time can still be measured it's just not measured by physical change, it's measured by numbers. — Metaphysician Undercover

Okay, I give you a number. You tell me how long a time it denotes.

5.

How long time is 5?

If that's too difficult, here's an easier one:

44.

How long time is 44?

Since we only refer to physical change in our descriptions of temporal duration, we haven't yet developed the means for describing temporal duration through reference to non-physical things, like numbers. That was the point of my description, to demonstrate that we need to develop a way to measure time in relation to something other than physical change, because we know that time passes when no physical change occurs. I didn't mean to imply that this way of measuring time had already been developed.

Inertia and gravity are supposed to be properties of all material things. So are you suggesting that there are "bits" of reality which are immaterial, and this is why the theories of gravitation are incompatible with the theories of inertia? Or do you think that there are inconsistencies in our conceptions of space and time, as BC implied in the op? — Metaphysician Undercover

Neither, rather that inertia is one of the 'bits' we didn't used to know and now know with some degree of confidence through experimental verification. What we 'know' might yet be shown to reduce to something else, or be an approximation to something else that held well in historical experiments but fails in edge cases, like Newton's laws RE Mercury or Maxwell's equations RE atoms. But the experimental evidence to date suggests that massive particles gain their inertial mass by being subject to external fields.

Neither, rather that inertia is one of the 'bits' we didn't used to know and now know with some degree of confidence through experimental verification. — Kenosha Kid

Talking with someone who insists we know with confidence what inertia is, it is what is produced by the Higgs field, makes boring conversation, in my opinion. It would be much more helpful if you would explain to me how the Higgs field creates mass. Let's say for example that there are particles with insignificant mass, related to other fields, how would the Higgs field interact with these other fields/particles to create something with mass?

Talking with someone who insists we know with confidence what inertia is, it is what is produced by the Higgs field, makes boring conversation, in my opinion — Metaphysician Undercover

And yet your entire objection was that inertia is not accepted as what you insist it is, namely an inherent property of the body in question. And while you may find science boring, I assure you that more people are bored by ignorant recourse to scientific ideas to promote anti-scientific hogwash. So if you expect me to be moved by your intolerance toward facts, you're doubly deluded.

And yet your entire objection was that inertia is not accepted as what you insist it is, namely an inherent property of the body in question. And while you may find science boring, I assure you that more people are bored by ignorant recourse to scientific ideas to promote anti-scientific hogwash. So if you expect me to be moved by your intolerance toward facts, you're doubly deluded. — Kenosha Kid

You really haven't explained how the Higgs field produces inertia. You've just asserted that this is a fact. What I'm intolerant toward, is opinion presented as fact. So either get on with your explanation, or quit pretending that you know something which you don't. Tell me how the Higgs field is responsible for the mass and inertia of a proton. Of course you can't because your so-called "facts" are pure bull shit.

Try this KK. The "strong interaction" (gluons) is responsible for the mass of protons and neutrons, and it acts from within the nucleus of the atom, not externally to it.

Try this KK. The "strong interaction" (gluons) is responsible for the mass of protons and neutrons, and it acts from within the nucleus of the atom, not externally to it. — Metaphysician Undercover

But external to the quarks that comprise that nucleus.

The protons and neutrons, hadrons, have mass, and therefore account for the inertia of a molecule. Quarks only make up a very tiny portion of this mass, so in this context of providing mass and inertia, it is incorrect to say that a hadron, as massive, is comprised of quarks. The mass, and inertia, only exist as a hadron, and the source of the mass is internal to the hadron. Furthermore, you cannot even separate one quark from another quark to demonstrate that the mass is external to that quark, because the force which binds the quarks internally within the hadron, as massive, prevents this from happening.

Your claim that inertia comes from "the outside" is completely unsupported, and contradictory to what is known by physicists. .

Quarks only make up a very tiny portion of this mass, so in this context of providing mass and inertia, it is incorrect to say that a hadron, as massive, is comprised of quarks. — Metaphysician Undercover

Which ought to give you a clue, since gluons are massless. Therefore what you call the intrinsic inertia of the massive particles in a hadron -- the rest masses of the quarks -- cannot actually account for the hadron's inertia.

Quarks couple to the Higgs field: the higher the energy of the quark, the greater the strength of the interaction. You cannot have a bare quark, but if you could it would be extremely light compared to one in a hadron.

