I am so sorry to hear that you are leaving the thread with so many unanswered questions. Need I remind you of all of the questions, points, and issues that you have completely ignored:
1) Five deductive moves already made
2) Whether Einstein’s checkerboard representation of space-time is a model
3) The worth of the posted Einstein quote
4) The value of deduction in the evolution of scientific understanding
5) The value of the Ripalda paper’s convergent conclusions with the Dominium’s deductive conclusions
6) The merit of the blind prediction of an antimatter shield surrounding the galactic central black-hole and the subsequent ESA Integral news release outlining such a structure
I have been confused by your actions on this thread. Although you have voiced interest in the model that I am presenting, you have actually shown very little interest in discussing the model itself: the premises that were used, the conclusions that were drawn, or how that either relates to or jibes with what is naturally observed. Instead, you have only wanted to talk about theories to which you have special bias and fondness for. I’ve been tolerant of your road-blocks because silent readers might have similar questions. Besides, the musty old explanations require so many assumptions and contradictions their faults are easily viewed, especially when laid out next to the beautiful, streamlined, and simple Dominium explanations.
You gave the appearance of trying to lie out the fundamentals of your traditional old-school views:
The primary assumptions are a universe filled with homogeneous matter and follows the theory of general relativity.
the problem with your dissection of fundamentals is that there is nothing fundamental or categorical about it. There are actually multiple layers in your condensed simplification that pose more questions than they fill:1) Why did the Universe fill?
What is driving the filling? Why was there space between particles. Why did that space increase. From where was it filling? You’ll need an axiom
or two to account for this.1b) If the matter was coming from E=mc2, where’s the antimatter?
You’ll need some new postulates
to explain this.2) Homologous? Why?
What natural systems that are all the same stuff is homologous? Systems that self-assemble because of opposing characteristics ultimately appear homologous…but that works for the Dominium, not your bias-favorite explanation. Has there ever been a recorded explosion that is 100% homologous? Asymmetric would make sense…in order to get the system homologous (w/out self-assembly) you’ll need to add in a few extra hypotheses
to prop things up.3) general relativity
Is this where all the needed postulates, axioms, and hypotheses are hidden… or does this itself possess its own individual assumptions
? It has it's own host of assumptions
, doesn't it?
Sorry Modest, but just because you squeezed all of your necessary assumptions, axioms, and hypotheses down to one sentence does not mean that you have just one postulate.
Hmm, I don’t think Great-Uncle Albert would be too happy. Remember what he said:
“The grand aim of all science is to cover the greatest number of empirical facts by logical deduction from the smallest number of hypotheses or axioms.
--Albert Einstein (1879-1955)
Comparing all the assumptions and axioms you actually made against those needed by new the Dominium, we see a stark difference. The steps made by the Dominium are verified by nature, accept the one central premise. No new questions are raised by these steps. And nothing appears in contradiction or violation with nature or accepted theorems. See the following:
1) E=mc2 leads to equal matter and antimatter -- known fact
2) Gravitational repulsion repels matter from antimatter only hypothetical
3) Gravitational attraction between like particles causes clumping known fact
4) Self-assembly occurs in mixtures possessing opposing characteristic that are in maximum chaos known fact
5) The result of self-assemble is a organized uniform distribution of alternating domains known phenomenon
6) Such a distribution lead to expansion deductive conclusion
Okay Modest, let us take inventory. Can you in six simple steps with only one hypothetical get from the Big Bang to expansion??? No you can’t, can you? You even said,
A full derivation from one to the other is beyond the scope of this thread
But didn’t you once describe Friedmann’s views to be “simple?” This is not a question for debate: either something is “simple” or it’s “beyond the scope” of being easily presented. It can’t be one way once and then another way again. But then again, you’ve tried to have it both ways in the past on this thread: one moment on the 18th post claiming that no sizable accumulation of antimatter exists in the Universe, then when faced with very recent ESA evidence, you flip-flop on the 22nd post and chastise me because you apparently knew about it before you were born—(an interesting concept.)
I find it comical that you make your exit by chastising me for “debate.” However, it was you who began a forum to debate by demanding that this thread stop presenting the Dominium model and instead consider your biased-preference Friedmann assumptions.
As far as the two questions you’ve demanded immediate response to, I actually can remember only one: why the antimatter accumulation exists shielding the galactic black-hole? Problem, again you ignore what I have stated. That is explained in Move 8, you have only allowed me to show five moves. To reach “8” we must pass through “6” and “7”. I already told you I would show that once we get to it… but again you ignore what’s been put in front of you on this thread.