I really don’t want to bore anyone with this question further but I as yet have recieved no intelligible answer. A contributor to a thread I posted on another forum contends that “particles do not reflect or refract”, without supplying data. He assumes that I refer to sub-atomic particles when I clearly describe a baryonic aggregate that has only refractive capacity and no reflective capacity.

He also repeatedly justifies the assumption that DM is non-baryonic with only the reference to sub-atomic particles not reflecting or refracting. This appears to be greater gibberish than I am capable of absorbing functionally. Can anyone here expound on this individuals assertions?

Postpocelipse said:

I really don’t want to bore anyone with this question further but I as yet have recieved no intelligible answer. A contributor to a thread I posted on another forum contends that “particles do not reflect or refract”, without supplying data. He assumes that I refer to sub-atomic particles when I clearly describe a baryonic aggregate that has only refractive capacity and no reflective capacity.

He also repeatedly justifies the assumption that DM is non-baryonic with only the reference to sub-atomic particles not reflecting or refracting. This appears to be greater gibberish than I am capable of absorbing functionally. Can anyone here expound on this individuals assertions?

I don’t see any simple question here.

Postpocelipse said:

I really don’t want to bore anyone with this question further but I as yet have recieved no intelligible answer. A contributor to a thread I posted on another forum contends that “particles do not reflect or refract”, without supplying data. He assumes that I refer to sub-atomic particles when I clearly describe a baryonic aggregate that has only refractive capacity and no reflective capacity.

He also repeatedly justifies the assumption that DM is non-baryonic with only the reference to sub-atomic particles not reflecting or refracting. This appears to be greater gibberish than I am capable of absorbing functionally. Can anyone here expound on this individuals assertions?

By its very definition, dark matter is non-baryonic – we know that to be true because we can’t directly detect it (that is we can’t see it with telescopes thus we know it doesn’t reflect or radiate any other particles.)

There is a great wiki page on the subject.

Baryonic aggregate?

Wibbly wibbly woo

roughbarked said:

Postpocelipse said:

I really don’t want to bore anyone with this question further but I as yet have recieved no intelligible answer. A contributor to a thread I posted on another forum contends that “particles do not reflect or refract”, without supplying data. He assumes that I refer to sub-atomic particles when I clearly describe a baryonic aggregate that has only refractive capacity and no reflective capacity.

He also repeatedly justifies the assumption that DM is non-baryonic with only the reference to sub-atomic particles not reflecting or refracting. This appears to be greater gibberish than I am capable of absorbing functionally. Can anyone here expound on this individuals assertions?

I don’t see any simple question here.

The simple question is this. Why cannot the DM particle be a baryonic aggregate that is coupled to electron-neutrinos rather than electrons?

This would only require that Strange/Charm-Top/Bottom quarks be fundamental to this baryon and that it’s rest mass is not calculated by E=mc2 but by a similar equation that replaces ‘c’ with the amplitude and modulation of interacting photons. It is a straight forward model to examine. I have only recieved “No” and “word salad” and “particles do not refract or reflect” as supposedly supportable refutation.

Dropbear said:

Baryonic aggregate?

Wibbly wibbly woo

What do you call an atomic element then? I’m not going to refer to anything as “wibbly-wibbly-woo” without being convinced of the terms applicability.

Postpocelipse said:

roughbarked said:

Postpocelipse said:

I really don’t want to bore anyone with this question further but I as yet have recieved no intelligible answer. A contributor to a thread I posted on another forum contends that “particles do not reflect or refract”, without supplying data. He assumes that I refer to sub-atomic particles when I clearly describe a baryonic aggregate that has only refractive capacity and no reflective capacity.

He also repeatedly justifies the assumption that DM is non-baryonic with only the reference to sub-atomic particles not reflecting or refracting. This appears to be greater gibberish than I am capable of absorbing functionally. Can anyone here expound on this individuals assertions?

I don’t see any simple question here.

The simple question is this. Why cannot the DM particle be a baryonic aggregate that is coupled to electron-neutrinos rather than electrons?

This would only require that Strange/Charm-Top/Bottom quarks be fundamental to this baryon and that it’s rest mass is not calculated by E=mc2 but by a similar equation that replaces ‘c’ with the amplitude and modulation of interacting photons. It is a straight forward model to examine. I have only recieved “No” and “word salad” and “particles do not refract or reflect” as supposedly supportable refutation.

because if it were baryonic, then we would be able to see it and by extension, it wouldn’t be ‘dark matter’.

Dark matter is made of heavy glass

so DM is a liquid then droppy? like ether is a liquid.

;-)

Dropbear said:

Dark matter is made of heavy glass

Heavily impregnated with smoke and mirrors.

diddly-squat said:

Postpocelipse said:

roughbarked said:

I don’t see any simple question here.

The simple question is this. Why cannot the DM particle be a baryonic aggregate that is coupled to electron-neutrinos rather than electrons?

This would only require that Strange/Charm-Top/Bottom quarks be fundamental to this baryon and that it’s rest mass is not calculated by E=mc2 but by a similar equation that replaces ‘c’ with the amplitude and modulation of interacting photons. It is a straight forward model to examine. I have only recieved “No” and “word salad” and “particles do not refract or reflect” as supposedly supportable refutation.

because if it were baryonic, then we would be able to see it and by extension, it wouldn’t be ‘dark matter’.

Thank you.

Postpocelipse said:

Dropbear said:

Baryonic aggregate?

Wibbly wibbly woo

What do you call an atomic element then? I’m not going to refer to anything as “wibbly-wibbly-woo” without being convinced of the terms applicability.

Grade 8 science teaches us that an element is a collection of similar atoms

ChrispenEvan said:

so DM is a liquid then droppy? like ether is a liquid.

;-)

Yeh but it flows totes slowly

Dropbear said:

Dark matter is made of heavy glass

that would make it a liquid, yes?

diddly-squat said:

because if it were baryonic, then we would be able to see it and by extension, it wouldn’t be ‘dark matter’.

If it’s composition disallows reflection how would you measure the particle other than to infer it’s presence from the geodesics that photons conform to? The underlying implication of this particles aggregation is that photons conformity to gravitational geodesics is mediated by this particle. The only assumption this model would be contesting is that photons following geodesics provides them with a mass value.

diddly-squat said:

Dropbear said:

Dark matter is made of heavy glass

that would make it a liquid, yes?