There's no difference really between this and electrostatics in atoms. A hydrogen atom in its ground state weighs less than a bare proton and electron at rest. This is because the electric forces between them reduce their total energy (hence photons can be released as electrons move to closer orbits). Lowering the energy of each particle in the atom lowers the strength of its interaction with the Higgs, leading to a lowering of the inertial mass.

Same goes for the strong interaction except that, instead of lowering the energy of each, the interaction increases it. This increases the strength of the interaction with the Higgs field and thus the inertial mass.

(Technically it is not the mass of each quark individual. In QM, systems of N interacting particles are described by a single wavefunction. You cannot really speak of the properties of a single quark in a hadron.)

Your claim that inertia comes from "the outside" is completely unsupported, and contradictory to what is known by physicists. . — Metaphysician Undercover

You say things like this an awful lot while demonstrating a proclivity towards making strong statements about things you know nothing of. It's funny.

Quarks only make up a very tiny portion of this mass — Metaphysician Undercover

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x8grN3zP8cg

Which ought to give you a clue, since gluons are massless. Therefore what you call the intrinsic inertia of the massive particles in a hadron -- the rest masses of the quarks -- cannot actually account for the hadron's inertia. — Kenosha Kid

Exactly, neither quarks nor gluons have substantial mass in relation to hadrons. That's why your claim to know that inertia comes from an external source, is an absurdity. Mass, as the source of inertia, is known to be an internal property of an object, and until it is demonstrated that the mass is derived from someplace outside the object, such claims are baseless. Neither the quark not the gluon brings the mass to the object, as an independent, external source of the mass, rather the mass is a product of the interaction internal to the hadron.

Quarks couple to the Higgs field: the higher the energy of the quark, the greater the strength of the interaction. You cannot have a bare quark, but if you could it would be extremely light compared to one in a hadron. — Kenosha Kid

Only a very small portion of the mass of a hadron comes from the quarks, less than one percent. So if this is the "bit" you're talking about, I'd say it's an insignificant bit, and really quite irrelevant to the inertia of the object.

Same goes for the strong interaction except that, instead of lowering the energy of each, the interaction increases it. This increases the strength of the interaction with the Higgs field and thus the inertial mass. — Kenosha Kid

The quarks' interaction with gluons, as gauge bosons, is responsible for the strong interaction, consequently the substantial mass of the hadron, not the Higgs field. We need to address the gluon fields to understand the mass and inertia of an object. Your claim that the electroweak interaction of the Higgs field is responsible for the strong interaction of the gluons, is absurd. Notice that the force required for the mass of the hadron, and its inertia, is provided by the gluons, not the quarks (which you relate to the Higgs).

Exactly, neither quarks nor gluons have substantial mass in relation to hadrons. That's why your claim to know that inertia comes from an external source, is an absurdity. — Metaphysician Undercover

One doesn't expect much from you, MU, but even so... To acknowledge on the one hand that the mass of the hadron cannot be due to the intrinsic masses of the quarks or gluons but still maintain that all inertial masses are intrinsic properties of the massive particles themselves is not even trying.

Neither the quark not the gluon brings the mass to the object, as an independent, external source of the mass, rather the mass is a product of the interaction internal to the hadron. — Metaphysician Undercover

Which is made up of quarks and *massless* gluons. Also... interaction... You grasp the idea then that contingent properties of particles are due to external fields, then? The idea isn't 'ridiculous' or 'absurd' to you in general, just for inertial mass is particular?

Only a very small portion of the mass of a hadron comes from the quarks, less than one percent. So if this is the "bit" you're talking about, I'd say it's an insignificant bit, and really quite irrelevant to the inertia of the object. — Metaphysician Undercover

Precisely the point. I'd say well done for following it, but you seem to be restating the argument as if it were a counterargument, so I'll defer the celebration.

Your claim that the electroweak interaction of the Higgs field is responsible for the strong interaction of the gluons, is absurd. — Metaphysician Undercover

No one has claimed this. I know you're religious but try not to rely on making up utter tosh.

Notice that the force required for the mass of the hadron, and its inertia, is provided by the gluons, not the quarks (which you relate to the Higgs). — Metaphysician Undercover

That is false. Gluons add energy, not mass, to the system of quarks, which increases the coupling strength of the quarks with the Higgs field, which in turn increases its mass. There is no mechanism by which gluons can add mass directly. Any force field lowers or increases the *potential* energy of a system: that is how it enters the wave equation in first quantisation (e.g. H = T + V in non-SR).

