uncool

Name one. And I have already shown you that no, the small divisibility is not a "quantifiable prediction" - you can't quantify how likely it would be under a null hypothesis. =Uncool-

Thinh, a so-called "permanent" magnet isn't as permanent as you think it is. =Uncool-

newk, I'm afraid that devising a new numeral system is extremely unlikely to actually lead to any new insights. For one thing, you've simply rediscovered the base 8 system. For another, you'd simply be re-expressing current facts known about the base 10 system in terms of the base 8 system. =Uncool-

This actually relates to a question I've had for some time: Is it possible to determine the wavefunction for a particle without disturbing it? It wouldn't actually determine the position or momentum of the particle fully, and therefore wouldn't violate the uncertainty principle that way. =Uncool-

So you would rather leave here than actually provide any evidence? You already have two strikes against you. You started a thread without any evidence, and when pressed for evidence, you have refused to do so. You might want to continue posting without any content. That would be the final strike. =Uncool-

And you'll soon watch this thread close unless you actually manage to provide some evidence. =Uncool-

Hopefully Santa will fill your stockings with quantifiable predictions based on your ideas, and some ability to actually read and comprehend responses to your posts, such as the ones above that have shown you the aforementioned evidence. =Uncool-

Well done, newts; you seem to have deliberately missed or avoided the point by snipping out any of the actually relevant parts of my post. Once again, newts: a quantitative prediction was made based on the theory, was tested, and was found to be true. Multiple times. That is the scientific standard. If you want the data, it's at http://prl.aps.org/abstract/PRL/v23/i16/p930_1 The paper where it is analyzed is at http://prl.aps.org/abstract/PRL/v23/i16/p935_1 The fact that you have found neither of these is a sign of your unwillingness to learn. It literally took me 2 minutes to find them, given only "quark" and "Briedenbach". The rest of your post is absolutely worthless. You say you have no idea what your ideas imply in terms of this scattering, then claim that it predicts what this experiment found, then effectively say that physicists are making shit up. No. Once again, the way it happened: Physicists who proposed the quark hypothesis made predictions as to the outcome of this experiment. The experiment was run, and the data confirmed the predictions. =Uncool-

the tree: I don't think it's quite so simple just from there. There is a constraint on x^2, y^2, and z^2 that is necessary to prove the relationship. Namely, ((1/x^2) - 1)((1/y^2) - 1)((1/z^2) - 1) = 1. =Uncool-

Just to use your "miracles" analogy, newts: You are trying to prove that miracles don't exist by saying that Catholics believe that Baal, the god of Carthage, grants the wishes of good Catholics, and that since this is so ridiculous, miracles can't exist. In other words, newts, you may have the correct conclusion, but your attempts to argue it are incoherent, inconsistent, and downright stupid at times. =Uncool-

And Bignose is using it to say that you are as bad as your strawman of a physicist. And yet another misunderstanding pops up. No, it is not higher and higher. There are papers putting a bound on the mass of the Higgs. Higher and higher energies are used to see if there are any other particles out there. You are claiming the wrong result. The result has been and will always be: "There is no interest until you can show us a reason for there to be interest." That is the result you will get in all of these "experiments". Furthermore, your experimental protocol is honestly crap. You have forgotten to include in your methodology that you would purposely ignore every salient point. Or perhaps you have no idea what the standard model says. As usual. Once again, you demonstrate that all of your understanding of the standard model is from a magazine, rather than proper study. Any physicist will tell you: the standard model consists of 3 up-type quarks, 3 down-type quarks, 3 neutral leptons, 3 charged leptons, and 4 gauge bosons, plus their antiparticles, as the elementary particles. There is also the Higgs boson. My guess, given other quotes in that interview, is that Gell-Mann is talking about particles in the sense of hadrons and leptons - in other words, he is including all the different kinds of baryons and mesons. Note that Gell-Mann himself never refers to quarks as elementary particles. There are a total of around 81 of those on Wikipedia now. The fact that you can't see it doesn't mean it isn't there. Quark theory made a physical prediction, and Briedenbach confirmed it. =Uncool-

I'd like to correct another misconception that newts seems to have. He claimed earlier that there were 60+ types of particles in the Standard Model. That is incorrect. There are 16 particles in the standard model: 3 generations of 2 quarks and 2 leptons each, and 4 force-carrying bosons. =Uncool-

Stop. Quarks and gluons have agreed with predictions as shown by experiments. That is, they actually calculated specifically what QCD predicts, designed experiments which had not been performed before, and tested them. It is not the case that quarks and gluons only create retrodictions, which is what you are claiming here. You have no idea how little flexibility there is in QCD because you have no idea what QCD says. Stop again. I have not ignored that claimed "evidence". I have shown you precisely why that is not quantitative evidence. I have shown you that your ideas would work for any masses. No. He means that you are acting in a hypocritical manner; that you are as bad as your pretend physicist. =Uncool-

