# The Dominium model by Hasanuddin

132 replies to this topic

### #1 Mr E

Mr E

Curious

• Members
• 4 posts

Posted 18 March 2009 - 01:23 PM

Moderation note: this post was moved from “Origin of the Universe,,,,Bang or no Bang” because it is not about the original thread’s subject of whether there was a Big Bang or not, but an alternative theory explaining the Big Bang.

Hi All,

Just to throw a curve ball, have you heard of the most recently advanced model for the birth of the Universe? For the sciencey types check out the articles at The Dominium

### #2 freeztar

freeztar

Pondering

• Members
• 8445 posts

Posted 18 March 2009 - 05:20 PM

It's an interesting read, but it's all speculation at this point. I'm not sure I buy the reasoning for why detectors have not found positrons in the solar wind. It's my understanding that the EM force between a positron and an electron would cause them to annihilate, which could be detected. Also, wasn't it shown with the Eötvös experiments that matter and antimatter are affected the same by gravity? Those seem to be pretty big holes in the theory if I'm understanding everything correctly.

### #3 CraigD

CraigD

Creating

• 8034 posts

Posted 18 March 2009 - 07:58 PM

I'm not sure I buy the reasoning for why detectors have not found positrons in the solar wind. It's my understanding that the EM force between a positron and an electron would cause them to annihilate, which could be detected.

I think you’re correct, freeztar. The attractive magnetic force between antiparticles follows the same force law as the suggested repulsive antigravitational force, but has about $10^{36}$ times the relative strength (it doesn’t much matter whether we’re talking about electron/positron or proton/antiproton pairs, as the ratio of mass of proton to electron is a much smaller about 1836).

In addition to these theoretical reasons, particle-antiparticle collisions are very commonly observed in particle accelerators. I don’t see how hypothetical antiparticles in the solar wind could behave much differently.

Also, wasn't it shown with the Eötvös experiments that matter and antimatter are affected the same by gravity?

“The antimatter gravity debate” section of the wikipedia article “Gravitational_interaction_of_antimatter” appears to have a good synopsis of this question. To summarize that synopsis, arguments that the Eötvös experiment proves that antimatter and matter are effected by gravity in the same way are inconclusive.

I’m hopeful that, CERN having be able to produce magenetically neutral, cold antihydrogen for several years, some of this very rare stuff will eventually be used to perform a straightforward test of the effect of gravity on antimatter: just dropping it in a vacuum chamber, and observing whether it annihilates with matter at the top or bottom wall of the chamber. Such an experiment would conclusively and compellingly answer this very old question, either supporting or entirely negating alternative theories like this thread’s “dominium model”.

Following references from the wikipedia link above, I find papers speculating about the key features of dominium model at least as early as 1979. I think the relative rarity of such speculation among knowledgably cosmologists, and a lack or urgency to perform the above mentioned antihydrogen experiment, are due to nearly all of them being nearly certain that antimatter doesn’t exhibit antigravity.

Among the arguments against antimatter antigravity presented in the wikipedia article above, I find this one neat and compelling: since the force of gravity between particles that are not their own antiparticles (eg: protons) and those that are (eg: photons) is always attractive, if the gravity between particles and antiparticles is repulsive, would photons be attracted or repelled by antimatter? If so, why?

### #4 Mr E

Mr E

Curious

• Members
• 4 posts

Posted 19 March 2009 - 12:37 PM

Hmm,

I'm not sure where to begin. I thought the model and the concepts brought up in the articles by Hasanuddin were interesting also. Actually, I've been following a debate that he's been having with some intense folks on a different forum. His arguments are pretty convincing. Now I feel kind'a bad bringing it up, because it feels like we're talking behind someone's back. I wonder if he'd answer himself if I told him about this discussion? There's only one way to find out.

