discovered.

What do they have to say about Quarks and the possible existance of Subquarks?
https://home.cern/science/physics/heavy-ions-and-quark-gluon-plasma

"For a few millionths of a second, shortly after the Big Bang, the universe was filled with an astonishingly hot, dense soup made of all kinds of particles moving at near light speed. This mixture was dominated by quarks – fundamental bits of matter – and by gluons, carriers of the strong force that normally “glue” quarks together into familiar protons and neutrons and other species. In those first evanescent moments of extreme temperature, however, quarks and gluons were bound only weakly, free to move on their own in what’s called a quark-gluon plasma"

The clue here is according to CERN the Quark is the fundamental particle. NO mention is made of subquarks.

Here is a recent meeting where the topic of Quarks was on the agenda
https://indico.cern.ch/event/656452/

http://qm2018.infn.it

https://indico.cern.ch/event/656452/contributions/2953781/attachments/1648287/2635149/ZajcQM18.pdf

A look through the latest research on Quarks, not out of date 1980's speculation makes no mention of subquarks. CERN refers to them as fundamental which implies that thats as small as it gets.

Subquarks have never been discovered and anyone who says they have are either mistaken or are lying.


Title: Re: Pretending Subquarks actually exist!
Post by: Timeisup on July 07, 2020, 04:51:52 AM
Cut the crap.

Here is the very paper published by Fermilab which describes their discovery of the QUARK SUBSTRUCTURE:

Quark substructure = subquarks.


https://arxiv.org/pdf/hep-ex/9601008.pdf

No single experimental source of systematic uncertainty can account for the high-ET excess.

The presence of quark substructure could appear as an enhancement of the cross section at high ET .

Above 200 GeV, the jet cross section is significantly higher than the NLO predictions. The data over the full ET range are very precise. They provide powerful constraints on QCD, and demand a reevaluation of theoretical predictions and uncertainties within and beyond the Standard Model.


What are you going to do now, deny the findings published by Fermilab?

You think? You should try reading it more carefully. nowhere does it say subquarks have been discovered. What it does say is:-

"Various possible explanations for the high-ET excess are discussed"

that means nothing conclusive!

"Our measurement provides precise information about both [2, 3]. Apart from these theoretical uncertainties, deviations of the predicted cross section from experiment could arise from physics beyond the Standard Model"

That means they were not sure enough to make any claim!

"We have considered various sources of uncertainty in the theory"

That means that they are uncertain

"and demand a reevaluation of theoretical predictions and uncertainties within and beyond the Standard Model"

They did an experiment and had results that they were not totally sure about. Nowhere did they claim to have discovered subquarks. To say that is to misrepresent that work and tell lies to suit your own agenda.

If that's the best you can do its time for you to admit you are wrong.



Title: Re: Pretending Subquarks actually exist!
Post by: Timeisup on July 07, 2020, 04:54:11 AM
Cut the crap.

Here is the very paper published by Fermilab which describes their discovery of the QUARK SUBSTRUCTURE:

Quark substructure = subquarks.


https://arxiv.org/pdf/hep-ex/9601008.pdf

No single experimental source of systematic uncertainty can account for the high-ET excess.

The presence of quark substructure could appear as an enhancement of the cross section at high ET .

Above 200 GeV, the jet cross section is significantly higher than the NLO predictions. The data over the full ET range are very precise. They provide powerful constraints on QCD, and demand a reevaluation of theoretical predictions and uncertainties within and beyond the Standard Model.


What are you going to do now, deny the findings published by Fermilab?

Just to clarify the paper dated 1996, based on work in the preceding years,  does not claim to have made any discovery, and that is a fact. Just read the paper.

What happened to your claim they were discovered in 1997 were you mistaken or was that just another lie?

What happened to your claim they were discovered in the 1980s were you mistaken or was that just another lie?

When are you ever going to do your homework properly and get your facts right? keep this up and it will be bottom of the class for you again!
Title: Re: Pretending Subquarks actually exist!
Post by: Shifter on July 07, 2020, 05:09:32 AM
Cut the crap.

Here is the very paper published by Fermilab which describes their discovery of the QUARK SUBSTRUCTURE:

Quark substructure = subquarks.


https://arxiv.org/pdf/hep-ex/9601008.pdf

No single experimental source of systematic uncertainty can account for the high-ET excess.

The presence of quark substructure could appear as an enhancement of the cross section at high ET .

Above 200 GeV, the jet cross section is significantly higher than the NLO predictions. The data over the full ET range are very precise. They provide powerful constraints on QCD, and demand a reevaluation of theoretical predictions and uncertainties within and beyond the Standard Model.


What are you going to do now, deny the findings published by Fermilab?

Just to clarify the paper dated 1996, based on work in the preceding years,  does not claim to have made any discovery, and that is a fact. Just read the paper.

What happened to your claim they were discovered in 1997 were you mistaken or was that just another lie?

What happened to your claim they were discovered in the 1980s were you mistaken or was that just another lie?

When are you ever going to do your homework properly and get your facts right? keep this up and it will be bottom of the class for you again!

Keep in mind the forum board you're in. Show some class. I'm not sure why the mods allow this tripe in the Flat Earth General board. The entire point of it was for you to get your rocks off antagonizing Sandokhan. You are not here for a discussion. You're not even debating in good faith. Tell us what exactly is your point? Is it in any way valid for the board you're in?
Title: Re: Pretending Subquarks actually exist!
Post by: JackBlack on July 07, 2020, 05:10:14 AM
The substructure of the electrons = fractional charges particles called preons.
Again, the article you link is not discussing substructure of electrons.
Stop lying by pretending it does.

If you want to assert such fictitious garbage and pretend it is justified provide the exact quote indicating it.

A quote discussing quasi-particles made from electrons is not providing a quote on the sub-particles of electrons or any substructure of them.
Title: Re: Pretending Subquarks actually exist!
Post by: sokarul on July 07, 2020, 05:40:17 AM
Fermilab discoveries. (https://www.fnal.gov/pub/science/particle-physics/key-discoveries.html)

No Subquarks.
Title: Re: Pretending Subquarks actually exist!
Post by: Code-Beta1234 on July 07, 2020, 06:00:24 AM
I am wondering what fermilab scientists whoud say to sandokhan's occult chemistry
Title: Re: Pretending Subquarks actually exist!
Post by: sandokhan on July 07, 2020, 06:21:29 AM
I am wondering what fermilab scientists whoud say to sandokhan's occult chemistry

Here is what Cambridge University had to say:

https://web.archive.org/web/20141027125332/http://www.scientificexploration.org/journal/jse_09_4_phillips.pdf
Title: Re: Pretending Subquarks actually exist!
Post by: JJA on July 07, 2020, 09:51:41 AM
Stop embarrassing yourselves. You have no idea what the limits are. Not even the greatest egg heads know. Thats why they research! (duh!)

When the atom was discovered, scientists thought that was the smallest. That's why they called it 'atom' (literally means indivisible).

Who is to say what we might learn 100 years from now. I'm saying you cant dismiss a sub quark out of hand because we don't have all the data to make that claim. Maybe one day we will. Or maybe it will be forever out of reach to us. That changes nothing

Scientists today say they haven't found it. That doesn't mean the research ends. I mean imagine they ended the research when they found the atom. 'oh it means indivisible so I guess that's it then'.

How is my agnostic view on the matter trolling? You guys need to grow up.

It's trolling because most of us are saying that there is no evidence subquarks exist, which is completely true.

Because you keep ignoring the fact that Sandokhan is insisting it's a FACT that they exist, and THAT is what we have a problem with.

I'd love to see new elementary particles discovered, it would be awesome. But it's just plain wrong for Sandokhan to claim they DO exist, and wrong for you to keep insisting he isn't wrong.

We have been over this again again again. He has no evidence on his side, we do NOT know subquarks exist. Maybe they do, but we do NOT KNOW.  So nobody, not even Sandokhan can claim they do.  Not until they are found, if they exist. 

Can you at least agree that Sandokhan does not have PROOF that subquarks exist? Nobody is going to make you say that CAN'T exist, just that right now, nobody has found one.

I have my belief which is agnostic on the matter, Timeisup has his belief which is they don't exist and Sandokhan has his that says they do. So why am I the one trolling? Even you say we don't know which honestly when it comes to science (especially this deep into physics) is a far more sensible approach then a flat out 'it doesn't exist'. That is my take

I won't give a definitive answer yes or no. But this is science and the unknown. There is more optimism for believing that there is something, then a flat out rejection out of hand. Have humans really reached peak knowledge?

If you were truly agnostic, you would be telling Sandokhan he can't know for sure subquarks exist.

You have no problem telling me things don't exist if I claim they do. If I tell you it's a FACT that the Earth is a sphere, you come back and say I can't know that.

Why can't you do the same with Sandokhan? That's what make your behavior look like a troll, you change your standards based on who is talking.

He has not addressed me and I have made my claims and beliefs on here quite known as it is. I'm talking to the people who are addressing/antagonising me

If Sandokhan wants to tell me I'm wrong I have no problem stating my beliefs directly to him. Difference is I won't be a dick about it. You and especially Timeisup are quite rude to him. This is not even a debate board and neither of you are here in good faith.

Oh come on.

You are completely in control of what threads you decide to reply to, so you can't claim that you are just being attacked out of nowhere.

Here is your first message in this thread... a demonstration on how you "won't be a dick about it" when you tell people they are wrong. Don't pretend you have the high moral ground here.

You jumped in, insulted one side and ignored the other.  Nobody addressed you here, you chose to dive in.

Science currently says preons or subquarks do not exist, so why does Sandokhan keep refering to them as though they do?

I like how you used the qualifier 'currently'.

So what if 'science' moves on and says they exist what will you say then? Do you do your own thinking or do you just parrot some talking heads?

Title: Re: Pretending Subquarks actually exist!
Post by: Shifter on July 07, 2020, 10:09:59 AM
Stop embarrassing yourselves. You have no idea what the limits are. Not even the greatest egg heads know. Thats why they research! (duh!)

When the atom was discovered, scientists thought that was the smallest. That's why they called it 'atom' (literally means indivisible).

Who is to say what we might learn 100 years from now. I'm saying you cant dismiss a sub quark out of hand because we don't have all the data to make that claim. Maybe one day we will. Or maybe it will be forever out of reach to us. That changes nothing

Scientists today say they haven't found it. That doesn't mean the research ends. I mean imagine they ended the research when they found the atom. 'oh it means indivisible so I guess that's it then'.

How is my agnostic view on the matter trolling? You guys need to grow up.

It's trolling because most of us are saying that there is no evidence subquarks exist, which is completely true.

Because you keep ignoring the fact that Sandokhan is insisting it's a FACT that they exist, and THAT is what we have a problem with.

I'd love to see new elementary particles discovered, it would be awesome. But it's just plain wrong for Sandokhan to claim they DO exist, and wrong for you to keep insisting he isn't wrong.

We have been over this again again again. He has no evidence on his side, we do NOT know subquarks exist. Maybe they do, but we do NOT KNOW.  So nobody, not even Sandokhan can claim they do.  Not until they are found, if they exist. 

Can you at least agree that Sandokhan does not have PROOF that subquarks exist? Nobody is going to make you say that CAN'T exist, just that right now, nobody has found one.

I have my belief which is agnostic on the matter, Timeisup has his belief which is they don't exist and Sandokhan has his that says they do. So why am I the one trolling? Even you say we don't know which honestly when it comes to science (especially this deep into physics) is a far more sensible approach then a flat out 'it doesn't exist'. That is my take

I won't give a definitive answer yes or no. But this is science and the unknown. There is more optimism for believing that there is something, then a flat out rejection out of hand. Have humans really reached peak knowledge?

If you were truly agnostic, you would be telling Sandokhan he can't know for sure subquarks exist.

You have no problem telling me things don't exist if I claim they do. If I tell you it's a FACT that the Earth is a sphere, you come back and say I can't know that.

Why can't you do the same with Sandokhan? That's what make your behavior look like a troll, you change your standards based on who is talking.

He has not addressed me and I have made my claims and beliefs on here quite known as it is. I'm talking to the people who are addressing/antagonising me

If Sandokhan wants to tell me I'm wrong I have no problem stating my beliefs directly to him. Difference is I won't be a dick about it. You and especially Timeisup are quite rude to him. This is not even a debate board and neither of you are here in good faith.

Oh come on.

You are completely in control of what threads you decide to reply to, so you can't claim that you are just being attacked out of nowhere.

Here is your first message in this thread... a demonstration on how you "won't be a dick about it" when you tell people they are wrong. Don't pretend you have the high moral ground here.

You jumped in, insulted one side and ignored the other.  Nobody addressed you here, you chose to dive in.

Science currently says preons or subquarks do not exist, so why does Sandokhan keep refering to them as though they do?

I like how you used the qualifier 'currently'.

So what if 'science' moves on and says they exist what will you say then? Do you do your own thinking or do you just parrot some talking heads?

People are entitled to their beliefs

Timeisup started this thread not for a discussion in good faith but to antagonize another member. The mods clearly dont give a damn and allow sandokhan to be a punching bag.

Sandokhan can believe what he wants. I'm personally sick of the dozens of threads devoted to hating on him. You're a bit of a n00b here so perhaps you dont know how frequent and tiring it is.

If I had to pick a side to defend, I'll defend the underdog who keeps getting bullied. Sick of seeing this shit. Certainly the 'moderators' whose very job it is to moderate dont give a damn. I'll also defend his right to believe what he wants regarding sub quarks and how they operate etc. Sure as hell better than the stance 'We haven't discovered them so that means they dont exist yet' lol
Title: Re: Pretending Subquarks actually exist!
Post by: JJA on July 07, 2020, 10:29:03 AM
People are entitled to their beliefs

Timeisup started this thread not for a discussion in good faith but to antagonize another member. The mods clearly dont give a damn and allow sandokhan to be a punching bag.

Sandokhan can believe what he wants. I'm personally sick of the dozens of threads devoted to hating on him. You're a bit of a n00b here so perhaps you dont know how frequent and tiring it is.

If I had to pick a side to defend, I'll defend the underdog who keeps getting bullied. Sick of seeing this shit. Certainly the 'moderators' whose very job it is to moderate dont give a damn. I'll also defend his right to believe what he wants regarding sub quarks and how they operate etc. Sure as hell better than the stance 'We haven't discovered them so that means they dont exist yet' lol

Well here is your problem.

People are entitled to their beliefs, sure.

But when they start demanding others believe them, that's when you get conflict.  Sandokhan jumps into threads, proclaiming this or that is wrong because of his beliefs... and tries to claim he has facts and proof when he doesn't.  Have you READ his threads?  He is as much as a bully as anyone, insulting people and claiming they are stupid because they don't believe what he does.

You jump into all kinds of threads where Sandokhan isn't involved as well, so don't claim you're some white knight only here to defend the defenseless. Funny.

You can defend his right to believe  stuff all you want, but you are also defending him claiming to be right, and everyone else wrong.  That's what gets YOU into conflict.

Do you not understand the massive hypocrisy here?  Sandokhan claims SUBQUARKS EXIST FOR A FACT and when people say, no, there is no proof, no evidence... you are saying THEY are the ones in the wrong here? 

Sorry, as it seems this is also contradicting your beliefs... but we know of no evidence for 'subquarks' whatever those may be. They could exist, anything COULD exist, but right now, there is no evidence that they do. You can BELIEVE whatever you want, but don't go claiming it's true.
Title: Re: Pretending Subquarks actually exist!
Post by: sandokhan on July 07, 2020, 10:30:43 AM
I have the paper from 1996 from Fermilab which says that the quark substructure has been discovered.

No more excuses out of you.

Quark substructure = subquarks.


https://arxiv.org/pdf/hep-ex/9601008.pdf

No single experimental source of systematic uncertainty can account for the high-ET excess.

The presence of quark substructure could appear as an enhancement of the cross section at high ET .

Above 200 GeV, the jet cross section is significantly higher than the NLO predictions. The data over the full ET range are very precise. They provide powerful constraints on QCD, and demand a reevaluation of theoretical predictions and uncertainties within and beyond the Standard Model.


Title: Re: Pretending Subquarks actually exist!
Post by: sokarul on July 07, 2020, 10:44:40 AM
It is improper to say the sub structure is subquarks when you have already given subquarks so many properties.
Title: Re: Pretending Subquarks actually exist!
Post by: Timeisup on July 07, 2020, 10:53:49 AM
I am wondering what fermilab scientists whoud say to sandokhan's occult chemistry

Here is what Cambridge University had to say:

https://web.archive.org/web/20141027125332/http://www.scientificexploration.org/journal/jse_09_4_phillips.pdf

Is there no end to your lies. Cambridge University! More like Stephen Phillips from Dorset, which is NOT Cambridge University.

You really are scraping the barrel bringing ESP into it. Why don’t you just admit defeat on this one and go home.

Why did you lie once more and say this was from Cambridge University when it’s from some individual of no consequence in a fringe out there magazine!
Title: Re: Pretending Subquarks actually exist!
Post by: Timeisup on July 07, 2020, 11:02:00 AM
I have the paper from 1996 from Fermilab which says that the quark substructure has been discovered.

No more excuses out of you.

Quark substructure = subquarks.


https://arxiv.org/pdf/hep-ex/9601008.pdf

No single experimental source of systematic uncertainty can account for the high-ET excess.

The presence of quark substructure could appear as an enhancement of the cross section at high ET .

Above 200 GeV, the jet cross section is significantly higher than the NLO predictions. The data over the full ET range are very precise. They provide powerful constraints on QCD, and demand a reevaluation of theoretical predictions and uncertainties within and beyond the Standard Model.

You must be confused it’s the same paper you quoted earlier that made no claim about any discovery of subquarks.

Do you not understand subquarks have never been discovered at Fermilab.....despite what some man from Dorset With ESP might say!

Admit you are wrong, subquarks have never been discovered, if they had it would have been huge news, just like the discovery of the Higgs Boson, as predicted by Peter Higgs.
It would make for a very exciting story and be Nobel prize for someone.
Title: Re: Pretending Subquarks actually exist!
Post by: sandokhan on July 07, 2020, 11:07:51 AM
Dr. Stephen Phillips (UCLA, Cambridge).

You must be confused it’s the same paper you quoted earlier that made no claim about any discovery of subquarks.

But it did, exactly as I said.

Quark substructure = subquarks.

https://arxiv.org/pdf/hep-ex/9601008.pdf

No single experimental source of systematic uncertainty can account for the high-ET excess.

The presence of quark substructure could appear as an enhancement of the cross section at high ET .

Above 200 GeV, the jet cross section is significantly higher than the NLO predictions. The data over the full ET range are very precise. They provide powerful constraints on QCD, and demand a reevaluation of theoretical predictions and uncertainties within and beyond the Standard Model.
Title: Re: Pretending Subquarks actually exist!
Post by: sandokhan on July 07, 2020, 11:10:04 AM
Biography of Dr. Stephen Phillips:

DR STEPHEN PHILLIPS earned his Ph.D. at the University of California, where he also taught mathematics and physics. In 1979 one of his scientific papers was published, proposing a theory that unified particle interactions and predicted that quarks are not fundamental (as most physicists currently believe) but are composed of three more basic particles ('subquarks') which, may have since been detected at FermiLab, high-energy physics laboratory near Chicago in America. He has lectured on his research at the Cavendish Laboratory of Cambridge University.
Title: Re: Pretending Subquarks actually exist!
Post by: Timeisup on July 07, 2020, 11:10:30 AM
This is what CERN, not a man from Dorset has to say about quarks:-

‘Quarks are the smallest particles that we know of. In fact, according to the Standard Model of particle physics, which describes all known particles and their interactions, quarks should be infinitely small. If that’s not mind-boggling enough, enter dark quarks – hypothetical particles that have been proposed to explain dark matter, an invisible form of matter that fills the universe and holds the Milky Way and other galaxies together.’

https://home.cern/news/news/physics/hunting-dark-quarks

Note: no mention of subquarks. Why?.....because they have never been discovered.

Title: Re: Pretending Subquarks actually exist!
Post by: Timeisup on July 07, 2020, 11:13:31 AM
Biography of Dr. Stephen Phillips:

DR STEPHEN PHILLIPS earned his Ph.D. at the University of California, where he also taught mathematics and physics. In 1979 one of his scientific papers was published, proposing a theory that unified particle interactions and predicted that quarks are not fundamental (as most physicists currently believe) but are composed of three more basic particles ('subquarks') which, may have since been detected at FermiLab, high-energy physics laboratory near Chicago in America. He has lectured on his research at the Cavendish Laboratory of C ambridge University.

I don’t care what lies you tell about Stephen Phillips from Dorset. CERN states that Quarks are the smallest fundamental particle we know of.

Subquarks have never been discovered, do you not get it?

Title: Re: Pretending Subquarks actually exist!
Post by: sandokhan on July 07, 2020, 11:18:11 AM
You need to get your information from the source, not some PR department.

So far you have used Fermilab and CERN's public affairs departments to get some quotes.

You are an amateur.


THEORETICAL PROOF OF THE EXISTENCE OF SUBQUARKS: DR. A. ASKTEKAR, DR. C. ROVELLI, DR. L. SMOLIN, THREE OF BEST QUANTUM PHYSICISTS OF ALL TIME


https://cds.cern.ch/record/223258/files/9202054.pdf

Gravitons and Loops

Abhay Ashtekar, Carlo Rovelli and Lee Smolin

The “reality conditions” are realized by an inner product that is chiral asymmetric, resulting in a chiral asymmetric ordering for the Hamiltonian, and, in an asymmetric description of the left and right handed gravitons.

The first step towards this goal is to recast the Fock description of graviton also in terms of closed loops.


EXPERIMENTAL PROOF OF THE EXISTENCE OF SUBQUARKS AT FERMILAB, PAPER PUBLISHED IN 1996:

Quark substructure = subquarks.

https://arxiv.org/pdf/hep-ex/9601008.pdf

No single experimental source of systematic uncertainty can account for the high-ET excess.

The presence of quark substructure could appear as an enhancement of the cross section at high ET .

Above 200 GeV, the jet cross section is significantly higher than the NLO predictions. The data over the full ET range are very precise. They provide powerful constraints on QCD, and demand a reevaluation of theoretical predictions and uncertainties within and beyond the Standard Model.

Title: Re: Pretending Subquarks actually exist!
Post by: Timeisup on July 07, 2020, 11:20:24 AM
Let’s see if the standard model makes mention of the discovery of subquarks?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Standard_Model#Particle_content

No, no mention of subquarks. Why is that? Because they have never been discovered!
Title: Re: Pretending Subquarks actually exist!
Post by: Timeisup on July 07, 2020, 11:22:00 AM
You need to get your information from the source, not some PR department.

So far you have used Fermilab and CERN's public affairs departments to get some quotes.

You are an amateur.


THEORETICAL PROOF OF THE EXISTENCE OF SUBQUARKS: DR. A. ASKTEKAR, DR. C. ROVELLI, DR. L. SMOLIN, THREE OF BEST QUANTUM PHYSICISTS OF ALL TIME


https://cds.cern.ch/record/223258/files/9202054.pdf

Gravitons and Loops

Abhay Ashtekar, Carlo Rovelli and Lee Smolin

The “reality conditions” are realized by an inner product that is chiral asymmetric, resulting in a chiral asymmetric ordering for the Hamiltonian, and, in an asymmetric description of the left and right handed gravitons.

The first step towards this goal is to recast the Fock description of graviton also in terms of closed loops.


