GeneralDadmission

I hope this helps. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zygosity

who explained how converting acceleration generated mass to rest mass to identify a particle is nonsensical? Mordred gave some answers and I got prompted to properly identify what I was talking about but nobody specifically explained that this could not be applied or why.

What? I have an idea of what to measure the DM particle's rest mass against. I'm asking questions related to that. What is wrong with 'has the DM particles rest mass been proposed'? If it has been measured then I'd be interested in it's weight simply because it turns out that was what I've been modelling, as it turns out.

I got a super-spy kit out of an X-Men mag. They've moved on from x-ray specs. If you were looking for a homework answer I'm sorry to bother you. I thought it might have been a challenge for a moment.

Doesn't the misperception with this come from the age of a person who has travelled away from and back to earth at speed approaching c? To clarify the misperception of actually travelling forward in time, the passenger has simply had his time slowed down, not travelled into the future.

DBCA Thought I'd just test my code-breaker vision on it. Did it work?

Fair enough I see what you are saying and it is not incompatible with what I was trying to convey. After discussing this with you I've understood that the equation I've been trying to identify is one that identifies the mean rest mass of DM. Has this been done? If not I would suggest it would be that of a helium atom with a velocity just below c.

Space is a maintenance of vacuum. I understand this. I'm following what Mordred posts on vacuum because his explanations approximate my understanding the closest.

So the average density of the universe factors DM in? Does that imply DM is in a low mass-high density state? Could virtual particles be described as the potential density of the universe?

Thank you Sensei. Providing some context to your conclusion does allow greater examination.

Entirely. Photons are an inacceleratable object. Baryons are an acceleratable object and the immovable object is vacuum seperation and the universal constant.. On this basis the OP can be fleshed out to examine the nature of baryon mass and it's relationship to vacuum maintenance definitively.

My comment indicated that the assumption that statistically there is greater chance of people who are looking for a cryptoid to find one over someone who is not, cannot be accurate when the group not looking for the cryptoid is a profession that ceased searching for cryptoids shortly after the field of evoluition was established for biologists to gather data on.

No. I asked for information related to the two scenarios. I included what I understood of them for the purpose of discussion and reference.

All things I was seeking to define with reference to any material I could find related to the 2 thought experiments. Not really helpful at all? I didn't post anything trying to satisfy your curiosity.

Yes. I attempted to justify the thread and should have been more discrete. I should have stuck to seeking data relevant to the two thought experiments. The two thought experiments define mass very well. The compression of vacuum is defined by the confinement of mass. Couple years ago or so some lab displaced a photon by some poofteenth of a something through a refraction/reflection process. that may have been a very bad description of time dilation with distance from mass. late. tired etc. The maintenance of 0 vacuum by the properties of mass. Not being able to travel backwards in time but being able to travel forward in time, at any rate, is not the defining paradox of the state of matter?

Just because I state something as I understand it doesn't mean I cannot be subequently persuaded otherwise. I was basically only asking Sensei to justify the definition he supplied. Reading both the thought experiments MrAstrophysics posted triggered a bit of an epiphany moment for me. I wasn't trying to restrict anyone to a box. I should learn more riddles.

OK cheers. That should be enough to point me in the right directions. If I find questions I'll ask them. Thanks for your time ajb.

Technically time dilation disparity only means that a given volume of space contains more energy from a relative FoR.

restriction on properties. This will define what has been ruled out and why for me.

I have used this title because the two paradoxes define the nature of mass and it's relationship to the steady state of the vacuum. It is also the best example of Occams Razor I've seen. I believe that restricting many of my questions to ones in regard this scenario will avoid further conflict of comprehension. In regard your conclusion on this scenarios being a paradox my thoughts are, if it has been shown that particles without mass can, at least in very controlled conditions, travel in time, and that matter can at least move forward in time at a faster rate, then it should be ruled out definitively that mass cannot displace to a previous position in the timeline before this is ruled out as appropriately paradoxical. Further, if there has not been a definitive thesis submitted linking these two thought experiments as studies of mass I would construct anything I might produce around that context. I think the two thought experiments would make a brilliant thesis to investigate Occams Razor through as well but that is a secondary motivation at this point.

Yes. Fair enough(shame-face). After many years of following a line of logic I've got to a point where all the threads are coming together. I am also not practiced in the scientific method of defining an hypothesis. I've been largely thinking out loud in the hope that people might recognize what needs to be defined hypothesis-wise within the modelling I've done over the years. I can reassure you the pressure has been removed from your capacities to interpret my language. The content of the Zero Degree Thread is allowing me to define what I need to show among some other factors I've been able to connect today. I withdraw any suggestion of complaint and will confine my posts to questions with intelligible reference.

If there are greater definitions to this set of paradoxes and their consequences I would appreciate the references. Cheers

Could I request references to accepted studies on confinement of the properties of DM please?

This would confine the comparison to defining acceleration as a spatial conformity only. A photon exists in a spectra of energy levels and conditions so confining it's acceleration properties to it's travel between spatial points is only meaningful for defining it's difference to particles with mass.The subject of the question is the nature of mass, not the nature of photons. A meaningful answer to this question must definine what confines the acceleration of mass. It does not automatically follow that defining the confines of the photons state will subsequently define the confines of particles containing mass. Defining the difference between all the particles containing mass has a higher likelihood of doing so, at least.

Time is not governed by light(photons). Time is governed by spatial potential and FoR. This subsequently confines the nature of light. Time would be minimally dilated between earth and mars as they share the FoR of being gravitationally bound with the solar sytem. The mass dilation disparity is compensated by the disparity in velocities. To travel faster than light requires removal from the confinement of matter and subsequently cannot be applied to defining the principles of relativity.