### #5 Hasanuddin

Hasanuddin

Questioning

• Members
• 163 posts

Posted 19 March 2009 - 04:26 PM

Hello Folks and thank you Mr E for the invitation,

My name is Hasanuddin and I am the author of the Dominium model. Although I’m starting to feel a little stretched, I am impressed by the caliber of the comments that have hit this thread.

I’m actually glad to hear that others are inspired to talk about the model I am advancing, I only wish Mr E had tried his hand at defending it. Though no concrete arguments have been levied against the new model; no data has been shown to be anomalous to its assertions; and multiple previously unexplainable verifiable phenomena are both predicted and explained by the new model … only when people other than myself start defending it can it be considered matured. (I know, I know, the claims of the last sentence might seem a bit premature to this thread… but give me time and I will supply the justifications.)

I will respond to freeztar and CraigD separately and in a moment. Please wait just a moment or two.

### #6 Hasanuddin

Hasanuddin

Questioning

• Members
• 163 posts

Posted 19 March 2009 - 05:19 PM

Dear freeztar,

I have several points to make. First, I’m wondering if you read the thread at the above link starting with thread #3 or thread #1? No offense; I am serious, that site was poorly designed. If you read thread #3 first, then I totally understand your confusion regarding the solar wind. In threads #1, it is firmly established that gravitational stability is the primary driver of all systems at absolute chaos, i.e., particles of mixed charge and mixed antimatter/matter. Because of gravitational repulsion self-assembly will occur segregating regions into the different matter types (regions of matter vs. regions of antimatter.) Once primary stability/sorting has been achieved then gravity loses its prominence and secondary and tertiary forms of stability can be sought. For the solar wind, gravitational stability was achieved long before reaching the Earth. Therefore, there is no chance that the positrons driving the solar wind will mix with the electrons and matter-based ions being driven. Also, because gravitational affects space-time at very large distances, the positron drivers will be deflected away from large matter-based satellites long before they are even close. Therefore, there is no chance that WIND or SWEPAM could ever detect these positrons, which they haven’t.

Actually, the absence of positrons from the titer of collected particles from the Sun is, in fact, a hugely interesting statistic. We know that the Sun’s fusion is a giant positron generator, we “believe” the solar wind is just solar material randomly scooped of the surface by “the vacuum of space” (though no-one has every provided a concrete mechanism how this happens.) So why haven’t we found positrons in the solar wind?? That is a really big question. After all these years of monitoring, why none?

As far as these “Eotvos Experiments,” I’d really like to see a much better source than Wikipedia. That site is cool for finding the highest mountain in Peru, but when it comes to things that people are passionate about (scientific theory, the Holocaust & other massacres, and politics) that site seems to be too easily manipulated for propaganda purposes. According to Holcheiter/Charlton “Ultra low energy antihydrogen” (1999) Rep Prog Phys we don’t know of the gravitational interactions between matter and antimatter because of the masking effects imparted by the very strong electric and magnetic fields used to contain and manipulate antimatter. This was further backed up by Bromly, Lima, Laricchia “On the XIIIth international workshop on low-energy e+ and Ps physics” (2006) J.of Physics Conference Series Sorry, but please tell me what journal Eotvos is in; or if its in Arxiv queue. As far as I know there is no conclusive study one way or another.

### #7 Hasanuddin

Hasanuddin

Questioning

• Members
• 163 posts

Posted 19 March 2009 - 06:42 PM

Last but not least, to reply to CraigD

You say:

particle-antiparticle collisions are very commonly observed in particle accelerators. I don’t see how hypothetical antiparticles in the solar wind could behave much differently.

Please pause. Can you not see that one case is artificial and one case is natural? Accelerators are designed to focus the beams to collide. Whereas in the case of the solar wind, we are dealing with a natural system where particles came move wherever. I do not see how these two things can be considered comparible.

Eotvos revisited—I’m glad to see that you read this study as inconclusive.

