GeneralDadmission Posted February 22, 2015 Author Share Posted February 22, 2015 (edited) I agree, we should definitely not leap ahead. There's plenty to hash out here. That paper says nothing about Helium, nor any specifics about how DM interacts. (not to mention that it's based on Bohmian QM) All thing you have to provide evidence of, or some model that can be tested. The first being that DM can be ionized. Strange has covered most of this. Put me down as asking the same things. In addition, explain how it's possible for anything to outrun light? A stable element's charge potential is set to the vacuum capacity it is fused at. WGB would have an electromagnetic presence but at a range that does not register at energy potentials set post reionisation. In this sense WGB being stabilised at pre-reionisation pressures removes it from the influence of the confinement of relativities established post re-ionisation. The greater content that Strange was patient enough to critically peruse I'll have to answer over the next week/s. I enjoy the early mornings work requires but if I don't tuck myself in early I get older a lot faster. cheers Edited February 22, 2015 by GeneralDadmission Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Strange Posted February 22, 2015 Share Posted February 22, 2015 A stable element's charge potential is set to the vacuum capacity it is fused at. Do you actually think that means anything? What is "charge potential"? What is "vacuum capacity"? What does "fused at" mean? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
swansont Posted February 22, 2015 Share Posted February 22, 2015 That doesn't really explain, well, anything. Need a model and/or testable predictions, not hand-wavy mumbo jumbo. As in, required for this discussion to continue. How would one test this idea to see if it's right? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GeneralDadmission Posted February 22, 2015 Author Share Posted February 22, 2015 (edited) That doesn't really explain, well, anything. Need a model and/or testable predictions, not hand-wavy mumbo jumbo. As in, required for this discussion to continue. How would one test this idea to see if it's right? Now that I've sketched out what I've had in my head I'll attempt to address that point next. Thanks for the prompts thus far. Initially I would define the modelling applied to this direction as one that circumvents requirement of a monopole particle by providing a dipolic aspect to vacuum. Where photons regulate the internal boundaries of the universes EM field it becomes assumed that neutrinos regulate the external boundaries. Some consideration may be required before I might provide a means to substantially analyse this context. Edited February 22, 2015 by GeneralDadmission Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
swansont Posted February 22, 2015 Share Posted February 22, 2015 Initially I would define the modelling applied to this direction as one that circumvents requirement of a monopole particle by providing a dipolic aspect to vacuum. Where photons regulate the internal boundaries of the universes EM field it becomes assumed that neutrinos regulate the external boundaries. More word salad, and no mention of testable predictions. I'll give a testable prediction, though: failure to comply will result in thread closure. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GeneralDadmission Posted February 22, 2015 Author Share Posted February 22, 2015 (edited) More word salad, and no mention of testable predictions. I'll give a testable prediction, though: failure to comply will result in thread closure. Are you a Dalek? A basic model as short and sweet as I can supply. The obvious model would be of the elements protons and neutrons which might be composed of two high mass quarks to the single low mass quark. I would still refer to the product of an alternative quark density in this context as neutrons and protons as their role in regard the particle's integrity is the same. The alternate arrangement involves the elements embedding in the vacuum. The role of neutrons is primarily maintenance of centre of momentum. The simplest analogy of DM spacetime to that we observe is that where normal matter's FoR constant is c, the FoR constant for the WGB element is confinement to acceleration at the gravitational constant. This should instate a condition in which the strong and weak force dominate over the electromagnetic forces within the particle and allow it to operate at the extremities of the vacuum. This model assumes that reionization is the point in the inflationary model that indicates relativity and causality has equilibrated. Edited February 23, 2015 by GeneralDadmission Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
