So getting back to
this long post, in response to this part my previous post
here:
I mean how much more fundamental can one get than the atom? Just can't do it, eh?
bearing in mind that after reading the entire post , not to mention the rest of them, one would have to be thicker than a brick to simply respond with more of the same.. However,
TheVillagerIdiot indeed does just that, starting with an image titled "Standard Model of Elementary Particles" and provides the following excuse:
Those are all of the subatomic particles that we know of right now.
In other words, he's arguing that sub-ATOM-ic particles are "more fundamental".. "than the atom"!
Okay, I can switch back to addressing you directly now. First, "more fundamental than the atom" is cliché, not a phrase offered to be taken so literally. Second, electrons are clearly included in that set so we were already at that "sub"-level to begin with. That was the point. I brought up the electron, the "gluon, etc" long before. Nowhere new to go there. But you want to keep on believing I'm somehow unfamiliar with or don't understand the "Standard", the status quo, the institutional, the mainstream, the ESTABLISHMENT'S garbage assemblage of beliefs about the entire business. Well, so sorry... wrong, I obviously do. Now kindly get over it.
This is no dick waving contest. I quickly recognized you as someone capable of understanding all that stuff you've posted here. So I've been asking you to consider the possibility of an alternative explanation. No one has ever seen any of these "particles". All is therefore simply theoretical... including the labeling of them as "particles" (or "waves" for that matter). THINK about that. Of course they keep banging stuff together and getting VISUAL results, measurements, "observations." Science! So what. There's still no genuine consensus among the physicists involved as to how it all fits together, how it explains MUCH of the stuff everyone had hoped it might. Nothing remotely comparable to the consensus among climate scientists regarding climate change, for example.
The atom smashers have certainly been no waste of money thus far, but they've pretty much done all they can. There's a practical limit to how big you can make the things and expect to "observe" anything new or better. We're basically already there and we still can't concoct any "Universal Theory" from it that ties everything together in a neat package with a bow. No closer to that now than Einstein ever got. Know why? Obviously because Einstein had something fundamentally wrong. Actually, he doubted his basis most of his adult life and expressed regret for misleading the entire world towards the end. Too little too late, unfortunately. The damage was done. Don't believe me. Research it for yourself.
But first, have the decency to acknowledge that when you literally "can't see" whether something is material or not, then you can't logically call it a "particle" now can you?! What if it were just a bundle of magnetism and electricity that we "observe" or measure as having a certain mass, charge, "spin" and what have you? If you can open up your mind to seriously consider that possible then you've finally begun journeying down the right path for the very first time. Where it ultimately leads no one quite knows yet. One thing that's evident so far is that reality is much simpler than we've all been led to believe. However, a ton of deprogramming is an unfortunate must before getting much of anywhere.