You are of course correct in essentials, but I do remember reading in A Brief History of Time somewhere that there is some evidence that quarks are truly fundamental particles. |
|
You are of course correct in essentials, but I do remember reading in A Brief History of Time somewhere that there is some evidence that quarks are truly fundamental particles. |
|
I googled "quark size". I don't know if it means anything to you or how reliable it is but here is the first link it got: link |
|
All-right, but who said quarks aren't made of something else, much smaller than them? There is a huge difference in not having size and not having observable size. In fact, if they do move in a particular manner, then they *are* probably made of something else. I'm not criticising, I'm just throwing the idea out there. I hate it when science becomes pseudoscience, that's it. Doctors once believed that the liver circulated blood, and that the heart circulated "vital spirit". You never know when or where we could be wrong. |
|
Saying quantum physics explains cognitive processes is just like saying geology explains jurisprudence.
Well, distinguishing between the two is the point of the scientific method. |
|
Space might as well be infinite. Sure, it's not currently infinite. But the universe's boundaries are determined by the farthest distances light has traveled in any direction, forever pushing outward. |
|
Last edited by The Cusp; 07-05-2009 at 02:50 PM.
For me space is infinite and I can't comprehend it otherwise. That might be because I know too little but have a very large point of view. Space for me is not something that I would want to define because definitions create limits and I always try to look beyond the limits. |
|
Bookmarks