Erroneous Formula

Discussion in 'Pseudoscience' started by Willem, Apr 7, 2019.

  1. Willem Banned Banned

    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.
     
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. NotEinstein Valued 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.
     
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. Willem Banned Banned

    Messages:
    283
    It's down a spiral path due to the "sub" prefix.
     
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. NotEinstein Valued 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. Willem Banned Banned

    Messages:
    283
    I'm prepared to accept that. But I still think it is spiral or more like a balancing stick, not circular.
     
  9. NotEinstein Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,986
    Well, merely thinking it isn't enough: you have to proof it.
     
  10. Willem Banned Banned

    Messages:
    283
    Lets state this clearly: anti-ud have sub-lepton content and leptons have sub-quark content. Is it circular?
     
  11. NotEinstein Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,986
    If A contains B, and B contains A, is that circular?
     
  12. Willem Banned Banned

    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. NotEinstein Valued Senior Member

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

    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. NotEinstein Valued 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. Willem Banned Banned

    Messages:
    283
    I edited the reply #91.
     
  17. NotEinstein Valued 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. Willem Banned Banned

    Messages:
    283
    OK. It is circular.
     
  19. NotEinstein Valued 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. Willem Banned Banned

    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. NotEinstein Valued 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. Willem Banned Banned

    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. NotEinstein Valued 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.
     

Share This Page