[mad aetherist]

Re the shape of nuclei i havent looked into it -- i would be ok with a model having no nucleus (with no silly orbiting electrons) the atom being made up of alpha particles -- & i would be happy with a nucleus but with the nucleus made up of alpha particles making a peculiar shape. But all of that is well outside my limited comprehension & memory -- & it doesnt concern much my core interests, aether & gravity & the photon & photaenos & centrifuging aether -- photaenos & centrifuging of aether being my 2 pet areas (at present).

Then please try to do the required prerequisite research before making the empty claim that thousands physicists and chemists with access to multi-million dollar experimental equipment have gotten the structure of the atom wrong for many decades.

The standard model of the atom is rubbish. Most of thems particles & virtual particles are rubbish. Even electrons & protons & neutrons are suspect. There are lots of articles out there by scientists over a long period of time -- i merely repeat their claims. U must know better than i re the modern shortfalls & holes in quantum stuff -- the models work ok up to a point -- needing virtual particles to fill the holes.
It is well known that one neutrino is always associated with two photons.
It is well know that atomic reactions love to emit alpha particles.

The biggest hole in standard physics that i see is the lack of good ideas re charge fields electro fields & magneto fields. I fix that -- my photaeno idea is the only good idea out there.
Followed by the lack of good ideas re mass & gravity & inertia (gravity field stuff). Cahill & Ranzan fix that.

These 4 fields must impinge on the standard atom model (2 fields actually, electro & magneto fields are secondary effects that follow from the primary field the charge field). I doubt that the strong force field & the weak force field exist (unless being a special case of the 4). But i dont think i have time to follow up on that sort of stuff.
But it all impinges on this  thread re neutrinos forming blackholes (its a great question). My answer is that free-neutrinos cannot form a blackhole (but they contribute to dark mass i think) -- but confined neutrinos are the number one main paramount cause of dark matter.

The difference tween dark mass & dark matter is subtle.
Free photons have mass & free neutrinos have dark mass (Ranzan calls this sort of mass mass-equivalence).
I reckon that in a way that mass (moving freely at c) is a different kind of mass compared to the mass of confined photons (matter)(elementary particles)(electrons quarks etc) & confined neutrinos (dark matter)(if they exist).
Free mass (moving at c) & confined mass (stationary) create gravity in a slightly different way (i can explain).

[mad aetherist]

Miscellaineous additional ramblings re neutrinos & blackholes.

Free-neutrinos (invisible) might form confined-neutrinos (invisible), ie dark elementary particles, ie dark matter.
Dark particles make dark matter (eg dark dust)(dark planets)(dark stars).
Ordinary matter (confined photons) cannot form anything dark or black unless the mass is large enough to trap light.

Hencely we might have five kinds of Dark Matter –
(1) dark mass made of free-neutrinos (because they have mass but are invisible) –
(2) dark matter made of confined neutrinos (ditto) –
(3) blackholes made of confined photons (if massive enough)(because visible light cannot escape)(hencely black) –
(4) blackholes made of confined neutrinos (if massive enough)(light cannot escape) –
(5) blackholes made of a combination of confined neutrinos & confined photons.

Free-photons & free-neutrinos both propagate at c (potentially)(if not near mass).
Free-photons & free-neutrinos both suffer an equal slowing near mass (near but not in) hencely c reduces to c'.
Free-photons are slowed in plasma & air & water & glass, hencely c' reduces to c'' (& free neutrinos are not slowed).

If massive enough, dark-matter can form blackholes (free-photons cannot escape)(but free-neutrinos might escape).
My definition of a blackhole is that light cannot escape (u might have blue Cherenkov light escaping)(blueholes).

A blackhole need not be supermassive – it merely needs an atmosphere where c"/n is less than the escape velocity – c being reduced to c' by the nearness of mass, & c' being reduced to c" by the plasma air water glass.

Ordinary matter can gravitationally clump with dark matter to form greyholes (just jesting) which if massive enough are blackholes.

Edit -- I just had a thort -- a 5 million million tonne black asteroid would be the same size as a 1 tonne ordinary asteroid (based on a black asteroid made of dark matter having the same density as a neutron star). Hencely a black asteroid would make a very small splash or crater -- it would plunge down to probly the center of the Earth, due in part to its speed, & due in part to its large wt (& small size) -- & then sit there.
Hencely i think that Earth has a core of dark matter -- & praps most of Earth's mass is dark matter.

