GeneralDadmission

 

 

 

 

In what context? The space-time of DNA?

No. Awareness provides parameters for the limits of time travel. As a memory is reconstructed rather than recorded verbatim so is the nature of time travel. To concieve a viable approach to time travel you have to reverse the order of things and enter timespace to displace to another spacetime. The DNA model is one conceivable method of projecting into an alternate location rather than physically travelling. It could be mechanically analogised if one created a mechanical device that replicated human senses and communicated with an interface through entanglement.

What do you think the purpose of this thread was apart from pointing out you don't give a rat's arse? It is probably well for you that you live a sheltered life. You shouldn't assume others do simply because you can't read between the lines of someones conversation well enough to address their questions rather than indulge in your prattish conclusions. Are you from a private school or something? You come across as the type of ignorant I try to avoid.

The problem is that if you just string some key words together to create a meaningless sentence then how on Earth can we really answer the 'question' other than with a simple 'no'?

 

You should try to ask direct questions. For example 'has length contraction got anything to do with the Pauli exclusion principle?' The short answer is 'no', but from there we could make it a bit clearer why the two are not directly related. Though that is difficult in the sense that how to you answer the question 'what has the Moon landings got to do with the price of tea in China?'

The basic assumption I provided was that the context of how the two are not directly related defines how intimately related they ultimately are. I had not constructively identified this and provided a vague conclusion of my own. I'll work on presenting a question rather than a conclusion.

Because it is not the kind of time travel that any physicists would really try to contemplate. It may make a good plot for a film or video game, but the science is lacking.

 

 

This version of time travel is not evidence of anything. It is just a story.

 

 

What model? This is just a story.

It defines a hypothetical context in which travelling to a former timeline is put into a chromatically reversed direction of travel. If matter is ultimately restricted to accelerating in the direction of universal gravitation is there a definition of velocity that provides a context of what could be considered a deceleration that cannot be defined by physical acceleration? The mathematical potential of the premise would not restrict time displacement to former timelines but would allow for travelling sideways in timespace(the opposite of physical spacetime) to a body of a relative in the travellers present moment or to descendants. It is an alternate analysis of energy expression that once clarified may define some of the underlying conditions of physical matters confinement.

My physics vocabulary is the way it is because rather than having had peers to discuss the subject with I have had to define the nature of measurables largely by progressively studying what that measurable is not.

I was just introduced to the concept of travelling in time through DNA lineage(you occupy the body of a person you are related to in another time period) when a friend explained the premise of the game Assassins Creed. This concept identifies a principal of time travel that I'm not sure I've heard defined concisely. It is evident that neither superman nor the crew of the enterprise would have achieved travelling backwards in time by accelerating in a forward direction. If time displacement were achievable it would require a substantial means of coordinating a path to the desired location. The dna model provides a mathematically definable context to analyse time travel from an angular momentum perspective rather than the centre momentum FoR of the linear acceleration methods superman and star trek defrauded us with.

Is there a comparable analyis of spacetime components in this context with greater detail available?

Are you here to put forward half-baked speculative ideas or to learn?

I'm here to figure out which particular bit I should study next at any particular time. So far Mordred and ajb have done very well at providing a point or two to identify which particle I should be considering next or similar. I'm not here to throw my weight around, make conclusions about others or refuse to be constructively directed. I also have no particular obligation to justify myself. I do so to indicate that my language is not intended to be combative or even offering an alternative to standard theory. The model I described to mordred is not incompatible with being interpreted as a Higgs Field. I simply have not ruled out what is required to reach that conclusion as yet and that description summarises the basis of what I have to rule out at this point as simply as I can provide. You can continue missing the point that I wouldn't be on a forum if I wasn't seeking genuinely constructive consideration. Your question is a half-baked speculation you can answer for yourself. Why should I waste my time answering people with such conceited and patronising approaches to strangers?

When we grew up and went to school

There were certain teachers who would

Hurt the children in any way they could

By pouring their derision upon anything we did

And exposing every weakness

However carefully hidden by the kids

But in the town, it was well known

When they got home at night, their fat and

Psychopathic wives would thrash them

Within inches of their lives.

I feel compelled to point out that the premise of this thread (from the title) is a farce. Regarding the thread in question, and ignoring the dubious specifics of the content,

 

"length contraction is mediated by the nucleon as regulation of electrons by pauli exclusion" is a claim, not a question

"Electrons provide valency and EM regulation through the characteristic's of photons and infer the Pauli exclusion restrictions placed on electrons by protons" is a claim, not a question.

