GeneralDadmission

I owe the mediators and forum an apology. To provide some context to the frustration I have projected at those attempting to answer my questions I have been attempting to absorb the mathematics of physics for approxmately 5 years. This has been hampered by a thought experiment exercise I constructed 20 years ago that has become a mental reflex that has till now confused my comprehension of the complexities of standard equations. The exercise made absorbing information from worded physics definitions more practical by providing me a tool to rule out or differentiate divisables but has only been obstructive to my developing understanding of math and it's appropriate language without having identified these as the basis of my study. After years of frustration with this I have finally identified the principals my mental exercise was developed around and can apply this to progressing with the math. The two pivotal principals that define the exercise are the Pauli exclusion principal and the dynamics of length contraction. With this identified I can, with guidance, begin to analyse equations starting with F=ma and E=mc2. My basic understanding of the relationship of these two equations is that Newton identified mass and acceleration as the basic factors defined by forces and Einstein identified that mass is defined by FoR. At one time I constructed an equation to describe the relationship between Newton's equation and Einsteins as (c=ie when -1=m). My understanding of what I was attempting to do at the time was that the equation was intended to provide a means to measure both position and momentum simultaneously so wasn't practical to deconstruct. As a description of the relation between F=ma and E=mc2 as the mediation of pauli exclusion into length contraction the intention of the equation I constructed might be better translated. Through the exercise, I began by attempting to clarify the nature of mass and the condition of forces as mediation of the two identified principals through baryogensis, ie; length contraction is mediated by the nucleon as regulation of electrons by pauli exclusion. Electrons provide valency and EM regulation through the characteristic's of photons and infer the Pauli exclusion restrictions placed on electrons by protons. The oscillatory nature of neutrinos infer the restrictions present in the neutron. I will provide no further assumptions as I have not been seeking to make claims but to deconstruct the exercise that was obstructing my progression with physics formulae. At this point I will allow any questions I have to be guided by any feedback on the conclusions I have provided here as summary of the logic behind my approach to the subject.

The question of your thread has been answered. If you missed it: yes, it was moderation. You broke the rules. This thread is now also closed. How conveniently accurate. Since the questions I came here for HAVE NOT RECIEVED a fair examination I will supply them one more time hoping data will be supplied rather than pedantic ridicule. Strange wishes me to believe that atomic particles do not reflect or refract. I didn't state sub-atomic particles reflect and refract. I suggested that a different quark aggregation to a nucleon would stabilise an atomic element associated to electron-neutrinos that would only have the capacity to refract and not reflect. No substantial reference has been provided to refute this. "No", "word-salad" and "gibberish" is not a constructive criticism. To supply the sketch of an equation that references my conclusions is simple. E=mc2 measures the rest mass of atomic particles based on the speed of photons. I believe an appropriate analysis of the particle I have hypthesised is that it's rest mass is equivocated by photonic wavelength rather than photonic velocity. If this is not a mathematically intelligible analogy, describing what is umanageable to such an equation alteration would be of more constructive applicaiton than simply stating it is unusable. The primary supporting factor of the predictability of this particle is that it provides a vehicle that describes the conformity of photons to geodesics as being mediated by a non-radiant baryonic element. This amounts to observable data. I have not been supplied an iota of evidence that refutes this conclusion.

I contended that I have been provided NO data reflecting DM's necessity to be without baryonic component. I HAVE NEVER CONTENDED that pros have it wrong. I have contended that the responses to my questions were innapropriate, Your football analogy is not apt. I have stated my conclusions as reference not as ANY sort of contention that somebody has something fundamental wrong. The basis of my modelling is entirely compliant with EVERYTHING I have absorbed as relevant data. My language application obfuscates this which I do not blame other's for. I do expect a measure of dignity be applied in a reasonable and objective discussion. I have been treated as if I have a subjective motivativation to ask questions here that amounts to soapboxing. If I make a statement it is not intended to contraven the work of others but to examine my conclusions. So far, there has been little capacity shown for correctly identifying my conclusions. Strange wishes me to believe that atomic particles do not reflect or refract for christ's sake! I didn't state sub-atomic particles reflect and refract. I suggested that a different quark aggregation to a nucleon would stabilise an atomic particle associated to electron-neutrinos that would only have the capacity to refract and not reflect. No substantial reference has been provided to refute this. "No", "word-salad" and "gibberish" is not a constructive criticism. To supply an equation that references my conclusions is simple. E=mc2 measures the rest mass of atomic particles based on the speed of photons. I believe an appropriate analysis of the particle I have hypthesised is that it's rest mass is equivocated by photonic wavelength rather than photonic velocity. If this is not a mathematically intelligible analogy, describing what is umanageable to such an equation alteration would be of more constructive applicaiton than simply stating it is unusable. The primary supporting factor of the predictability of this particle is that it provides a vehicle that describes the conformity of photons to geodesics as being mediated by a non-radiant baryonic element. This amounts to observable data. I have not been supplied an iota of evidence that refutes this conclusion.

