I figured I’d prove I can hold an intelligent conversation, outside of twincest.
A few days ago, NASA reported findings about water on the moon. Impressive as this announcement is, I can’t help but wonder something these scientists refuse to acknowledge: it puts another nail in the coffin about alien life. Now hear me out before you call me crazy.
For decades, scientists have been promising where there’s water, there can be life. “Dihydrogen Monoxide,” they exclaimed, “is the key to organic origin.” So there’s Mars… and now there’s the Moon. One of the key tenants to scientific theory is that when someone makes an outlandish claim, they must prove that theory is factual. It’s scientifically possible that the molecules in my body can spontaneously disassemble and reassemble into the form of a cat. Basic Quantum Theory. However proving that outlandish assertion as true would be an incredible feat… and no sane scientist would take me seriously until I could. Hence the manifold compatibility problems with hard science and religious faith.
So enter the theory of alien life.
How is it that science can readily discount religions, but so willingly embrace the notion of alien life? I know about Drake’s Equation… but that’s wild pseudoscience, with as much merit as me formulating the odds of my molecules reforming into another animal. It’s possible for it to happen… but the obvious truth? Zero percent (or so close to zero it’s practically zero). Organizations like NASA and SETI make the wild claim there is life in the Universe, outside of planet Earth. Yet all evidence ¬ñ every last bit of it ¬ñ has proven this wrong. Lifeless balls of rock. Planets too close to their suns. Stars too big or too unstable. Constant spatial phenomena such as Gamma Ray Bursts and Black Holes. Etc, etc, etc. Do you think scientists delude themselves in a “faith” and “belief” that there’s life off our planet? Because looking at the situation objectively from the outside, I can’t see a difference between this notion, and that of the Church’s claims there is a God.
Just how religion should “prove” there is a God, shouldn’t the scientific community “prove” there are aliens before making such straight claims? Otherwise how is it science and not science fiction?
Bollocks. If you cherrypick the evidency by ignoring all the data points supporting the opposing viewpoint, of course you arrive at the conclusion you desire
Sure, it’s only one data point. However, it’s the single most important data point in the entire dataset so far, as it represents irrefutable evidence that life exists, and at the same time, can be extensively studied in ways every single other data point cannot be.
Our detection apparatus has only ever managed to detect any exoplanets whatsoever for … a few years now? And they have never detected a planet which they believe would lie in the appropriate life-sustainability range. Not because such planets do not exist, but because our detection methods are limited and heavily biased in favor of the sorts of planets that are totally alien and not at all like Earth.
There might be life in Jupiter, for example, literally floating around the interior in suspension, or on small pockets of rocky substance swirling around inside the large body of the gas giant. How are you going to prove it is or isn’t there? Well, that would be hard. So the question is only ever phrased as life on an Earth-like planet.
To answer your main point: there is literally no basis whatsoever to believe in most religions. That’s why they’re articles of faith, that’s what it means. There is no evidence that when so-and-so wrote in the Holy Book of Pastafarianism about a vision that (the/a/several) God(ess)(es) told (him/her/they) to take dictation, that a) it wasn’t deliberately made up, or b) it wasn’t the product of a hallucination of some kind. Or that some of it is truly divine, and some of it isn’t, or to what degree. The entire point of religion is to believe in spite of admitting this.
Even though Drake’s Equasion is little more than a wild-ass guesstimate, it is still a reasonable attempt to get a general ballpark figure. If you twiddle with the numbers, being as conservative as possible, then as liberal as possible, you end up with a reasonable error bar. Combine that with the generally-accepted size of the universe, and a perfectly reasonable guesstimate as to the number of non-barren planets out there falls out.
Would I go put serious money on the line? Well, no, because by the time we could actually discover the answer, we’d be dead. But if we could consult the magic eight-ball and actually get the right answer, I still wouldn’t, because Drake’s Equation is an insufficiently precise approximation. But that does NOT mean it’s worthless.
Prove to me there’s life on another planet. You can’t. This is irrefutable fact. There is no cherry picking of data: all data indicates there is no life. It’s scientists who claim with absolute certainty there is life on another world, that are cherry picking data and making a vast assumption. How is this different from data that there’s a Bigfoot or Jersey Devil?
There’s literally no basis whatsoever to believe there’s life outside of Earth as well. Let me explain in the next comment…
Sure. And what if I told you that final ballpark is [u]ONE[/u] (Earth).