"The oscillatory nature of neutrinos infer the restrictions present in the neutron." is a claim, not a question

"pauli exclusion defines symmetry breaking and is summarised as the equation F=ma." is a claim, not a question

"E=mc2 defines a rest FoR to provide mass relativity." is a claim, not a question

 

That's just in the first two substantive posts in the thread. How does one possibly conclude that you were not making assertions? That you may have been asking questions based on these assertions does not make them disappear. There's no point in trying to answer a question based on a faulty premise, much less a pile of them.

 

If I had put "Is" in front of those "claims", would you have provided more than "no" as disputory explanation? I attempt to summarise an area I am assessing to provide a statement to critically analyse. A simple 'no' is not critical analysis. If I have a deficit of anything in particular it is experience with concise critical analysis. This is what I seek here, to develop experience with the tools necessary to complete an exercise with the complexity of this level of physics. I have had minimal environment to develop my physics vocabulary. Just reading the language does not make it part of my vocabulary without first exercising it in regular conversations. Since I don't know anyone into physics to just practice the language with I have to pick it up in conversation here. Few people enter discussion on the topics I raise so I mostly get to practise patience.

 

 

 

(That you also claim "I haven't speculated." is a separate issue, but given that these statements are a mix of wrong and out-and-out nonsense, AFAICT the only way you can be right is to assert that this is so obviously fiction that it doesn't count as speculation, for speculation is assumed to be nonfiction.)

I have claimed "I didn't intend to speculate". I am only seeking to discuss the topics I am interested in. If you do not have time to provide direct analysis then why do you answer? You certainly have no authority on my intentions, motives or comprehension. Physics is a difficult language to learn that would make Hungarians jealous. To comprehend something I have to put what I read into my own words. I have no issue with being corrected constructively. You prefer to vulgarise my learning process and insult me with your assumptions. I haven't had time to learn the language well enough for you because life requires I keep the bills paid with my hands because I didn't get a fair crack at a formal education. I have spent a lot of time since my teen years educating myself. Your declarations are a farcicle justification for you being a moderator here. Stick to the subject you are qualified in. That isn't interpreting the efforts of a layman to put things he has read into his own words. You suck really bad at that and have no place making public insinuations about a persons wit.

You don't ask questions though. You make assertions sometimes with questions tacked on but often they're just assertions that people correct or ask for evidence for.

 

Speculations has special rules to allow a usefl discussion to happen within a sciencesk framework. Continue to break the rules and threads will get closed.

 

Questions on mainstream science should be asked in the science fora not speculations. You need to make sure you're asking questions though.

 

This thread shouldn't be in speculations so I'm moving it.

I don't intend to make assertions. It is difficult to avoid because I am more familiar with the exercise I developed than the specific physics required to interpret it. Mordred has pointed out that this is largely lepton and associated particle physics. Basically I'm starting from here to learn the specific maths I've been trying to define. When I can identify a question I ask but mostly I've had to rely on descriptions to get pointed in the right directions.

The tread title isn't really true. This question,

"So question 1 to this thread is could you stop locking my threads swansont? ",

for example makes the tacit statement that Swansont is the one locking posts.

So questions sometimes are statements.

Also, since the decision to close a thread is made by a team of mods, the idea that he's the one closing them is wrong too.

 

But, as has been pointed out already, you seem not to have grasped the basics...

The basics I don't seem to have grasped are your preferences and requirements here. Assuming I don't understand physics basics because I have had difficulty finding methods to describe my exercise to make progress with it, is drawing a long bow you haven't any experience with. I don't come from formal physics training and therefore have my own language habits. That is as much as you can contend with any verifiability. Stop being a bunch of fascist elitist tools.

If you seriously think someone can read up on physics for 20 years and not comprehend the basics you can only have issues with conceit. Seriously!

I've found a couple of questions from the material Mordred has supplied. When I have a few more I'll start a thread entirely question presented.

If you wish me to conform to your perception that physics discussion MUST INVOLVE MATH swansont, I request that you provide me a sequence of formulae from basic to complex to properly assess my capacities. You provide a question that requires application of a physics formulae to answer and I will research each and provide you an answer with working shown. I have not approached this subject from the conventional norm. This does not mean that I am seeking alternate theory or that the exercise I have employed to absorb theory doesn't conform to standard theory. You cannot expect me to satisfy your apparent lust for maths if you don't provide me material you deem suitable to apply to the subject can you?

Alas, then. You shouldn't be speculating without knowledge of the basics. No model, no thread.

Can you please stop locking my threads swansont? I haven't provided them to answer your questions or demands. Have I some obligation to you to provide you with a finished product? I can't see how. Try allowing the person who has genuinely given my questions time and feedback enough respect that you allow room for him to answer my questions. You obviously can't interpret language that eludes you as anything but an attempt to impress you so I genuinely believe you are an obstruction to my progress.

