GeneralDadmission

I have an hypothesis that there is a post adolescent stage in the lifecycle of Homo-Sapiens. In some things it is difficult to distinguish fact from fantasy.

Where have I criticised or promised to improve on existing theories? I have a scenario I'm investigating, nothing more nothing less. If you are assuming you can assess what I do or don't have a very solid grasp on by the language I compile to describe a subject there is minimal available reference to then I have to contend that this is a presumption without applicable merit. Now that I have clarified the parameters of what I have been modelling I will endeavor to eliminate the appropriation of loose terms and descriptions and apply language that is more recognisably familiar to standard theory. I did specifically ask 'has helium been applied to identifying the Higgs Boson outside the context of accelerators' and 'what is the context of the phrase 'free-neutron' in inflationary nucleosynthesis'? I agree that it would not interact with normal matter through EM. It is the nature of this separation I think might be shown in a different context. I now have a bead on where such an explanation might begin were it measurably present. I will either discover that I have simply been progressing along the path of comprehension of standard theory or perhaps find something additional. My only pre-requisite to the nature of the result is clarification of subject matter.

Yes I probably would have changed the grammar significantly. I am not sure how presenting me with other peoples conclusions(without the technical reference) aids me in arriving at a conclusion of my own. The only technical question I have regarding standard theory nucleosynthesis is how are free neutrons defined in the BB context?

The first 'in' to that quote should be 'of'. Unless the study was done in the moments pre and post reionization epoch. Until I've had time to asess what has been constructed on this thread I can't comment on the rest of the content concisely.

It is a bare skeleton. At this point I might have sketched out my own route to a Higgs Boson Mexican Hat analogy for all I know. Will tinker with it for a bit. Meantime, has helium been applied to identifying the Higgs Boson outside an accelerator? That is about all the directly relevant helium questions I can think of currently.

I'm making an assessment of how to reference standard theory maths by arranging the capitalised letters the way I have. It is a reference to the quark arrangements. Until I put the particle model together I'd just been compiling data. This basic model will provide me something mathematical to research. I appreciate the coaching. I might have some questions on helium if I can't find the answers online. Cheers. This facility has clarified the questions I was missing very efficiently and I'm grateful. If I think I can satisfy your requirements for measurability you will hear so.

I'm going to change that to prOTOn, neutrIon and electrOM.

Count me assured. Does that resolve your concern for my familiarity with popular scepticism or have you further observations of a patrionic preturbation? Why were 6 quarks predicted? I've gone as far as labelling a DM element as WGB I may as well provide another reference for it's constituents. How about prOtOn, neUtron and electrOm? The first two have a similar arrangement to the quarks in protons and neutrons with the up/down quarks substututed by a combination of strange, charm, bottom, top. I expect this balance would be regulated by the length contraction of the electrOms associated with the WGB element..

I've referred to the models but in the interest of brevity I did not speculate on which quarks would play which role other than the reference to the mass. I've suggested two high mass one low as somwhere to begin. It might follow that the component that plays the neutron-equivalent role in the DM element is entirely high mass quarks. I refer to them as neutrons and protons because WGB's nucleus operates in the same manner as normal matter only the strong and weak force dominate over the electromagnetic forces. It should resemble a low mass/high density product of helium with an escape velocity equivalent to the gravitational constant. That brings what I've compiled on momentum into line with standard theory. How to test it is something I'll leave myself to wonder about for now. I'm still going over the references you've supplied along the way.

My apologies. The wireless keyboard died. I agree entirely but on the other hand the forum is offered publicly. I've only made use of a public utility. I haven't found you at work so that I have to be thrown out with my notes and spectacles in disarray. I did offer the courtesy of withdrawing the complaint I posted while I was compiling the model in the edit. I haven't modelled anything I haven't drawn from what is posted in wiki. The obvious model would be of the elements protons and neutrons which might be composed of two high mass quarks to the single low mass quark. I would still refer to the product of an alternative quark density in this context as neutrons and protons as their role in regard the particle's integrity is the same. The alternate arrangement involves the elements embedding in the vacuum. The role of neutrons is primarily maintenance of centre of momentum. The simplest analogy of DM spacetime to that we observe is that where normal matter's FoR constant is c, the FoR constant for the WGB element is confinement to acceleration at the gravitational constant. This should instate a condition in which the strong and weak force dominate over the electromagnetic forces within the particle and allow it to operate at the extremities of the vacuum. This model assumes that reionization is the point in the inflationary model that indicates relativity and causality equilibrates. Normal matter is confined by the AM effects hydrogen confers on the products of it's fusion. DM is confined by it's exponential centre of momentum and defined by the energy levels required to maintain helium fusion.

