Jump to content


Photo
- - - - -

The Dominium model by Hasanuddin


  • Please log in to reply
132 replies to this topic

#120 Moontanman

Moontanman

    Unobtainium...

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 9029 posts

Posted 30 June 2009 - 01:27 PM

If your idea of antimatter repelling matter gravitationally is proven to be wrong by experiments that will hopefully be done in the next few years would this totally negate your idea? While I do not claim any expertise in this field I have often considered the possibility of repulsion between the two. The idea does seem to be intuitively sound.

Another thing I would like to ask but do not want to hijack your thread to do so is this. does Mirror Matter figure into your hypothesis in any way? I have communicated with Dr. Foot, a leading proponent of Mirror Matter about ways to detect the presence of Mirror Matter on the earth. He seems to be caught in a similar snafu with Mirror Matter. Since it has not been detected it would seem to be just another hypothesis but some experiments have suggested it's presence. Does your idea have any bearing on Mirror Matter?

#121 Hasanuddin

Hasanuddin

    Questioning

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 163 posts

Posted 01 July 2009 - 07:57 AM

Hi Moontanman,

Yes, is the straightforward answer to your question

If your idea of antimatter repelling matter gravitationally is proven to be wrong by experiments that will hopefully be done in the next few years would this totally negate your idea?

If the AEGIS project categorically shows that matter and antimatter gravitationally attract, then game over. I’ll collect my marbles and leave the playground. The Dominium model is a falsifiable construct. The central premise is its cornerstone, dislodge that and everything falls.

There are two other outcomes that could come out of AEGIS, and/or other current experiments seeking to discover the gravitational relationship between matter and antimatter:

2: Gravitational repulsion is indicated. Although this outcome wouldn’t “prove” the entire model… it would go a long way in that direction & certainly it would change many minds/opinions.

3: Inconclusive results. This is the most dreaded of outcomes. Honestly, I’m getting tired of the uncertainty. Margins of error could easily be so wide that nothing significant is shown. That would be a much bigger disappointment than having the model negated. Showing the actual relationship between matter and antimatter (even at the expense of the Dominium) would be a scientific advancement. Inconclusive results would mean essentially nothing. Therefore my fingers are crossed that something tangible/significant results.

As far as your 2nd question is concerned the simple answer is “no.”

Another thing I would like to ask but do not want to hijack your thread to do so is this. does Mirror Matter figure into your hypothesis in any way?

I like this question because it highlights one of the most compelling aspects of the Dominium model. This model requires no never-before-measured exotic “things” to make the deductive conclusions flow to match the empirically known physical world. I’ve called such devices in many popular theories “djinnis” because like a djinni, such devices magically solve problems & sticking points (paradoxes) between theory and actual data; and like djinnis, their magic is often too good to be real. The Dominium requires no new form of exotic energy, no branes, no extra dimensions, … none of that stuff. The only thing required for the Dominium model to deductively flow is that matter and antimatter gravitationally repel… which cycles back to your first question and potential tests of that hypothesis.

BTW: I find it absolutely amazing that we’ve come this far as a scientific community collective and a question as fundamental as the gravitational relationship between matter and antimatter has been left unanswered. Even more amazing than that is that until recently most folks within the scientific community seemed unaware of this hole in our understanding.

#122 CraigD

CraigD

    Creating

  • Administrators
  • 8034 posts

Posted 01 July 2009 - 03:53 PM

If your idea of antimatter repelling matter gravitationally is proven to be wrong by experiments that will hopefully be done in the next few years would this totally negate your idea?

If the AEGIS project categorically shows that matter and antimatter gravitationally attract, then game over. I’ll collect my marbles and leave the playground. The Dominium model is a falsifiable construct. The central premise is its cornerstone, dislodge that and everything falls.

Its falsifiability is an important feature, as, IMHO, it makes the Dominium model scientific, regardless of any criticism of it. :thumbs_up

It’s also fortunate that the model is being discussed at the same time that the first time in the roughly 80 years that antimatter has been known to science, experiments to directly and unambiguously test its central premise – that antimatter and matter are gravitationally repulsive – is possible, and nearing completion by the AEgIS collaboration.

There are two other outcomes that could come out of AEGIS, and/or other current experiments seeking to discover the gravitational relationship between matter and antimatter…

I think Hasanuddin’s list is too small, missing a major class of possible result - the one, in fact, on which much of the effort of the experiment’s design and engineering is focused (begging pardon for the physics experimentalist pun):

4: Gravitational attraction is observed, but with a lower apparent gravitational constant ([math]G[/math]) that observed for matter-to-matter attraction.