Your presumption that I don't have basic knowledge is prepostorous. I have a fair understanding of the basics and what I have been seeking to understand is how to analyse the exercise I developed to apply it within physics formulae. I assume I will make progress here just with the references Mordred has supplied. When I get time spent on that I may have further questions for him. He made the point that studying the history of physics is important for understanding it's progress. This I agree with because I have gained more from this practice than by deconstructing formulae. This was a factor of the nature of the exercise I was absorbed in. This is at a stage of progress in which I can begin asking more specific questions.

So question 1 to this thread is could you stop locking my threads swansont? If the answer is no I'll just have to ask mordred questions privately and assume everyone else bar Mordred and ajb have little aptitude for analysing a question they don't have a direct formulae to.

Need a model, or evidence, or something falsifiable. A coherent paragraph would be nice.

I hope I can satisfy you with further consideration. It has taken me till now to simply understand how to functionally interpret the exercise. This is mostly what I have been attempting to achieve since having the exercise running round in my head has been a pain in the butt. I think I will need to absorb some of the material posted to this thread before I can provide anything substantial.

 

I don't see any connection between that and relativity. Especially not special relativity, which is mainly just derived from Maxwell's equations....

Just derived from Maxwell's equations? I thought they were derived from the nature of mass ultimately. The definition I supplied intended to indicate that equilibration between cause and effect is set between BB and baryogenesis and put into motion at reionisation.

You need a lot of detail here to understand which particles are formed when. There is still a lot of ground to cover.

 

Here is some guidelines. The order generally but not always follow how massive the particle is in terms of total mass not rest mass.

 

In total energy the photon is massive, due to its kinetic energy. Bosons are typically massive particles, they will drop out of thermal equilibrium earlier than less massive particles.

 

Photons for example drop out of thermal equilibrium before neutrinos. So does the other quage bosons. Quarks, and W,Z bosons.

 

I have no idea what you mean by expansion symmetry.

 

Did you read the link I gave you earlier? Chapters three and 4?

 

http://arxiv.org/pdf/hep-th/0503203.pdf"Particle Physics and Inflationary Cosmology" by Andrei Linde

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

Second link,

 

Keep in mind both these cover the SO(5) model. So they don't cover the Higgs field itself.

Heh. You are now providing a coherent description of the exercise. I'll go out on a limb and illustrate the field management first. There is an initial decay process. Expansion produces top/bottom neutrons that are the only particle massive enough to annihilate within exponentially expanding space. This produces electron neutrinos and strange/charm neutrons which fuse and 'break expansion symmetry'. This simply implies that relative mass has begun to shape space. This process slows expansion enough for electrons to be capable of outpacing expansion to fuse with protons. Electrons do not have sufficient intrinsic momentum to overcome exponential expansion and require a mediary process that stabilises spatial expression.

Don't worry. I am going through what you post for me. This exercise has bewildered me since it began making me look for measurables that matched the processes it began describing about ten years ago. I appreciate just being able to find 'right way up miss jane' for it so my describing it is mostly cathartic.

Electrons are fundamental particles, they are not formed from other constituents particles, the earlier particles out of thermal equilibrium is quarks and fundamental leptons ie electrons. They are are present prior to neutrinos. Thermal equilibrium does not mean they are present, just that they become indistinguishable.

The aspect you are missing is "what does fundamental particles mean? and how do they gain mass?

 

This is where the Higgs field becomes involved fundamental particles are not composed of anything but themselves.

I'm not suggesting electrons were produced from heavier neutrons. The implication is that expansion symmetry was broken by the neutrino produced neutrons which provided the conditions for electrons to be produced. I've only just understood how to interpret the exercise functionally so with a bit of reference research I can make something of it either way.

Importantly I can compare it to the Higgs field data in a coherent manner which I have not previously been able to do.

 

Length contraction is caused by relative velocity so I don't see how it is relevant here.

Yes and the period between BB and reionization provides the foundations of relativity. At this point I suspect that electrons were not the first stable particle. To produce electrons I suspect electron neutrinos are first produced which fuse into either strange/charm or top/bottom neutrons which then produces electrons and subsequent heavy element baryogenesis. This is what the exercise ultimately suggests. Figuring out how to interpret the exercise has been awkward without familiarity with defining experiments.

 

As energy also has a gravitational effect (as do pressure, momentum, etc) looking only at mass will will not tell you much about gravity. You are basically going back to a Newtonian view.

I wasn't intending this type of definition but a description of the mechanical expression that results in mass.

