Pretending Subquarks actually exist!

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.

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.

Quote from: Heavenly Breeze on June 30, 2020, 08:51:01 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!

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

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!

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?

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.

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.

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.

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.   

Quote from: 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.

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.

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.

Quote from: Bullwinkle on July 04, 2020, 10:27:01 PM

Quote from: 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.

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?

Quote from: Timeisup on July 05, 2020, 02:11:01 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.

Quote from: Bullwinkle on July 05, 2020, 02:29:33 AM

Quote from: Timeisup on July 05, 2020, 02:11:01 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/

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.

Quote from: JJA on July 05, 2020, 04:39:22 AM

Quote from: Bullwinkle on July 05, 2020, 02:29:33 AM

Quote from: Timeisup on July 05, 2020, 02:11:01 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

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.

Quote from: Shifter on July 05, 2020, 05:05:23 AM

Quote from: JJA on July 05, 2020, 04:39:22 AM

Quote from: Bullwinkle on July 05, 2020, 02:29:33 AM

Quote from: Timeisup on July 05, 2020, 02:11:01 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

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

Quote from: JJA on July 05, 2020, 12:14:46 PM

Quote from: Shifter on July 05, 2020, 05:05:23 AM

Quote from: JJA on July 05, 2020, 04:39:22 AM

Quote from: Bullwinkle on July 05, 2020, 02:29:33 AM

Quote from: Timeisup on July 05, 2020, 02:11:01 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

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? 

Quote from: Shifter on July 05, 2020, 12:45:55 PM

Quote from: JJA on July 05, 2020, 12:14:46 PM

Quote from: Shifter on July 05, 2020, 05:05:23 AM

Quote from: JJA on July 05, 2020, 04:39:22 AM

Quote from: Bullwinkle on July 05, 2020, 02:29:33 AM

Quote from: Timeisup on July 05, 2020, 02:11:01 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

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

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.

Quote from: NotSoSkeptical on July 05, 2020, 12:50:06 PM

Quote from: Shifter on July 05, 2020, 12:45:55 PM

Quote from: JJA on July 05, 2020, 12:14:46 PM

Quote from: Shifter on July 05, 2020, 05:05:23 AM

Quote from: JJA on July 05, 2020, 04:39:22 AM

Quote from: Bullwinkle on July 05, 2020, 02:29:33 AM

Quote from: Timeisup on July 05, 2020, 02:11:01 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

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.
 

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

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?

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....

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.

Quote from: 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

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.

Quote from: Timeisup on July 05, 2020, 02:11:01 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.

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?

Quote from: Timeisup on July 05, 2020, 02:11:01 AM

Quote from: Bullwinkle on July 04, 2020, 10:27:01 PM

Quote from: 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.

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.

Shifter just squawks to feel smarter than he actually is.

Shifter just squawks to feel smarter than he actually is.

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

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.

Quote from: JJA on July 05, 2020, 12:14:46 PM

Quote from: Shifter on July 05, 2020, 05:05:23 AM

Quote from: JJA on July 05, 2020, 04:39:22 AM

Quote from: Bullwinkle on July 05, 2020, 02:29:33 AM

Quote from: Timeisup on July 05, 2020, 02:11:01 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

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.