0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
Re sugar, i dont allow any in the house. Likewise fruit (sugar balls).
(Dark Matter cosmology) cannot tell us if there is a "Dark Force" which is felt by Dark Matter, but not by normal matter. But if such forces existed, then you could produce a "Dark Planet" or a "Dark Periodic Table".
Quote from: mad aetherist on 28/02/2019 12:05:55Yes, but if the quarks are dark quarks then they would only aggregate by virtue of gravitation.What are "dark quarks"? Something you made up?
Yes, but if the quarks are dark quarks then they would only aggregate by virtue of gravitation.
If neutrons were held together by gravitation, then it would be possible to split them into their individual components. Yet you can't. That's the phenomenon of quark confinement.
Quote from: mad aetherist on 28/02/2019 12:05:55And re conservation of electric charge, Williamson's many papers describe how a confined photon emits only a half of its "charge" hencely giving positive or negative.That makes no sense. How is a particle supposed to be capable of hiding its charge? If it has charge, then it must have an electric field associated with it.
And re conservation of electric charge, Williamson's many papers describe how a confined photon emits only a half of its "charge" hencely giving positive or negative.
A quark is a confined photon.
If quarks aggregate due to gravity
Williamson explains how. As the confined photon goes round & round in its loop it only ever emits the positive half or the negative half of its charge field.
The half that is emitted inwards must annihilate or something.
All particles have charge
Dark quarks? You can't just join up disparate words and phrases and hope something scientific pops out. There are some decent books on particle physics if you really want to know what you are talking about. I doubt if you do. That means applying yourself and actually doing some study. Don't you have any gardening to do?
I am not in a hurry to do more reading re the standard atomic or sub-atomic model
Quote from: mad aetherist on 27/02/2019 22:48:19Re sugar, i dont allow any in the house. Likewise fruit (sugar balls).Human brains need sugar to function...
Quote from: mad aetherist on 27/02/2019 22:48:19have a habit of putting your finger on some spots i didnt know existed, albeit accidentally much of the time, & here u have done it againI keep telling you to learn some science. Here's another thing you probably didn't think about. The redefinition of the Kg was fairly widely reported. They plan to replace the prototype lump of metal with a definition in terms of Planck's constant.https://arxiv.org/pdf/1708.02473.pdfOne aspect of that redefinition is that you need to measure g (and the rate at which it changes with height) to about a part in a billion.https://www.nist.gov/publications/determination-local-acceleration-gravity-nist-4-watt-balanceAnd yet, you are claiming that the people who really know about measuring stuff have decided to do away with a physical standard in favour of something they can't measure. That's clearly nonsense.
have a habit of putting your finger on some spots i didnt know existed, albeit accidentally much of the time, & here u have done it again
But the new definitions are fraught, what with being circular,
I am not in a hurry to do more reading re the standard atomic or sub-atomic model, not enough time, & far too many rubbish particles (about half of them), & u have to wade throo all of that krapp re virtual particles etc, but of course there is good stuff in there too.
It can be simple. I reckon that what we have is two kinds of matter, (1) matter made by photons & (2) dark matter made by neutrinos (dark photons)(two joined photons).
Having not heard of J.G. Williamson before, I did some research. Is this the person you are referring to? https://www.researchgate.net/profile/John_Williamson5I thought he might have been some kind of crank at first, but he does seem to have some good credentials. So I looked up the paper you were likely referring to: http://www.cybsoc.org/electron.pdfI haven't read the entire thing, but it doesn't seem to suggest that photons have both positive and negative charge at the same time. Instead, it seems to suggest that electric charge is an emergent property of the inherent electric and magnetic fields of confined photons. Although I said that such an idea would violate conservation of charge initially, it could potentially avoid that problem if such confined photons are incapable of spontaneously breaking confinement or if free photons are unable to spontaneously acquire confinement.It is admittedly an interesting model, but something that radical needs some kind of experimentation to support it. Does the toroidal photon model make unique, testable predictions? I'd also like to know what other experts in the field of particle physics think about its plausibility. They would know better than I do.Oh, but one potential issue does arise from the fact that electron-positron pairs something annihilate to release three photons instead of two. That would seem to be a problem if the argument is that electrons and positrons are made of one photon each because one photon per electron/positron is released. If there is a third photon involved, the annihilation can't represent something so simple as photons breaking confinement.He also seems uncertain about the force required to confine the photon.
But a new idea here has a low bar to jump, it merely has to be better than all other ideas, & here that field amounts to zero ideas.
Re getting 3 photons from 2 (ie from an electron positron annihilation), that is interesting. One thing that i can think of is that a confined photon can break in two to give two free photons. If free photons can have a large range of energies then a hi energy confined photon or a hi energy free photon might divide to make 2 or even more lo energy photons. Would that work?
Quote from: mad aetherist on 02/03/2019 07:49:28But a new idea here has a low bar to jump, it merely has to be better than all other ideas, & here that field amounts to zero ideas.You refer to "this field" which seems to be trying to explain the apparent changes in G on a (sidereal) daily basis reported in the paper you cite.But that paper lacks any decent error analysis. In particular, it doesn't explain how circadian effects- the temperature would be the biggest would affect teh reading. Without that there is no real evidence of an effect.So, making up stories about photons disappearing up their own backsides to explain the effect is absurd.
Incorporating the word mad in your handle appears to be due to some quite accurate self assesment. You appear to be quite an astute observer of your own limitations. It is a pity this doesn't carry over into your attempts at science.
Re that russian paper i am fairly certain that they did a good instrument precision analysis.