I’m sending my postal address to the Nobel team as we speak

diddly-squat said:

Postpocelipse said:

Dropbear said:

Baryonic aggregate?

Wibbly wibbly woo

What do you call an atomic element then? I’m not going to refer to anything as “wibbly-wibbly-woo” without being convinced of the terms applicability.

Grade 8 science teaches us that an element is a collection of similar atoms

I am applying ‘element’ as a technical description of the atomic mechanism not as a description of it’s composite properties.

diddly-squat said:

Dropbear said:

Dark matter is made of heavy glass

that would make it a liquid, yes?

“Superfluid” or “ideal gas”..

Postpocelipse said:

diddly-squat said:

because if it were baryonic, then we would be able to see it and by extension, it wouldn’t be ‘dark matter’.

If it’s composition disallows reflection how would you measure the particle other than to infer it’s presence from the geodesics that photons conform to? The underlying implication of this particles aggregation is that photons conformity to gravitational geodesics is mediated by this particle. The only assumption this model would be contesting is that photons following geodesics provides them with a mass value.

So I’m just supposed to go with “we can’t see it in a registerable light spectrum” as an explanation? I’ve made more effort than that. The aggregate I’ve described would not conform to composite elementary signatures.

you haven’t made any effort. making stuff up doesn’t require any effort. learning science does. that’s why you don’t do it.

Postpocelipse said:

Postpocelipse said:

diddly-squat said:

because if it were baryonic, then we would be able to see it and by extension, it wouldn’t be ‘dark matter’.

If it’s composition disallows reflection how would you measure the particle other than to infer it’s presence from the geodesics that photons conform to? The underlying implication of this particles aggregation is that photons conformity to gravitational geodesics is mediated by this particle. The only assumption this model would be contesting is that photons following geodesics provides them with a mass value.

So I’m just supposed to go with “we can’t see it in a registerable light spectrum” as an explanation? I’ve made more effort than that. The aggregate I’ve described would not conform to composite elementary signatures.

It’s not an explanation, it’s an observation…

There is the presence of something that acts like it has mass, yet is undetectable by any other means… yet it behaves exactly as if it was something there which was massive.. (ie it bends light, it alters the orbital velocities of baryonic matter in galaxies etc)

We HAVE NO explanation for it ..

ChrispenEvan said:

you haven’t made any effort. making stuff up doesn’t require any effort. learning science does. that’s why you don’t do it.

How has that addressed the described particles implausability? It complies with everything I have learnt. Your assumptions about what I understand don’t, which is why I imagine you couldn’t be bothered giving “MY ACTUAL QUESTION” any attention. You have simply taken the opportunity to air out your ego on a thread I have posted.

don’t care. you come out with crap and i’ll tell you it’s crap. like it or leave.

i don’t care what you do.

Dropbear said:

It’s not an explanation, it’s an observation…

There is the presence of something that acts like it has mass, yet is undetectable by any other means… yet it behaves exactly as if it was something there which was massive.. (ie it bends light, it alters the orbital velocities of baryonic matter in galaxies etc)

We HAVE NO explanation for it ..

I have described a particle that conforms to these requirements and this model has not been verbally examined. It may or may not hold a verifiable plausibility but as yet I have not recieved anything greater than ridicule, condescension and patronism in explanation.

you haven’t described any particle. you’ve just strung a few words together.

ChrispenEvan said:

don’t care. you come out with crap and i’ll tell you it’s crap. like it or leave.

i don’t care what you do.

then stop supplying posts to my questions that only illustrate your arrogance and don’t address anything factual. I haven’t sought to spoil your day, only to clarify my questions.

nah, i’ll keep posting to you rubbish threads just to show how stupid they are.

ChrispenEvan said:

you haven’t described any particle. you’ve just strung a few words together.

Baryonic element that replaces the electron with an electron-neutrino isn’t a description in you book? How about you direct me in expoundng my description so that it satisfies your technical requirements? Oh hang on, you probably wouldn’t get a kick out of that.

ChrispenEvan said:

nah, i’ll keep posting to you rubbish threads just to show how stupid they are.

you have proved nothing but your own cynical outlook to me CE. Pretty boring and irrelevant to absorbing physics from my end little guy.

word salad. and not a very good one either.

your insults are as weak as your logic.

Postpocelipse said:

ChrispenEvan said:

nah, i’ll keep posting to you rubbish threads just to show how stupid they are.

you have proved nothing but your own cynical outlook to me CE. Pretty boring and irrelevant to absorbing physics from my end little guy.

Provide a concise answer and I will walk away. It is you jerks who are grandstanding and soapboxing and drawing the question out to ridiculous proportions.

ChrispenEvan said:

your insults are as weak as your logic.

I haven’t attempted an insult CE. Only included my personal observations as you have. Decidedly meaningless activity but if you are enamoured of it I will entertain you.

sorry, i’ve forgotten the question.

your stupidity is entertainment enough.

ChrispenEvan said:

your stupidity is entertainment enough.

So you confirm that you only participate for you own entertainment? You are therefore a troll and your contribution is simply an illustration of your inner misery.

ChrispenEvan said:

sorry, i’ve forgotten the question.

Yes, I have noticed your feeble ability to confine yourself to the specific subject raised.

>>Baryonic element that replaces the electron with an electron-neutrino isn’t a description in you book?

You would end up with an element with a positive charge ..
An electron-neutrino is charge neutral.

I’m going to replace the electron with a cat.. and call it a Meow-Neutrino.

Why is an atomic baryon coupling only assumed stable with electrons?

This question avoids reference to a particle that is unfamiliar. If this can be answered with simple respect I should be satisfied. I can only assume the logic eliminating any other stability is flawed without it being provided for examination.

Postpocelipse said:

Why is an atomic baryon coupling only assumed stable with electrons?

blink

blink blink

you don’t imagine that something with a positive charge would be ..err. noticable .. via interactions with the electromagnetic force?

Dropbear said:

>>Baryonic element that replaces the electron with an electron-neutrino isn’t a description in you book?