I agree with you for the need for a test to conclusively find the gravitational relationship between matter and antimatter—I agree, that is the only rational way to proceed forward in science, with evidence. …And then I am dismayed by the next paragraph justifying the lack of exploration to determine the exact nature of gravitational interaction between matter and antimatter, where you say, “nearly all (scientists) being nearly certain that antimatter doesn’t exhibit antigravity.” Certainty w/out proof is not a scientific path. I know it’s one that many people take, but it is not warranted when studying the unknown. I’ll give you a bunch of good reasons why this fundamental question needs to be categorically answered and no longer glossed over: the evidentiary anomalies, for example, the solar wind, antimatter cloud surrounding the galactic center, the supermassive black-hole at the galactic center, apparent “absence” of all antimatter, increasing expansion, uniform mass distribution, flat event horizon, and on, and on. Scientists who are “certain” that they are on the correct foundational footings are ignoring the annoying contradictions posed by the evidentiary anomalies. None of these phenomena are easily answered w/out a separate theory w/ a separate set of assumptions of their own, e.g, the vacuum of space argument (w/out a mechanism) for the solar wind. If the current assumptions were perfect, we should not have so many anomalies. The Dominium model provides answers for all of these and more with only one hypothetical premise: gravitational repulsion.

PS: You are right about these fundamentals of the Dominium being around since 1979 (though I have no idea who to give attribution, I lost my notes in a move and haven’t been able to find the original articles again in the library…please tell me who they were, if you know…I have felt awful that they haven’t been given credit.) This model started off as a letter to an MIT acquaintance who, to my surprise & gall, had never heard of them (his “specialty” is the inflection point in Hubble Expansion.) I used the deductive method in that letter, and that analysis expanded rapidly into the Dominium model.

In answer to the last point you brought up, as far as the probable relationship between photons and antimatter, the answer I would give is attraction:
1: We know that photons are the antiparticles of themselves; we know photons are attracted to matter; therefore, protons would also be attracted to antimatter because being a “between-species” they have as much in common with matter as they do with antimatter, therefore would be influenced similarly.
2: Both matter and antimatter warp space-time, photons are attracted to things that warp space-time, therefore, photons will be attracted to antimatter.
3: Finally, one of the implications deep w/in the Dominium model is that before the first light of CMB, micro black-holes (MBH) were created inside of embryonic galaxies of an opposite type the the galaxy itself. So, for the Milky Way, the type of MBH produced would have been antimatter-based (AMBH). Because of asymmetric geometries most of the AMBH from our galaxy would have been purged, as would have been the case for MMBH produced in mirror galaxies based on antimatter. However, both types of material would have been purged at a time after considerable expansion had already taken place. Both types, the model asserts, are still on-route to the nearest like-type galaxy, which means that today they are all located somewhere between galaxies. This perfectly matches the gravitational readings of what has been referred to as "dark matter." Because these readings are based on objects attracting photons gravitationally, therefore this observation and the Dominium assertion are consistent with the notion that photons are attracted to gravitational influences of antimatter.

### #8 Hasanuddin

Hasanuddin

Questioning

• Members
• 163 posts

Posted 24 March 2009 - 04:37 AM

Well, I was expecting more of a debate. Let me see if I can give fuel for a debate. Unless anyone wishes to stop and object to a move that I make, for the next couple days I will slowly unfold the new model on this forum. The methodology is simple formal deduction. Premises will be identified that are 100% categorically true, and from these conclusions will be drawn that necessarily follow and are therefore, 100% correct (this is the fundamental understanding of the deductive process.)

Let's begin:

Move #1:

A: The Big Bang was the moment in time when All particles of the Universe were at their absolute closest to each other

B: Gravitational relationships are at an inverse square relation between force and distance

Therefore
if matter and antimatter repel, then affects/effect would strongest during the beginning moments of the Big Bang.

Supporting evidence behind the premises:
1. Electric charge (the other “big,” known, and understood field force) exponentially increases in magnitude when place at decreasing distances.

