Quarks? Dragonology and quarkology.

Thread view:

Enable EMail Alerts

Start New Thread

Thread rating:

socratus - 30 Apr 2006 06:44 GMT

The wish of the scientists to understand the picture of Existence is
great.
That is why, aspiring to understand the structure of micro particles,
they created a new theory "quantum chromodynamics ", "quark model",
1963.
But the "quantum chromodynamics " theory approves
that it is impossible to see quarks.
* * *
"Once upon a time there was a man who was a very good expert on
dragon.
He studied versions of dragons, their attributes and habits most
carefully .
He could skilfully distinguish one kind of dragon from another.
But, unfortunately, for all his ife he never met any dragon. .
And he did not hear, that someone another should see dragon. .
When this scientist came nearer to old age and got tired from studing
dragons,
he began to train the young people, that they also understood this
major
area of knowledge - dragonology as well."
/ From the book V.P. Shelist "Splinters" /
* * *
The dragon theory was created a long time ago.
The quark theory was recently created.
The dragon is a strange beast.
And the quark is also a strange beast.
Both of them are from one myth.
Only different times gave this myth the different names.

Reply to this Message

Bill Hobba - 30 Apr 2006 12:45 GMT

> The wish of the scientists to understand the picture of Existence is
> great.
[quoted text clipped - 23 lines]
> And the quark is also a strange beast.
> Both of them are from one myth.

Quarks are not myth - they for example explain virtually all of normal
mass - dragoons can not do that:
http://mitworld.mit.edu/video/204/

> Only different times gave this myth the different names.

Reply to this Message

Vert - 30 Apr 2006 16:01 GMT

BILL
Quarks are not myth - they for example explain virtually all of normal
mass - dragoons can not do that:
http://mitworld.mit.edu/video/204/

> Only different times gave this myth the different names.

The fact you can't tell the difference between myth and science does
not
mean others can't any more than the fact flat earthers can't see how
silly
they are does not mean the rest of humanity don't see it.

VERGON

Socratus is right -- Bill is wrong.

Years ago, I attended a lecture at Caltech by Gell-Mann in which he
explained why he developed the THEORY of the quark. He was looking for
a common denomenator to the atomic zoo -- a common denominator of
characteristics. He found some (3) and didn't know what they really
were so he called them Quarks. Later he found more, so he had 6. From
there the theory grew like topsey and develped colors -- BECAUSE THEY
DIDN'T KMOW WHAT THE HELL THEY WERE. Some theory.(Then there's "up"
"down" --- and I'm waiting for "sideways" :-) )

The quark has never been isolated. So instead of admitting there was no
such thing, it was pronounced that it could not escape the nucleus. How
convenient..

Bill uses as an argument that the rest of humanity believes in the
quark. Humanity believed in Ptolemy's universe for FOURTEEN CENTURIES.

And more recently, practically all of humanity celebrated New Year 2000
as the beginning of a new milleniuim while the FACT is the new
millenium started with the year 2001. "Humanity" can be very stupid at
times.

A more apropos story for the non-existent quarks is the fable about the
King who wore no clothes. Everybody commented on how COLORFUL his
clothes were (the same colors as have quarks) but, alas, the king was
naked.

If anyone wants to read a theory of the sub-particle structure of the
universe, they can go to http://www.wbabin.net (The General Science
Journal) --find the list of authors pull down -- click on Vertner
Vergon and read the monograph, "On the Quantum as a Physical Entity".

Reply to this Message

Natural Science Forum / Physics / Relativity / April 2006

Quarks? Dragonology and quarkology.