# 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.

to hide all adverts.
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.

to hide all adverts.
5. ### WillemBannedBanned

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

to hide all adverts.
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.

13. ### NotEinsteinValued Senior Member

Messages:
1,986
That does not follow; please explain your logic.

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.

16. ### WillemBannedBanned

Messages:
283
I edited the reply #91.

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...

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

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!

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

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.