Oft times looking at the history of development, leads to a greater understanding of the modern formulas. Particularly in learning how the modern formulas are eventually derived.

Yes. I have been absorbing that much but actually committing formulae to memory has been elusive. It is because I am more familiar with my exercise which required defining in order to properly contrast against standard theory. I think before I can readily absorb Higgs description I will need to identify what rules out the mechanism described thus far to my model.

 

I agree completely. I think studying history of science (and mathematics and technology) is very valuable. I suspect that we might get fewer people claiming various modern theories are wrong, if they had a clearer understanding of how they came to be.

 

If that is what GeneralDadmission is trying to do, then I encourage it. And kudos to you for helping him (I'm afraid my contributions have been limited to pointing out [what appear to be] some of the bigger misconceptions).

I've had to do this just to figure out how to interpret this exercise.

A piece of history I have been trying to find is what was the reason 6 quarks were predicted? Was this simply to align with other particles?

Fundamental definition of mass is "Resistance to inertia". Now think about that, in terms of the strong force that resistance is due to the binding energy of the strong force, in terms of Higgs field interactions its due to the

That was the point of the exercise. Fermions can be produced in exponentially expanding space but their fundamental inertia provides the conditions for expansion to equilibrate.

Fundamental definition of mass is "Resistance to inertia". Now think about that, in terms of the strong force that resistance is due to the binding energy of the strong force, in terms of Higgs field interactions its due to the Higgs field interactions, (only applies to certain particles, (neutrinos, quarks and Leptons) 1% the mass of the proton, the rest of the mass of the proton is the strong force.

Historically there was also electromagnetic mass, relativity replaces this via the energy momentum formula I posted earlier.

The first two are specifically rest mass.

Electromagnetic mass has too many historical connections to inertial mass for you to ignore.

 

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electromagnetic_mass

 

This link covers some of the key points

I've been a bit busy at work and will be going over these at greater length over the weekend. I have stopped going cross-eyed when I try to follow the formulae. Thanks again.

 

There are many things wrong here. Electrons do not follow classical paths. Length contraction does not only apply to atoms, or even things containing electrons. Length contraction has nothing to do with the Pauli exclusion principle.

The exercise focussed on conditions between BB and reionization. What I assumed was that fermion genesis forces length contraction conditions on expanding space which precipitated baryogenesis. It is a simplified explanation and as Mordred mentioned there is nothing basic about fermion paths. Important point is I've figured out why I couldn't retain more complex formulae. I'd created a mental reflex that wanted to reconstruct any formulae I tried to absorb if they didn't conform to what the exercise wanted of them. Understanding what it was based on will allow me to keep track of what I read through without distraction. I appreciate the patience I've been shown.

So you are looking for a definition of mass? F=ma gives you the Newtonian notion of inertial mass. Einstein's E=mc2 tells you you must take the inertial mass into account when thinking about energy.

 

You should now also look up active and passive gravitational mass as well as the equivalence principal.

 

 

I'll be looking these up next. It may put some of the bits that developed from the exercise into context. It looks like an important distinction to make.

Yes I am looking for a fundamental definition of mass. That should supply the basis of gravity theory shouldn't it?

Ok thanks ajb. Too much info to absorb quickly here so I'll give what I've been provided some processing time. Definitely helps to have figured out how I was rationalising the subject.

Cheers.

Pauli exclusion principle states that two fermions with 1/2 integer spin (fractional) cannot occupy the same space. Bosons have full integer spin so they can occupy the same space. This has to do with wavefunctions and is quite complex. May be better holding off on this for a bit.

 

 

Not really sure how you tied lorentz contraction and the Pauli exclusion principle together?

Are you looking at the Dirac equations?

 

 

The exclusion principal defines the path an electron can take around a nucleus. Of all the atomic components the electron has intrinsic straight line momentum. When an atom is accelerated in any direction should it not be the path of it's electrons that are subject to length contraction? Length contraction is an effect of the exclusion principal the way I have understood it.

So you are looking for a definition of mass? F=ma gives you the Newtonian notion of inertial mass. Einstein's E=mc2 tells you you must take the inertial mass into account when thinking about energy.

 

You should now also look up active and passive gravitational mass as well as the equivalence principal.

 

 

Fermions are not part of 'basic relativity', you need some further tools of differential geometry, algebra and group representation theory before you understand how fermions are natural in relativity.

 

Anyway, the Pauli exclusion principle has nothing to do with length contraction, the principal holds for point-like particles so length contraction cannot play a fundamental role.

I have not heard the terms active/passive gravitational mass so thanks ajb, I will investigate this further. A point like particle is effected by length contraction because of the particles intrinsic momentum., it is a feature of the path the particle is travelling AIU.

