The Instigator
Akhenaten
Pro (for)
Tied
0 Points
The Contender
PugsRule11
Con (against)
Tied
0 Points

The universe is made of only one sub-atomic particle

Do you like this debate?NoYes+1
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 0 votes the winner is...
It's a Tie!
Voting Style: Judge Point System: Select Winner
Started: 12/1/2015 Category: Science
Updated: 1 year ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 617 times Debate No: 83262
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (10)
Votes (0)

 

Akhenaten

Pro

The universe is made of only one sub-atomic particle. The currently accepted theory is that the universe is made of hundreds of sub-atomic particles. This theory must be false because nature is simple and not wasteful. Nature would never create hundreds of sub-atomic particles if just one sub-atomic particle could do the job. This particle has 3 states - left spin, right spin and no spin.
PugsRule11

Con

First off, the burden of proof lies on PRO in this debate.

ELEMENTS
We know that elements exist. I can prove this using the following example.

Humans require oxygen to function. They do not do so with carbon. In fact, carbon monoxide can kill humans.

If humans can use oxygen to function, and not carbon in the same way, there must be something inherently different between carbon and oxygen. These differences have been empirically found with empirical evidence (differing numbers of subatomic particles, differences in mass and structure, etc.) If they were only in one subatomic particle, these differences would not be possible.

NUCLEAR REACTIONS IN WEAPONS AND ENERGY
In a nuclear reaction, numerous atoms are shot at uranium-235 atoms. An extra neutron hits the nucleus then forming uranium 236.
At that point the atom splits giving off 3 electrons and energy. There must be multiple sub-atomic particles, since there are mulitple atoms.

http://www.physics4kids.com...
If the universe were made of one sub-atomic particle, there would be no difference between anything!



REBUTTAL TO MY OPPONENT
1. Having multiple and differing atoms is NOT wasteful. Wasteful is defined by dictionary.com as:
"given to or characterized by useless consumption or expenditure"
Is it wasteful to have a variety in our own existence? Things with differing characteristics amplify our lives and diversify them.
Furthermore, if nature is not wasteful and would not allow atoms to be wasteful, how does it allow humans to be wasterful?
Debate Round No. 1
Akhenaten

Pro

First off, Pro decides the conditions of the debate. Rule - Both sides are equally responsible.

1. An element is just a group of sub-atomic particles which are in a pattern or an arrangement. I am not disputing that atoms exist. My argument is that the electron, proton and neutron are really just the same sub-atomic particle but in different states. Those states are - left spin (negative/electron), right spin (positive/proton) and no spin (neutral/neutron).

According to modern physics there are 6 quarks, 6 leptons and 6 bosons. ref - https://en.wikipedia.org...

This can be simplified to 3 groups of 3. In the end, we still have 3 basic states. In atomic physics, you can't get away from the number 3, it always comes back to you, no matter how you rearrange things.

Thus, nature is trying to tell us something.

Thus, the Hadron Collider is a big waste of money and time. You don't need to spend trillions of dollars to understand how the universe works. You can just use your common sense and the laws of nature and everything will be disclosed to you if you spend enough time and effort thinking about it. You don't even have to leave your lounge chair to do this.

Note - Physics needs to be complicated so that university professors have something difficult to explain. If atomic physics was simple, then, a lot of university professors would be out of work. Thus, university professors have a vested interest in the universe being very complicated.
PugsRule11

Con

DEBATE TOPIC MISUNDERSTANDING

From the debate the debate title and your fisrt argument, I assumed the debate topic was: there is one subatomic particle in the whole universe.

After hearing the second argument by my opponent, I now view the debate topic as: there is only one type of subatomic particle.

This is my mistake, and I apologize to Pro for any misunderstanding. Having said this, I will still stand against the latter statement.
*
REFUTING MY OPPONENTS' ARGUMENTS

First off, the math presented does not make sense.

3*6, or three groups of six does not equal three groups of three, or 3*3

Thus, we don't come back to the number three. Even if we did, it would not make sense to unite this to the argument that there is only one subatomic particle. It only would show that three is somehow related to subatomic particles, which could easily refer to protons, neutrons, and elctrons.

PRESENTING MY OWN CASE
Quarks make up protons and neutrons. They do not make up electrons. They are made of leptons instead.
http://helios.gsfc.nasa.gov...
Quarks and leptons are fundementally different. It can not be claimed that something made with no quarks, is the same as something made of quarks, but in a different form. They are simply too fundementally different. It would be like comparing water to sulfuric acid by calling it "water in a different form".