EXPERIMENTAL PROOF OF THE EXISTENCE OF SUBQUARKS AT FERMILAB, PAPER PUBLISHED IN 1996:

Quark substructure = subquarks.

https://arxiv.org/pdf/hep-ex/9601008.pdf

No single experimental source of systematic uncertainty can account for the high-ET excess.

The presence of quark substructure could appear as an enhancement of the cross section at high ET .

Above 200 GeV, the jet cross section is significantly higher than the NLO predictions. The data over the full ET range are very precise. They provide powerful constraints on QCD, and demand a reevaluation of theoretical predictions and uncertainties within and beyond the Standard Model.

Are you saying the standard model is wrong?
Are you saying CERN is wrong?
Are you saying Fermilab is wrong?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Standard_Model#Particle_content

Subquarks have never been discovered!
Title: Re: Pretending Subquarks actually exist!
Post by: Timeisup on July 07, 2020, 11:24:03 AM
You need to get your information from the source, not some PR department.

So far you have used Fermilab and CERN's public affairs departments to get some quotes.

You are an amateur.


THEORETICAL PROOF OF THE EXISTENCE OF SUBQUARKS: DR. A. ASKTEKAR, DR. C. ROVELLI, DR. L. SMOLIN, THREE OF BEST QUANTUM PHYSICISTS OF ALL TIME


https://cds.cern.ch/record/223258/files/9202054.pdf

Gravitons and Loops

Abhay Ashtekar, Carlo Rovelli and Lee Smolin

The “reality conditions” are realized by an inner product that is chiral asymmetric, resulting in a chiral asymmetric ordering for the Hamiltonian, and, in an asymmetric description of the left and right handed gravitons.

The first step towards this goal is to recast the Fock description of graviton also in terms of closed loops.


EXPERIMENTAL PROOF OF THE EXISTENCE OF SUBQUARKS AT FERMILAB, PAPER PUBLISHED IN 1996:

Quark substructure = subquarks.

https://arxiv.org/pdf/hep-ex/9601008.pdf

No single experimental source of systematic uncertainty can account for the high-ET excess.

The presence of quark substructure could appear as an enhancement of the cross section at high ET .

Above 200 GeV, the jet cross section is significantly higher than the NLO predictions. The data over the full ET range are very precise. They provide powerful constraints on QCD, and demand a reevaluation of theoretical predictions and uncertainties within and beyond the Standard Model.

You keep repeating the same thing over and over again. Fermilab has never made a claim about the discovery of subquarks, ever. You are wrong it’s as simple as that.

The world of Physics disagrees with you.
Title: Re: Pretending Subquarks actually exist!
Post by: sandokhan on July 07, 2020, 11:24:36 AM
Your gimmick is getting tiresome.

You use vickypedia as a source of your information?

Get serious.

Of course the standard model is wrong.

Try to explain dark matter with it.


Now, access that list again.

Do you see positrons on it?

Positron = subquark.
Title: Re: Pretending Subquarks actually exist!
Post by: Timeisup on July 07, 2020, 11:29:54 AM
Your gimmick is getting tiresome.

You use vickypedia as a source of your information?

Get serious.

Of course the standard model is wrong.

Try to explain dark matter with it.


Now, access that list again.

Do you see positrons on it?

Positron = subquark.

No gimmick, subquarks have never been discovered no matter the lies you try to spin or dark matter smoke screens you throw up.

You claimed subquarks were discovered in 1997 at Fermilab. Fermilab says otherwise, despite what you and a man from Dorset has to say:

https://news.fnal.gov/2017/06/50-years-discoveries-innovations-fermilab/

No mention of subquarks! Why? Because your claim never happened, all in your imagination.
In other words you are wrong.

Title: Re: Pretending Subquarks actually exist!
Post by: sandokhan on July 07, 2020, 11:31:54 AM
You don't sound so sure anymore.

EXPERIMENTAL PROOF OF THE EXISTENCE OF SUBQUARKS AT FERMILAB, PAPER PUBLISHED IN 1996:

Quark substructure = subquarks.

https://arxiv.org/pdf/hep-ex/9601008.pdf

No single experimental source of systematic uncertainty can account for the high-ET excess.

The presence of quark substructure could appear as an enhancement of the cross section at high ET .

Above 200 GeV, the jet cross section is significantly higher than the NLO predictions. The data over the full ET range are very precise. They provide powerful constraints on QCD, and demand a reevaluation of theoretical predictions and uncertainties within and beyond the Standard Model.


Positrons were discovered in 1932.

Positron = subquark.
Title: Re: Pretending Subquarks actually exist!
Post by: Timeisup on July 07, 2020, 11:34:03 AM
Your gimmick is getting tiresome.

You use vickypedia as a source of your information?

Get serious.

Of course the standard model is wrong.

Try to explain dark matter with it.


Now, access that list again.

Do you see positrons on it?

Positron = subquark.

You are really showing your ignorance.

A Positron is, also called positive electron, positively charged subatomic particle having the same mass and magnitude of charge as the electron and constituting the antiparticle of a negative electron. The first of the antiparticles to be detected......it’s not a subquark!

Wrong again!
Title: Re: Pretending Subquarks actually exist!
Post by: Timeisup on July 07, 2020, 11:35:52 AM
You don't sound so sure anymore.

EXPERIMENTAL PROOF OF THE EXISTENCE OF SUBQUARKS AT FERMILAB, PAPER PUBLISHED IN 1996:

Quark substructure = subquarks.

https://arxiv.org/pdf/hep-ex/9601008.pdf

No single experimental source of systematic uncertainty can account for the high-ET excess.

The presence of quark substructure could appear as an enhancement of the cross section at high ET .

Above 200 GeV, the jet cross section is significantly higher than the NLO predictions. The data over the full ET range are very precise. They provide powerful constraints on QCD, and demand a reevaluation of theoretical predictions and uncertainties within and beyond the Standard Model.


Positrons were discovered in 1932.

Positron = subquark.

Why do you keep posting the same paper over and over again when it proves nothing. You are just making yourself look even more ridiculous and wrong?
Title: Re: Pretending Subquarks actually exist!
Post by: sandokhan on July 07, 2020, 11:38:55 AM
Positrons do not have mass.

You are an amateur.

Positrons = tachyons:

http://www.ijstr.org/final-print/dec2015/Tachyons-And-Modern-Physics.pdf

Mainstream quantum physicists are starting to infer that positrons and preons do not annihilate each other:

http://www.epola.co.uk/epola_org/

The ether/subquark wave lattice can free a dextrorotatory subquark and a laevorotatory subquark, if it can absorb the required 1.02 MeV energy in any point of space.

"Absorption of this energy frees the pair out of bonds, making the freed particles appear to the detecting apparatus. When a free electron-positron pair is captured into bonds, the particles disappear from our detection, and their binding energy is emitted in at least two quanta of radiation (the bosons/photons which make up the subquarks)."

Positrons (tachyons) do not have mass: the electron-positron "annihilation" means that the electron (graviton) and the positron (tachyon/antigraviton) have reentered the ether string lattice and their binding energy is emitted in two or more energy quanta.

The Eotvos experiment used for the detection of positrons does not take into account the fact that positrons do not obey at all the weak equivalence principle.


Title: Re: Pretending Subquarks actually exist!
Post by: sokarul on July 07, 2020, 12:11:40 PM
Positrons are not tachyons
Title: Re: Pretending Subquarks actually exist!
Post by: Code-Beta1234 on July 07, 2020, 12:52:57 PM
Positrons are not tachyons

But sandokhan references say otherwise.
Title: Re: Pretending Subquarks actually exist!
Post by: rabinoz on July 07, 2020, 12:56:54 PM
Positrons are not tachyons

But sandokhan references say otherwise.
Such as?
Title: Re: Pretending Subquarks actually exist!
Post by: Code-Beta1234 on July 07, 2020, 12:58:23 PM
Positrons are not tachyons

But sandokhan references say otherwise.
Such as?

Oh, you are back!

Message above sokaul's response
Title: Re: Pretending Subquarks actually exist!
Post by: sokarul on July 07, 2020, 12:59:07 PM
Positrons are not tachyons

But sandokhan references say otherwise.

Paper does not claim that.
Title: Re: Pretending Subquarks actually exist!
Post by: JJA on July 07, 2020, 01:05:50 PM
Positrons are not tachyons

But sandokhan references say otherwise.

It does not, and tachyons are not a recognized particle in science.

You need to understand what the word tachyon means.  It's word given to an imaginary particle that goes faster than light.

Scientists often ask "what if" questions, and one is, what would something moving faster than light do?

They needed a name for this imaginary particle, and called it a Tachyon. 

It's not a real thing that has been observed, it's just a name for something scientists made up as a thought experiment.

Lots of papers are written that use them, but they are all hypothetical papers, playing around with numbers and seeing what happens.  They don't represent anything ever detected or observed.
Title: Re: Pretending Subquarks actually exist!
Post by: Timeisup on July 07, 2020, 02:19:17 PM
Positrons do not have mass.

You are an amateur.

Positrons = tachyons:

http://www.ijstr.org/final-print/dec2015/Tachyons-And-Modern-Physics.pdf

Mainstream quantum physicists are starting to infer that positrons and preons do not annihilate each other:

http://www.epola.co.uk/epola_org/

The ether/subquark wave lattice can free a dextrorotatory subquark and a laevorotatory subquark, if it can absorb the required 1.02 MeV energy in any point of space.

"Absorption of this energy frees the pair out of bonds, making the freed particles appear to the detecting apparatus. When a free electron-positron pair is captured into bonds, the particles disappear from our detection, and their binding energy is emitted in at least two quanta of radiation (the bosons/photons which make up the subquarks)."

Positrons (tachyons) do not have mass: the electron-positron "annihilation" means that the electron (graviton) and the positron (tachyon/antigraviton) have reentered the ether string lattice and their binding energy is emitted in two or more energy quanta.

The Eotvos experiment used for the detection of positrons does not take into account the fact that positrons do not obey at all the weak equivalence principle.

The electron and the Positron both have mass and unsurprisingly it's the same mass = 9.10938356 × 10-31 kilograms
As well as being a compulsive liar you are also ignorant.

Subquarks on the other have never been discovered.
A tachyonic particle is hypothetical and never been discovered.

At least you are consistent. Consistently wrong.
Title: Re: Pretending Subquarks actually exist!
Post by: Timeisup on July 07, 2020, 02:23:00 PM
Positrons are not tachyons

But sandokhan references say otherwise.

Sandokhan is an idiot and should not be believed on anything. As well as making things up to suit his own agenda he understands very little if anything about Physics.
For example, he claims electrons/positrons have no mass and that a tachyon is a real particle! Only a fool would think that.
Title: Re: Pretending Subquarks actually exist!
Post by: Timeisup on July 07, 2020, 02:24:27 PM
Positrons do not have mass.

You are an amateur.

Positrons = tachyons:

http://www.ijstr.org/final-print/dec2015/Tachyons-And-Modern-Physics.pdf

Mainstream quantum physicists are starting to infer that positrons and preons do not annihilate each other:

http://www.epola.co.uk/epola_org/

The ether/subquark wave lattice can free a dextrorotatory subquark and a laevorotatory subquark, if it can absorb the required 1.02 MeV energy in any point of space.

"Absorption of this energy frees the pair out of bonds, making the freed particles appear to the detecting apparatus. When a free electron-positron pair is captured into bonds, the particles disappear from our detection, and their binding energy is emitted in at least two quanta of radiation (the bosons/photons which make up the subquarks)."

Positrons (tachyons) do not have mass: the electron-positron "annihilation" means that the electron (graviton) and the positron (tachyon/antigraviton) have reentered the ether string lattice and their binding energy is emitted in two or more energy quanta.

The Eotvos experiment used for the detection of positrons does not take into account the fact that positrons do not obey at all the weak equivalence principle.

Absolute rubbish.
Title: Re: Pretending Subquarks actually exist!
Post by: Shifter on July 07, 2020, 03:08:05 PM
Mods, for whatever its worth these days the last couple of posts are unbecoming of the Flat Earth General section

I think calling Sandokhan an idiot in the upper forums s also at odds with the spirit of the board here. This is supposed to be a discussion, not a sagging match and pile on.

I'd ask you remain objective in your duties and remove the crap into the angry garbage dump. Seriously the bullying in the upper forums needs to end
Title: Re: Pretending Subquarks actually exist!
Post by: Stash on July 07, 2020, 03:20:35 PM
Mods, for whatever its worth these days the last couple of posts are unbecoming of the Flat Earth General section

I think calling Sandokhan an idiot in the upper forums s also at odds with the spirit of the board here. This is supposed to be a discussion, not a sagging match and pile on.

I'd ask you remain objective in your duties and remove the crap into the angry garbage dump. Seriously the bullying in the upper forums needs to end

Apparently there's a lot more to remove than you are aware of:

STFU you clown.

So you are an idiot.

STFU you moron.

You moron!

STFU you clown.

You are a miserable and wretched liar.
Title: Re: Pretending Subquarks actually exist!
Post by: Shifter on July 07, 2020, 03:36:55 PM
Yeah. The whole thread was just to bait, wind up and antagonise Sandokhan. It was not for discussion.

His responses are retalitory.

The real question is why the mods let it go on.
Title: Re: Pretending Subquarks actually exist!
Post by: JackBlack on July 07, 2020, 03:47:19 PM
I am wondering what fermilab scientists whoud say to sandokhan's occult chemistry
They would probably laugh at it and say he is crazy.

Here is what Cambridge University had to say:
Where?
I find nothing in that from Cambridge.

Instead the only connection to a university is a response from Princeton Uni, effectively calling it crap.

What is clear is that it has nothing to do with evidence of subquarks.

I have the paper from 1996 from Fermilab which says that the quark substructure has been discovered.
Stop lying. You don't.
The paper says no such thing.

Instead you have a claim that substructure COULD account for some of the observations.
Title: Re: Pretending Subquarks actually exist!
Post by: NotSoSkeptical on July 07, 2020, 04:00:43 PM
I have the paper from 1996 from Fermilab which says that the quark substructure has been discovered.
Stop lying. You don't.
The paper says no such thing.

Instead you have a claim that substructure COULD account for some of the observations.

I was wondering when someone was going to make this point.

Sando must have posted that same sentence a dozen times.
Title: Re: Pretending Subquarks actually exist!
Post by: Stash on July 07, 2020, 04:06:50 PM
Yeah. The whole thread was just to bait, wind up and antagonise Sandokhan. It was not for discussion.

No, it was to get to the root of whether sub-quarks exist or not. In other words, have they been observed or is it all just hypothetical

His responses are retalitory.

That was quite the retaliation and it was all in just one post. And it's in retaliation to the fact that every time he misrepresents some paper that he claims backs up his defiant unfounded position, it is shown that it doesn't and that he may actually be wrong. He just can't handle being wrong, so he lashes out with the insult barrage. That's not retaliation, it's simply toddler like.
Title: Re: Pretending Subquarks actually exist!
Post by: Shifter on July 07, 2020, 04:12:26 PM
Yeah. The whole thread was just to bait, wind up and antagonise Sandokhan. It was not for discussion.

No, it was to get to the root of whether sub-quarks exist or not. In other words, have they been observed or is it all just hypothetical

His responses are retalitory.

That was quite the retaliation and it was all in just one post. And it's in retaliation to the fact that every time he misrepresents some paper that he claims backs up his defiant unfounded position, it is shown that it doesn't and that he may actually be wrong. He just can't handle being wrong, so he lashes out with the insult barrage. That's not retaliation, it's simply toddler like.

Oh I suppose you hold Timeisup in high esteem as a faultless bastion of good will and decorum?

Please ::)
Title: Re: Pretending Subquarks actually exist!
Post by: Stash on July 07, 2020, 04:19:52 PM
Yeah. The whole thread was just to bait, wind up and antagonise Sandokhan. It was not for discussion.

No, it was to get to the root of whether sub-quarks exist or not. In other words, have they been observed or is it all just hypothetical

His responses are retalitory.

That was quite the retaliation and it was all in just one post. And it's in retaliation to the fact that every time he misrepresents some paper that he claims backs up his defiant unfounded position, it is shown that it doesn't and that he may actually be wrong. He just can't handle being wrong, so he lashes out with the insult barrage. That's not retaliation, it's simply toddler like.

Oh I suppose you hold Timeisup in high esteem as a faultless bastion of good will and decorum?

Please ::)

Where did I say that? Did you recently go cold turkey on some meds? You should really think about tapering. It's safer. It looks like you're starting to believe your own faux rage.

Apparently you missed what I wrote. Sandy seems to get really feisty when he is shown to be wrong. And this whole thread has been showing just that. No matter how many papers/articles he misrepresents or misinterprets, they don't back up his claims. And it's precisely his claims that are in question. Hence the thread.
Title: Re: Pretending Subquarks actually exist!
Post by: Shifter on July 07, 2020, 05:06:57 PM
Take a look at the title of the thread and tell me it's not baiting or antagonistic

Are people here incapable of having a mature dialogue?

It is possible to agree to disagree. To respect anothers view or belief even if you believe it to be wrong.

But this whole 'pile on Sandokhan' thread has only been about 'the win'

That's not a discussion
Title: Re: Pretending Subquarks actually exist!
Post by: rabinoz on July 07, 2020, 06:10:29 PM
Positrons do not have mass.

You are an amateur.

Positrons = tachyons:

http://www.ijstr.org/final-print/dec2015/Tachyons-And-Modern-Physics.pdf

Mainstream quantum physicists are starting to infer that positrons and preons do not annihilate each other:

http://www.epola.co.uk/epola_org/

The ether/subquark wave lattice can free a dextrorotatory subquark and a laevorotatory subquark, if it can absorb the required 1.02 MeV energy in any point of space.

"Absorption of this energy frees the pair out of bonds, making the freed particles appear to the detecting apparatus. When a free electron-positron pair is captured into bonds, the particles disappear from our detection, and their binding energy is emitted in at least two quanta of radiation (the bosons/photons which make up the subquarks)."

Positrons (tachyons) do not have mass: the electron-positron "annihilation" means that the electron (graviton) and the positron (tachyon/antigraviton) have reentered the ether string lattice and their binding energy is emitted in two or more energy quanta.

The Eotvos experiment used for the detection of positrons does not take into account the fact that positrons do not obey at all the weak equivalence principle.

Why should it?
Quote
Gravitational mass of positron from LEP synchrotron losses, Tigran Kalaydzhyan Scientific Reports volume 6, Article number: 30461 (2016) (https://www.nature.com/articles/srep30461)
Abstract
General relativity(GR) is the current description of gravity in modern physics. One of the cornerstones of GR, as well as Newton’s theory of gravity, is the weak equivalence principle (WEP), stating that the trajectory of a freely falling test body is independent of its internal structure and composition. WEP is known to be valid for the normal matter with a high precision. However, due to the rarity of antimatter and weakness of the gravitational forces, the WEP has never been confirmed for antimatter. The current direct bounds on the ratio between the gravitational and inertial masses of the antihydrogen do not rule out a repulsive nature for the antimatter gravity.

Here we establish an indirect bound of 0.13% on the difference between the gravitational and inertial masses of the positron (antielectron) from the analysis of synchrotron losses at the Large Electron-Positron collider (LEP). This serves as a confirmation of the conventional gravitational properties of antimatter without common assumptions such as, e.g., coupling of gravity to virtual particles, dynamics of distant astrophysical sources and the nature of absolute gravitational potentials.
Title: Re: Pretending Subquarks actually exist!
Post by: Stash on July 07, 2020, 07:40:26 PM
Take a look at the title of the thread and tell me it's not baiting or antagonistic

Yeah, preceded by such winning thread titles as: "NASA EPIC LIES", then "The deception that the sun’s rays are coming inclined", with this little gem in the OP, "Here again, I see the helplessness of the globalists and watch with pleasure."

It seems that baiting and antagonism are de rigueur.

Are people here incapable of having a mature dialogue?

It is possible to agree to disagree. To respect anothers view or belief even if you believe it to be wrong.

Yes and no. Just like in real life.

But this whole 'pile on Sandokhan' thread has only been about 'the win'
If he didn't deliberately misrepresent things, then you wouldn't have much of an issue here. And if you make outsized claims you better have some outsized evidence and expect some outsized pushback.

That's not a discussion

Very few things around here are a "discussion". And aren't you being just a wee bit pot/kettle? One can't even lay down a psa about how masks don't starve you of oxygen without you going on a rant about bitch nurses and a conspiracy in the thermometer manufacturing industry. Yeah, nice 'discussion'.

Now, do you have anything to actually add to this thread?

Title: Re: Pretending Subquarks actually exist!
Post by: Shifter on July 07, 2020, 07:54:55 PM
Take a look at the title of the thread and tell me it's not baiting or antagonistic

Yeah, preceded by such winning thread titles as: "NASA EPIC LIES", then "The deception that the sun’s rays are coming inclined", with this little gem in the OP, "Here again, I see the helplessness of the globalists and watch with pleasure."

It seems that baiting and antagonism are de rigueur.

Are people here incapable of having a mature dialogue?

It is possible to agree to disagree. To respect anothers view or belief even if you believe it to be wrong.

Yes and no. Just like in real life.

But this whole 'pile on Sandokhan' thread has only been about 'the win'
If he didn't deliberately misrepresent things, then you wouldn't have much of an issue here. And if you make outsized claims you better have some outsized evidence and expect some outsized pushback.

That's not a discussion

Very few things around here are a "discussion". And aren't you being just a wee bit pot/kettle? One can't even lay down a psa about how masks don't starve you of oxygen without you going on a rant about bitch nurses and a conspiracy in the thermometer manufacturing industry. Yeah, nice 'discussion'.

Now, do you have anything to actually add to this thread?

The General board is for flat earth conspiracies. NASA EPIC LIES fits in just fine

I've input plenty on this thread. But the thread is now a dead horse getting flogged over and over
Title: Re: Pretending Subquarks actually exist!
Post by: Stash on July 07, 2020, 07:59:50 PM
Take a look at the title of the thread and tell me it's not baiting or antagonistic

Yeah, preceded by such winning thread titles as: "NASA EPIC LIES", then "The deception that the sun’s rays are coming inclined", with this little gem in the OP, "Here again, I see the helplessness of the globalists and watch with pleasure."

It seems that baiting and antagonism are de rigueur.

Are people here incapable of having a mature dialogue?

It is possible to agree to disagree. To respect anothers view or belief even if you believe it to be wrong.

Yes and no. Just like in real life.

But this whole 'pile on Sandokhan' thread has only been about 'the win'
If he didn't deliberately misrepresent things, then you wouldn't have much of an issue here. And if you make outsized claims you better have some outsized evidence and expect some outsized pushback.

That's not a discussion

Very few things around here are a "discussion". And aren't you being just a wee bit pot/kettle? One can't even lay down a psa about how masks don't starve you of oxygen without you going on a rant about bitch nurses and a conspiracy in the thermometer manufacturing industry. Yeah, nice 'discussion'.

Now, do you have anything to actually add to this thread?

The General board is for flat earth conspiracies. NASA EPIC LIES fits in just fine

I was responding to the "baiting and antagonism" bit in thread titles in general.

I've input plenty on this thread. But the thread is now a dead horse getting flogged over and over

Yes, you've done quite a bit of hypocritical flogging and flailing yourself.
Title: Re: Pretending Subquarks actually exist!
Post by: Shifter on July 07, 2020, 08:14:41 PM
Take a look at the title of the thread and tell me it's not baiting or antagonistic

Yeah, preceded by such winning thread titles as: "NASA EPIC LIES", then "The deception that the sun’s rays are coming inclined", with this little gem in the OP, "Here again, I see the helplessness of the globalists and watch with pleasure."

