OK, we'll wait. We established that only some known pseudoscience peddler claims that space is made of tetrahedra, i.e. not a respectable source. That's not an inconsistency; that's simply being wrong. But that's not the "inconsistency" I was talking about. Just go back through the thread and read all the bits of my posts you conveniently ignored; that should give you a good overview.
They were produced prior to the decay process by pair production and the tau antineutrino is the causation agent working on the subject agent (the tau-) I didn't intend to imply that. The tau antineutrino binds with the tau- and forms a anti-ud that decays into the electron and electron antineutrino. The tau neutrino does nothing, it just appears as outgoing particle. That isn't but Quark Conservation is the second formula consistent with. The pair production needs to happen close to the tau- so it can be included in the Feynman diagram. Quarks can't bind again with an electron or positron.
Please provide evidence that this is indeed what happens. The current mainstream theories seem to be working just fine without it. OK. So you were misleading. OK, glad we clear that up. But it is included in the Feynman diagrams in mainstream theories. Just draw out the higher order ones, and you'll find the one you're talking about. Now please demonstrate that the Feynman diagram without it has zero amplitude, and that such a calculation matches what we observe in reality. In other words: please provide evidence that the pair production happening earlier is a requirement. You are missing the point by very selectively quoting. In fact, this is a full-on quote mine. Please stop being intellectually dishonest.
I do experiments in mind. They are just as good as physical experiments, just cheaper. See above. Call it mental inertia then.
Error correction. Then the quarks would have the wrong charge. They have sub-quark content. Since it was never needed to consider them having sub-quark content doesn't mean it will never be needed. But they can bind with a positron to make a anti-du. No I didn't. They bind to form a anti-ud. No. It's to defeat his argument.
OK, great of you to admit you were misquoting me. Now also care to actually address the point that I made there? But with your proposition leptons have the wrong size. Yes, "make" as in "produce", not as in "contained it beforehand". Right, so if a particle interaction/decay results in certain particles, it's not a given that the original particle contained those particles. But that was your entire shtick... But there, you admitted that the reasoning involved wasn't solid; there are other options. So yes, you totally destroyed your own conclusions.
Please provide the calculations backing up this claim. Edit: Wait, what? A lepton is made out of quarks, which are made out of electron + anti-neutrino pairs?Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
So all of your hard claims about how things work in reality are baseless, and you are in no position to change that any time soon. Tell me again, why is this thread in the science section of this forum, when you've just literally admitted all you have is imaginations?
So a lepton is made out of quarks, which are made out of electron + anti-neutrino pairs, which have anti-ud quark content? Circular much?
Ah, so you are admitting you purposefully posted it in the wrong section? You do know that's against the forum rules, right?Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
The electron and electron antineutrino binds to form a anti-ud, this does not mean anti-ud is made of … now you got me.