You would end up with an element with a positive charge ..
An electron-neutrino is charge neutral.

I’m going to replace the electron with a cat.. and call it a Meow-Neutrino.

How is this identified if the functions of Strange/Charm-Top/Bottom have not been defined in a baryonic coupling? My assumption would posit that these quarks play a role in equilibrating charge to a neutrality. The potentials of associated electron-neutrinos would mediate it’s mass alternately to that of an electromagnetic element.

Dropbear said:

Postpocelipse said:

Why is an atomic baryon coupling only assumed stable with electrons?

blink

blink blink

you don’t imagine that something with a positive charge would be ..err. noticable .. via interactions with the electromagnetic force?

The last post identifies that the hypothesised particle reduces charge seperation internally equivalent to a permanent ideal gas or superfluid state. The particle is stabilised by refractive interaction with photons only.

Postpocelipse said:

diddly-squat said:

because if it were baryonic, then we would be able to see it and by extension, it wouldn’t be ‘dark matter’.

If it’s composition disallows reflection how would you measure the particle other than to infer it’s presence from the geodesics that photons conform to? The underlying implication of this particles aggregation is that photons conformity to gravitational geodesics is mediated by this particle. The only assumption this model would be contesting is that photons following geodesics provides them with a mass value.

the ‘unseen’ mass represented by dark matter can also be inferred via orbital mechanics – that is, the results of orbital mechanics suggests a mass greater than what is observed.

Postpocelipse said:

Dropbear said:

Postpocelipse said:

Why is an atomic baryon coupling only assumed stable with electrons?

blink

blink blink

you don’t imagine that something with a positive charge would be ..err. noticable .. via interactions with the electromagnetic force?

The last post identifies that the hypothesised particle reduces charge seperation internally equivalent to a permanent ideal gas or superfluid state. The particle is stabilised by refractive interaction with photons only.

You’re not speaking any language I understand.. I’m out ..

A noble gas is noble because it has a full outer shell of electrons…

good luck with your journey..

Postpocelipse said:

diddly-squat said:

Postpocelipse said:

What do you call an atomic element then? I’m not going to refer to anything as “wibbly-wibbly-woo” without being convinced of the terms applicability.

Grade 8 science teaches us that an element is a collection of similar atoms

I am applying ‘element’ as a technical description of the atomic mechanism not as a description of it’s composite properties.

I am using its normal English language definition

diddly-squat said:

Postpocelipse said:

diddly-squat said:

Grade 8 science teaches us that an element is a collection of similar atoms

I am applying ‘element’ as a technical description of the atomic mechanism not as a description of it’s composite properties.

I am using its normal English language definition

Yes well there is little language that is directly applicable to DM so I apologise for appropriating terms.

Dropbear said:

Postpocelipse said:

Dropbear said:

blink

blink blink

you don’t imagine that something with a positive charge would be ..err. noticable .. via interactions with the electromagnetic force?

The last post identifies that the hypothesised particle reduces charge seperation internally equivalent to a permanent ideal gas or superfluid state. The particle is stabilised by refractive interaction with photons only.

You’re not speaking any language I understand.. I’m out ..

A noble gas is noble because it has a full outer shell of electrons…

good luck with your journey..

ideal gas means noble gas? I was of the understanding that it was a mathematical equivalency term.

Postpocelipse said:

Postpocelipse said:

diddly-squat said:

because if it were baryonic, then we would be able to see it and by extension, it wouldn’t be ‘dark matter’.

If it’s composition disallows reflection how would you measure the particle other than to infer it’s presence from the geodesics that photons conform to? The underlying implication of this particles aggregation is that photons conformity to gravitational geodesics is mediated by this particle. The only assumption this model would be contesting is that photons following geodesics provides them with a mass value.

So I’m just supposed to go with “we can’t see it in a registerable light spectrum” as an explanation? I’ve made more effort than that. The aggregate I’ve described would not conform to composite elementary signatures.

it may surprise you to learn that there is actually quite a lot of observational evidence so support the existence of dark matter

No, that’s my mistake… you didn’t mean noble gas..

an ideal gas is a bit like a perfect black body… they win a lot of tennis matches….mmmm those thighs

diddly-squat said:

it may surprise you to learn that there is actually quite a lot of observational evidence so support the existence of dark matter

No it wouldn’t seeing as the modelling of gauge force I thought would not require nucleosynthesis reference demands a DM particle that I have described as a baryonic coupling with electron-neutrinos that eliminates an electromagnetic signature.

Dropbear said:

No, that’s my mistake… you didn’t mean noble gas..

an ideal gas is a bit like a perfect black body… they win a lot of tennis matches….mmmm those thighs

I scene a testosterone imbalance in the force

Dropbear said:

No, that’s my mistake… you didn’t mean noble gas..

an ideal gas is a bit like a perfect black body… they win a lot of tennis matches….mmmm those thighs

So the analogy of DM having ideal gas properties is fair?

Postpocelipse said:

diddly-squat said:

it may surprise you to learn that there is actually quite a lot of observational evidence so support the existence of dark matter

No it wouldn’t seeing as the modelling of gauge force I thought would not require nucleosynthesis reference demands a DM particle that I have described as a baryonic coupling with electron-neutrinos that eliminates an electromagnetic signature.

I’m not sure what it is you are trying to say, but one thing is very obvious… DM (excluding MAHCOs) is not made of bayronic matter.

diddly-squat said:

Dropbear said:

No, that’s my mistake… you didn’t mean noble gas..

an ideal gas is a bit like a perfect black body… they win a lot of tennis matches….mmmm those thighs

I scene a testosterone imbalance in the force

yeh i scene it too

Postpocelipse said:

Dropbear said:

No, that’s my mistake… you didn’t mean noble gas..

an ideal gas is a bit like a perfect black body… they win a lot of tennis matches….mmmm those thighs

So the analogy of DM having ideal gas properties is fair?

no… DM does not radiate photons (or any other particle) in a black body spectrum, or otherwise…

diddly-squat said:

I’m not sure what it is you are trying to say, but one thing is very obvious… DM (excluding MAHCOs) is not made of bayronic matter.