2. Initial stages of the Big Bang coincides with the time when distances between particles were closest together

### #9 freeztar

freeztar

Pondering

• Members
• 8445 posts

Posted 24 March 2009 - 07:03 PM

Well, I was expecting more of a debate.

I haven't forgot about this thread. I, personally, not having very much formal training in theoretical physics, need a good bit of time to dig into this, research, and post a reasonable response/objection. I'll try to form a response to your response to me above within the next day or two, if time permits.

FWIW, your last post seems completely reasonable to me.

### #10 belovelife

belovelife

psionicist - preserver lv.143

• Members
• 1397 posts

Posted 24 March 2009 - 07:41 PM

interesting.....
need to digest

### #11 Hasanuddin

Hasanuddin

Questioning

• Members
• 163 posts

Posted 26 March 2009 - 03:47 AM

MOVE 2:

1: Undeniable premise: When matter and antimatter happen to be in the same place at the same time then they will always annihilate with one another

2: Established premise: equal amounts of matter and antimatter will be produced in the initial moments of the Big Bang

Putting these two premises against one another presents quite a quandary. If matter and antimatter collide, then they disappear out of existence. However, one thing we know for sure is that matter has persisted…on Earth. Therefore, any solution must allow for matter to exist on Earth in the absence of antimatter. However, before pondering the solution, one must consider the initial conditions:

The two test hypotheses lead to only two possible conclusions: either gravitational repulsion (GR) discourages annihilation, or the popular-bias "universal attraction" (UA) enhances occurrence of annihilation. The longterm affects of either hypothesis can be calculated using statistical functions commonly applied to genetic populations. Consider an annihilation event to be synonymous with a lethal heterozygote:

Test of the popular-bias hypothesis: The force orientation of UA increases the propensity for the heterozygote to be produced… in this case, the statistical solution indicates that over time the heterozygote is favored. Whenever there is a genetic lethal heterozygous phenotype, where heterozygous mating is favored: the condition always leads to system collapse. The decline curves of all phenotypes are predictably asymptotic, therefore annihilation would be predicted to be occurring at lesser and lesser rates infinitely into the future. Therefore, such events should be visible and detectable in sky. But this is not seen. Quite the contrary, NO evidence of annihilation events ever occurring can be found, even in the oldest sections of the cosmologic data. Therefore, popular bias of UA produces a mismatch w/ what is naturally observed.

Oppositely, the force, GR, reduces the propensity for the heterozygote. This is a completely different condition, a type very well documented throughout nature. In this case the “deterrent” against a heterozygous mating is this test-hypothesis’ proposition: GR. Whether you’re talking about solutions reaching equilibrium or biological system achieving stasis, the process works the same. Whenever there is a deterrent against the heterozygote, an equilibrium translates into a division that eventually forms between groups that are 100% of one homozygous intermarrying phenotype, separated from other groupings of oppositely homozygous & intermarrying individuals. Therefore, this path predicts that stasis will be reached where there are clumpings of monocultures.

Our Earth matches such a description: stable all-matter object—a matter-monoculture. But, this observation only half matches the test-hypothesis; it also predicts monocultures of antimatter to exist elsewhere in the Universe. How can we, via direct sampling, collect material from “elsewhere in the Universe?” …Impossible. The Earth does exist as a virtually all matter object; that is undeniable. However, we have no ability to directly sample distant galaxies, therefore, that only half of this conclusion is completely verified—most importantly, no aspect of nature appears to be contrary to the Dominium premise; & the 2nd time nature contradicts the popular-bias UA conclusions.

### #12 Hasanuddin

Hasanuddin

Questioning

• Members
• 163 posts

Posted 28 March 2009 - 06:41 AM

Move number 3-three.

