swansont Posted February 24, 2015 Share Posted February 24, 2015 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts