I Present to You.. Dark Matter

a reply to: TechniXcality
No I do not. And I´m not the only one thinking that way, it seems.
Still, if you translate it into my language, it has the meaning I explained. I used four different translators and also another sentence with the word "predicted" just to be sure.

So who´s right? Translators crafted by language guys?

Applause for what?
Why should I give him an applause, when I already wrote two times (now the third) that I respect him coming up with a theory. Applause is earned, not commanded!

I´m just not all in awe, like others here, about the theory and that´s my right.

Also, I´d like to see you learning a second language. Do you speak one?
If you´re so upset with what you say I´m doing all the time. Why not send me an U2U with some examples. I want to better myself.
I bet that won´t give you much results, when you look at it.

a reply to: ErosA433

There is also an alternative possibility which, though I find a bit adventurous, could never the less provide a stunningly elegant solution to the puzzle you raise.

It could be that my assumption that dark matter particles cannot interact via electromagnetic is wrong. I know, this sounds crazy to you and me, but we are just speculating here. If charged dark matter could actually interact via electromagnetic force, then guess what would have happened during the Photon Epoch? Yup, the majority of +2/3 DM particles would have annihilated with the majority of -2/3 DM particles, and the majority of +1/3 DM particles would have annihilated with the majority of -1/3 DM particles. Leaving only one particle to fill the universe: the intrinsically-neutral i particle, with its intrinsic charge of zero.

In other words, the electrically-charged o and l particles would have not survived annihilation during the Photon Epoch, and the universe would be populated solely by electrically-neutral i particles.

I personally am not sure I subscribe to this idea, but I believe it is never the less an interesting possibility which we should consider and which could form a middle-ground between the SPPT and the argument you raised.

And by the way I just want you to know that I realise your time is limited here, and that I appreciate the fact that you are taking the time to formulate good and thought-provoking arguments. I want you to know that although I may not seem to do so, I actually fully ponder upon the points you make.

The truth is side-blind. Together we are more likely to find it than divided.

originally posted by: bastion
(Snip)

Of course, if you have a better theory regarding the exact nature of Dark Matter (a theory which also contains predictions about their properties such as spin number, mass, charge number, interaction product, and force coupling), then please, do share it with us.

a reply to: swanne

See my work with Max Planck institute here: www.star.uclan.ac.uk... my papers are publicly available here: www.iau.org...

No idea why my post was removed for being factual - explanation please mods?

a reply to: bastion

My work is the culmination of almost ten years of my life now. For almost ten years I have sacrificed my time (and without any funds nor support from any institutions) so to perfect my model and make it capable of modelling the Standard Model first, and then make predictions beyond the Standard Model.

Your post, which mods removed, was extremely distasteful, no matter your social position.

Here on ATS, manners is still a quality which is highly valued, no matter the nature of the theories being discussed.

Now, thank you for the links to your institute but I fail to see how any of these are relevant to the topic at hand - namely, that of Dark Matter particles.

a reply to: swanne

I've spent 18 on mine, with the last six on international stage - if you can achieve the same maybe I'll pay attention to your post- but at the moment it's a just a load of words and no maths or evidence etc..

It's far more insulting to see someone think they singlehandedly worked out all science without an.y evidence or maths, than it is to point out someone is talking out their backside

If you can't see the direct relevance of at least a quarter of the papers you've got a lot of learning to do - starting with reading a paper in it's methodology not title (year 1 science).

a reply to: bastion

Excuse me? So since I'm not recognised "internationally", then it means my work is worthless "of paying attention"?!

This is one of the most arrogant notions I had the privilege to read.

originally posted by: swanne
a reply to: bastion

Excuse me? So since I'm not recognised "internationally", then it means my work is worthless "of paying attention"?!

This is one of the most arrogant notions I had the privilege to read.

No, when it has zero evidence, measurements, maths, accreditation, publication, review etc.. then it's worthless. Welcome to science! New can we please get back 'on topic'.

originally posted by: bastion

No, when it has zero evidence, measurements, maths, accreditation, publication, review etc.. then it's worthless. Welcome to science! New can we please get back 'on topic'.

No. It's worthless to you.

The scientific method does not require maths, or accreditation, or any of your paperwork. The scientific method is about the accumulation of observations, the formulation of a theory, the formulation of predictions, and finally the validation/falsification by observational data.



If you cannot accept the emergence of new theories without maths or without paperwork, then I believe you lost sight of what scientism and progress really is.

a reply to: bastion

perhaps review Swannes paper, rather than simply attack him?

a reply to: zazzafrazz

I have no papers. Publication requires funds and accreditation. My work is published on my site and on ATS.

Besides, I don't think bastion here is interested in considering my work - only interested in showing his/her international superiority.

originally posted by: zazzafrazz
a reply to: bastion

perhaps review Swannes paper, rather than simply attack him?

It's not a paper. there's no data (maths) so nothing to review. Papes on preons look like this and supply evidence, data and maths: arxiv.org... so they can be subject to review.

a reply to: bastion

So in your opinion, science equates maths. What a narrow box this must be.

Well, you may ridicule my work, you can bash it if you want. But be prepared to be disappointed in the future - dark matter out there might not know about your precious academical maths or paperwork.

a reply to: swanne
math is the language of science.
Chapter 2: Mathematics - The Language of Science - MIT

a reply to: verschickter


wow.... I learned something new hehe!

So basically: addition = 9 and subtraction = 0

now onto division and multiplication lol

originally posted by: swanne
a reply to: bastion
be com
So in your opinion, science equates maths. What a narrow box this must be.

Well, you may ridicule my work, you can bash it if you want. But be prepared to be disappointed in the future - dark matter out there might not know about your precious academical maths or paperwork.

It's not my opinion, it has been the scientific method for 600 years. Applied maths = physics. Maths means quanta, without quanta there can be no units, data observation or measurement. Without maths there'd be no science as nothing could be compared to anything else.

a reply to: combatmaster
Think hard and you will notice it can´t work ;-)

a reply to: bastion

So, does the fact that swanne has not proved his theory using the appropriate maths mean that it's not worthy of your time to review?

It appears to me that he is quite willing to revise his theories and integrate new ideas when he is confronted with inconsistencies. He has demonstrated that in several of his posts in this thread.

Perhaps it would be worth your time, as a member of our online family here at ATS, to discuss with him areas in which he may consider alternatives that you believe would be more realistic. Maybe you can even provide him a few pointers on what mathematics he may want to research in order for him to bring his theories up to a level where it is worthy of publication in a peer reviewed journal.

I doubt he will give you much competition in your pursuit of the Nobel Prize.


Respectfully,
-dex

a reply to: DexterRiley

Theories are proofed by experiment, not with math.
For that experiment, you need math.
If it´s not tested in an experiment, it´s what it is, a theory.
Hence the name.

In general, you develop a theory with math on your side.
That´s how you progress. Of course if you rely on other unproofen theories, you need to come up with more and more assumptions. Theory is always an assumption, you gain trust in it when you can come up with valid math. Because there isn´t any, from the scientific view point, it´s not much worth to look in. Because if a single equation does not work out, you have a problem.

That´s why normally, if you´re able to, develop your theory with math on your side. I would not spend years and years into a theory with zero math in it. But that´s my point of view.