Using the Hubble space telescope we can observe far back into the cosmologic record. However, we cannot see the first hundred thousand years or so of the development of the Universe. We could not “see” the galaxies until particles reached the magic temperature of 3000ºK. Only at this temperature can protons and electrons combine and form hydrogen, and release the first photons of light. However, one starling observation is that, except for a very small number of exceptions, galaxies tend to accelerate away from each other. In other words, the process of galaxy building seemed to cease after a certain time period, but before the advent of the first visible light.

Which test hypothesis possesses paths that lead to conclusions that match this natural observation? Again, for the third time, the notion of gravitational repulsion produces conclusions closest to nature:

Test of the Dominium premise (gravitational repulsion between matter and antimatter
As already established, gravitational repulsion between matter and antimatter will deter and discourage annihilation events. As the repulsion process continues to segregate regions of matter from regions of antimatter, gravitational attraction w/in each region will cause like-type particles to aggregate. As these clumps grow they will function as point sources of gravitational interaction—imposing attraction vectors on like-type neighbors and repulsion vectors on opposite type ones. Such a system is extremely similar to highly mixed mixtures employed by nanotechnologists that predictably go through the process of self-assembly—a natural phenomenon where highly chaotic systems naturally move to a more ordered configuration to achieve stability. Using atomic/nano self-assemblage as a predictive model on would expect a type of patterned positioning similar to that, which has been produced in the lab. One such configuration involves alternate positioning as is seen in ionic crystals. Such a configuration necessitates a system that has a huge degree of order in terms of the distribution, size, and positioning or its components. Therefore, when applied to the developing Universe one could conclude that every other galaxy is made of antimatter. Furthermore, because all of the closest neighboring galaxies are predicted to be of opposite-type, therefore there would be a continuous (yet decreasing over time) force of repulsion and subsequent acceleration apart.

Check to Nature: Triple match

1st: It almost goes without saying that the Earth is an all-matter object in what appears to be an all-matter galaxy
2nd: The observed Universe is incredibly evenly distributed, exactly like a system that was self-assembled
3rd: Verifiable observation of the expansion of the Universe shows that the rate of expansion is a continuous, yet decreasing, positive acceleration

Test of the popular-bias assumption of universal attraction
What about universal attraction? How would that have effected development? The first major difference is that one would not expect the basic boundaries of the Universe to be defined. Annihilation events would be a random and continuous occurrence (the mismatch mentioned in Move #2.) With no boundary mechanism, no counter-balance of forces to initiate self-assembly, and a supposed asymmetry of decay, the distribution of mass should not be uniform. If all galaxies are attractive of one another, then what would prevents random super-giants or dwarfs forming?…nothing. Therefore, asymmetry in the distribution of mass is expected. Also, if all galaxies experience attraction with their closest neighbor, then some areas of the Universe should be in a state of collapse

Check to Nature: Triple Mismatch

1st: No annihilation events appear in the visible record. No antimatter appears to exist in our solar system.
2nd: Given statistical randomness, no areas of the Universe possessing any mega-mega galaxies. Rather the most amazing aspect about observations of mass distribution throughout the Universe is the uncanny amount of evenness.
3rd: No areas of the Universe appear to be contracting

On three levels the predictions of a system where gravitational repulsion exists between matter and antimatter is matched. Those same natural observations are in contradiction to what one would expect under popular-bias conditions of universal attraction.

PS To all those viewing:
Debate is welcome at any time. If I use a premise that does not seem categorical or if I make a conclusion that does not seem to necessarily follow, please stop me and call me on it. I will be happy to clarify any confusion that arise.

### #13 Hasanuddin

Hasanuddin

Questioning

• Members
• 163 posts

Posted 29 March 2009 - 01:55 PM

Although no-one has bothered to challenge the assertions of the Dominium model since the original launch of this thread, I am glad that the counter showing the number of views steadily rises. What this tells me is that folks are interested in the topics being presented on this thread, but they choose to passively read, assess, and hold judgment until they’ve digested the ramifications of this new model more thoroughly. Such a reaction would be completely understandable. Perhaps this next move will draw comments (because it is not part of the deductive flow, but is more connected to a very familiar graphic descriptive tool used by Einstein… only slighty augmented to fit the Dominium premise of gravitational repulsion.) By the way, if you are reading this, even if you don’t have anything to comment on, please tell others about what is being disclosed here and now.

