How has this been fairly reviewed?

[GeneralDadmission]

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/

 

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 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.

 

You have refused to provide any sort of model for anyone to consider as an alternative, despite much opportunity.

 

 

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.

 

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.

 

 

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.

Edited February 25, 2015 by GeneralDadmission

[hypervalent_iodine]

You were told not to reintroduce the topic. Thread closed.