Pretending Subquarks actually exist!

  • 65 Replies
  • 702 Views
Re: Pretending Subquarks actually exist!
« Reply #30 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 donít 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.

*

JJA

  • 867
  • Math is math!
Re: Pretending Subquarks actually exist!
« Reply #31 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.

*

Shifter

  • 13933
  • ASI
Re: Pretending Subquarks actually exist!
« Reply #32 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


Member of the BOTD for Anti Fascism and Racism

Re: Pretending Subquarks actually exist!
« Reply #33 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.

Re: Pretending Subquarks actually exist!
« Reply #34 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?
« Last Edit: June 29, 2020, 07:26:08 AM by Timeisup »

*

JJA

  • 867
  • Math is math!
Re: Pretending Subquarks actually exist!
« Reply #35 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. 

*

Shifter

  • 13933
  • ASI
Re: Pretending Subquarks actually exist!
« Reply #36 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
« Last Edit: June 29, 2020, 07:42:28 AM by Shifter »


Member of the BOTD for Anti Fascism and Racism

*

Shifter

  • 13933
  • ASI
Re: Pretending Subquarks actually exist!
« Reply #37 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.


Member of the BOTD for Anti Fascism and Racism

*

sokarul

  • 17472
  • Discount Chemist
Re: Pretending Subquarks actually exist!
« Reply #38 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 donít 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.
Sokarul

ANNIHILATOR OF  SHIFTER

Run Sandokhan run

*

JJA

  • 867
  • Math is math!
Re: Pretending Subquarks actually exist!
« Reply #39 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.

Re: Pretending Subquarks actually exist!
« Reply #40 on: June 30, 2020, 11:29:12 AM »
For example, DUFOUR/PRUNIER Experiment proved relativity false

Re: Pretending Subquarks actually exist!
« Reply #41 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

*

JJA

  • 867
  • Math is math!
Re: Pretending Subquarks actually exist!
« Reply #42 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: ďIf 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.Ē 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 didnít really use the Sagnac effect as a rebuttal of Einsteinís 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.

*

JJA

  • 867
  • Math is math!
Re: Pretending Subquarks actually exist!
« Reply #43 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.

*

sokarul

  • 17472
  • Discount Chemist
Re: Pretending Subquarks actually exist!
« Reply #44 on: June 30, 2020, 11:58:31 AM »
For example, DUFOUR/PRUNIER Experiment proved relativity false

Thatís not how experiments work.
Sokarul

ANNIHILATOR OF  SHIFTER

Run Sandokhan run

Re: Pretending Subquarks actually exist!
« Reply #45 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

Re: Pretending Subquarks actually exist!
« Reply #46 on: June 30, 2020, 12:00:39 PM »
For example, DUFOUR/PRUNIER Experiment proved relativity false

Thatís not how experiments work.

Ahhh, not Metaphysics. Who realy cares if I said "proved" or "is in support" or some other "correct" phrase

*

Stash

  • 4713
Re: Pretending Subquarks actually exist!
« Reply #47 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.
No. That sudden lurch forwards is the atmospheric slosh effect.

Re: Pretending Subquarks actually exist!
« Reply #48 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.

*

JJA

  • 867
  • Math is math!
Re: Pretending Subquarks actually exist!
« Reply #49 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.

Re: Pretending Subquarks actually exist!
« Reply #50 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.



Re: Pretending Subquarks actually exist!
« Reply #51 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.

*

Shifter

  • 13933
  • ASI
Re: Pretending Subquarks actually exist!
« Reply #52 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.



Member of the BOTD for Anti Fascism and Racism

*

markjo

  • Content Nazi
  • The Elder Ones
  • 39537
Re: Pretending Subquarks actually exist!
« Reply #53 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.
Science is what happens when preconception meets verification.
Quote from: Robosteve
Besides, perhaps FET is a conspiracy too.
Quote from: bullhorn
It is just the way it is, you understanding it doesn't concern me.

*

sokarul

  • 17472
  • Discount Chemist
Re: Pretending Subquarks actually exist!
« Reply #54 on: June 30, 2020, 05:25:22 PM »
For example, DUFOUR/PRUNIER Experiment proved relativity false

Thatís not how experiments work.

Ahhh, not Metaphysics. Who realy cares if I said "proved" or "is in support" or some other "correct" phrase
Itís actually quite important. If an experiment ďfailsĒ, it doesnít prove the opposite.
Sokarul

ANNIHILATOR OF  SHIFTER

Run Sandokhan run

*

rabinoz

  • 26273
  • Real Earth Believer
Re: Pretending Subquarks actually exist!
« Reply #55 on: June 30, 2020, 07:36:10 PM »
For example, DUFOUR/PRUNIER Experiment proved relativity false

Thatís 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 Mercuryís Perihelion by Jaume Gine
1. Introduction
The problem of the anomalous precession of the Mercuryís 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.

*

Heavenly Breeze

  • 429
  • Be always great
Re: Pretending Subquarks actually exist!
« Reply #56 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.
« Last Edit: June 30, 2020, 08:58:58 PM by Heavenly Breeze »


Are you sure that the earth is not such?

Re: Pretending Subquarks actually exist!
« Reply #57 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 didnít, Unicorns are a figment of the imagination. What makes you think they existed 400-800 years ago?
Can you offer any verifiable evidence?

*

rvlvr

  • 1696
Re: Pretending Subquarks actually exist!
« Reply #58 on: Today at 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.

Re: Pretending Subquarks actually exist!
« Reply #59 on: Today at 01:03:33 AM »
I guess he is talking about them