To acknowledge on the one hand that the mass of the hadron cannot be due to the intrinsic masses of the quarks or gluons but still maintain that all inertial masses are intrinsic properties of the massive particles themselves is not even trying. — Kenosha Kid

The mass is intrinsic to the hadron. But, there is something called mass-energy equivalence, made famous by Einstein. Nuclear energy is produced by the conversion of mass to energy. It makes no sense to talk about the mass as being external to quark, because the mass is no longer mass when it is converted to energy, it is energy. The mass only exists as an internal property of the hadron. Furthermore, the energy which accounts for the mass of the hadron is represented as gluons. Since energy is equivalent to mass, and not the same as mass, the gluons cannot exist as energy when the hadron has mass.

Gluons add energy, not mass, to the system of quarks, which increases the coupling strength of the quarks with the Higgs field, which in turn increases its mass. — Kenosha Kid

Ah, now your starting to catch on. Remember, energy is equivalent to mass; not the same, but equivalent. The energy of the gluons accounts for the mass of the hadrons through this principle of equivalence. But this has nothing to do with the Higgs field, the energy is the property of the gluon fields, and it only becomes representable as mass if that energy is tied up in the hadron, as an internal property of the hadron. In which case it does not exist as energy, but as mass.

If it is represented as non-internal, it is not represented as mass, but as energy. You can insist that energy is non-internal, but the problem is that "energy", by its very conception is necessarily a property of something. If motion has energy, there is necessarily something which is moving. That moving thing is the thing which has energy, and the energy must be represented as an internal feature of that thing. Therefore the energy which is tied up as the mass of the hadron (potential energy), must be represented as something moving (kinetic energy), if it is released, and that is the activity of the gluons.

There is actually a huge deficiency with this conception, because if energy is equivalent to mass, then when mass is annihilated to produce energy we are left with motion, to account for the energy, but no mass to account for the thing moving. We now have a model of massless particles (immaterial things) which are moving around with lots of energy, in the physical world, and that's simply nonsense. The massless energy is represented by fields, but the fields have no substance, no medium to account for the supposed waves in the fields. Because the waves have no substantial existence, massless particles are proposed to mitigate this problem. But this is nonsense, leaving such particles as impossible to locate and identify.

Therefore the whole idea that mass is equivalent to energy is misguided metaphysics. It renders both of these, mass and energy as impossible to understand, unintelligible, through this false representation. It is false for the very reason of what you are arguing today, the idea that internal relations can be represented as equivalent to external relations. External relations are objects moving relative to each other. Internal relations are parts held in unity. These two are very different from each other, as evident from the asymptotic nature of the strong force. This is why it is a mistake to represent mass (internal relations) as equivalent to energy (external relations)

There is no mechanism by which gluons can add mass directly. — Kenosha Kid

Oh come on Kenosha, I know you're smarter than that. You say that gluons add energy. You know that energy is equivalent to mass. Yet you say that "there is no mechanism by which gluons can add mass directly". Obviously there is such a mechanism, it's called "mass-energy equivalence". Of course this "mechanism" is just a slight of hand, smoke and mirrors trick of sophistry, which ought to be exposed for what it is, a faulty principle of magical thinking. But try to tell a physicist that this principle is really a deep misunderstanding! The reply will be that the principle has demonstrated itself to be extremely useful, and therefore empirically validated. This is despite the fact that the principle makes the vast majority of material existence incomprehensible to us. I'd say that this is very clear evidence that being empirically validated as useful does not constitute being truthful. But we already all know this principle, that usefulness does not equate with truthfulness.

The mass is intrinsic to the hadron. — Metaphysician Undercover

The hadron is a system. You would say the mass of a bowl of fruit is intrinsic to the bowl of fruit: it is derived from the masses of its constituents.

Furthermore, the energy which accounts for the mass of the hadron is represented as gluons. — Metaphysician Undercover

No, if you're speaking of quarks and gluons, you speak of the standard model in which mass is conferred by interaction with the external Higgs field. This interaction is, in terms of energy-mass equivalence, more fundamental, since rest masses are not theoretically added by hand as they are in SR. (In other respects, SR is more fundamental than QFT.)

Ah, now your starting to catch on. — Metaphysician Undercover

Thanks for the encouragement, but I derive more from my education.