It seems that baiting and antagonism are de rigueur.

Are people here incapable of having a mature dialogue?

It is possible to agree to disagree. To respect anothers view or belief even if you believe it to be wrong.

Yes and no. Just like in real life.

But this whole 'pile on Sandokhan' thread has only been about 'the win'
If he didn't deliberately misrepresent things, then you wouldn't have much of an issue here. And if you make outsized claims you better have some outsized evidence and expect some outsized pushback.

That's not a discussion

Very few things around here are a "discussion". And aren't you being just a wee bit pot/kettle? One can't even lay down a psa about how masks don't starve you of oxygen without you going on a rant about bitch nurses and a conspiracy in the thermometer manufacturing industry. Yeah, nice 'discussion'.

Now, do you have anything to actually add to this thread?

The General board is for flat earth conspiracies. NASA EPIC LIES fits in just fine

I was responding to the "baiting and antagonism" bit in thread titles in general.

I've input plenty on this thread. But the thread is now a dead horse getting flogged over and over

Yes, you've done quite a bit of hypocritical flogging and flailing yourself.

Nonsense to both
Title: Re: Pretending Subquarks actually exist!
Post by: sandokhan on July 07, 2020, 10:11:59 PM
timeisup, you are an useless moron.

You said that preons do not exist.

I provided the paper which proves they do exist.

You said that Fermilab did not discover the substructure the quarks in 1996.

I provided the paper which includes those very words: "quark substructure".

You are an amateur.

You don't know WTF you are doing here, really.

It takes five seconds to defeat you.


Here we establish an indirect bound of 0.13% on the difference between the gravitational and inertial masses of the positron (antielectron) from the analysis of synchrotron losses at the Large Electron-Positron collider (LEP).

What is this? Our paid shill from Australia has now decided to play the scientist yet again?

Did you read the paper?

On the scale of several months, one can take the change in the solar potential on the Earth’s surface as the leading contribution to ΔΦ. Due to the eccentricity of the Earth’s orbit, the distance between Earth and Sun, dSE ≈ 1 AU (astronomical unit), varies by the amount ΔdSE ≪ dSE. This changes the solar potential, , by , where GN is the Newton’s constant and  is the solar mass. Substituting this into (6), we obtain the relation between the fractional deviation in the masses and the fractional uncertainty in the measured synchrotron radiation power in two experiments,

THE AUTHORS SAY THAT THE SOLAR GRAVITATIONAL POTENTIAL DOES COUNT!!!

SO THEY ASSUME THE LOCAL AETHER IS CORRECT!!!

That is how they say that they derived the mass of the positron.

Which is completely wrong!

The paper is a catastrophe.

As is your knowledge of physics.

Title: Re: Pretending Subquarks actually exist!
Post by: sandokhan on July 07, 2020, 10:55:36 PM
A tachyonic particle is hypothetical and never been discovered.

I told you that you are an ignorant buffoon.

https://lss.fnal.gov/archive/2018/conf/fermilab-conf-18-587-cms.pdf

From Fermilab no less!

Tachyons as Dark Energy Quanta

An electrically-charged tachyon would emit Cherenkov radiation in a vacuum, lose energy and speed up. A tachyon with any value of Γ could be produced with negligible energy, eithersingly in multiparticle production or in pairs if needed to conserve momentum. Any tachyon with weak charge, with any coupling to the Z and/or W-bosons, would be pair-produced e.g. at LEP, spoiling its many precision tests of the Standard Model.


Let's see now.

One of the greatest quantum physicists in the world, Dr. Robert Ehrlich, has published several papers on the discovery of tachyons.

https://arxiv.org/pdf/1701.00488.pdf

https://arxiv.org/pdf/1408.2804.pdf

https://arxiv.org/pdf/1711.09897.pdf

Dr. Robert Ehrlich

Emeritus Physics professor at George Mason University

Ph.D. in physics from Columbia University in 1964 under then future Nobel Laureate Jack Steinberger

Contrary to the belief held by most physicists, a considerable amount of evidence has, in fact, been amassed prior to the KATRIN experiment that one of the neutrinos is a tachyon. 

Dr. Robert Ehrlich, PhD Columbia University, worked on the Nobel prize winning experiment "two neutrino" experiment:

https://www.nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/physics/laureates/1988/illpres/hunt.html


Now, for the caveat: the KK particle is a tachyon.

https://arxiv.org/pdf/hep-th/0607246.pdf



Title: Re: Pretending Subquarks actually exist!
Post by: rvlvr on July 07, 2020, 11:19:14 PM
An electrically-charged tachyon would emit Cherenkov radiation in a vacuum, lose energy and speed up. A tachyon with any value of Γ could be produced with negligible energy, eithersingly in multiparticle production or in pairs if needed to conserve momentum. Any tachyon with weak charge, with any coupling to the Z and/or W-bosons, would be pair-produced e.g. at LEP, spoiling its many precision tests of the Standard Model.
Aren't those conditionals? Like, not quite "will" or "can".
Title: Re: Pretending Subquarks actually exist!
Post by: sandokhan on July 07, 2020, 11:29:16 PM
Read Dr. Robert Ehrlich's papers.
Title: Re: Pretending Subquarks actually exist!
Post by: Stash on July 07, 2020, 11:48:24 PM
Read Dr. Robert Ehrlich's papers.

From Dr. Robert Ehrlich's FAQ on his website:

Question 26: So, do tachyons exist?
Answer: It is currently uncertain, but I believe that within a year KATRIN will have enough data to give a definitive answer.

https://ehrlich.physics.gmu.edu/index.php/qa/

Still theoretical and currently unobservable.
Title: Re: Pretending Subquarks actually exist!
Post by: sandokhan on July 07, 2020, 11:58:48 PM
Dr. Ehrlich gave the prudent answer.

His papers are an eloquent presentation of the facts involved in tachyon detection.

"Since a tachyon moves faster than the speed of light, we can not see it approaching."

So, everything comes down, yet again, to proving FASTER THAN LIGHT SPEEDS ARE POSSIBLE.

Here is the final ingredient which does prove tachyons exist: the original set of equations published by J.C. Maxwell.

In a significant development, a paper proving that the original J.C. Maxwell equations are invariant under Galilean transformations has been published by the IOP (Institute of Physics):

https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1742-6596/1141/1/012052/pdf

International Conference on Mathematical Modelling in Physical Sciences
IOP Conf. Series: Journal of Physics: Conf. Series 1141 (2018) 012052

Fundamentals of the theory of compressible oscillating ether
Dr. Nikolai Magnitskii

It is shown that the consequences of the system of these two equations are: a generalized nonlinear system of Maxwell-Lorentz equations that is invariant under Galileo transformations, the linearization of which leads to the classical system of Maxwell-Lorentz equations.

In the present paper, a complete generalized nonlinear system of Maxwell-Lorentz equations that is invariant under Galileo transformations is derived from the system of the ether equations (1.1), the linearization of which leads to the classical system of Maxwell-Lorentz equations.

Title: Re: Pretending Subquarks actually exist!
Post by: rvlvr on July 08, 2020, 12:32:47 AM
Pish posh.

Theoretical, not (yet) verified.
Title: Re: Pretending Subquarks actually exist!
Post by: Stash on July 08, 2020, 12:33:14 AM
Dr. Ehrlich gave the prudent answer.

His papers are an eloquent presentation of the facts involved in tachyon detection.

"Since a tachyon moves faster than the speed of light, we can not see it approaching."

So, everything comes down, yet again, to proving FASTER THAN LIGHT SPEEDS ARE POSSIBLE.

Here is the final ingredient which does prove tachyons exist: the original set of equations published by J.C. Maxwell.


Dr. Ehrlich gave the correct answer:

Question 26: So, do tachyons exist?
Answer: It is currently uncertain, but I believe that within a year KATRIN will have enough data to give a definitive answer.

The answer is that it is uncertain, unproven, and currently theoretical. This from the foremost expert in tachyon theory and one you've referenced many times.

And if J.C. Maxwell proved tachyons exist, then the foremost expert in tachyon theory, Dr. Ehrlich, would not say what he did. And he said that the existence of tachyons "is currently uncertain."

So now you're trying to speak for Dr. Ehrlich? Again, you're manufacturing interpretations from references that just aren't there.
Title: Re: Pretending Subquarks actually exist!
Post by: sandokhan on July 08, 2020, 12:49:28 AM
Cut the crap.

The experiment at KATRIN is a very difficult endeavour. Much more so, than finding the fractional charges of the electron. Much more difficult than the 1996 experiment carried out at Fermilab.

Preons have been discovered already, a fact which alone puts an end to this thread.

But Professor Ehrlich has already proven the existence of the tachyons, read his papers.


Maxwell's original set of equations prove superluminal speeds are a reality.

Now, can photons travel faster than light? Einstein says no.

Only tachyons/positrons can.

Here is the mathematical proof that indeed superluminal speeds MUST EXIST.

The experimental proof from KATRIN will confirm this derivation.


(https://image.ibb.co/koWr3y/md1.jpg)
(https://image.ibb.co/cSTM3y/md2.jpg)

We proceed to solve the common Maxwell’s equations (1.10) to (1.12).

(https://image.ibb.co/k98M3y/md3.jpg)
(https://image.ibb.co/n87EOy/md4.jpg)

This is the classic solution of Maxwell’s equation for a planar electromagnetic wave. As expected, the speed of propagation of the electromagnetic waves is the nominal speed of light c since there is no motion relative to the RCS (due to the restriction in the derivation of the common form of Maxwell’s equations).

What happens when a radiation source moves with respect to the RCS? It follows from the assumption of the universal validity of Maxwell’s equations (1.20) and (1.21) (namely: that they are valid in any inertial coordinate system) that the speed of propagation of any electromagnetic wave in all inertial coordinate systems is constant

and equals to the nominal speed of light c [solution (1.23) to equation (1.21)]. Thus, the speed of propagation of electromagnetic waves being constant in all inertial coordinate systems is not necessarily a measured observation. It is an assumption, a consequence of the assumed universal validity of the common Maxwell’s equations even for dynamic systems.

Suppose that a radiation source moves at a speed u in the positive direction of the x axis of the RCS. As engineers (hopefully with some common sense), and in agreement with the Galilean transformation where velocity vectors are additive, we would expect the electric field vector, of the propagating planar electromagnetic wave parallel to the x axis, to have the following form with respect to the RCS:

(https://image.ibb.co/hFwcAd/md5.jpg)

As noted in the previous chapter Maxwell’s equations (1.10) to (1.12), along with their derivatives (1.20) and (1.21), were formulated for static systems, namely: no motion relative to the RCS. Their wrong application to dynamic systems led to the Lorentz transformation and Einstein’s theory of relativity.

We proceed with the application of the corrected Maxwell equations to a planar wave in vacuum where all coordinate systems are inertial. It follows from the assumption that all coordinate systems, including the RCS, are inertial that the velocity vector V in equations (1.1) and (1.2) is constant. Equations (1.1) and (1.2) become:

(https://image.ibb.co/jrhOiy/md6.jpg)
(https://image.ibb.co/m2Cjqd/md7.jpg)
(https://image.ibb.co/fWU8GJ/md8.jpg)
(https://image.ibb.co/nuRzOy/md9.jpg)
(https://image.ibb.co/c7spOy/md10.jpg)
(https://image.ibb.co/f0AyGJ/md11.jpg)
(https://image.ibb.co/gcfFwJ/md12.jpg)
(https://image.ibb.co/gpLyGJ/md14.jpg)
(https://image.ibb.co/dikXbJ/md15.jpg)

Faster than light waves require tachyons/positrons.


Title: Re: Pretending Subquarks actually exist!
Post by: rvlvr on July 08, 2020, 12:54:09 AM
Nope.
Title: Re: Pretending Subquarks actually exist!
Post by: Stash on July 08, 2020, 12:56:35 AM
Cut the crap.

Let me try and spell this out for you again.

Dr. Ehrlich, the foremost expert in tachyon theory, one who you have referenced many times, said when asked regarding the existence of tachyons, "It is currently uncertain."

What about that confuses you?
Title: Re: Pretending Subquarks actually exist!
Post by: sandokhan on July 08, 2020, 01:00:29 AM
You are trolling the thread.

Tachyons have not been detected, yet, at KATRIN.

This is what Professor Ehrlich said.

But he did prove their existence.

Now, here is the absolute theoretical justification of the existence of tachyons, faster than light speed.

What about this confuses you?

(https://image.ibb.co/gcfFwJ/md12.jpg)
(https://image.ibb.co/gpLyGJ/md14.jpg)



Title: Re: Pretending Subquarks actually exist!
Post by: Stash on July 08, 2020, 01:05:07 AM
You are trolling the thread.

Tachyons have not been detected, yet, at KATRIN.

This is what Professor Ehrlich said.

But he did prove their existence.

How do you figure he proved their existence when he himself says their existence "is currently uncertain."? You realize that makes zero sense, right?
Title: Re: Pretending Subquarks actually exist!
Post by: sandokhan on July 08, 2020, 01:13:07 AM
He did prove their existence.

Here are the papers:

https://arxiv.org/pdf/1701.00488.pdf

https://arxiv.org/pdf/1408.2804.pdf

https://arxiv.org/pdf/1711.09897.pdf

Now, in order to justify to his colleagues with absolute certainty that tachyons do exist, everyone is awaiting the final results from KATRIN.

But read the papers.


You seem to be very confused.

I have the superluminal equations of motion from J.C. Maxwell.

They are a certainty.

This alone entitles me to state that tachyons exist, as do Professor Ehrlich's papers.


Title: Re: Pretending Subquarks actually exist!
Post by: sandokhan on July 08, 2020, 01:19:14 AM
Quotes from Dr. Ehrlich's papers:

It is shown that the Mont Blanc burst is consistent with the distinctive signature of that
explanation i.e., an 8 MeV antineutrino line from SN 1987A. It is further shown that a model of core collapse supernovae involving dark matter particles of mass 8 MeV would in fact yield an 8 MeV antineutrino line.

More direct support comes from the spectrum of N ∼ 1000 events recorded by the Kamiokande-II detector on the day of SN 1987A, which appear to show an 8 MeV line atop the detector background. This ¯ν line, if genuine, has been well-hidden for 30 years because it occurs very close to the peak of the background. This fact might ordinarily justify extreme skepticism. In the present case, however, a more positive view is called for based on (a) the very high statistical significance of the result (30σ), (b) the use of a detector background independent of the SN 1987A data using a later K-II data set, and (c) the observation of an excess above the background spectrum whose central energy and width both agree with that of an 8 MeV ¯ν line broadened by 25% resolution. Most importantly, the last observation is in accord with the prior prediction of an 8 MeV ¯ν line based on the Mont Blanc data, and the the dark matter model, itself supported by experimental observations. Lastly, it is noted that the tachyonic interpretation of the Mont Blanc burst fits the author’s earlier unconventional 3 + 3 model of the neutrino mass states.


Six observations consistent with the electron neutrino being a
tachyon with mass: m2 νe = −0.11 ± 0.016eV 2

The data are from areas including CMB fluctuations, gravitational lensing, cosmic ray spectra, neutrino oscillations, and 0ν double beta decay. For each of the six observations it is possible under explicitly stated assumptions to compute a value for m2 νe, and it is found that the six values are remarkably consistent with the above cited νe mass (χ 2 = 2.73). There are no known observations in clear conflict with the claimed result, nor are there predicted phenomena that should occur which are not seen. Three checks are proposed to test the validity of the claim, one of which could be performed using existing data.


Published empirical evidence for the model is summarized, including an interpretation of the mysterious Mont Blanc neutrino burst from SN 1987A as being due to tachyonic neutrinos having m2 = −0.38eV 2.
This possibility requires an 8 MeV antineutrino line from SN 1987A, which a new dark matter model has been found to support. Furthermore, this dark matter model is supported by several data sets: γ−rays from the galactic center, and the Kamiokande-II neutrino data on the day of SN 1987A.
The KATRIN experiment should serve as the unambiguous test of the 3 + 3 model and its tachyonic mass state.
Title: Re: Pretending Subquarks actually exist!
Post by: Stash on July 08, 2020, 01:35:48 AM
He did prove their existence.

Here are the papers:

https://arxiv.org/pdf/1701.00488.pdf

https://arxiv.org/pdf/1408.2804.pdf

https://arxiv.org/pdf/1711.09897.pdf

Now, in order to justify to his colleagues with absolute certainty that tachyons do exist, everyone is awaiting the final results from KATRIN.

He said their existence is currently uncertain. But he hopes he can answer definitively in the next year.

You on the other hand are contradicting him by saying he already proved their existence...he just needs more time to prove it even more? You realize how crazy that sounds?

Why don’t you contact him and say, “Hey Doc, I’ll save you some time and effort because I say you already proved there existence even you say you haven’t.”
Title: Re: Pretending Subquarks actually exist!
Post by: sandokhan on July 08, 2020, 02:14:22 AM
His papers prove the existence of tachyons.

But in order to convince even a troll like you, Professor Ehrlich did the sensible thing and said that we have to await the final results from KATRIN.

The "uncertainty" refers to this: the KATRIN experiment.


You have the superluminal equations of J.C. Maxwell.

Perhaps you want more.

Quantum entanglement requires superluminal speeds.

What relativistic particle can travel faster than light? Answer: none.

Here is the faster than light experiment using quantum entanglement:

Faster than light speed in entanglement dynamics:

https://newatlas.com/quantum-entanglement-speed-10000-faster-light/26587/

http://www2.caes.hku.hk/hkuscientist/2014/06/01/travelling-faster-than-light-can-quantum-entanglement-make-the-impossible-possible/

https://arxiv.org/pdf/1303.0614v1.pdf


Care to explain to your readers which particle of physics can attain faster than light speeds?
Title: Re: Pretending Subquarks actually exist!
Post by: rabinoz on July 08, 2020, 02:19:19 AM
Here we establish an indirect bound of 0.13% on the difference between the gravitational and inertial masses of the positron (antielectron) from the analysis of synchrotron losses at the Large Electron-Positron collider (LEP).
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
I'll ignore the usual insults.

Quote from: sandokhan
Did you read the paper?

On the scale of several months, one can take the change in the solar potential on the Earth’s surface as the leading contribution to ΔΦ. Due to the eccentricity of the Earth’s orbit, the distance between Earth and Sun, dSE ≈ 1 AU (astronomical unit), varies by the amount ΔdSE ≪ dSE. This changes the solar potential, , by , where GN is the Newton’s constant and  is the solar mass. Substituting this into (6), we obtain the relation between the fractional deviation in the masses and the fractional uncertainty in the measured synchrotron radiation power in two experiments,


THE AUTHORS SAY THAT THE SOLAR GRAVITATIONAL POTENTIAL DOES COUNT!!!

SO THEY ASSUME THE LOCAL AETHER IS CORRECT!!!

They don't mention any "local aether"!

Quote from: sandokhan
That is how they say that they derived the mass of the positron.
No they don't use any "local aether"! You do love putting words into people's mouths.
But they do refer to:
Einstein, A. The Field Equations of Gravitation. Sitzungsber.Preuss. Akad. Wiss. Berlin (Math. Phys.) 1915, 844–847 (1915)
Einstein, A. The Foundation of the General Theory of Relativity. Annalen Phys. 49, 769–822 (1916).
etc.
Any objections?

Quote from: sandokhan
Which is completely wrong!

The paper is a catastrophe.

As is your knowledge of physics.
How would you know? You're no physicist!
Title: Re: Pretending Subquarks actually exist!
Post by: sandokhan on July 08, 2020, 02:24:51 AM
You are the one who told everyone here that the solar gravitational potential does not exist.

So now certainly you need medical attention.

You referenced a paper which does USE THE NOTION OF THE SOLAR GRAVITATIONAL POTENTIAL TO MEASURE THE MASS OF A PARTICLE.

On the scale of several months, one can take the change in the solar potential on the Earth’s surface as the leading contribution to ΔΦ. Due to the eccentricity of the Earth’s orbit, the distance between Earth and Sun, dSE ≈ 1 AU (astronomical unit), varies by the amount ΔdSE ≪ dSE. This changes the solar potential, , by , where GN is the Newton’s constant and  is the solar mass. Substituting this into (6), we obtain the relation between the fractional deviation in the masses and the fractional uncertainty in the measured synchrotron radiation power in two experiments,


THE AUTHORS SAY THAT THE SOLAR GRAVITATIONAL POTENTIAL DOES COUNT!!!

SO THEY ASSUME THE LOCAL AETHER IS CORRECT!!!


In order to use the solar gravitational potential, you must use the local-ether model.

Otherwise, the Earth is stationary.

How are you going to justify that the GPS satellites do not record the effect just called upon by these quantum physicists?


I am a world class physicist.

I have derived the global Sagnac effect formula.

I have derived the antimatter law of gravity.

I have derived the global natural logarithm formula.

I have derived the algorithm which finds the precise zeta zeros values.


WTF have you got to show for yourself?

The monthly receipts that you receive as a paid shill?
Title: Re: Pretending Subquarks actually exist!
Post by: JackBlack on July 08, 2020, 02:29:18 AM
You said that preons do not exist.
I provided the paper which proves they do exist.
How many times will you repeat the same lies?

I provided the paper which includes those very words: "quark substructure".
A paper which is not experimental evidence for such substructure and instead just says it COULD explain one particular observation.

Again, you have no proof of their existence.

You initially claimed the Nobel prize was awarded for their existence, and that was just an outright lie.

A tachyonic particle is hypothetical and never been discovered.
I told you that you are an ignorant buffoon.
https://lss.fnal.gov/archive/2018/conf/fermilab-conf-18-587-cms.pdf
From Fermilab no less!
Without any experimental at all. It is just a paper discussing a hypothetical particle.

Do you actually understand the distinction between theory, a proposed experiment and an experiment which has actually been carried out?

Have you actually read the papers you continually appeal to?
Title: Re: Pretending Subquarks actually exist!
Post by: sandokhan on July 08, 2020, 02:32:30 AM
No.

The Nobel prize was awarded for the discovery of preons, the fractional charges of the electron.

To find the fractional charges of a quark is much more difficult.

The 1996 paper from Fermilab says: "quark substructure".
Title: Re: Pretending Subquarks actually exist!
Post by: rabinoz on July 08, 2020, 03:00:43 AM
You are the one who told everyone here that the solar gravitational potential does not exist.
Exactly where have I "told everyone here that the solar gravitational potential does not exist"?
Title: Re: Pretending Subquarks actually exist!
Post by: JackBlack on July 08, 2020, 03:21:41 AM
The Nobel prize was awarded for the discovery of preons, the fractional charges of the electron.
Stop lying.
It was awarded for the discovery of quasi-particles which produce a fractional quantum hall effect.

Again, a paper saying "quark substructure" doesn't magically make it evidence of their existence.
Title: Re: Pretending Subquarks actually exist!
Post by: Timeisup on July 08, 2020, 04:38:25 AM
You are the one who told everyone here that the solar gravitational potential does not exist.

So now certainly you need medical attention.

You referenced a paper which does USE THE NOTION OF THE SOLAR GRAVITATIONAL POTENTIAL TO MEASURE THE MASS OF A PARTICLE.

On the scale of several months, one can take the change in the solar potential on the Earth’s surface as the leading contribution to ΔΦ. Due to the eccentricity of the Earth’s orbit, the distance between Earth and Sun, dSE ≈ 1 AU (astronomical unit), varies by the amount ΔdSE ≪ dSE. This changes the solar potential, , by , where GN is the Newton’s constant and  is the solar mass. Substituting this into (6), we obtain the relation between the fractional deviation in the masses and the fractional uncertainty in the measured synchrotron radiation power in two experiments,


THE AUTHORS SAY THAT THE SOLAR GRAVITATIONAL POTENTIAL DOES COUNT!!!