swansont Posted February 23, 2015 Share Posted February 23, 2015 So speculation can't be explored on the speculation thread? We have outlined what sort of speculation can be explored. We expect some science content. You are essentially asking a layman(albeit a layman who has studied the subject matter for 20 years) to provide a model and equations to a hypothesis that has only recently been considered in context. Had I 20 years practice in formulating equations and modelling spacetime this might be considered reasonable. I have already stated that my day job is painting and this is something I return to in spare time. I would thoroughly enjoy your familiarity and involvement with current practice but you can't rationally expect me to be able to maintain the pace you are accustomed to can you? Let's change the perspective. You can't rationally expect scientists and serious science enthusiasts to sort through the chaff of mostly-content-free gibberish that has virtually no basis in actual science, in their spare time, can you? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GeneralDadmission Posted February 23, 2015 Author Share Posted February 23, 2015 (edited) We have outlined what sort of speculation can be explored. We expect some science content. Let's change the perspective. You can't rationally expect scientists and serious science enthusiasts to sort through the chaff of mostly-content-free gibberish that has virtually no basis in actual science, in their spare time, can you? My apologies. The wireless keyboard died. I agree entirely but on the other hand the forum is offered publicly. I've only made use of a public utility. I haven't found you at work so that I have to be thrown out with my notes and spectacles in disarray. I did offer the courtesy of withdrawing the complaint I posted while I was compiling the model in the edit. You can't rationally expect scientists and serious science enthusiasts to sort through the chaff of mostly-content-free gibberish that has virtually no basis in actual science, in their spare time, can you? I haven't modelled anything I haven't drawn from what is posted in wiki. The obvious model would be of the elements protons and neutrons which might be composed of two high mass quarks to the single low mass quark. I would still refer to the product of an alternative quark density in this context as neutrons and protons as their role in regard the particle's integrity is the same. The alternate arrangement involves the elements embedding in the vacuum. The role of neutrons is primarily maintenance of centre of momentum. The simplest analogy of DM spacetime to that we observe is that where normal matter's FoR constant is c, the FoR constant for the WGB element is confinement to acceleration at the gravitational constant. This should instate a condition in which the strong and weak force dominate over the electromagnetic forces within the particle and allow it to operate at the extremities of the vacuum. This model assumes that reionization is the point in the inflationary model that indicates relativity and causality equilibrates. Normal matter is confined by the AM effects hydrogen confers on the products of it's fusion. DM is confined by it's exponential centre of momentum and defined by the energy levels required to maintain helium fusion. Edited February 23, 2015 by GeneralDadmission Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mordred Posted February 23, 2015 Share Posted February 23, 2015 We know what makes up protons and neutrons. Proton 2 up one down Neutron 1 up two down. Mass of up.. 2.3 MeV/c^2 Mass of down 4.8 MeV/c^2 How does this help your model? dark matter shares none of the characteristics of either the proton or neutron. The above is easily detected. Though the neutron is trickier. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GeneralDadmission Posted February 23, 2015 Author Share Posted February 23, 2015 We know what makes up protons and neutrons. Proton 2 up one down Neutron 1 up two down. Mass of up.. 2.3 MeV/c^2 Mass of down 4.8 MeV/c^2 How does this help your model? dark matter shares none of the characteristics of either the proton or neutron. The above is easily detected. Though the neutron is trickier. I've referred to the models but in the interest of brevity I did not speculate on which quarks would play which role other than the reference to the mass. I've suggested two high mass one low as somwhere to begin. It might follow that the component that plays the neutron-equivalent role in the DM element is entirely high mass quarks. I refer to them as neutrons and protons because WGB's nucleus operates in the same manner as normal matter only the strong and weak force dominate over the electromagnetic forces. It should resemble a low mass/high density product of helium with an escape velocity equivalent to the gravitational constant. That brings what I've compiled on momentum into line with standard theory. How to test it is something I'll leave myself to wonder about for now. I'm still going over the references you've supplied along the way. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MigL Posted February 23, 2015 Share Posted February 23, 2015 Your post #22 was absolutely correct ! You stated 'Can't take these things too seriously". I reassure you, no-one is ! