Please excuse my summarising my progress here. It is largely a therapy exercise to avoid the anxiety conditions I can experience in down time if I don’t apply effort to studying something. I hope I can make some progress in phrasing my questions functionally and describing conclusions in a manner that is applicable to measuring against standard theory. To provide this context for the likes of Chrispen Evan, study requires homework to assess progress. Homework requires critical review to provide an assessment of progress. If you can’t simply provide a purely constructive assesment it would be appreciated if you could leave out your personal opinion on someone trying to maintain a forward momentum in their brains development and functional comprehension rather than allow the degratory effects of anxiety I’ve seen overwhelm the minds of others to direct my future.

It turns out that the structure of what I have referred to as ‘modelling the seperation of the forces’ is as simple as I have been able to keep it because it is based on the confinement that the Pauli exclusion principal applies to baryogenesis. The following is a summary of how I believe this applies.

The basic nature of electrons and time-like particles is to travel in a single direction. This expresses the Pauli exclusion principal as the mechanism of the enforcement of global fields, EM or otherwise.

Subsequently the Pauli exclusion principal defines the confinement that is measured as length contraction. This confinement is measured as gravitation and geodesics as a path of most probability conclusion. Geodiscs are simply the shape the vacuum takes as a particle travels through it.

Applying this analysis of the exclusion principal expresses travelling back in time as a path of least probability and the factor underlying the nature of the forces both united and separated.

This conclusion can only describe a universe with a BB factor as containing an equal antimatter component due to the singularity to reionisation epochs describing the equilibration of particle confinement.

This should conclude that a DM particle is required to regulate the geodesic shape of the vacuum and maintain separation between the matter/antimatter states. This defines protons and neutrons as the stabilised expression of a global electron/positron pairing cascade and is maintained by the dipolar aspects of the separation of the forces through Pauli exclusion. The DM particle should be definable as the stabilised monopolar path and might be as simple as a neutron associated to a high energy electron neutrino.

Chrispen is on holidays and he ask me to stand in for him.

The Pauli exclusion principle is the quantum mechanical principle that says that two identical fermions (particles with half-integer spin) cannot occupy the same quantum state simultaneously.

wiki.

JudgeMental said:

Chrispen is on holidays and he ask me to stand in for him.

The Pauli exclusion principle is the quantum mechanical principle that says that two identical fermions (particles with half-integer spin) cannot occupy the same quantum state simultaneously.

wiki.

Yes thank you. I’m familiar with the Pauli principal. If you don’t think it applies I’m happy to hear your analysis. I just posted the summary to indicate the simple nature of how I’ve studied physics and why my vocabulary on the subject isn’t very developed.

May I offer an observation?

While I commend your efforts to study physics; a true understanding of the subject lies in not in mastering the language and vocabulary, but in understanding the mathematics behind it. I think you are looking for understanding in the wrong way.

Postpocelipse said:

JudgeMental said:

Chrispen is on holidays and he ask me to stand in for him.

The Pauli exclusion principle is the quantum mechanical principle that says that two identical fermions (particles with half-integer spin) cannot occupy the same quantum state simultaneously.

wiki.

Yes thank you. I’m familiar with the Pauli principal. If you don’t think it applies I’m happy to hear your analysis. I just posted the summary to indicate the simple nature of how I’ve studied physics and why my vocabulary on the subject isn’t very developed.

postpoc, what you wrote in the OP is nonsensical; it’s really that simple.

What ever it is you this you are doing, it’s not science.

party_pants said:

May I offer an observation?

While I commend your efforts to study physics; a true understanding of the subject lies in not in mastering the language and vocabulary, but in understanding the mathematics behind it. I think you are looking for understanding in the wrong way.