Atomic particles don't refract or reflect? No explanation has been provided of this and it is patently untrue AFAIU. The very nature of atomic particles is refractive/reflective. I have simply proposed an atomic particle that is ostensibly without a reflective capacity. Without supplying the data that concludes this I can only assume it is largely assumption. Once again, simply making statements is exactly what you are accusing me of doing. At least I have made the attempt to justify my continued examination. I have also not offered any insult that was not first offered to me. "Balderdash!" is not constructive criticism. It is a personal attack and you all know it. Life is still a two-way street regardless of the fact you may have contrived a "nuke" button for questions you'd rather avoid than examine. I can only contend that the motivation for attendance of this forum by many of those who have responded to my questions(moderators included) reflects a personal requirement to assert themselves socially and is devoid of a genuine interest in better informing the public.

The property of the baryonic nucleon is reflection and refraction. I have referred to this as a particle. An atomic particle not sub. A description of how refraction and reflection is mediated in the atomic nucleon of normal matter will provide me structure to provide the same analogy to this hypothesis of a DM baryonic nucleon. As I have stated I attempted to study Relativity and quantum without also absorbing nucleosynthesis. This was a badly considered decision. I would simply appreciate that this be considered when assessing my language as the automatic assumption that I have nothing that can be examined compiled is only combative to achieving any examination.

It isn't meaningless to myself. I do allow that the term I have appropriated here has a better recognised construction. For me it describes the particles management of photons fairly. Possibly you might supply some example of baryonic photon refraction/reflection so that I might approximate a relative value to this particle Hmmm. Are you saying atoms neither reflect nor refract? How is that meant to embarrass me again?

What is rambling about describing a refractive index? The fact I originally posted a thread raising the topic of DM bh's might indicate why I am reluctant to entertain the request for direct maths. I believe that discussion of the refractive properties of the particle in the absence of reflective properties would be more appropriate on a public forum. My deficit of familiarity with complex equations does not allow me to identify which equations are directly related to it's refractive index and not related to other phenomena related to the particle. Neither am I the paranoid type. I simply seek to simplify what I am discussing and eliminate any areas that might be of concern to disclose publicly.

Have I really? You have refused to extract math from my descriptions. AFAICT. And "CORRECTION" but there was maths in my last post to 'mass value' were you skillful enough to extract it. This was in the form of the refractive index of the hypothesised particle. Try harder. Had my last post been "PROPERLY" examined it would have been identified that it was implying that the gravitational geodesics that photons are bound to are mediated by DM under the hypothesised baryonic assemblage. Seriously. Try a lttle harder if YOU want to be taken seriously!

And "CORRECTION" but there was maths in my last post to 'mass value' were you skillful enough to extract it. This was in the form of the refractive index of the hypothesised particle. Try harder. Had my last post been "PROPERLY" examined it would have been identified that it was implying that the gravitational geodesics that photons are bound to are mediated by DM under the hypothesised baryonic assemblage. Seriously. Try a lttle harder if YOU want to be taken seriously! One of my points exactly. No room is allowed for review.

Thre has been no mathematical criticism supplied. This is the only appropriate criticism. I have referred to how my last post can have math extracted from it. Analyse this if you wish your criticism respected. I've repeatedly made it clear I am not soapboxing but simply attempting to clarfiy the mass regulation of a hypothetical particle. I take responsibility for the effects on my language of the assumption I made many years ago that I could study relativity without deep immersion in nucleosynthesis. I would have profitted in vocabulary had I not avoided this subject. My hypothesis is mathematically examinable.