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GeneralDadmission Posted February 23, 2015 Author Share Posted February 23, 2015 (edited) Your post #22 was absolutely correct ! You stated 'Can't take these things too seriously". I reassure you, no-one is ! Count me assured. Does that resolve your concern for my familiarity with popular scepticism or have you further observations of a patrionic preturbation? We know what makes up protons and neutrons. Proton 2 up one down Neutron 1 up two down. Mass of up.. 2.3 MeV/c^2 Mass of down 4.8 MeV/c^2 How does this help your model? dark matter shares none of the characteristics of either the proton or neutron. The above is easily detected. Though the neutron is trickier. Why were 6 quarks predicted? dark matter shares none of the characteristics of either the proton or neutron. The above is easily detected. Though the neutron is trickier. I've gone as far as labelling a DM element as WGB I may as well provide another reference for it's constituents. How about prOtOn, neUtron and electrOm? The first two have a similar arrangement to the quarks in protons and neutrons with the up/down quarks substututed by a combination of strange, charm, bottom, top. I expect this balance would be regulated by the length contraction of the electrOms associated with the WGB element.. Edited February 23, 2015 by GeneralDadmission Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mordred Posted February 23, 2015 Share Posted February 23, 2015 Now how is that suppose to help? Tell you what post the specific theorem your trying to relate to. Perhaps we can help. You can't just word salad in New terms such as prOtOn..... This type of lack in detail prevents us from helping you. Show some model references or related maths. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GeneralDadmission Posted February 23, 2015 Author Share Posted February 23, 2015 I'm going to change that to prOTOn, neutrIon and electrOM. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mordred Posted February 23, 2015 Share Posted February 23, 2015 Still doesn't help.. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GeneralDadmission Posted February 23, 2015 Author Share Posted February 23, 2015 Now how is that suppose to help? Tell you what post the specific theorem your trying to relate to. Perhaps we can help. You can't just word salad in New terms such as prOtOn..... This type of lack in detail prevents us from helping you. Show some model references or related maths. I'm making an assessment of how to reference standard theory maths by arranging the capitalised letters the way I have. It is a reference to the quark arrangements. Until I put the particle model together I'd just been compiling data. This basic model will provide me something mathematical to research. I appreciate the coaching. I might have some questions on helium if I can't find the answers online. Cheers. Still doesn't help.. This facility has clarified the questions I was missing very efficiently and I'm grateful. If I think I can satisfy your requirements for measurability you will hear so. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mordred Posted February 23, 2015 Share Posted February 23, 2015 Well at least I get the gist, that your studying before making declarations. Well done in that regard. There isnt enough detail to understand your model atm. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GeneralDadmission Posted February 23, 2015 Author Share Posted February 23, 2015 Well at least I get the gist, that your studying before making declarations. Well done in that regard. There isnt enough detail to understand your model atm. It is a bare skeleton. At this point I might have sketched out my own route to a Higgs Boson Mexican Hat analogy for all I know. Will tinker with it for a bit. Meantime, has helium been applied to identifying the Higgs Boson outside an accelerator? That is about all the directly relevant helium questions I can think of currently. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
swansont Posted February 23, 2015 Share Posted February 23, 2015 My apologies. The wireless keyboard died. I agree entirely but on the other hand the forum is offered publicly. I've only made use of a public utility. The forum has rules that you must follow. And while publicly available, it is private property. I haven't modelled anything I haven't drawn from what is posted in wiki. Perhaps you can draw on the part that tells us that DM doesn't interact electromagnetically, and that only a small fraction is baryonic. to wit Study of nucleosynthesis in the Big Bang produces an upper bound on the amount of baryonic matter in the Universe,[17] which indicates that the vast majority of dark matter in the Universe cannot be baryons, and thus does not form atoms. It also cannot interact with ordinary matter via electromagnetic forces; in particular, dark matter particles do not carry any electric charge. (emphasis added) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dark_matter#Baryonic_and_nonbaryonic_dark_matter Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GeneralDadmission Posted February 23, 2015 Author Share Posted February 23, 2015 The forum has rules that you must follow. And while publicly available, it is private property. Perhaps you can draw on the part that tells us that DM doesn't interact