The planned AEgIS experiment should be able to detect variations in [math]G[/math] of about 1%.

My guess is that it’ll reveal either outcome #1 - No difference in [math]G[/math], or #4 – A very small reduction in [math]G[/math].

If outcome #4 is observed, an explanation might be that antimatter and matter gravitationally repel, but only for particles that are distinguishable from their antiparticles – that is, in conventional particle physics terms, for fundamental particles what are not their own antiparticles. If this is the case, then for the reasons I discussed in post #63, the observed value of [math]G[/math] should be about 97.3% of usual, a difference that should be detectable by the experiment.

3: Inconclusive results. This is the most dreaded of outcomes.

Margins of error could easily be so wide that nothing significant is shown.

I don’t believe we need worry about this outcome, because CERN’s antihydrogen production ability has become very reliable, and its instrumentation is simple, reliable, and accurate to its stated precision. As with any gravitational deflection experiment involving very small particles, the major threats to this experiment appears to be uncontrolled charge, because the electromagnetic interaction of the particles involved are so much stronger than their gravitational. A failure of the experiment’s beam to consist of neutral antihydrogen, but instead contain many ions, would ruin it.

Honestly, I’m getting tired of the uncertainty.

I can’t think of anybody who likes large margins of error in experimental setups. The task for an experimentalist is to design experiments and build apparatus to minimize it - one of the most demanding jobs on Earth.

#123 Hasanuddin

Hasanuddin

    Questioning

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 163 posts

Posted 11 February 2010 - 05:10 PM

Hi again folks,

Results of LHC are being released with interesting implications for the Dominium Model. BBC News - High-energy Large Hadron Collider results published

Let us focus on the "surprises" because those are always the most important things when it comes to scientific inquiry.

According to a quote in this recent BBC article

The BBC said: "The level is somewhat higher than the most popular models had predicted, and it looks like it is going to increase with energy a little bit more steeply than we expected," said Gunther Roland, a CMS collaboration scientist from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology in the US.


Although "most popular models" did not predict much higher levels of collision that were actually observed, the Dominium model did make the prediction that matches this "anomalous" finding. The model prescribes that all gravitational interaction will balloon at very short distances. The model used this notion to explain past experimental evidence at LEP, where the machine had so few actual collisions that it only needed to be reloaded with its positron/electron accelerated bundles. LHC as opposite to all past accelerators (LEP, Tevatron, SLAC, etc) that accelerated some form of antimatter into a similar form of matter. The Dominium sees this as more than important, but crucial, opposite-opposite gravitational repulsion acting to decrease resulting energy of collision. The Dominium model explicitly predicts higher levels energy of collision in a matter2x collider, like LHC, because of like/like gravitational attraction coming into effect at extremely small distances.

The model would also project a steep increase in energies of collision as the collider ramps things up. The artile was unclear whether this steeper-than-expected increased resulting energies are being project by Dr Roland, or whether he was eluding to actual, but not yet released, observed trend. If that is the case, then it points to further support for the Dominium model.

Also, the Dominium model would make the same prediction as Dr Roland's approximation

The BBC said:the "extra" particles will be more of an issue when, later in 2010, the LHC dedicates itself to collisions involving ions of the element lead, a markedly heavier pair of targets resulting in an even larger array of particles on impact.

As mentioned, with that the Dominium model also concurs. The big question is what are the upper boundaries of physical stress levels. When that stress level is crossed, what is the outcome. No-one knows for certain because no human has ever crossed certain lines. Not even the Dominium model can ascertain where those levels actually are or what might be the consequence.

Although LHC has published its first results, let us remember that those results have produced "surprises." Please let it be duly noted that the Dominium model predicts these anomalous results, and that that prediction was made before these results were compiled and reported. Let it also be duly noted that one possible scenario of passing this physical stress level is the creation of a black-hole. Let it also be duly noted that the Dominium model predicts that black-hole material is the most stabile phase of matter; any sample created at a place like LHC would/could not be unmade. The Dominium also predicts the ability of even a micro-black-hole (MBH) would persist. The Dominium also predict the MBH, if formed, would be able to feed itself, and grow, under usual Earth conditions.

