I think I possibly discovered the source of dark matter.

Back in the 1980s, a theoretical physicist provided astounding evidence that quarks are NOT point-like but composite bound states of three preons. First of all, he pointed out that the magnetic form factor for the proton varies at high t (t = - square of momentum transfer) as (-t)^(-2). This is consistent with quarks being composed of three point-like Dirac fermions. However, it did not constitute proof because standard calculations in QED derive the same asymptotic behaviour. Quark compositeness has not yet been detected because the beam energies provided by CERN's LHC have not been high enough (the energies that become available in a year or two may provide such a signature). Then he proved that a huge body of research carried out between 1895 and 1908 by two people claiming to be able to remote-view atoms are consistent with facts of nuclear and particle physics established only many decades after this work was published.

If you want to see what quarks look like when remote-viewed, see here. The scientific analysis of this research may be found here.

originally posted by: micpsi
Back in the 1980s, a theoretical physicist provided astounding evidence that quarks are NOT point-like but composite bound states of three preons. First of all, he pointed out that the magnetic form factor for the proton varies at high t (t = - square of momentum transfer) as (-t)^(-2). This is consistent with quarks being composed of three point-like Dirac fermions. However, it did not constitute proof because standard calculations in QED derive the same asymptotic behaviour. Quark compositeness has not yet been detected because the beam energies provided by CERN's LHC have not been high enough (the energies that become available in a year or two may provide such a signature). Then he proved that a huge body of research carried out between 1895 and 1908 by two people claiming to be able to remote-view atoms are consistent with facts of nuclear and particle physics established only many decades after this work was published.

If you want to see what quarks look like when remote-viewed, see here. The scientific analysis of this research may be found here.

Remote viewing is a pile of junk in normal circumstances (isnt it incredible that no on can do it in test condition and become world famous?) but remote viewing of atoms and quarks..thanks, you saved me clicking on that link.

originally posted by: tadaman
a reply

EDIT TO ADD:
"Pros"? Wanna be´s only play with words so that no one understands. Masters can explain things so others can understand. Your not good until you can make others do what you do.

Those that can do, do.

Those who cannot, teach.

The proficient, help others understand.
While masters, break new ground and exist in a class entirely on their own.

a reply to: IntastellaBurst
I disagree,

Masters do both teach and break new ground. If no one teaches how, no new ground is broken and no one becomes a master, Just self gratifying proficients with delusions about their own skill.

there is such a thing as great teachers. They arent "average"

originally posted by: Adaluncatif
If you think of quarks as point particles, the neutron is a 2 dimensional triangle with +2/3 charge at one corner and -1/3 charge at the other two corners, giving it a net charge of 0. If you take 3 neutrons, each one rotated by 60 degrees and stack them on top of each other, you have a trineutron with zero charge on all three corners, zero charge but no charge distribution unlike the neutron.

Quarks in neutrons aren't literally triangles---that was just a diagram of the group structure.

This new particle cannot interact with other particles except through gravity.

Says who? Neutrons mutually interact with the strong force, and it doesn't stop with three. The nuclear strong force is not from the internal electromagnetism (i.e. magnetic dipole) of a neutron, but from the gluons.

Yeah, sorry about all that dark matter - they put me on iron tablets : it usually has that effect.

a reply to: Adaluncatif

They are not the solid little pellets they look like in your textbook.

originally posted by: kelbtalfenek
a reply to: Adaluncatif

Interesting theory but it would have been discovered in a large collider, if it was such.

Particle colliders break things apart. They do not put them together. You can only accelerate charged particles in accelerators. They do this with magnets. The LHC, Large Hadron Collider, accelerates protons, which are a hadron. The neutron is also a hadron. There is no way to accelerate a neutron. You can produce a neutron by hitting a target nucleus with a proton, but its direction cannot be controlled. You would have to somehow press three neutrons on top of each other with all three of them rotated at the proper angle. The conditions required to do this existed only in the beginning stages of the Big Bang. People commenting here don't seem to understand this. What they also don't seem to understand is that neutrons are two dimensional triangles. They have to be. Quarks are point particles that are connected with gluons. They are called gluons because they act like glue. Three points make a triangle. I am not being silly when I say they are triangles. They are triangles. The three neutrons are held together by the charges at their corners. Since they have no thickness they coincide in the same plane.