CreateDebate


Debate Info

15
8
A preposterous hypothesis Spank me daddy
Debate Score:23
Arguments:23
Total Votes:27
More Stats

Argument Ratio

side graph
 
 A preposterous hypothesis (14)
 
 Spank me daddy (8)

Debate Creator

FactMachine(410) pic



Do particles exist?

The universe is a field and fields are not made of particles. Every particle known to man is a point of convergence imposed by field modalities. Even mainstream physics admits particles are made of fields. The notion of a particle is a anachronistic remnant of ancient greek atomistic philosophy.

A preposterous hypothesis

Side Score: 15
VS.

Spank me daddy

Side Score: 8
2 points

Particles are an imaginary concept. Think of it as something like mass or velocity. These are attributes that we assign to objects, but they are purely mathematical constructs. So in that sense, particles exist as much as mass and velocity do.

Side: A preposterous hypothesis

The universe is a field and fields are not made of particles. Every particle known to man is a point of convergence imposed by field modalities. Even mainstream physics admits particles are made of fields. The notion of a particle is an anachronistic remnant of ancient greek atomistic philosophy.

Side: A preposterous hypothesis
0 points

The universe is a field and fields are not made of particles.

Errr. I'm afraid that's exactly what fields are made of. At their most fundamental (i.e. quantum) level, both gravity and electromagnetic fields are particle interactions.

Side: Spank me daddy
FactMachine(410) Disputed
1 point

You've got it backwards dickface, now watch as a mainstream physicist proves me right. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ATcrrzJFtBY&list;=PLsPUh22kYmNDRYfImV3BzNZ6yTwhIpe0k&index;=18 There you have it, Particles are made of fields, fields are not made by particles. The concept of a particle as an actual object in and of itself is just a hair brained atomistic delusion. Mother nature is not a cross eyed crack whore with a bag of magic particles.

Side: A preposterous hypothesis
FactMachine(410) Disputed
1 point

You are an ignoramus who grew up in a crap filled diaper drinking fluoride baby formula with no omega 3 or other essential fatty acids to help your puny fluoride damaged brain develop because your mommy didn't love you enough to change your diaper or breast feed and now you are spreading utter horse bull droppings on the internet and pontificating like a pseudo intellectual neanderthal monkey man.

Side: A preposterous hypothesis
1 point

I don't have your background in this field. But what I'm wondering is if they don't really exist then why are their high powered microscope images of some kinds of particles?

Side: A preposterous hypothesis
FactMachine(410) Disputed
1 point

Because the particles are there but they are not actually particles in an atomistic sense, they are a part of a field, they are nothing but compressions, vorteces and oscillations.

Side: A preposterous hypothesis
Grenache(5564) Clarified
1 point

OK. But then help me understand how we have electron microscope images of things like this...

https://www.researchgate.net/figure/262001517 fig1Figure-1-Scanning-electron-microscope-images-of-calcium-carbonate-microparticles

Side: A preposterous hypothesis
1 point

Particles clearly exist. What do you call sand? Dust? Salt?

Seems like it.

Side: Spank me daddy