Erroneous Formula

Discussion in 'Pseudoscience' started by Willem, Apr 7, 2019.

  1. NotEinstein Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,986
    OK, we'll wait.

    We established that only some known pseudoscience peddler claims that space is made of tetrahedra, i.e. not a respectable source. That's not an inconsistency; that's simply being wrong.

    But that's not the "inconsistency" I was talking about. Just go back through the thread and read all the bits of my posts you conveniently ignored; that should give you a good overview.
     
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. Willem Banned Banned

    Messages:
    283
    They were produced prior to the decay process by pair production and the tau antineutrino is the causation agent working on the subject agent (the tau-)

    I didn't intend to imply that.

    The tau antineutrino binds with the tau- and forms a anti-ud that decays into the electron and electron antineutrino. The tau neutrino does nothing, it just appears as outgoing particle.
    That isn't but Quark Conservation is the second formula consistent with.

    The pair production needs to happen close to the tau- so it can be included in the Feynman diagram.

    Quarks can't bind again with an electron or positron.
     
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. NotEinstein Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,986
    Please provide evidence that this is indeed what happens. The current mainstream theories seem to be working just fine without it.

    OK.

    So you were misleading. OK, glad we clear that up.

    But it is included in the Feynman diagrams in mainstream theories. Just draw out the higher order ones, and you'll find the one you're talking about. Now please demonstrate that the Feynman diagram without it has zero amplitude, and that such a calculation matches what we observe in reality.

    In other words: please provide evidence that the pair production happening earlier is a requirement.

    You are missing the point by very selectively quoting. In fact, this is a full-on quote mine. Please stop being intellectually dishonest.
     
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. Willem Banned Banned

    Messages:
    283
    I do experiments in mind. They are just as good as physical experiments, just cheaper.

    See above.

    Call it mental inertia then.
     
  8. NotEinstein Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,986
    That is not how science works, that is how imagination works.
     
  9. Willem Banned Banned

    Messages:
    283
    Error correction.

    Then the quarks would have the wrong charge.

    They have sub-quark content. Since it was never needed to consider them having sub-quark content doesn't mean it will never be needed.

    But they can bind with a positron to make a anti-du.

    No I didn't. They bind to form a anti-ud.

    No.

    It's to defeat his argument.
     
  10. Willem Banned Banned

    Messages:
    283
    Einstein had imagination.
     
  11. NotEinstein Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,986
    OK, great of you to admit you were misquoting me. Now also care to actually address the point that I made there?

    But with your proposition leptons have the wrong size.

    Yes, "make" as in "produce", not as in "contained it beforehand".

    Right, so if a particle interaction/decay results in certain particles, it's not a given that the original particle contained those particles. But that was your entire shtick... But there, you admitted that the reasoning involved wasn't solid; there are other options. So yes, you totally destroyed your own conclusions.
     
  12. NotEinstein Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,986
    Yes, but if that's all he had, he wouldn't have gotten very far in science, now would he?
     
  13. Willem Banned Banned

    Messages:
    283
    Then why didn't your interest go away at this reply.
     
  14. NotEinstein Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,986
    Why should it?
     
  15. Willem Banned Banned

    Messages:
    283
    Yes but an electron entangled with an electron antineutrino would not have the wrong size.
     
  16. NotEinstein Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,986
    Please provide the calculations backing up this claim.

    Edit: Wait, what? A lepton is made out of quarks, which are made out of electron + anti-neutrino pairs?

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
  17. Willem Banned Banned

    Messages:
    283
    I don't have the equipment and resources.
     
  18. NotEinstein Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,986
    So all of your hard claims about how things work in reality are baseless, and you are in no position to change that any time soon. Tell me again, why is this thread in the science section of this forum, when you've just literally admitted all you have is imaginations?
     
  19. Willem Banned Banned

    Messages:
    283
    No. Electron entangled with electron antineutrino has anti-ud quark content.
     
  20. NotEinstein Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,986
    So a lepton is made out of quarks, which are made out of electron + anti-neutrino pairs, which have anti-ud quark content? Circular much?
     
  21. Willem Banned Banned

    Messages:
    283
    Others that reply fit in the science forum.
     
  22. NotEinstein Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,986
    Ah, so you are admitting you purposefully posted it in the wrong section? You do know that's against the forum rules, right?

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
  23. Willem Banned Banned

    Messages:
    283
    The electron and electron antineutrino binds to form a anti-ud, this does not mean anti-ud is made of … now you got me.
     

Share This Page