Debate Round No. 2
Akhenaten

Pro

My opponent has not addressed the matter that university professors need a complicated universe in order to preserve their integrity and importance as qualified professors. If my theory is correct, then, many university professors may not be required any more because the universe is simple and doesn't require complicated theories to explain it. This also means that the Hadron Collider and LIGO experiments which cost trillions of dollars are a waste of time and money.

Note - The research system would never agree with my theory even if it was true. Thus, we can say that the research and university system can't be trusted when it come to research of sub-atomic particles. In general, research into both germs and sub-atomic particles are similar because they are both invisible to the naked eye. Thus, scientists can make up any old rubbish that they please to explain these phenomenon and the public has to agree because it is assumed that they have special knowledge of these matters.

The world we live in is full of illusions which are created by so called 'qualified experts'. When I was young, I used to agree with these authoritarian people and I respected their opinions. But, with the advent of the personal computer and internet, I have been able to access this secret information and have found that I was lied to on many matters. At first, I thought that these lies were limited to just a few subjects. But, on further investigation, I started to realize that there were hundreds, if not, thousands of cases where lies and half truths have been pasted off as truth or theory.

Eventually, I found websites that disproved many scientific theories which people have taken for granted during the last 200 years. The sites of Robert Distinti, Srinivas Roa Gonuguatla and Bill Gaede all show alternative theories to the standard model of physics.

Further explanation of my theory -

Empty space is not empty. It contains fundamental particles which spin at the speed of light. These particles are not attached to one another. The speed of light is a dimension. Its not a true speed. Matter is only sub-atomic particles in rotation around one another. Thus, if there is no rotation of particles, then, there is no matter. The sun gets its energy from incoming aether particles which are pushed together which forces them to stop spinning and creates neutrons or no spin ethons. (Refer to Robert Distinti for a definition of an ethon.)
PugsRule11

Con

REFUTATION OF MY OPPONENT
This debate has been based on the ideas of modern science. If university professors and researchers can not be trusted, then we should say that subatomic particles, atoms, or germs do not exist at all. The truth is, there are too many scientists corroborrating (backed up by performable research) to keep secrets so large. Furthermore, scientists are ruthless disprovers. Many people will try to disprove a theory before it becomes accepted.
My opponent has also stated the authority has told him lies. The truth is that discovery is dynamic-we are constantly learning new things, and this is what makes science so great-we are constantly able to improve our knowledge.


Further refutation:
The speed of light is a speed. It is 299792458 meters per second. (ref.: https://en.wikipedia.org...)
Secondly, how does this prove that there is only one type of subatomic particle. All that was asserted was Robert Distinti's theory (I'm guessing on that one), and has not shown how protons, neutrons, and electrons, are the same substance in different "forms".


Debate Round No. 3
Akhenaten

Pro

1. Well, of course you can measure the speed of light, but that doesn't mean that that light is part of our dimension. Light is a product of the sub-atomic world and travels through the sub-atomic world. Light doesn't travel through our dimension. Light is only visible when it makes contact with matter. All waves need a medium to travel through. Light travels through the medium of aether particles which are invisible to our dimension. My theory is logical, whereas, the currently accepted theory relies on magic and nonsense. The concept of light travelling as a photon wave packet through 'empty space' is ridiculous.

2. My opponent assumes that if thousands of scientists agree with an idea, then the idea must be correct. This is called consensus thinking, consensus thinking is not science. Science is about logic and observation, not consensus. Nature is pure logic. Thus, any theory which is not logical, is false and needs to be re-examined. Thus, there are no mysterious pulling forces in the universe, which can attract objects millions of light years away. Nature can only push, it can't pull. Pulling is a horse and buggy era concept of the horse pulling a cart. But, alas, the horse is pushing the cart, it is not pulling the cart. Many highly trained and fully qualified modern scientists are still using this retarded way of thinking to this very day.

3. Mass hysteria and crazy ideas have pervaded our society for thousands of years. Look at the Inquisition which lasted for 500 years. During the Inquisition period, people were afraid to have their own thoughts and adopted the religious way of thinking as a means of survival. Thus, if you didn't believe in God, you may have been tortured or burn't at the stake. Thus, during this period, people were too afraid to experiment with scientific ideas and led very conservative religious based lives.

4. Science can become a religion.
When science adopts religious based concepts like -The Big Bang Theory, which is just the Bible story of creation, then, science has made severe compromises based on religious pressure to conform to the church. Thus, we are still living in the shadow years after the Inquisition. Thus, scientists still feel the pressure of the church to conform to religious ideologies.