Prove to me that number is wrong. You can’t do it. Naturally you could make all sorts of assertions and theories as to why I’m wrong, but ultimately I am not wrong, unless you can substantiate those claims. I say we are the only planet with life in the Universe. I can grab any astrological material published, and assert that with irrevocable certainty. A person who wants to challenge that, must prove my finding flawed, incorrect, or outlandish. It’s the person who claims there is life, who is ignoring the evidence.
I’m going to say it: Drake’s Equation is Fail.
Here’s why: he made the variables up. Look at it closely. Where does he get his numbers? It’s pure conjecture. You don’t have to be a mathematician to see it’s has as much reliability, as an equation to predict when frogs will evolve wings. Really. Furthermore [u]EVERY[/u] variable is a guess. None of them are concrete. That’s not scientific… it’s fantasy mojo. Even theoretical math has a basis in hard evidence (such as pattern and inquiry) - otherwise it’s not math and just random playing with numbers.
Also last I checked, Drake’s Equation gives a total of 2-point-something for life in the Universe, with the current findings of the Universe plugged in. Don’t be fooled by the media propaganda: new findings in the Universe have significantly [u]DECREASED[/u] the total in Drake’s Equation.
SETI and NASA don’t publish that though. I believe Drake’s original conclusion was 1 MILLION civilizations. :roll:
Good thing too. Because Drake’s Equation works in favor of me winning¬Ö especially if more evidence about radiation lingering in the voids of space from the Big Bang prove true ¬ñ since it would mean more stellar sterility.
If this universe has trillions upon trillions of planets and only one has intelligent life on it… considering the over-whelmin statistical improbability of such an event that would essentially prove the existence of a creator being in this universe. What else could explain, rationally, the existence of intelligence on only one planet amidst a countless horde of planets?
It is probably more of a leap of faith to believe in no alien intelligence than there is to believe in a god.
Logic does not dictate something exists or might exist: it does not exist until proven otherwise. This is why the criminal justice system works on the notion, that one is innocent until proven guilty. If I say a crime happened, the automatic answer is not “yes” or “maybe” ¬ñ the answer is no. Proof must be presented to prove the crime happened.
The same goes for claiming I’ve found the cure for cancer. Or claimed the speed of light is really 299,792,457 meters per second. Or say dolphins are sentient creatures. Or exclaim ghosts are real. Or tell others there’s a God.
The answer is no until I prove it to be yes.
This is my problem with “aliens are out there” scientists. They are asserting the answer is YES right out the gate. It’s not even maybe… they’re 100% dead set on it being [u]YES[/u]. It’s a belief… and hypocritical if that same scientist tries to discredit someone for believing in a deity.
Science is about proof. Assumptions and theories are absolutely fine of course, but they must be proven. Otherwise they are no more legit than assumptions and theories that unicorns and dragons exist.
Also raw mathematical statistics are not end-all-be-all. Every minute there’s a chance of me spontaneously combusting from my own biological functions, and the odds of that happening are GREATER than alien life in the Universe. I won’t hold my breath about becoming a human bomb any time soon.
EDIT
I just wanted to point out that I’m not saying I believe in spontaneous human combustion. I’m just saying there’s reasoning and statistics to say it can happen - like aliens - but does not automatically make it true… like aliens.
As much of a science enthusiast as I am, I think I’ll somewhat side with Narg. There is a portion of the scientific community that make the claim that because the odds are that extraterrestrial life exists, it must exist. This is complete bull. Quantum theory says that there is the EXTREMELY odd chance that I could walk through a brick wall, but you won’t see me trying it anytime soon. On the other hand, our current understanding of the universe does indicate that the odds are good that life of some sort (even if it is just microbial life) exists somewhere out there, especially with all these discoveries recently of amino acids in some pretty odd places. (In fact, evidence has been found of amino acids in nebulae.) Whether or not there is anything that we would call intelligent life out there is open to debate. There are many factors that have helped in us evolving to the state we are at currently, one of them being our moon. Not only has the moon helped protect us from impacts, but it stabilizes our axis of rotation. In essence, because our moon is so large in relation to the body it orbits, we are kind of like a binary planet system. (I highly suggest watching the episode titled “The Day the Moon Was Gone” from the History Channel series “The Universe” for more on the importance of the moon.)
