GeneralDadmission Posted March 2, 2015 Posted March 2, 2015 (edited) 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. How conveniently accurate. Since the questions I came here for HAVE NOT RECIEVED a fair examination I will supply them one more time hoping data will be supplied rather than pedantic ridicule. Strange wishes me to believe that atomic particles do not reflect or refract. I didn't state sub-atomic particles reflect and refract. I suggested that a different quark aggregation to a nucleon would stabilise an atomic element 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 the sketch of 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
Recommended Posts