SO THEY ASSUME THE LOCAL AETHER IS CORRECT!!!


In order to use the solar gravitational potential, you must use the local-ether model.

Otherwise, the Earth is stationary.

How are you going to justify that the GPS satellites do not record the effect just called upon by these quantum physicists?


I am a world class physicist.

I have derived the global Sagnac effect formula.

I have derived the antimatter law of gravity.

I have derived the global natural logarithm formula.

I have derived the algorithm which finds the precise zeta zeros values.


WTF have you got to show for yourself?

The monthly receipts that you receive as a paid shill?

Yet more deluded rubbish.
Title: Re: Pretending Subquarks actually exist!
Post by: Timeisup on July 08, 2020, 04:42:18 AM
No.

The Nobel prize was awarded for the discovery of preons, the fractional charges of the electron.

To find the fractional charges of a quark is much more difficult.

The 1996 paper from Fermilab says: "quark substructure".

Time and time again despite the subject despite the clear evidence you show total disregard for the scientific truth preferring instead to lie and make up your own twisted delusional versions.




Title: Re: Pretending Subquarks actually exist!
Post by: sandokhan on July 08, 2020, 05:15:18 AM

Firstly sudquarks, or preons have NEVER been discovered. To date no discovery of a subquark has ever been made.

Preons or subqurks were just and are just hypothetical and have never been detected by any experiment and remain just an idea that became popular 30 years ago and has since fallen out of favour among those who work in the field of exotic sub atomic particles.

This makes you a despicable liar.

You say that subquarks = preons.

And that preons have never been discovered.


My very first message in this thread put an end to your lying.


https://www.nobelprize.org/prizes/physics/1998/press-release/

13 October 1998

The Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences has awarded the 1998 Nobel Prize in Physics jointly to

Professor Robert B. Laughlin, Stanford University, California, USA,

Professor Horst L. Störmer, Columbia University, New York and Lucent Technologies’ Bell Labs, New Jersey, USA, and

Professor Daniel C. Tsui, Princeton University, Princeton, New Jersey, USA.

The three researchers are being awarded the Nobel Prize for discovering that electrons acting together in strong magnetic fields can form new types of “particles”, with charges that are fractions of electron charges.
Title: Re: Pretending Subquarks actually exist!
Post by: Code-Beta1234 on July 08, 2020, 05:27:03 AM
Professor Ehrlich is waiting for results to be 100 % sure. He is unsertain as we havent found them. There is slight chance they aren't real
Title: Re: Pretending Subquarks actually exist!
Post by: sokarul on July 08, 2020, 06:08:48 AM
An electrically-charged tachyon would emit Cherenkov radiation in a vacuum, lose energy and speed up. A tachyon with any value of Γ could be produced with negligible energy, eithersingly in multiparticle production or in pairs if needed to conserve momentum. Any tachyon with weak charge, with any coupling to the Z and/or W-bosons, would be pair-produced e.g. at LEP, spoiling its many precision tests of the Standard Model.
Aren't those conditionals? Like, not quite "will" or "can".

Yes. Thats why they are still hypothetical.
Title: Re: Pretending Subquarks actually exist!
Post by: sokarul on July 08, 2020, 06:12:04 AM

Firstly sudquarks, or preons have NEVER been discovered. To date no discovery of a subquark has ever been made.

Preons or subqurks were just and are just hypothetical and have never been detected by any experiment and remain just an idea that became popular 30 years ago and has since fallen out of favour among those who work in the field of exotic sub atomic particles.

This makes you a despicable liar.

You say that subquarks = preons.

And that preons have never been discovered.


My very first message in this thread put an end to your lying.


https://www.nobelprize.org/prizes/physics/1998/press-release/

13 October 1998

The Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences has awarded the 1998 Nobel Prize in Physics jointly to

Professor Robert B. Laughlin, Stanford University, California, USA,

Professor Horst L. Störmer, Columbia University, New York and Lucent Technologies’ Bell Labs, New Jersey, USA, and

Professor Daniel C. Tsui, Princeton University, Princeton, New Jersey, USA.

The three researchers are being awarded the Nobel Prize for discovering that electrons acting together in strong magnetic fields can form new types of “particles”, with charges that are fractions of electron charges.
Preons are said to make up quarks but they have never been found. What you posted was a story about electrons.

Completely different. Like not even remotely close.
Title: Re: Pretending Subquarks actually exist!
Post by: sandokhan on July 08, 2020, 06:18:20 AM
The author of this thread has stated the following:

(https://i.ibb.co/VWS56Fm/thrash.jpg)

Firstly sudquarks, or preons

Preons or subqurks were just and are just hypothetical


He does equate preons with subquarks.


https://www.nobelprize.org/prizes/physics/1998/press-release/

13 October 1998

The Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences has awarded the 1998 Nobel Prize in Physics jointly to

Professor Robert B. Laughlin, Stanford University, California, USA,

Professor Horst L. Störmer, Columbia University, New York and Lucent Technologies’ Bell Labs, New Jersey, USA, and

Professor Daniel C. Tsui, Princeton University, Princeton, New Jersey, USA.

The three researchers are being awarded the Nobel Prize for discovering that electrons acting together in strong magnetic fields can form new types of “particles”, with charges that are fractions of electron charges.
Title: Re: Pretending Subquarks actually exist!
Post by: sokarul on July 08, 2020, 06:29:59 AM
Why would a new state of an electron make up a proton? How does it do this while not in an extremely strong magnetic field?
Title: Re: Pretending Subquarks actually exist!
Post by: sandokhan on July 08, 2020, 06:34:36 AM
You must address that question to your tag team partner.

The author of this thread has said that preons = subquarks.

Title: Re: Pretending Subquarks actually exist!
Post by: sokarul on July 08, 2020, 06:38:19 AM
Persons are theorized to be sub components of quarks. This could indeed make them a sub quark. It’s hard to know though since you keep changing your definition of a sub quark.
Title: Re: Pretending Subquarks actually exist!
Post by: Code-Beta1234 on July 08, 2020, 10:08:41 AM
You must address that question to your tag team partner.

The author of this thread has said that preons = subquarks.

Timeisup is confused
Title: Re: Pretending Subquarks actually exist!
Post by: Stash on July 08, 2020, 01:23:16 PM
His papers prove the existence of tachyons.

But in order to convince even a troll like you, Professor Ehrlich did the sensible thing and said that we have to await the final results from KATRIN.

Right, and until such time, according to Professor Ehrlich, their existence is uncertain.

The "uncertainty" refers to this: the KATRIN experiment.

No, see this is where your constant misinterpretations/misrepresentations are on full display. Try some logic on for size for once:

Professor Ehrlich: States that the existence of tachyons is uncertain at this time
Professor Ehrlich:  Predicts that certainty in whether tachyons exist or not will be definitively determined using data from the KATRIN experiment in the next year. Meaning, it may be definitively determined that tachyons don't exist. Or, that they do.

Professor Ehrlich: Is not saying the existence of tachyons is uncertain at this time, but only in the KATRIN experiment, but everywhere else their existence is certain.

That’s you twisting around and misinterpreting/misrepresenting Professor Ehrlich’s fine research. Quite shameful to do so.

For reference, Dr. Ehelich’s response:

Question 26: So, do tachyons exist?
Answer: It is currently uncertain, but I believe that within a year KATRIN will have enough data to give a definitive answer.
Title: Re: Pretending Subquarks actually exist!
Post by: JackBlack on July 08, 2020, 02:00:16 PM
This makes you a despicable liar.
You say that subquarks = preons.
And that preons have never been discovered.
My very first message in this thread put an end to your lying.
https://www.nobelprize.org/prizes/physics/1998/press-release/
You mean your very first message was an outright lie, making you the despicable liar.

How many times will you repeat the same lie?

Again, that Nobel prize has nothing at all to do with subquarks.

Your quote even makes that clear. The electrons are combining to produce a composite particle. They are not breaking apart into their components.

Now stop lying, and provide the actual evidence for them.

You must address that question to your tag team partner.
Why?
You are the one trying to equate subquarks to composite particles made up of electrons.
So that question should remain addressed to you.
Why do you continually lie and pretend that the discovery of composite quasiparticles, made by combing electrons, is magically a subquark, when there is no connection at all?
Why do you continually repeat this lie even though it has been refuted countless times?
Title: Re: Pretending Subquarks actually exist!
Post by: NotSoSkeptical on July 08, 2020, 04:08:54 PM

The three researchers are being awarded the Nobel Prize for discovering that electrons acting together in strong magnetic fields can form new types of “particles”, with charges that are fractions of electron charges.

Let's go back to here.

Still haven't answered my question when I posed it before.

If these new types of "particles" with charges that are fractions of electrons are quasi-particles, and quasi-particles are sub-quarks/preons, then the following statement would be true.

Electrons create preons.

Do electrons create preons?

Title: Re: Pretending Subquarks actually exist!
Post by: rabinoz on July 08, 2020, 04:16:46 PM
You must address that question to your tag team partner.

The author of this thread has said that preons = subquarks.

Timeisup is confused
Are you sure you and sandokhan aren't confused?
Title: Re: Pretending Subquarks actually exist!
Post by: sandokhan on July 08, 2020, 09:32:07 PM
Again, that Nobel prize has nothing at all to do with subquarks.

Cut the crap!

The author of this thread has stated the following:

(https://i.ibb.co/VWS56Fm/thrash.jpg)

Firstly sudquarks, or preons

Preons or subqurks were just and are just hypothetical

He does equate preons with subquarks.


https://www.nobelprize.org/prizes/physics/1998/press-release/

13 October 1998

The Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences has awarded the 1998 Nobel Prize in Physics jointly to

Professor Robert B. Laughlin, Stanford University, California, USA,

Professor Horst L. Störmer, Columbia University, New York and Lucent Technologies’ Bell Labs, New Jersey, USA, and

Professor Daniel C. Tsui, Princeton University, Princeton, New Jersey, USA.

The three researchers are being awarded the Nobel Prize for discovering that electrons acting together in strong magnetic fields can form new types of “particles”, with charges that are fractions of electron charges.


You got any questions, talk to your tag team partner.

He equates preons with subquarks.

Preons were discovered in 1982.


Professor Ehrlich: Is not saying the existence of tachyons is uncertain at this time, but only in the KATRIN experiment, but everywhere else their existence is certain.

That’s you twisting around and misinterpreting/misrepresenting Professor Ehrlich’s fine research. Quite shameful to do so.


Let's put your word to the test.

Quotes from Dr. Ehrlich's papers:

It is shown that the Mont Blanc burst is consistent with the distinctive signature of that
explanation i.e., an 8 MeV antineutrino line from SN 1987A. It is further shown that a model of core collapse supernovae involving dark matter particles of mass 8 MeV would in fact yield an 8 MeV antineutrino line.

More direct support comes from the spectrum of N ∼ 1000 events recorded by the Kamiokande-II detector on the day of SN 1987A, which appear to show an 8 MeV line atop the detector background. This ¯ν line, if genuine, has been well-hidden for 30 years because it occurs very close to the peak of the background. This fact might ordinarily justify extreme skepticism. In the present case, however, a more positive view is called for based on (a) the very high statistical significance of the result (30σ), (b) the use of a detector background independent of the SN 1987A data using a later K-II data set, and (c) the observation of an excess above the background spectrum whose central energy and width both agree with that of an 8 MeV ¯ν line broadened by 25% resolution. Most importantly, the last observation is in accord with the prior prediction of an 8 MeV ¯ν line based on the Mont Blanc data, and the the dark matter model, itself supported by experimental observations. Lastly, it is noted that the tachyonic interpretation of the Mont Blanc burst fits the author’s earlier unconventional 3 + 3 model of the neutrino mass states.


Six observations consistent with the electron neutrino being a
tachyon with mass: m2 νe = −0.11 ± 0.016eV 2

The data are from areas including CMB fluctuations, gravitational lensing, cosmic ray spectra, neutrino oscillations, and 0ν double beta decay. For each of the six observations it is possible under explicitly stated assumptions to compute a value for m2 νe, and it is found that the six values are remarkably consistent with the above cited νe mass (χ 2 = 2.73). There are no known observations in clear conflict with the claimed result, nor are there predicted phenomena that should occur which are not seen. Three checks are proposed to test the validity of the claim, one of which could be performed using existing data.


Published empirical evidence for the model is summarized, including an interpretation of the mysterious Mont Blanc neutrino burst from SN 1987A as being due to tachyonic neutrinos having m2 = −0.38eV 2.
This possibility requires an 8 MeV antineutrino line from SN 1987A, which a new dark matter model has been found to support. Furthermore, this dark matter model is supported by several data sets: γ−rays from the galactic center, and the Kamiokande-II neutrino data on the day of SN 1987A.
The KATRIN experiment should serve as the unambiguous test of the 3 + 3 model and its tachyonic mass state.


I have just proven you wrong.

Title: Re: Pretending Subquarks actually exist!
Post by: sokarul on July 08, 2020, 09:35:08 PM
And yet you can't explain what electrons have to do with subquarks.
Title: Re: Pretending Subquarks actually exist!
Post by: sandokhan on July 08, 2020, 09:39:15 PM
If these new types of "particles" with charges that are fractions of electrons are quasi-particles, and quasi-particles are sub-quarks/preons, then the following statement would be true.

Electrons create preons.

Do electrons create preons?


I already answered your question.

The electron, in current mainstream science, has nine components, a substructure of nine preons/subquarks.

That is where the fractional charges come from.

In reality, these preons are the electrons themselves, having a negative charge.

Preons = subquarks.
Title: Re: Pretending Subquarks actually exist!
Post by: Bullwinkle on July 08, 2020, 09:49:08 PM

Electrons create preons.


Why?
Title: Re: Pretending Subquarks actually exist!
Post by: Stash on July 08, 2020, 09:54:11 PM
Again, that Nobel prize has nothing at all to do with subquarks.

STFU you moron!

Nice, well put, and very scientific.

Professor Ehrlich: Is not saying the existence of tachyons is uncertain at this time, but only in the KATRIN experiment, but everywhere else their existence is certain.

That’s you twisting around and misinterpreting/misrepresenting Professor Ehrlich’s fine research. Quite shameful to do so. (This is me talking because Sandy refuses to use proper quotes. Why? Who knows, it's creepy at best)


Ok, Let's put your to the test.

Quotes from Dr. Ehrlich's papers:
The KATRIN experiment should serve as the unambiguous test of the 3 + 3 model and its tachyonic mass state.

Ok, let's put them to the test, from the paper you cited, in Dr Ehrlich's own words:

"The KATRIN experiment [43] should prove or refute the existence of a tachyonic mass."

Hasn't yet. Should prove or refute. How is that simple language lost on you?


I have just proven you wrong.

Actually, quite the contrary. I have just proven you wrong with Dr Ehrlich's own words.

Again, for reference, Dr. Ehelich’s response:

Question 26: So, do tachyons exist?
Answer: It is currently uncertain, but I believe that within a year KATRIN will have enough data to give a definitive answer.
Title: Re: Pretending Subquarks actually exist!
Post by: sandokhan on July 08, 2020, 10:00:24 PM
Your quote even makes that clear. The electrons are combining to produce a composite particle. They are not breaking apart into their components.

Do you have medical insurance?

Then, by all means, use it to visit a psychiatrist.


https://www.nobelprize.org/prizes/physics/1998/press-release/

13 October 1998

The Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences has awarded the 1998 Nobel Prize in Physics jointly to

Professor Robert B. Laughlin, Stanford University, California, USA,

Professor Horst L. Störmer, Columbia University, New York and Lucent Technologies’ Bell Labs, New Jersey, USA, and

Professor Daniel C. Tsui, Princeton University, Princeton, New Jersey, USA.

The three researchers are being awarded the Nobel Prize for discovering that electrons acting together in strong magnetic fields can form new types of “particles”, with charges that are fractions of electron charges.


Preon-quarkel structure of the electrons:

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=quarter-electrons-may-enable-quantum-computer


Every science student is taught that the indivisible unit of charge is that of the electron. But 2 years ago, scientists found that charge sometimes shatters into "quasi-particles" that have one-third the fundamental charge. And in this week's issue of Nature, researchers announce they have spotted one-fifth-charge quasi-particles--a decisive finding suggesting that its time to change any physics textbooks still claiming that electron charge is indivisible.

https://web.archive.org/web/20130621182913/http://news.sciencemag.org/sciencenow/1999/05/19-01.html


Why?

I'll answer your question if you can answer this: why is jackblack allowed to troll the upper forums?

I understand: all of the admin and the mods are actually RE. Why does not matter that this forum is going down the drain (just read the stats)?


"The KATRIN experiment [43] should prove or refute the existence of a tachyonic mass."

Yes.

Professor Ehrlich wants to be able to convince even trolls like you.

That is why he is waiting for the final results.
Title: Re: Pretending Subquarks actually exist!
Post by: Stash on July 08, 2020, 10:13:03 PM
Your quote even makes that clear. The electrons are combining to produce a composite particle. They are not breaking apart into their components.

Do you have medical insurance?

Then, by all means, use it to visit a psychiatrist.

How decidedly professional and scientific of you. As you continue to cascade down your weak arguments you attempt to amp up your insults. Funny how that works.

"The KATRIN experiment [43] should prove or refute the existence of a tachyonic mass."

Actually, here's my quote:

Ok, let's put them to the test, from the paper you cited, in Dr Ehrlich's own words:

"The KATRIN experiment [43] should prove or refute the existence of a tachyonic mass."

Hasn't yet. Should prove or refute. How is that simple language lost on you?

Yes.

Professor Ehrlich wants to be able to convince even trolls like you.

That is why he is waiting for the final results.

Do you understand you have zero logic applied here?

A) Professor Ehrlich doesn't have to convince even trolls like me.
B) When one is waiting for final results that means results are not in yet
C) How is the simplest of logic lost on you and how do you feel you can re-interpret Dr. Ehrlich's current stance:

Question 26: So, do tachyons exist?
Answer: It is currently uncertain, but I believe that within a year KATRIN will have enough data to give a definitive answer.
Title: Re: Pretending Subquarks actually exist!
Post by: Bullwinkle on July 08, 2020, 10:27:42 PM
Anyone remember cold fusion?
Title: Re: Pretending Subquarks actually exist!
Post by: rvlvr on July 08, 2020, 11:57:52 PM
Or Coldplay?
Title: Re: Pretending Subquarks actually exist!
Post by: sandokhan on July 08, 2020, 11:59:37 PM
How decidedly professional and scientific of you.

Your tag team partner definitely needs to see a psychiatrist.

Preon-quarkel structure of the electrons:

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=quarter-electrons-may-enable-quantum-computer


Every science student is taught that the indivisible unit of charge is that of the electron. But 2 years ago, scientists found that charge sometimes shatters into "quasi-particles" that have one-third the fundamental charge. And in this week's issue of Nature, researchers announce they have spotted one-fifth-charge quasi-particles--a decisive finding suggesting that its time to change any physics textbooks still claiming that electron charge is indivisible.

https://web.archive.org/web/20130621182913/http://news.sciencemag.org/sciencenow/1999/05/19-01.html


The charge of the electrons has been shattered into fractional charges.


What does your mentor say? No, a bunch of electrons got together, that is where the fractional charge comes from.


Hasn't yet.

Right.

Now, what relativistic particles can provide faster than light speeds?

As proven by the Maxwell equations, which are invariant under Galilean transformations, a fact published by the IOP, and by quantum entanglement.

You think tachyons are going to wait for KATRIN to be discovered? Not a chance.

They already exist.
Title: Re: Pretending Subquarks actually exist!
Post by: Stash on July 09, 2020, 02:10:56 AM
You think tachyons are going to wait for KATRIN to be discovered? Not a chance.

They already exist.

Of course not. But your statement makes you a hack. Not a scientist.

The leading theorist in tachyon theory has stated that the existence of such is uncertain.
Where you get off saying he is wrong only means you are a hack and have no clue about science or the scientific method.

Are you seriously claiming you know more about tachyon theory than Dr Ehrlich?
Title: Re: Pretending Subquarks actually exist!
Post by: sandokhan on July 09, 2020, 02:11:52 AM
More references on preons/particles with fractional charges.

http://sites.science.oregonstate.edu/~ostroveo/COURSES/ph673/Notes/FractionalCharge.pdf


The fractional QHE describes the plateaus where 4is a fraction, the most prominent
occuring at v = 1/3
Tsui, Stormer and Gossard, 1982

Understanding the FQHE requires a radically-new theory. You end up with
fractionally-charged quasiparticles which have been observed!

Quasiparticles have charge v 1/3!!


The fractional charge of the quasiparticle has been checked directly by several clever
experiments.
Goldman and Su, 1995; Saminadayar et al, 1997; de Picciotto et al, 1997


Conclusions
1. Fractional charge is well understood theoretically.
2. Fractional charge exists in nature.
3. Fractional charge may end up explaining new physics in 2+1 dimensions.
Title: Re: Pretending Subquarks actually exist!
Post by: JackBlack on July 09, 2020, 02:12:53 AM
Again, that Nobel prize has nothing at all to do with subquarks.
Cut the crap!
No. You cut the crap.

Appealing to preons and subquarks being the same thing doesn't help you, as that Nobel prize dealt with neither.
Again, electrons combining to form a larger, composite quasiparticle is in no way evidence of subquarks or preons.

Now when will you stop with the lies and admit that fact?

The only thing you have proven is that you don't give a damn about the truth at all.
Title: Re: Pretending Subquarks actually exist!
Post by: sandokhan on July 09, 2020, 02:17:51 AM
https://physicsworld.com/a/fractional-charge-carriers-discovered

Last month, two groups of physicists revealed the first direct evidence that an electric current can be carried by quasiparticles with fractional charge.


Appealing to preons and subquarks being the same thing doesn't help you, as that Nobel prize dealt with neither.
Again, electrons combining to form a larger, composite quasiparticle is in no way evidence of subquarks or preons.


You need a medical checkup.

The electrons themselves are divided into particles with fractional charges!

Have you lost your mind to claim that now electrons form larger particles?

This is beyond ridiculous: you certainly need medical help.


Preon-quarkel structure of the electrons:

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=quarter-electrons-may-enable-quantum-computer


Every science student is taught that the indivisible unit of charge is that of the electron. But 2 years ago, scientists found that charge sometimes shatters into "quasi-particles" that have one-third the fundamental charge. And in this week's issue of Nature, researchers announce they have spotted one-fifth-charge quasi-particles--a decisive finding suggesting that its time to change any physics textbooks still claiming that electron charge is indivisible.

https://web.archive.org/web/20130621182913/http://news.sciencemag.org/sciencenow/1999/05/19-01.html


The charge of the electrons has been shattered into fractional charges.


Your tag team partner made this statement:

(https://i.ibb.co/VWS56Fm/thrash.jpg)

Firstly sudquarks, or preons

Preons or subqurks were just and are just hypothetical


He does equate preons with subquarks.
Title: Re: Pretending Subquarks actually exist!
Post by: Bullwinkle on July 09, 2020, 02:26:16 AM

Cut the crap!

No. You cut the crap.