The area I’m most concerned with making progress is critical analyisis of complex reasoning. This is what I would assume represents functional brain development. If you want to address my logic on the subject matter you are welcome. If you want to address the rationallity of analysing my thought process this way then that is another subject and you should start a thread on proper study techniques. I’m just looking for someone to ‘mark my logic’. I take what I am told into consideration. The pauli principal has allowed me to take in new information. I haven’t found anything to apply more complex principals to so haven’t had to practice more complex physics, thus the vocabulary underdevelopment. I’m happy with the above summary as describing how I have been ‘modelling’ physics. Now that I understand it was all based around the exclusion principal I can maybe start absorbing more complex physics theory. I probably won’t have much in the way of questions on the subject now that I understand the logic I’ve been using.

Posty you exhibit the signs of delusion, if you want to be a good dad then get some help with your mental state.

http://psychcentral.com/disorders/narcissistic-personality-disorder-symptoms/

diddly-squat said:

Postpocelipse said:

JudgeMental said:

Chrispen is on holidays and he ask me to stand in for him.

The Pauli exclusion principle is the quantum mechanical principle that says that two identical fermions (particles with half-integer spin) cannot occupy the same quantum state simultaneously.

wiki.

Yes thank you. I’m familiar with the Pauli principal. If you don’t think it applies I’m happy to hear your analysis. I just posted the summary to indicate the simple nature of how I’ve studied physics and why my vocabulary on the subject isn’t very developed.

postpoc, what you wrote in the OP is nonsensical; it’s really that simple.

What ever it is you this you are doing, it’s not science.

d_s, it is an assessment of how I have modelled force seperation. It is simple enough to assume, if it is not directly measurable from the summary I’ve provided. As I mentioned on the last post, I’ve been trying to figure out what my underlying logic was in themental decisions I’d make to rule something out in the data I was absorbing. If you want to give me a hard time about figuring out how I have been thinking about something go ahead. It’ll just bore me. I’ve figured out how I was analysing data. I’ll be the one to discover what that means for me ultimately.

Postpocelipse said:

party_pants said:

May I offer an observation?

While I commend your efforts to study physics; a true understanding of the subject lies in not in mastering the language and vocabulary, but in understanding the mathematics behind it. I think you are looking for understanding in the wrong way.

The area I’m most concerned with making progress is critical analyisis of complex reasoning. This is what I would assume represents functional brain development. If you want to address my logic on the subject matter you are welcome. If you want to address the rationallity of analysing my thought process this way then that is another subject and you should start a thread on proper study techniques. I’m just looking for someone to ‘mark my logic’. I take what I am told into consideration. The pauli principal has allowed me to take in new information. I haven’t found anything to apply more complex principals to so haven’t had to practice more complex physics, thus the vocabulary underdevelopment. I’m happy with the above summary as describing how I have been ‘modelling’ physics. Now that I understand it was all based around the exclusion principal I can maybe start absorbing more complex physics theory. I probably won’t have much in the way of questions on the subject now that I understand the logic I’ve been using.

Stop trying to dream up new physics and just stick to the stuff that is known to work well. I can assure you there are lots of of very smart people that are out there, every day, testing the limits of current reasoning.

But like pp suggested… The true understanding is in the application of the mathematics. The rest is just hand waving.

diddly-squat said:

postpoc, what you wrote in the OP is nonsensical; it’s really that simple.

You read it?

A better man than I am, Gunga Din.

Postpocelipse said:

party_pants said:

May I offer an observation?

While I commend your efforts to study physics; a true understanding of the subject lies in not in mastering the language and vocabulary, but in understanding the mathematics behind it. I think you are looking for understanding in the wrong way.

The area I’m most concerned with making progress is critical analyisis of complex reasoning. This is what I would assume represents functional brain development. If you want to address my logic on the subject matter you are welcome. If you want to address the rationallity of analysing my thought process this way then that is another subject and you should start a thread on proper study techniques. I’m just looking for someone to ‘mark my logic’. I take what I am told into consideration. The pauli principal has allowed me to take in new information. I haven’t found anything to apply more complex principals to so haven’t had to practice more complex physics, thus the vocabulary underdevelopment. I’m happy with the above summary as describing how I have been ‘modelling’ physics. Now that I understand it was all based around the exclusion principal I can maybe start absorbing more complex physics theory. I probably won’t have much in the way of questions on the subject now that I understand the logic I’ve been using.