How is baryonic matter defined under this definition?

diddly-squat said:

Postpocelipse said:

Dropbear said:

No, that’s my mistake… you didn’t mean noble gas..

an ideal gas is a bit like a perfect black body… they win a lot of tennis matches….mmmm those thighs

So the analogy of DM having ideal gas properties is fair?

no… DM does not radiate photons (or any other particle) in a black body spectrum, or otherwise…

I did not state that it radiates photons in a black body spectrum or otherwise. This would require a reflective capacity which is absent from the particle.

Postpocelipse said:

diddly-squat said:

I’m not sure what it is you are trying to say, but one thing is very obvious… DM (excluding MAHCOs) is not made of bayronic matter.

How is baryonic matter defined under this definition?

matter made of baryons

diddly-squat said:

Postpocelipse said:

diddly-squat said:

I’m not sure what it is you are trying to say, but one thing is very obvious… DM (excluding MAHCOs) is not made of bayronic matter.

How is baryonic matter defined under this definition?

matter made of baryons

how is “baryon” defined. Including “matter” in your explanation provides no definition that rules out baryonic composition to a DM particle. What are the conclusions that rule out baryonic composition?

Postpocelipse said:

diddly-squat said:

Postpocelipse said:

So the analogy of DM having ideal gas properties is fair?

no… DM does not radiate photons (or any other particle) in a black body spectrum, or otherwise…

I did not state that it radiates photons in a black body spectrum or otherwise. This would require a reflective capacity which is absent from the particle.

Things radiate because of more than just reflection, ya know …

Oh.. and by the way, by and large it’s not an individual particle which does or does not ‘reflect’ EMR, it’s the structure, made of lots of them..

ie Sand vs Glass.. both silicon oxides, different structures.

Postpocelipse said:

diddly-squat said:

Postpocelipse said:

So the analogy of DM having ideal gas properties is fair?

no… DM does not radiate photons (or any other particle) in a black body spectrum, or otherwise…

I did not state that it radiates photons in a black body spectrum or otherwise. This would require a reflective capacity which is absent from the particle.

I have no idea what you mean…

An ideal gas is just a theoretical construct that describes the relationship between the pressure, volume, quantity and temperature. It’s useful in classical and statistical thermodynamics – not so much in quantum theory.

Dropbear said:

Postpocelipse said:

diddly-squat said:

no… DM does not radiate photons (or any other particle) in a black body spectrum, or otherwise…

I did not state that it radiates photons in a black body spectrum or otherwise. This would require a reflective capacity which is absent from the particle.

Things radiate because of more than just reflection, ya know …

Oh.. and by the way, by and large it’s not an individual particle which does or does not ‘reflect’ EMR, it’s the structure, made of lots of them..

ie Sand vs Glass.. both silicon oxides, different structures.

Yes. Complexity induces reflection. This particle minimises complexity

Postpocelipse said:

Yes. Complexity induces reflection. This particle minimises complexity

Wibble.

Postpocelipse said:

diddly-squat said:

Postpocelipse said:

How is baryonic matter defined under this definition?

matter made of baryons

how is “baryon” defined. Including “matter” in your explanation provides no definition that rules out baryonic composition to a DM particle. What are the conclusions that rule out baryonic composition?

baryons are composed of three quarks; baryonic matter can be ruled out as a candidate for dark matter because we can can directly observe it – it’s actually everything dark matter isn’t.

diddly-squat said:

Postpocelipse said:

diddly-squat said:

no… DM does not radiate photons (or any other particle) in a black body spectrum, or otherwise…

I did not state that it radiates photons in a black body spectrum or otherwise. This would require a reflective capacity which is absent from the particle.

I have no idea what you mean…

An ideal gas is just a theoretical construct that describes the relationship between the pressure, volume, quantity and temperature. It’s useful in classical and statistical thermodynamics – not so much in quantum theory.

My interpretation of DM data implies that it represents an analogue to the theoretical black body state. A particle that validates and defines the application of dark body calculations.

Postpocelipse said:

Dropbear said:

Postpocelipse said:

I did not state that it radiates photons in a black body spectrum or otherwise. This would require a reflective capacity which is absent from the particle.

Things radiate because of more than just reflection, ya know …

Oh.. and by the way, by and large it’s not an individual particle which does or does not ‘reflect’ EMR, it’s the structure, made of lots of them..

ie Sand vs Glass.. both silicon oxides, different structures.

Yes. Complexity induces reflection. This particle minimises complexity

Not necessarily. Muscovite mica is complex, but can be transparent. KAl2(AlSi3O10)(F,OH)2 is its chemical formula.

Postpocelipse said:

diddly-squat said:

Postpocelipse said:

I did not state that it radiates photons in a black body spectrum or otherwise. This would require a reflective capacity which is absent from the particle.

I have no idea what you mean…

An ideal gas is just a theoretical construct that describes the relationship between the pressure, volume, quantity and temperature. It’s useful in classical and statistical thermodynamics – not so much in quantum theory.

My interpretation of DM data implies that it represents an analogue to the theoretical black body state. A particle that validates and defines the application of dark body calculations.

really… and what data is that exactly and can I cask how you are modelling this particle of yours? does your model predict anything that we could directly observe?

diddly-squat said:

baryons are composed of three quarks; baryonic matter can be ruled out as a candidate for dark matter because we can can directly observe it – it’s actually everything dark matter isn’t.

And I have not been provided any data that shows that a baryon that contains arrangements of Strange/Charm or Top/Bottom conforms to these assumptions.

There is no Up/Down quark condition to this model. If I had identified a means to discern which alternative arragnement of quarks would stabilise this particle I would have supplied this for reference. I can only assume at this stage that whatever the quark arrangement is, it is coupled to electron-neutrinos instead of electrons.

Is there proof that electron-neutrinos have no stable quark arrangement that will capture them within a baryonic coupling? This would either provide sufficient explanation to satisfy me that the conclusion is accurate or provide me with directly relevant data to examine.

If you take any circle or part circle or arc with any radius of 9 subtending any angle of 20 that will give you the starting point to solve any simple answer for a three dimensional matrices.

Michael V said:

Postpocelipse said:

Dropbear said:

Things radiate because of more than just reflection, ya know …

Oh.. and by the way, by and large it’s not an individual particle which does or does not ‘reflect’ EMR, it’s the structure, made of lots of them..

ie Sand vs Glass.. both silicon oxides, different structures.