5. Note - Most of modern atomic physics is based on the Big Bang Theory. This leads to a chain reaction of stupidity. Once a bad concept is accepted, it can lead to many other related theories which enhance and protect the first theory and then come into existence as a consequence. This has resulted in many false theories which have come into existence as a justification of the Big Bang Theory. These may include - relativity, action at a distance, gravity waves, photons and dark energy.

6. Protons, electrons and electrons are all made of the same stuff. This is proven by the fact that matter can be converted into energy. The term 'energy' is just another way of saying aether particles. The only way for energy to be stored is through the mechanism of spin. Thus, the aether must be spinning at the speed of light, otherwise the universe would not have a storehouse of energy of which to create anything. This is proven by the way that the sun converts aether particles into matter and energy. The atmosphere of the sun is millions of degrees hotter than its surface. The only logical explanation of this is through aether conversion to matter and energy.
PugsRule11

Con

REFUTATION OF MY OPPONENT

1. Does something have do be visible to be in our dimesion? We know that light travels through our dimension since we can see it. When we turn off the lights in a room, we can see the effects. It is not true to say that light is not visible in our dimsension. There is no reason to Pro's theory :

a. Has little to do with the debate topic

b. Would require conversion across dimesions, which by definition is impossible

c. Is based on the idea of aether particles, which my opponent has not provided a reason as to its existence.


Furthermore, why is the current theory nonsense? What is open space made of? Empty space for the most part.


2. I never stated that if most scientists believe something that it is correct. All I was stating was that the more corroboration, the more research, and the more critique there is into something, it is more likely to be correct by virtue of the process and the scientific method.


3/4.

a. The Big Bang is absolutely NOTHING like the Bible story of creation. That is the reason WHY so many creationists hated it.

b. This conflict with religion is present also in theories such as evolution and heliocentrism.


5. The Big Bang is becoming more and more proven every day. We know the universe is expanding, we have found plenty of background radiation, etc. When you draw all this back far enough, the Big Bang is the strongest solution.


6. It is not true to say that protons, neutrons, and electrons must be the same because they can be converted into energy. Electrons are elemental particles, but protons and neutrons are not. This is a fundamental difference. It would be like saying that an apple and a banana are the same thing because they can both be converted into ATP. The problem with that is that there are other results of the reaction.


MY OWN ARGUMENT

No new mass can be created in a chemical reaction. If protons and electrons are the same, then they would be convertible in a chemical reaction. Since a proton is much larger than an electron, new matter would have to be created to convert a proton into an electron with no other particles involved. This contradicts the previous law.


Debate Round No. 4
Akhenaten

Pro

1. Quote -' We know that light travels through our dimension since we can see it'

Reply - False. You can't see light! You can only see the effects of light when it hits an object or matter. If you shine a torch through a dark vacuum chamber through a hole in the wall and the light goes through another hole in the other side of the room, the room will remain dark. Thus, light is invisible while it travels through a vacuum. This proves that light is travelling through another dimension. This other dimension, can only be the sub-atomic dimension. The aether is this dimension. Aether is made of left and right spinning particles which spin at the speed of light. These particles are unattached to one another until a light wave comes along and pushes them together, similar to the way that a sound wave travels. But, because the sub-atomic dimension is much faster than our dimension, we get the speed of light. Thus, time and fractal dimension in the sub-atomic world, has a different value which is smaller and faster.

2. Quote - 'Has little to do with the debate topic'

Reply - I have shown that every aspect is relative and important to the topic. You can't isolate facts and treat them as independent entities. Thus, understanding how light travels is important in understanding of fundamental particles because fundamental particles are the medium by which light travels.

3. Quote - 'Would require conversion across dimensions, which by definition is impossible'

Reply - The fact that light is converted into heat when it makes contact with matter is evidence that dimensional conversion does take place.

4. Quote - 'Is based on the idea of aether particles, which my opponent has not provided a reason as to its existence'.

Reply - Aether doesn't need a reason to exist. It just does exist. The proof of its existence is gravity, light, electromagnetism and their subsequent wave patterns as they travel through the aether medium.

5. Quote - Furthermore, why is the current theory nonsense? What is open space made of? Empty space for the most part.

Reply - The current theory is nonsense because it assumes that space is empty and that light travels through a total vacuum which is logically impossible. My theory is logical/mechanical and has cause and effect. (Explained above.)

6. Quote - I never stated that if most scientists believe something that it is correct. All I was stating was that the more corroboration, the more research, and the more critique there is into something, it is more likely to be correct by virtue of the process and the scientific method.

Reply - Consensus is an insidious form of social pressure which can distort even the most stringent research methods to conform to the status quo. ( Reference - The 500 year Inquisition as proof)

7. Quote - The Big Bang is absolutely NOTHING like the Bible story of creation. That is the reason WHY so many creationists hated it.

