Now can we try to stay on topic please?
A common excuse you wheel out. In threads where criticism of your claims is on topic you ignore me, otherwise you demand we talk about something else. Always dodging challenges.
What are quarks made of? Try to offer an answer.
Firstly my ability or not to provide an answer has no bearing on the merits of yours. Such a line of argument is akin to theists jumping on atheists when atheists say "We don't know" in response to questions like "How did the universe get here". The fact a theist can give an answer and an atheist admits not having an answer does not make the theist right by default, their position stands or falls on its own merits. As such I do not need to provide an answer myself in order to point out
your answer is utterly without any experimental validation or justified connection to reality.
Secondly it assumes that an answer can be given in terms of other things. It is much like the "Is the electron a particle or a wave?". It assumes that something utterly outside of our everyday experience can be accurately labelled using terms/concepts from our everyday experience. Electrons, photons etc could well be viewed as a third category; wave, particle and quantum. Those categories need not have mutually exclusive properties nor should they necessarily be explainable in terms of everyday things. As such perhaps the answer to 'what are quarks made of' is just 'quarkness' or 'quantumness', some kind of physical construct which has no everyday equivalent.
Sure, we can throw around things like 'energy' or 'stress' or 'space-time' etc (as you've done on various occasions) but such things are not entirely satisfactory since those are not materialistic entities. Energy is a label we give to a particular property of things, likewise stress, given their formal definitions in science they are not things in and off themselves but rather properties we assign to things. Space-time (as well as space or time) is pretty much in a class all on its own and whether or not it has properties similar to particles depends on things we currently have very little understanding of, namely aspects of quantum gravity. For example, string theory views space-time as an ensemble construct, the emergent seething structure of countless closed strings but we then can ask "What are the strings made of?" and we have the same problem we had before. If someone, such as yourself, is willing to accept "energy" or some other combination of buzzwords ("stress of space-time", whatever) as an answer to "What are quarks made of" then it doesn't really answer the question, as then we're left with "What is energy?". There is always a point where you have to just say "It is what it is", the lowest level of explanation. What are quarks made of? Energy? What is energy made of? X? What is X made of? Y? What is Y made of? Either it is an infinite sequence or there is some set of 'fundamental materials'. Perhaps quarks, electrons, photons, Zs, Ws, all fundamental particles etc are all built of their individual 'fundamental materials' and that is the bottom. Perhaps there is some singular 'material' from which everything is built, such as the material strings are made of (if string theory were true). Or perhaps it is an infinite nested sequence, always a lower level of construction. I don't know,
no one does. What I do know is that anyone claiming to have an answer which is more than "They are what they are" ie the agnostic tautological viewpoint, which the mainstream currently takes since what quantum fields are is not asserted to be anything specific but rather a mathematical formalisation, is just making stuff up without justification. If someone, such as yourself, says "Quarks are made of ...." then the assertion is without any justification or substance unless that premise is part of a working model which is able to recover and is consistent with all experimental observations. If someone were to say "Electrons are trapped light" then they'd need to demonstrate such a premise is viable by providing a model which contains that property explicitly and is able to match all quantum electrodynamics phenomena. Given there is no alternative model currently in existence even remotely as physically applicable as the Standard Model anyone putting forth such claims is just pulling stuff out their backside. When they pull out a working model to go with those claims they are at least vaguely justified in that position.
I say all of that because I know you like to say things along the lines of (and this is not meant to literally quote you but be somewhat illustrative) "the barest essence of particles is the pressure-stress of space-time" (or some other buzzword filled pseudo-new age crap). If you have an answer for "What are quarks made of" which is anything other than an honest "I don't know" or a tautological "Quarkness" you're just throwing out random supposition.
And don't forget the Einstein-de Haas effect and magnetic moment when it comes to evidential standards.
Seeing as
you brought up evidential standards and
your view on things perhaps you would like to provide the specifics of how your work has any testable connection to evidence from experiments. You have put forth your views on quarks (among other things), I would like you to provide any rational justification that your view on things has experimental rationale, specifically can you demonstrate you have a viable model of quarks which is able to correctly align with experimental evidence. If your claims are to be anything more than "This is something random I just made up" then it is necessary for it to have some demonstrable connection to experimental data. Please show it. If you cannot please explain why your view should be entertained any more than "Quarks are made of fairy dust".
And I'm
sure you've got not working understanding of those phenomena you mention, you have only a qualitative superficial understanding obtained by reading the simplified explanations of people much more competent at science than you. Feel free to show otherwise.
You sound a bit upset, rpenner.
You often try to dismiss people's criticism of you by implying we're riled up or throwing ad homs at you. Lengthy posts by myself or others are not 'riled' but simply provided sufficient elaboration and explanation on what your various problems are. You'd do well to listen.
Kind of like falling flat on your face, n'est pas? Hoist. Petard.
You seriously want to play that game with people? The "Look who fell flat on their face!" game?
I'm fairly happy with the higher-dimensional too, for reasons you won't understand.
A man who explains particle physics using a straw from a fast food restaurant has no place being condescending to others about how they won't understand some aspect of high dimensional algebraic topology.
But if you would like a bet on something else, I'd be only too happy to take your money and take you apart.
Funny, I remember challenging you to a £100 (or was it £1000, I forget) bet when you were first pushing your Relativity+ waste of time. You claimed your work was worth multiple Nobel Prizes and that one day myself and BenTheMan would be teaching it. I offered to typeset your work so it met the submission requirements of a reputable journal we could decide on and if you got published you'd win and if you were rejected I'd win. Despite you spamming your work on every science forum you could find and being so praising of it you failed to take me up on the bet. Surely it was free money to you, given your confidence in your work?
Of course with hindsight it is fortunate you didn't take me up on the bet, you'd owe me money. But it sure was odd you didn't... almost like you didn't believe your own hype.
Like I've done on many an occasion.
But I have to say that for a physics wager it ought to be something where there's empirical evidence to decide the matter.
Please provide one, just one, physical phenomenon your work can accurately model, providing the quantitative derivation of it from the clearly stated initial postulates of your work.
Given you have been unable to answer this challenge for about 5 years now I think it is
staggeringly hypocritical and laughable that you pull out the "There's got to be empirical evidence!" card. Your work have
zero empirical evidence as you have
zero quantitative model with
zero derived results. The only results in your work are from you pointing at other people's work and saying "What he said".
Interpretational issues are so subjective.
So why do you not have
any quantitative models derived from your work? Why are you functionally innumerate, unable to do even the most rudimentary of mathematical methods used within physics? Why is
all of your work subjective and supposition based?
And of course, you'll appreciate that Alphanumeric and especially Guest are not quite my first choice of judge.
Judge for what? You're incapable of
any quantitative debate/discussion as you're unable to do any necessary mathematics, while Rpenner has demonstrated multiple times working understanding of degree (and beyond) level material. The only discussion
you are capable of is subjective arm waving and making assertions you are unable to back up with anything quantitative. And that isn't just my opinion, it has been the summary you've had about your work from every science forum you've posted it and the journals you've sent it to.
And before you try it, as if often your way, calling your work terrible and your actions hypocritical isn't an ad hom. I'm explaining with justification why your position is hypocritical and your work laughable, rather than saying "Of course your work is wrong, you said it", ie attacking the man as a means to dismiss your attempt at physics.
We wouldn't want people thinking you were just the sort of chap who just lurks around, and only comes out of the wallpaper to derail an interesting physics discussion. Would we? Anyway, get well soon.
Sort of like how you should stop trying to look insightful and full of deep understanding by leaving cryptic little comments all over the place, people might think you're all show with nothing to say....