Move #4
Einstein’s Graphic: the Checkerboard of Space-time

At this point let me pause, and change gears a little. I want to tell you a little vignette. The following is from a different game, not Deduction. Rather, this is a scientific role-playing game. The idea is that you take some other scientist’s model, metaphor, analogy, etc, and then try to meld it into your own application. Kind’a like a Borg assimilation (sorry I’m showing my age.) This Compatibility analysis will be between the Einstein’s checkerboard of space-time and its fit into Dominium implications.

The checkerboard graphic is so wellknown; it is almost cliché. Objects composed of matter cause the fabric of space-time to “buckle” under their gravitational presence. Gravitational attraction is shown like two cannonballs on a stretched sheet always coming together. For the Dominium model, this graphic becomes “perfect” with one minor alteration. For the sake of argument, antimatter causes space-time to buckle-up, rather than buckle-down. Just as in the cannonball demo, two buckle-up antiparticles would feel gravitational attraction among other antiparticles. Also consider placing a buckle-up next to a buckle down. Would there be an attraction?… no, quite the opposite, the most likely force given this configuration would be a repulsion. Also, using this graphic you can imagine how annihilation might occur. Consider it, a buckle up distorting particle occupying the same space as a buckle down particle. Unless space can tear, two particles could not exist simultaneously trying to warp space-time in opposite manners. Einstein’s graphic description of space-time being like a checkerboard fabric meshed perfectly with the Dominium model projections. With one minor “addition” (antimatter considered to exert a buckle-up effect,) this new understanding can now graphically shown gravitational repulsion AND graphically gives window into the reasoning behind annihilation events.

Einstein originally described this graphic as a sheet stretched tight with two cannonballs placed on it. No matter where the two are placed, they always roll together: hence, a description of like particles gravitationally attracting one another. Now consider one cannonball on the stretched sheet and someone crawls under the sheet and pokes a broom handle from below up into the sheet; no matter where this would be done, the cannonball would roll away.

The broom and cannonball cannot occupy the same place at the same time without tearing the sheet. Hence, annihilation.

Another answer that comes from the new&improved checkerboard graphic is an explanation for the flatness of both space-time and mass distribution. Consider this graphic on a much larger scale, where the particles under analysis are individual galaxies. The Dominium predicts self-assembly and therefore alternating galaxies, matter neighboring antimatter and antimatter neighboring matter, and so on, but not mixing. Consider that picture. Alternating galaxies, one buckle-up next to buckle down out infinitely in all directions. Because of the alternative pattern, roughly, if not exactly, half would be comprised of matter and half antimatter. Also, the degree of warp would appear to be even. Hence, measurements from a place like Earth would show uniformity in mass distribution and a flat event horizon.

### #14 buddyzen

buddyzen

Questioning

• Members
• 124 posts

Posted 30 March 2009 - 09:17 AM

In my opinion i think that Alexander would be best at answering to this post =)

### #15 modest

modest

Creating

• Members
• 4959 posts

Posted 31 March 2009 - 02:09 PM

Hello Hasanuddin, this really is a fascinating subject. I've sometimes wondered just what General Relativity expects of antimatter. If we take a feynman diagram rather literally and say that an antiparticle is a normal particle moving backwards in time then perhaps this has some analog in general relativity.

There are physicists who have theorized along those lines and they have proposed some of the same things you are proposing such as cosmic acceleration and flatness resulting from an abundance of antimatter. Here are a couple good papers I've seen on the topic:

I've read your comments in this thread, but nothing else about your model. I'm wondering how it compares to the papers above. I'm also curious what your thinking is on the topic of neutrinos detected from the 1987 supernova. Many would take that observation as strong evidence for the equivalence of matter / antimatter gravitational attraction. Would you suggest that all of the detections were either neutrinos or antineutrinos, or some other explanation?