Reply - The Bible story of creation is the Big Bang Theory. Bible quote - 'God said - Let there be light and there was light.'
The alternative is the Steady State Theory, which I would advocate as a more rational and logical theory.

8.Quote - The Big Bang is becoming more and more proven every day. We know the universe is expanding, we have found plenty of background radiation, etc. When you draw all this back far enough, the Big Bang is the strongest solution.

Reply - Back ground radiation is just the heat that is generated by stars. It has nothing to do with any Big Bangs.

http://whatreallyhappened.com...

9. Quote - It is not true to say that protons, neutrons, and electrons must be the same because they can be converted into energy. Electrons are elemental particles, but protons and neutrons are not. This is a fundamental difference. It would be like saying that an apple and a banana are the same thing because they can both be converted into ATP. The problem with that is that there are other results of the reaction.

Reply - Protons and neutrons can be broken down into only 3 x2 (6) possible parts which is left spin, right spin and no spin. Thus, I have proved that the universe is made of only one particle which has 3 states. These parts may be called up and down quarks which is just another way of saying left and right spin. Note - Up and down is the same as left and right.

10. Quote - No new mass can be created in a chemical reaction. If protons and electrons are the same, then they would be convertible in a chemical reaction. Since a proton is much larger than an electron, new matter would have to be created to convert a proton into an electron with no other particles involved. This contradicts the previous law.

Reply - The sun creates new matter all the time. Aether is being converted into Hydrogen. This is why hydrogen is so abundant in the universe, because it is the first element that is created in the matter creating chain of events. The Earth is expanding which is also evidence of aether to matter creation in the Earth's core.
PugsRule11

Con

PugsRule11 forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 5
10 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by Akhenaten 1 year ago
Akhenaten
You don't have to be funny, to be a joke. lol
Posted by Jonbonbon 1 year ago
Jonbonbon
Lol I've only ever sipped wine. I've never been drunk. So good job, but you're still not funny.
Posted by Akhenaten 1 year ago
Akhenaten
Don't worry about me. When I am drunk, I am still more sober than you! lol
Posted by Jonbonbon 1 year ago
Jonbonbon
I said when you're sober, Ak. Not when you've just had a drink and a joint.
Posted by Akhenaten 1 year ago
Akhenaten
If anybody sees a ball crunching, feminist, pro-Nazi, leso nut case, please let me know! lol
Posted by Jonbonbon 1 year ago
Jonbonbon
Wow you were smart enough to try a different attack. I didn't know you had it in you. But seriously, you should probably only use this site when you're sober.
Posted by Akhenaten 1 year ago
Akhenaten
Climate change, vaccines, germ theory, the Hadron Collider and LIGO are all just absolute garbage ideas that will all lead nowhere. The purpose being to attract research and grant dollars. Shhhhhhhhhhhhhh!!!!!
Posted by Akhenaten 1 year ago
Akhenaten
My theories are all logical and sound. mainstream theories are based on huge egos and consensus. The system can't back down and admit that they have made a mistake. I know, because I used to work for the government and they never admit mistakes or back down. The government workers and scientists would prefer to go on with an old mistake, rather than risk rocking the boat and getting kicked out of the system. A simple universe would be a disaster to scientists in general. Thus, they all keep quiet and don't rock the boat. Shhhhhhhhhhhhhhh!!!!!! That's the name of the game .
Posted by Jonbonbon 1 year ago
Jonbonbon
Pugs, your first round is great. You're definitely winning from an objective standpoint.

Unfortunately the only person you need to convince is Ak, because literally everyone else agrees with your the problem with Ak is that he's what we call an insane hipster. Not only does he dress in women's clothing, because men's clothing is too mainstream for a man, he also likes to disagree with will known facts. He will disregard your empirical evidence as being some ploy put up by the government to make s profit off of convincing people that elements exist. He can't handle evidence that disagrees with him, so he'll throw an ad hominem at it and run away like a 4 year trying to flirt.

So yes, you are completely right. Unfortunately, the only one who disagrees with you is a clinically insane hipster. It's a new mental disease I'm working on starting with studying Ak (and watch, he'll read this whole thing and attack where I said "disease" because he thinks disease is only caused by poor diet, and his diet is excellent).
Posted by Akhenaten 1 year ago
Akhenaten
Correction - Passed off, not pasted off.

Also - Spinning aether particles which are approaching the sun are converted from spin energy to heat and light energy + neutrons which create what we call 'matter'.
No votes have been placed for this debate.