How is "garbage" an assessment? No reference has been supplied to validate it. Obviously you guys only commit your time here for the social benefits and have no intention of assisting others beyond providing rote formulae and disparaging remarks. Pretty pathetic in my view. And "CORRECTION" but there was maths in my last post to 'mass value' were you skillful enough to extract it. This was in the form of the refractive index of the hypothesised particle. Try harder. Had my last post been "PROPERLY" examined it would have been identified that it was implying that the gravitational geodesics that photons are bound to are mediated by DM under the hypothesised baryonic assemblage. Seriously. Try a lttle harder if YOU want to be taken seriously!

Perhaps I read too much into his intentions I thought he was seeking to identify irrational numbers as sets of infinity.

Sorry I got a few posts in and got bored. I didn't have much information on opinions regarding Roman records so I posted. Thanks for your references.

Moderator Note GeneralDadmission OK - So the text was garbage and you refuse to provide maths to back up the maths. I think that is it for this thread. From now on please either stick to mainstream science questions - or if you wish to speculate you must read and abide by the rules of the Speculations forum. You are not permitted to reopen this topic. < < < Exactly how have you supported your assumption. I STATED I WOULD PREFER NOT TO DIRECTLY SUBMIT MATHS RELATED TO THE PARTICLE. The description can be critically reviewed, which you made NO EFFORT TO DO. You people have serious issues. "Garbage" and "no" HAS NO EDUCATIONAL VALUE. You guys are playing authority when you have no capacity for entertaining education rather than recitation of what you are specifically familiar with. I have not come here with the intention of convincing anyone of my modelling. I have come here to discuss the involved mass regulation and for that you lot have been the joke, not myself. Strange has made an effort I've appreciated. Mordred has supplied directly relevant data. Most of the rest of you have played piggy-in-the-middle word games and I have about as much respect for your "AUTHORITY" on ANY subject as I do for school bullies. This is not raising the topic I have previously. It is raising the question of the quality of moderation here.

And all systems in nature are systems of entropy. And how does the mathematical definition of infinity have a functional description of nature in it? I did not state that the golden mean is related to infinity. I stated that whole numbers are better defined by nature than by our requirement to see an apple as 1 apple.

Ok. for this particle to be stable requires that there is a relationship between strange/charm and top/bottom quarks that equilibrates photonic energy ranges from the different ends of the spectrum. For simplicity sake let's assume the protonic component contains strange/charm and the neutronic top/bottom. My assumption centres around this nucleon having a similar stabilisation period to helium. The particle exists in a manner that refracts photons but without the ability to reflect. This allows for the energy maintenance of it's associated electron neutrinos with absolute minimal degradation on the photons it has refracted in it's own maintenance. Yes. You don't read very well. I stated I would not supplydirect equations publicly. My last post is as near as I will come to that as this can be discussed critically.

That would be a requirement of this particles stability.

Regardless I'm not here to have my knowledge assessed from your comprehension of my vocabulary Sensei. If you are only here to do that and not answer any questions I have regarding the equilibration of mass without involving your own assumptions I'm simply going to put you on the ignore list as overly onerous to my learning process.

Are you aware I'm not talking about neutrinos but about "electron-neutrinos"?

The fact those pair productions DON't create neutrinos supports DM as a baryonic coupling of electron-neutrinos. Maybe you should re-evaluate your assumptions. Tell me you understand there is a difference between neutrinos and electron-neutrinos please?

What has that got to do with defining the capacities of the strong and weak force in their role in vacuum management and mass stabilisation, which is the point of posting this thread, not answering questions about pair production. I will look that up if you couldn't be bothered providing a reference.

Would not both be required?

I indicated that our construction of math around whole numbers has defined mathematics. Quantity is defined by physics and is expressed by irrational numbers. I did not suggest discussing particles but defining what is a whole number outside what we want from it. Get your facts straight and you'll stop looking like a ponce.

The DM particle and I don't think any new physics is required to explain it. I didn't make up DM. It just coincided that the modelling of gauge forces I've done over the years turned out to need a baryonic coupling involving an electron neutrino.