Stop LYING!
You should both start cutting yourself to prove your dedication to your beliefs.  ::)
Title: Re: Pretending Subquarks actually exist!
Post by: sandokhan on July 09, 2020, 02:41:07 AM
Pure science.

https://phys.org/news/2014-12-electrons-evidence-exotic-behaviors.html

How electrons split: New evidence of exotic behaviors

https://www.nature.com/articles/nphys3172

Our results establish the existence of fractional quasiparticles in the high-energy spectrum of a quasi-two-dimensional antiferromagnet.

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/electron-splits-into-quasiparticles/

In 1996, physicists split an electron into a holon and spinon. Now, van den Brink and his colleagues have broken an electron into an orbiton and a spinon, as reported in Nature today.

https://www.newscientist.com/article/mg15721195-400-splitting-the-electron/

But that pillar seems to be crumbling. Scientists have pushed open a window onto an unexpected world of quantum strangeness in which the electron’s “indivisible” unit of charge can be carved up to make particles carrying one-third or one-fifth of a unit, or even fractions far smaller.

Title: Re: Pretending Subquarks actually exist!
Post by: Bullwinkle on July 09, 2020, 03:08:56 AM

Our results establish . . .


OUR results?
Please elucidate . . .
Title: Re: Pretending Subquarks actually exist!
Post by: sandokhan on July 09, 2020, 03:29:17 AM
It's a quote from the article.

Mainstream science is beginning to understand that gravity must involve quantum entanglement, superluminal speeds, instant action-at-a-distance.
Title: Re: Pretending Subquarks actually exist!
Post by: Bullwinkle on July 09, 2020, 03:34:26 AM
So you personally have no clue, right?
Title: Re: Pretending Subquarks actually exist!
Post by: JackBlack on July 09, 2020, 04:05:32 AM
https://physicsworld.com/a/fractional-charge-carriers-discovered
Last month, two groups of physicists revealed the first direct evidence that an electric current can be carried by quasiparticles with fractional charge.
Again, that in no way supports your claims.
They are not claiming they are sub-components of electrons or quarks.
Instead, they are


Appealing to preons and subquarks being the same thing doesn't help you, as that Nobel prize dealt with neither.
Again, electrons combining to form a larger, composite quasiparticle is in no way evidence of subquarks or preons.

You need a medical checkup.
The electrons themselves are divided into particles with fractional charges!
Have you lost your mind to claim that now electrons form larger particles?
This is beyond ridiculous: you certainly need medical help.
No, I don't need medical help. You just need to stop lying and actually address what has been said.

Your article states it quite clearly:
Quote
All the interacting electrons are there but they behave as if they are non-interacting quasiparticles with charges of one-third

Your own source refutes you.
You have multiple electrons interacting to form a quasiparticle. They do not say the electrons are being split into their subcomponents.
Now stop spamming the same lies again and again.
Title: Re: Pretending Subquarks actually exist!
Post by: Code-Beta1234 on July 09, 2020, 04:21:04 AM
You didn't finish 1. Paragaph
Title: Re: Pretending Subquarks actually exist!
Post by: rabinoz on July 09, 2020, 05:34:08 AM
You didn't finish 1. Paragaph
Gestapo reply checker are you? Make your own replies and stop criticising everybody else's.
Title: Re: Pretending Subquarks actually exist!
Post by: Code-Beta1234 on July 09, 2020, 06:00:44 AM
You didn't finish 1. Paragaph
Gestapo reply checker are you? Make your own replies and stop criticising everybody else's.

It was like reminder. Like if he went to WC and came back forgetting to finish.
Title: Re: Pretending Subquarks actually exist!
Post by: cikljamas on July 09, 2020, 07:14:43 AM
I am trying to post something in my own thread and after several attempts i am still unable to do that, so let's see if i can post this little post here...
Title: Re: Pretending Subquarks actually exist!
Post by: sokarul on July 09, 2020, 07:40:56 AM
It's a quote from the article.

Mainstream science is beginning to understand that gravity must involve quantum entanglement, superluminal speeds, instant action-at-a-distance.
It’s fractional charges. It’s not worm holes sucking aether while always knowing which way is down.
Title: Re: Pretending Subquarks actually exist!
Post by: Code-Beta1234 on July 09, 2020, 07:59:44 AM
I am trying to post something in my own thread and after several attempts i am still unable to do that, so let's see if i can post this little post here...

What? Like on "Flat Earth Belivers"?
Title: Re: Pretending Subquarks actually exist!
Post by: NotSoSkeptical on July 09, 2020, 08:24:18 AM
If these new types of "particles" with charges that are fractions of electrons are quasi-particles, and quasi-particles are sub-quarks/preons, then the following statement would be true.

Electrons create preons.

Do electrons create preons?


I already answered your question.

The electron, in current mainstream science, has nine components, a substructure of nine preons/subquarks.

That is where the fractional charges come from.

In reality, these preons are the electrons themselves, having a negative charge.

Preons = subquarks.

No you didn't answer the question.

You are now saying that preons are electrons.  How can electrons form a new "particle"  that you call a preon if preons are themselves electrons?




Title: Re: Pretending Subquarks actually exist!
Post by: Stash on July 09, 2020, 12:51:48 PM
You didn't finish 1. Paragaph
Gestapo reply checker are you? Make your own replies and stop criticising everybody else's.

It was like reminder. Like if he went to WC and came back forgetting to finish.

I think we're ok without your "reminders". If you have something to add to the conversation, add it. Otherwise mind your own business and stop with the perpetual low content posts.
Title: Re: Pretending Subquarks actually exist!
Post by: Code-Beta1234 on July 11, 2020, 10:32:31 AM
Going bach to Tachyon quote, i think doc is waiting for results to be 100% sure. We don't know if it is there if we didn't find it. Like playing hide and seek. You might hear movement, or see shadows but you don't know if persion is hiding there 100%. Maybie it is cat or that shadow is just shadow of bush, but it is most likly persion. Until you find it, you are unsertain.
Title: Re: Pretending Subquarks actually exist!
Post by: Code-Beta1234 on July 12, 2020, 04:42:45 AM
Why does all of you except snadokhan deny tachyons? It won't prove Aether or Flat Earth. What is wrong with agreeing with sandokhan?
Title: Re: Pretending Subquarks actually exist!
Post by: Code-Beta1234 on July 12, 2020, 04:45:17 AM
Abd yes, electrons have subcomponents

Quote
Pure science.

https://phys.org/news/2014-12-electrons-evidence-exotic-behaviors.html

How electrons split: New evidence of exotic behaviors

https://www.nature.com/articles/nphys3172

Our results establish the existence of fractional quasiparticles in the high-energy spectrum of a quasi-two-dimensional antiferromagnet.

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/electron-splits-into-quasiparticles/

In 1996, physicists split an electron into a holon and spinon. Now, van den Brink and his colleagues have broken an electron into an orbiton and a spinon, as reported in Nature today.

https://www.newscientist.com/article/mg15721195-400-splitting-the-electron/

But that pillar seems to be crumbling. Scientists have pushed open a window onto an unexpected world of quantum strangeness in which the electron’s “indivisible” unit of charge can be carved up to make particles carrying one-third or one-fifth of a unit, or even fractions far smaller 

(Form sandokhan, proof)
Title: Re: Pretending Subquarks actually exist!
Post by: JJA on July 12, 2020, 04:52:02 AM
Why does all of you except snadokhan deny tachyons? It won't prove Aether or Flat Earth. What is wrong with agreeing with sandokhan?

We disagree because he claims with 100% certainty that Tachyons are a real particle and knows exactly what they are and how they work.

But science has discovered no evidence they exist at all. Unless Sandokhan has a 100 mile wide particle accelerator in his backyard and has some proof, all he is doing is quoting other people that also have no evidence.

Nobody can say for certain if Tachyons exist, or if Unicorns or Dragons exist.  But until we actually can look at one of them, they are all imaginary.  Tachyons are no more real than fire breathing, flying, talking magic dragons.

Title: Re: Pretending Subquarks actually exist!
Post by: Code-Beta1234 on July 12, 2020, 05:32:14 AM
Hey, paper proved that they most likly exsist. We are waiting to find them. There is still chance they aren't real.

Quote
We don't know if it is there if we didn't find it. Like playing hide and seek. You might hear movement, or see shadows but you don't know if persion is hiding there 100%. Maybie it is cat or that shadow is just shadow of bush, but it is most likly persion. Until you find it, you are unsertain.
Title: Re: Pretending Subquarks actually exist!
Post by: JJA on July 12, 2020, 05:58:55 AM
Hey, paper proved that they most likly exsist. We are waiting to find them. There is still chance they aren't real.

Quote
We don't know if it is there if we didn't find it. Like playing hide and seek. You might hear movement, or see shadows but you don't know if persion is hiding there 100%. Maybie it is cat or that shadow is just shadow of bush, but it is most likly persion. Until you find it, you are unsertain.

That's not how science works.

A paper doesn't prove anything, experiments provide evidence if a theory is correct or not.

Tachyons have zero experimental evidence.  Exactly the same evidence that we have of magic talking dragons.  Both are imaginary.

There is no paper that proves Tachyons, or dragons exist.
Title: Re: Pretending Subquarks actually exist!
Post by: sandokhan on July 12, 2020, 06:40:17 AM
Tachyons have zero experimental evidence.

There is no paper that proves Tachyons.


What if I were to produce such a paper (published in the best journals) describing an experiment carried out by the best experts in the field, which does actually prove the existence of particles with negative mass (tachyons)?


Title: Re: Pretending Subquarks actually exist!
Post by: sokarul on July 12, 2020, 06:45:48 AM
I would produce them to the proper governing body. Currently accepted theory is they don't exist. Posting one paper and one experiment doesn't mean much, let alone just to the flat earth society.
Title: Re: Pretending Subquarks actually exist!
Post by: JJA on July 12, 2020, 08:07:39 AM
Tachyons have zero experimental evidence.

There is no paper that proves Tachyons.


What if I were to produce such a paper (published in the best journals) describing an experiment carried out by the best experts in the field, which does actually prove the existence of particles with negative mass (tachyons)?

Then I would be very excited as I waited for others to verify the findings.

If they were replicated and verified that you could use them to send information?  I'd be more excited than ever in my life.

Faster than light particles?  Negative mass?  That would open up so many possibilities for space travel, communications and science in general.

It would be world shattering.

I'd love it.
Title: Re: Pretending Subquarks actually exist!
Post by: sandokhan on July 12, 2020, 08:17:56 AM
Faster than light particles already have been discovered, see quantum entanglement, Maxwell's original superluminal e/m set of equations.

Here is a preview of the huge experiment carried out by some of the top physicists in their field, no further need to carry out another test at KATRIN, a definite result that proves that muon neutrinos are tachyons (negative/imaginary mass):

(https://i.ibb.co/NF5PQPR/muon.jpg)

You won't believe what happened after this.
Title: Re: Pretending Subquarks actually exist!
Post by: JJA on July 12, 2020, 08:27:06 AM
Faster than light particles already have been discovered, see quantum entanglement, Maxwell's original superluminal e/m set of equations.

Here is a preview of the huge experiment carried out by some of the top physicists in their field, no further need to carry out another test at KATRIN, a definite result that proves that muon neutrinos are tachyons (negative/imaginary mass):

(https://i.ibb.co/NF5PQPR/muon.jpg)

You won't believe what happened after this.

Quantum entanglement isn't the same thing as tachyons.

You can't send information faster than light using quantum entanglement, and sending information faster than light is what is exciting about tachyons, which as of yet, are imaginary.

I can shine a laser pointer at the moon and move it across it, and that dot can certainly travel faster than light if I move my hand quick enough, but it's not true ftl. Quantum entanglement and other pseudo-ftl is just like that. You can't use any of it to send information, therefore it's not really faster than light.

Your image you linked is not proof, link to the actual article.  I'm not aware of any confirmed results finding ftl particles, only a few that were later found to be from faulty equipment.  Please link actual sources, not cherry-picked screenshots.
Title: Re: Pretending Subquarks actually exist!
Post by: sandokhan on July 12, 2020, 08:37:11 AM
No faulty equipment, no need to confirm the findings, negative mass confirmed by six standard deviations.

Eleven of the biggest names in the field of neutrino detection, experiment which was carried out at one of the top laboratories in the world.

And yet, this result was dismissed by these scientists since they could not accept it.
Title: Re: Pretending Subquarks actually exist!
Post by: Code-Beta1234 on July 12, 2020, 09:35:38 AM
Quote
And yet, this result was dismissed by these scientists since they could not accept it.

Or maybie you misunderstod something like you always do
Title: Re: Pretending Subquarks actually exist!
Post by: sokarul on July 12, 2020, 10:08:59 AM
Neutrinos are being researched as we speak.

They are not tachyons.
Title: Re: Pretending Subquarks actually exist!
Post by: sandokhan on July 12, 2020, 10:12:55 AM
The muon neutrino sure is:

(https://i.ibb.co/NF5PQPR/muon.jpg)
Title: Re: Pretending Subquarks actually exist!
Post by: rabinoz on July 12, 2020, 10:24:46 AM
The muon neutrino sure is:

(https://i.ibb.co/NF5PQPR/muon.jpg)
A pasted in bit with no source is a bit useless!
Title: Re: Pretending Subquarks actually exist!
Post by: sandokhan on July 12, 2020, 10:31:51 AM
I keep the best stuff for my AFET.

The paper was posted on the CERN website, the best scientists in neutrino detection theory, one of the highest rated laboratories in the world.

They detected the tachyon (negative/imaginary mass). Confirmed by six standard deviations.

Yet, they dismissed this result, since they could not accept it.
Title: Re: Pretending Subquarks actually exist!
Post by: JJA on July 12, 2020, 10:40:15 AM
The muon neutrino sure is:

(https://i.ibb.co/NF5PQPR/muon.jpg)

You are deliberately misrepresenting the paper by selectively quoting it.  Please link to the entire paper.  You can't just cut and paste bits of things without allowing anyone to read the entire paper. That's a dishonest way to debate.

It looks like you are quoting from this article here.  https://cds.cern.ch/record/265047/files/P00024029.pdf

As you can see below, they explain why they are excluding the results you cut out and using a positive value below it.

(https://i.imgur.com/gw3ZjHu.png)
Title: Re: Pretending Subquarks actually exist!
Post by: Stash on July 12, 2020, 10:51:21 AM
I keep the best stuff for my AFET.

The paper was posted on the CERN website, the best scientists in neutrino detection theory, one of the highest rated laboratories in the world.

They detected the tachyon (negative/imaginary mass). Confirmed by six standard deviations.

Yet, they dismissed this result, since they could not accept it.

More detail from Dr. Ehrlich’s work in detecting the existence of tachyons. His paper published last year called:

"Review of the Empirical Evidence for Superluminal Particles and the 3 + 3 Model of the Neutrino Masses"
Here’s a link to his page about all of this: https://ehrlich.physics.gmu.edu/index.php/books/
In his post about the paper, his book, and the KATRIN Experiments, he also includes a powerpoint for the less physics of minded folks. Here’s a link to that:
http://mason.gmu.edu/~rehrlich/Hunt_for_tachyon_pop.ppsx

Here’s a summary page from the powerpoint:

Hypothetical FTL particles (“tachyons”)   

- Tachyons are consistent with equations of relativity
- They can never slow down below speed of light
- Imaginary mass means as they lose energy the speed up!?!
- Light speed is a two-way barrier
- 3 classes of particles: tachyons, tardyons & luxons
- Tachyons looked for but not yet found
- Their existence is unknown – most physicists dubious
- Neutrinos are the only known possibility


From the same powerpoint a summary of what is happening now to confirm or deny the Dr’s hypothesis that Nuetrinos are tachyons:

My “3+3” tachyon model 
 
- In 2013 using data from SN 1987A I published a model claiming 3 neutrino masses one of which was a tachyon
- Very much against the conventional thinking
- Subsequently various kinds of evidence has been published in support of the model
- An experiment now underway at the Karlseruhe Institute of technology (KIT) known as KATRIN will pronounce the ultimate verdict


As it stands today, according to Dr. Ehrlich, the foremost expert in the field of FTL particles, Tachyons looked for but not yet found and their existence is unknown.
Title: Re: Pretending Subquarks actually exist!
Post by: sandokhan on July 12, 2020, 10:52:05 AM
They considered the findings as "unphysical".

They dismissed the clear proof of the muon neutrino being a tachyon.

A fact discovered and acknowledged by other top scientists who were dismayed at how the result was simply negated.

It's not the first time it happened.

Experiments with tritium beta spectrum also revealed negative/imaginary masses for neutrinos, again these results were dismissed.

This is why you do not have the tachyon the wikipedia list of particles that have been discovered.
Title: Re: Pretending Subquarks actually exist!
Post by: sandokhan on July 12, 2020, 10:55:54 AM
As it stands today, according to Dr. Ehrlich, the foremost expert in the field of FTL particles, Tachyons looked for but not yet found and their existence is unknown.

The muon neutrino/tritium beta spectrum experiments run in parallel with KATRIN, and are independent of other research carried out by tachyon scientists such as Dr. Robert Ehrlich.

Here is the absolute proof of the existence of the tachyon:

(https://i.ibb.co/NF5PQPR/muon.jpg)

You are deliberately misrepresenting the paper by selectively quoting it. 

No, you numskull.

I already stated that the result was dismissed by the very scientists who did carry out this experiment.
Title: Re: Pretending Subquarks actually exist!
Post by: JJA on July 12, 2020, 11:03:22 AM
They considered the findings as "unphysical".

They dismissed the clear proof of the muon neutrino being a tachyon.

A fact discovered and acknowledged by other top scientists who were dismayed at how the result was simply negated.

It's not the first time it happened.

Experiments with tritium beta spectrum also revealed negative/imaginary masses for neutrinos, again these results were dismissed.

This is why you do not have the tachyon the wikipedia list of particles that have been discovered.

They did no such thing.

You simply don't understand how to read that paper.

If there was clear proof of tachyons it would have been shouted from the rooftops. They WANT to find tachyons. They didn't.

I'm sorry that upsets you, but it's the truth.

Actual scientists are a far more trustworthy source than a random guy on the internet.
Title: Re: Pretending Subquarks actually exist!
Post by: JJA on July 12, 2020, 11:06:18 AM
As it stands today, according to Dr. Ehrlich, the foremost expert in the field of FTL particles, Tachyons looked for but not yet found and their existence is unknown.

The muon neutrino/tritium beta spectrum experiments run in parallel with KATRIN, and are independent of other research carried out by tachyon scientists such as Dr. Robert Ehrlich.

Here is the absolute proof of the existence of the tachyon:

(https://i.ibb.co/NF5PQPR/muon.jpg)

You are deliberately misrepresenting the paper by selectively quoting it. 

No, you numskull.

I already stated that the result was dismissed by the very scientists who did carry out this experiment.

Yes, and you cut out the REASON they dismissed it, because that's simply how that experiment works.

That is what is dishonest, you are acting like they just threw out all the results when what they were doing was more complex. Experiments looking for a lower bound can be negative, it doesn't mean the value is negative. When a value is known to be close to zero, getting a negative result is expected when trying to zero in on the precise figure.

You design experiments in that way, yo bracket a range.  That's what they did here.  There was no disregarding of anything, they took it all into account, as intended.
Title: Re: Pretending Subquarks actually exist!
Post by: Stash on July 12, 2020, 11:12:13 AM
As it stands today, according to Dr. Ehrlich, the foremost expert in the field of FTL particles, Tachyons looked for but not yet found and their existence is unknown.

The muon neutrino/tritium beta spectrum experiments run in parallel with KATRIN, and are independent of other research carried out by tachyon scientists such as Dr. Robert Ehrlich.

Here is the absolute proof of the exist

Regarding the CERN experiment you reference:

James Gillies — head of communications and spokesman for CERN — about the team's results.

"It's important to make clear that nobody is claiming a discovery, or any contradiction with relativity," explained Gillies. "The OPERA experiment has a measurement they can't account for, so they're opening it up for further scrutiny, and hopefully an independent measurement from another lab."

That was in 2011.

Subsequent to which they have not been able to replicate the anomaly which was caused, in part, by a loose GPS cable (See Dr.Ehrlich's powerpoint.)

Also, keep in mind CERN Time-of-flight measurements from CERN to LNGS in Italy require extremely precise calculations that include distance of the tau neutrino through a globe earth as they can detect the exact angle of neutrino flight paths. Neutrino detection being currently outstanding evidence for a spherical earth.
Title: Re: Pretending Subquarks actually exist!
Post by: sandokhan on July 12, 2020, 11:21:25 AM
Yes, and you cut out the REASON they dismissed it, because that's simply how that experiment works.

They arbitrarily dismissed the result since they REFUSED to accept it.

They gave no other reason.

Since the mass was "imaginary", they threw out the result.

This is no longer science.

That is what is dishonest, you are acting like they just threw out all the results when what they were doing was more complex. Experiments looking for a lower bound can be negative, it doesn't mean the value is negative.

Now, you are an expert on neutrino detection experiments?

Listen to the experts in the field who were DISMAYED at what those scientists did.

Here is another paper from CERN which now says those scientists did detect tachyons, and had no right to dismiss the result.

https://cds.cern.ch/record/476759/files/0011087.pdf

Dr. Tsao Chang
Center for Space Plasma and Aeronomy Research
University of Alabama in Huntsville

Moreover, the muon neutrino also exhibits a negative mass-square [7].

[7] K. Assamagan et al., Phys. Rev. D 53 (1996) 6065.

Papers published by Dr. Chang:

https://inspirehep.net/authors/1014042


Regarding the CERN experiment you reference:

I referenced no such experiment.

You must be dreaming.

The papers cited have nothing to do with the 2011 experiment.
Title: Re: Pretending Subquarks actually exist!
Post by: JJA on July 12, 2020, 11:43:01 AM
Yes, and you cut out the REASON they dismissed it, because that's simply how that experiment works.

They arbitrarily dismissed the result since they REFUSED to accept it.

They gave no other reason.

Since the mass was "imaginary", they threw out the result.

This is no longer science.

No, this is exactly how science works.  You don't understand the paper.  Read the whole thing.

It's only your opinion that they are wrong. They on the other hand have been published, peer-reviewed and found to be correct.

You are simply wrong.

If there was even a hint of the existence of a tachyon it would be huge news.  You keep completely misunderstanding how science and scientists work, and it shows. It makes your claim here that they found incredible discoveries and chose to hide them. That's just insane. That's the complete opposite of how a normal person would act.
Title: Re: Pretending Subquarks actually exist!
Post by: sandokhan on July 12, 2020, 11:48:45 AM
Cut the crap.

The imaginary mass neutrino was thrown out subjectively.

Dr. Tsao Chang agrees with me, a paper also published by CERN.


https://cds.cern.ch/record/476759/files/0011087.pdf

Dr. Tsao Chang
Center for Space Plasma and Aeronomy Research
University of Alabama in Huntsville

Moreover, the muon neutrino also exhibits a negative mass-square [7].

[7] K. Assamagan et al., Phys. Rev. D 53 (1996) 6065.


How in the world would you know how science works? You seem to pretend to know better than anyone who disagrees with you.


Do you know the concept of Berry's phase? Yes, it has been measured for muon neutrinos.

But the Berry phase IS NONLOCAL!

Which means one still requires superluminal speeds for the muon neutrino.

Title: Re: Pretending Subquarks actually exist!
Post by: Stash on July 12, 2020, 11:54:36 AM
Here is another paper from CERN which now says those scientists did detect tachyons, and had no right to dismiss the result.

https://cds.cern.ch/record/476759/files/0011087.pdf

Dr. Tsao Chang
Center for Space Plasma and Aeronomy Research
University of Alabama in Huntsville

I'm not sure where you get, "Here is another paper from CERN which now says those scientists did detect tachyons, and had no right to dismiss the result." This is what the paper concludes:

"In this paper, The hypothesis that neutrinos might be tachyonic fermions is further investigated...More measurements on the cosmic ray at the spectrum knee and more accurate tritium beta decay experiments are needed to further test the above theory."