Critical analysis and complex reasoning is what the mathematics of physics is all about.

I’m not going to start a new thread on it. This is the fundamental problem with all of your physics threads, and why you’re not getting any answers you find meaningful.

diddly-squat said:

Stop trying to dream up new physics and just stick to the stuff that is known to work well. I can assure you there are lots of of very smart people that are out there, every day, testing the limits of current reasoning.

But like pp suggested… The true understanding is in the application of the mathematics. The rest is just hand waving.

You don’t seem to get what I am saying tool-stool. WHAT I HAVE BEEN TRYING TO DO IS IDENTIFY MY METHOD OF REASONING. Which turned out to be based on the pauli exclusion principal. Now I understand how I’ve been reasoning I can move on in my absorbing anything. I am NOT INVENTING NEW PHYSICS. I am analysing the basis of my thought process on the subject. It is the only thing I have to do in spare time that is productive and is a subject I can concentrate on without being disttracted by the outside world.

Postpocelipse said:

diddly-squat said:

Postpocelipse said:

Yes thank you. I’m familiar with the Pauli principal. If you don’t think it applies I’m happy to hear your analysis. I just posted the summary to indicate the simple nature of how I’ve studied physics and why my vocabulary on the subject isn’t very developed.

postpoc, what you wrote in the OP is nonsensical; it’s really that simple.

What ever it is you this you are doing, it’s not science.

d_s, it is an assessment of how I have modelled force seperation. It is simple enough to assume, if it is not directly measurable from the summary I’ve provided. As I mentioned on the last post, I’ve been trying to figure out what my underlying logic was in themental decisions I’d make to rule something out in the data I was absorbing. If you want to give me a hard time about figuring out how I have been thinking about something go ahead. It’ll just bore me. I’ve figured out how I was analysing data. I’ll be the one to discover what that means for me ultimately.

I’m not trying to give you a hardy time, i’m trying to talk to you about physics.

The simple fact is you haven’t modelled anything… What you have done is dreamt up new physics and not provided anything other than a series of statements that make no sense what so ever.

You want new physics, then show me the maths, show me the predictions, show me where these predictions match observational evidence… But don’t come here and expect softly-softly treatment without even the slightest due diligence on your part.

party_pants said:

Critical analysis and complex reasoning is what the mathematics of physics is all about.

I’m not going to start a new thread on it. This is the fundamental problem with all of your physics threads, and why you’re not getting any answers you find meaningful.

stop missing the part where I’m not claiming jack. I’ve been figuring out how I’ve been thinking about the subject from the beginning. If you can’t directly show how pauli exclusion doesn’t provide confinement of geodesics then drop the subject of what you dumb advice is on my learning process.

diddly-squat said:

I’m not trying to give you a hardy time, i’m trying to talk to you about physics.

The simple fact is you haven’t modelled anything… What you have done is dreamt up new physics and not provided anything other than a series of statements that make no sense what so ever.

You want new physics, then show me the maths, show me the predictions, show me where these predictions match observational evidence… But don’t come here and expect softly-softly treatment without even the slightest due diligence on your part.

I haven’t dreamt anything fella. I’ve based my reasoning on the pauli exclsusion principal without knowing so and have posted this to convey the fact that I HAVE NOT BEEN MAKING UP PHYSICS. I have been trying to understand my thought process on the subject. STOP CARRYING ON LIKE I“M MAKING FUKKIN MAKING CLAIMS YA BLOODY DOUCHES!!!

Postpocelipse said:

diddly-squat said:

Stop trying to dream up new physics and just stick to the stuff that is known to work well. I can assure you there are lots of of very smart people that are out there, every day, testing the limits of current reasoning.

