# Erroneous Formula

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.

Ha, Ha. The reasoning lead down a path to: "they are all made of something else",
Why would circular reasoning lead to that conclusion?

I think we need something at the Planck length and this is spacetime.
Again, this is the science section of the forum. Please post alternative theories and fringe ideas in the appropriate section.

It's down a spiral path due to the "sub" prefix.

It's down a spiral path due to the "sub" prefix.
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.

I'm prepared to accept that. But I still think it is spiral or more like a balancing stick, not circular.

I'm prepared to accept that. But I still think it is spiral or more like a balancing stick, not circular.
Well, merely thinking it isn't enough: you have to proof it.

Lets state this clearly: anti-ud have sub-lepton content and leptons have sub-quark content. Is it circular?

Lets state this clearly: anti-ud have sub-lepton content and leptons have sub-quark content. Is it circular?
If A contains B, and B contains A, is that circular?

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.

It depends on if A and B are made of the same substructure or not.

"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.

"A contains B and B contains A" is a true statement if A and B has the same substructure. i.e. A = B.
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.

OK, let's take a look.

"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.
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... 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?

You do realize that "substitute B for A" is the same as saying B = A?

OK. It is circular.

OK. It is circular.
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!

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:
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).
Irrelevant and off-topic. You admitted your entire idea is fraught with circular reasoning, and thus can be dismissed on that basis.

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."

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."
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.