How many more times must it be that the Dominium model must explain the “anomalous” phenomena that baffle popular models until its challenge to status-quo popular, yet failing, models? If the Dominium projections for future higher energy collisions continue to ring true, will anyone begin to ask ethical, but expensive questions? Let it be perfectly clear, the Dominium model is not “against” the LHC experiment. No, the Dominium model is only indicating potential risks of cataclysmic mistake of advancing this program in its present form. The Dominium-based solution is to retool LHC to fire antiprotons into antiprotons. Being the same mass, charge, and angular moment as the protons currently being used, such a retooling would be almost as easy and the recalibrations necessary to make way for the proposed heavy-ion collisions.

The logic of the Dominium-solution is simple: If like/like interactions cause the formation of MBH, it’d better it be an antimatter-MBH (AMBH.) The Dominium predicts that fundamental gravitational relationships would be the same, though vastly enhanced compared to “known” solids…

Matter attracting Matter
Matter repelling Antimatter.

Therefore an AMBH would be repelled from its laboratory of creation. Therefore instead of consuming/accreting the laboratory, the Earth would repel the AMBH. Damage could still result (a whopper of an annihilation event as it ploughs through the ceiling/wall to escape the neighborhood of the Earth.

This form of moderation would:

• Allow LHC to continue to operate
• Scientific discovery would forge forward
• Possesses no danger of cataclysmic failure (as, unfortunately moving forward status quo possesses.)

PROBLEM: Money

Antiprotons are not “easy” to make, but they are incredibly expensive. Satus-quo stripping of atoms to make ions and protons is quite simple, hence, cheaper.

QUESTION: When was money a primary concern of research facilities like CERN? Actually, please don’t answer this rhetorical question; it’s partially a jest. Let us focus on science and ethics... but especially on the "surprising" results out of LHC that match Dominium projections while those same results are in conflict with projections based on past (antimatter/matter) particle accelerators

#124 Moontanman

Moontanman

    Unobtainium...

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 9029 posts

Posted 11 February 2010 - 07:26 PM

So you are saying that Hawking is wrong and black holes do not evaporate? If they create one the Earth will disappear in a blaze of gamma rays? I really hope you are wrong now, I was kinda pulling for you there for a while. Keep us appraised of what happens please.

#125 Hasanuddin

Hasanuddin

    Questioning

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 163 posts

Posted 12 February 2010 - 10:59 AM

The evidence keeps piling up in favor of the Dominium Model.

Personally, I think the main problem right now is communication. It feels like there is a class-imposed wall. You see, I’m outside of the inner circle of the ivory tower. I am not a working research scientist, theorist, gov’t official, nor even university employee. I am rarely ever the same room as any people of such professions. I'm just a lowly secondary school teacher who was trained at CERN, NASA, and MIT during summer-long enrichment educational workshops, seminars, and lectures given by the primary data collectors. The goal of those workshops was to train inner-city science teachers, like myself, the nuances of the founters of understandings. The goal was to inspire me with the current wonders of scientific exploration, so that I might inspire the thousands of future students I'd see in my career. The goal was never to have me contribute to the process of scientific understanding. Quite the contrary, the pursuit of science is not on an even playing field, as I had always idealistically considered. There is a huge culture divide between the scientist and that of the "common" man. In the world of academics and researchers, My existence, and any contribution my words might hold, is regarded as little more than bubbles in pond scum.

Your query into the compatibility between the Dominium and Hawking is exactly what I am talking about. Hawking has superstar status, true; but does that fact imply that he is omnisciently correct on all things. In fact, the line of reason used by those Hawking thoughts is not backed up by any evidence at all. Actually, the fallacy-based justification used for Hawking predictions is a lack of evidence; i.e., cosmic rays have never been observed to spontaneously create black-hole material. Unfortunately, this is a classic case of Argumentum Ignorantiam, basing a conclusion on the lack of evidence, rather than the presence of it. The “fact” that no cosmic rays have ever created a black-hole means only one thing: that black-holes do not become formed under conditions produced by cosmic rays. This does not preclude black-holes being formed by other means; nor does this lack of statistic lend support to any theoretical consideration outside the boundaries of cosmic ray events. We know, also, for a fact that black-holes must have formed, at some time, because they are verifiably observed to exist today. We know that some large stars go supernova and become black-hole, but that fact does not preclude the creation of smaller black-hole. Roughly, that is limits to what we know for sure—outside of those limits is unverified.

