GeneralDadmission

I was not seeking resolution on this subject and have posted this thread only to register my confusion with how to conform to the forums requirements. I have posted a thread titled "The Zero Degree Paradox" on the Relativity section. I feel I owe MrAstrophysicist a debt as the brainteasers he supplied provide the basis of everything I have studied since I chose to investigate this question. Any observations you have on the thought experiments included will be greatly appreciated. Fair sentiment and appreciated. I am simply confused by requesting guidance in formulating an equation and receiving only ridicule regarding the quaintness of my vocabulary.

I think this is a supportable supposition. Although a sped up scene is artificial in time lapse photography, it's observation does provide enough context to infer that time is relative to the observers FoR.

I wasn't pushing my own pseudoscience idea. I was requesting assistance in defining how to construct the equation that illustrates the model for measurement. I have achieved a degree of this through inference against references. As I am not practiced at assessing the accuracy of a constructed equation I would still require guidance in showing a model. I appreciate your feedback ajb as you engage the question I ask rather than focus on an imperfectly worded reference I would only have included to provide context for my question.

You were told not to reintroduce the topic. Thread closed. I didn't reintroduce the topic. I asked for an explanation of how there had been recourse for discussion allowed. Can't say I'm particularly impressed with the quality of debate available here. It actually appears to be actively avoided. The only point the moderators here have willingly clarified for me is who gets to end a discussion here.

Mr. Astrophysicist, on 22 Feb 2015 - 11:58 PM, said: One goes nowhere the other stays somewhere. Mr. Astrophysicist, on 22 Feb 2015 - 11:58 PM, said: Agreed. The point of the question is which cannot occur as a principal. An object that cannot be accelerated is nowhere and therefore removes itself paradoxically. An object that can't be moved can still be approached and therefore provides space to be examined. I believe this is the fundamental paradox that illustrates Occam's Razor not only as sound scientific method but as a fundamental principal of nature and is the most applicable to concisely defining gravitation and unifying relativity to quantum physics. The OP thought experiment represents the spatial context of this paradox. The time aspects of this paradox are definable under the following thought experiment: A time traveler travels exactly 3 seconds into the past from where he was standing, however when he arrives in the past and waits 3 seconds, he sees himself, but he does not see himself traveling into the future. How is this possible? It is a classic paradox, where you can "screw up" space and time. Imagine a timeline. He time travels back past 3 seconds, and as time moves on, the man (past) doesn't move. Why? Because another man from another time line would go into this timeline, and the process will keep on happening until there is no more space on earth. Classic time travel paradox. As soon as he looks away from his other the paradox will evaporate. Only the observer is retained from any given FoR.

This is not the appropriate way to apply Occams Razor to this question

What is the difference between an inacceleratable object and a immovable object? By the way, the answer is not: Inaccelratable object cannot be accelerated but can be moved, vice-versa. This is somewhat similar or perhaps is the Theory of Relativity. http://www.scienceforums.net/topic/87873-physics-brainteaser/ As the electron is neither immovable or "inacceleratable", I don't see how you could apply this so-called paradox to this issue, nor does any of this seem to have a logical connection. We have a model of how protons, neutrons and electrons behave and interact. It's a pretty good one. To propose some new behavior for these particles requires a model for testing, and lacking one we actually can assume certain things about dark matter. You have refused to provide any sort of model for anyone to consider as an alternative, despite much opportunity. So we're done here. Don't bring this up again. <<<<<<<<<<<<<<<< You have neither supplied an accurate or supportable response to what I posted here nor provided me recourse to answer your suppositions. You have legal requirements of your own to conform to you should understand here in this forum. If you cannot either allow fair recourse for discussion or acknowledge an accurate definition it is no skin off my nose, I simply won't seek your feedback. I can address the matter of your own conduct and accountability to others however were I inclined. I did not seek to deliberately contradict anyone or any accepted theory. This luxury has not been afforded to me by your attentions. I've treated this place with respect. The same cannot be claimed in reciprocation. I asked for help to show a model and I have neither been provided the two posts promised to show it nor the help I asked in it's construction. One point is that the electron IS neither immovable nor inacceleratable. The other is that without a sample of DM there must be greater levels of evidence to conclude DM is without an electron component. I am happy to argue the supplied paradox on this thread but I will not address the DM model further without prompting. I will state categorically that the supplied paradox must be resolved to measure the DM state. I am certain this paradox and it's accompanying principals are the governing factors that tie relativity together providing the confines for SR and identifying it's laws in totality. I believe this is the fundamental paradox that illustrates the principals of Occam's Razor as principals of nature and is the most applicable to concisely defining gravitation.

