GeneralDadmission

None of those describe the particle I did. They are unstable for good reason. The state of the particle I described is not charge dependant.

If that is your conclusion I have to ask why you assume the quark configurements maintaining a proton-neutron nucleon should maintain an association only with electrons? Could there not be configurations of Strange/Charm/Top/Bottom that do not interact with electrons? It as simple a question as that. The implications of such a particle are not something I would disclose publicly. I am attemptng to define the conversion of energy equivalencies. Providing such a fascinating statement is commendable but of little value to the exercise.

To do that requires predicting the rest mass of the DM particle.and identifying that it is stabilised as a baryonic element that is mediated by the strong and weak force through the electron neutrino. I'm not sure I would provide the maths of that to a public forum. I've subsequently been confined to raising the questions in regard to defining the value of acceleration mass as opposed to rest mass.

You are interpreting the definition of infinity on entirely maths based assumptions. MrAstrophysicist's question, if attention is given to the 'quantities' reference, is intended to examine whether mathematical indivisibles are reflected in physics as phenomenal constants, ie; the fact that the golden mean is observed in nature reflects the condition that there is not a mechanism of entropy that will allow a sunflower to position it's seeds in a different pattern. As a question of nucleosynthesis and gauge forces this implies that irrational numbers define infinite boundaries where whole numbers define the human FoR and the context math's has been developed from. Perhaps the question is better examined in terms that define mass regulation rather than from a purely mathematical position?

I will take your advice. I supplied the definition of length contraction in the last post in order to discussively define regulation of the mass-value provided through acceleration. It is a complex subject that is easier to define with reference to the conclusions of others.

You are travelling in the right direction. Concluding that future state effects present state is not without credibility. DM is a particle that interacts with the future to a greater capacity than physical matter, IMO. This enforces the dynamic that DM must have a particulate presence that defines the universes separation from the future where normal baryonic matter is defined by the universes origin of state.

Yes the problem with physics is that every fundamental you identify means that the entirety of the material already covered has to be re-evaluated against the new fundamental. I've been doing that with minimal direction toward the pivotal data regarding my modelling. Should be a little simpler from here. "Mordred" may have replaced "christ" in my vernacular. I won't mind if people don't know what "Agradecer Muerte" means when I mutter it in passing. It will take considerable time to confine predictables referencing the data supplied. For now I would approach your requirements by discussing the dynamics of length contraction as indicative of how the mass of acceleration is equilibrated. I will compile a short description of this to provide variables to examine and define. Length contraction requires that an accelerating object occupy less physical space from the FoR of the destination. The effect length contraction imposes on arrival time suggests that the accelerating object occupies greater space until it's velocity is equilibrated to that of the destination FoR. This aspect illustrates the vacuum mediation involved and the manner in which EM interference with acceleration is reduced and confined.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historicity_of_Jesus "There are three mentions of Jesus in non-Christian sources which have been used in historical analyses of the existence of Jesus.[33] He is mentioned twice in the works of 1st-century Roman historian Josephus and once in the works of the 2nd-century Roman historian Tacitus.[33][34]"

Ok. Now that Mordred has shown me where to start I'll try to do that for you. There is better terminology in the nucleosynthesis material that I will familiarise myself with. NOw I'm following the Feynman lectures better. Thanks again Mordred.

I thought I could avoid particle physics because I was studying vacuum. duh that's pretty funny. studying everything else and not finding the language I needed because the one subject I was avoiding was the one I needed to understand.

Thanks Mordred. If I'd just described that sequence first I might have saved myself a lot of drama.

Sorry> Terminology mistake. I meant simplest baryonic element that could be accelerated. I'm not confusing DE. The description you supplied represents the physical direction in which baryogenesis progressed. The model I have does that backwards but ina way that stabilises when it hit's helium 3. It takes a different path, one that represents it as a helium 2 particle with the nucleon mass of a 5 nucleon particle with electron neutrinos for shells. The maths of a "5 nucleon energy density in a 2 nucleon mass arrangement" evades me so I'm trying to understand the standard theory comparison.

To describe my modelling of the DM particle from this chronology requires defining the periods from baryongenesis to recombination as reflecting the process within baryogensis. This describes a particle with the energy density of a helium 4 particle travelling at c. I've already supplied you my conclusions on the arrangement of that particles nucleon. I imagine this is the hurdle that requires a transformation of some sort. I'm not sure whether that exists. Oh hang on. What was the energy level that helium 4 stabilised at? That should provide all the inference required.

Am following you now but did you see the edit question?

I should I just make assumptions from here and not ask questions? I'm trying to identify which particular maths is used for vacuum I guess. Isotopic balance(which particles are stable) is regulated by vacuum isn't it? If helium 4 represents the particle that would require the least energy to accelerate to c, I would measure how much energy that would reguire to begin with.

I have to disagree with swansont. Gravitational force is associated to vacuum. DM has a -1 vacuum value and normal has a 1 value. I would assume that high velocity mass is an exaggeration of this dynamic so that the velocity gravitation force equates to positive vacuum force and the extra force of the massive body is neg-vacuum force. Possibly the other way round but I'd have to consider it further. Yes I would have to assume it is the other way around so that the massive body has the colder(lower EM) value.

That would be one question I can't say I've heard a direct answer on. It would be good to know the data now I have some idea what I'd be looking at with the particle. Thanks for your thoughts and consideration studiot. I don't think the way I was thinking about this question to begin with was the appropriate analysis I was looking to understand but I'll give it a little more thought.

That is super interesting. I just found that a particular model suggested variability in DM state. I think I'll be able to follow the equations when they get complex now. That is a great place to start.

yup ok if you say so. Nobody has answered a single question I've asked with a "?" on it, only wanged on with objecting to the holes in my vocabulary. You guys should be ashamed of yourselves. You give the teaching trade a really bad look.

I JUST SAID I DON"T THINK DM IS He. What I think is it can be COMPARED TO IT with a different mass management.

So it is assumed it is a high mass particle.That mass has to represent some sort of balance, as hydrogen and helium and every other element. Because it is helium that stabilises inflation I believe it is an appropriate particle to approximate the DM particles properties against. The basic approach I have taken to defining this is to question whether it is a particle that reflects a helium particle with a high velocity. I do not automatically assume that DM is a helium particle travelling very fast.

why can you not analyse the rest mass of the DM particle against the mass of a standard element at a certain velocity? It really doesn't seem that difficult a question to decipher

the brain doesn't work that hard if it isn't applied to reading. very sound plan of action I think. I hope the course is what you are looking for. Looks like it could get your brain into a career path that would have it bulging out your ears.

I'm not assuming anything upon change. I'm asking whether the volume of mass energy in a given element at a given velocity could be used to analyse another hypothesised particle.

What is the difference between an elements normal rest mass and the mass it accumulates as a result of acceleration?