What are quarks made of?
- Thread starter Magical Realist
- Start date
I am willing to forgive and forget, but you persist in trolling up your sordid past, Tach. Why do it to yourself?
And you're also in denial, Tach. It was shown that RealityCheck was framed and banned because of you, a troll, acting in concert with fellow troll-mod nasties at the time. Haven't you heard?:
The troll-mod gang and Modus Operandi/Tactics (for choosing, trolling and framing and banning their victim on crooked and trumped up 'charges') was proven via Internet Experiment.
You, Tach, were part of that Internet Experiment, even though you didn't realize it at the time, and were unaware that your nastiness and trolling actions was providing data vital to the success of the experiment. :lol:
You gave more proof than anyone else that you colluded with the crooked mod at the time (you PM-ing him and pointing out 'the person' even while you were wrong on the science or didn't engage on the science fairly). Why, you even tried it on again just a couple days ago! You again PM-ed the mod AN about me being RealityCheck (which he and admin already knew and were ok with!). Fortunately, and kudos to him, AN didn't fall for your incitement and framing attempts to influence the mods. So AN did not oblige you, the real troll and the real 'problem'.
Hence the experiment was successful in bringing about change and improved moderator ethics/action on more than this site. Too bad it ruined your reputation; and exposed you as the main troll-mod gang 'instigator' of most of the abuses which occurred then.
You were the "Trout" troll nasty who challenged me on that over at physforum, remember?
Not too long after, you were over here trolling as usual under the new alias Tach username. In one of these threads you agreed that the clock/rock etc standing still on the ground was still effectively under accelerative effect. But you never went back to apologize to me back at physforum, did you?
Your incessant lame 'demands' and 'challenges' 'strawman' tactics are neither here nor there anymore to everyone here who now knows what a total loss of time and trouble you and your maniacal trolling represents to sane and reasonable folk.
Which is why, Tach, pursuant to excellent Admin advice, you are not to be engaged if you are still trolling and disrupting in the same manner for which you have been banned already more than once here; and hence, your trolling 'strawman' posts and shrill 'demands' are ignored and reported accordingly to mods/admin. I leave you to their tender mercies, if they have any left after all that you've done to bring science, scientists and this site reputation into disrepute over the years, and still are doing even now with your above inanity and personal harassments.
You were banned for trolling and for posting crackpot posts, something that you still do under your new name. I had nothing to do with your banning, "prometheus" banned you for trolling and posting crank stuff, something that you still do.
There was no "experiment", just your garden variety trolling.
I wasn't but you have definitely been permabanned from physforum for the same reason: trolling and posting crank stuff, in the style of Farsight. Anyways, I asked you to show the link where I, Tach, has said that an object at rest on the Earth surface is not accelerated. Either produce the link or admit that you are lying. Your inability to produce the link is tantamount to admitting that you are lying.
You lie about your past, Tach, even as you lie about and troll up other's past. You were perma-banned from physforum as "Trout" and you returned there under a sockpuppet alias while having the gall to accuse and complain about others. Hypocrite.
Tach is already more than once now proven to be lying and denying and being dishonest and a hypocrite again. In other words, in usual nasty troll mode. All the evidence was presented before elsewhere and Tach is denying in order to, as he is well known for by now, waste people's time hoping that they would just be gullible enough still to go along with his lies again. Therefore, pursuant to Admin's excellent advice to ignore and report him when he trolls and lies and denies etc etc like this, Tach is again hereby ignored and will be reported to the admin/mods for their considered action in his egregious trolling case.
Invisible Ultra-micro Gravity
Ultra-micro gravity is the most invisible force( boson? ).
Physical/energy = motion/dyanmic = frequency of events = XYZ + T = closed systemic system aka perpeptual motion = finite Universe( occupied space ).
Non-occupied space-- beyond the finite occupied space of Universe listed below;
Ultra-micro gravity embraces the following and any combinations thereof;
Bosons---aka bosonic forces--combines with gravity and fermions as atoms, molecules etc
fermions---aka fermiomic matter
Bosons---aka bosonic forcess --combines with gravity and fermions as atoms, molecules etc..
Ultra-micro gravity embraces the above bosons and fermions and any combination thereof
Non-occupied space--- beyond the finite occupied space of Universe listed above.
This above is simple heirchal-like set that is not only easy to grasp, no one at Sci-forum has offered any rational logic that would invalidate my givens as stated.
Trolls need not apply.
r6
Ultra-micro gravity is the most invisible force( boson? ).
