The greatest success story in physics
- Thread starter Cypress
- Start date
IBDaMann
Well-known member
The model you displayed offers no value. It is only an achievement to a 6th-grader learning how to use GIMP. The "model" does not model anything and provides no information. I presume that you were mesmerized by the selection of buzzwords that you believe are mystical-magical things.
Chemistry is still our best model of matter. Learn some science.
IBDUMBASS unwittingly confesses to having never heard of the standard model
You obviously weren't aware of the standard model until I brought it up, and were blissfully ignorant of the fact it is arguably the most important scientific framework in the history of human intellectual achievement.
Atoms and molecules are not fundamental particles of nature.
The periodic table and chemistry does not explain the forces of interactions between particles. The standard model explains all forces except gravity, namely electromagnetism, the strong force, and the weak force via the electroweak theory (including quantum electrodynamics) and quantum chromodynamics.
The discipline of chemistry has no theory to explain the fundamental forces or the properties and quantum states of the elementary particles fermions, leptons, bosons. Long story short, chemistry does not explain the fundamental nature of physical reality. The standard model of particle physics is our best explanation of physical reality.
"The Standard Model of Particle Physics is scientists' current best theory to describe the most basic building blocks of the universe" (US Department of Energy)
IBDumbass' hilarious scientific illiteracy -->
^^^ Unknowingly and unwittingly confesses to scientific ignorance.
You obviously weren't aware of the standard model until I brought it up, and were blissfully ignorant of the fact it is arguably the most important scientific framework in the history of human intellectual achievement.
Atoms and molecules are not fundamental particles of nature.
The periodic table and chemistry does not explain the forces of interactions between particles. The standard model explains all forces except gravity, namely electromagnetism, the strong force, and the weak force via the electroweak theory (including quantum electrodynamics) and quantum chromodynamics.
The discipline of chemistry has no theory to explain the fundamental forces or the properties and quantum states of the elementary particles fermions, leptons, bosons. Long story short, chemistry does not explain the fundamental nature of physical reality. The standard model of particle physics is our best explanation of physical reality.
"The Standard Model of Particle Physics is scientists' current best theory to describe the most basic building blocks of the universe" (US Department of Energy)
IBDumbass' hilarious scientific illiteracy -->
Last edited:
IBDaMann
Well-known member
The work of art you displayed is not a standard model. It isn't even a model.
It has no value whatsoever. It cannot be used to predict nature in any way, and thus cannot be used to develop any sort of technology. It is worthless except potentially in aesthetic contexts ... of the juvenile sort.
@Everyone, Cypress believes that he has falsified chemistry. I presume Cypress' Nobel Prize is soon to follow.
Science predicts, it does not explain. If you weren't scientifically illiterate, you'd understand this.
Your artwork is not a model; it doesn't predict anything.
Too funny! Chemistry is used to develop technology. The purely theoretical items you mention are not used at all and their unfalsifiable speculation does not assist mankind in any way. Why you think it does is an open question to the board.
Long story short, you are scientifically illiterate, babbling about worthless, unfalsifiable speculation as though it is somehow being used by humanity instead of chemistry. You even classify this presently worthless theory as "the most important scientific framework in the history of human intellectual achievement" despite there being no achievements whatsoever.
IBDumbass, illiterate about science, as per usual
You obviously have never heard of the Standard Model outside of my posts about it. That's really funny that you posted an opinion about something you've never heard of
CLICK HERE to see how IBDumbass fantasizes that he has deeply original, profound insights about science and religion, but he is actually just plagiarizing and paraphrasing insights that other posters have already had for many years
CLICK HERE To See Why IBDumbass Doesn't Post in Good Faith - He hounds me with what he imagines is a 'gotcha!' question, but when it blows up in his face he runs away from the thread like a little girl
^^^ Thinks the Standard Model offers 'no value' even though it is widely regarded as possibly the most important scientific theory in human history.
You obviously have never heard of the Standard Model outside of my posts about it. That's really funny that you posted an opinion about something you've never heard of
CLICK HERE to see how IBDumbass fantasizes that he has deeply original, profound insights about science and religion, but he is actually just plagiarizing and paraphrasing insights that other posters have already had for many years
CLICK HERE To See Why IBDumbass Doesn't Post in Good Faith - He hounds me with what he imagines is a 'gotcha!' question, but when it blows up in his face he runs away from the thread like a little girl
Last edited:
Any troll that wants to play trollish contrarian should at least have a basic grasp on the topic they are trolling. IBDumbass made clear by his comments that he has never heard of one of the most important theories in the history of science.
Taichiliberal
Shaken, not stirred!
I'm kind of partial to the maps used in acupuncture to describe the human body relationship to the universe....it being around LONG before the OP chart and being proven to work and all. Just saying.
T. A. Gardner
Thread Killer
Our best explanation of physical reality.
* subject to change without notice...
Into the Night
Verified User
There is no 'standard model'. Your pretty picture is not a model.
Your pretty picture is not a theory either.
What is the most important theory of science?
In my opinion it is Newton's law of motion: F=mA. That one equation focused people for the first time on examining what 'force' really means, what 'mass' really means, and what 'acceleration' really means. This is the equation that eventually resulted in the discovery of the calculus. This equation even governs a lot of chemistry and nuclear physics. It is the equation that took us to the Moon and back. It is the equation that allows robot spacecraft to travel to the planets. Even Thompson's discovery that light has both wavelike and particle like properties stems from this one equation. Electronics and electrical systems depend on it.
There is no such thing as a 'Standard Model'.
Of course he never heard of it until you made it up. DUH!
Into the Night
Verified User
You are describing yourself again, Sock. You cannot project YOUR problems on IBDaMann or anybody else.
Into the Night
Verified User
Not a theory.
Unlikely.
While we undoubtedly have more to learn about the fundamental make-up of the universe (dark matter comes to mind), the basic framework of the Standard Model is one of the most thoroughly tested and verified theories in the history of science. Any model that can correctly predict the magnetic strength of an electron to 12 decimal places must be a exceptionally excellent approximation of true reality.
I'm not familiar with that and would be interested in seeing it
NiftyNiblick
1960s Chick Magnet
Our best explanation of physical reality.
All I see is a dartboard,
but that does help explain how today's great modern thinkers come up with their ideas.
