Jump to content


Photo
- - - - -

The Dominium Model: Part 2


  • Please log in to reply
19 replies to this topic

#1 Hasanuddin

Hasanuddin

    Questioning

  • Members
  • 163 posts

Posted 12 May 2009 - 01:22 PM

Because the discussions on the first hypography thread (see http://hypography.co...hasanuddin.html ) seemed to end in such a clean manner, and because that thread already has over eighty long posts to it, therefore it seems wise to start the last half of the Dominium model on a clean new thread of its own.

Before the next segment, Move 9, is posted let it be summarized exactly what occurred on the first thread: a simultaneous comparison of the steps required for both popular-bias theories and the alternative Dominium model to account for physical/known observations beginning with the Big Bang, organization of galaxies, creation of AGN (supermassive black-holes at the hearts of all galaxies,) and the creation of the giant antimatter cloud known to surround the AGN. All of the discussions to date involve moments and developments that appear to have occurred before the advent of the first light of the Universe (CMB.)

At this moment of summarization and introspection, let us inventory of the ability of the two different models to account for these undeniable natural phenomena. One of the best ways to assess the worth of the two divergent models is to use the lens of the Great-grandfather of modern relativistic theory

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)

By this measure, the Dominium model is quite far ahead:

Hypotheses and/or axioms used by the Dominium
1: Matter and antimatter were created in equal parts at the moment of the Big Bang
2: Matter and antimatter gravitationally repel one another
3: Black-holes are the result of an imbalance of forces

Only two very simple hypotheses were required. The Dominium analysis is just an account of the necessary implications and repercussions that result from these two premises. What naturally falls deductively from these two premises are the necessary conclusions of an ordered self-assembled Universe, flat event horizon, AGN at the centers of galaxies, MAC antimatter clouds surrounding AGNs, and pervasive symmetry with quadrants, such as our own, being composed of either all matter or all antimatter.

Hypotheses and/or axioms used by popular-bias consensus beliefs
1: Matter and antimatter were created in equal parts at the moment of the Big Bang (*The same exact starting hypothesis for both popular-bias and Dominium models)
2: Matter and antimatter gravitationally attract
3: We exists in an all-matter Universe where the antimatter long ago disappeared.
4: No residual annihilation events are observed in the sky from statistically certain residual amounts of ancient antimatter. Therefore all antimatter was erased from the Universe before the advent of first light (CMB.)
4a: This observation and conclusion are paradoxical because of what one would expect statistically given the combination of Universal-attraction and annihilation upon contact. If matter and antimatter attract, they should both annihilate to extinction, also this process should be asymptotic. The solution to the first half of the paradox is the creation of yet another new hypothesis: The assumption that antimatter is more unstable than matter, therefore, even though massive annihilation events did occur, only matter now remains.
4b: However, the question of the statistically expected asymptotic graph of annihilation depletion of Big Bang antimatter is ignored. Statistically, we should observe large annihilation events in the cosmic record extending infinitely at decreased rates, but we observe nothing like that. An unspoken hypothesis is that statistical understandings somehow do not apply and can be ignored with respect to the lack of observed annihilation events.
4c: In more recent experiments of the past decade, evidence has been produced that is in direct conflict with premise 4a (the assumption of an inherent instable nature of antimatter leading to an all-matter Universe.) Recently experiments have conclusively shown that antihydrogen can be produced and stored for very long periods of time. The recorded stability of antihydrogen stands in direct offense to consensus hypothesis 4a, a hypothesis is needed to account for this paradoxical disparity.
5: A, yet to be reproduced or directly measured, exotic “dark energy” is hypothesized to account for pushing the Universe apart and explain observe Hubble expansion.
6: In a, yet to be explained or directly measured manner, all matter of the Universe was laid out uniformly. Although some claim that “dark energy” is also responsible for observed uniformity, no other natural form of energy is known to both move things apart and organize them. Although some devotees to consensus theories wish to merge hypothesis 5 with hypothesis 6, the notions of Hubble expansion and even mass distribution are two different things requiring two different sets of hypothetical attributes to this magical catch-all yet-to-be-directly-observed thing called “dark energy.”
7: In a, yet to be ironed out fashion—though it has been directly measured—the event horizon is flat. Again, there are some that wish to merge this bugbear in with 5 & 6. However, the very relativistic calculations that seemed to partially explain 5 and/or 6 also led to the conclusions of curved, buckled, donut-shaped, etc event horizons. This question was settled through direct observation showing the event horizon to be flat. Because the direct observations do not align with the popular theories, new hypotheses are needed.
8: A, yet to be observed, “wind” is hypothesized to have blown all materials away from the supermassive black-hole (AGN) at our galaxies’ center stopping its feeding. No hypothesis is given to account for the incredible "stability" that supermassive black-holes have been observed to maintain once they cease rapidly growing, i.e., once they stop growing rapidly they appear to stay stopped. This observation contains degrees of paradox because these black-holes reside in the most matter-dense portions of their home galaxies. If that "wind" established an equilibrium by chance, then that equilibrium would be unstable at best... but that is not what is observed.
9: Binary star systems are hypothesized to have created the massive antimatter cloud surrounding the AGN, in a yet to be described manner.
10: Mass calculations of our own galaxy do not come close to matching, this disparity is attributed to dark-energy, dark-matter, or something else depending who you ask. Many separate and conflicting hypotheses exist to account for the mass disparities between calculation methods.