[Kryptid]

There are lots of articles out there by scientists over a long period of time -- i merely repeat their claims.

I've seen a lot of people do that exact same thing when it comes to articles written by young Earth creationists. They repeat the claims without investigating whether the person who wrote the article understood what they were talking about. They are almost always rife with quote mining, straw-man attacks, arguments from consequences, ignorance of methodologies and a general misunderstanding of the issues. You have even admitted to not having a good understanding of the atomic nucleus and the experiments relevant to it, so your ability to recognize a bogus article that goes against experiment has already been compromised.

You think that the vast majority of physicists out there are morons that don't know how to properly run their equipment or interpret their data. You think they are too stupid to consider solutions that you think are logical. Yet you consistently trust fringe explanations that have significantly less solidly verified data over what is done by actual professionals who have much more sophisticated and sensitive equipment. You seem to think that the only good reason why most physicists believe what they believe is "conspiracy", which is practically not an explanation at all.

That being said, I give up. I cannot argue against someone with this kind of immobile mindset. I tried it against Thebox and consistently failed. I'm not wasting my time doing it again.

[mad aetherist]

There are lots of articles out there by scientists over a long period of time -- i merely repeat their claims.

I've seen a lot of people do that exact same thing when it comes to articles written by young Earth creationists. They repeat the claims without investigating whether the person who wrote the article understood what they were talking about. They are almost always rife with quote mining, straw-man attacks, arguments from consequences, ignorance of methodologies and a general misunderstanding of the issues. You have even admitted to not having a good understanding of the atomic nucleus and the experiments relevant to it, so your ability to recognize a bogus article that goes against experiment has already been compromised.

You think that the vast majority of physicists out there are morons that don't know how to properly run their equipment or interpret their data. You think they are too stupid to consider solutions that you think are logical. Yet you consistently trust fringe explanations that have significantly less solidly verified data over what is done by actual professionals who have much more sophisticated and sensitive equipment. You seem to think that the only good reason why most physicists believe what they believe is "conspiracy", which is practically not an explanation at all.

That being said, I give up. I cannot argue against someone with this kind of immobile mindset. I tried it against Thebox and consistently failed. I'm not wasting my time doing it again.

I spent many minutes typing a nice response to this including a listing of some of the articles on my computer re censorship etc but then accidentally erased it. So all i will say for readers here is that on www there are lots of articles & websites re science censorship -- once u find a good one just follow the links etc etc -- u will have months of reading.

[mad aetherist]

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).  An elementary particle is made when a free photon bites its tail & becomes a confined photon.  Likewise an elementary dark particle might be made by a neutrino becoming a confined neutrino.

The first problem is that a dark electron might not have any charge.  Likewise a dark proton.  If so then all dark elementary particles would mimic neutrons, & they might have praps twice the mass of their non-dark sibling.  Hencely we would not have any dark electrons orbiting a dark nucleus, we would just have a small nucleus. 
We would not have dark atoms or dark molecules.  We would have neutron particles, neutron planets, neutron stars.  All with much the same densities, ie very dense.  And all would be a kind of blackhole. 

A free neutrino probly has twice the mass (or quasi-mass) of a free photon.  A neutrino is invisible to the human eye, hencely dark.

Dark particles would form larger DPs by virtue of gravity.  Radiating away excess heat would not be a problem.  Dark particles would of course radiate electric fields which would of course cancel giving a nett charge of zero.  But electric charge radiation does not require energy, or at least it does not carry energy (but can in some instances).  This applies to all electric radiation whether cancelling or not.  Heat would be radiated away in the same way as for non-dark matter, via the emission of hi energy photons or neutrinos. 

Dark matter would aggregate with non-dark matter.  But here we have a problem.  Would dark particles migrate to the nucleus of an atom?  This would in effect create an isotope, & might cause fission. 
I think that most dark particles would soon make their way to the center of mass of any large body.  I think that Earth has dark matter inside, likewise the Moon & the Sun.