Here are some "interesting" links from the popular media. Bottomline: there is still much that we have to learn, there are many conditions outside of current capabilities, data is coming in via satelite and LHC (which, as mentioned supports the Dominium; next week I will report out a new NASA release showing how the Voyager mission has also recently produced strong new evidence--in the form of... yes... another "surprise" that conflicts with all popular models, but totally in synch with Dominium prediction)
Tiny Black Hole Found in Our Galaxy - Science News | Science & Technology | Technology News - FOXNews.com
SPACE.com -- Heavy Science: Astronomers Weigh Most Distant Known Black Hole


Juxtaposed Hawking’s unverified, unproven, and now “surprised” assumptions is polar opposite to the fact LHC has now succeeded in providing true evidence in favor of the Dominium model

Results of LHC are being released with interesting implications for the Dominium Model. BBC News - High-energy Large Hadron Collider results published


It appears to be that the truly big question is, how does this theory "get-legs" and become discussed and more broadly considered? If anyone has any ideas on how to expose the Dominium model to a larger audience, I’d be quite interested… post here, or just join hypography and send me a private message (best method) I don't mind copublishing and sharing the spotlight... all I really want is for the spotlight and scrutiny to be turned on the Dominium model itself.

#126 freeztar

freeztar

    Pondering

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 8445 posts

Posted 12 February 2010 - 01:11 PM

It appears to be that the truly big question is, how does this theory "get-legs" and become discussed and more broadly considered? If anyone has any ideas on how to expose the Dominium model to a larger audience, I’d be quite interested.


The language of physics is math. If you don't speak the same language as those you are communicating to then it is likely that they will not understand you.

Likewise, I don't find this "evidence" convincing.
It might be convincing if you had *predicted* that the first run of LHC would produce more particles than expected. A theory that does not have predictive power is not really a Theory.

#127 Hasanuddin

Hasanuddin

    Questioning

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 163 posts

Posted 12 February 2010 - 03:18 PM

Hello freeztar, have you missed me?

I agree wholeheartedly with your demand in the important of concrete evidence.

convincing if you had *predicted* that the first run of LHC would produce more particles than expected. A theory that does not have predictive power is not really a Theory.

Truth be known this prediction was made on March 16, 2009 on a different forum the Dominium analysis did predict the “anomalous” trend of much higher rates of luminosity.

In this entry the exact wording was as follows:
Scientific Concerns: Safety, Ethics, and Issues Board. • View topic - Quizzical/deductive analysis of Dominium premise

Another interesting observation from LEP
As you know, it accelerated positively charged antiparticles into negatively charged particles. Given that, it is noteworthy how infrequently LEP needed to be recharged. It could sustain continuous operation for up to 24 hours & more. This is quite amazing when one considers the sheer number of potential collisions that would happen during such a long time. Given the popular-bias assumption of universal attraction coupled with the known concept that opposite charges attract, it is quite amazing! While at CERN I posed this question of sheer numbers to a main theorist and he merely brushed it aside owing to smallness of particles vs largeness of beam cs-area. Yet, given that operation involved packets of 10e13 particles, the statistical chances seem all the more amazing. Now, consider the argument I posed earlier in this post regarding gravitational stability being the primary driver to a system that is out-of-balance in multiple ways. LEP interchanges where moments of both electrical and gravitational randomness. Therefore, gravitational repulsion acting as a deterrent to collision would be expected to trump electrical attraction favoring collision. Hence, the results seen at LEP: extremely long periods with many chances for collision but few actual collisions.

A danger with LHC extends to the fact that surely operators are expecting similar conditions to LEP. However, this will be a system that is not gravitational out-of-balance; therefore, there will be no primary driver deterring interaction. Therefore, the titer/luminosity needed to begin forming black-hole material could easily be much lower than “expected.”


Freetzar (and all else for that matter) we have been over this before, the Dominium is the product of the application of pure deduction to unanswered cosmologic and particle observations. Yes, there are no equations used in deduction, only categorically known empirical data are used as premises. Using these categorical building blocks predictions and conclusions were made. So far I’m batting 1000%, I’d quit my job and become a gambler if the odds at roulette are as good that the odds of the new model matching up against cutting edge science as it is unfolding.