A simple illustration of the way I've understood the connection between the two would provide that the reason an electron can bridge the distance required to fuse with a proton is that the electron's length contraction simply removes the distance across the proton's exclusion zone from the path of the electron.

i think that in order for you to get clear responses to your posts you should try not convey them as if they are musings from the armchair and you should simply ask clear and concise questions which properly use terminology to the best of your ability. the way that i read your opening post, it seemed as if you were speculating and wanting feedback on your idea rather than on learning any particular topic.

I am attempting to distinguish appropriate questions and have begun with F=ma and E=mc2 as definitives of mass and relativity. I only provided the summary of my conclusions in order that someone providing an answer might distinguish what I might better understand.

My understanding of the basis of relativity is that length contraction mediates the dynamics of fermion proximity into nucleon stabilities of varying limitations. Pauli exclusion regulated exponential expansion into length contraction through baryogenesis.

It's often asked whether religion is a mental affliction. I view it as the preference of the mind to follow an established code of conduct. The conflict of separately evolved conduct codes provides the basis of violence and war.

Ultimately no individual is unaffected by preferential biases that are biologically based, only complexity of development can be differentiated. The question I would raise here is whether woo-hate has become the religion of science and negatively effected the capacity of those formally educated in science to interpret the language of a layman as anything bar woosticulation, theroics and ego-driven proclamations?

i read what you posted: it is pure nonsense

It is a summary of a thought experiment and the basic conclusions. If you can't deconstruct it functionally it is no fault of the grammatical construction. Perhaps you would provide better advice in regard the distinction between Newtonian and Einstein physics as demonstrated by their defining equations and as acceptable under standard theory.

The conclusion I failed to include was that pauli exclusion defines symmetry breaking and is summarised as the equation F=ma. E=mc2 defines a rest FoR to provide mass relativity. If this does not indicate the intention of my question I cannot provide simpler references and you would have to request clarification of specifics.

Why has this been moved to speculations? I have asked what is understood as the relationship between F=ma and E=mc2. I haven't speculated. Only provided my understanding of the relationship between the two formulae. I came here for constructive advice on understanding physics calculus. If you are reading anything else into my posts it is not my intention.

i don't think you are trying to learn anything, you are simply posting gobbly-gook, you are just stringing buzzwords.

The explanation is straight forward if you attempt at all to follow it. I should have asked what the accepted definition of Newton's and Einstein's equations are in terms of defining force and mass as quantities but I thought that might be obvious to someone genuinely reading the words I posted. If there is something specific in that which you quoted please clarify it.

I owe the mediators and forum an apology. To provide some context to the frustration I have projected at those attempting to answer my questions I have been attempting to absorb the mathematics of physics for approxmately 5 years. This has been hampered by a thought experiment exercise I constructed 20 years ago that has become a mental reflex that has till now confused my comprehension of the complexities of standard equations. The exercise made absorbing information from worded physics definitions more practical by providing me a tool to rule out or differentiate divisables but has only been obstructive to my developing understanding of math and it's appropriate language without having identified these as the basis of my study. After years of frustration with this I have finally identified the principals my mental exercise was developed around and can apply this to progressing with the math.

The two pivotal principals that define the exercise are the Pauli exclusion principal and the dynamics of length contraction. With this identified I can, with guidance, begin to analyse equations starting with F=ma and E=mc2. My basic understanding of the relationship of these two equations is that Newton identified mass and acceleration as the basic factors defined by forces and Einstein identified that mass is defined by FoR. At one time I constructed an equation to describe the relationship between Newton's equation and Einsteins as (c=ie when -1=m). My understanding of what I was attempting to do at the time was that the equation was intended to provide a means to measure both position and momentum simultaneously so wasn't practical to deconstruct. As a description of the relation between F=ma and E=mc2 as the mediation of pauli exclusion into length contraction the intention of the equation I constructed might be better translated.

Through the exercise, I began by attempting to clarify the nature of mass and the condition of forces as mediation of the two identified principals through baryogensis, ie; length contraction is mediated by the nucleon as regulation of electrons by pauli exclusion. Electrons provide valency and EM regulation through the characteristic's of photons and infer the Pauli exclusion restrictions placed on electrons by protons. The oscillatory nature of neutrinos infer the restrictions present in the neutron.

I will provide no further assumptions as I have not been seeking to make claims but to deconstruct the exercise that was obstructing my progression with physics formulae. At this point I will allow any questions I have to be guided by any feedback on the conclusions I have provided here as summary of the logic behind my approach to the subject.

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.

 

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.