A simple comparison of the two different models (Dominium vs. popular-bias consensus theories) appears show the Dominium’s superiority, given Einstein’s standards for judging the merits of a scientific model. On the first thread, http://hypography.co...hasanuddin.html, the two models were compared side-by-side beginning with the Big Bang through the construction of the basic prominent galactic features of the well-known AGNs, and now widely recognized antimatter clouds surrounding these galactic centers. To reach this point in the narrative, the Dominium utilizes just three hypothetical premises and possesses no paradoxical conflicts. In contrast, the collection of entrenched popular assumptions is dependent on no less than thirteen different hypotheses and axioms and is confounded by at least five separate true paradoxes between observed data and theory.

This thread will be devoted to the 2nd half of the model. We will begin where the 1st thread left off: in the middle of the explanation of the “Dark Event.” The time when immiscibility had been established, major regions or (which are referred to in the published book as "dominia" and which are implicated to later form individual galaxies) had been formed, within these major regions opposite-typed material was trapped and formed immiscible micelles, force vectors and geometries caused some of these micelles to collapse forming black-holes (MBH), geometries and vectors at the centers of major regions led to the creation of the AGNs, growth of the AGNs were halted by the accumulation of opposite type material (AMBH for our Milky Way) at the gate-interface of the AGN. Move #9 will be posted approximately 24 hours from now if no-one posts.

Also, if you have issue with any of the moves made up until this point, to avoid confusion please post on the original thread (http://hypography.co...hasanuddin.html)

#2 Hasanuddin

Hasanuddin

    Questioning

  • Members
  • 163 posts

Posted 13 May 2009 - 05:48 PM

Move #9

In move #8 it was established that the main matrix of an embryonic galaxy situated near the centers of proto galaxies was compressed into black-hole material forming the AGN. Simultaneously, micelles of antimatter in the same region would also be compressed to black-hole material (AMBH). Together formed the “stable” central galactic supermassive black-holes seen in all galaxies, when AMBH accumulated at the gate-interface of the AGN thereby preventing further accretion. However, the center of the forming galaxy is only a subsection of the overall unit. This move will examine the dynamics of the rest of the proto-galaxies given our working premises.

Near to the center, AMBH could have been formed that was not subsequently dragged to the gate-interface of the forming AGN at the center of the galaxy. However, that is not to say that their presence did not or would not affect the subsequent evolution of the galaxy. Quite the contrary, the presence of these micelles within the main matrix (matter for the Milky Way) of the proto-galaxy would have acted as a physical deterrent acting against further collapse of the galaxy. A good analogy of the affect of opposite-type micellular presence within the main matrix would be comparable to the affects of bubbles of gas within bread-dough. Their presence essentially acts to puff-up the overall loaf.

Another necessary effect of the presence of immiscible micelles of AMBH within the young galaxy would be to act as mini barriers preventing sub-regions from overly coalescing, thereby keeping stars and eventual solar systems “smaller” than they otherwise might have become.

As a result of this, and previous discussions and moves 7 & 8, the current physical layout of our galaxy is categorically achieved: collapsed at the center, the central AGN walled off by the MAC cloud, and while the rest of the galaxy relatively puffed-out and spaced towards the perimeter.

