Pretending Subquarks actually exist!

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?

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?

So sandokhan has verified their existence?

So sandokhan has verified their existence?

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

Quote from: Timeisup on June 29, 2020, 02:16:00 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.

So sandokhan has verified their existence?

That would be an impossibility.

Quote from: rvlvr on June 29, 2020, 03:39:20 AM

So sandokhan has verified their existence?

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

What do you suggest as an alternative?

Quote from: rvlvr on June 29, 2020, 03:39:20 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?

Quote from: Shifter on June 29, 2020, 03:40:42 AM

Quote from: rvlvr on June 29, 2020, 03:39:20 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.

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?

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.

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.

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.

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.

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 !

Work that one out!

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

Quote from: Solarwind on June 29, 2020, 03:53:09 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 !

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.

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

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.

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.

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/

Quote from: 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

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.

Quote from: rabinoz on June 29, 2020, 04:08:39 AM

Quote from: Solarwind on June 29, 2020, 03:53:09 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 !

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

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

Quote from: Timeisup on June 29, 2020, 04:28:07 AM

Quote from: 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

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.

Quote from: Timeisup on June 29, 2020, 04:18:49 AM

Quote from: rabinoz on June 29, 2020, 04:08:39 AM

Quote from: Solarwind on June 29, 2020, 03:53:09 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 !

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?

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.

Quote from: Shifter on June 29, 2020, 04:38:59 AM

Quote from: Timeisup on June 29, 2020, 04:28:07 AM

Quote from: 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

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

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

Quote from: sandokhan on June 29, 2020, 04:14:48 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.

Quote from: Timeisup on June 29, 2020, 04:47:02 AM

Quote from: Shifter on June 29, 2020, 04:38:59 AM

Quote from: Timeisup on June 29, 2020, 04:28:07 AM

Quote from: 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

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.