Let me remind you also of scientific history when it comes to the process of change to interpretations in the face of “surprising” data that confounded older attempts of explanation. This is covered beautifully in the classic work by Kuhn: Amazon.com: The Structure of Scientific Revolutions (9780226458083): Thomas S. Kuhn: Books http://www.amazon.com/Structure-Scientific-Revolutions-Thomas-Kuhn/dp/0226458083/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1266006874&sr=8-1
Note also that those people that solved pivotal questions, that had previously vexed the scientific community, did so using “revolutionary” (i.e., not the status quo methodology.) In this case the Dominium using formal deduction. Although this methodology is today rarely applied formally to the scientific process, it is as valid and undeniable today as it was in the times of Aristotle.

Honestly, if the Dominium model does provide the most correct, to date, skeletal framework, then I wholeheartedly believe that the mathematic musculature will eventually be filled in.

#128 Hasanuddin

Hasanuddin

    Questioning

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 163 posts

Posted 13 February 2010 - 03:53 AM

Also in the same thread there is another interesting predictive quote with regards to the difference in expected luminosity/titer.
Scientific Concerns: Safety, Ethics, and Issues Board. • View topic - Quizzical/deductive analysis of Dominium premise

You like numbers, why don’t you do the math and calculate how may chances those particles had of colliding inside LEP (remember there 10e13 per packet.) After you do that, compare the number of chances for collision and compare that to probability of collision in you driving into a brick wall analogy.

No actually, let me give you a better analogy. On the first page of this thread often appears an ad for Neodymium magnets. I bought some (they’re really cool.) Anyway, try quickly slamming the South ends of two together. Maybe I’m weak, but no matter how fast I try, and how steady I try to hold my hands, at the last moment they swerve, and usually miss. That was my point with the possible dynamics inside of LEP. Only collisions were detected, not the subtleties of paths of those not colliding. Besides the strong electric and magnetic fields focusing and continuously jumbling the beam-bundles would mask any such subtleties that occurred at extremely close ranges. Such a dynamic would act to decrease the number of collisions and therefore would result in the ultra long periods that LEP could run without being reinjected.

The opposite is naturally expected to hold true under analogous conditions but using two like-typed particles … as is being done at LHC. Hence the natural prediction that luminosity/titer/resultant-collisions/etc would be much higher than “expected,” based on past understanding of matter v antimatter colliders. Therefore, to have LHC’s first reported findings focus on this “surprise” to popular theory, yet predicted by the Dominium, is a huge endorsement.

See you next week. I’m going to Peru. Why? I’ve always wanted to climb the Andes and eat llama. When I get back I’ll share the exciting collaborating evidence, favoring Dominium predictions, that have come out of the Voyager mission. Adios & hasta luego.

#129 Hasanuddin

Hasanuddin

    Questioning

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 163 posts

Posted 24 February 2010 - 05:06 PM

For the record, Peru was wonderful, though I never saw the Anders or ate llama, due to the flooding in the Cuzco district. I guess the trip will have to occur another time

#130 Hasanuddin

Hasanuddin

    Questioning

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 163 posts

Posted 24 February 2010 - 05:11 PM

Voyager

Provocative data has been published from NASA’s longest, and exceedingly fruitful Voyager Mission. Published recently are “surprising” new evidence that corroborates predictions of how the solar winds of all stars would merge and form massive rivers of particles of mass being driven by MPP (Micellular Positron Packets) that are trying to escape the gravitational-repulsion felt between the antimatter MPP and the center-of-mass of the galaxy itself, therefore, all those rivers would be pointed outward… exactly as Voyager has reported the bow-shock between our Sun’s production of solar wind and the massive “surprising” interstellar winds converge.

NASA -Voyager Makes an Interstellar Discovery

The solar system is passing through an interstellar cloud that physics says should not exist.

I disagree with the lead sentence of this story on two distinct perspectives; on both fundamental premises of this statement I take issue. First to say that “we are passing through a cloud” versus the “cloud is passing through us” might sound like the same thing, they are in fact very different. Of all of the objects mapped on the second figure of the article, APOD: 2002 February 10 - The Local Interstellar Cloud only the local interstellar cloud appears to be moving away from the galactic center. (That also happens to be the direction predicted by the Dominium model.) Therefore, since the cloud is the incongruent statistic, it must be the cloud that is passing through the local star systems, not the other way around. The second point of contention is in response that "physics says should not exist." True, current popular formulaic models offer no explanation for what has been observe, but that does not mean that there exists no physical explanation for these concrete observations. No, all it means is that current theory is flawed in its ability to predict/describe natural realities. This inability of popular theory to match with this and other concrete phenomena, points to the necessity of a new methodology/theory. So far, the Dominium model fits that bill.

