Strange

What needs to be explained? You are relaxing the muscles of the lens and "defocussing" the eyes. Why does anyone think this is special or interesting?

Christ. You do make this hard work. When an atom absorbs a photon and later re-emits it, the photon is emitted in a (largely) random direction. What doesn't happen is the photon emitted unchanged so the atom is invisible. The same is true when a photon interacts with a single photon. You have invented a magic process that only applies to your dark matter particles. I fail to see the relevance of that. You are trying to say that the stress-energy tensor and the Ricci curvature tensor describe the interaction of particles when there are no properties of those particles in the equations. It is like saying that that the equation of a sphere can describe the weather. It is nonsense. Then you need to prove this. When you say "if this is the only change" what is "this"? The change from a 4D manifold to a gas of particles? Do you really think you can describe the flow of a fluid and the interaction with other particles using a purely geometrical description? I don't. So it is up to you to prove it. Mathematically. There is in your concept. There is no mathematics in this thread, as far as I can see. Certainly not a proof of the equivalence of 4D geometry and particle-particle interactions. Because otherwise there is no reason anyone should believe your claim that it can. No one claimed it was. There are no "absolute proofs" in science. But the pseudoscientists claim of "you can simulate anything to get any results" is just nonsense. And irrelevant when you don't even have a model you can simulate. As you claim that increasing density of dark matter should cause greater effects of time dilation, etc. Why don't we see anomalous effects nearer the centre of the galaxy. Yep. Keep making up excuses. Probably similar as they formed at the same time. (From what I have read, the dark matter seeded the formation of galaxies, etc) All fundamental particles have zero size and some have mass.

Peanut butter. I assume that posting random words means you cannot provide a reference to the "frame dragging effect of dark matter" ? So we can assume it doesn't exist. Yes, I know what it means. Sigh. I mean how is it relevant to this thread. Do you have any evidence that will happen? I though we had established that there is no such thing. What is a "dark matter loop"? I get the impression you are just making stuff up.

That's amazing. I would have expected social animals to be least likely to be able to self-recognise

No one is saying that. Grow up.

https://xkcd.com/2040/

It would be even worse if English, like some languages, had different words for paternal and maternal aunts, uncles and grandparents. (Actually, I guess "grandparent and grandchild" is the most generic answer.)

I asked if you have a reference for the "frame dragging effect of dark matter". Can you provide one? What does the random word "intensity" mean here? How large is the gravitational effect of an ion on dark matter? How much will it change the dark mater particles speed? What does "better" mean, in this context?

I wasn't quite sure what you meant, so I was just hedging my bets! (I should have asked for clarification)

I was going to comment on this before. Now you have brought it up again, you seem to totally misunderstand what is happening. In the Bullet Cluster we see the dark matter separating from the matter. After a collision, the matter interacted and slowed. The dark matter kept going as if nothing had happened.

Have you calculated the uncertainty in position compared to the size of a phosphor dot? (Hint: Planck's constant is a very small number.) With every post, you demonstrate a more impressive lack of understanding.

C can still be the wife of D, even if D is gay. But you are right, maybe the answer should be grand-person in law. At least considering these things makes the puzzle slightly challenging, rather than trivial.

Do you realise you quoted yourself and then said that? You are the only one who seems to be arguing on the basis of "belief". Meanwhile, scientists create models and set them. If the models work, they use them. Your model doesn't work, as you admit, therefore it is useless however much you like it.

How is this relevant. We are, I thought, talking about electrons bound in atoms. Are you just trying to change the subject now you have admitted that your model is no more useful than the Bohr model?

You can call it what you like. It still works. This is not true of the quantum model. You don't appear to know what you are taking about. But, as you have said, your model is no more useful that the Bohr model.

Not necessarily. They key thing is that the force due to gravity is proportional to mass and the acceleration is inversely proportional to mass.