In essence, what I (and Narg I think as well) am saying is that without real proof, alien life is a belief, and trying to present it as other than just a possibility begins to touch on religion. What do I personally think? Well, I’ll side with the odds that there is something out there. Especially with there being four different proposed types of parallel universes. However, as stated above, I will only say that there is a really good probability, not that it is a certainty.
I mis-understood the gripe. I thought he was talking about more “rational” people who hold to the belief of alien intelligence but don’t posit “it must exist based on statitistics”.
I have the same issue with such grand proclamations based solely on numerical data with no empirical evidence to support it (within science, metaphysical claims escape this by definition essentially). But I also have issue with the whole “they don’t exist because we have no empirical data”. The problem of induction clearly debunks this claim as nothing more than pragmatism and thus it is not a valid factual claim. One can never prove that alien’s don’t exist; it can only be proven that one has not witnessed an alien as of a certain time.
No. This is incorrect. There is in fact one data point that makes it much more likely there is life elsewhere in the universe. Earth itself.
The existence of life on Earth proves that life is not impossible, conclusively establishing there is at least a chance that life exists elsewhere in the universe besides here. It is reasonable therefore to establish a non-zero probability that life exists anywhere the conditions roughly approximate those resembling ours. In the absence of anything living on Earth, such an assumption would be groundless.
Does this prove that there is life elsewhere? No, in the same way “it’s possible, therefore Roswell has wrecked alien spacecraft” is 100% illogical. But it IS evidence that life exists on other planets. Just because it’s not direct evidence doesn’t mean it’s not useful evidence. It’s just not conclusive.
Yet that theory is not proof. It proves nothing. It’s called the Mediocrity Principle. Furthermore the entire notion uses only one positive observational evidence: Earth. That would be the equivalent of me deducing all criminal action ever committed on the planet, based on one person. Furthermore it forms evidence based on a conclusion, rather than the reverse.
Just because life formed on Earth does not mean life has formed, will form, or is obligated to form on another world. Possibility is not reality. There’s a possibility that identical twins of opposite sex can be born - the reality is that it hasn’t happened. There’s a possibility that radiation bombardment from the Sun with interaction on Earth’s atmosphere and Van Allan Belt will create micro black holes - the reality is that it hasn’t happened. On the off chance that one of these DO happen, that does not mean it sets a precedence for it to happen again. Things can and do happen only once, unless forced to happen again artificially. Look at the Periodic Table - it’s possible for an element of 132 to exist, but it’s likely to NOT exist until created to exist.
Is alien life possible? Sure. But then a huge number of wild things are possible: like walking through walls, bursting into flames, and metamorphing into alternate forms. Life on other worlds has the exact validity as these. None of them are conclusive. And yet a few weeks ago, Newsweek and other magazines published a front page article that stated Aliens Exist. :roll:
[u]Bull[/u]. There is NO PROOF aliens exist. There’s a theory that they do, based on shaky ideas because we exist, without any real knowledge of exactly how we came to exist. It’s no different that the Catholic Church using science to prove God exists.
EDIT
True. But logic and science systematically discount things unless they are proven to exist or actually happen. The automatic answer cannot be yes, because that would mean anything and everything is possible until it’s proven to be impossible. That’s a road to utter insanity and chaos.
Sure… I can roll with that… however… One can never prove dinosaurs were not lavender with pink spots. We can only prove that no one has witnessed a lavender and pink spotted lizard. One can never prove a lightning bolt struck a pool of primordial ooze on ancient Earth and gave rise to life. We can only prove that electric current in a primordial ooze can stimulate the birth of simple organic life. Not being able to prove or disprove something, does not make it likely or unlikely.
Furthermore science doesn’t work that way. The burden of evidence and proof is on the person who proposes the theory - not the other way around. Something does not exist until it is proven to exist - the observational model is a cornerstone of science and logic. If it cannot be observed or logically rationalized, then it is not science anymore. Of course there are those who would say, “one can never prove or disapprove if everything can be observed or logically rationalized.”
Well that’s not a scientific statement. It’s now in the realm of meta-lala and philosophy.
I don’t have a problem with someone arguing if the scientific model is flawed or if the idea of infallible observation is full of holes. I know they are, and I could argue an entire essay on why science can’t be proven by science. However I DO have a problem with people who pervert the scientific model and observation to their own ends, and claim their findings are true and absolute, when in reality they’re still theories and guesses.