Although the direction of the interstellar wind is definitely oriented away from the galactic center, it is not a perfect match. Perhaps the positioning of the stars of this region of space would be analogous to the rocks laying in a river bed, causing currents to vary, merge, or weave. It would be an interesting mathematical study to consider the positioning of other stars in the neighborhood as the Sun (paying most attention to those systems are closer to the galactic center than us, because just like rocks in a river, those positions would most likely cause the greatest regional affects to have consequence once the flow reaches us. One possible scenario could be, assuming the NASA graphic is actuate: local deflection of the current of interstellar wind. Let me explain, notice the positioning of Centauri, Sirius, and Procyon; they could act together as a deflection ramp. Notice also the direction of the galactic center (and that under the Dominium model net flow of interstellar material is expectation to flow antiparallel to that direction.) Given the direction of expected flow (on the NASA diagram 45 degrees below the x-axis). The drivers of the wind, MPP, would be repulsed by all matter-based star systems. Therefore the positioning of our neighbors, could easily account for the slight variations between the expected and observed directions of interstellar wind.

Also important in this article is where NASA defines the limit to there mission’s collect of concrete data

"The Voyagers are not actually inside the Local Fluff," says Opher. "But they are getting close and can sense what the cloud is like as they approach it."
The Fluff is held at bay just beyond the edge of the solar system by the sun's magnetic field, which is inflated by solar wind into a magnetic bubble more than 10 billion km wide.

The strong magnetic fields produced by the interstellar wind is both predicted and necessary aspects of the Dominium solution. A central part of the Dominium explanation driving solar winds is that conditions of immiscibility have been established. What that means is that matter would have been bundled in areas (micelles) while antimatter-positrons would form their own micelles (MPP.)
1: Since all positrons are positively charged
2: And since no other form of antimatter has been suggested to be part of solar wind
3: Therefore, all MPP would be positively charge.
4: All charged and moving objects generate their own magnetic fields
5: Therefore, all MPP will generate magnetic fields
6: Match to data: corresponds to the ~5 microgauss Opher's team has reported in Nature.

Areas that I totally disagree with the NASA article

The fact that the Fluff is strongly magnetized means that other clouds in the galactic neighborhood could be, too. Eventually, the solar system will run into some of them, and their strong magnetic fields could compress the heliosphere even more than it is compressed now. Additional compression could allow more cosmic rays to reach the inner solar system, possibly affecting terrestrial climate and the ability of astronauts to travel safely through space.


This doomsday scenario is presented as the only possibility. This thought-line is based on an assumed understanding of these materials that they refer to as “Fluff.” Please re-acknowledge that this article explicitly states that neither Voyager 1 nor Voyager 2 has yet come in contact with this ‘fluff.’

The assumption also seems to be that the magnetism that has been recorded is an innate aspect of the cloud. But, let us remember that the most basic manner of creating magnetic field is by moving charged particles. But, if this ‘fluff’ were just mass (like we know on Earth) no field would be generated because the charges of the object would be electrically balanced. Magnetic materials just have charges moving internally. Essentially, folks at NASA are suggest casual relationship, yet can’t explain how/why the magnetism should exist in the first place. In contrast, the Dominium model not only predicted the observed Voyager data, but these trends are a necessary components to fundamental Dominium explanations for solar winds.

If anyone is interested in reading up on discussions of the roles of the solar winds and prediction the structure of these winds would be consistent with the newly released NASA data can be found in a number of cases. First would be from the book that I published in 2008, The Dominium. P.S.: If anyone does pick it up please let me make a big head’s up: I wrote the book in less that two months and I did it in a huge hurry because I could visualize the worst case scenario and what that would mean to the children that I’ve taught over the years. I have eluded to that danger on this thread… there is a chance that a lab might create a synthetic black-hole (an “innocent” boo-boo) that has apocalyptic implications. Since that time I have really mellowed out and come to grips with metaphysical positioning. All those kids that I mentioned, they’re all going to die; and there’s nothing I can do to stop that. Each of us must get older; must die; and necessarily, given time, all of us will be forgotten. I say these words (that I find oddly comforting and inspiring) because, if I were to write this book again, I would have focused only on the science (as I have tried to do on this thread) and not worried so much able the importance of the possibility of mass death. Again, no matter how the future plays out, all must die. That is one of the undeniably true categorical statements that I have ever come across. Besides, whether one dies tomorrow or decades from now, there is truly no significant difference in terms of absolute time scales.
The Dominium Sequencing Antimatter And Gravity Effects, Hasanuddin, Book - Barnes & Noble
or
Amazon.com: The Dominium Sequencing antimatter and gravity effect: Big Bang to black hole; and implications for a manmade near-future doomsday: End-of-all-life on Earth (9780980096323): Hasanuddin: Books