Are you a Dalek? A basic model as short and sweet as I can supply. The obvious model would be of the elements protons and neutrons which might be composed of two high mass quarks to the single low mass quark. I would still refer to the product of an alternative quark density in this context as neutrons and protons as their role in regard the particle's integrity is the same. The alternate arrangement involves the elements embedding in the vacuum. The role of neutrons is primarily maintenance of centre of momentum. The simplest analogy of DM spacetime to that we observe is that where normal matter's FoR constant is c, the FoR constant for the WGB element is confinement to acceleration at the gravitational constant. This should instate a condition in which the strong and weak force dominate over the electromagnetic forces within the particle and allow it to operate at the extremities of the vacuum. This model assumes that reionization is the point in the inflationary model that indicates relativity and causality has equilibrated.

Now that I've sketched out what I've had in my head I'll attempt to address that point next. Thanks for the prompts thus far. Initially I would define the modelling applied to this direction as one that circumvents requirement of a monopole particle by providing a dipolic aspect to vacuum. Where photons regulate the internal boundaries of the universes EM field it becomes assumed that neutrinos regulate the external boundaries. Some consideration may be required before I might provide a means to substantially analyse this context.

A stable element's charge potential is set to the vacuum capacity it is fused at. WGB would have an electromagnetic presence but at a range that does not register at energy potentials set post reionisation. In this sense WGB being stabilised at pre-reionisation pressures removes it from the influence of the confinement of relativities established post re-ionisation. The greater content that Strange was patient enough to critically peruse I'll have to answer over the next week/s. I enjoy the early mornings work requires but if I don't tuck myself in early I get older a lot faster. cheers

Forgive the construction of intermediary terms. I'll attempt to limit the time you will have to wait for an explanation.

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0370269314009381 This paper. I'll sketch out the explanaiton linking the 'buzz words' I provided in answer to your questions. I did not want to complicate the discussion by leaping too far ahead. Firstly I am assuming that DM's state is isolated just prior to re-ionisation. A simple analogy would be that it is a form of helium isotope that entered a solid-state phase coupled to another isotopic element that resembles hydrogens relationship with oxygen. It is the crystallisation of this element that constricts spatial expansion to a vacuum differential. Just prior to reionisation DM's spacetime evolved tangentially to ours. ie; it's escape velocity puts it's state beyond the reach of the photonic field, possibly only interacting with the neutrino field. This elements state might be described as perfectly ionized. It would subsequently define the boundaries of the universes electromagnetic field post reionisation. Perfectly ionized is intended to describe this elements internalisation of charge. In essence it would be an element so cold it exists at a temperature below zero kelvin and at the extremities of the universes vacuum. From DM's FoR the universe would appear perfectly homegounous and isotropic. I assume this would imply that it's state remains tied to the CM of the universe and does not encounter the intermission of AM. As a tangentially confined spacetime DM's field resistance eliminates or confines photon absorption from within the trajectories of normal matters EM field. This might be balanced with a neutrino deficit that as a mechanism might paint the DM field's element as a chemical capacitor component that governs the gravitational components of the universe. For the purpose of this thread I will refer to this supposirhetorical DM element as Won't-Gra-Boxygen or WGB. As the field-state that provides DE observations,,,,,,, Unundulation Can't take these things too seriuosly.

I believe this is what I am thinking. Any factor that has a common link can only be separated to a maximum degree. The human mind can comprehend the parameters of a subject but before it has been applied to practical familiarisation with the subjects greater content it will superimpose (golden/ideal)rationalisation from the introducting factor to the broader field to be studied.

Possibly. What about the brains tendency to seek idealisms? ie; a rectangle can be of any dimension the individual requires but on the group level the golden rectangle is universally ideal?

The way the conversation evolved reminded me of that and how cutting the square out of the golden rectangle can be done indefinitely. The conversation follows a topic that gets squared off and then it evolves to a subject that is more like the rectangle that needs the square cut out of it again. I guess I'm wondering if phi is a confining factor in mental evolution.

Fair enough comments. I didn't try to speculate because I thought analysts may have already studied the subject and I was seeking that information. As far as six points of separation, this sounds like a geometric analogy that involves a ratio, to me. I am not speculating but asking where this term comes from and whether it is related to the golden ratio and if so how. I don't have homework only an idle inquiry.

I don't know a substantial amount regarding the golden ratio. The way a conversation I was having evolved reminded me of the term '6 points of separation' and the golden rectangle. The simple question is "Is synchronicity and coincidence governed by phi?"

My mistake. I have edited my spelling to indicate my intended question.

One word each. Density. Isotopicality. Confinement. Relative to? If ST accepts the correspondence of geodesics to quantum trajectories that would be accurate. That paper states that it does not define the nature of DM. My initial assumption would be that defining DM's state only requires identifying a helium isotope that mirrors the symmetries of oxygen. My next step is to research known and theoretical helium isotopes.

Is the '6 points of separation' theorem definable as conforming to the phi ratio? Is '6' a geometrical reference to the nature of phi? Is the way the brain evaluates data relevant to a conversation regulated through pi equations that resemble that of the Golden Rectangle? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Golden_ratio