But like pp suggested… The true understanding is in the application of the mathematics. The rest is just hand waving.

You don’t seem to get what I am saying tool-stool. WHAT I HAVE BEEN TRYING TO DO IS IDENTIFY MY METHOD OF REASONING. Which turned out to be based on the pauli exclusion principal. Now I understand how I’ve been reasoning I can move on in my absorbing anything. I am NOT INVENTING NEW PHYSICS. I am analysing the basis of my thought process on the subject. It is the only thing I have to do in spare time that is productive and is a subject I can concentrate on without being disttracted by the outside world.

Houston, Postpoc has landed.

Postpocelipse said:

diddly-squat said:

Stop trying to dream up new physics and just stick to the stuff that is known to work well. I can assure you there are lots of of very smart people that are out there, every day, testing the limits of current reasoning.

But like pp suggested… The true understanding is in the application of the mathematics. The rest is just hand waving.

You don’t seem to get what I am saying tool-stool. WHAT I HAVE BEEN TRYING TO DO IS IDENTIFY MY METHOD OF REASONING. Which turned out to be based on the pauli exclusion principal. Now I understand how I’ve been reasoning I can move on in my absorbing anything. I am NOT INVENTING NEW PHYSICS. I am analysing the basis of my thought process on the subject. It is the only thing I have to do in spare time that is productive and is a subject I can concentrate on without being disttracted by the outside world.

what you are saying makes no sense, in fact it clearly illustrates that you have applied very little reasoning to the subject. It shows you don’t understand what the PEP is, how it is applied, or what it implies.

Go back to the beginning, start with special relativity… Then have a look at particle physics, then general relativity… But really try to understand the fundamentals before to star to tackle the more complex stuff.

roughbarked said:

Houston, Postpoc has landed.

If it hasn’t been confined by the Pauli principal I’ve ruled it out as being fundamental to stabilising baryogenesis. That has been my method. I’ve had to REFER TO IT as ‘modelling because I didn’t know how I was ruling things out. Simple. I’m over it. Thanks to anyone who’s contributed to my discovering how I was processing physics data.

Postpocelipse said:

party_pants said:

Critical analysis and complex reasoning is what the mathematics of physics is all about.

I’m not going to start a new thread on it. This is the fundamental problem with all of your physics threads, and why you’re not getting any answers you find meaningful.

stop missing the part where I’m not claiming jack. I’ve been figuring out how I’ve been thinking about the subject from the beginning. If you can’t directly show how pauli exclusion doesn’t provide confinement of geodesics then drop the subject of what you dumb advice is on my learning process.

Look, I don’t want to come across as a complete prick, but I fear it is unavoidable: your method of thinking about the subject is invalid without learning the underlying mathematics.

The subject of physics is pretty rigid, based on experiment, observation and applied mathematics. It just doesn’t do unconventional thinking and reasoning as an exercise in thought techniques. If you want that sort of thing perhaps you should try economics or sociology. Physics just just do the line of inquiry you are looking for.

diddly-squat said:

what you are saying makes no sense, in fact it clearly illustrates that you have applied very little reasoning to the subject. It shows you don’t understand what the PEP is, how it is applied, or what it implies.

Go back to the beginning, start with special relativity… Then have a look at particle physics, then general relativity… But really try to understand the fundamentals before to star to tackle the more complex stuff.

If it hasn’t been confined by the Pauli principal I’ve ruled it out as being fundamental to stabilising baryogenesis. That has been my method. I’ve had to REFER TO IT as ‘modelling because I didn’t know how I was ruling things out. Simple. I’m over it. Thanks to anyone who’s contributed to my discovering how I was processing physics data.