I believe this should be titled the Zero Degree Paradox. Outstanding. I believe this is the fundamental paradox that illustrates the principals of Occam's Razor as principals of nature and is the most applicable to concisely defining gravitation.

One goes nowhere the other stays somewhere. Agreed. The point of the question is which cannot occur as a principal. An object that cannot be accelerated is nowhere and therefore removes itself paradoxically. An object that can't be moved can still be approached and therefore provides space to be examined. This implies that the presence of an electron within an atom can be suggested by photons it reflects and it's position approximated by the force it exerts on it's environment. Due to the nature of the paradox, the assumption that a particle that is registered gravitationally but neither exerts EM force on it's environment nor reflects registerable photons does not contain electrons cannot be upheld without being able to approach and physically measure the particle. Therefore, without a verifiable sample it cannot be assumed that a particle associated with DM does not have an electron constituent. It follows from there that it cannot be assumed it is without proton or neutron constituents.

As soon as he looks away from his other the paradox will evaporate. Only the observer is retained from any FoR.

One goes nowhere the other stays somewhere. Agree and the point of the question is which cannot occur as a principal. An object that cannot be accelerated is nowhere and therefore removes itself paradoxically. An object that can't be moved can still be approached and therefore provides space to be examined.

I don't know how to describe earths relationship with the solar barycenter. I assume it involves an offset of earth's density to the solar mass. If it is otherwise I indicated that I'm not familiar with the maths of barycenters. I'll cover the math myself if you think I'm making claims rather than trying to resolve a puzzle that got stuck in my head a long time ago.

Drop height was only necessary to determine velocity at detonation. Between the detonation velocity and earth's offset to the solar barycenter isolation of rest is determined. Fuel density is required to determine displacement of decay potential. I could base the fuel on the 50 megatons russia tested no problem. I do not know how to calculate earth's mass density ratio offset to the solar barycenter. Energy released to atmosphere I can just derive from the data on this test. Request b) was an afterthought and is unnecessary. So just some explantion on earth's offset is required. If you are interested In what I provide from that I'll submit further. Does containing helium require strong force? I don't have to supply my results. If I put together earth's position in the solar barycenter I can put the equation together myself and use it as a rubiks puzzle.. I've established what I was looking for and won't bother anyone here further on the subject if merely suggesting that referencing the structure of He2 could measure and define DM's nature is not considered acceptable logic here.

I have asked for guidance on how to present my material. I will post the questions here and not begin any new threads. a) please provide acceptable standardised thermonuclear test confines. Standard drop height, velocity at detonation, earth's offset to solar barycenter, fuel density at centre of momentum, energy released to the atmosphere and any factors involved I've missed that you believe are involved. b) if you could provide me with the material you accept as authoritive on the weak and strong forces I will be able to identify any further equation construction questions I will require guidance on. I haven't insisted that DM is highly charged. Once I had defined the model I had to assume that DM has a planck minimum of charge. I've requested assistance to show my work. I can take the question elsewhere in a heartbeat.

a) please provide acceptable standardised thermonuclear test confines. Standard drop height, velocity at detonation, fuel density at centre of momentum, energy released to the atmosphere and any factors involved I've missed that you believe are involved. b) if you could provide me with the material you accept as authoritive on the weak and strong forces I will be able to identify any further equation construction questions I will require guidance on.

What do you mean by advancing a personal theory? Isn't the point of asking questions to define how things work? I'm a bit confused by what my 'silly attitude' is. I can repost the questions under physics but I can obtain the results elsewhere and would only be providing the questions so that I am content my efforts will satisfy your review.

Is the speculations thread acceptable for posting a thread regarding satisfying your equation requirements? The questions I posted to the locked thread are required if I am to provide the two promised posts. If these classify as innapropriate and you will not entertain them I will only produce the result elsewhere. It is your call.

If you'll allow the freebie post, there is entirely no pontification applied. I had no idea when I started the thread that I'd be doing more than asking questions. I'd still request your conditions of satisfaction if I did not also require guidance in equation construction from you. I expect I will not provide the first post promised after only one sitting in the effort to provide something that requires minimal editing. Thank you in advance for your attention on the differential thread posted under mathematics.

Sure. Two posts. Show your work. * * a) please provide acceptable standardised thermonuclear test confines. Standard drop height, velocity at detonation, fuel density at centre of momentum, energy released to the atmosphere and any factors involved I've missed that you believe are involved. b) if you could provide me with the material you accept as authoritive on the weak and strong forces I will be able to identify any further equation construction questions I will require guidance on.

Fair enough. The thread started with the postulation that a nuclear chain reaction produces a DM micro-bh when detonated in freefall. Based on the weak and strong force condition required for fusion of He2 I will require two posts to predict the DM density produced in a standardised gravitationally confined thermonucular test and describe a means to confine the hypothesised particle. No time limit. I get to ask questions regarding equation construction on another thread. Fair?

Of course I do. I've told my numbers to explain themselves but they are obstinately silent. It is the embedding of the particle in the vacuum that obscures their signature but I digress. The answers to the right questions might illustrate the dynamic with greater clarity. Would it be reasonable to consider the strong force as the particulate component of vacuum compression with the weak force as the vacuum capacity component? In this model of DM's state the EMagnetic components of the particle are unified. The neutrons only regulate the particles orthogonality to the vacuum through the weak and strong force. In this context I would seek to measure the vacuum confinement limits of electrons and establish the confinement of the weak and strong forces as expressions of vacuum. As a guide for researching the material I've already been supplied this is something I can use but if clearer direction to relevant data were supplied it would be appreciated. I'd assume the ionized particles that leave the sun faster than the standard plasma illustrate the centre of momentum produced with He2 fusion. PerCHe-oing.......... ---+0* In Chong's voice "Helium 2 is a souper-relative particle maaaaan! If it marries just the right electrons it'll burrow a hole up it's own arse and into it's own special place in the vacuum, maan! And it makes your voice sound funny when you put some in your bong.......... he hehe he eh he... wow... that's called second sound you know, man.... like, helium's some far-out wacky shit maaan!"

I think addressing that specific point might be pivotal. This bit of model won't give me any other answer than that elements that decay to helium 2 don't evaporate but enter the DM field. Or, to provide context, that if the electrons supplied to a helium 2 particle that develops from decay have been robbed of momentum when the helium 2 particle forms it then enters the DM field as a supra-relative particle. The only thing off the top of my head that might remove momenta from electrons in a decay process is an excess of neutron decay being present. To relieve the brain strain on the subject I would enjoy a good dousing in 0-state helium. Would it be reasonable to consider the strong force as the particulate component of vacuum compression with the weak force as the vacuum capacity component?

Child to biologist father: "Dad,, DAAD!! There's a MONSTER under my BED!!!!" Biologist father: "Monsters aren't real. Now if you don't mind I have to finish my work on human DNA" Child: "You just DON'T CARE about MONSTERS!!! IF YOU DID YOU WOULD HELP THEM INSTEAD OF EVERYBODY ELSE!!!!" Parenting should require a sound familiarity with applying Occams Razor to solving questions rationally.

Thanks Mordred. I'll be going over 0kelvin helium experiments for a while probably. If there is anything to it, it would be identifiable there. I've attempted to 'show my working', to a limited extent, for the purpose of constructive criticism or direction toward more appropriate terminologies. Without a product I can hardly be seeking grading or peer-review. I'm not sure how I've indicated a sentiment predisposed to criticism of anyones work. To borrow from your comments on the Does Dark Matter imply Dark Gravity thread, I would entirely describe a DM particle as a positive vacuum particle. At this point I still require a nucleus interaction to establish this.