electromagnetically, and that only a small fraction is baryonic. to wit Study of nucleosynthesis in the Big Bang produces an upper bound on the amount of baryonic matter in the Universe,[17] which indicates that the vast majority of dark matter in the Universe cannot be baryons, and thus does not form atoms. It also cannot interact with ordinary matter via electromagnetic forces; in particular, dark matter particles do not carry any electric charge. (emphasis added) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dark_matter#Baryonic_and_nonbaryonic_dark_matter The first 'in' to that quote should be 'of'. Unless the study was done in the moments pre and post reionization epoch. Until I've had time to asess what has been constructed on this thread I can't comment on the rest of the content concisely. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Strange Posted February 23, 2015 Share Posted February 23, 2015 The first 'in' to that quote should be 'of'. That wouldn't make any difference to the meaning. It would just make it sounds as if it was written by someone whose first language was not English. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GeneralDadmission Posted February 23, 2015 Author Share Posted February 23, 2015 (edited) That wouldn't make any difference to the meaning. It would just make it sounds as if it was written by someone whose first language was not English. Yes I probably would have changed the grammar significantly. I am not sure how presenting me with other peoples conclusions(without the technical reference) aids me in arriving at a conclusion of my own. The only technical question I have regarding standard theory nucleosynthesis is how are free neutrons defined in the BB context? Edited February 23, 2015 by GeneralDadmission Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
imatfaal Posted February 23, 2015 Share Posted February 23, 2015 Yes I probably would have changed the grammar significantly. I am not sure how presenting me with other peoples conclusions(without the technical reference) aids me in arriving at a conclusion of my own. The only technical question I have regarding standard theory nucleosynthesis is how are free neutrons defined in the BB context? Go to the linked wikipedia page and you will find a plethora of references. But dark matter being uncharged is pretty much part of the definition - if it were charged it would interact with EMR and glow; the fact that it doesn't do this is why it is called "Dark". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Strange Posted February 23, 2015 Share Posted February 23, 2015 Yes I probably would have changed the grammar significantly. The first 'in' to that quote should be 'of'. Make your mind up. I am not sure how presenting me with other peoples conclusions(without the technical reference) aids me in arriving at a conclusion of my own. If you want supporting references for specific information, then just ask. Asfor how it should aid you: you can't begin to criticise (and potetnially improve on) existing theories until you have a very solid grasp of them. Which you clearly don't. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GeneralDadmission Posted February 23, 2015 Author Share Posted February 23, 2015 (edited) Make your mind up. If you want supporting references for specific information, then just ask. Asfor how it should aid you: you can't begin to criticise (and potetnially improve on) existing theories until you have a very solid grasp of them. Which you clearly don't. Where have I criticised or promised to improve on existing theories? I have a scenario I'm investigating, nothing more nothing less. If you are assuming you can assess what I do or don't have a very solid grasp on by the language I compile to describe a subject there is minimal available reference to then I have to contend that this is a presumption without applicable merit. Now that I have clarified the parameters of what I have been modelling I will endeavor to eliminate the appropriation of loose terms and descriptions and apply language that is more recognisably familiar to standard theory. I did specifically ask 'has helium been applied to identifying the Higgs Boson outside the context of accelerators' and 'what is the context of the phrase 'free-neutron' in inflationary nucleosynthesis'? Go to the linked wikipedia page and you will find a plethora of references. But dark matter being uncharged is pretty much part of the definition - if it were charged it would interact with EMR and glow; the fact that it doesn't do this is why it is called "Dark". I agree that it would not interact with normal matter through EM. It is the nature of this separation I think might be shown in a different context. I now have a bead on where such an explanation might begin were it measurably present. I will either discover that I have simply been progressing along the path of comprehension of standard theory or perhaps find something additional. My only pre-requisite to the nature of the result is clarification of subject matter. Edited February 23, 2015 by GeneralDadmission Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts