Fundamental Particle Debunked

The 'fundamental particles' is the first born son of reductionism. Reductionism is the assumption that if I break a system into its components, study the components in isolation, then I have understood everything there is to understand about the system. It is preconceived ideas of how the world should be, not observations, that have been the fuel and the rocket that propels the religion of 'science'The 'fundamental particles' is the idea that there exist few simple tiniest particles out of which, everything else is made by their mere rearrangements. It must first be noted that no one begun by first OBSERVING such particles. But when we begine by developing a firm beleif in something, and then begine searching evidence, we human beings then tend to be blind to or trivialise or explain away facts that does not agree with the preconceived idea.It is the search for fundamental particles that makes us 'find' some such as electrons, photons etc. It is what makes the physicist to make the ludicrous claim that these particles are point size, i.e of zero size! So photon, for instance, has no size, no shape, no mass and no charge and yet they have discoverd it in colliders! Of course this rely of sheer gullibility of the layperson funding those accellerators. These zero sized particles can decay farther to even smaller particles! The only word that can summarise anyone beleiving in such establishment garbage is 'insane'!But how has establishment excaped the hooks? Simple! The modern science has subtituted 'inferring' with 'proof'. If someone 'predict' that some invisible queen is surrounded by buzzing bees, then discovering the bees tantamounts to discovering the invisible queen! In otherwords, what the fool is trying to say is that reasoning using some 'beautifull and elegant equations' is infallible!Thinking in terms of fundamental particles lead to unanswerable questions. For instance both electrons, quark and photons are supposed to be fundamental. However, the question immediately comes as to what exactly makes these particles unique. As in all religions, there are always points farther than which you are allowed to ask! If you are talking of the tortoise model of the world, you should not ask what the tortoise is standing on. If you are talking to a christian, you are not allowed to ask what God was doing before he created the world. In big bang religion, you are not even allowed to think about a 'before big bang'. In the religion of fundamental particles, you are not allowed to ask what these bricks are in turn made of. It is sort of like asking what God is made of! This is realy because farther questions instantly destroy the religion. So don't ask.But exactly why did scientists tried to force things to fit fundamental particle way of thinking. The answer is a perverted notion of 'understanding'. In conventional science, we must think of a fundamental universe wherein simple things obey simple blind rules. Combining these simple things and simple events into a complex observed event constituted understanding the event. Or in short, 'reductionism' is confused with 'understanding'. Rather, understanding should stop at figuring out all the causal factors relevant in a phenomena. Without the intuition of cause and effect, 'understanding' becomes a meaningless concept. With this latter notion of understanding, reductionism is not mandatory. For instance, though we can describe the motion of celestial bodies using a single, elegant equation, this does not constitute understanding gravity. However, Bjerkness's demonstration of gravity using pulsating balls imerced in a fluid is the correct aproach to building a human understanding of gravity even though Bjerkness's work suggest that gravitating objects are the works of an intelligent being!THE CORRECT APPROACHScrap off the idea of a fundamental particle completely and begine entertaining the notions that1.)There is no limit as to how small a particle can be2.)Small particles are not necesarily simple3.)Not all small particles necesarily combine up to form the big objects we can observe.Considering the point '2' we now understand say electrons in a bit different way. The properties that ends up leading us to categorise a family of objects as 'electrons' is only aproximately true for all the electrons. Thus an electron taken as fundamental is only the art of treating it as a black box. Thus a theory that treats electrons as fundamental is only aproximately true or in some more fantastic terms, it is an EFFECTIVE THEORY. Then considering points '1' and '2' means that there can be NO fundamental theory, i.e 'theory of everything'! All theories are effective. We can but only make theories more and more accurate but never exact.All electrons then are but only aproximately the same. Electrons differ from quarks just like cats differ from dogs. However, each electrons is unique and no two are exactly alike. That means treating all of them as alike can but only be an aproximation and the resultant theory is only aproximately true.BUT WHY DOESN'T ESTABLISHMENT TAKE THIS PATH?It completely fly against the reductionism doctrine. Even though no one realy saw the subatomic world, it is somewhat a taboo to posit that there might be bees as small as electrons! Such 'bees' serve no purpose to the reductionist. He can nolonger use the subatomic world to 'understand' the macroscopic world because he has, since a child, been indoctrinated that understanding constitutes figuring out how a phenomena follows from simple, structures and simple rules. That, not true understanding, is the reason he seeks fundamental particles.Modern 'scientist' does not seek knowledge nor understanding. He rather seeks a world which is fundamentally simple and which obeys simple blind rules. He seeks such a world because he beleive in it! He selectively sees only the evidences that supports this view and explain away other evidences through endless ad-ocs and ever complications. He seeks a simple world wherein complexity, sentience, order etc happens by chances and not as an intergral part of reality. 'Explaining' has be turned not to be the process of trying to make sense of the world but rather 'explaining away' the phenomena, such as life, that we donnot want them to be part of the fundamental universe!

What Is The Core Of Your Life On Earth? By Steven Hutchinson Wesak, on May 23, is where we think of and celebrate the birth and life of Buddha....Remember Buddha turned away from family riches to find his own inner peace and…

The pedo-blackmailed and bribed acting troupe that pretends to be the US government just bought itself a little more than a week’s survival time by means of outright crime. The Rothschild/Rockefeller owners of the US Corporation did this by fooling…

"Ah yes, that link is the source material for the video, which I provided to my friends at "Family of Light" to post, on my behalf, on YouTube, back in 2015...If you look on the cover image, it has both my logo, as well as that of FOL......Those guys…"

Spiritual Blogs

Fundamental Particle Debunked

Comments

Featured Blogs

Calm In The Midst Of The Storm

Book: ASHTAR – A Tribute Compiled by Tuella

The Fiery Forces Of Creation Are Sweeping The Earth - June 22th, 2022

Interdimensional Being: Where Do You Consciously Reside?

Note: this page contains paid content.

Latest Activity

New Forum Posts

What Is The Core Of Your Life On Earth? By Steven Hutchinson

How To See A Miracle In Your Life

The Dark Origins of the Davos’ Great Reset

A collective “common enemy” now stalks mankind

Note: this page contains paid content.