What observations does it explain? No, it doesn't. A hypothesis also requires testability and falsifiability. How could we falsify your idea? I'm asking you to semantically break it down so that I can see how your theory is anything more than semantics. I am asking you to specifically say precisely what your theory means in the first place, in a practical sense. So far your theory doesn't seem to actually mean anything. It seems like a nice little story, just like the story that invisible tiny leprechauns move all of the particles - apparently an explanation, but it doesn't actually explain anything. So far, I don't see anything that can actually be discussed. I'm asking you to show that there is something of any import to discuss. I'm asking you to show that your idea actually has any meaning in the first place. So far it is just a story. If you are able to come up with any quantitative predictions - which, by the way, string theory does have - then it becomes more than a story. So far, your ideas seem to be on the same level as the idea that leprechauns move particles around in certain structured ways. I am asking you to show that it is anything more. I'd be very interested if you could do so. =Uncool-

Imparticle, what differentiates your idea from a story? =Uncool-

You think they are open-minded enough to mindlessly take quark theory without seriously examining it in any way. That seems to demonstrate a contradiction in your views of physicists. As usual, you have made an error. There is currently a decent amount of controversy over whether magnetic monopoles exist; there are many theories on both sides of that argument. They are not trying to "prove existing theories right" when searching for magnetic monopoles; they are trying to determine which theory is correct. Stop. Your ideas are not a theory. They are not even a hypothesis. No, the reason it annoys people so much is that you give no decent reason to say that the current theory is wrong. Phlogiston was overturned by evidence and experiment. No, it was overturned by experiment. Stop. You yourself are apparently not interested. I have asked you how it could be tested, and to come up with quantitative, statistical tests. You have declined to do so. You are the one who is uninterested in "scientific progress". That is because you have given no reason for anyone to show interest in your theories. Many have told you exactly what you need to do to get people to accept your theory. You have ignored them time and again. Did you even read what Bignose wrote? You say nothing here about taking the critiques to heart, nor do you acknowledge precisely how much has been demonstrated to you in this thread. If you act in the same way that you did in this thread, you will get the same response - people will correctly pay no attention to anything you say. =Uncool-

I never said that people will not pay attention to things that don't deserve attention. I said that there is no reason to pay attention to it. I would advise you to add a link to the quote; it seems to be in very few places online. What that means is that people currently have no idea how to make the technology to test the ideas of string "theory". Note that string "theory" is not yet a theory, it is still at the level of hypothesis. Furthermore, it does make specific predictions as well as ways to test those predictions; the problem is that current and foreseeable technology cannot test those predictions - we need to be able to engineer more advanced technology. What does this have to do with mass being additive? Please note, the fact is that people do present their arguments. You were wrong in the first place when you claimed "A lot of people say, something that has no mass cannot constitute something of mass. But these people never actually argue there point, they give no reasons." I'm asking you to explain the "implied meaning". Physics uses very precise terminology; the words that you are using do not correspond in any way to the standard meanings. Or you have already explained their meaning to them. Or they do not actually understand, but they think they do. There are many more explanations than the ones you are presenting. What does it mean to "have spatial relativity"? Again, what does it mean to "exist between time"? Can you make a quantitative prediction based on your theory? Again, what differentiates your idea from a story? =Uncool-

What precisely does it explain, and how? Actually, they do. Mass is additive. That has been both demonstrated and provides a necessary cornerstone of much of modern physics. How does this follow? What, precisely, does this mean? Again, what precisely does this mean? And for a third time, what does this mean? What does this mean? The entire above paragraph is made of words without any physical meaning. So yes, it seems you are just vomiting out words. Err. That's not how science works. No, it's not "obvious" that your idea - not a theory - is legitimate. If you want anyone to pay attention, you have to either: 1) Make specific, quantitative predictions based off of your theory, or 2) Show that your theory both reproduces the current theory AND is simpler than the current theory. You have done neither. Therefore there is no reason for anyone to pay any attention. Again, what differentiates your idea from a story? =Uncool-

Imparticle, what distinguishes your idea from a story? What makes your idea in any way worth discussing? Do you make any specific, testable, falsifiable predictions? =Uncool-

Your theory. Your prediction. I assumed that you were stating something more than the trivial; anyone who has studied any electrodynamics knows that at large distances, the lower-order multipole dominates. I therefore assumed that you actually had a prediction for the precise dipole moment, as without that, you are stating nothing more than trivialities. Have you been ignoring what I have been posting for nearly this entire thread? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_chromodynamics#Experimental_tests Seriously, the fact that you haven't even looked for this is ludicrous. In fact, it is insulting. Do you think scientists just go "Oh, a theory, I'll accept it without proof!" You clearly do not understand how science works. =Uncool-