#131 tharan000

tharan000

    Curious

  • Members
  • Pip
  • 1 posts

Posted 30 March 2010 - 04:27 AM

If matter and antimatter are repulsive to each other, a black hole with no infalling normal matter would still absorb the matter portion of virtual particle pair creations near the event horizon, ejecting the antimatter portion at speed relative to the mass and distance from its center. As the naked hole continued to grow solely from the vacuum energy around it, the increasing surface area of the event horizon would create wide variance in the speed of ejected material, and while the hole itself would essentially be a radiating blackbody of antimatter, the antimatter would begin to clump, and eventually a shell of heated antimatter would form, growing in size and temperature (due to both tidal forces and energetic bombardment) in conjunction with the internal hole.

As photons are their own antiparticle and have been shown definitively to be attracted by the gravity of normal matter, it follows that they would be gravitationally repulsed by antimatter. Assuming abundant photons hitting the shell from the outside, this would give the appearance of a sphere glowing whiter and whiter as the mass of the antimatter shell thickened (perhaps even evolving through a full color spectrum as different photon energies are effected differently).

At this point, normal infalling matter would then need to overcome the mass of the antimatter shell before it even reached the event horizon in order to actually feed the hole. In a very simplistic thought experiment, this could theoretically account for static holes at the center of galaxies.

But to make this supposition, some mechanism must be shown how the dimensionality of gluons, their 3-dimensional configuration, can vary in their affect on the surrounding space, in the same way a macro-object like a protein can alter its functionality based on shape. Without that, it is only hypothesis. And without that, antimatter and matter cannot significantly be gravitationally repulsive and symmetry cannot be maintained.

A second critique is based on historical precedence. While Einstein formed much of his hypotheses that made up special relativity on deductive thought experiments, he followed those deductions by years of rigorous discovery, translating those images into the best symbols available for representing reality. Mathematics are those symbols, not language. At some point, it must be done, either by the author of the hypothesis or someone else, but it must be done to be scientifically credible.

Once done, the math must allow for further experiments and make verifiable predictions (it must be falsifiable). Einstein is unique in that his particular vision appears to be mostly correct, except for some glaring anomalies like expansion. But resorting to god-of-the-gaps arguments where doubt equals possibility is not sufficient. It must be verifiable and written in the language of logical symbols to be seriously considered over any number of dozens and dozens of seemingly commonsensical ideas and visions that almost always turn out to be wrong.

#132 Hasanuddin

Hasanuddin

    Questioning

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 163 posts

Posted 29 December 2010 - 01:36 PM

Dear tharan000

Please let me apologize for not replying earlier, my attention has been diverted.

Now, let me try to understand your positions. In the 1st paragraph, I’m assuming that you’re referring to moments just after the Big Bang, when you state

a black hole with no infalling normal matter would still absorb the matter portion of virtual particle pair creations near the event horizon, ejecting the antimatter portion at speed relative to the mass and distance from its center.

If so, then I would agree with your summary. However, this “naked hole” that you are describing would not be being formed in isolation at this moment in time. Similarly, across the Big Bang fireball other “naked holes” would be formed. Also the model asserts that 50% of this would be acting as you describe and the other 50% would be acting is exact reverse manner, where the antimatter portion of the pair-product would be consumed and the matter portion would be similarly ejected.

I also agree that a shell of antimatter would form around the forming black-hole. This assertion is a fundamental part of the model and has been discussed on this forum. Apparently, there is evidentiary support for such a shell to have formed around the central black-hole of our own galaxy. See:
http://scienceforums...lactic-big-mac/
http://www.esa.int/e...AF_index_0.html
Not only does the Dominium hypothesis lead to the necessary formation of a shell, as you put it, of antimatter around the forming black-hole, but also, this step is fundamentally crucial in achieving the “stable” (benign, not rapidly feeding) varieties of black-hole that appear to be at the center of every observed galaxy.
http://www-istp.gsfc...ze/Sblkhole.htm
http://www.eso.org/p...c/news/eso0109/
Within the rest of the first paragraph you made assertions that I neither agree nor disagree with. For the most part we are in agreement.

