Newest super-sensitive test failed to catch a Dark Matter particle. Why?

[theBorg]

Who knows? But the Dark Matter, being not the matter, is very useful for Science.

No it doesn't. General relativity doesn't have dark matter by itself. Black holes were a candidate but are now pretty unlikely to constitute the dark matter

You are just copying and pasting the information from text-books, and then adding unsupported "that's why theBorg is wrong." This is the fallacy.

[Jesster]

No it doesn't. General relativity doesn't have dark matter by itself. Black holes were a candidate but are now pretty unlikely to constitute the dark matter

You are just copying and pasting the information from text-books, and then adding unsupported "that's why theBorg is wrong." This is the fallacy.

Please name this fallacy

[Alex K]

You are just copying and pasting the information from text-books, and then adding unsupported "that's why theBorg is wrong." This is the fallacy.

Please name this fallacy

It's the rare "thinking that Alex hasn't published peer-reviewed articles on this very topic" fallacy

[Alex K]

I'm willing to bet we've already discovered dark matter in the 2 heavier quark types and the 3 anti-types found through particle collision....which rapidly evaporate or annihilate in our local space-time

Our local space-time/dimension patterns for the lightest type of matter quarks....so adding the 2 heavier types, plus their 3 anti-type = 6 total types, of which our is only one. 5 times more "dark matter" in the universe than our type. They are in other folds of space-time. 6 total. Same number that super string theory says must be folded up in our 3d space.

No, the heavier quarks all decay in fractions of a second, and it can't be antimatter because that's not dark and woud've been seen

[Arkilogue]

I'm willing to bet we've already discovered dark matter in the 2 heavier quark types and the 3 anti-types found through particle collision....which rapidly evaporate or annihilate in our local space-time

Our local space-time/dimension patterns for the lightest type of matter quarks....so adding the 2 heavier types, plus their 3 anti-type = 6 total types, of which our is only one.  5 times more "dark matter" in the universe than our type.  They are in other folds of space-time.  6 total.  Same number that super string theory says must be folded up in our 3d space.

No, the heavier quarks all decay in fractions of a second, and it can't be antimatter because that's not dark and woud've been seen

Yes, because we create them in an interior bend of space-time that does not support their density.

I'm saying you cannot have one type without all six types, like you don't get one color out of white light, you get all of them each time, in the same order. They are entangled from the beginning. You do not get one type of particle nor a binary super-symmetry of "dual" particles. There are 6.

Those are the super-strings we are looking for, they are not micro-knots in 3d space, they are macro containers of 3d space that interact as overlapping fields.

[Alex K]

No, the heavier quarks all decay in fractions of a second, and it can't be antimatter because that's not dark and woud've been seen

Yes, because we create them in an interior bend of space-time that does not support their density.

I'm saying you cannot have one type without all six types, like you don't get one color out of white light, you get all of them each time, in the same order. They are entangled from the beginning. You do not get one type of particle nor a binary super-symmetry of "dual" particles. There are 6.

Those are the super-strings we are looking for, they are not micro-knots in 3d space, they are macro containers of 3d space that interact as overlapping fields.

Wow, are you making this stuff up as you go???

[Arkilogue]

Yes, because we create them in an interior bend of space-time that does not support their density.

I'm saying you cannot have one type without all six types, like you don't get one color out of white light, you get all of them each time, in the same order.  They are entangled from the beginning. You do not get one type of particle nor a binary super-symmetry of "dual" particles. There are 6.

Those are the super-strings we are looking for, they are not micro-knots in 3d space, they are macro containers of 3d space that interact as overlapping fields.

Wow, are you making this stuff up as you go???

No, I'm following a 3d holographic map I've worked on for years that describes a supra-symmetric universe. Super-symmetry is binary and dualist, "for every right hand spin particle you need a let hand spin particle." That's not the only degree of freedom to need balancing.

Supra-symmetry is evident in the structure of the simplest atom: hydrogen - It has a large spherical component in the center with a smaller point like component flying around in a probability field making a larger sphere around the inner sphere. The inside is self similar to the outside. The above is like the below...radially. That is supra-symmetry.

Universal supra-symmetry divides the anti-matter side of the universe (top) from the matter side (bottom). How/why? Because the two regions have inverse relationships with the central point of the universe and the real outer periphery.

[LostLocke]

....the central point of the universe...

This should be interesting.

[Alex K]

Wow, are you making this stuff up as you go???

Super-symmetry is binary and dualist, "for every right hand spin particle you need a let hand spin particle." That's not the only degree of freedom to need balancing.

It's probably a waste of time to argue but - no, that's not what Supersymmetry is or means, that would be parity, and it's not a symmetry.

[Arkilogue]

....the central point of the universe...

This should be interesting.

By equal/opposite "Newtonian" reaction in a homogeneous infinite substance. Some of you may have missed it but the prior to inflation state I am working from is an infinite singularity, a quark matter ocean with no border forever in all directions. Universes are finite void bubbles in this infinite ocean of matter.

Relative to any space created, the substance moves "outward". Relative to itself, it is moving inward or contracting.
For the spatially relative outward movement there must be a counterbalancing inward movement, an inward contraction of the original substance.

The simplest description of this principle and 3d structure is this:

It's call the circumpunct, a very old symbol. Look it up if you are not familiar.


The space of the universe is between the two curved features. Look up the "curvaton"

---

Super-symmetry is binary and dualist, "for every right hand spin particle you need a let hand spin particle."  That's not the only degree of freedom to need balancing.

It's probably a waste of time to argue but - no, that's not what Supersymmetry is or means, that would be parity, and it's not a symmetry.

I'm all ears if you feel like sharing.