Is quantum matter relatively equivalent to baryonic matter?

[rwjefferson]

Is quantum matter relatively equivalent to baryonic matter?

flash news

Scientists observe at least one black hole horizon spinning near the speed of light and create sonic black holes.

Is electromagnetic energy relatively equivalent to sonic energy?

Is curvature the same as force?

just asking

ron

[swansont]

Is quantum matter relatively equivalent to baryonic matter?

What does "relatively equivalent" mean?

 

Anyway, if the question is "is quantum matter all baryonic" the answer is no. Some other hadronic matter are mesons, and then there is leptonic matter and dark matter.

[rwjefferson]

~gotcha again

def: baryonic matter

family hadron

syn: quarky

def: dense

strong shells resist penetration

syn: unable to admit simple truth

def: quantum matter

leptons and all other matter

syn: not quarky like you

def: relatively equivalent

similar but not quite the same as same as

syn: relativity

gravity forces mass acceleration and curvature does not

basic physics.101

gravity and inertia states mass

attraction and repulsion states energy

e=mc2 states matter

Imagine the eye of a cyclone spun to a singular point up. How is this similar to a galaxy? How does this differ? Do you know how to calculate the differential?

What's ridiculous is the image that your massive balls rolling around on a poorly sprung sheet of fabric is the same as gravity.

ItS

peace

r~

apologies' carl

[imatfaal]

!

Moderator Note

 

Thread moved to speculations. Asking questions and responding with Gotcha seems to be slightly trollish - and indicates that this is an attempt to speculate about new ideas rather than seek clarification about existing thought; thus the move. And could you try using sentences?

 

[swansont]

 

~gotcha again

How so? You asked a vague question and besides, my answers are right.

 

def: baryonic matter

family hadron

syn: quarky

No, there are quarks in mesons, too.

 

def: dense

strong shells resist penetration

syn: unable to admit simple truth

Veiled insult, or just just a non-sequitur?

 

def: quantum matter

leptons and all other matter

Sure, if you just make up definitions, you can give any answer you want.

 

def: relatively equivalent

similar but not quite the same as same as

syn: relativity

Does not really clarify anything.

 

gravity forces mass acceleration and curvature does not

Non sequitur.

 

basic physics.101

gravity and inertia states mass

attraction and repulsion states energy

e=mc2 states matter

More non sequiturs.

 

Imagine the eye of a cyclone spun to a singular point up. How is this similar to a galaxy? How does this differ? Do you know how to calculate the differential?

What's ridiculous is the image that your massive balls rolling around on a poorly sprung sheet of fabric is the same as gravity.

And the connection of this to baryonic matter is what, exactly?

[rwjefferson]

clarification

def: quarky

more than a couple of quarks

syn: gotcha again

Yes. Truth is gotcha to dogma and mass does not bend space because current mainstream science tells it so and large hadrons hold the property of gravity and you missed the science revolution.

The question is not whether large hadrons possess gravity. The question is whether gravity is a state of force i.e. inertial pressure differential. Or relativity speaking does mass bend space by some magic god-like property? I am still waiting for you to offer a reason why I should believe gravity does not force mass acceleration. I am still not convinced you know all that much about either basic inertial pressure differential or god, only what authority tells you so.

Energy is stated by attraction and repulsion and mass is stated by inertia and gravity, and matter is stated by e=mc2. And yes these statements all hold true, no matter Holier than thou altitudes or latin strawmen or ignorance. A cyclone with its eye condensed to a singular point up is relatively equivalent to a galaxy and vice versa.

Those that stand against trolls smell like troll, especially to trolls and other children. That you find inertial pressure differential forcing mass acceleration and all that follows ridiculous marks you.

When does weakly interacting matter become strong?

When will you admit your observations of gravity are also consistent with inertial pressure differential?

ron

Too much learning is a dangerous thing; it blinds weak minds to simple truth

r~

Bad criticism does greater harm than bad writing.

Alexander Pope

[ACG52]

What brand of vacuum cleaner do you sell?

 

I bought a Kirby about 15 years ago and it still sucks the whole universe into it's galactic vortex.

Edited March 27, 2013 by ACG52

[Bignose]

Too much learning is a dangerous thing; it blinds weak minds to simple truth

Kudos. This is quite possibly the most foolish thing I have ever read on this site.

 

You seriously want us to stop learning? Here's a dumb question, then: why are you bothering to try to teach your idea then?

[rwjefferson]

...and?

bad dogma

Please fore give my language. I wanted to typo too much learning how to misinterpret mathematical models is a dangerous thing and two much alphanumeric dogma do blind weak minds to simple truth and hear you are.

Does math prove wings create lift by curvature?

