Mordred

Yes helium requires the strong force to hold the protons and neutrons.

Dark matter is also not highly charged. It is non interacting, has no known electromagnetic, or strong force. Much like neutrinos. It may or may not interact with the weak force.

Good luck with that, you do realize how unstable helium 2 is? You should also realize that helium of any form has a unique sprecrum signature so is easily detected. Unlike DM.

You would need the strong force for that. We have a high confidence that DM has no strong force interactions.

http://www.wiese.itp.unibe.ch/lectures/universe.pdf:"Particle Physics of the Early universe" by Uwe-Jens Wiese Thermodynamics, Big bang Nucleosynthesis See chapter 3 it will cover how the neutron and helium come about in nucleosynthesis. Keep in mind the neutron by itself has a short life span 881 sec approximately

Well at least I get the gist, that your studying before making declarations. Well done in that regard. There isnt enough detail to understand your model atm.

Sorry mate, sounds like a ton of misdirection to me. Hint buy textbooks, you want to sort through the pop media garbage, learn the textbook models first. Trust me I originally tried, learning internet only... only got highly mislead. As your into the particle physics aspects math is needed. Physics is math... plain but true. For example if I state.... The [latex]O(3)_{3.1}[/latex] is the Lorentz group the 3 denotes a 3*3 matrix with 1 rotation symmetry. Would you understand what I meant. The details of any good peer review paper is not the verbal descriptive. It is in the mathematics.

Still doesn't help..

Now how is that suppose to help? Tell you what post the specific theorem your trying to relate to. Perhaps we can help. You can't just word salad in New terms such as prOtOn..... This type of lack in detail prevents us from helping you. Show some model references or related maths.

We know what makes up protons and neutrons. Proton 2 up one down Neutron 1 up two down. Mass of up.. 2.3 MeV/c^2 Mass of down 4.8 MeV/c^2 How does this help your model? dark matter shares none of the characteristics of either the proton or neutron. The above is easily detected. Though the neutron is trickier.

No that doesn't work, the observable portion of our universe merely started at less than the size of a proton. However that's simply the region of shared causality according to our locations light cone. We don't know the full volume of the universe, it could be finite or infinite. If it's infinite now, it will be infinite in the past.

Good question, this question troubled scientists, still does. Tests are showing that space is smooth, based on how different wavelength of light and neutrinos travel through space. A lumpy universe should affect certain wavelengths more than others. They found that based on QM predictions, that they could not detect a lumpy universe, based on the Planck length, etc. So it's still showing as smooth. The consensus is maybe it becomes lumpy on smaller scales, which QM doesn't allow. http://m.phys.org/news/2012-08-spacetime-smoother-brew-knew.html

Really, according to you. Do yourself a favor. Calculate the acceleration a force has on particle as opposed to a star. Now apply that to a gas nebulae as opossed to the stars within that nebulae. Which will move faster? You want to apply Newton, apply all three laws. PS density wave is Newtonian

Actually the error isn't mine its your. Mass distribution is relatively uniform in the power law distribution, according to the virial theorem. You really need to realize your premise of no mass between the spiral arms is 100% wrong. Until you accept that it is pointless, continuing. Your attempts does not change this fact. Nor can it hand wave away the problem of the escape velocities. Quite frankly I will take the results of thousands of scientists over a few centuries of observation and measurements, over anything you state. The density wave model ACCURATELY describes the spiral arms. Your model does NOT Quite frankly you can see a clear hydrodynamic model with pulling the plug. Look at the whirlpool. Do you not see density waves forming? This is similar to how density waves behave at Saturn and spiral galaxies,

Ok lets use the makeup of the proton. Two up and 1 Down quark. The up quark has electromagnetic charge 2/3 e Down quark -1/3 e 2/3+2/3+(-1/3) =+1 e. The proton is not a neutron + an electron. The mass of each quark also does not account for the majority of the mass of the proton. Only 1% the rest of the mass is due the binding energy of the strong force

There was a proposal to use a laser, to obtain the same effect. No radiation fallout. This link covers some of the pros and cons of a variety of methods. Early warning being a major key factor in the best method. http://orbitalvector.com/Solar%20System/Asteroids%20And%20Comets/Redirecting%20Asteroids/REDIRECTING%20ASTEROIDS.htm

