I Present to You.. Dark Matter

a reply to: bastion

Gee I don't know, just read what he/she wrote, and give general advice on the direction they have taken to solidify their theory without all the hostility

Goodness.

a reply to: zazzafrazz

But he did that -> use math.
Scientists are not impressed by a WOT and fance graphics.
A single equation can tell you more then pages of text, with a little context to it.

because you edited so late, I might, too.
You call it hostility. I didn´t read the removed post, but until now, it´s just honesty. Direct honesty.
It might be hard for OP to read someones opinion that it´s worthless but if you think it through, yes it is. At least from a scientific point of view it´s not really a theory. It´s a hypothesis.

a reply to: verschickter

No he really didn't......

a reply to: zazzafrazz

What can he do more at the current state of the theory? I think it was a very good advice, albeit it could be better worded, I agree. But the advice is the best he can give.

The problem I see is this:

My work is published on my site and on ATS.

Question: Where do you go if you have faith in your theory and want honest input?
To a science board, where peers actually know what they read.
Or to a conspiracy board, where maybe 10 people can follow him through?

What´s more logic and helpful in his situation? If it isn´t for the attention.
To say I have this theory I work on for ten years but I only post it on my website (link?) and on a conspiracy board, is somehow contraproductive.

Until now, it isn´t much more worth for actual science than a thread in skunkworks or the grey area.
Not saying worthless but almost. If it had any math in it that points to evidence, we have something. If not, we have to siphon through text and graphics.

Also, I doubt anyone grasps his full theory. Remember, he worked nearly ten years on it. And somehow there are people here that conclude it in less then a day?

a reply to: zazzafrazz

I did, there's no maths, equations, axioms etccc involved. Without those it's a meaning wall of text. I posted links to scientific papers on the subject and the equations involved. I don't see what more I could do to point out where they're
wrong and how to do it right. How can you state I didn't do any of this?

Without the maths, methods and data - there's nothing to correct and subject areas of weakness that need revising or redoing. It's like a blind man trying to teach someone how to paint.

a reply to: bastion

That is so strange. You claim you have 18 years of expertise in physics, yet you cannot even read what I post due to "lack of maths". But the funny part is, I am currently discussing with two physicists (one of them who btw does work at an institution), on this very thread, about features of my theory - and unlike you they have no problem at all understanding my model and discuss (even propose options!) about its relations to observational data.

Me integrating complex mathematics is not only unnecessary for the comprehension of the model (it is so simple, even a child could understand it), but it also would be going one of my most profound conviction - namely, I believe science should be understandable by the majority of people, and this means minimum maths. Of what good is an explanation or model if it is too mathematically esoteric for the majority of people to understand anyway? Might as well just say "God did it" and quote esoteric scriptures codes.

I have already posted the simple maths behind the determination of mass in my OP. I have already posted my methodology for the SPPT model (including all the simple maths it needs) three times already in ATS, and my OP also links to one of such posts.

You say maths is the language of science. That is simply not true. Richard Feyman has proved so when he invented his fam ous visual diagrams. Actually math is a poor translation of the universe, just like a measuring ruler is a poor tool for measuring fire flames. The true universe out there is one made of matter and energy - not a blackboard covered with chalk figures.

a reply to: bastion

But then, you still haven't answered my question on page 5 yet. So I will ask again:

You called my work "nonesense" and quoted your 18 years of expertise to imply that you knew better. So, pray share with us your dark matter model, which you claim is so much better. All you did for now is bash my tread, but so far you failed to answer the topic of discussion, namely, dark matter candidate particles.
So please, do share with us your "superior" model of dark matter.

originally posted by: swanne
a reply to: bastion
Me integrating complex mathematics is not only unnecessary for the comprehension of the model (it is so simple, even a child could understand it), but it also would be going one of my most profound conviction - namely, I believe science should be understandable by the majority of people, and this means minimum maths.

Might be true in terms of explaining it to laymen.
It´s one thing to make a model, the other thing is proofing it.
What´s your plan on validating all your assumptions, if not with math?

Then again, if you are that certain your model fits reality, why would you come to ATS. I understand you want to enlighten us all but it´s a gullible crowd in terms of real science, when you choose a conspiracy board for your viewers.

Of course, it´s easier to defend then. Why not take the balls and post it on a real science forum and ask for their opinion.

a reply to: TerryDon79

Hope is what is going to change to World.

And you are too.



great OP btw ^^^ .

originally posted by: dogstar23
a reply to: swanne

"What's truly impressive is that we're even at a point where such things can be discussed".

This.

a reply to: swanne


You're brilliant. Keep going.

originally posted by: verschickter

What´s your plan on validating all your assumptions, if not with math?

Results from experiments such as XENON. Data should show collision depth consistent with particles with masses of about 13,400 MeV. Additionally, future observations should find that dark matter particles would have interaction radius smaller than normal particles.

Then again, if you are that certain your model fits reality, why would you come to ATS.

ATS is my family, mate. ATS changed my life, so I return the favour by contributing thought-provoking content.

I understand you want to enlighten us all but it´s a gullible crowd in terms of real science, when you choose a conspiracy board for your viewers.

That is such an insulting thing to say about ATS members. This site is actually full of high-IQ members and people who, instead of following pre-determined dogmas, are ready to use their brains and think outside of the box.

Why not take the balls and post it on a real science forum and ask for their opinion.

You think I haven't tried that already? The majority of online physics forum does not accept posting of new, original thoughts; they usually encourage duscussion of more accepted and well-established models (such as GR and QM) instead.

originally posted by: swanne

I understand you want to enlighten us all but it´s a gullible crowd in terms of real science, when you choose a conspiracy board for your viewers.

That is such an insulting thing to say about ATS members. This site is actually full of high-IQ members and people who, instead of following pre-determined dogmas, are ready to use their brains and think outside of the box.

It was clear that you would go down this road, somehow. Trying to spin it like I said ATS as a whole is gullibe. You now exactly that´s not what I meant. But nice try. Going down the emotional road, attacking what you declared a couple lines above as your family.
Reactions to this post will show.

Cruel scientific community not hearing you on (the reason has been told multiple times to you)

originally posted by: verschickter

originally posted by: swanne

I understand you want to enlighten us all but it´s a gullible crowd in terms of real science, when you choose a conspiracy board for your viewers.

That is such an insulting thing to say about ATS members. This site is actually full of high-IQ members and people who, instead of following pre-determined dogmas, are ready to use their brains and think outside of the box.

It was clear that you would go down this road, somehow. Trying to spin it like I said ATS as a whole is gullibe. You now exactly that´s not what I meant. But nice try.

This is exactly what you are implying. As if "ATS is not good enough" for science stuff. Your whole post is implying it.

a reply to: swanne
Again, putting words in my mouth. I never said "ATS is not good enough". I said ATS is the wrong place to post a theory and get much valuable input. Maybe the right place for attention. Now you can spin this around again, if you want.

It paints a picture.

a reply to: TechniXcality
Exactly.

"I understand you want to enlighten us all but it´s a gullible crowd in terms of real science, when you choose a conspiracy board for your viewers."

I was saying it in general. ATS, that´s what he added.

Again, whats your second language? Ah I see..
Last post, this is getting ridiculous.

a reply to: geezlouise
Context my dear.
It was not ME saying the theory is worthless. It was me saying its hard to hear his theory is worthless, because that´s what bastion said.
Try reading the thread or at least the last two or three pages befor you call me names. Or at least, try reading the full post. Then you would have recognized this.

Thank you very much.
And don´t call me names.