DM micro-bh's

[Mordred]

http://www.wiese.itp.unibe.ch/lectures/universe.pdf:"Particle Physics of the Early universe" by Uwe-Jens Wiese Thermodynamics, Big bang Nucleosynthesis

 

See chapter 3 it will cover how the neutron and helium come about in nucleosynthesis.

 

Keep in mind the neutron by itself has a short life span 881 sec approximately

[GeneralDadmission]

http://www.wiese.itp.unibe.ch/lectures/universe.pdf:"Particle Physics of the Early universe" by Uwe-Jens Wiese Thermodynamics, Big bang Nucleosynthesis

 

See chapter 3 it will cover how the neutron and helium come about in nucleosynthesis.

 

Keep in mind the neutron by itself has a short life span 881 sec approximately

 

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.

 

Which you clearly don't.

 

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.

Well at least I get the gist, that your studying before making declarations. Well done in that regard. There isnt enough detail to understand your model atm.

 

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.

Edited February 23, 2015 by GeneralDadmission

[Mordred]

You would need the strong force for that. We have a high confidence that DM has no strong force interactions.

[GeneralDadmission]

You would need the strong force for that. We have a high confidence that DM has no strong force interactions.

 

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?

Edited February 24, 2015 by GeneralDadmission

[Mordred]

Good luck with that, you do realize how unstable helium 2 is? You should also realize that helium of any form has a unique sprecrum signature so is easily detected. Unlike DM.

[GeneralDadmission]

Good luck with that, you do realize how unstable helium 2 is? You should also realize that helium of any form has a unique sprecrum signature so is easily detected. Unlike DM.

 

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.

Good luck with that, you do realize how unstable helium 2 is?

 

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!"

Edited February 24, 2015 by GeneralDadmission

[swansont]

 

Where have I criticised or promised to improve on existing theories? I have a scenario I'm investigating, nothing more nothing less.

 

!

Moderator Note

 

In this scenario you are investigating, you are insisting that some things are true. The price of participation here is explaining how you can tell if these things are true. If all you want to do is announce your idea, go start a blog. Such pontificating is not permitted here.

 

If all you want to do is the equivalent of sitting around, smoking a doobie and saying "Have you ever really looked at your hand, man?" then I'm sure there are places where you can do so, but it's not here.

 

Last chance for some science to show up.

[GeneralDadmission]

 

!

Moderator Note

 

In this scenario you are investigating, you are insisting that some things are true. The price of participation here is explaining how you can tell if these things are true. If all you want to do is announce your idea, go start a blog. Such pontificating is not permitted here.

 

If all you want to do is the equivalent of sitting around, smoking a doobie and saying "Have you ever really looked at your hand, man?" then I'm sure there are places where you can do so, but it's not here.

 

Last chance for some science to show up.

 

 

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?

Edited February 24, 2015 by GeneralDadmission

[swansont]

Sure. Two posts. Show your work.

[GeneralDadmission]

Sure. Two posts. Show your work.

 

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.

[imatfaal]

!

Moderator Note

Ooops - already locked the differentiality thread in maths. Please try and stick to the correct fora - and please ask sensible questions that are within the scope of an internet forum.

[GeneralDadmission]

!

Moderator Note

Ooops - already locked the differentiality thread in maths. Please try and stick to the correct fora - and please ask sensible questions that are within the scope of an internet forum.

 

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.

[imatfaal]

!

Moderator Note

If you are asking simple questions of fact I would be happy to see them in the main fora or in speculations - but I would also question why you cannot research them yourself. Questions such as "if you could provide me with the material you accept as authoritive on the weak and strong forces" are ridiculous. Cut to the chase, lose the word-salad, and get yourself grounded in the basics before you start trying to break new ground.

[swansont]

If all you want to do is ask questions about mainstream physics, then you can do so in the physics section. But you have to limit yourself to asking specific questions, not advancing any personal theory about how things work.

[GeneralDadmission]

If all you want to do is ask questions about mainstream physics, then you can do so in the physics section. But you have to limit yourself to asking questions, not advancing any personal theory about how things work.

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.

[swansont]

Someone who asks what the composition and age of the moon is, is asking questions. Someone who insists that the moon is made of cheese and is 5000 years old is advancing a personal/pet theory and is going to be asked for evidence to support the assertions. The former would be discussed in physics, the latter in speculations.

 

So when you do things like insist that dark matter is highly charged, or made of helium, you are not asking questions. You are advancing a pet theory. It is expected that you have more to offer than empty conjecture and word salad, as we outline here.

[hypervalent_iodine]

!

Moderator Note

How about you get back to the topic of this thread. Have you any science to post here, or should this be closed also?*

*Rhetorical question. Don't answer it directly, just post your science as per swansont's previous modnote(s).

[GeneralDadmission]

!

Moderator Note

How about you get back to the topic of this thread. Have you any science to post here, or should this be closed also?*

 

*Rhetorical question. Don't answer it directly, just post your science as per swansont's previous modnote(s).

 

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.

Someone who asks what the composition and age of the moon is, is asking questions. Someone who insists that the moon is made of cheese and is 5000 years old is advancing a personal/pet theory and is going to be asked for evidence to support the assertions. The former would be discussed in physics, the latter in speculations.

 

So when you do things like insist that dark matter is highly charged, or made of helium, you are not asking questions. You are advancing a pet theory. It is expected that you have more to offer than empty conjecture and word salad, as we outline here.

 

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.

Edited February 24, 2015 by GeneralDadmission

[swansont]

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.

Really?

 

My understanding of DM is that it is in a highly charged state and non-directional.

BTW, the planck charge is ~12x the elementary charge.

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.

It was previously pointed out that one of the problem with this request is that it is too wide-ranging, and contains too many buzz words. You've provided no context for any of the information you've requested. AFAIK there are no standardized thermonuclear parameters involving drop height, etc. We did away with above-ground testing >50 years ago.

[Mordred]

Dark matter is also not highly charged. It is non interacting, has no known electromagnetic, or strong force. Much like neutrinos. It may or may not interact with the weak force.

[GeneralDadmission]

Really?

 

 

BTW, the planck charge is ~12x the elementary charge.

 

It was previously pointed out that one of the problem with this request is that it is too wide-ranging, and contains too many buzz words. You've provided no context for any of the information you've requested. AFAIK there are no standardized thermonuclear parameters involving drop height, etc. We did away with above-ground testing >50 years 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.

Dark matter is also not highly charged. It is non interacting, has no known electromagnetic, or strong force. Much like neutrinos. It may or may not interact with the weak force.

 

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.

Edited February 24, 2015 by GeneralDadmission

[swansont]

I do not know how to calculate earth's mass density ratio offset to the solar barycenter.

I think you're not alone in that, since "mass density ratio offset" is just more word salad. (Go ahead. Google it as a phrase, i.e. in quotes. No results found for "mass density ratio offset")

[Mordred]

Yes helium requires the strong force to hold the protons and neutrons.

[GeneralDadmission]

I think you're not alone in that, since "mass density ratio offset" is just more word salad. (Go ahead. Google it as a phrase, i.e. in quotes. No results found for "mass density ratio offset")

 

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.

Edited February 24, 2015 by GeneralDadmission

[GeneralDadmission]

What is the difference between an inacceleratable object and a immovable object?

 

One goes nowhere the other stays somewhere.

 

This is somewhat similar or perhaps is the Theory of Relativity.

 

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.

Edited February 24, 2015 by GeneralDadmission