Yes. Complexity induces reflection. This particle minimises complexity

Not necessarily. Muscovite mica is complex, but can be transparent. KAl2(AlSi3O10)(F,OH)2 is its chemical formula.

The statement was not intended to be broadly descriptive of standard matter. Thanks though.

Peak Warming Man said:

If you take any circle or part circle or arc with any radius of 9 subtending any angle of 20 that will give you the starting point to solve any simple answer for a three dimensional matrices.

donde pie – my favorite

diddly-squat said:

Postpocelipse said:

diddly-squat said:

I have no idea what you mean…

An ideal gas is just a theoretical construct that describes the relationship between the pressure, volume, quantity and temperature. It’s useful in classical and statistical thermodynamics – not so much in quantum theory.

My interpretation of DM data implies that it represents an analogue to the theoretical black body state. A particle that validates and defines the application of dark body calculations.

really… and what data is that exactly and can I cask how you are modelling this particle of yours? does your model predict anything that we could directly observe?

At this point I have only identified two predictables, that photons following geodesics may not imply a mass to the photon but describes this phenomena as being mediated by DM and the more complex implication that produces a DM bh from a freefall nuclear detonation. The second predictable promises further predictables but becomes a complexity that requires greater familiarity with formulae I am without functional experience to apply. I have continued to ask the questions I have in order to seek other areas that provide tangible predictables. That has been slow progress.

Peak Warming Man said:

If you take any circle or part circle or arc with any radius of 9 subtending any angle of 20 that will give you the starting point to solve any simple answer for a three dimensional matrices.

That is one of the problems I have. I’m not sure 3dimensional matrix applies in this particles balancing.

Postpocelipse said:

diddly-squat said:

Postpocelipse said:

My interpretation of DM data implies that it represents an analogue to the theoretical black body state. A particle that validates and defines the application of dark body calculations.

really… and what data is that exactly and can I cask how you are modelling this particle of yours? does your model predict anything that we could directly observe?

At this point I have only identified two predictables, that photons following geodesics may not imply a mass to the photon but describes this phenomena as being mediated by DM and the more complex implication that produces a DM bh from a freefall nuclear detonation. The second predictable promises further predictables but becomes a complexity that requires greater familiarity with formulae I am without functional experience to apply. I have continued to ask the questions I have in order to seek other areas that provide tangible predictables. That has been slow progress.

please understand that what you are saying makes no sense at all..

can I ask… do you have notepads full of this sort of stuff? if so, have you ever shown them to anyone?

diddly-squat said:

Postpocelipse said:

diddly-squat said:

really… and what data is that exactly and can I cask how you are modelling this particle of yours? does your model predict anything that we could directly observe?

At this point I have only identified two predictables, that photons following geodesics may not imply a mass to the photon but describes this phenomena as being mediated by DM and the more complex implication that produces a DM bh from a freefall nuclear detonation. The second predictable promises further predictables but becomes a complexity that requires greater familiarity with formulae I am without functional experience to apply. I have continued to ask the questions I have in order to seek other areas that provide tangible predictables. That has been slow progress.

please understand that what you are saying makes no sense at all..

can I ask… do you have notepads full of this sort of stuff? if so, have you ever shown them to anyone?

No. I ask a question and take the answer at face value and use it to rule out probabilities. I adhere to a simple process of reduction of divisables.

Without clearly defining the rest mass and properties of a DM particle the gauge force modelling I’ve studied cannot supply a conclusion. I thought I was simply studying the interdynamics of gauge forces when I began the exercise that led here.

I never expected to need to describe a particle so I never really went into areas covering nucleosynthesis to have absorbed the language functionally. That and the fact that this particle manages energy differently to that of normal matter has been the greatest obstruction to my identifying anything more tangible.

“interdynamics of gauge forces” you say… not surprised you are having trouble with that one – I mean it doesn’t even return any Google results.

Postpoc… whatever you are doing, it isn’t physics… Can I ask how much time per day, on average, would you say you spend ‘studying’ this stuff??

I’ve avoided referenceing the DM micro-bh supposition because I’d prefer to rule that out quietly and move onto something less alarming. The problem there is that it is the easiest component to study I have available. Bit bummed the subject that fascinates me is so difficult to isolate without examining disturbing scenarios.

diddly-squat said:

“interdynamics of gauge forces” you say… not surprised you are having trouble with that one – I mean it doesn’t even return any Google results.

Postpoc… whatever you are doing, it isn’t physics… Can I ask how much time per day, on average, would you say you spend ‘studying’ this stuff??

No you can’t. If you can’t infer that the phrase I supplied refers to the separation of the forces and the dynamics inherent then I am either talking to a person without appropriate knowledge or I am being entirely condescended to.

Bugger me. Why anyone replies to this shit is beyond my ken.

sibeen said:

Bugger me. Why anyone replies to this shit is beyond my ken.

Historically the greater the woo the higher the post count.

that’s why i go straight into insult mode. saves time. yes, i know it is responding but i have angry issues and this is an outlet.

sibeen said:

Bugger me. Why anyone replies to this shit is beyond my ken.

Most people do so for fun I’ve been informed. I still don’t have a clear answer to why a baryonic element must hold charge. Can there not be a baryonic coupling that does not retain charge?

AwesomeO said:

sibeen said:

Bugger me. Why anyone replies to this shit is beyond my ken.

Historically the greater the woo the higher the post count.

Seeing as my basic question was simply seeking the accepted data that rules out alternate baryonic couplings I fail to see where the woo is. Why must a baryonic element hold charge? This has not been provided any concise explanation.

ChrispenEvan said:

that’s why i go straight into insult mode. saves time. yes, i know it is responding but i have angry issues and this is an outlet.

Trolleus Gargantuam

the species name should have a lowercase initial letter. only the genus has a capital.

Trolleus gargantuam

Third time is a charm right? What rules out any baryonic coupling other than one involving electrons?

Postpocelipse said:

What rules out any baryonic coupling other than one involving electrons?

If a definitive answer can be supplied to this I will be happy to drop the subject. I’ve only provided my reasons for asking the question.