Keywords: 'Hypothesis', 'further investigated', 'experiments needed to test further the theory'

No where does it prove the existence of anything.

Regarding the CERN experiment you reference:

I referenced no such experiment.

You must be dreaming.

The papers cited have nothing to do with the 2011 experiment.

So far none of the authors of the papers agree with you. None have been able to observe FTL's with any certainty. That's why these scientists are still experimenting. You have no part in these experiments, nor any input. So as to why you think you know better than the CERN and KATRIN physicists is the real unknown here.
Title: Re: Pretending Subquarks actually exist!
Post by: Code-Beta1234 on July 12, 2020, 12:00:49 PM
Sandokhan, why don't you try to get in contact with some scientist. You will amaze him and you will cause scientific revolution. I have seen multiple people (conspiracy theorists) get in contact with scientist via E-Mial
Title: Re: Pretending Subquarks actually exist!
Post by: JJA on July 12, 2020, 12:04:37 PM
Cut the crap.

The imaginary mass neutrino was thrown out subjectively.

Dr. Tsao Chang agrees with me, a paper also published by CERN.


https://cds.cern.ch/record/476759/files/0011087.pdf

Dr. Tsao Chang
Center for Space Plasma and Aeronomy Research
University of Alabama in Huntsville

Moreover, the muon neutrino also exhibits a negative mass-square [7].

[7] K. Assamagan et al., Phys. Rev. D 53 (1996) 6065.

He says no such thing, re-read the paper and stop quote mining bits and pieces.

Show me a quote from that paper where he says they threw out that number 'subjectively'.

It simply doesn't say that, and also is talking about hypothetical theories... not reality.

Not everything you read is real. Tachyons and magic dragons are not discovered, proven real things.
Title: Re: Pretending Subquarks actually exist!
Post by: sandokhan on July 12, 2020, 12:28:39 PM
So far none of the authors of the papers agree with you. None have been able to observe FTL's with any certainty.

Cut the crap.

(https://i.ibb.co/ZfWH3VX/muon2.jpg)

https://books.google.ro/books?id=rbnnCAAAQBAJ&pg=PA116&lpg=PA116&dq=recami+causality+and+locality+in+modern+physics&source=bl&ots=SBg7aSPPIm&sig=ACfU3U1tigeNMq4GT_hDHRW3mfONQYHIBA&hl=en&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwjCzdDLscjqAhWDtIsKHVFxB0cQ6AEwAnoECAcQAQ#v=onepage&q=recami%20causality%20and%20locality%20in%20modern%20physics&f=false

Dr. Erasmo Recami:

https://cds.cern.ch/record/160441

Classical tachyons and possible applications : a review
Title: Re: Pretending Subquarks actually exist!
Post by: JJA on July 12, 2020, 12:38:09 PM
So far none of the authors of the papers agree with you. None have been able to observe FTL's with any certainty.

Cut the crap.

(https://i.ibb.co/ZfWH3VX/muon2.jpg)

https://books.google.ro/books?id=rbnnCAAAQBAJ&pg=PA116&lpg=PA116&dq=recami+causality+and+locality+in+modern+physics&source=bl&ots=SBg7aSPPIm&sig=ACfU3U1tigeNMq4GT_hDHRW3mfONQYHIBA&hl=en&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwjCzdDLscjqAhWDtIsKHVFxB0cQ6AEwAnoECAcQAQ#v=onepage&q=recami%20causality%20and%20locality%20in%20modern%20physics&f=false

Dr. Erasmo Recami:

https://cds.cern.ch/record/160441

Classical tachyons and possible applications : a review

You cut the crap.

One of those is a mass-market book.

The other is a theoretical exploration of possible tachyons.

Neither are evidence of them existing, they are both talking THEORETICALLY.

You can't use either of those as proof that they exist.

And the one is from 1984 with no evidence uncovered since then to validate it.  It doesn't look like it was ever published in a journal either.

"Tachyons may..."

"For future research..."

"...to be further studied."

It's all just hypotheticals.

If you think this is PROOF that tachyons exist, you need to understand what HYPOTHETICAL means.
Title: Re: Pretending Subquarks actually exist!
Post by: sandokhan on July 12, 2020, 12:47:18 PM
I have the references which spell out that muon neutrinos have negative mass.

Not just any references, but two of the best known neutrino detection physicists.

You got crap, and a big mouth.

Title: Re: Pretending Subquarks actually exist!
Post by: Stash on July 12, 2020, 01:29:22 PM
I have the references which spell out that muon neutrinos have negative mass.

Not just any references, but two of the best known neutrino detection physicists.

You got crap, and a big mouth.

What are those references? So far all seems hypothetical/theoretical. And you do realize that neutrino detection relies on the known parameters of a spherical earth, right?
Title: Re: Pretending Subquarks actually exist!
Post by: Code-Beta1234 on July 12, 2020, 01:33:21 PM
I have the references which spell out that muon neutrinos have negative mass.

Not just any references, but two of the best known neutrino detection physicists.

You got crap, and a big mouth.

What are those references? So far all seems hypothetical/theoretical. And you do realize that neutrino detection relies on the known parameters of a spherical earth, right?

LOL. It is here: https://i.ibb.co/ZfWH3VX/muon2.jpg
Title: Re: Pretending Subquarks actually exist!
Post by: rabinoz on July 12, 2020, 01:48:11 PM
I have the references which spell out that muon neutrinos have negative mass.

Not just any references, but two of the best known neutrino detection physicists.

You got crap, and a big mouth.

What are those references? So far all seems hypothetical/theoretical. And you do realize that neutrino detection relies on the known parameters of a spherical earth, right?

LOL. It is here: https://i.ibb.co/ZfWH3VX/muon2.jpg
So what does that tell us? There are lots of meaningless published on the Web - a few words with not even a source given is worthless, especially as just a cut-and-paste picture!
I know that there are a number serious tachyon experiment's in progress but there's nothing to indicate that even refers to one of them.
Title: Re: Pretending Subquarks actually exist!
Post by: Stash on July 12, 2020, 01:49:46 PM
I have the references which spell out that muon neutrinos have negative mass.

Not just any references, but two of the best known neutrino detection physicists.

You got crap, and a big mouth.

What are those references? So far all seems hypothetical/theoretical. And you do realize that neutrino detection relies on the known parameters of a spherical earth, right?

LOL. It is here: https://i.ibb.co/ZfWH3VX/muon2.jpg

LOL. "With a low statistical significance" and "this may be interpreted..." = hypothetical/theoretical

Not to mention that the physicists of the last decade are still not certain of the existence of FTL particles.

And also not to mention that neutrino detection relies on the known parameters of a spherical earth, i.e., not a flat earth.
Title: Re: Pretending Subquarks actually exist!
Post by: JJA on July 12, 2020, 02:01:14 PM
I have the references which spell out that muon neutrinos have negative mass.

Not just any references, but two of the best known neutrino detection physicists.

You got crap, and a big mouth.

What are those references? So far all seems hypothetical/theoretical. And you do realize that neutrino detection relies on the known parameters of a spherical earth, right?

LOL. It is here: https://i.ibb.co/ZfWH3VX/muon2.jpg

Uh, no.

They are claiming it COULD be inferred.  That's a hypothetical reference. It's not actual evidence, it's not even complete, it's just an image with some text. Without seeing the rest of the paper we have no idea who wrote it, how accurate it is, or the context.

If we are proving things now with quotes in pictures, here is mine.

Sorry, the Enterprise is not going to be shooting subspace ruptures with anti-tachyon beams any time soon.

(https://i.imgur.com/TEuDZmK.png)
Title: Re: Pretending Subquarks actually exist!
Post by: JackBlack on July 12, 2020, 02:46:12 PM
Why does all of you except snadokhan deny tachyons? It won't prove Aether or Flat Earth. What is wrong with agreeing with sandokhan?
Because he is just spouting BS without valid justification.
Why should we agree with him?
And if we do, why stop there?
Why not just agree with all his nonsense?


Abd yes, electrons have subcomponents
First of all, don't bother linking to news articles, they are just as pointless as his spam.

Secondly, these electrons are not being split. They are combining to form quasiparticles, that is very different.

LOL. It is here:
An image is not a reference. It does not show the origin, it does not show what has been dishonestly cut away.

Faster than light particles already have been discovered, see quantum entanglement, Maxwell's original superluminal e/m set of equations.
So you have nothing.
Quantum entanglement does not use superluminal velocities nor negative mass particles. A set of equations does not magically make things real.

You fail to understand the difference between negative and imaginary mass.

And it seems you have been caught lying yet again.
They dismissed the clear proof of the muon neutrino being a tachyon.
Stop lying.
They dismissed one of 2 possible mathematical solutions to an equation.
The fact that the second possibly (which you dismiss without cause) exists, shows that this is not clear proof of any tachyon and is just further proof of your dishonesty.

Moreover, the muon neutrino also exhibits a negative mass-square
And more dishonest cherry picking.

That quote was simply stating a model, not his agreement with that model.

Did you even bother reading the summary?
Quote
Generally speaking, the above spin- 1/2 tachyonic quantum theory provides a theoretical framework to study the hypothesis that neutrinos are tachyonic fermions.
They are not agreeing with you.
Title: Re: Pretending Subquarks actually exist!
Post by: Timeisup on July 12, 2020, 03:29:43 PM
I have the references which spell out that muon neutrinos have negative mass.

Not just any references, but two of the best known neutrino detection physicists.

You got crap, and a big mouth.

Is there no end to your bullshit? Why do you constantly misrepresent science?

The information on all subatomic particles is freely available, it’s not as if you yourself have any way of studying them. You too have to rely on the discoveries of scientists like everyone else. So why make things up?

Title: Re: Pretending Subquarks actually exist!
Post by: Code-Beta1234 on July 13, 2020, 12:38:52 AM
Here is sourse for my last message: https://books.google.ro/books?id=rbnnCAAAQBAJ&pg=PA116&lpg=PA116&dq=recami+causality+and+locality+in+modern+physics&source=bl&ots=SBg7aSPPIm&sig=ACfU3U1tigeNMq4GT_hDHRW3mfONQYHIBA&hl=en&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwjCzdDLscjqAhWDtIsKHVFxB0cQ6AEwAnoECAcQAQ#v=onepage&q=recami%20causality%20and%20locality%20in%20modern%20physics&f=false
Title: Re: Pretending Subquarks actually exist!
Post by: rabinoz on July 13, 2020, 12:49:51 AM
Here is sourse for my last message: https://books.google.ro/books?id=rbnnCAAAQBAJ&pg=PA116&lpg=PA116&dq=recami+causality+and+locality+in+modern+physics&source=bl&ots=SBg7aSPPIm&sig=ACfU3U1tigeNMq4GT_hDHRW3mfONQYHIBA&hl=en&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwjCzdDLscjqAhWDtIsKHVFxB0cQ6AEwAnoECAcQAQ#v=onepage&q=recami%20causality%20and%20locality%20in%20modern%20physics&f=false
So?
Title: Re: Pretending Subquarks actually exist!
Post by: Bullwinkle on July 13, 2020, 01:24:29 AM

What if I were to produce such a paper (published in the best journals) describing an experiment carried out by the best experts in the field, which does actually prove the existence of particles with negative mass (tachyons)?


Feel free . . .

Title: Re: Pretending Subquarks actually exist!
Post by: Code-Beta1234 on July 13, 2020, 02:54:18 AM
Here is sourse for my last message: https://books.google.ro/books?id=rbnnCAAAQBAJ&pg=PA116&lpg=PA116&dq=recami+causality+and+locality+in+modern+physics&source=bl&ots=SBg7aSPPIm&sig=ACfU3U1tigeNMq4GT_hDHRW3mfONQYHIBA&hl=en&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwjCzdDLscjqAhWDtIsKHVFxB0cQ6AEwAnoECAcQAQ#v=onepage&q=recami%20causality%20and%20locality%20in%20modern%20physics&f=false
So?

It isn't out of context anymore
Title: Re: Pretending Subquarks actually exist!
Post by: JJA on July 13, 2020, 04:36:56 AM
Here is sourse for my last message: https://books.google.ro/books?id=rbnnCAAAQBAJ&pg=PA116&lpg=PA116&dq=recami+causality+and+locality+in+modern+physics&source=bl&ots=SBg7aSPPIm&sig=ACfU3U1tigeNMq4GT_hDHRW3mfONQYHIBA&hl=en&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwjCzdDLscjqAhWDtIsKHVFxB0cQ6AEwAnoECAcQAQ#v=onepage&q=recami%20causality%20and%20locality%20in%20modern%20physics&f=false
So?

It isn't out of context anymore

You should include more context when quoting, it can be hard to remember what you were talking about with just posting a link or a comment with no context.

Regardless, the text you produced wasn't a scientific paper, it was a mass market book. It's also just discussing the possibility of tachyons, and theoretical ideas.  Even in the part quoted it says it MAY suggest.

Most scientists don't accept that interpretation.

It certainly is not proof that tachyons exist.  It's just talking about what if they did, what might they be like.  Using that to claim they are real and exist and proven is just simply wrong.
Title: Re: Pretending Subquarks actually exist!
Post by: Code-Beta1234 on July 13, 2020, 05:04:21 AM
Here is sourse for my last message: https://books.google.ro/books?id=rbnnCAAAQBAJ&pg=PA116&lpg=PA116&dq=recami+causality+and+locality+in+modern+physics&source=bl&ots=SBg7aSPPIm&sig=ACfU3U1tigeNMq4GT_hDHRW3mfONQYHIBA&hl=en&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwjCzdDLscjqAhWDtIsKHVFxB0cQ6AEwAnoECAcQAQ#v=onepage&q=recami%20causality%20and%20locality%20in%20modern%20physics&f=false
So?

It isn't out of context anymore

You should include more context when quoting, it can be hard to remember what you were talking about with just posting a link or a comment with no context.

Regardless, the text you produced wasn't a scientific paper, it was a mass market book. It's also just discussing the possibility of tachyons, and theoretical ideas.  Even in the part quoted it says it MAY suggest.

Most scientists don't accept that interpretation.

It certainly is not proof that tachyons exist.  It's just talking about what if they did, what might they be like.  Using that to claim they are real and exist and proven is just simply wrong.

Sandokhan says that "negative mass" is what matters
Title: Re: Pretending Subquarks actually exist!
Post by: rabinoz on July 13, 2020, 05:57:08 AM
Sandokhan says that "negative mass" is what matters
Well, if he does he's wrong! It's "imaginary mass" that matters.
Title: Re: Pretending Subquarks actually exist!
Post by: JJA on July 13, 2020, 05:59:18 AM
Here is sourse for my last message: https://books.google.ro/books?id=rbnnCAAAQBAJ&pg=PA116&lpg=PA116&dq=recami+causality+and+locality+in+modern+physics&source=bl&ots=SBg7aSPPIm&sig=ACfU3U1tigeNMq4GT_hDHRW3mfONQYHIBA&hl=en&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwjCzdDLscjqAhWDtIsKHVFxB0cQ6AEwAnoECAcQAQ#v=onepage&q=recami%20causality%20and%20locality%20in%20modern%20physics&f=false
So?

It isn't out of context anymore

You should include more context when quoting, it can be hard to remember what you were talking about with just posting a link or a comment with no context.

Regardless, the text you produced wasn't a scientific paper, it was a mass market book. It's also just discussing the possibility of tachyons, and theoretical ideas.  Even in the part quoted it says it MAY suggest.

Most scientists don't accept that interpretation.

It certainly is not proof that tachyons exist.  It's just talking about what if they did, what might they be like.  Using that to claim they are real and exist and proven is just simply wrong.

Sandokhan says that "negative mass" is what matters

Sandokhan says a lot of things. His misunderstanding of what those numbers represent don't really count as proof either. Those results say the mass

Tacyons are no more real and proven than magic talking dragons. We have not seen any evidence of either. Sandokhan can quote mine random books, and so can I.  Here is my source.

(https://i.imgur.com/I8XJbVr.jpg)
Title: Re: Pretending Subquarks actually exist!
Post by: Code-Beta1234 on July 13, 2020, 07:16:35 AM
Sandokhan says that "negative mass" is what matters
Well, if he does he's wrong! It's "imaginary mass" that matters.

Book said so. Do i need to make red srcle pointing where?
Title: Re: Pretending Subquarks actually exist!
Post by: JJA on July 13, 2020, 07:24:24 AM
Sandokhan says that "negative mass" is what matters
Well, if he does he's wrong! It's "imaginary mass" that matters.

Book said so. Do i need to make red srcle pointing where?

Dragons are real too.  Book said so.

Just because someone says something in a book does not make it real, especially when the book didn't even say that.

(https://i.imgur.com/I8XJbVr.jpg)
Title: Re: Pretending Subquarks actually exist!
Post by: Stash on July 13, 2020, 12:54:06 PM
Sandokhan says that "negative mass" is what matters
Well, if he does he's wrong! It's "imaginary mass" that matters.

Book said so. Do i need to make red srcle pointing where?

Do I need to point out in a red circle where it says:

"With a low statistical significance" and "this may be interpreted..." = hypothetical/theoretical
Title: Re: Pretending Subquarks actually exist!
Post by: JackBlack on July 13, 2020, 01:41:13 PM
Sandokhan says that "negative mass" is what matters
And like I pointed out he doesn't understand the difference between negative mass and imaginary mass.

The sources he clings to do not claim a negative mass.
They say negative mass squared. That means an imaginary mass.
Book said so. Do i need to make red srcle pointing where?
Here, let me help:
(https://i.imgur.com/2UZxAyy.png)
Title: Re: Pretending Subquarks actually exist!
Post by: rabinoz on July 13, 2020, 01:43:18 PM
Sandokhan says that "negative mass" is what matters
Well, if he does he's wrong! It's "imaginary mass" that matters.

Book said so. Do i need to make red srcle pointing where?
And why does that make it right?
Title: Re: Pretending Subquarks actually exist!
Post by: Code-Beta1234 on July 13, 2020, 02:44:39 PM
Sandokhan says that "negative mass" is what matters
And like I pointed out he doesn't understand the difference between negative mass and imaginary mass.

The sources he clings to do not claim a negative mass.
They say negative mass squared. That means an imaginary mass.
Book said so. Do i need to make red srcle pointing where?
Here, let me help:
(https://i.imgur.com/2UZxAyy.png)

Wait. I am sorry. It seems you are right. It says mass squared. So it isn't anything new?
Title: Re: Pretending Subquarks actually exist!
Post by: NotSoSkeptical on July 13, 2020, 03:29:31 PM
Sandokhan says that "negative mass" is what matters
And like I pointed out he doesn't understand the difference between negative mass and imaginary mass.

The sources he clings to do not claim a negative mass.
They say negative mass squared. That means an imaginary mass.
Book said so. Do i need to make red srcle pointing where?
Here, let me help:
(https://i.imgur.com/2UZxAyy.png)

Wait. I am sorry. It seems you are right. It says mass squared. So it isn't anything new?

It also says "experimental" right next to the "squared-mass"
Title: Re: Pretending Subquarks actually exist!
Post by: JackBlack on July 13, 2020, 04:50:01 PM
Wait. I am sorry. It seems you are right. It says mass squared. So it isn't anything new?
No, it is Sandy not understanding the difference.

It comes from many different locations, perhaps the easiest is the relativistic mass correction.
A key part in many transformations is the term:
gamma=1/sqrt(1 - v^2/c^2).
If you have v>c, this means you have 1 minus some number larger than 1, which means you have the square root of a negative number, which is imaginary.

Thus in order for the mass to make sense, using the standard relativistic mass correction m=m0*gamma, the rest mass needs to be imaginary.
This also ties into various other equations.

So a tachyon should have imaginary mass.
Title: Re: Pretending Subquarks actually exist!
Post by: Timeisup on July 14, 2020, 07:50:21 AM
I don't know why people are arguing the toss about sub-atomic particles when no one has the resources or means to establish the truth. The only recourse we have to listen to what the experts say on the matter without distorting what they actually say. Why people choose to distort science and just make things up is a mystery.

For experts, CERN is a good place to start as they have the experimental means to establish the truth of the matter or to confirm what we actually know

https://home.cern/science/physics/standard-model

This is what they say:-

Matter particles
All matter around us is made of elementary particles, the building blocks of matter. These particles occur in two basic types called quarks and leptons. Each group consists of six particles, which are related in pairs, or “generations”. The lightest and most stable particles make up the first generation, whereas the heavier and less-stable particles belong to the second and third generations. All stable matter in the universe is made from particles that belong to the first generation; any heavier particles quickly decay to more stable ones. The six quarks are paired in three generations – the “up quark” and the “down quark” form the first generation, followed by the “charm quark” and “strange quark”, then the “top quark” and “bottom (or beauty) quark”. Quarks also come in three different “colours” and only mix in such ways as to form colourless objects. The six leptons are similarly arranged in three generations – the “electron” and the “electron neutrino”, the “muon” and the “muon neutrino”, and the “tau” and the “tau neutrino”. The electron, the muon and the tau all have an electric charge and a sizeable mass, whereas the neutrinos are electrically neutral and have very little mass.


Forces and carrier particles
There are four fundamental forces at work in the universe: the strong force, the weak force, the electromagnetic force, and the gravitational force. They work over different ranges and have different strengths. Gravity is the weakest but it has an infinite range. The electromagnetic force also has infinite range but it is many times stronger than gravity. The weak and strong forces are effective only over a very short range and dominate only at the level of subatomic particles. Despite its name, the weak force is much stronger than gravity but it is indeed the weakest of the other three. The strong force, as the name suggests, is the strongest of all four fundamental interactions. Three of the fundamental forces result from the exchange of force-carrier particles, which belong to a broader group called “bosons”. Particles of matter transfer discrete amounts of energy by exchanging bosons with each other. Each fundamental force has its own corresponding boson – the strong force is carried by the “gluon”, the electromagnetic force is carried by the “photon”, and the “W and Z bosons” are responsible for the weak force. Although not yet found, the “graviton” should be the corresponding force-carrying particle of gravity. The Standard Model includes the electromagnetic, strong and weak forces and all their carrier particles, and explains well how these forces act on all of the matter particles. However, the most familiar force in our everyday lives, gravity, is not part of the Standard Model, as fitting gravity comfortably into this framework has proved to be a difficult challenge. The quantum theory used to describe the micro world, and the general theory of relativity used to describe the macro world, are difficult to fit into a single framework. No one has managed to make the two mathematically compatible in the context of the Standard Model. But luckily for particle physics, when it comes to the minuscule scale of particles, the effect of gravity is so weak as to be negligible. Only when matter is in bulk, at the scale of the human body or of the planets for example, does the effect of gravity dominate. So the Standard Model still works well despite its reluctant exclusion of one of the fundamental forces.