Physical/energy = motion/dyanmic = frequency of events = XYZ + T = closed systemic system aka perpeptual motion = finite Universe( occupied space ).
Non-occupied space-- beyond the finite occupied space of Universe listed below;
Ultra-micro gravity embraces the following and any combinations thereof;
Bosons---aka bosonic forces--combines with gravity and fermions as atoms, molecules etc
fermions---aka fermiomic matter
Bosons---aka bosonic forcess --combines with gravity and fermions as atoms, molecules etc..
Ultra-micro gravity embraces the above bosons and fermions and any combination thereof
Non-occupied space--- beyond the finite occupied space of Universe listed above.
This above is simple heirchal-like set that is not only easy to grasp, no one at Sci-forum has offered any rational logic that would invalidate my givens as stated.
Trolls need not apply.
r6
But it fits right in with the other fringe posts made in the thread
But it fits right in with the other fringe posts made in the thread
Tach shows alarming level of hypocrisy and troll intent to ridicule everyone he dislikes as if they were 'one composite person'. Tach has been proven to lie and deny and accuse hypocritically. This latest empty post of his above is proof he hasn't any intention of correcting his trolling intent and disruptive poisoning and thread cluttering tactics. Hence...
As per excellent Admin advice, Tach is ignored as a troll, and reported as such for the above empty troll and indiscriminately insulting post.
It sounds like you have actually really considered this possibility. I am also guilty of speculating about this possibility. I have been thinking that quarks may be formed by photons heading towards some type of attractor. I agree that photons should not be able to interact with Z's. I think the W's and Z's could be just like crowded intersections that do not allow for photons to travel through, but W's and Z's themselves could also be photons.
There was a thread a while back made by a guy named Einsteinhimself that got banned (I think mostly cause of his name, lol), but in this thread no one responded or said anything that I thought was very peculiar. He did a triangle test on the W and Z and got close to the mass of the Higgs Boson. I then did the same calculation by first converting the energies to newton meters and then got an even closer mass to the Higgs Boson. As insane as it may be it seems as though a Higgs Boson is created by transferring the mass of a W and Z boson as it would in Newtonian Physics. I think this is because a collision of a W and Z boson would break local symmetry, but this particle symmetry cannot actually be broken. Then if symmetry cannot actually be broken in this way, then it could act as a physical barrier, then they would interact as though it was a collision in Newtonian Physics. Then a photon couldn't interact with a Z boson because it would also break local symmetry of the quark.
IDK, if you read this you will prob say it is a bunch of crap, and it probably is, but this is kind of the dark road I have been down lately. I don't think the photon not being able to interact with a Z boson completely overrules the theoretical possibility. There would just be a lot more details than we think missing from the theory.
Seeing as this thread has cooled off I'll reply to Farsight. Undefined, I'll read your post later. Whether I bother to reply is another matter. And rr6, that sort of post is exactly what I told you to stop posting. If I hadn't banned you for 3 days before of another thread I'd do it for 7 for that, given it is even more bat shit than the other thread.
And I didn't threaten to destroy the discussion, I threatened to act against you if you continued with hypocritical statements or made assertions which lack any evidence as if they are based on sound rationales. Again, I gave examples of instances where you have acted contrary to such standards in the past, illustrating this isn't some out of the blue position, it is based on past experiences. Furthermore I mentioned the request I regularly make of you, which would provide plenty of relevant discussion and address the criticisms I make of you, if you could only give an answer. I asked you to justify your claims, to provide sound rationale and evidence your claims have any connection to reality. If you could present such a thing, particularly given your non-alignment with the mainstream in regards to the thread topic, quarks, the thread would surely be enriched, right? As such asking you is hardly a derailment, if we were to assume for a moment you could provide an answer. The reason you always act so defensive is that you know you don't have an answer and thus my question only serves to highlight that the views you hold and claims you espouse lack merit.
My job as moderator is to keep discussions in this sub-forum relatively aligned with the general principle of honest scientific discourse. If someone has questions about the mainstream, fine. If someone has an alternative view then if sufficient evidence can be provided, fine. If someone has an alternative view for which they have no evidence but repeatedly inject into discussion whose topic they have no actual knowledge of, not fine. You fall under the latter category. You might view your discussion as "interesting, sincere and high level" but if it degenerates to you saying "I am a world leader in this! Go read up on it! I deserve Nobel Prizes!", even if that is somewhat masked in superficial pleasantries, then my job is to say "Stop". Likewise, if someone claims to be a world expert in something and repeatedly shows they know less than a 1st year undergrad then it is my job to say "Stop".