Dark matter can orbit the Sun etc, but i dont see how DM (eg a dark clump) can orbit inside ordinary matter (eg Earth), the DM would meet a lot of resistance.

I dont see the need for an exotic attraction force for DM, gravity would be enough.  Or, yes it would need an exotic force, but that force would be due to centrifuging of aether, due to the spins of the dark elementary particles (spinning at say c kmps).  This is a faux-gravity if u like.

[Kryptid]

Dark matter

I thought you said dark matter was something invented by mainstream scientists to "prop up" relativity? Now you're speaking of it as if you too believe it's out there.

[mad aetherist]

Dark matter

I thought you said dark matter was something invented by mainstream scientists to "prop up" relativity? Now you're speaking of it as if you too believe it's out there.

I doubt that there is a new exotic substance that is the DM (but it aint impossible). However i agree that an old exotic substance might give DM, namely that dark photons (neutrinos) might make dark particles etc etc. Here when i agree i am agreeing with myself because i thort of it myself less than a year ago.  And i was pleased & surprised to see this thread "Could Neutrinos form Black Holes?" started by guest46746 on 23Sep2018 (so ok i am agreeing with him/her too).

But i very much doubt that it is DM of some kind tricking us & giving a pseudo 1/R gravity in spiral galaxies, & that Newton's & Einstein's 1/RR gravity is universally true & correct. This tricky DM would have to outmass the ordinary mass of a spiral galaxy by a factor of over 10 to 1, & praps by a factor of 100 to 1 if not for being smart & tricky (smart enough to take on a certain cunning formation).  And if much of that DM resided in the center of stars & planets (which is what i reckon would happen) then a factor of even 1000 to 1 wouldnt do the trick.

But it gets worse. Einsteinians say that DM is tricky smart & slippery. Being slippery it can take on its smart formation & retain it, thumbing its nose at any passing OM.  In fact it is so slippery that it can pass throo OM.  So slippery that it can orbit throo OM, almost for ever.

I reckon that dark confined photons (confined neutrinos) emit dark radiation. Dark radiation is a doublet of ordinary em radiation (photaenos), 180 deg out of phase, hencely negating or cancelling.  DM emits dark photons & dark em radiation.
Re photaenos, there are no dark photaenos. Dark em radiation is due to a cancelling of out of phase photaenos.

One problem for DM is its electrons & protons have no nett charge (& no electrostatic & electrodynamic forces).  Therefore DM cant make ordinary atoms (with electrons orbiting a nucleus). All of the electrons & quarks in DM act like neutrons, hencely such a DM is a blob of various kinds of neutrons, held together gravitationally, small dense clumps & blobs.

And these blobs are indeed slippery, attracted only by gravity.  Eventually the blobs migrate to the center of planets & stars, where they can have little or no effect on 1/R & 1/RR.  I think that a DM Earth would have a diameter of only about 1 km.  A DM Sun would have a diameter of say 70 km.

[Bored chemist]

I reckon that dark confined photons (confined neutrinos) emit dark radiation. Dark radiation is a doublet of ordinary em radiation (photaenos), 180 deg out of phase, hencely negating or cancelling.  DM emits dark photons & dark em radiation.

Reality reckons differently.
Almost all the confabulations you  stung together there have already been refuted

[mad aetherist]

I reckon that dark confined photons (confined neutrinos) emit dark radiation. Dark radiation is a doublet of ordinary em radiation (photaenos), 180 deg out of phase, hencely negating or cancelling.  DM emits dark photons & dark em radiation.

Reality reckons differently. Almost all the confabulations you  stung together there have already been refuted.

Dark matter if it exists can be detected say six ways.......................................................
(1) em radiation (but if DM emits dark em radiation then that Dark em cant be detected).
(2) photons (but if DM emits dark photons then thems Dps cant be detected).
(3) gravitational attraction (which can of course be detected directly)(& calculated indirectly).
(4) lensing (a form of (3)).
(5) eclipsing (ie blocking of photons from far away stars).
(6) collision (u would be able to feel DM if u grabbed it or if u collided with it).

(6) Is a bit problematic, DM being dense & slippery would easily puncture ordinary atomic matter.

If all of my DMs have been refuted then that leaves other kinds of DM not yet refuted.