I haven’t claimed I am talking physics. I am asking questions to make progress in a study. I have no interest in convincing anyone of anything. It is purely personal enquiry. You should all be grateful that you recieved the education you did and not hold it over my head to meet your standard of communication on the subject. I haven’t asked anyone to confirm my ideas. I just try to describe my question so that I recieve an answer that resolves it. Your assumptions on my motivation are you’re own concern. For me it is only an interest.

Without that question directly answered I will also drop the subject here. Not much point asking a question of people who only want to twist it into woo. I can only conclude from the response to this direct question that the assumption that DM is non-baryonic is “widely-accepted woo”. You can’t claim you’ve made an effort to convince me otherwise can you?

i got my education in science by reading science books. and when i got the internet by joining science forums and reading stuff online. i left school at 15, 42 years ago, with a pass in tech drawing and just a pass in science. that is all the education i have had. so don’t give me this shit about us being somehow superior to you. you are just a lazy prick who would rather waste time making shit up then expending energy learning the real stuff. and what galls me about you fucking ignorant attitude is that you have people here willing to spend their time and teach you and you are so fucking full of shit and your own poor fella me crap that you can’t see how lucky you are. you are a waste of space.

ChrispenEvan said:

i got my education in science by reading science books. and when i got the internet by joining science forums and reading stuff online. i left school at 15, 42 years ago, with a pass in tech drawing and just a pass in science. that is all the education i have had. so don’t give me this shit about us being somehow superior to you. you are just a lazy prick who would rather waste time making shit up then expending energy learning the real stuff. and what galls me about you fucking ignorant attitude is that you have people here willing to spend their time and teach you and you are so fucking full of shit and your own poor fella me crap that you can’t see how lucky you are. you are a waste of space.

I’m not saying you are superior to me. Your air of condescension is indicative of your sentiments and I have referenced to this only. I am quite secure in my sense of myself. I am aware of the deficit I experience due to my irregular education. You’ve made a plethora of assumptions that your education is comparable to mine, all of which are without supporting evidence except in your mind. My language barrier issues are not something you have any familiarity with. The efforts I have made in self improvement are not a subject you are able to assess either. Why again should I listen to you?

Your assumptions on what I glean from this forum are your own CE. You haven’t provided me a definition that rules out DM being baryonically assembled and that is the simplicity of the question I am trying to identify. The assumption that baryonic matter must retain charge is not sufficient to convince me. If you cannot address that you are playing with yourself in public at my expense. YOU are about the only person here I find no value or redeeming feature to. Make of that what you will but I am fully aware of who contributes to my comprehension you repugnant little TWATT.

only one t at the end of twat.

Postpocelipse said:

ChrispenEvan said:

i got my education in science by reading science books. and when i got the internet by joining science forums and reading stuff online. i left school at 15, 42 years ago, with a pass in tech drawing and just a pass in science. that is all the education i have had. so don’t give me this shit about us being somehow superior to you. you are just a lazy prick who would rather waste time making shit up then expending energy learning the real stuff. and what galls me about you fucking ignorant attitude is that you have people here willing to spend their time and teach you and you are so fucking full of shit and your own poor fella me crap that you can’t see how lucky you are. you are a waste of space.

I’m not saying you are superior to me. Your air of condescension is indicative of your sentiments and I have referenced to this only. I am quite secure in my sense of myself. I am aware of the deficit I experience due to my irregular education. You’ve made a plethora of assumptions that your education is comparable to mine, all of which are without supporting evidence except in your mind. My language barrier issues are not something you have any familiarity with. The efforts I have made in self improvement are not a subject you are able to assess either. Why again should I listen to you?

Your assumptions on what I glean from this forum are your own CE. You haven’t provided me a definition that rules out DM being baryonically assembled and that is the simplicity of the question I am trying to identify. The assumption that baryonic matter must retain charge is not sufficient to convince me. If you cannot address that you are playing with yourself in public at my expense. YOU are about the only person here I find no value or redeeming feature to. Make of that what you will but I am fully aware of who contributes to my comprehension you repugnant little TWATT.

The point, Postpoc, is that you seem unwilling to accept that what you are saying is nonsence… if you are truly interested in this particular subject, then it’s our advice that you go back to the start and try to develop a deep understanding of the fundamentals… From there expand out, but without these fundamentals you really are going to have a tough time.

ChrispenEvan said:

only one t at the end of twat.

no that would mock female genitalia in your image. TWATT-with a hard “A”.

so postie, how many people does it take to tell you you are talking crap for it to sink in that you are talking crap?

trying to rain here

sorry, wrong thread

diddly-squat said:

The point, Postpoc, is that you seem unwilling to accept that what you are saying is nonsence… if you are truly interested in this particular subject, then it’s our advice that you go back to the start and try to develop a deep understanding of the fundamentals… From there expand out, but without these fundamentals you really are going to have a tough time.

What I am unwilling to accept, without greater explanation, is that baryonic matter is defined by retention of charge and in this way DM being baryonic is ruled out. I have been provided no greater explanation than this and the my question has been diverted to what people think my assumptions are regarding what I think of standard theory. There is no conflict with standard theory within my question if it is provided a concise and verifiable conclusion. I have not seen how it has been verified that normal baryonic coulping is the ONLY baryonic coupling available. This is the only fundamental question I have. If I can resolve it functionally I can move on from the subject. Otherwise I’m simply left to absorb studies that have no direct bearing on the particle I study.

ChrispenEvan said:

so postie, how many people does it take to tell you you are talking crap for it to sink in that you are talking crap?

how many times does it take asking the one question to get a definitve answer CE. I’m not making statements I expect to be investigated. AS I’VE DESCRIBED TO YOU PREVIOUSLY I ONLY PROVIDE REFERENCE TO MY CONCLUSIONS TO ILLUSTRATE WHY I ASKED THE QUESTION. I’ve found not doing so provides answers that do not define what I have studied concisely.You don’t seem to absorb this simple differentiation from a person who is asking a question and a person who is“maintaining that they have science everyone else is too stupid to understand’. Your assumptions complete drivel. I am trying to answer one solitary question among the near4 infinite questions available to physics and you assume I’m playing physics professor. GO FUCK YOURELF! IF BY SOME MISFORTUNE I AM THE ONLY PERSON WHO CAN ANSWER A QUESTION YOU FIND IMPORTANT TO DEFINE DON’T BOTHER APPROACHING ME.

twatt

woohooo capslock. nutter mode engaged.

