what is matter anyway?

[newts]

a matter can be reduced to atom and atom is reduced to electron, protron and neutron which are nothing but charges. if we link up all ideas from electron to matter then what is matter anyway? smallest charges accumulate o create atom and atoms accumulate to create matter. so the matter is nothing but charges. be it solid, liquid or gas, it is nothing but charges.

 

what do you think?

I would just like to apologise for hijacking a thread about matter being nothing but charges, by explaining how matter is nothing but charges. Next time I will try to stay on topic.

Edited October 2, 2012 by newts

[swansont]

I would just like to apologise for hijacking a thread about matter being nothing but charges, by explaining how matter is nothing but charges. Next time I will try to stay on topic.

!

Moderator Note

The sarcasm is a reliable indicator that you haven't acquired a clue about the reason for your little vacation, so let me spell it out for you: the problem isn't that you responded to a question about matter being nothing but charges by explaining how matter is nothing but charges. The problem is that you brought up your well-worn complaint about quarks, which is off-topic, and discussion involving any pet theory is simply not acceptable outside of its own thread.

 

Answers to questions, even speculative ones, should involve standard, mainstream science. Repeated deviation from that is what earns one a time-out, and failure to modify that behavior eventually results in a ban.

 

End of discussion. Back to the topic at hand.

[newts]

!

Moderator Note

The sarcasm is a reliable indicator that you haven't acquired a clue about the reason for your little vacation, so let me spell it out for you: the problem isn't that you responded to a question about matter being nothing but charges by explaining how matter is nothing but charges. The problem is that you brought up your well-worn complaint about quarks, which is off-topic, and discussion involving any pet theory is simply not acceptable outside of its own thread.

 

Answers to questions, even speculative ones, should involve standard, mainstream science. Repeated deviation from that is what earns one a time-out, and failure to modify that behavior eventually results in a ban.

 

End of discussion. Back to the topic at hand.

I briefly explained for the unenlightened, how electric forces explain most of what happens on earth. Since nobody is going to argue about that; where else can the thread go, other than to extend the theory of electric charges to the composition of particles such as protons?

 

The discussion was about Gell-Mann's pet theory not mine; even before I joined the fray, quarks had been offered up as a refutation of the OP. True we were rehashing arguments from my thread; but that is largely because even there people were not that interested in my ideas, and rather more interested in saying how incredible quarks are.

 

I do not think that you are saying nobody is allowed to speculate that quarks are wrong; I suspect that you are saying I am not allowed to. Which reminds me of the story that the Catholic Church only took exception to heliocentricity when Galileo started advocating it.

[ACG52]

I suspect that you are saying I am not allowed to. Which reminds me of the story that the Catholic Church only took exception to heliocentricity when Galileo started advocating it.

 

Crackpot index gives you 40 points for comparing yourself to Galileo, suggesting that a modern-day Inquisition is hard at work on your case, and so on.

[uncool]

I briefly explained for the unenlightened, how electric forces explain most of what happens on earth. Since nobody is going to argue about that; where else can the thread go, other than to extend the theory of electric charges to the composition of particles such as protons?

 

The discussion was about Gell-Mann's pet theory not mine; even before I joined the fray, quarks had been offered up as a refutation of the OP.

Except it wasn't. Literally one person talked about quarks; two people talked about gluons, one being someone who was making the fallacy of composition.

True we were rehashing arguments from my thread; but that is largely because even there people were not that interested in my ideas, and rather more interested in saying how incredible quarks are.

Do you try to misrepresent what's going on? Because people have told you exactly why they no longer are at all interested in your ideas; namely, your unwillingness to do anything with them other than try to claim that mainstream physics is dogmatic.

I do not think that you are saying nobody is allowed to speculate that quarks are wrong; I suspect that you are saying I am not allowed to.

You suspect wrongly then.

=Uncool-

[EquisDeXD]

What matter "is", as Feyman put it, depends on how deep you want to go. If you want to go all the way down, we don't have an exact answer, but if you want to go part of the way, we can say matter is the constructed of many particles which propagate the 4 fundamental forces of nature in various ways.

[swansont]

emphasis added

I briefly explained for the unenlightened, how electric forces explain most of what happens on earth. Since nobody is going to argue about that; where else can the thread go, other than to extend the theory of electric charges to the composition of particles such as protons?

 

The discussion was about Gell-Mann's pet theory not mine; even before I joined the fray, quarks had been offered up as a refutation of the OP. True we were rehashing arguments from my thread; but that is largely because even there people were not that interested in my ideas, and rather more interested in saying how incredible quarks are.

 

I do not think that you are saying nobody is allowed to speculate that quarks are wrong; I suspect that you are saying I am not allowed to. Which reminds me of the story that the Catholic Church only took exception to heliocentricity when Galileo started advocating it.

!

Moderator Note

What I am saying is that the ONLY place you are allowed to speculate about your pet theory is in its own thread in Speculations. If nobody is interested there, too bad for you. Anywhere else, bringing it up is off-topic.

 

Also, responding to modnotes in the thread (especially after saying "end of discussion" or "back on topic" or some similar disclaimer) is off-topic, one more data point that you feel free to disregard the rules of the forum and didn't learn anything from your vacation, and puts you one step closer to another suspension or ban.

 

BACK ON TOPIC

[newts]

Crackpot index gives you 40 points for comparing yourself to Galileo, suggesting that a modern-day Inquisition is hard at work on your case, and so on.

I was not comparing myself to Galileo; I was making the point that the human nature of university professors is no different to what is was 400 years ago. If you compare my work to Galileo's, I am sure you will agree that our contributions to physics are vastly different, even if both are utterly repugnant to the establishment.

 

Except it wasn't. Literally one person talked about quarks; two people talked about gluons, one being someone who was making the fallacy of composition.

If you want to discuss quarks and gluons, then it is best to do it on my thread, as Swansont said. This thread is about matter, not about imaginary beings.

[ACG52]

If you compare my work to Galileo's, I am sure you will agree that our contributions to physics are vastly different,

 

Yes, he made major contributions, and you've lowered the average level of intelligence.

[uncool]

If you want to discuss quarks and gluons, then it is best to do it on my thread, as Swansont said. This thread is about matter, not about imaginary beings.

I wasn't discussing quarks and gluons. I was discussing your incorrect statement. You were wrong about the thread being about "Gell-Mann's pet theory" before you showed up.

=Uncool-

[newts]

Yes, he made major contributions, and you've lowered the average level of intelligence.

 

Doubtless if you had been around at the time of Galileo; then you would have accused him of lowering the intelligence levels, or rather accused him of the 17th century equivalent of that phrase.