Does math prove mass creates gravity by curvature?

Do exceptional claims require exceptional proof?

current observation

Stars wheel faster around galaxies accelerated by fluent weakly interacting massive particles. Interacting means matter is subject to inertia and massive means matter is subject to gravity and fluent means matter flows.

trolls don't answer the questions; trolls criticize the writing

What is the relative velocity by viscosity of a wimpy matter headwind that slows a 250kg mass by ~8.74±1.33×10^-10 m/s^2 toward the distant sun?

What is the relative velocity by viscosity of a wimpy matter wind that accelerates a 1' x 1' x 1' x 1g mass by 1g toward earth?

welcome to my wormhole and gotcha again

r~

trolls and ACG52 need not reply

[swansont]

 

...and?

bad dogma

Please fore give my language. I wanted to typo too much learning how to misinterpret mathematical models is a dangerous thing and two much alphanumeric dogma do blind weak minds to simple truth and hear you are.

Does math prove wings create lift by curvature?

Does math prove mass creates gravity by curvature?

Do exceptional claims require exceptional proof?

current observation

Stars wheel faster around galaxies accelerated by fluent weakly interacting massive particles. Interacting means matter is subject to inertia and massive means matter is subject to gravity and fluent means matter flows.

trolls don't answer the questions; trolls criticize the writing

What is the relative velocity by viscosity of a wimpy matter headwind that slows a 250kg mass by ~8.74±1.33×10^-10 m/s^2 toward the distant sun?

What is the relative velocity by viscosity of a wimpy matter wind that accelerates a 1' x 1' x 1' x 1g mass by 1g toward earth?

welcome to my wormhole and gotcha again

r~

trolls and ACG52 need not reply

 

!

Moderator Note

Not sure what this has to do with baryonic matter, so I'm tempted to split this off.

 

Fair warning: if anyone answers these questions and then you "correct" them, you will be cited for a rule 8 violation, and given your history, a suspension is likely.

 

If you have a model to discuss, discuss it.

 

[Bignose]

Please fore give my language. I wanted to typo too much learning how to misinterpret mathematical models is a dangerous thing and two much alphanumeric dogma do blind weak minds to si

This statement is almost completely different that what you wrote before. Obviously learning how to misinterpret a mathematical model isn't helpful. But, this isn't exactly profound -- misinterpreting anything isn't really helpful. If I were to learn how to misinterpret Russian (which I don't speak at all) -- that isn't helpful, either. If I misinterpret the meaning of a poem by Robert Frost, I don't see how that can be helpful, too. So, I guess I don't know what your point here really is.

 

Also, I have no idea what 'alphanumeric dogma' is. Maybe the below will help a little...

Does math prove wings create lift by curvature?

Does math prove mass creates gravity by curvature?

Math doesn't 'prove' anything about these questions. What we do have are mathematical models that make damn good predictions of what is observed. That is, given an airfoil, the ambient air conditions, and how you are using the airfoil -- the math can make a prediction of the amount of lift it will experience. And when that prediction is compared to what actually happens, the prediction turns out to be pretty good.

 

That isn't a 'proof'. But it is an indication that the math model is pretty good.

 

Same thing with gravity -- we have excellent math models that make predictions that agree really well with what is observed.

 

Because these predictions are so good, the mathematical models we have are very well respected. If you don't like what those models are based on, or you think your models are better -- the hurdle to jump is very, very easy: demonstrate that your model makes even better predictions.

 

That really is it. Your models can be based on your baryonic matter, quantum matter, unicorn matter, whatever the heck you want -- if the predictions are better than what we have today, you will get attention. No prediction?... expect to be ignored, especially when you redefine already well established terms.

 

It really is a simple to understand hurdle. I guess the question for you is: do you have it? Do you have any predictions? How do they compare to the predictions made by the current models and how do they compare to the experimental values? Post a graph showing experimental values, the current model predictions, and your predictions and lets see how good your model really is.

Edited April 8, 2013 by Bignose

[rwjefferson]

the point.007

the more you try not, the more you prove me right

def: alphanumeric dogma

the dictate that relatively close is close enough

syn: strawman response

alphanumeric dogma used in a sentence:

What we do have are mathematical models that make damn good predictions of what is observed.

Fair warning: if anyone answers these questions and then you "correct" them, you will be cited for a rule 8 violation, and given your history, a suspension is likely.

 

What if my thread is hijacked by zealots too blinded by dogma to see inertial pressure differential is a better model than curvature?

ron

maybe dark matter is not really inviscid; maybe dark matter is only relatively weakly viscid

[swansont]

!

Moderator Note

So, does that mean you don't have an actual model to discuss and defend? Next step is thread closure.