ChrispenEvan said:

woohooo capslock. nutter mode engaged.

did it help you absorb the fact that I don’t think I’m right but have an unresolved question with insufficient data to agree with the standard conclusion? Probably not because you have such affection for your belief in your own anti-woo battling status. Fuckin grow up. I’m getting sick of studying your character because I asked a question you can’t answer in any definitive manner.

I think that’s really uncalled for, poikilotherm.

poikilotherm said:

My son’s mother was on that. I’ll stick with Effexor. I didn’t like the side effects she was prone to. I haven’t experienced any on Effexor.

And prescription medicine doesn’t rule out DM being a baryonically composed particle either. Thanks for the thought anyhow. You might prescribe me something that addresses how badly CE irritates me.

kii said:

I think that’s really uncalled for, poikilotherm.

Especially considering all I’m asking for is greater explanation of DM being ruled out as baryonic than “DM hasn’t got charge”.

…how badly CE irritates me.

:-)

ChrispenEvan said:

…how badly CE irritates me.

:-)

Everybody has at least one skill. Good to know you are happy with one that is non-specific to your daily survival. I wouldn’t be.

…how badly CE irritates me.

well done Chrispen. your blood’s worth bottling.

Postpocelipse said:

diddly-squat said:

The point, Postpoc, is that you seem unwilling to accept that what you are saying is nonsence… if you are truly interested in this particular subject, then it’s our advice that you go back to the start and try to develop a deep understanding of the fundamentals… From there expand out, but without these fundamentals you really are going to have a tough time.

What I am unwilling to accept, without greater explanation, is that baryonic matter is defined by retention of charge and in this way DM being baryonic is ruled out. I have been provided no greater explanation than this and the my question has been diverted to what people think my assumptions are regarding what I think of standard theory. There is no conflict with standard theory within my question if it is provided a concise and verifiable conclusion. I have not seen how it has been verified that normal baryonic coulping is the ONLY baryonic coupling available. This is the only fundamental question I have. If I can resolve it functionally I can move on from the subject. Otherwise I’m simply left to absorb studies that have no direct bearing on the particle I study.

baryonic matter is NOT defined by charge – charge is a result of an atom being imbalanced in terms of electrons or protons (both of which are baryons)

DM can be ruled out as being baryonic because it:

1. doesn’t radiate any particles
2. doesn’t carry residual charge

that is, by definition, DM only interacts gravitationally…

I think what you are looking for is proof of WIMPs – but again, there is a very good wiki page on the subject if you are so inclined.

poikilotherm said:

maybe a little harsh… I’m thinking a simple dose of lithium might do the trick…

Postpocelipse said:

kii said:

I think that’s really uncalled for, poikilotherm.

Especially considering all I’m asking for is greater explanation of DM being ruled out as baryonic than “DM hasn’t got charge”.

but that’s the point, it doesn’t have charge… it only interacts gravitationally… this is a direct observation of the universe in which we live

diddly-squat said:

baryonic matter is NOT defined by charge – charge is a result of an atom being imbalanced in terms of electrons or protons (both of which are baryons)

DM can be ruled out as being baryonic because it:

1. doesn’t radiate any particles
2. doesn’t carry residual charge

that is, by definition, DM only interacts gravitationally…

I think what you are looking for is proof of WIMPs – but again, there is a very good wiki page on the subject if you are so inclined.

THANK YOU!!! Holy cow! Ok. I’ll go from those references and see where it goes. Research WIMPS and the other one yu referred to earlier and I should define the intermittent detail. Thank you. Sorry if my anxiety about not being understood made that inordinately difficult. It shouldn’t have been but I’ve deliberately contributed to the first impression I set here and take responsibility where I can for the result.

diddly-squat said:

Postpocelipse said:

kii said:

I think that’s really uncalled for, poikilotherm.

Especially considering all I’m asking for is greater explanation of DM being ruled out as baryonic than “DM hasn’t got charge”.

but that’s the point, it doesn’t have charge… it only interacts gravitationally… this is a direct observation of the universe in which we live

I know that but my modelling doesn’t require baryonic(in the case of DM) coupling to be charge differentiated. I have referred to this to seek any other relevant material aside from charge to defining the DM state. I will follow up where you have directed and if I can only arrive at the same conclusion I’ll keep it to myself unless a means to measure it becomes obvious. Really, if my modelling were to be disproven I would have no issue with it. I would only wish to define where and why my modelling strayed from standard theory for future reference. I am methodical in my approach to the subject.

Postpocelipse said:

diddly-squat said:

baryonic matter is NOT defined by charge – charge is a result of an atom being imbalanced in terms of electrons or protons (both of which are baryons)

DM can be ruled out as being baryonic because it:

1. doesn’t radiate any particles
2. doesn’t carry residual charge

that is, by definition, DM only interacts gravitationally…

I think what you are looking for is proof of WIMPs – but again, there is a very good wiki page on the subject if you are so inclined.

THANK YOU!!! Holy cow! Ok. I’ll go from those references and see where it goes. Research WIMPS and the other one yu referred to earlier and I should define the intermittent detail. Thank you. Sorry if my anxiety about not being understood made that inordinately difficult. It shouldn’t have been but I’ve deliberately contributed to the first impression I set here and take responsibility where I can for the result.

it’s not like this stuff is secret… there are whole wiki pages on the subject.

The problem with WIMPs as a candidate for DM is that they should also interact via the weak nuclear force, but all attempts to detect this interaction have failed.

