Sure, if the derivation isn't valid, the circular bit doesn't really matter. The argument then is invalid trivially, and can be dismissed on those ground.If the derivation was valid in every step, yes.
Let's take a look.Ha ha. I edited post #101.
Yes, that's trivially correct, but it doesn't address the issue of circular reasoning.No. Ive got it wrong. It is that if the premise is true and the derivation is valid then the conclusion is true.
Circular reasoning isn't elegant, quite the contrary. So if "the elegance of the formula is based on a circularity", it's quite an ugly formula.So the elegance of the formula is based on a circularity,
Depends on what you mean by "untrue". If you mean "false", then no, not necessarily. If you mean "not true", as in "you can't say it's true based on the reasoning provided", then yes.does this make it untrue?
What is a "causation agent"?Yes if it was the only justification. But it could have another justification namely that it gives the formula a causation agent.
What is a "causation agent"?
Then the answer is no: merely because an argument gives a causation agent to a formula, that doesn't provide any validity to the argument.After analog to human action: The man moves the book. Then "the man" is the causation agent and "the book" is the subject of the causation.
The validity of an argument has no bearing on whether the premises are true. That's also a matter of basic logic.The question is if it makes the premise true.
So the answer is again no
Not inherently, no, and certainly not if it's false or unfounded.Isn't it better than no causation agent.
Reported to have this moved to pseudoscience.My formula explains why there is an outgoing tau neutrino in a way that doesn't involve creation from Tau- - W-.
As both of us have just established together: this is merely your imagination, nothing more. You don't have evidence, you don't have calculations, you don't even have valid reasoning. You, once again, present it here as a fact, even after this misleading presentation has explicitly pointed out to you. I cannot draw any other conclusion that this: you are being intellectually dishonest.My formula explains why there is an outgoing tau neutrino in a way that doesn't involve creation from Tau- - W-.
this misleading presentation has explicitly pointed out to you
1) That's not what I was talking about;That statement is entirely correct. The tau neutrino start to exist by pair production.
Impossiblebeing intellectually dishonest
That thread is in the pseudoscience section of the forum, strongly suggesting this reason you mentioned is pseudoscientific in nature. This is the science section; pseudoscientific reasons will not cut it here.There is another reason for dismissing the Weak Interaction. See "Quarks cannot Transform".