This is moderation!

[GeneralDadmission]

Moderator Note

GeneralDadmission

OK - So the text was garbage and you refuse to provide maths to back up the maths. I think that is it for this thread.

From now on please either stick to mainstream science questions - or if you wish to speculate you must read and abide by the rules of the Speculations forum. You are not permitted to reopen this topic.

<

<

<

Exactly how have you supported your assumption. I STATED I WOULD PREFER NOT TO DIRECTLY SUBMIT MATHS RELATED TO THE PARTICLE. The description can be critically reviewed, which you made NO EFFORT TO DO. You people have serious issues. "Garbage" and "no" HAS NO EDUCATIONAL VALUE. You guys are playing authority when you have no capacity for entertaining education rather than recitation of what you are specifically familiar with. I have not come here with the intention of convincing anyone of my modelling. I have come here to discuss the involved mass regulation and for that you lot have been the joke, not myself. Strange has made an effort I've appreciated. Mordred has supplied directly relevant data. Most of the rest of you have played piggy-in-the-middle word games and I have about as much respect for your "AUTHORITY" on ANY subject as I do for school bullies.

This is not raising the topic I have previously. It is raising the question of the quality of moderation here.

Edited March 1, 2015 by GeneralDadmission

[Endy0816]

You are not abiding by the rules for that section and are mixing, matching and outright making up terminology.

 

Pretty valid assessment.

[GeneralDadmission]

You are not abiding by the rules for that section and are mixing, matching and outright making up terminology.

 

Pretty valid assessment.

 

How is "garbage" an assessment? No reference has been supplied to validate it. Obviously you guys only commit your time here for the social benefits and have no intention of assisting others beyond providing rote formulae and disparaging remarks. Pretty pathetic in my view.

And "CORRECTION" but there was maths in my last post to 'mass value' were you skillful enough to extract it. This was in the form of the refractive index of the hypothesised particle. Try harder.

 

And "CORRECTION" but there was maths in my last post to 'mass value' were you skillful enough to extract it. This was in the form of the refractive index of the hypothesised particle. Try harder.

 

Had my last post been "PROPERLY" examined it would have been identified that it was implying that the gravitational geodesics that photons are bound to are mediated by DM under the hypothesised baryonic assemblage. Seriously. Try a lttle harder if YOU want to be taken seriously!

[Strange]

OK - So the text was garbage and you refuse to provide maths to back up the maths. I think that is it for this thread.

...

This is not raising the topic I have previously. It is raising the question of the quality of moderation here.

 

I wrote a very long post in that thread asking a series of questions which were intended to show you that your statements were just a meaningless jumble of words. Unfortunately, by the time I had finished it the thread had been locked.

[swansont]

Rule 2.8 states that preaching and soap-boxing are against the rules. The speculations guidelines spells out that the math is necessary and that you can't ignore criticism of your ideas. You are breaking the rules. You have been doing it pretty much continually, and moderator response has to escalate when gentler methods don't work.

 

Moderation is enforcement of the rules. Yes, this is moderation.

 

 

Had my last post been "PROPERLY" examined it would have been identified that it was implying that the gravitational geodesics that photons are bound to are mediated by DM under the hypothesised baryonic assemblage. Seriously. Try a lttle harder if YOU want to be taken seriously!

 

One of these days I expect that a poster is going to admit to pulling a Sokal and is trolling us or doing this as part of some sort of study. Sadly, thus far all generators of word salad have actually believed that they were making sense.

[Strange]

Had my last post been "PROPERLY" examined it would have been identified that it was implying that the gravitational geodesics that photons are bound to are mediated by DM under the hypothesised baryonic assemblage.

 

I can't see anything in that sentence that bears any connection to the post in question. But that is typical of your posts.

[GeneralDadmission]

Rule 2.8 states that preaching and soap-boxing are against the rules. The speculations guidelines spells out that the math is necessary and that you can't ignore criticism of your ideas. You are breaking the rules. You have been doing it pretty much continually, and moderator response has to escalate when gentler methods don't work.

 

Moderation is enforcement of the rules. Yes, this is moderation.

