# Erroneous Formula

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

1. ### WillemBannedBanned

Messages:
283
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.

3. ### NotEinsteinValued Senior Member

Messages:
1,986
Why would circular reasoning lead to that conclusion?

Again, this is the science section of the forum. Please post alternative theories and fringe ideas in the appropriate section.

5. ### WillemBannedBanned

Messages:
283
It's down a spiral path due to the "sub" prefix.

7. ### NotEinsteinValued Senior Member

Messages:
1,986
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.

8. ### WillemBannedBanned

Messages:
283
I'm prepared to accept that. But I still think it is spiral or more like a balancing stick, not circular.

9. ### NotEinsteinValued Senior Member

Messages:
1,986
Well, merely thinking it isn't enough: you have to proof it.

10. ### WillemBannedBanned

Messages:
283
Lets state this clearly: anti-ud have sub-lepton content and leptons have sub-quark content. Is it circular?

11. ### NotEinsteinValued Senior Member

Messages:
1,986
If A contains B, and B contains A, is that circular?

12. ### WillemBannedBanned

Messages:
283
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.

Messages:
1,986

14. ### WillemBannedBanned

Messages:
283
"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.

15. ### NotEinsteinValued Senior Member

Messages:
1,986
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.

Messages:
283

17. ### NotEinsteinValued Senior Member

Messages:
1,986
OK, let's take a look.

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...

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?

18. ### WillemBannedBanned

Messages:
283
OK. It is circular.

19. ### NotEinsteinValued Senior Member

Messages:
1,986
Great! I'm glad you came to that conclusion too.

And because it's circular reasoning, it's nonsense, and can be dismissed on that basis. QED

I think this thread is done!

20. ### WillemBannedBanned

Messages:
283
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: Apr 20, 2019
21. ### NotEinsteinValued Senior Member

Messages:
1,986
Irrelevant and off-topic. You admitted your entire idea is fraught with circular reasoning, and thus can be dismissed on that basis.

22. ### WillemBannedBanned

Messages:
283
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."

23. ### NotEinsteinValued Senior Member

Messages:
1,986
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.