In any case, welcome to the forum and thanks for some very interesting reading.

~modest

### #16 Hasanuddin

Hasanuddin

Questioning

• Members
• 163 posts

Posted 31 March 2009 - 04:08 PM

Dear Modest,

Your screen-name couldn’t be any more appropriate. I must admit that I am literally “blown away” by the links you provided, esp. the first. (Sorry about the slang but whenever my emotions are stirred I seem to revert to the surfer lingo of my youth.) I must say, I have never seen any of these papers before. The 1st Ripalda paper especially excites me. Up until today, I have tried very hard to hold off from giving an absolute assessment concerning General Relativity, string theory, or a number of other applications. The reason is simple, if the Dominium model is correct, then some preexisting models will be necessarily incorrect, depending on whether or not they rely on a cornerstone of “universal attraction.”

There is also another reason that I hold my tongue: because I realize my own ignorance in those fields. My strength and training come from analyzing complex and poorly understood systems. The methodology used to construct the Dominium model is the ancient (though just as good now as it was centuries ago) syllogistic deductive method. Although the deductive method was applied to all aspects of nature early on, until recently has there been enough verifiable data to be able to formulate categorical premises accurately. Also, I believe very strongly that the wisest of people are those who know where they are ignorant; and the greatest of scientists are those who know what is verified by evidence and what is only propped up with assumption. I try very hard to reserve judgment when I do not yet possess the tools to judge.

I have also held my tongue about General Relativity because I “know” that if the Dominium is correct then necessarily there will be a way to prove its conclusions mathematically… so long as the math is conducted correctly. Honestly, I was hoping that either General Relativity, or some other application of math, would come along and confirm the Dominium predictions/conclusions.

I can’t tell you how delighted I am to have read your post and then read those papers. No, I’m not saying that those papers are necessarily correct; but it warms my heart that someone else reached the same conclusions using completely different methodology. It is easily the best news I have read in ages. I could tell this was a darn good forum after reading the first comments!

As far as Supernova 1987 is concerned, I know of that event quite well. It was one of the first places that people strongly considered gravitational repulsion. However, folks entrenched in theories based on “universal attraction” jumped on that topic and published papers slamming the idea. Their main methodology was an oversimplified proof, where the entire Universe was ignored (except our solar system.) In this oversimplified view, they calculated that the separation would be “months” apart rather than the recorded 12 sec. The problem with this reasoning is that the calculation could have been wrong simply because of the oversimplified conditions considered, but not because gravitational repulsion is incorrect. Besides, nothing in any of the papers published to diminish the importance of Supernova 1987 can diminish the actual statistical significance of a 12 sec gap between peaks of neutrinos vs antineutrinos. To be all honest, knowledge of Supernova 1987 was one of the first evidentiary “anomalies” that made me consider alternate possibilities, like gravitational repulsion.

(PS: You say that you haven’t read the book, The Dominium, I published on this model… good, I guess. I must admit, had I not been in such a rush and had a chance to write it again I would have toned it down. The science, I wouldn’t have changed, but I wouldn’t have highlighted the potential dangers implicated by the new model as nearly as strongly as I did. You might enjoy the papers at The Dominium & stay tuned there’s at least 12 more moves to reach a complete and comprehensive model of the past, present, and future Universe… that is, if the deductive steps used are sound.)