 

 

Thre has been no mathematical criticism supplied. This is the only appropriate criticism. I have referred to how my last post can have math extracted from it. Analyse this if you wish your criticism respected.

 

I've repeatedly made it clear I am not soapboxing but simply attempting to clarfiy the mass regulation of a hypothetical particle. I take responsibility for the effects on my language of the assumption I made many years ago that I could study relativity without deep immersion in nucleosynthesis. I would have profitted in vocabulary had I not avoided this subject. My hypothesis is mathematically examinable.

Edited March 1, 2015 by GeneralDadmission

[Strange]

 

Thre has been no mathematical criticism supplied.

 

Because you always refuse to provide any mathematical support for your claims. So how can it be criticised.

 

I have referred to how my last post can have math extracted from it.

 

Have you? Where?

 

To be quite honest, the only thing that can be extracted from that post is "the piss".

[GeneralDadmission]

 

Because you always refuse to provide any mathematical support for your claims. So how can it be criticised.

 

 

Have you? Where?

 

To be quite honest, the only thing that can be extracted from that post is "the piss".

 

 

And "CORRECTION" but there was maths in my last post to 'mass value' were you skillful enough to extract it. This was in the form of the refractive index of the hypothesised particle. Try harder.

Had my last post been "PROPERLY" examined it would have been identified that it was implying that the gravitational geodesics that photons are bound to are mediated by DM under the hypothesised baryonic assemblage. Seriously. Try a lttle harder if YOU want to be taken seriously!

 

I wrote a very long post in that thread asking a series of questions which were intended to show you that your statements were just a meaningless jumble of words. Unfortunately, by the time I had finished it the thread had been locked.

 

One of my points exactly. No room is allowed for review.

Edited March 1, 2015 by GeneralDadmission

[swansont]

Thre has been no mathematical criticism supplied.

Baloney. The lack of math/model/testable predictions has been noted multiple times. You have refused at every turn.

And "CORRECTION" but there was maths in my last post to 'mass value' were you skillful enough to extract it. This was in the form of the refractive index of the hypothesised particle. Try harder.

How about you do better? Particles don't have a refractive index. More word salad, and no actual math.

[GeneralDadmission]

Baloney. The lack of math/model/testable predictions has been noted multiple times. You have refused at every turn.

 

Have I really? You have refused to extract math from my descriptions. AFAICT.

 

And "CORRECTION" but there was maths in my last post to 'mass value' were you skillful enough to extract it. This was in the form of the refractive index of the hypothesised particle. Try harder.

Had my last post been "PROPERLY" examined it would have been identified that it was implying that the gravitational geodesics that photons are bound to are mediated by DM under the hypothesised baryonic assemblage. Seriously. Try a lttle harder if YOU want to be taken seriously!

[Strange]

And "CORRECTION" but there was maths in my last post to 'mass value' were you skillful enough to extract it. This was in the form of the refractive index of the hypothesised particle. Try harder.

 

Claiming that particles cause refraction is not mathematics (providing equations showing how that refraction can be calculated, would be).

 

Apart from that, the idea of "refractive index of [a] particle" is typical of the meaningless gibberish you post.

[swansont]

Seriously. Try a lttle harder if YOU want to be taken seriously!

Ouch. That's gonna leave a mark.

[Strange]

You have refused to extract math from my descriptions.

 

It is not up to others to attempt to extract maths from your incoherent rambling.

 

Perhaps if you provided mathematical definitions of the things you were attempting to explain it might make more sense.

[GeneralDadmission]

 

It is not up to others to attempt to extract maths from your incoherent rambling.

 

Perhaps if you provided mathematical definitions of the things you were attempting to explain it might make more sense.

 

What is rambling about describing a refractive index? The fact I originally posted a thread raising the topic of DM bh's might indicate why I am reluctant to entertain the request for direct maths. I believe that discussion of the refractive properties of the particle in the absence of reflective properties would be more appropriate on a public forum. My deficit of familiarity with complex equations does not allow me to identify which equations are directly related to it's refractive index and not related to other phenomena related to the particle. Neither am I the paranoid type. I simply seek to simplify what I am discussing and eliminate any areas that might be of concern to disclose publicly.