Er, no. The acceleration of falling objects is the same regardless of their weight (mass). This was demonstrated by Galileo about 400 years ago. Here is an overview: http://physics.ucr.edu/~wudka/Physics7/Notes_www/node49.html It is very easy to prove this is the case by using a couple of Newton's equations. The force on an object with mass m is given by: f = G * m * M / r2, where M is the mass of the Earth, G is the gravitational constant and r is the distance between the centre of the Earth and the object. In other words, the force is proportional to the mass of the object: f = g * m (where 'g' is just a constant factor that includes G, M and r). But the relationship between force and acceleration of an object is given by: f = m * a Rearranging, we get a = f / m Substituting f from above: a = g * m / m So, the acceleration a = g, g, from above, is G * M / r2, which on Earth is about 9.8m/s2 https://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=G+*+(mass+of+Earth)+%2F+(radius+of+Earth)^2

Why doesn’t this happen with any other particles? In all other cases photons end up with pretty much random directions after interaction (and energy and momentum are still conserved). But it isn't the same thing. It is nothing like the same thing. GR describes the effects you are talking about in terms of the curvature of 4D geometry; that is what the mathematics describes. Please explain how the interaction of atoms with a gas of dark matter particles can be described in terms of 4D pseudo-Riemannian manifolds. It can't. It is a ludicrous claim. Nonsense. We can tell that GPS satellites are at a different gravitational potential (or, equivalently, are accelerating in orbit). If you just consider relative velocity, you cannot determine which is moving. Plus, there have been hundreds, possibly thousands, of experiments to test for this sort of Lorentz violation. None is detectable. That is a "fact" that you need to accept. If this is so, please show the mathematical proof. I am not avoiding anything. I have provided you with links to many experiments that support SR and therefore refute your claim that we can determine absolute motion. You haven't explained how a the interaction between atoms and particles can be described in terms of 4D geometry. And what math?

In this particular example, you could just something like: totalCalories = userInputInt * (FOOD_1_CALORIES_P100G / 100.); And not initialise the value of totalCalories to zero. The += operator is normally used in a loop. So, if you were getting several different inputs from the user: while ... { userInutInt = ... totalCalories += userInputInt * (FOOD_1_CALORIES_P100G / 100.); } This would sum all the inputs into totalCalories. In this case you must initialise it to zero.

Show us the mathematics, then. (That is what a model is.) Please show how the mathematical model is derived from your concept of dark matter, don't just make assertions about it. Apart from the fact that you haven't answered swansont's questions about how this is possible in the first place, it doesn't address my objection. This "static background" would imply that we could tell that one person is stationary and the other is moving. Therefore time dilation would not be symmetrical. This is not what theory predicts or what experiment confirms. It is also contradicted by your claim that: So, on the one hand you claim a (locally) static dark-matter/aether which would violate Lorentz invariance (which has been tested to ridiculous levels of accuracy) but on the other you claim the Lorentz transformations are valid. You can't have both. No one is asking you to explain or justify the "old" (working) theory but to justify your own idea. For this, you need to use the mathematics derived from your concept of dark matter and compare the predictions with experiment. If you can't do that, you are not doing science. Oh, FFS. An accusation of hand-waving from you is beyond ironic. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tests_of_special_relativity http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/Relativity/SR/experiments.html http://www.aei.mpg.de/~mpoessel/Physik/RT/srtest.html https://scholar.google.co.uk/scholar?q=experimental+tests+of+special+relativity https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Modern_searches_for_Lorentz_violation https://arxiv.org/abs/gr-qc/0502097 https://scholar.google.co.uk/scholar?q=experimental+tests+of+lorentz+invariance

And it only works with hydrogen (and partly with helium). Not very useful then is it. It looks like your attempt to tweak the Bohr model hasn't really worked. Unlike, oh let's just say ... quantum theory.

There is quite a trend for cross-breeds at the moment, I don't know if that will change attitudes in the longer term. You know the sort of thing, labradoodle (Labrador-poodle cross), cockapoo (cocker spaniel-poodle), shitmenot (shitzu-dandy dinmont) OK, I made that last one up

I looked at the first of those links. Is it science fiction? Or by someone completely deranged? Reported for breaking the forum rules.

Irrelevant. You are avoiding the question about how hydrogen atoms absorb (and emit) photons of specific energies that correspond to the energy levels of the electron in the atom and not to the ionisation energy. This, by itself, falsifies your idea.

I should have said "seem to move randomly". I'm sure they are a form of floater (that I haven't seen before) because they do move with the eyes. But if you just look at the ones near the centre of your field of view, they wander around a bit randomly as your attentions shifts and the eye moves. I don't know. I'm pretty sure I remember being aware of them (and what they are - bits of detached tissue) when I was young. But I have a notoriously bad memory, so who knows! I can only see the large irregular ones normally. I assume the little round ones are normal too. Maybe some people can see them unaided.