We have actually, If you properly use Newton strictly, including all the baryonic matter. (Stars, gas etc, no dark matter) You will end up with spiral arms moving slower the farther you move out from the center of the galaxy. Not only that, when you measure the speed of a measured bar galaxy, the calculate the escape velocities, based strictly upon baryonic matter, those galaxies should fly apart. Their observed speeds exceed the escape velocity of strictly baryonic matter models. Then you have gravitational lensing, in regions where there isn't enough baryonic matter to account for them. Lastly DM assists the early large scale structure formation. The BAO observed in the CMB, utilize dark matter, this is another aspect that MOND could not account for. Now MOND tried fixing the above, by modifications to Newtons inertia laws, in one method, in the other they tried via the fine structure constant. They showed good results , far better than strictly Newtonian, in some cases better than LCDM. In other cases worse. MOND is still around, however it is losing favor, in order to make MOND work in the GR regime, you need TeVeS. Which runs counter to general relativity. All in all though LCDM and MOND as two competing models, provided us incredible insight, and far tighter constraints. If you wish to pursue MOND let me know, I have some excellent introduction aids on MOND. Now onto density waves, This in and of itself does not require dark matter. However it does require matter between the spiral arms. (Keep in mind density wave theory is in excellent agreement with observations). To be honest I can't think of a single competing model. Might be one, most likely there is, just never heard of any. Treat all stars and plasma, dust, baryonic matter as a gas. Then apply the interactions of forces, due to a rotating body to that gas. (Cosmology uses the ideal gas laws as it provides a good approximation). Normally the rotations of a gravitating body, would lead to the winding problem. Any spiral arms would within a few rotations wind up and disperse or become indistinguishable. However, if you have analyze the gravitational attraction between stars, at different radii, this would result in regions of higher density. Now these higher regions are described as sound waves, mainly due to its velocity of influence follows the rules of perturbations in a medium. In This case, it's normal to relate it as being the change in vacuum regions. (Ideal gas laws) Now as the galaxy rotates the density waves also rotate, however they rotate faster than the stars themself move. Consequence of f=ma. Dust and plasma takes less force to move than stars. The areas behind the density waves is where the spiral arms a located , the density wave leads the spiral arms. Think of the spiral arms as the turbulence region resulting from the wave. This turbulence and higher density, causes a greater star formation rate. As the density rate is faster than stars move and it generates stars in its path, it can catch up to previously formed stars as well as leaves younger stars behind. The gas itself is dragged behind. The thing to keep in mind, is that since the galaxy first started forming, and today different ratios of heavier star formation elements became available. So today, the spiral arms can produce pop 1 stars. In the start of formation of our galaxy, we were just a gas cloud with no rotation and no spiral arms. However pop 2 stars are being formed. As the galaxy gains rotation, conservation of angular momentum, The density wave starts. As the available gas changes to heavier elements, different star classifications of stars can now be birthed. That's density wave in a nutshell. However without DM, it would suffer the same Keplar curve on galaxy rotation, ie be slower the further out you go. You need DM to keep its rate the further out you go consistent A possible analagy, is full a tub with water, then place a variety of different grains of sand with different granularity and weight. When you pull the plug, notice how the lighter grains move compared to the heavier grains. This is a natural consequence of f=ma (I prefer that analogy, to the traffic Jam analogy, commonly used to describe density wave theory)

Correct

The term barycenter should provide the clues. http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Center_of_mass In Newtons three laws the force of of gravity from the sun and the force of gravity from the Earth influence each other. They cannot be seperated. The barycenter is the sum of vectoral influence the two have on each other, in solar coordinates every planet has its influence on the barycenter. This is the point where the sum of vectoral forces balances out. Look close at Newtons third law in regards to the universe gravitational equation

No he isn't joking, you need to look carefully at the first equation. http://www.physicsclassroom.com/class/circles/Lesson-3/Newton-s-Law-of-Universal-Gravitation

Lol variables depend on the coordinate system being modelled. r can and does mean different measurements depending on the coordinate system it's applied in. A zero mass test particle is a hypothetical particle that introduces no influence to the system being examined, in this case it is the escape velocity of a mass without adding another barycenter influence by introducing further mass. Aka zero mass By the way Whiskers has been guiding you into this direction. All measurement models are coordinate dependant, and relative to a model dependant baseline. One can describe orbital motion setting from the barycenter or from the Sun as zero. Neither is more correct, they can both give accurate modelling with the same degree of accuracy. Or in the case of the Earth being the center of the universe. The key is what is the baseline or relative to what? This statement applies in all aspects of physics. Any model can choose a baseline or reference point, then describe the change from that point

It's too bad you don't listen or read any articles that contradicts your feelings. We've shown you articles and references that show otherwise. As Strange mentioned we can see stars outside the spiral arms in the halo regions. Janus and I also supplied links. You obviously never read or understood the article on density wave I posted. That's your loss not ours. You would think my reference to MOND and its failures would have clued you in. As Strange mentioned you have demanded papers from us, that we supplied. It's your turn. Find us a peer reviewed paper showing your correct. By the way even if there is no stars, There is still mass, all forms of particles generate mass...... Stars DO NOT form without a sufficient amount of gas clouds. They form in nebulae. The Milky way wasn't always a spiral galaxy. There was star formation prior to being a spiral galaxy. Originally it was one big gas cloud with uniform dispersion. This is why older stars reside in the arms pop 2 stars. Pop 1 stars require a different combination of elements that are formed from pop 2 stars. Pop 2 stars are in the halo. Pop 1 stars are primarily in the spiral arms Stars can and do drift into and out of the spiral arms. Newtons laws does not prove otherwise. Your attempts to make it do so is by ignoring any conflicting mass. Such as dust and dark matter "A near-spherical halo of stars, including many in globular clusters" Spherical not flat like the spiral arms. http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spiral_galaxy Like I stated you choose to ignore the evidence against your ideas. This is similar to statements posted in the numerous links we provided. The majority of those links state "Young stars form in the spiral rings " In one of the articles I posted it has the CORRECT rotation curve formula for the milky way. http://www.google.ca/url?sa=t&source=web&cd=2&ved=0CB0QFjAB&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.astro.caltech.edu%2F~george%2Fay20%2FAy20-Lec16x.pdf&rct=j&q=galaxy%20rotation%20curve%20of%20the%20milky%20way%20pdf&ei=ZJXhVLO7B8yoogSsq4GgDw&usg=AFQjCNF7bjGbX9QdzY-6n9_GMQwN-cVAag&sig2=Cc5IFvhx1kiBXKhIoD1ZwQ

There is no impasse Strange derived the escape velocity from the common center of mass between two objects. In this case it is the barycentric escape velocity r is the distance from the center of gravity

Lol So do I, textbooks vary between the two terms. Coincidentally I found "Quarks and Leptons" a good intro textbook. Though Griffiths "Introductory to particle physics" in my opinion is still the better choice for intro books.

I have to agree with Strange on this, considering the amount of material we provided in particular on density wave, virial theory and rotation curve links. Further detail is look at the distribution of pop1 vs pop2 stars