The next paragraph opens with a statement I cannot agree with:

As photons are their own antiparticle and have been shown definitively to be attracted by the gravity of normal matter, it follows that they would be gravitationally repulsed by antimatter.

I disagree for the exact reason you cite. Since photons are there own antiparticles, they would be expected to act the same, not oppositely, toward particles as they would antiparticles. Why? Because photons are their own antiparticle, therefore they would have as much in “common” with matter as they would with antimatter. Therefore, since we know that matter attracts photons, so too, it follows that antimatter would similarly attract photons in exactly the same manner. Not only that, but also remote observations of the paths of light (like those that we rely on for astronomical observations) would be indistinguishable between matter vs antimatter interactions with photons.

The last point is crucial and could be accepted as the reason for the (potentially mistaken) historic consensus that we reside in an all-matter Universe… all-things-being-equal, ignoring the pesky antimatter shell observable around the center of our galaxy and the tons of insignificant positrons (antimatter) produced by our Sun, and “all” stars, as a byproduct of fusion.

You have not shown any reason why the Dominium hypothesis of matter<<>>antimatter repulsion would affect photons differently than to attract. Therefore, paragraphs 2, 3, and 4 become mute.

Your final two paragraphs go back to the only argument that has been presented that I do not have a “good” answer for: the lack of numeric proofs in this deductive syllogism that is the Dominium model. However, deduction inherently deals with categoricals 100% certain or 100% impossible. Because of that it produces a skeletal description of what is. Hence, the Dominium model has produced a description that is free of any anomalies, and in sync with all known observations of the universe. Again, that is a characteristic of deduction. If there were an anomaly within experimental data, then the syllogism must have made a wrong turn. Logic, and centrally Deductive Formal Logic, was the first subject I ever formally taught. At the time, my father made a criticism of the field that I won’t forget. He said that “Formal Deductive Logic has no place in modern society because it only proves what we only know to be true.” For most, mature fields of study, I’d reluctantly agree with his assertion. However, cosmology is not a mature field, i.e., there are more unknowns than there are known mechanisms. In a case like this, application of Formal Deductive Logic has huge application. This is manifest in the Dominium model where the sequence of events has been laid out to go from initial Big Bang to modern times. Not only that, but also, this exercise shows to where the Universe will evolve and how the sequence of events will lead to the next Big Bang.

I wholeheartedly agree with part of your when you state

At some point, turning the deductive description into numeric code must be done, either by the author of the hypothesis or someone else, but it must be done to be scientifically credible.

True, that must be done. And if the Dominium is correct, eventually it will be done. Though I take issue with the notion that the person doing this must be ”scientifically credible.” I resent, yet understand, such a remark. Does the fact that I teach AP Physics to a motley crew of inner-city Dorchester youths detract from the fact that I graduated in the top of my class, spent 2000 at CERN, and 2003 at Goddard SFC?? I suppose it does. Before I started this whole thing, I truly believed that science was a pure field not tainted by ego or elitism. A persons’ credentials, race, or religion should not detract the merit (or lack there of) of words regarding scientific “truths.” But that is not how society works, is it?

#133 Hasanuddin

Hasanuddin

    Questioning

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 163 posts

Posted 13 July 2011 - 06:59 AM

Good news: the scabs appear to be popping up everywhere. When this thread began a google search for “gravitational repulsion” yielded ziltch. Which BTW, is a phrase that I coined and have always insisted on (see the very first discussions of this thread) opposed to the old status-quo dismissive term “antigravity.” "Antigravity" was the primary term used several years ago, and notice the resistance of early Dominium Model detractors to use "gravitational repulsion" in its stead.

Today, however, there is a crowd of folks with recently written papers/books trying to lay claim to aspects of this model, and all of these folks are using the term “gravitational repulsion” opposed to “antigravity.”
http://www.google.co...=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8

Good. At least it appears that they’ve been reading and assimilating the ideas put forward by this model (although they haven’t shown the integrity to acknowledge such “borrowing”). Oh well, we live in a modern cut&paste world where ethics and how you play the game are far less important than whether you win the prized fame or not. Cool by me, I just wanted to facilitate debate, which appears to have happened.