We actually have a pretty good idea of what's going on inside a proton.
grizzles: I don't understand what's going on in a proton.
Physicist: actually, we know about it very well.
grizzles: I don't understand what you're saying, and don't care to find out, so I'm just going to disagree with you and say you have no experimental evidence.
Physicist: we actually have terabytes of evidence describing the different quarks and gluons within protons and neutrons.
grizzles: I don't care, and I'd rather live in Anaximander's land of indefinites and superstition.
Are you a physicist? If so, why not post a link to your profile? Why the need for your made up dialogue instead of a substantive rebuttal containing information about your allegedly detailed knowledge of the inner workings of a proton?
BTW, you've misrepresented my position in 2/3 of your little sonnet. I said "light evidence, not no evidence" and I do care. The only substantive rebuttal I've received is from computerex and I responded to that.
Furthermore particle accelerators have been smashing protons for a long time to probe what's happening inside. The standard model of particle physics is validated by evidence and experiments. I don't think it is fair to say that we don't know what is happening inside a proton. There are many questions in physics still left unanswered but I don't think anyone would classify this as such.
Why do you say we don't know much about subatomic physics? In your view, how would things be different if we did know "much"?
I especially like this bit about qcd:
> The mess is so complex that even basic properties of the proton remain unexplained. For example, its three quarks account for less than 5% of its mass, the rest arising somehow from energy of the virtual quarks and gluons.
Based on your comments above, though, I don't think watching this would change your opinion about anything. People have been more than polite in trying to help you fix your misunderstandings, but you refuse to absorb any new information or change your views when presented with new data.
1. A good understanding of something's basic/fundamental properties doesn't mean that there isn't other more meaningful research to be done and knowledge to be gained.
2. Particle physics in general is considered a mess. There are still many open problems in particle physics and a shiny new accelerator never hurts ;)
Sure there is still a lot more to learn about the inner structure of protons/neutrons but that doesn't mean that we don't have a decent understanding of the overall picture. There still isn't one unified theory that explains all the natural forces, but that doesn't mean that we don't understand gravity/electromagnetism/strong/weak forces in their own right.