Do I personally think there is alien life in the Universe? Sure. However billions think there is a God too. My belief there are aliens, is just as legitimate or insane as someone’s belief in a God, because there’s no concrete proof of either being true. Alien life off planet Earth is a theory: nothing more, nothing less. In fact, evidence has consistently been generally moving AGAINST the idea there is complex life in the Universe off this planet (there’s more things out there that kill and destroy, than make and create). Thus whenever NASA and SETI claim the answer is, “Yes there is alien life in the Universe,” they are doing it fractually and fallaciously… not to mention hypocritically. They’ve got no proof… just theories that are inflated and vastly optimistic, when compared to the reality of what is observed.
1+1=2. The elemental composition of water is dihydrogen monoxide. The speed of sound is 343 meters per second at 20 degrees Celsius.
Aliens on another world? Pure speculation, [u]NOT[/u] scientific fact, and often employs data that contradicts reality. The absolutely certain claim that alien life exists isn’t science: it’s dogma.
EDIT 2
Also our star is not binary: instead we have a failed binary in Jupiter, whose gravity aided in the destruction of a planetoid to create an asteroid belt that had a hand in shaping life on Earth. It also has kept a vast number of asteroids from the outer system from entering and causing havoc on the inner system. We also have an outer asteroid belt, which brings life giving comets… but we still have no idea if that’s common or not. There’s also the fact that Earth is just big enough to retain an atmosphere (see Mars for what happens if it’s not). There’s also the fact Earth’s atmospheric formation didn’t go into a greenhouse chain reaction (see Venus for what happens when it does).
Let’s not forget multiple mass extinction events, that were massive enough to cull off things so more complex life can evolve, but not so massive it would have eradicated all organic life. Oddities in Earth’s magnetic core (may or may not be due to the moon). Location in the Orion arm of the Galaxy (others stars aren’t too close, but not too far). Low abundance of black holes, gamma ray bursts, and other kills everything phenomena in this part of the Universe. The sun is stable, not too big, not too small, and lives for more than 5 billion years. Our planet is not a 100% liquid (ooze had to form in a non-abrasive location; maybe hit by lightning and exposed to volcanic gasses). Etc. Etc. Etc.
You add the incredible probability of these unique factors being mirrored in another location of the Universe, and it comes to less than ~.000000000001%. In other words, so unlikely to be it’s practically zero.
Then even [u]IF[/u] intelligent life evolves, there’s the question of how intelligent it is… also the resource properties of the planet itself. For example Earth has a lot of crust metals, because during it’s formation they didn’t all sink to the core. It’s quite possible that on another planet, this isn’t the case – especially on a world BIGGER than the Earth – so no metals. Which seriously stunts technological advancement. Oh yes… and mass extinctions are what gives us fossil fuels. If a world evolves life without multiple extinctions, they lose out on that benefit. We’ve got lotsa land… on an aqua world, if intelligence forms underwater, it stunts combustion. Etc. Etc. Etc.
A Universe full of Stone Age aliens ain’t fun… although I suppose that would make us the God Civilization of the Universe in that situation.
I actually agree with you. My whole issue with contemporary science (or scientistists) is the continued slide into dogmatism instead of stating results based on empirical research and expirementation.
I swear, if I hear another “FTL travel is impossible” I’ll scream. Can we at least wait until we have the capability to test this theory before declaring it as fact?
Another scream worthy scenario is when scientists try to make metaphysical claims as scientific fact… Science, by defintion, cannot falsify any metaphysical claim. So, leave the soul to the soul already.
Well remember that logic likes to answer “no” to something, until it’s proven to be yes. The speed of light is a barrier that matter cannot travel faster than, because of space-time itself. The faster you accelerate something to the speed of the light, to slower it gets to real-time. This has been proven by shoving watches on rockets, have it accelerate to insane speeds, and then when the rocket lands, compare the watch with another it was synchronized with that was sitting on a table. They won’t match anymore. Ultimately when the object exceeds the speed of light, it actually goes BACKWARDS to real-time observers. Enter the time travel thing… although energy-matter theories would dictate the object would implode from the infinite amount of energy being thrown around in a finite part of space-time, rather than go back in time. Probably rip a hole in space-time too… not good whatsoever.
Now before you scream: this only applies to accelerating an object to the speed of light.
