Erroneous Formula

Ha, Ha. The reasoning lead down a path to: "they are all made of something else", I think we need something at the Planck length and this is spacetime.
 
Willem said:
It's down a spiral path due to the "sub" prefix.
Click to expand...
Sure, introducing unfounded speculation without properly understanding the theory in which it is introduced can lead to having contradictory and circular conclusions. It's a classic sign that the introduced unfounded speculation is wrong.
 
I'm prepared to accept that. But I still think it is spiral or more like a balancing stick, not circular.
 
Lets state this clearly: anti-ud have sub-lepton content and leptons have sub-quark content. Is it circular?
 
It depends on if A and B are made of the same substructure or not. - It is a true statement if A and B has the same substructure.
 
"A contains B and B contains A" is a true statement if A and B has the same substructure. i.e. A_s = B_s. Now substitute B for A.
 
Willem said:
"A contains B and B contains A" is a true statement if A and B has the same substructure. i.e. A = B.
Click to expand...
Right, but that's obviously false in this case, because leptons are, per definition, not the same as quarks. I did spot that option, but I thought you'd be honest enough not to use that as an "out". Please stop being intellectually dishonest.
 
Willem said:
I edited the reply #91.
Click to expand...
OK, let's take a look.

Willem said:
"A contains B and B contains A" is a true statement if A and B has the same substructure. i.e. A_s = B_s. Now substitute B for A.
Click to expand...
A contains B
B contains A
A_s = B_s

Substitute B for A:
B contains B
B contains B
A_s = B_s

Yeah, that's certainly helps...:rolleyes: You do realize that "substitute B for A" is the same as saying B = A? In other words, your edit only obfuscates the original issue. Why must you be double intellectually dishonest?
 
This means: the meaning of "->" is: If A -> B then A can be caused to change into B but A not= F(B) and B not= F(A). Where F(x) is a logical function.
 
Last edited:
Willem said:
This means: the meaning of "->" is: If A -> B then A can be caused to change into B but A not= F(B) and B not= F(A).
Click to expand...
Irrelevant and off-topic. You admitted your entire idea is fraught with circular reasoning, and thus can be dismissed on that basis.
 
The whole argument can't be circular: I think the following leads to the circle:

"electron + electron antineutrino -> anti-ud so electron and electron antineutrino has sub-quark content."
 
Willem said:
The whole argument can't be circular: I think the following leads to the circle:

"electron + electron antineutrino -> anti-ud so electron and electron antineutrino has sub-quark content."
Click to expand...
The whole argument doesn't need to be circular for the argument to fail; only a single but critical portion of it being circular is enough.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top