That is not an objection to their correctness; that is an objection to the expression of the theory. Come up with a simpler form of the theory, and you might be taken seriously. That is what happened with relativity as opposed to Lorentz's aether theory. Asserting it doesn't make it true. Asserting it doesn't make it true. Depending on the definition of "proper theory", they do have one. It has made numerous precise mathematical predictions that have later been borne out; this demonstrates that the theory does closely correspond to reality. Then your theory is not powerful enough to replace the current theory. The predictions of the current theory do include the half-life of the neutron. Until you can demonstrate that your idea does predict that half-life, there is no reason to take your idea seriously as a theory. So your claim is that the neutron does have an electric dipole moment? How much of one? This is an explicit prediction your theory should be able to make. No, I would not acknowledge that. That is not the point of having a theory of particles. The primary point is that it must make quantitative, quantifiable predictions that are borne out. You attempt to get the secondary goal only by ignoring the primary goal; that is not worth acknowledgement. And no, that is not one of the basics. The basics are predicting the precise behavior of electrons, protons, neutrons, and photons. You predict the coarse behavior, at best, and poorly at that. My argument is that quarks are superior, but that someone must at least know what quark theory predicts to understand why. You do not. You have shown that you know nothing more than what the media says about quarks. Asserting it doesn't make it true. So once again, newts: What precisely do you think is flawed about quarks as a scientific theory? No, being overly complex is not an answer. And what is a precise prediction that your idea makes that can be quantified? =Uncool-

False, and if you knew anything about quarks, you would know that this is false. Everything familiar is a collection of protons, neutrons, and electrons, but there are plenty of things that aren't made of protons, neutrons, and electrons. You are missing all of the mesons and most of the hadrons, let alone all of the antimatter. This is false, and has been shown to be false time and time again in your thread. Why do you repeat what others have shown you is false? No, it is not obvious. And furthermore, it is not science to assume it. I have bumped your thread. Feel free to defend your theory there. I hope you do a better job than the pathetic one you did before. =Uncool-

Since newts seems to want to discuss his theory again, I think it is appropriate to necro this thread. If any mod disagrees, please split to another thread. Newts, I have shown you a specific prediction that your theory seems to make. Do you agree that your theory makes the prediction that the electric field getting far from a neutron would take the form of a multipole? Furthermore, why are protons and neutrons stable, according to your theory? Finally, precisely what about quarks do you think is flawed? =Uncool-

Now that is outright false, and tantamount to a lie. I in particular did the following: I challenged you to demonstrate that your theory could be demonstrated in the first place. You failed to do so. I challenged you to demonstrate that quarks were flawed in the first place. You declined to do so. I challenged you to choose whether my experiment that would test your theory was valid or not. You failed to choose either way. I showed you some of the predictions that quarks made that were borne out. Note that none of the above is "just say[ing] how brilliant quarks are". They are demonstrations that: 1) The current theory has done enough to 2) You have shown no proper challenges to the current theory. 3) You have shown no reason why your theory should be accepted. 4) I have given you specific reasons why your theory should not be accepted. Because it makes more assumptions than special relativity does, makes no extra predictions compared to special relativity, and therefore there is no reason to accept it over special relativity, while there is every reason to accept special relativity instead. The idea of science is to accept the simplest correct explanation. Now this is an actual lie. I have told you precisely what you need to do to show that they are not correct. The science community is more than willing to accept alternatives, given that it meets certain requirements: 1) The new theory must make a prediction that the old theory does not, AND it must be borne out, OR 2) The new theory must make all the same predictions that the old theory does AND make fewer assumptions (in other words, be simpler) Your theory has made no prediction that has been borne out, and it makes significantly fewer predictions than the original theory does. Not just that, but it also contradicts many significantly confirmed theories. You may think this is a clever rhetorical reply, but newts, it honestly comes off as you saying "I won't study it because it's flawed; it's flawed because I declare it is flawed; and I declare it is flawed because I haven't studied it." You have shown no reason to declare that the current leading theory is wrong. Furthermore, you have shown you wouldn't understand the reasons why it's right, let alone any reasons why it could be wrong. There is no reluctance to consider that possibility. The reluctance is to assume that they are substantially flawed without any proof. =Uncool-

Once again, you show that you do not understand the reasoning behind dark matter. Once again, you impute religious feeling to physicists without being able to demonstrate it. Newts, you are acting in an extraordinarily hypocritical manner. I have asked you in the past to demonstrate any level of understanding of quarks, and you have shown nothing more than the media-driven version without knowing any of the actual reasons why they are hypothesized. Your continual posting in this manner only demonstrates how much you are willing to propagate untruths. =Uncool-