So far so good, but
......it is not time for physicists to call it a day just yet. Even though the Standard Model is currently the best description there is of the subatomic world, it does not explain the complete picture. The theory incorporates only three out of the four fundamental forces, omitting gravity. There are also important questions that it does not answer, such as “What is dark matter?”, or “What happened to the antimatter after the big bang?”, “Why are there three generations of quarks and leptons with such a different mass scale?” and more. Last but not least is a particle called the Higgs boson, an essential component of the Standard Model.On 4 July 2012, the ATLAS and CMS experiments at CERN's Large Hadron Collider (LHC) announced they had each observed a new particle in the mass region around 126 GeV. This particle is consistent with the Higgs boson but it will take further work to determine whether or not it is the Higgs boson predicted by the Standard Model. The Higgs boson, as proposed within the Standard Model, is the simplest manifestation of the Brout-Englert-Higgs mechanism. Other types of Higgs bosons are predicted by other theories that go beyond the Standard Model.On 8 October 2013 the Nobel prize in physics was awarded jointly to François Englert and Peter Higgs “for the theoretical discovery of a mechanism that contributes to our understanding of the origin of mass of subatomic particles, and which recently was confirmed through the discovery of the predicted fundamental particle, by the ATLAS and CMS experiments at CERN's Large Hadron Collider”.So although the Standard Model accurately describes the phenomena within its domain, it is still incomplete. Perhaps it is only a part of a bigger picture that includes new physics hidden deep in the subatomic world or in the dark recesses of the universe. New information from experiments at the LHC will help us to find more of these missing pieces.


Conclusion.

Sub Quarks, have never been discovered
No Nobel prize has ever been given for their discovery as they have not been discovered.

Gravitons have never been discovered and are no more than hypothetical.

Muon neutrino have a tiny mass which is not negative as far as CERN is concerned.


Do tachyons exist?

                There was a young lady named Bright,
                Whose speed was far faster than light.
                She went out one day,
                In a relative way,
                And returned the previous night!

                        — Reginald Buller

In a word no, or not as far as we know.



When it comes to the latest squabble over Neutrinos, this is what CERN has to say, after all it is their experiment. You might not like what it says, but unless you have your own similar experiment or have access to the results, there is little you can do but accept the work of the experts.

The CERN Neutrinos to Gran Sasso (CNGS) project aimed to unravel some of the mysteries surrounding neutrinos - light, neutral particles that hardly interact with matter. Three types or "flavours" of neutrino exist: the electron neutrino, the muon neutrino and the tau neutrino. But it seems that neutrinos are the chameleons of the particle world: they can change from one flavour into another. This phenomenon, called “oscillation”, occurs as neutrinos travel long distances through matter. The process is directly related to the neutrinos' tiny mass.

From July 2006 to December 2012, the CNGS project sent muon neutrinos from CERN to the Gran Sasso National Laboratory (LNGS), 732 kilometres away in Italy. Neutrinos interact so weakly with other particles that they pass easily through the intervening rock. At Gran Sasso, two experiments, OPERA and ICARUS, wait to find out if any of the muon neutrinos have transformed into tau neutrinos.

To create the neutrino beam, a beam of protons from the Super Proton Synchrotron at CERN was directed onto a graphite target. The collisions created particles called pions and kaons, which were fed into a system of two magnetic lenses that focused the particles into a parallel beam in the direction of Gran Sasso. The pions and kaons then decayed into muons and muon neutrinos in a 1-kilometre tunnel. At the end of the tunnel, a block of graphite and metal 18 metres thick absorbed protons as well as pions and kaons that did not decay. Muons were stopped by the rock beyond, but the muon neutrinos remained to streak through the rock on their journey to Italy.


Title: Re: Pretending Subquarks actually exist!
Post by: Code-Beta1234 on July 14, 2020, 09:59:04 AM
That wall of text made me think you are sandokhan :)
Title: Re: Pretending Subquarks actually exist!
Post by: Timeisup on July 14, 2020, 02:28:36 PM
That wall of text made me think you are sandokhan :)

It's not a wall, it's not a barrier. If you care to read it you may learn something.
Title: Re: Pretending Subquarks actually exist!
Post by: Code-Beta1234 on July 17, 2020, 12:37:32 PM
Why did you guys stop debating zeta zeros?
Title: Re: Pretending Subquarks actually exist!
Post by: NotSoSkeptical on July 17, 2020, 12:45:40 PM
Why did you guys stop debating zeta zeros?

Sando gave up.
Title: Re: Pretending Subquarks actually exist!
Post by: sandokhan on July 17, 2020, 12:54:36 PM
Why did you guys stop debating zeta zeros?

You are continuously bumping up threads for no reason at all.

This is forbidden by the rules of this forum.

You seemingly ask innocent questions, which are always directed against me, while providing a chance for the RE to of course use the opportunity to negate facts once again.

The reason why the debate on zeta zeros is over should be obvious to you: I was able to derive the second zeta zero using the exact ratios, as requested by the RE.

Title: Re: Pretending Subquarks actually exist!
Post by: NotSoSkeptical on July 17, 2020, 12:56:34 PM
Why did you guys stop debating zeta zeros?

You are continuously bumping up threads for no reason at all.

This is forbidden by the rules of this forum.

You seemingly ask innocent questions, which are always directed against me, while providing a chance for the RE to of course use the opportunity to negate facts once again.

The reason why the debate on zeta zeros is over should be obvious to you: I was able to derive the second zeta zero using the exact ratios, as requested by the RE.

You derived nothing and provided no formula.
Title: Re: Pretending Subquarks actually exist!
Post by: sokarul on July 17, 2020, 12:57:11 PM
Yet I’m still waiting for an answer. I have 10 tons of gold for you when you tell me how to turn lead into gold.
Title: Re: Pretending Subquarks actually exist!
Post by: sandokhan on July 17, 2020, 12:59:14 PM
The value of the second zero of the zeta function, to four decimal places accuracy, using only the five elements subdivision applied to both zeta functions as a guide, with the exact ratios.

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg2082278#msg2082278

T/20
T/10
3T/20
T x 0.254545454

T = 63.6363636363

63.6363636363
16.19835
9.54545454
6.36363636
3.18181818

47.43801
12.07513

35.36288
9.00146

26.361424
6.71018

19.65124
5.002134

14.64911
3.72886

10.92025
2.7797

8.14055
2.07214
1.2210825

6.06841
1.54468

4.52372
1.1515

3.37223
0.858386


3.181818
0.80997
0.47727
0.3181818
0.1591


14.134725 + 6.36363 = 20.49836

20.49836 + 0.809917 = 21.30828


2.7797

22.275274

2.07214

20.20313


Upper bound: 21.30828

Lower bound: 20.49836


1.2210825

21.05419: new upper bound


20.49836 + 0.47727 = 20.97563


2.07214 - 1.2210825 = 0.8510575

0.8510575
0.21663277
0.127658
0.08510575
0.0425528

Substracting the bottom four values successively from 21.05419:

20.837557
20.9265
20.9691
21.011637

21.011637 is the new lower bound for the entire approximation.


0.809917 - 0.47727 = 0.332697135

0.332697135
0.0846738
0.049897
0.0332647

Adding the bottom four values successively to 20.97563:

21.0603
21.025527
21.00889

21.025527 is the new upper bound for the entire approximation.


0.049897 - 0.0332647 = 0.0166232

0.0166232
0.00423376

21.00889 + 0.00423376 = 21. 013124

0.0166232 - 0.00423376 = 0.0123985

0.0123985
0.00315589

21.013124 + 0.00315589 = 21.01628

21.01628 is the new lower bound.


0.0425528
0.01083162

21.05419  - 0.01083162 = 21.043358

0.0425528 - 0.01083162 = 0.031721329

0.031721329
0.00807452

21.043358 - 0.00807452 = 21.035283

0.031721329 - 0.00807452 = 0.0236468

0.0236468
0.00601918

21.035283 - 0.00601918 = 21.029264

0.0236468 - 0.00601918 = 0.0176276

0.0176276
0.00448703

21.029264 - 0.00448703 = 21.024777

21.024777 is the new upper bound.


0.0123985 - 0.00315589= 0.00924251

0.00924251
0.00235214

21.01628 + 0.00235214 = 21.01863

0.00924251 - 0.00235214 = 0.0068899

0.0068899
0.00175378

21.01863 + 0.00175378 = 21.02038

0.0068899 - 0.00175378 = 0.00513612

0.00513612
0.00130735

21.02038 + 0.00130735= 21.021687

21.021687 is the new lower bound.

0.00513612 - 0.00130735 = 0.00382867

0.00382867
0.00097457
0.0005743005
0.000382867
0.0001914335

Adding the bottom four values successively to 21.021687:

21.02266
21.02226
21.02206987
21.0218784


0.0176276 - 0.00448703 = 0.01314057

0.01314057
0.00334487
0.00187185
0.00131457

Substracting the bottom three values successively from 21.024777:

21.021432
21.022805
21.02346


21.02266 is the new upper bound.


0.00334487 - 0.00187185= 0.00137302

0.00137302
0.000349496
0.000205953

Substracting the last two values from 21.022805:

21.0224557
21.0226

21.0224557 is the new upper bound.


Since 21.02226 is a lower value than 22.0224557, 21.02226 is the new upper bound.


0.00137302 - 0.000349496 = 0.001023524

0.001023524
0.000260533

21.0224557 - 0.000260533 =21.022195

21.022195 is the new upper bound.

0.001023524 - 0.000260533 = 0.000763

0.000763
0.000194216
0.00011444865
0.0000763
0.00003815

Already we can observe 11.444 = 2.861 x 4 and 3.815 = 6sc.

Substracting the bottom four values from 21.022195:

21.02200085
21.02208055
21.022188
21.022157

21.02200085 is the new lower bound.


The true value for the second zeta zero is:

21.022039639

Already we have obtained a five digit/three decimal place approximation:

21.0220


It is the values of the ratios that matter: they converge to the correct zeta zero value.




Title: Re: Pretending Subquarks actually exist!
Post by: NotSoSkeptical on July 17, 2020, 01:12:31 PM
Spamming a bunch of numbers is not a formula nor an algorithm.
Title: Re: Pretending Subquarks actually exist!
Post by: JJA on July 17, 2020, 01:34:24 PM
An algorithm would explain all the steps without actually showing the calculations.

1. Take X, divide it by Y, if the number is bigger than 5 go to step 3...

That's how you write out an algorithm in simple terms.  Just a set of instructions.

I have yet to see more than a few vague instructions followed by massive number spam, over and over.
Title: Re: Pretending Subquarks actually exist!
Post by: sandokhan on July 17, 2020, 01:38:02 PM
I was able to produce the values of the first eight zeta zeros using the same algorithm.

On top of that, zeros #21 and #50.

It sure works.

Remember, the leading expert on the distribution of the zeta zeros in the world said this:

It is my belief that RH is a genuinely arithmetic question that likely will not succumb to methods of analysis. Number theorists are on the right track to an eventual proof of RH, but we are still lacking many of the tools.

J. Brian Conrey

Which is exactly what I have accomplished!
Title: Re: Pretending Subquarks actually exist!
Post by: JJA on July 17, 2020, 01:40:34 PM
I was able to produce the values of the first eight zeta zeros using the same algorithm.

On top of that, zeros #21 and #50.

It sure works.

Remember, the leading expert on the distribution of the zeta zeros in the world said this:

It is my belief that RH is a genuinely arithmetic question that likely will not succumb to methods of analysis. Number theorists are on the right track to an eventual proof of RH, but we are still lacking many of the tools.

J. Brian Conrey

Which is exactly what I have accomplished!

You post lists of numbers with bad math and missing steps.  You have not produced anything that works.

And quoting some guy who said something about RH doesn't prove anything but you can copy-paste quotes.

Show your full algorithm WITHOUT ALL THE NUMBER SPAM.  You can't do it.
Title: Re: Pretending Subquarks actually exist!
Post by: sandokhan on July 17, 2020, 01:43:13 PM
JJApe, please use the CN to post your nonsense.

The fifth zeta zero, to three decimal places accuracy, using only the five elements subdivision applied to both zeta functions as a guide.

63.636363
16.1773
9.5445
6.36363
3.1815

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg2006301#msg2006301 (basic subdivision of the first 63.63636 sacred cubit interval into five elements ratios)

16.1773 + 2.373 = 32.685

4.7459 - 2.373 = 2.373

2.373
0.6033
0.356
0.2373
0.118645

Adding to the bottom four values to 32.685:

33.2883
33.041
32.9223
32.8036


1.968

31.8494

0.984

32.8294

6.7106

33.8

32.8294 is the first lower bound.

Since 32.9223 is a higher lower bound, this value is the lower bound of the entire approximation.

To find the first upper bound, we need to subdivide the intervals for the second zeta function further, in order to find a lower upper bound than 33.041.

0.98422
0.25023

33.8 - 0.25023 = 33.55

0.98422 - 0.25023 = 0.734

0.734
0.18661

33.55 - 0.18661 = 33.364

0.734 - 0.18661 = 0.5474

0.5474
0.139171

33.364 - 0.139171 = 33.225

0.5474 - 0.139171 = 0.40823

0.40823
0.103788

33.225 - 0.103788 = 33.1212

0.40823 - 0.103788 = 0.304442

0.304442
0.0774

33.1212 - 0.0774 = 33.0438

0.304442 - 0.0774 = 0.227042

0.227042
0.05772

33.0438 - 0.05772 = 32.9861

32.9861 is the new upper bound of the entire approximation.


0.356 - 0.23729 = 0.11871

0.11871
0.0302
0.01781
0.011871
0.0059355

Adding the bottom four values to 32.9223:

32.9525
32.9401
32.9342
32.928

32.9401 is the new upper bound.


Returning to the subdivisions for the second zeta function.

0.227042 - 0.05772 = 0.16932

0.16932
0.04305

32.9861 - 0.04305 = 32.94305

0.16932 - 0.04305 = 0.12627

0.12627
0.0321
0.01894
0.012627
0.0063135

Substracting the bottom four values from 32.94305:

32.911
32.9241
32.9304
32.93673

32.93672 is the new upper bound.

0.012627 - 0.0063135 = 0.0063135

0.0063135
0.0016052
0.000947
0.00063135
0.000315675

Substracting the bottom four values from 32.93673:

32.935125
32.935783
32.9361
32.936414


Returning to the subdivisions for the first zeta function.

0.01781 - 0.011871 = 0.0059355

0.0059355
0.001509
0.000891
0.00059355
0.000297

Adding the bottom four values to 32.9342:

32.93571
32.935091
32.9348
32.9345

Since 32.935091 is a lower value than 32.935125, this figure is the new upper bound of the entire approximation.

0.0063135 - 0.0016052 = 0.0047083

0.0047083
0.00119704
0.000706245
0.00047083
0.000235415

Substracting the last figure from 32.935125 we obtain 32.93489.

Since this is greater value than 32.9348, it becomes the new lower bound of the entire approximation.

This is further proof that 32.935125 was an upper bound, and that 32.935091 is the new upper bound for the entire approximation.

The true value for the fifth zeta zero is:

32.935061588

Already we have obtained a five digit/three decimal place approximation:

32.935091


Further subdivisions for greater accuracy.

0.00047083 - 0.000235415 = 0.000235415

0.000235415
0.000059852
0.0000353
0.0000235415
0.000011771

Substracting the bottom four values from 32.935125:

32.935065
32.935089
32.935101
32.935113


Returning to the subdivisions for the first zeta function.

0.000891 - 0.00029745 = 0.00029745

0.00029745
0.000075624

32.9348 + 0.000075624 = 32.9348756

0.00029745 - 0.000075624 = 0.000221826

0.000221826
0.0000564

32.9348756 + 0.0000564 = 32.93492

0.000165426
0.000042055

32.93492 + 0.000042055 = 32.934962

0.00012337
0.000031366

32.934962 + 0.000031366 = 32.9349934

0.000092334
0.000023475

32.9349934 + 0.000023475 = 32.93501688

0.000068859
0.0000175067

32.93501688 + 0.0000175067 = 32.9350344

0.000051353
0.000013056

32.9350344 + 0.000013056 = 32.93504746

0.000038297
0.00000973663

32.93504746 + 0.00000973663 = 32.9350572

0.000028561
0.00000726135

32.9350572 + 0.00000726135 = 32.93506446

This becomes the new upper bound of the entire approximation (a value smaller than 32.935065 obtained from the second zeta function subdivision).

0.000028561
0.00000726135
0.00000428415

32.9350572 + 0.00000428415 = 32.93506148

The true value for the fifth zeta zero is:

32.935061588

Already we have obtained an eight digit/six decimal place accuracy:

32.93506148


You are no mathematician.

If you were, you'd realize that it is IMPOSSIBLE to obtain this accuracy if I did not have an algorithm.
Title: Re: Pretending Subquarks actually exist!
Post by: JJA on July 17, 2020, 01:46:19 PM
JJApe, please use the CN to post your nonsense.

The fifth zeta zero, to three decimal places accuracy, using only the five elements subdivision applied to both zeta functions as a guide.

[ Tons of numbers deleted. ]


You have been asked a hundred times now to show the instructions, not just spam a bunch of numbers.  I can do that too.

Here, have a Zeta Zero based on Code-Beta's numbers. I even used them twice just to get more accuracy.

47.5924-76.1253+81.3398/68.1104*57.0099/122.9382+73.2832/47.5924+76.1253/81.3398-68.1104-57.0099+122.9382*73.2832 = 8858.6809997
Title: Re: Pretending Subquarks actually exist!
Post by: sandokhan on July 17, 2020, 01:50:24 PM
47.5924-76.1253+81.3398/68.1104*57.0099/122.9382+73.2832/47.5924+76.1253/81.3398-68.1104-57.0099+122.9382*73.2832 = 8858.6809997

Only someone who inherited the IQ of an ape could have written something like that.


I provided an algorithm which displays the fifth zeta zero to SIX DECIMAL PLACES ACCURACY.

Now, it is your turn to show to everyone where an error might lie.

If you cannot, you must shut up, and accept my results.

Title: Re: Pretending Subquarks actually exist!
Post by: JJA on July 17, 2020, 02:01:00 PM
47.5924-76.1253+81.3398/68.1104*57.0099/122.9382+73.2832/47.5924+76.1253/81.3398-68.1104-57.0099+122.9382*73.2832 = 8858.6809997

Only someone who inherited the IQ of an ape could have written something like that.


I provided an algorithm which displays the fifth zeta zero to SIX DECIMAL PLACES ACCURACY.

Oh yeah?  Mine is accurate to 6 places too.

Now, it is your turn to show to everyone where an error might lie.

If you cannot, you must shut up, and accept my results.

Ok.  Lets see...

16.1773 + 2.373 = 32.685

I'd say an error lies right here. 16.1773 + 2.373 = 18.5503

You are no mathematician.

If you were, you'd realize that it is IMPOSSIBLE to obtain this accuracy if I did not have an algorithm.

You still haven't shown an algorithm, just adding and subtracting numbers and picking numbers seemingly at random.

If you can't describe every step without just throwing a bunch of numbers out there, you do NOT have an algorithm.

You just have a bunch of numbers pulled out of the same place mine came from.
Title: Re: Pretending Subquarks actually exist!
Post by: sandokhan on July 17, 2020, 02:04:06 PM
14.1347 + 16.1773 + 2.373 = 32.685

Very easy to discern.

You must show where an error might lie.

If you cannot, you must accept my results.

I used the same algorithm for each zeta zero.

Title: Re: Pretending Subquarks actually exist!
Post by: JJA on July 17, 2020, 02:08:00 PM
14.1347 + 16.1773 + 2.373 = 32.685

Very easy to discern.

You must show where an error might lie.

If you cannot, you must accept my results.

I used the same algorithm for each zeta zero.

LOL.

Of course, I should have just inferred you left out that particular number.

That wasn't an error, you just... left out a number by... well a mistake is an error so you left it out on purpose.  I see.

You still haven't shown an algorithm.  Until you can show it without using zeta numbers, it's just you posting a bunch of numbers without explaining what you're doing.

Here, have another of mine.

122.9382-76.1253/68.1104+57.0099*47.5924*73.2832-81.3398 = 198875.241144

Again, six decimal places!  Amazing.  I can do this with any set of numbers.
Title: Re: Pretending Subquarks actually exist!
Post by: sandokhan on July 17, 2020, 02:11:02 PM
122.9382-76.1253/68.1104+57.0099*47.5924*73.2832-81.3398 = 198875.241144

47.5924-76.1253+81.3398/68.1104*57.0099/122.9382+73.2832/47.5924+76.1253/81.3398-68.1104-57.0099+122.9382*73.2832 = 8858.6809997


In order to walk upright like a human, you must give up monkeying around.

That's not an algorithm: a repeatable sequence of logical operations.

I use the same algorithm for each zeta zero.

A huge difference.
Title: Re: Pretending Subquarks actually exist!
Post by: sokarul on July 17, 2020, 02:13:05 PM
Is he an ape or monkey?
Title: Re: Pretending Subquarks actually exist!
Post by: Code-Beta1234 on July 17, 2020, 02:16:28 PM
Why did you guys stop debating zeta zeros?

You are continuously bumping up threads for no reason at all.

This is forbidden by the rules of this forum.

You seemingly ask innocent questions, which are always directed against me, while providing a chance for the RE to of course use the opportunity to negate facts once again.

The reason why the debate on zeta zeros is over should be obvious to you: I was able to derive the second zeta zero using the exact ratios, as requested by the RE.

How did you realise i am aganist you? When talking about zeta zeros I am on your side. I asked few times that if you are wrong, how do you get accurate numbers. Futhermore, how do you manage to get zera zero form zeta zero if you are wrong?
Title: Re: Pretending Subquarks actually exist!
Post by: JackBlack on July 17, 2020, 02:33:19 PM
Why did you guys stop debating zeta zeros?
Sandokhan refused to justify his numbers by providing an actual algorithm.
After repeatedly having his claims shown to be entirely baseless, he fled.

The reason why the debate on zeta zeros is over should be obvious to you: I was able to derive the second zeta zero using the exact ratios, as requested by the RE.
It is obvious, you have no algorithm and instead just spam a bunch of numbers to pretend to have one.
When continually pushed, you fled.
You were unable to derive anything of significance and then when you decided to "correct" the math mistakes you had, you just magically changed the numbers with no explanation at all.

The value of the second zero of the zeta function, to four decimal places accuracy, using only the five elements subdivision applied to both zeta functions as a guide, with the exact ratios.
Again, provide the algorithm. Don't just spam a bunch of numbers.

I was able to produce the values of the first eight zeta zeros using the same algorithm.
What algorithm?
You mean you have been able to produce the first eight zeroes (by which I assume you mean 2 through 8 or 2 through 9) by just making up numbers and pretending to have an algorithm.

You are still yet to produce any algorithm for anyone to reproduce.


We are under no obligation to show any error in any of your steps until you actually provide a clear algorithm clearly showing what all these steps are.
That is because until you actually provide this algorithm, all your numbers may as well have been pulled from thin air and you are free to change the underlying calculations to pretend they are all correct.
Just like you changed the factors you use for your 5 element subdivision.

Again, just spouting numbers is not an algorithm.

You have no justification at all for any of your steps.
For example, you have this:
Quote
14.134725 + 6.36363 = 20.49836
20.49836 + 0.809917 = 21.30828
2.7797
22.275274
2.07214
20.20313
Upper bound: 21.30828
Lower bound: 20.49836
Why pick those values to make your upper and lower bound?
What are all the other numbers being used for? Where did they come from?

You then have this:
Quote
1.2210825
21.05419: new upper bound
WHY?
There is no justification at all.

You may as well just be pulling numbers from thin air.

In order to have an algorithm you need to be able to justify each step.
So far all you have been able to justify is that you take T and multiply it by f1 through f4, to produce 4 different numbers. This can then be repeated with any of the resulting numbers or any distance between them.
But that in no way helps you reach any of the zeta zeroes with any justification.