If something is [u]ALREADY[/u] faster than the speed of light, then it can go faster than the speed of light. That’s called superluminal. The problem is that tachyons - which theoretically would be the most common natural occurrence of this - have not been detected or created. Those who argue against it claim the mathematics concerning tachyons existing are wrong through inconsistency. No big deal though… because quasars demonstrate superluminal motion: scientists just can’t figure out exactly what’s FTL about it… but they’re doing it. Also the Universe is expanding faster than the speed of light.
The other thing is that the speed of light only applies to the relative space-time continuum. Undeniable proof? Light can’t escape a black hole. So if you’re able to go outside relative space-time, you can go faster than the speed of light. Obviously easier said than done, but since it naturally occurs…
The final item of note, is more evidence has been brought to light (pun!), that the speed of light isn’t a universal constant, and actually a variable. This is why new science books give the speed of light as 186,000 miles per second [u]in a vacuum[/u]. Plus scientists have actually slowed the speed of light in a laboratory… [url=http://abcnews.go.com/Technology/story?id=99111&page=1]to 38 miles per hour[/url].
So things DO travel faster than the speed of light - both naturally and artificially… both theoretically and factually. It’s just the thing about [u]accelerating[/u] matter to a speed faster than light. Evidently the secret would be to just skip the acceleration part, and just spontaneously go faster than the speed of light.
Of course if we humans can do it or not, is the hypothetical part.
Someone tried to explain to me once the proof behind the “FTL is impossible” argument. (Yes, there is in fact a proof behind it, but I don’t understand it.) Basically, because relativity messes with time, different people’s experience of the chronological order of events do not agree with one another. Two events can appear to be simultaneous to one observer, and different observers can see either one of the two events happening first (depending on the setup).
This does not cause reality to become inconsistent with itself as long as these different frames of reference are not unified. But if the two observers (who see materially different versions of events) have FTL, then they can unite the two disjoint frames of reference in such a way that the shared information causes reality to be inconsistent with itself. (Again, I don’t really understand the claimed proof, but this is the gist of it.)
Therefore (so the line of reasoning goes) FTL, and relativity, and the causality principle, cannot all be true at the same time. (Or so it goes.)
Also causality only take effect, because of the backward observation of matter accelerating to FTL… but it still only applies to matter as far as we know.
Still, all we have is numbers on a piece of paper when discussing FTL and relativity in general. Numbers don’t really mean much, seeing as how easy it is to make them say practically anything you wish. The comment on the universe expanding reveals one interesting note on “relativity” under a different perceptive definition… this expanding universe and the growing speed of its expansion underlies an issue with science. Science, bound by human perceptive limitations, is basing many of its theories off certain time frames.
I am always amazed when a scientist claims anything based on the simple acceleration of our expansion. It has been posited that 15 billion years has passed from the theoretical Big Bang. Scientists automatically assume that it is a substantial amount of time and that the “collapsing/cyclical universe” theories have been debunked because of the growing acceleration of expansion… little problem, what if the “cycle” is based off trillions upon trillions of years? Wouldn’t 15 billion years then be the initial explosion of the Big Bang? So wouldn’t we be accelerating from the theorised stillness?
Our hell, just to take this farther… pull back the gaze on the universe until it is a pinprick. To an outside observer that would essentially be the “beginning” of the universe. Start messing with the perceptive blinders on science right now and things really start to show how little science has actually discovered or accomplished.
Also, now that you have raised the variable nature of light, that brings an interesting quandry to “light” (the pun will not die): we are simply assuming a static universe in terms of its physical “laws”. What if that assumption is false… it would really make things interesting, but I pity the scientific community and the impending turmoil this would cause. Add that into our perceptual problems already and… yeesh. Maybe humans should leave the big picture to whatever the hell painted the damn thing.
Well technically all we have are numbers on a piece of paper that discuss how nuclear weapons work - and some principals of atomic energy are still theoretical. Doesn’t change the fact that nukes exist and work like they should, despite having some patches here and there.
But numbers don’t lie. It’s the interpretation of the numbers, or the method of getting those numbers, that dictate if they’re correct or incorrect.
True. Science is bound by observation, empirical data, and logic. Ultimately we only assume our perception is correct.
However by the same token, logic dictates that our perception is correct and there’s a universal constant. This is why mathematics is so important to science. 1+1=2. That is a universal constant formed from observation, empirical data, and logic with the assumption we are perceiving that correctly. If it were wrong then NOTHING we have achieved using 1+1=2 would have been possible or merely the result of blind luck. That’s obviously not so, since we’ve created stability, improvements, predictions, and revolutions from 1+1=2… such as 2+2=4 and 4x10000/2=20000 (not to mention centuries of science and technology).