You know that energy is equivalent to mass — Metaphysician Undercover

Rest mass is not conferred by virtue of having energy, else the photon would have one. Kinetic and potential energy increase/decrease the coupling to the Higgs field, but to have a rest mass requires that coupling.

But try to tell a physicist that this principle is really a deep misunderstanding! — Metaphysician Undercover

It isn't a misunderstanding. The Higgs field explains why modified masses occur. Mass-energy equivalence is not a mechanism. I do not need to tell physicists this: we already know it.

I'd say that this is very clear evidence that being empirically validated as useful does not constitute being truthful. — Metaphysician Undercover

True, likely the Higgs mechanism will turn out to be an approximation to something else. But a) one could dismiss any scientific theory this way, including SR and its mass-energy equivalence, and b) this does not support the claim that empirically-verified theory is 'ridiculous' or'absurd'.

The hadron is a system. You would say the mass of a bowl of fruit is intrinsic to the bowl of fruit: it is derived from the masses of its constituents. — Kenosha Kid

No, you cannot say that the mass of a hadron is equivalent to the sum of the mass of the parts, that's exactly the fact that I've been trying to impress upon you. This is because some of the parts, the gluons, are gauge bosons, and are therefore carriers of force which are represented by fields rather than as mass.

No, if you're speaking of quarks and gluons, you speak of the standard model in which mass is conferred by interaction with the external Higgs field. This interaction is, in terms of energy-mass equivalence, more fundamental, since rest masses are not theoretically added by hand as they are in SR. (In other respects, SR is more fundamental than QFT.) — Kenosha Kid

No, I'm not talking about the mass of quarks and gluons. Gluons are massless, and the mass of quarks is insignificant. I'm talking about significant mass, the mass of a hadron, real substance. As I've already explained to you, the mass of all the quarks of a hadron is very, very small, insignificant in relation to the mass of a hadron. Will you acknowledge this fact, or will you continue to play dumb? And, we agree that gluons are massless. Therefore, unlike your fruit bowl analogy we cannot sum up the mass of the quarks and gluons to make the mass of a hadron, because that sum is quite insignificant compared to the actual mass of the hadron.

Do you understand that the vast majority of the mass of a hadron is not derived from the Higgs field? The Higgs field only provides a very insignificant portion of that mass. Why do you keep insisting on directing the conversation toward some particles with a very miniscule, insignificant portion of mass, when we are discussing "mass" in general, and therefore need to first understand where the majority of the mass of an object comes from?

To use your fruit bowl analogy, it's like the contents of the fruit bowl has a total mass value of 1000, and the only massive objects in the bowl are three apples each with a mass value of 10. You seem to think that we can account for the mass of the fruit bowl by explaining where the mass of the three apples comes from. How can you not see how absurd this is?

A fact that few take into account because few know it: there are more mentally ill people among celebrated scientists than in the general population.

A fact that few take into account because few know it: there are more mentally ill people among celebrated scientists than in the general population — bcccampello

I don't think MU is a celebrated scientist. But I could be wrong. :wink:

because we know that time passes when no physical change occurs. — Metaphysician Undercover

How do we know that time passes when nothing happens? How do we know that time passes when things happen?

If we accept that time passes when nothing happens, then we can equally claim that time never passes, and motion and change are increments piled on top of each other, so to speak, without time getting involved at all.

How do we know that time passes when nothing happens? How do we know that time passes when things happen? — god must be atheist

Because that's what we call what we experience as time passing, "time passing". How do we know that water is water? It's what we call it. If you want to be skeptical about it, maybe we don't really know that water is water, or that time passing is time passing.

If we accept that time passes when nothing happens, then we can equally claim that time never passes, — god must be atheist

I don't see how you relate these two. The reason why we must accept that time passes when nothing happens is because it has been proven by science, through the discrete (non-continuous) existence of quantum particles. There is a shortest period of time, Planck time, during which something can happen. So there is a state at t1, then a state at t2, and nothing can happen between t1 and t2 because it is too short of a period of time. Yet time passes during this period of time. It must, in order to get the difference between t1 and t2. Therefore there is time passing when nothing happens.