There is a fine line between challenging the mainstream understanding with enquiring questions and just saying "I'm right, everyone else is wrong! I understand it, you don't!". As it is my job to ensure people stay on the right side of that line (at least within this sub-forum) I am entirely within my remit to point out when you wander close to or run over that line. Given you almost constantly skim said line it seems every now and again you need to be told very clearly.
You regularly roll out the "That's an ad hom!" excuse. An ad hom would be if I said something like "Yeah, you would say that" as a means of trying to counter your argument, ie attacking the person rather than their argument. However, if someone goes on to explain the flaws in your claims, gives examples of your hypocrisy and demonstrates the ignorant of your understanding then it isn't an ad hom. It might not be polite but your posts are retorted for their content, not their author.
And I didn't threaten to destroy the discussion, I threatened to act against you if you continued with hypocritical statements or made assertions which lack any evidence as if they are based on sound rationales. Again, I gave examples of instances where you have acted contrary to such standards in the past, illustrating this isn't some out of the blue position, it is based on past experiences. Furthermore I mentioned the request I regularly make of you, which would provide plenty of relevant discussion and address the criticisms I make of you, if you could only give an answer. I asked you to justify your claims, to provide sound rationale and evidence your claims have any connection to reality. If you could present such a thing, particularly given your non-alignment with the mainstream in regards to the thread topic, quarks, the thread would surely be enriched, right? As such asking you is hardly a derailment, if we were to assume for a moment you could provide an answer. The reason you always act so defensive is that you know you don't have an answer and thus my question only serves to highlight that the views you hold and claims you espouse lack merit.
My job as moderator is to keep discussions in this sub-forum relatively aligned with the general principle of honest scientific discourse. If someone has questions about the mainstream, fine. If someone has an alternative view then if sufficient evidence can be provided, fine. If someone has an alternative view for which they have no evidence but repeatedly inject into discussion whose topic they have no actual knowledge of, not fine. You fall under the latter category. You might view your discussion as "interesting, sincere and high level" but if it degenerates to you saying "I am a world leader in this! Go read up on it! I deserve Nobel Prizes!", even if that is somewhat masked in superficial pleasantries, then my job is to say "Stop". Likewise, if someone claims to be a world expert in something and repeatedly shows they know less than a 1st year undergrad then it is my job to say "Stop".
There is a fine line between challenging the mainstream understanding with enquiring questions and just saying "I'm right, everyone else is wrong! I understand it, you don't!". As it is my job to ensure people stay on the right side of that line (at least within this sub-forum) I am entirely within my remit to point out when you wander close to or run over that line. Given you almost constantly skim said line it seems every now and again you need to be told very clearly.
Farsight likes to talk about the A-B effect, the 4-potential of the photon, Feynmann and how he (Farsight) is a world leading expert in electromagnetism, even more so than Dirac, but he does not understand the details of those areas you mention, he has only layperson simplifications others have provided him via books aimed at the general public. From that, and despite having no experimental data either, he's managed to "understand" it all....
I was right, OnlyMe was wrong. You'd do yourself a favour if you admitted that instead of launching into another tiresome tirade. Please stick to the physics and make sure the forum stays civil and courteous. It will be a better forum for it. If you won't do that maybe somebody else will.
Somebody like me.
Somebody like me.
Farsight, you might elaborate on just how I was wrong?
My comments had nothing to do with the correctness of mainstream or alternative interpretations... whether photons contribute to a gravitational field or not.
What I was pointing out is that you were confusing theory with proven fact.
There is no objective or experimental proof that light contributes to a gravitational field, though it is a widely held theoretical position.
Personally, I believe that photons are involved in what we experience as gravity, but I don't say that they do as a fact.
I think it was a statement on your part that referenced theory as a direct support, for a statement given as fact, that led to my initial comment.
Adrian Commander
Registered Member
The universe is infinitely big and also infinitely small. A quark is pretty much the size of the universe, when you apply infinite 'measurements'. Yet to hear how can it be any other way?Do they have a composite structure? Are they made of pure indivisible energy? Wouldn't that mean that everything's ultimately made of pure indivisible energy? Has science ever detected a quark by itself?
Care to elaborate? Because on its own, that statement is nonsensical.
Adrian Commander
Registered Member
I can't understand any argument that explains how the universe can 'end' in it's largeness, or how a quark can 'end'
in its smallness. Infinity goes both ways, you can double the size of any size, or you can half the size of any size..? How can it be any other way?
Can't disagree.
I can't even.