Edited March 1, 2015 by GeneralDadmission

[Strange]

 

What is rambling about describing a refractive index?

 

Particles do not (cannot) have a refractive index.

 

The fact I originally posted a thread raising the topic of DM bh's might indicate why I am reluctant to entertain the request for direct maths.

 

Not really. I assume your unwillingness to provide any maths is because you know almost no physics.

 

I believe that discussion of the refractive properties of the particle in the absence of reflective properties would be more appropriate on a public forum.

 

As particles can have neither refractive nor reflective properties, then you might want to reconsider embarrassing yourself in public like this.

[GeneralDadmission]

 

Claiming that particles cause refraction is not mathematics (providing equations showing how that refraction can be calculated, would be).

 

Apart from that, the idea of "refractive index of [a] particle" is typical of the meaningless gibberish you post.

 

It isn't meaningless to myself. I do allow that the term I have appropriated here has a better recognised construction. For me it describes the particles management of photons fairly. Possibly you might supply some example of baryonic photon refraction/reflection so that I might approximate a relative value to this particle

 

 

 

As particles can have neither refractive nor reflective properties, then you might want to reconsider embarrassing yourself in public like this.

 

Hmmm. Are you saying atoms neither reflect nor refract? How is that meant to embarrass me again?

[Strange]

It isn't meaningless to myself.

 

And that is a large part of the problem. What you write apparently makes some sense to you but is gibberish to those with even a limited knowledge of physics.

 

For me it describes the particles management of photons fairly.

 

I have no idea what that is supposed to mean. "Management of photons"? "Fairly"?

 

Possibly you might supply some example of baryonic photon refraction/reflection

 

Example of what?

 

so that I might approximate a relative value to this particle

 

A relative value of what? To what particle? And how will you do that?

[GeneralDadmission]

 

 

Example of what?

 

 

A relative value of what? To what particle? And how will you do that?

 

The property of the baryonic nucleon is reflection and refraction. I have referred to this as a particle. An atomic particle not sub. A description of how refraction and reflection is mediated in the atomic nucleon of normal matter will provide me structure to provide the same analogy to this hypothesis of a DM baryonic nucleon.

 

As I have stated I attempted to study Relativity and quantum without also absorbing nucleosynthesis. This was a badly considered decision. I would simply appreciate that this be considered when assessing my language as the automatic assumption that I have nothing that can be examined compiled is only combative to achieving any examination.

Edited March 1, 2015 by GeneralDadmission

[Strange]

The property of the baryonic nucleon is reflection and refraction.

 

Particles do not refract or reflect light.

 

An atomic particle not sub.

 

A nucleon is, by definition, a sub-atomic particle.

 

A description of how refraction and reflection is mediated in the atomic nucleon of normal matter

 

They aren't. (You have been told this many times now.)

 

Reflection and refraction are effects of bulk matter caused by the intereaction fo photons and electrons. Nothing to do with the nuclei.

 

will provide me structure to provide the same analogy to this hypothesis of a DM baryonic nucleon.

 

And, again you have been told this multiple times: dark matter cannot be baryonic, by definition.

[GeneralDadmission]

 

Particles do not refract or reflect light.

 

 

A nucleon is, by definition, a sub-atomic particle.

 

 

They aren't. (You have been told this many times now.)

 

Reflection and refraction are effects of bulk matter caused by the intereaction fo photons and electrons. Nothing to do with the nuclei.

 

 

 

Atomic particles don't refract or reflect? No explanation has been provided of this and it is patently untrue AFAIU. The very nature of atomic particles is refractive/reflective. I have simply proposed an atomic particle that is ostensibly without a reflective capacity.

 

 

 

 

And, again you have been told this multiple times: dark matter cannot be baryonic, by definition.

 

Without supplying the data that concludes this I can only assume it is largely assumption. Once again, simply making statements is exactly what you are accusing me of doing. At least I have made the attempt to justify my continued examination.

I have also not offered any insult that was not first offered to me. "Balderdash!" is not constructive criticism. It is a personal attack and you all know it. Life is still a two-way street regardless of the fact you may have contrived a "nuke" button for questions you'd rather avoid than examine.