I do not see how this is related to you proposal that time never passes. We experience time passing, as what was, is not now, it's in the past. We remember it, but it's gone, in the past. Also we anticipate future states, like if a car is driving toward you, you expect it to get to you, then it does. You might propose that time never passes, but I don't see how you would support that. Furthermore, I don't see how you relate this idea to the proof that time passes when nothing happens. I can see that if you could support this notion, that time doesn't pass, justify it somehow, then the whole scientific enterprise which is built on the fundamental assumption that we can measure the passing of time, would be undermined.

There is a shortest period of time,Planck time, during which something can happen. So there is a state at t1, then a state at t2, and nothing can happen between t1 and t2 because it is too short of a period of time. — Metaphysician Undercover

A photon travels at the speed of light over a Planck length during this "time". Therefore, something happens as time progresses.

A photon appears at one place and then another. We cannot say that anything happens to it in between because we cannot confirm that it even exists in between. Its presumed existence is represented as a wave function. But wave functions don't represent the actual existence of photons. All we can do is make statements about where it might appear, and what causes it to appear here and there.

You seem to be concluding that if there is an appearance of a photon somewhere at t1, then somewhere else at t2, there is a continuity of existence of a photon between t1 and t2, during which time the photon "travels", as you or I would walk down the street. But scientific observation does not support this conclusion. So the continuous existence of the photon is nothing but an unsupported assumption, which the scientific principles demonstrate is actually false. Therefore we cannot truthfully say that something happens to the photon in that duration, because it doesn't even exist.

Two facts about Sir Isaac that you will never find in the manuals:

(1) The main purpose of his studies was to found a new Christianity without the Trinity - a kind of "absolute unity" in the Islamic style. Failed.

(2) He had tantrums and started hitting people for no reason.

There is a shortest period of time, Planck time, during which something can happen. — Metaphysician Undercover

And not merely be non-measurable? Very well. :sad:

As I've already explained to you, the mass of all the quarks of a hadron is very, very small, insignificant in relation to the mass of a hadron. Will you acknowledge this fact, or will you continue to play dumb? — Metaphysician Undercover

This fact has been acknowledged by us both, and has been the starting point for a few of our posts in this exchange, so pretending that I'm denying it IS dumb, a really dumb play.

Going back to where this started:

It is wrong to attribute inertia to the field rather than to the particle. And, the Standard Model indicates that the causal relationship between the field and the particle is unknown. So it is more ridiculous to claim that the particle's inertia comes from outside the particle (what is known to be wrong), than it is to claim that it comes from the will of God (what may or may not be wrong). — Metaphysician Undercover

You now seem to accept that the mass of the quark comes from its interaction with an external field, which is a retraction the above. I'm sufficiently satisfied with this general reversal that I don't particularly feel the need to argue individual cases. If you now consider it uncontroversial that quarks and leptons individually get their inertia from interaction with the Higgs field, that's good enough to lay your original argument to rest. If you specifically want to how gluons contribute to the hadron mass, either refer to my description of atomic binding energy for the gist or begin a thread on it; we should not derail @bcccampello further.

The main purpose of his studies was to found a new Christianity without the Trinity - a kind of "absolute unity" in the Islamic style. Failed. — bcccampello

That was later in life, I think, after he had more or less left physics behind for a job torturing people for the Royal Mint and devising new coinage. He also believed that the Bible contained a code that unlocked all of the laws of nature. He also tried to become an alchemist. Genius, but nuts.

It's a common knowledge that Newton's predominant interests throughout his life (judging by the expenditure of time and ink) were esoteric religious studies and alchemy, and that he was a rare jerk.

If that's your trump card in support of your confused OP, I think you should quit while you're ahead.

There is no more stubborn and incurable imbecile than the one who proclaims: "I only believe in scientific evidence." Most of the important knowledge is not accessible to any scientific test. Scientifically prove that Shakespeare's writings are better than those of Dan Brown. Scientifically prove that the woman you love will not put a tremendous pair of horns on you. Scientifically prove that some twenty years from now the USA will continue to exist. Devout confidence in the omnipotence of the scientific method is perhaps the greatest proof of intellectual immaturity.

Aristotle taught that ALL scientific evidence is based on some pre-scientific knowledge, which it only perfects IN CERTAIN ASPECTS. The typical modern university jerk wants to invalidate ALL pre-scientific knowledge and exchange it for some scientific proof. He will only risk taking an woman to bed when he is scientifically certain that his dick will rise.