Postpocelipse said:

diddly-squat said:

Postpocelipse said:

Especially considering all I’m asking for is greater explanation of DM being ruled out as baryonic than “DM hasn’t got charge”.

but that’s the point, it doesn’t have charge… it only interacts gravitationally… this is a direct observation of the universe in which we live

I know that but my modelling doesn’t require baryonic(in the case of DM) coupling to be charge differentiated. I have referred to this to seek any other relevant material aside from charge to defining the DM state. I will follow up where you have directed and if I can only arrive at the same conclusion I’ll keep it to myself unless a means to measure it becomes obvious. Really, if my modelling were to be disproven I would have no issue with it. I would only wish to define where and why my modelling strayed from standard theory for future reference. I am methodical in my approach to the subject.

roffle…

here… right here in this statement Postpoc, is the fundamental flaw in your understanding of what science is and how it works and the problem is, you probably don’t even see it.

diddly-squat said:

Postpocelipse said:

diddly-squat said:

baryonic matter is NOT defined by charge – charge is a result of an atom being imbalanced in terms of electrons or protons (both of which are baryons)

DM can be ruled out as being baryonic because it:

1. doesn’t radiate any particles
2. doesn’t carry residual charge

that is, by definition, DM only interacts gravitationally…

I think what you are looking for is proof of WIMPs – but again, there is a very good wiki page on the subject if you are so inclined.

THANK YOU!!! Holy cow! Ok. I’ll go from those references and see where it goes. Research WIMPS and the other one yu referred to earlier and I should define the intermittent detail. Thank you. Sorry if my anxiety about not being understood made that inordinately difficult. It shouldn’t have been but I’ve deliberately contributed to the first impression I set here and take responsibility where I can for the result.

it’s not like this stuff is secret… there are whole wiki pages on the subject.

The problem with WIMPs as a candidate for DM is that they should also interact via the weak nuclear force, but all attempts to detect this interaction have failed.

That is relevant data. I asked for a summation so that I can absorb the related material with greater efficiency. The way I’ve modelled this revolves around strong and weak force interaction. I think it is suggesting that DM’s gravitational interaction is it’s weak force interaction. That is why I tried to address the question in terms of vacuum being mediated by strong/weak interaction. Looking at how others have approached it should provide that aspect with something that can be resolved.

diddly-squat said:

Postpocelipse said:

diddly-squat said:

but that’s the point, it doesn’t have charge… it only interacts gravitationally… this is a direct observation of the universe in which we live

I know that but my modelling doesn’t require baryonic(in the case of DM) coupling to be charge differentiated. I have referred to this to seek any other relevant material aside from charge to defining the DM state. I will follow up where you have directed and if I can only arrive at the same conclusion I’ll keep it to myself unless a means to measure it becomes obvious. Really, if my modelling were to be disproven I would have no issue with it. I would only wish to define where and why my modelling strayed from standard theory for future reference. I am methodical in my approach to the subject.

roffle…

here… right here in this statement Postpoc, is the fundamental flaw in your understanding of what science is and how it works and the problem is, you probably don’t even see it.

then please! point it out so that I can address it concisely.

diddly-squat said:

roffle…

here… right here in this statement Postpoc, is the fundamental flaw in your understanding of what science is and how it works and the problem is, you probably don’t even see it.

If you are assuming my model has any constituent that wasn’t directly supplied by standard theory you are mistaken. Otherwise I don’t know what you are pointing out.

Postpocelipse said:

diddly-squat said:

Postpocelipse said:

I know that but my modelling doesn’t require baryonic(in the case of DM) coupling to be charge differentiated. I have referred to this to seek any other relevant material aside from charge to defining the DM state. I will follow up where you have directed and if I can only arrive at the same conclusion I’ll keep it to myself unless a means to measure it becomes obvious. Really, if my modelling were to be disproven I would have no issue with it. I would only wish to define where and why my modelling strayed from standard theory for future reference. I am methodical in my approach to the subject.

roffle…

here… right here in this statement Postpoc, is the fundamental flaw in your understanding of what science is and how it works and the problem is, you probably don’t even see it.

then please! point it out so that I can address it concisely.

This should answer your question…

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EYPapE-3FRw

diddly-squat said:

This should answer your question…

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EYPapE-3FRw

Ok ta. I’ll have to look at it tomorrow. Getting an answer for just one of my questions can be more exhausting than it is worth. I’m glad I don’t have too many I can’t answer myself.

Yes.

bob(from black rock) said:

Yes.

Noted.

Hinchliffe has asserted that whenever the title of a paper is a question with a yes/no answer, the answer is always no. This paper demonstrates that Hinchliffe’s assertion is false, but only if it is true.

The Rev Dodgson said:

Hinchliffe has asserted that whenever the title of a paper is a question with a yes/no answer, the answer is always no. This paper demonstrates that Hinchliffe’s assertion is false, but only if it is true.

I think I know exactly how he feels. Thanks Rev. :)

if that were a simple Q
‘bout barry somebody’n something or other
what matter that he do
never ask little ol’ difficult Q he dumb rather

barry’s fuckin’ torment
dark’n the work of the devil you can be sure
you must not go there
sort of evil lurk’n off your head it away gnaw

Slept on it and woke up with the realisation I was trying to ask if WIMPS and MACHOS and other DM hypothesis have been sought at energies that unite the EM forces?

So it was a fairly simple question if I defined it properly.

Postpocelipse said:

So it was a fairly simple question if I defined it properly.

So thanks for diverting me with your crap CE. I can only take so much responsibility for the impression I’ve set here. You should try taking responsibility for the impression you give others that might lead to them playing games with you. If someone has a question you don’t get, try figuring out what there question is tying to identify rather than bringing on the Woo-Chop-Suey. That does show respect for another persons learning process of which YOU have no say in the particulars of.

TWATT!!!

diddly-squat said:

Postpocelipse said:

diddly-squat said:

roffle…

here… right here in this statement Postpoc, is the fundamental flaw in your understanding of what science is and how it works and the problem is, you probably don’t even see it.

So far the only thing I can take from that lecture is that I hadn’t properly identified the practical aspects of my question. I am open to further insight should you find the time.

If anyone is interested in examining a conclusion for flaws the logic of the ir being a particle with a similar construction to the baryonic balance that does not radiate orinteract through EM is based on the separation of the forces. Normal baryonic matter can only be assumed to have stabilised the heat energy of the universe and therefor stabilised the opposition of the electric field to the magnetic field. ie; photons stabilise electrons to produce elementary particles

For this to occur it would seem logical that an aggregate particle might have been stabilised by high energy electron neutrinos to create a composite particle that mediated the drop in energy level for EM to seperate from the other forces.

Feel free to be brutal. I have no pre-conclusion or preference.