I can figure out how to reverse engineer how I’ve been processing and apply this to further absorbing what I have covered many times in simply reading material. Without methods to practice physics you are limited to reading and the way you absorb that coherently. I’ve made what I’ve absorbed coherent by ruling things out by there connection to the puali principal. That is all I’ve been trying to identify from the beginning. I’m not making claims. I am attempting to explain my wandering in trying to pinpoint my thought process. I won’t bring it up again. Damn.

Postpocelipse said:

roughbarked said:

Houston, Postpoc has landed.

If it hasn’t been confined by the Pauli principal I’ve ruled it out as being fundamental to stabilising baryogenesis. That has been my method. I’ve had to REFER TO IT as ‘modelling because I didn’t know how I was ruling things out. Simple. I’m over it. Thanks to anyone who’s contributed to my discovering how I was processing physics data.

You’re welcome… I hope it helps.

party_pants said:

Postpocelipse said:

party_pants said:

Critical analysis and complex reasoning is what the mathematics of physics is all about.

I’m not going to start a new thread on it. This is the fundamental problem with all of your physics threads, and why you’re not getting any answers you find meaningful.

stop missing the part where I’m not claiming jack. I’ve been figuring out how I’ve been thinking about the subject from the beginning. If you can’t directly show how pauli exclusion doesn’t provide confinement of geodesics then drop the subject of what you dumb advice is on my learning process.

Look, I don’t want to come across as a complete prick, but I fear it is unavoidable: your method of thinking about the subject is invalid without learning the underlying mathematics.

The subject of physics is pretty rigid, based on experiment, observation and applied mathematics. It just doesn’t do unconventional thinking and reasoning as an exercise in thought techniques. If you want that sort of thing perhaps you should try economics or sociology. Physics just just do the line of inquiry you are looking for.

Yeah well now I figured out where I started maybe I can study pauli exclusion and length contraction and associated topics. The point I’ve been trying to get across is I haven’t been making bloody claims. I’ve been pulling my reasoning apart.

diddly-squat said:

Postpocelipse said:

roughbarked said:

Houston, Postpoc has landed.

If it hasn’t been confined by the Pauli principal I’ve ruled it out as being fundamental to stabilising baryogenesis. That has been my method. I’ve had to REFER TO IT as ‘modelling because I didn’t know how I was ruling things out. Simple. I’m over it. Thanks to anyone who’s contributed to my discovering how I was processing physics data.

You’re welcome… I hope it helps.

I have definitely absorbed a great deal from everyone here. I turn here when sitting around thinking about things that will take time to resolve just raises my anxiety level. All the gripe like I was being too big for my boots has been a bit combative to my getting nsomewhere just figuring out my thought process.

Postpocelipse said:

party_pants said:

Postpocelipse said:

stop missing the part where I’m not claiming jack. I’ve been figuring out how I’ve been thinking about the subject from the beginning. If you can’t directly show how pauli exclusion doesn’t provide confinement of geodesics then drop the subject of what you dumb advice is on my learning process.

Look, I don’t want to come across as a complete prick, but I fear it is unavoidable: your method of thinking about the subject is invalid without learning the underlying mathematics.

The subject of physics is pretty rigid, based on experiment, observation and applied mathematics. It just doesn’t do unconventional thinking and reasoning as an exercise in thought techniques. If you want that sort of thing perhaps you should try economics or sociology. Physics just just do the line of inquiry you are looking for.

Yeah well now I figured out where I started maybe I can study pauli exclusion and length contraction and associated topics. The point I’ve been trying to get across is I haven’t been making bloody claims. I’ve been pulling my reasoning apart.

Well look, I’ve made my point. I’ll bail out now and leave you to it without any further replies.

diddly-squat said:

Postpocelipse said:

roughbarked said:

Houston, Postpoc has landed.

If it hasn’t been confined by the Pauli principal I’ve ruled it out as being fundamental to stabilising baryogenesis. That has been my method. I’ve had to REFER TO IT as ‘modelling because I didn’t know how I was ruling things out. Simple. I’m over it. Thanks to anyone who’s contributed to my discovering how I was processing physics data.