Well the age of the Universe is only a theory… so anyone trying to say they know it is full of poppycock.
However we can make an educated guess about the age. We know the Universe isn’t 6000 years old… and we know the Universe isn’t 999,000,000,000,000 years old. Using observational models of what we do know, allows a logical assumption. That doesn’t make it fact of course, but we know it’s closer to the truth than absolute fantasy.
Actually, the outside observer may or may not even see the Universe. Depends on a lot of factors. However the person wouldn’t see the “beginning” of the Universe, because time-space IS the Universe. When you’re outside of it, time-space wouldn’t apply, unless that outside is also under the influence of time-space. Of course no one has any idea what’s outside the Universe… or even if there is an outside… and if the outside is “outside” the rules of time-space, we have absolutely no frame of reference to even begin to interpret what it is (since everything we know is based on time-space). Basically our Laws and Rules, may not even apply out there… and vice versa.
Well we know the Universe isn’t static.
On a universal scale, our Science assumes what can happen on one end of the Universe, can happen anywhere else in the Universe. So a phenomena on Earth, should theoretically work on any world in the cosmos. So far this has been the case, and there has been no evidence it is not. Therefore logically, we can continue on this assumption as a foundation, until something proves it wrong. And naturally all of this works on observation.
As we all well know, our Science is not flawless: although the goal of Science is to become flawless. However it’s not as much a debate if Science is actually wrong, but that Science is better than any known alternative, and that it’s proven itself more reliable than anything else our species has produced.
Science isn’t about being right or wrong: Science is about finding the truth. So long as that goal is never lost sight of, there’s no reason to doubt it, because the truth should always be right. Even if everything we know about our Universe is wrong, Science would throw out everything and start over to find the real answer.
But I don’t think something that drastic would occur… 1+1=2 after all.
I have to disagree with one thing: 1+1 = 2 is only a “constant” because it is true only by definition. 1+1=2 is an abstract concept that was defined by an individual at some point in time, not a literal and physical law of the universe.
Also, the statement about the assumption of a static universe: simply stating that we assume that the “laws” of phsycics have always operated “as is” for all eternity. Wasn’t referencing static as completely unchanging.
Not at all. 1+1=2 is not an abstract concept - it’s an empirical truth. It doesn’t matter who you are, or what I give you.
I give you one pencil. You have one pencil. I give you another pencil. You have two pencils.
I give you one atom. You have one atom. I give you another atom. You have two atoms.
I give you one quark. You have one quark. I give you another quark. You have two quarks.
There is no logical means you can discount or discredit that. These are rules of quantity and structure.
Your interpretation of what is one and what is two, as well as what is addition, is actually meaningless and just that: your interpretation. Mathematics is an examination of space, and the event of change in it. Whether or not you choose to believe 1+1=2 (in a philosophical or metaphysical point), is irrelevant to the fact that 1+1=2 (and has absolutely no bearing) because 1+1 has been proven to equal 2. See mathematical induction and inductive logic.
Your definition of “size” or “value” is not the matter being quantified or given structure, and would be a logical fallacy. 1+1=2. The only way you could deny that 1+1=2, is by denying everything behind logic and reason, and deny every proof and law ever achieved from 1+1=2… which technically means you deny human achievements in science and technology. Which of course you can do… but it wouldn’t be logical or reasonable.
In a real life application: computation (and thus computers) would be impossible if 1+1=2 was an interpretation and not a fact, because the root of computations are based entirely on logic.
Again not at all. The laws of the Universe at it’s birth, were not the same as the laws as it is now. We know that to be untrue because the Universe couldn’t have been born under the rules of how it operates today. We assume the laws of physics operate universally in all parts of the Universe, NOT that they have always worked this way or that will always continue to work this way. See the String Theory if you want a more detailed elaboration. One day in the distant future, maybe 1+1=3… maybe one day in the distant past 2+2=1. We don’t know that: it all depends on space-time staying the way it is. However do know that right now, and for quite a very long time, 1+1=2.
Ahem, minor flaw… You can’t give just 1 quark, quarks are never isolated and generally come in pairs (though groups of 3 have been observed, 1 usually decays rapidly, leaving 2 to balance).
lol… correct. Forgot about that. I should be ashamed, because quarks are yet another thing I should be using to prove the glory of twincest on an atomic level.