So how about another nice simple question. See if you can answer it:
If I want to find the nth zeta zero, what do I add to z1 (the first zeta zero) to get my first lower bound?
Title: Re: Pretending Subquarks actually exist!
Post by: JJA on July 17, 2020, 02:36:58 PM
122.9382-76.1253/68.1104+57.0099*47.5924*73.2832-81.3398 = 198875.241144

47.5924-76.1253+81.3398/68.1104*57.0099/122.9382+73.2832/47.5924+76.1253/81.3398-68.1104-57.0099+122.9382*73.2832 = 8858.6809997


In order to walk upright like a human, you must give up monkeying around.

That's not an algorithm: a repeatable sequence of logical operations.

I use the same algorithm for each zeta zero.

A huge difference.

No, you are doing exactly what I did... you just posted a bunch of numbers without justification or explaining every step.

Why don't you follow your own advice, and post a repeatable set of logical operations WITHOUT USING ANY ZETA NUMBERS.

Don't just cop-paste your massive number spam again, but of course... you're going to do it, aren't you...
Title: Re: Pretending Subquarks actually exist!
Post by: Timeisup on July 17, 2020, 02:45:23 PM
It’s all just an irrelevant smokescreen. His list of numbers are meaningless just as his claims that subquarks exist. In fact as I have said before it fits into his pattern of claiming things that are not true.

He claimed he invented and made a perpetual motion machine.
He claimed Covid-19 was not a virus
He claimed gravitons had been discovered
He claimed subquarks had been discovered
He claimed ancient Egyptians turned lead into gold

Etc etc.... Sandokhan has a track record of just making things up!
Title: Re: Pretending Subquarks actually exist!
Post by: MouseWalker on July 17, 2020, 06:11:33 PM
122.9382-76.1253/68.1104+57.0099*47.5924*73.2832-81.3398 = 198875.241144

47.5924-76.1253+81.3398/68.1104*57.0099/122.9382+73.2832/47.5924+76.1253/81.3398-68.1104-57.0099+122.9382*73.2832 = 8858.6809997


In order to walk upright like a human, you must give up monkeying around.

That's not an algorithm: a repeatable sequence of logical operations.

I use the same algorithm for each zeta zero.

A huge difference.

pleas show the algorithm I have yet to see it : all I have seen is a list of numbers. how did you get the numbers?
show something like the algorithm ( a + b) / c = x : the algorithm in use  ( 10 + 40 ) / 2 = 25.
just one set of numbers will do.
Title: Re: Pretending Subquarks actually exist!
Post by: rabinoz on July 17, 2020, 06:56:44 PM
It’s all just an irrelevant smokescreen. His list of numbers are meaningless just as his claims that subquarks exist. In fact as I have said before it fits into his pattern of claiming things that are not true.

He claimed he invented and made a perpetual motion machine.
He claimed Covid-19 was not a virus
He claimed gravitons had been discovered
He claimed subquarks had been discovered
He claimed ancient Egyptians turned lead into gold

Etc etc.... Sandokhan has a track record of just making things up!
It goes further! Sandokhan reads a lot on the 0ccult :o and seems to believe in it.
We know that Tycho Brahe was an astrologer (part of his paid job) and Isaac Newton also believed in the occult and hypothesized that it might be connected with gravitation's apparent "action" at a distance.

But alchemistry and the occult were just part of science of those days with Newton marking a transition to "modern science".
Title: Re: Pretending Subquarks actually exist!
Post by: Code-Beta1234 on July 18, 2020, 12:37:34 AM
Quote
He claimed he invented and made a perpetual motion machine.

Can you please show thread where it happend?
Title: Re: Pretending Subquarks actually exist!
Post by: Timeisup on July 18, 2020, 02:15:07 AM
Quote
He claimed he invented and made a perpetual motion machine.

Can you please show thread where it happend?

Why don’t you get it from the horse’s mouth, go ask Sandokhan, it was him who claimed to have designed and built such a machine.
Title: Re: Pretending Subquarks actually exist!
Post by: Code-Beta1234 on August 11, 2020, 08:17:19 AM
Sandokhan says that "negative mass" is what matters
And like I pointed out he doesn't understand the difference between negative mass and imaginary mass.

The sources he clings to do not claim a negative mass.
They say negative mass squared. That means an imaginary mass.
Book said so. Do i need to make red srcle pointing where?
Here, let me help:
(https://i.imgur.com/2UZxAyy.png)

Wait. I am sorry. It seems you are right. It says mass squared. So it isn't anything new?

Also, sandokhan has few other papers on his dispoisal.

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg2269599#msg2269599
Title: Re: Pretending Subquarks actually exist!
Post by: JackBlack on August 11, 2020, 03:09:58 PM
Also, sandokhan has few other papers on his dispoisal.
And how many actually support his claims?

He is good at finding papers to pretend that his claims are justified, but he has much more difficulty with finding those that actually support his claim.
Title: Re: Pretending Subquarks actually exist!
Post by: NotSoSkeptical on August 11, 2020, 04:32:33 PM
Ah, so I see we are back to this topic.

Subquarks are hypothetical.  Meaning they exist only in theory.  There is no proof that they exist outside of that theory.
Title: Re: Pretending Subquarks actually exist!
Post by: Code-Beta1234 on November 25, 2020, 09:25:52 AM
Quote
He claimed he invented and made a perpetual motion machine.

Can you please show thread where it happend?

Why don’t you get it from the horse’s mouth, go ask Sandokhan, it was him who claimed to have designed and built such a machine.

Or maybie he quoted someone who said he made it?

Also, here and in many other debates globe side pointed sandokhan linking papers which don't quite support his claims. But here, he linked paper which didn't support his claims just to show what math it used!

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=87190.msg2284740#msg2284740

P.S maybie scientists who published graviton and subquark findings got blackmailed and supressed so ther findings don't become famous.
Title: Re: Pretending Subquarks actually exist!
Post by: Stash on November 25, 2020, 10:25:25 AM
Quote
He claimed he invented and made a perpetual motion machine.

Can you please show thread where it happend?

Why don’t you get it from the horse’s mouth, go ask Sandokhan, it was him who claimed to have designed and built such a machine.

Or maybie he quoted someone who said he made it?

Also, here and in many other debates globe side pointed sandokhan linking papers which don't quite support his claims. But here, he linked paper which didn't support his claims just to show what math it used!

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=87190.msg2284740#msg2284740

P.S maybie scientists who published graviton and subquark findings got blackmailed and supressed so ther findings don't become famous.

pps, maybe that is a completely made up statement and makes no sense.
Title: Re: Pretending Subquarks actually exist!
Post by: JackBlack on November 25, 2020, 12:51:22 PM
P.S maybie scientists who published graviton and subquark findings got blackmailed and supressed so ther findings don't become famous.
There are a few quite big issues with that:
1 - What is the motivation? Absolutely none.
2 - Some other scientist would then likely discoverer it and release it anyway.
3 - Why allow all the research on it in the first place then?
Title: Re: Pretending Subquarks actually exist!
Post by: Code-Beta1234 on November 25, 2020, 03:34:53 PM
P.S maybie scientists who published graviton and subquark findings got blackmailed and supressed so ther findings don't become famous.
There are a few quite big issues with that:
1 - What is the motivation? Absolutely none.
2 - Some other scientist would then likely discoverer it and release it anyway.
3 - Why allow all the research on it in the first place then?

Assuming sandokhan is right

1. To hide flat Earth. Sandokhan claimed (probably) that this proves something else which whoud prove FE.

2. It will too be supressed. I belive he showed that happen althrought this might be wrong.It was talking about 20' and 30' and Einstein or something. I searched but i found nothing :-\

3. You can't just ban entire field of research. Supressing individual papers tho..
Title: Re: Pretending Subquarks actually exist!
Post by: Code-Beta1234 on November 25, 2020, 03:36:11 PM
Quote
He claimed he invented and made a perpetual motion machine.

Can you please show thread where it happend?

Why don’t you get it from the horse’s mouth, go ask Sandokhan, it was him who claimed to have designed and built such a machine.

Or maybie he quoted someone who said he made it?

Also, here and in many other debates globe side pointed sandokhan linking papers which don't quite support his claims. But here, he linked paper which didn't support his claims just to show what math it used!

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=87190.msg2284740#msg2284740

P.S maybie scientists who published graviton and subquark findings got blackmailed and supressed so ther findings don't become famous.

pps, maybe that is a completely made up statement and makes no sense.

Focus on probability that most of debunks of sandokhan might be focused on wrong papers!
Title: Re: Pretending Subquarks actually exist!
Post by: JackBlack on November 25, 2020, 03:51:24 PM
Assuming sandokhan is right
1. To hide flat Earth. Sandokhan claimed (probably) that this proves something else which whoud prove FE.
That just pushes the problem back. Why hide the FE?
And separately, why couldn't they just include that in RE. As has been pointed out plenty of times to him, none of his nonsense to replace gravity actually relies upon a FE. Subquarks existing or not is irrelevant to the RE, it has no bearing on the shape. Gravitons are somewhat expected by mainstream science. So they would fit just fine with a RE and thus are not proof of a FE.

2. It will too be supressed. I belive he showed that happen althrought this might be wrong.It was talking about 20' and 30' and Einstein or something. I searched but i found nothing :-\
Considering how much gets out, you can't completely suppress anything.

3. You can't just ban entire field of research. Supressing individual papers tho..
And this contradicts 2. Either you can suppress it all, or you can't.
If you can, you can suppress the entire field. If you can't manage to supress the entire field, the results will eventually get out.
Title: Re: Pretending Subquarks actually exist!
Post by: Code-Beta1234 on November 25, 2020, 10:55:05 PM
Papers will get out, but they will not become famous like Einstein's did.

And "why hide FE" was one of most discussed parts of theory. You can find answer in other threads.
Title: Re: Pretending Subquarks actually exist!
Post by: Stash on November 25, 2020, 11:58:20 PM
Quote
He claimed he invented and made a perpetual motion machine.

Can you please show thread where it happend?

Why don’t you get it from the horse’s mouth, go ask Sandokhan, it was him who claimed to have designed and built such a machine.

Or maybie he quoted someone who said he made it?

Also, here and in many other debates globe side pointed sandokhan linking papers which don't quite support his claims. But here, he linked paper which didn't support his claims just to show what math it used!

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=87190.msg2284740#msg2284740

P.S maybie scientists who published graviton and subquark findings got blackmailed and supressed so ther findings don't become famous.

pps, maybe that is a completely made up statement and makes no sense.

Focus on probability that most of debunks of sandokhan might be focused on wrong papers!

Focus on the probability that most of the debunks of Sandokahn are debunks. If you'd like to de-debunk, have at it. Otherwise, what point are you trying to make?
Title: Re: Pretending Subquarks actually exist!
Post by: Code-Beta1234 on November 26, 2020, 12:06:26 AM
Quote
He claimed he invented and made a perpetual motion machine.

Can you please show thread where it happend?

Why don’t you get it from the horse’s mouth, go ask Sandokhan, it was him who claimed to have designed and built such a machine.

Or maybie he quoted someone who said he made it?

Also, here and in many other debates globe side pointed sandokhan linking papers which don't quite support his claims. But here, he linked paper which didn't support his claims just to show what math it used!

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=87190.msg2284740#msg2284740

P.S maybie scientists who published graviton and subquark findings got blackmailed and supressed so ther findings don't become famous.

pps, maybe that is a completely made up statement and makes no sense.

Focus on probability that most of debunks of sandokhan might be focused on wrong papers!

Focus on the probability that most of the debunks of Sandokahn are debunks. If you'd like to de-debunk, have at it. Otherwise, what point are you trying to make?

That maybie all contradictions you pointed in various threads are just him qouting paper to show wrong way pf doing it. Check link i provided to see situation. You were there. He made no way to show that he linked it to show wrong math. Maybie he did that with some other papers.
Title: Re: Pretending Subquarks actually exist!
Post by: Stash on November 26, 2020, 01:09:07 AM
Quote
He claimed he invented and made a perpetual motion machine.

Can you please show thread where it happend?

Why don’t you get it from the horse’s mouth, go ask Sandokhan, it was him who claimed to have designed and built such a machine.

Or maybie he quoted someone who said he made it?

Also, here and in many other debates globe side pointed sandokhan linking papers which don't quite support his claims. But here, he linked paper which didn't support his claims just to show what math it used!

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=87190.msg2284740#msg2284740

P.S maybie scientists who published graviton and subquark findings got blackmailed and supressed so ther findings don't become famous.

pps, maybe that is a completely made up statement and makes no sense.

Focus on probability that most of debunks of sandokhan might be focused on wrong papers!

Focus on the probability that most of the debunks of Sandokahn are debunks. If you'd like to de-debunk, have at it. Otherwise, what point are you trying to make?

That maybie all contradictions you pointed in various threads are just him qouting paper to show wrong way pf doing it. Check link i provided to see situation. You were there. He made no way to show that he linked it to show wrong math. Maybie he did that with some other papers.

I checked the link. I still don't know what point it is you are trying to make. Like I said, if you'd like to point out something specifically that you call into question, then do it. What exactly is the issue? Be specific. Hyper specific.
Title: Re: Pretending Subquarks actually exist!
Post by: JackBlack on November 26, 2020, 01:49:12 AM
Papers will get out, but they will not become famous like Einstein's did.
If it was something that big, they would.
The only way to prevent that if instead it was a very larger group all working together. Then the group/facility gets famous.

e.g. Plenty people know about LIGO, but I couldn't tell you the names of the head scientists.

And "why hide FE" was one of most discussed parts of theory. You can find answer in other threads.
You mean the most deflected. No justifiable answer was ever provided.
Title: Re: Pretending Subquarks actually exist!
Post by: Code-Beta1234 on November 26, 2020, 09:45:01 AM
On my local state-sponsored TV channel there is a TV-Host type of show. So anyways host invided relativly famous medical expert here. So they talked about Covid-19 (it was back in May-June) and he mentioned that some Russian/Chiese scientists published some paper few decades ago talking about some medical stuff.  Decade later US scientists published paper talking about same thing in same way previous ones did. They got attention. He found old paper on accident. This proves that papers don't all jave same chance of getting famous. Now, as far as I noticed sandokhan linled sereval Russians and eastern Europeans. It seems that Aether is popular there. And story above proved papers form "East" have less chance to become famous!


I can think of:
Georgi Mayklin and Yuri Gallaev and Vesselin Petkov. He linked more but i don't remember (maybie "Klauber" but i am not sure he is Russian)
Title: Re: Pretending Subquarks actually exist!
Post by: Code-Beta1234 on November 26, 2020, 09:48:43 AM
On beginning of this thread sandokhan posted news article

https://physicsworld.com/cws/article/news/44784

Commenter said
Quote
3. An advanced knowledge of Quantum Gravity indicated in 1995, quarks and *quarkels would be found to comprise of the electric particle energy of gravity photons. Robert Wood-Smith (RWS) discussed this with Albert Mantiziba who, in July 1995 and with indirect help from Max Planck, established:-
the proton comprised of 2.2674 x 10^23 gravity photons:
the neutron comprised of 2.2705 x 10^23 " "
the electron comprised of 1.2349 x 10^20 " " .
These combine to form respectively the quarks of the proton and neutron, and the quarkels of the electron.

[*Quarkels: the term is applied by the Partners to the components of the electron: which RWS predicted in 1994/95, together with their values. Note. The 1998 Nobel Prize in Physics was awarded to three scientists for their discovery of "quasiparticles" that carry an impossible amount of charge: the reference was to the fractional charges of the electron.]

4. 'Science' magazine in February 1996 reported - American researchers have said, they found that collisions between quarks in a particle accelerator were unexpectedly violent. William Carithers, of Fermi National Accelerator Laboratory, in Batavia, Illinois, told 'Science': “This is just the sort of effect you would see if quarks were not fundamental particles, but had some sort of internal structure.”

5. Chris Hill, theorist at Fermilab, indicated the view in “New Scientist” | 11 May 1996 | page 29 | “It would suggest that whatever lies inside the quarks is incredibly tightly bound, in a way that theory can’t yet accommodate.” On the 1st March 1997 - in an article in 'New Scientist' on page 14 - results from DESY, the German Electron Synchrotron pointed to the existence of what is described as a “leptoquark”. Robin Marshall of the University of Manchester, who was involved in the work, said “The leptoquark is a bizarre object that we don’t understand completely”. Researchers said this “could mean that quarks and leptons are not fundamental particles after all, but are made up of even smaller particles”.

6. We have indicated in our reports: Fermilab had discovered in reality the long sought after gravity photons: i.e. the true fundamental photon.

7. There is much more we are in a position to convey (fully corroborated by some of the most prestigious research organizations known to the scientific community). By invitation, we will be only too pleased to provide knowledge 'beyond the Standard Model', which will be of value and interest to the scientific community.

Robert G. Wood-Smith.
Consultant: Advanced Nuclear Physics.
Nuclear Physics (Medicine).
Radiation-induced Genomic Instability.

Associate Partners (Medical Division):
H. Rosalie Bertell Ph.D. Environmental Epidemiologist.
Malcolm Hooper Ph.D., B.Pharm., C.Chem., MRIC,
Emeritus Professor of Medicinal Chemistry.

This might be relevant. Thoughs?
Title: Re: Pretending Subquarks actually exist!
Post by: Stash on November 26, 2020, 10:10:02 AM
On beginning of this thread sandokhan posted news article

https://physicsworld.com/cws/article/news/44784

Link is bad.

This might be relevant. Thoughs?

Relevant to what?

Title: Re: Pretending Subquarks actually exist!
Post by: Code-Beta1234 on November 26, 2020, 02:25:30 PM
On beginning of this thread sandokhan posted news article

https://physicsworld.com/cws/article/news/44784

Link is bad.

This might be relevant. Thoughs?

Relevant to what?

This will work https://web.archive.org/web/20110116175908/https://physicsworld.com/cws/article/news/44784

Relevant to the thread.
Title: Re: Pretending Subquarks actually exist!
Post by: Code-Beta1234 on December 05, 2020, 05:58:37 AM
You don't actualy need to supress individuals. If you supress sponsors secret will stay hidden, and it does require less people and smaller chance of whistleblowers.
Title: Re: Pretending Subquarks actually exist!
Post by: Code-Beta1234 on December 09, 2020, 05:05:16 AM
Going back to Dr. Ehrlich papers and website.

He posted theoretical papers implying exsistance of tachyons. But there maybie is other explenation for that. He still needs KATRIN results to be prove them.
Title: Re: Pretending Subquarks actually exist!
Post by: Timeisup on December 11, 2020, 09:35:10 PM
Going back to Dr. Ehrlich papers and website.

He posted theoretical papers implying exsistance of tachyons. But there maybie is other explenation for that. He still needs KATRIN results to be prove them.

The bottom line is, no matter how you wish to spin it, subquarks have never been demonstrated to exist. The only plausible way to prove it either way is by using a collider such as the one at CERN. To date they have found no conclusive evidence. This makes any reference to subquarks or gravitons, for that matter, null and void as no experiment yet conducted show that they exist. It’s as simple as that.
Title: Re: Pretending Subquarks actually exist!
Post by: faded mike on December 12, 2020, 10:07:43 PM
I can't believe the first page - you really think this is the place to say that? You socalled debunkers.
Title: Re: Pretending Subquarks actually exist!
Post by: faded mike on December 12, 2020, 10:10:51 PM
I've only read the first few pages of Sandokhans, but I have a feeling the depalma experiment and many others like it have not been adequately adressed in the mainstream - i think Sandokhan has the inside scoop.
Title: Re: Pretending Subquarks actually exist!
Post by: Timeisup on December 15, 2020, 01:10:11 AM
I've only read the first few pages of Sandokhans, but I have a feeling the depalma experiment and many others like it have not been adequately adressed in the mainstream - i think Sandokhan has the inside scoop.

This is interesting. You choose to believe Sandokhan while the published experimental facts say the opposite. How can someone have an opinion on an area of science that requires the most specialised tools to investigate it. You have touched on a significant way of thinking that has become very prevalent; the presumed right to have an opinion on any subject and demand that opinion to be as valid as any other.
This way of thinking, endemic amongst flat earth advocates, opens the door to the growth of ignorance and chaos. Why bother with education when we could all make up our own reality. This is why flat earth supporters claim the education system is corrupt to legitimise ignorance.
Title: Re: Pretending Subquarks actually exist!
Post by: JackBlack on December 15, 2020, 01:59:25 AM
I've only read the first few pages of Sandokhans, but I have a feeling the depalma experiment and many others like it have not been adequately adressed in the mainstream - i think Sandokhan has the inside scoop.
The Depalma experiment is just an extremely poorly controlled experiment which shows nothing at all.
Title: Re: Pretending Subquarks actually exist!
Post by: Code-Beta1234 on December 15, 2020, 11:44:31 PM
I can't believe the first page - you really think this is the place to say that? You socalled debunkers.

What? Are you talking about timeisup's "agressive debunking"
Title: Re: Pretending Subquarks actually exist!
Post by: Code-Beta1234 on December 15, 2020, 11:47:03 PM
I've only read the first few pages of Sandokhans, but I have a feeling the depalma experiment and many others like it have not been adequately adressed in the mainstream - i think Sandokhan has the inside scoop.

I like his Biefeld-brown effect stuff. It seems to be his most convincing argument

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=86866.msg2278161#msg2278161

Also Alliais effect
Title: Re: Pretending Subquarks actually exist!
Post by: Timeisup on December 16, 2020, 12:19:12 AM
I can't believe the first page - you really think this is the place to say that? You socalled debunkers.

What? Are you talking about timeisup's "agressive debunking"

Why do flat earth believers always want to fall back on use of random negative adjectives? Aggressive debunking! No it’s just pointing out the truth.
No debunking aggressive or otherwise was used. It’s quite simple if you wish to approach this with a more open mind. The answer is there if you care to look. Subquarks have never been discovered. Have a look at the Fermilab website if you will. It may be a truth you don’t like, a bit like Trump and his election loss. While you both may not like the truth. The truth is the truth. Subquarks have never been discovered.
Title: Re: Pretending Subquarks actually exist!
Post by: Code-Beta1234 on February 06, 2021, 02:36:20 AM
Going back to Dr. Ehrlich papers and website.

He posted theoretical papers implying exsistance of tachyons. But there maybie is other explenation for that. He still needs KATRIN results to be prove them.

You haven't answered me. He said on his website that he isn't sure. And that is ok, since he published theoretical papers. You can't be sure untill you detect them. They most likley exsist, if his papers are true, but you just can't be sure.


Also, negative square mass neutrinos aren't new knowelage, as sandokhan claimed?
Title: Re: Pretending Subquarks actually exist!
Post by: Code-Beta1234 on February 09, 2021, 04:24:08 PM
Quote
Why do flat earth believers always want to fall back on use of random negative adjectives? Aggressive debunking! No it’s just pointing out the truth.


You do it more agressivly than others. Compare yourself to others, and you will see you do it more impulsively. Also, I am not Flat Earther, althrought i have minor scepticism of heliocentrism. God, how many times have i repeated that...

Quote
Subquarks have never been discovered. Have a look at the Fermilab website if you will. It may be a truth you don’t like, a bit like Trump and his election loss. While you both may not like the truth. The truth is the truth. Subquarks have never been discovered.
Discovered- NO

Theoreticly shown to most likly exsist- YES

And I like truth, that is why I am here. It leads to choice between aether and relativity. For now i can't choose, althrought i am moving more to the latter in recent days

And when you mentioned Trump, i instantly remembered this tweet: https://images.app.goo.gl/cwVY52Mh9j7cYYot7

Can we trust nation which elected this persion to be worlds leading science force?