### #17 Hasanuddin

Hasanuddin

Questioning

• Members
• 163 posts

Posted 01 April 2009 - 04:55 PM

Thank you again Modest, in gratitude I will move on

Move 5
As already mentioned, the observed dynamic of the Universe is semi-static state, therefore suggesting equilibrium. The notion of stability on Earth is engrained in our language, “solid as a rock,” “terra-firma,” “bedrock,” etc. The idea that the particles that now make up the Earth once joined-in as part of that Big Bang seems quite distant. Yet they had to be players … but think of the conditions that they MUST have come from! Initially it would have been impossible for them to have clump together because they were formed completely randomly. During these times, none of the particles in existence were “secure.” All particles ran the risk of slamming into its antiparticle, therefore flashing out of existence. Compare those conditions that necessarily existed to those at hold today. The Dominium asserts that the boundary between these two periods was an equilibrium that involved a self-sorting of particles into clumps. Self-assembly is a well-studied principle where a system naturally chooses to move from a state of chaos to a more patterned and ordered condition. Nanotechnologists use the predictable aspects of self-assembly as a key driver in their engineering exploration.

If proto-galaxy clusters (referred to as dominia) can be considered to be individual particles, then the game becomes very interesting. If every dominium where considered to be either matter-dominant or antimatter-dominant, then the assembled matrix of dominial-particles would be exerting dueling attractive and repulsive forces against and between neighbors. Initial orientation of objects would have been completely random. As a direct result some of the vectors between neighbors would be especially strong, while some would be weak. During this stage of development like-type dominial neighbors would quickly merge. However, this growth stage was short-lived because of the subsequent/similar growth of neighboring opposite-typed dominia, between which there is a continual state of repulsion. Eventually all of the dominia become walled-off by opposite-typed neighbors, and the growth phase is over. (this was est Moves 1-3) There is no reason to believe that speed of and duration of growth would differ between dominia. Therefore, one can conclude with high certainty that boundary formation occurred near simultaneously around the Universe.

From the visible cosmologic record, the Universe already was in the early stages of an established equilibrium. Therefore, the division of matter from antimatter must have occurred before the advent of light. From now on, for the purpose of this thread, that moment, when the boundaries between matter and antimatter are first established, shall be called the “Dark Event.” The reason for the special name is because more than just the boundaries of immiscibility become established, but some necessarily profound events deductively must have occurred once those boundaries were established.

First, remember that we are considering a three-dimensional matrix of particles, at the earliest moments complete randomness. Then self-assembly begins causing particles to clump. In many respects the self-assemblage process is very similar to watching a highly shaken bottle of shampoo to reorganize itself. Although the boundary between gaseous air and liquid shampoo is defined very early on, the process begins with air underrepresented and trapped within the liquid shampoo, correct? For the sake of this illustration, we are going to assume that another exact condition could occur where trapped and underrepresented drops of liquid shampoo are suspended in gaseous air. These are the conditions of the protogalaxies/dominia at this earliest stage of development.

Let’s just do a deductive reality check between our two test hypotheses. Ok, if in the randomness areas of predominantly matter is established, though there still are bubbles of antimatter mixed in. Under the popular-bias universal attraction (UA) theory, the bubbles of antimatter would have been attracted to matter & annihilate. The curve of “consumption” of these internal antiparticles would be asymptotic based on probabilities of random future occurrences (see moves 1-3.) Again, the popular-bias UA mismatches nature. An asymptotic relationship implies that it goes on infinitely, therefore, there should be record of an annihilation event occurring in today's sky—yet there is none. Also UA between all particles would favor total collapse/annihilation of all particles, but the fact that the Earth exists mismatches that prediction.

Again the Dominium premise leads to conclusions matching nature. If the surrounding bubbles were actively repelling the matrix of the shampoo walls then once boundaries were formed, these boundaries would be permanent separations, i.e., the two types of mass would be immiscible w/ one another. An area of “void” would form between them. Once boundaries are firmly established, neither population (matter/antimatter) could lose any more mass through an accidental annihilation. Also following directly is that the cosmologic record would have no cases of annihilation—this does Match the natural record. Also, the physical presence of small immiscible populations of antimatter micelles w/in a proto matter galaxy, such as our own, would act as a deterrent against overall galaxy collapse. This time, the fact that the Earth exists matches the deductive predictions