You’re welcome… I hope it helps.

—-

Is there a term about repetitive dejevu?
beigevu?

tauto said:

diddly-squat said:

Postpocelipse said:

If it hasn’t been confined by the Pauli principal I’ve ruled it out as being fundamental to stabilising baryogenesis. That has been my method. I’ve had to REFER TO IT as ‘modelling because I didn’t know how I was ruling things out. Simple. I’m over it. Thanks to anyone who’s contributed to my discovering how I was processing physics data.

You’re welcome… I hope it helps.

—-

Is there a term about repetitive dejevu?
beigevu?

Simple way to test the basis of the hypothesis is to devise an electron neutrino laser to fire at free neutrons. If you didn’t create a high mass coupling from that it’s baseless. Story closed.

Postpocelipse said:

tauto said:

diddly-squat said:

You’re welcome… I hope it helps.

—-

Is there a term about repetitive dejevu?
beigevu?

Simple way to test the basis of the hypothesis is to devise an electron neutrino laser to fire at free neutrons. If you didn’t create a high mass coupling from that it’s baseless. Story closed.

there is no such thing as an “electron neutrino laser”

diddly-squat said:

Postpocelipse said:

tauto said:

—-

Is there a term about repetitive dejevu?
beigevu?

Simple way to test the basis of the hypothesis is to devise an electron neutrino laser to fire at free neutrons. If you didn’t create a high mass coupling from that it’s baseless. Story closed.

there is no such thing as an “electron neutrino laser”

Yes which is why one would need to be devised if you wanted to test this logically. Something that fired high energy EN’s at freed neutrons rapidly. If there were anything to it I’d assume that 3 EN’s would couple with the neutron to regulate it’s quark components. Neutrino oscillation would be a required component to such a particles stability and energy maintenance.

Once again, I make no claim. This is just the means I have taken to measure data and rule non-essential elements out to provide a structure to the way I was absorbing physics in general. If I worked in science I might spend time considering how a EN laser-like device might be constructed but I paint so unless I can build something out of painting materials I’m not going to get far on that question. I’ve only supplied this to illustrate that I have never intended to make claims but only to deconstruct my train of logic. It has taken a few years but that is done now.

To provide this ‘technical’ summary a conclusion provides that the product of a high energy electron neutrino symbiosis with a free neutron as the alternate composites of quark couplings as present in the photonic baryon elements. The oscillation factor present in neutrino characteristics is compatible with regulation of a Strange/Charm-Top/Bottom neutron maintenance equilibrium. A stable neutrino baryon would require a minimum of 3-5 electron neutrinos to maintain a stable association with a captured neutron. Assuming there are no other restraining factors than the exclusion and length contraction principals. Possible decay of an element with these mass restrictions would be through normal neutron decay from a higher energy equilibrium than present in photonic baryons.

No need to change the subject being discussed currently. Just thought I’d provided a more complete conclusion tis summary of an analysis process I began 20 yrs back without clear definition of method.

Postpocelipse said:

I think I might feel free to at least think of the DM particle as the mobius particle until better identificaiton rules out this compilation of particles, as opposed to photonic baryons being the torus particle. Simple way to analyse data not a claim.

oops wrong fred….

Postpocelipse said:

Postpocelipse said:

I think I might feel free to at least think of the DM particle as the mobius particle until better identificaiton rules out this compilation of particles, as opposed to photonic baryons being the torus particle. Simple way to analyse data not a claim.

oops wrong fred….

Yeah it Fred Flintstone here mate.

bob(from black rock) said:

Postpocelipse said:

Postpocelipse said:

I think I might feel free to at least think of the DM particle as the mobius particle until better identificaiton rules out this compilation of particles, as opposed to photonic baryons being the torus particle. Simple way to analyse data not a claim.

oops wrong fred….

Yeah it Fred Flintstone here mate.

Hope you don’t want any rubble….