 

.

I have also not offered any insult that was not first offered to me. "Balderdash!" is not constructive criticism. It is a personal attack and you all know it. Life is still a two-way street regardless of the fact you may have contrived a "nuke" button for questions you'd rather avoid than examine.

 

I can only contend that the motivation for attendance of this forum by many of those who have responded to my questions(moderators included) reflects a personal requirement to assert themselves socially and is devoid of a genuine interest in better informing the public.

[Phi for All]

 

It isn't meaningless to myself. I do allow that the term I have appropriated here has a better recognised construction.

 

It's not that you make the mistake of trying to rewrite basic science terminology to better suit what you're thinking. That's merely annoying, like any amateur trying to talk like a professional. The real problem, why you're getting so much resistance, is that you're not only trying to talk like a pro, you're trying to tell the pros they have it wrong, you're lashing out at people who're trying to get you to stop re-writing science because you don't understand science. They're offering time-honored advice, just learn the basics first.

 

I mean really, you actually blamed a professional physicist for not "extracting the math" from your appropriated-word-salad. You wandered into the locker room during halftime at the Super Bowl and told the quarterback he needs to flip the pellet before his long catchers shimmy up the grass lines so it will meet them in Saint Looey. Then you blamed him when he asked you to explain what you mean. Not cool.

[GeneralDadmission]

 

It's not that you make the mistake of trying to rewrite basic science terminology to better suit what you're thinking. That's merely annoying, like any amateur trying to talk like a professional. The real problem, why you're getting so much resistance, is that you're not only trying to talk like a pro, you're trying to tell the pros they have it wrong, you're lashing out at people who're trying to get you to stop re-writing science because you don't understand science. They're offering time-honored advice, just learn the basics first.

 

I mean really, you actually blamed a professional physicist for not "extracting the math" from your appropriated-word-salad. You wandered into the locker room during halftime at the Super Bowl and told the quarterback he needs to flip the pellet before his long catchers shimmy up the grass lines so it will meet them in Saint Looey. Then you blamed him when he asked you to explain what you mean. Not cool.

 

I contended that I have been provided NO data reflecting DM's necessity to be without baryonic component. I HAVE NEVER CONTENDED that pros have it wrong. I have contended that the responses to my questions were innapropriate, Your football analogy is not apt. I have stated my conclusions as reference not as ANY sort of contention that somebody has something fundamental wrong. The basis of my modelling is entirely compliant with EVERYTHING I have absorbed as relevant data. My language application obfuscates this which I do not blame other's for. I do expect a measure of dignity be applied in a reasonable and objective discussion. I have been treated as if I have a subjective motivativation to ask questions here that amounts to soapboxing. If I make a statement it is not intended to contraven the work of others but to examine my conclusions. So far, there has been little capacity shown for correctly identifying my conclusions. Strange wishes me to believe that atomic particles do not reflect or refract for christ's sake! I didn't state sub-atomic particles reflect and refract. I suggested that a different quark aggregation to a nucleon would stabilise an atomic particle associated to electron-neutrinos that would only have the capacity to refract and not reflect. No substantial reference has been provided to refute this. "No", "word-salad" and "gibberish" is not a constructive criticism.

To supply an equation that references my conclusions is simple. E=mc2 measures the rest mass of atomic particles based on the speed of photons. I believe an appropriate analysis of the particle I have hypthesised is that it's rest mass is equivocated by photonic wavelength rather than photonic velocity.

 

If this is not a mathematically intelligible analogy, describing what is umanageable to such an equation alteration would be of more constructive applicaiton than simply stating it is unusable.

The primary supporting factor of the predictability of this particle is that it provides a vehicle that describes the conformity of photons to geodesics as being mediated by a non-radiant baryonic element. This amounts to observable data. I have not been supplied an iota of evidence that refutes this conclusion.

Edited March 2, 2015 by GeneralDadmission

[hypervalent_iodine]

!

Moderator Note

The question of your thread has been answered. If you missed it: yes, it was moderation. You broke the rules.


This thread is now also closed.