You now seem to accept that the mass of the quark comes from its interaction with an external field, which is a retraction the above. — Kenosha Kid

There's no retraction. "Comes from", as in "the cause of" is not the same thing as the attribute itself. This is why I emphasized the fact that energy is equivalent to mass by convention equations, but is not the same thing as mass. And, as I indicated this equivalence is a failure in the modeling, which incapacitates our ability to distinguish between internal and external.

The quarks do not provide the mass of the hadron.. Nor do the gluons have mass. The mass is attributed to the hadron, and it is internal to it. In theory, and perhaps in practice to an extent, the gluons and quarks are separable. If they are separated, the mass no longer exists, it is substituted by energy.

So it is incorrect to use the spatial references of internal/external (as you do) in describing the relationship between these particles and the mass at this time, when they are separated, because the mass has no no spatial existence, It's gone, in the past. We can only use those spatial terms, when the mass has actual spatial existence, and that is as a hadron. And the mass is internal. Therefore the proper terms of reference of mass in relation to those other particles (quarks and gluons) are temporal, past and future. The mass only exists at the time when those particles have that relationship, but at that time the particles exist as a hadron and the mass is internal to the hadron.. We can say that the hadron has mass, and that mass is an internal feature, but if we talk about mass in relation to those proposed parts of the hadron (quarks and gluons), we need to concern ourselves with a temporal relation to the mass (before/after) rather than a spatial relation (internal/external).

If you now consider it uncontroversial that quarks and leptons individually get their inertia from interaction with the Higgs field, that's good enough to lay your original argument to rest. — Kenosha Kid

I don't know whether it's controversial or not, but I agree that this is the case within The Model. But as I've indicated, I consider this mass to be insignificant, and I don't agree with The Model. So the existence of such insignificant mass more likely a symptom of the deficiency of the model than anything else. I think that Einsteinian principles provide a faulty representation of the relation between space and time. The evidence I gave why I believe this, is that these principles lead to the incoherent ideas of waves without a medium, and particles without mass. Each of these ideas, in itself is incoherent, and sufficient evidence that the whole Standard Model, along with the Einsteinian relativity, ought to be rejected as misrepresentation, regardless of its utility.

If you specifically want to how gluons contribute to the hadron mass, either refer to my description of atomic binding energy for the gist or begin a thread on it; we should not derail bcccampello further. — Kenosha Kid

I don't think that this is a derail of the thread. The inconsistencies which bccampello referred to in the op involve the way that Newton represented space and time. And this problem has not been resolved by Einsteinian relativity, only made more complex. Look at gravity for example. It is represented as external to everything, a property of space-time, with the existence of objects being affected by it. This makes space-time an absolute. So instead of two distinct absolutes, space and time, there is one complex absolute, space-time.

The problem with this representation of gravity is exactly the problem that you and I are discussing. With this model there is no way to represent gravity as acting from within (internal to) an object, as property of the object. This is a problem because evidence demonstrates that objects have a center of gravity, and therefore gravity is best modeled as a property of the object itself. As a result of this misrepresentation (gravity represented as a property of the surrounding space-time rather than the object itself) objects get reduced to dimensionless points (such as point particles) with gravity as an external force, which is clearly a misrepresentation of an object, convenient but not true.

What is evident is that physicists have lost the capacity to distinguish between internal and external sources of activity. Once we allow for dimensionless and massless particles we have no means to represent activity internal to that particle. So all the internal forces must be inverted and represented as external, producing a misrepresentation as the real difference between internal and external is not a matter of simple inversion. What is needed is a model of a real, substantial space, one with a distinction between internal and external, such that a proper relationship with time can be established. I believe that the only way to properly represent internal and external is to conceive of space as consisting of separate particles which themselves are active and relate to each other through a wave activity.

And not merely be non-measurable? — jgill

I think it's been demonstrated that the position of the photon is non-measurable because it's simply not in any place when its position cannot be determined.

I don't know whether it's controversial or not, but I agree that this is the case within The Model. But as I've indicated, I consider this mass to be insignificant, and I don't agree with The Model. — Metaphysician Undercover

You're not obliged to, but you've spent most of this conversation making out like it was my pet theory, born from my ignorance, absurd and ridiculous. Now you agree it's what the cornerstone of modern physics says. Like you'd know. I could have said literally the opposite and got you to agree that's what the standard model says. I appreciate your enthusiasm, but you are not a serious interlocutor.