#3 Hasanuddin

Hasanuddin

    Questioning

  • Members
  • 163 posts

Posted 15 May 2009 - 11:55 AM

Move 10

In move 9, it was put forward that underrepresented antimatter micelles would be purged from all embryonic matter-based galaxies (like the Milky Way), while an equivalent mirror process would occur in antimatter-based galaxies. The purged material would be expected to be comprised of both micelles that had been collapsed to a black-hole state (AMBH) and one’s that were not collapsed. Also, this process would begin as soon as conditions of immiscibility were established (actually, it follows that this process of purging is simply a continuation of the self-organization process of “self-assembly” that had led to immiscibility.) Simultaneously mirror purging of micellular matter would be occurring from antimatter-based galaxies. Concurrently gravitational repulsion between galaxies caused a condition of hyperexpansion. Therefore material that was being purged from All galaxies would be deposited on the ever-expanding fabric of space-time in a similar manner throughout the Universe. The resulting consequence of these conclusions would be a smearing effect of purged material across the expanding space-time. Because this same effect would be occurring from all developing galaxies concurrently and in similar fashion, the net effect would be a near uniform smearing of both antimatter (purged from galaxies like our own) and matter (from antimatter-based galaxies.) Because this material was all similarly smeared onto the fabric of space-time, one would expect the physical conditions (temperature, density, etc) of this purged material to be relatively uniform across the entire Universe.

As the Universe continues its increase in the acceleration of expansion, the near uniformly deposited material will cool at roughly the same rate. Therefore, the magic temperature of 3000ºK would be reached throughout this purged material at the same time. This is important because below this temperature, protons and electrons will begin to couple and form the first atoms of hydrogen, and as a result release the first light of the Universe. Hence the “cosmic microwave background” (CMB)

This is true of all the purged material. The galaxy cores, themselves, would be expected to be “hotter” than 3000ºK at the time of CMB because of the fact that material in the galactic core was not smeared onto the fabric of space-time. Therefore at the moment of the CMB, all the galactic clusters of the Universe would not be emitting any light.

The obvious question becomes, why aren’t there a bunch of black empty spots in the CMB data where all of the different galaxies are? To answer that question, one must consider exactly what the CMB is. We are so used to looking up in the sky and seeing billions of galaxies at once, that the following definition may, at first, be confusing. When we analyze the CMB, we are actually seeing a razor-thin spherical shaped glimpse of the Universe, where Earth is at the center of that sphere. The reason is simple, all of the photons that we might view on a particular day must have been traveling for the same exact amount of time, and assuming a constant speed of light, therefore they all traveled the same distance radiating inward to Earth forming a sphere. Best estimates of the CMB put its occurrence roughly one hundred thousand Earth-years after the Big Bang—all the while the Universe has been expanding extremely rapidly. Therefore, by the moment in time that the CMB occurred, the distances between galaxies had already become immense. Therefore, the likelihood of a galactic cluster being exactly the correct distance away from the Earth to match the distance traveled by the photons of the CMB is very slight…though the probability would exist.

Now, let us assume a galactic cluster did/does exist at exactly the correct distance away from the Earth that it matches the distance traveled by the photons of the CMB, how would that affect the resulting data collected on Earth of that galaxy. Conclusion: it would appear as a blank and empty spot in the CMB data that will appear much larger in size than an actual galaxy would today. The “blankness” of the galactic center is caused by the fact that galactic kernels would be denser and retaining heat longer than purged micellular material as discussed in the 3rd paragraph of this post. The reason why one would expect the blank-hole in the data to be “much larger” than what caused the blank data spot comes from observations and understandings of other systems that undergo expansion. Consider either a bicycle tire or bubblegum. In either case, if a pinprick is made in a wall of the expanding “thing” then as the entire system expands so too does the size of the hole. Once the system becomes fully inflated the once tiny hole will appear much larger than one might predict (w/out having seen this phenomenon occur beforehand.) Check to nature: an apparent exact match. See the following link: Astronomers Find Enormous Hole in the Universe

**Note: this particular prediction and observation are not part of my published book, “The Dominium.” Rather Move #10 is the direct result of the debate that occurred last year on the Scientific American community forum with a man from FermiLab’s Tevatron complex who went by the screen-name, “MrSheepish.” The prediction of the possibility of such a rare and large blank spot in the CMB data was made as a deductive conclusion of the Dominium model/premises before I personally was aware of the existence of such data. *In a similar manner that the Dominium predicted the necessary existence of the MAC antimatter cloud surrounding our galaxy’s AGN before conclusive evidence was published by ESA/NASA reported mapping such a structure NASA - Vast Cloud of Antimatter Traced to Binary Stars Two times now, the Dominium model has made blind deductive assertions only to be later verified by concrete empirical evidence from the scientific record.

The question becomes, how long can this model be ignored? How much proof is sufficient? How many of the evidentiary anomalies need to be given explanation before people stop mulling the traditional dead-ends and begin considering the potentials offered by this beautiful, clean, and seductive model?

Again, the call is placed on the silent and passive readers of this thread. Currently, millions, if not billions, of dollars are being spent funding studies that possess central hopes of verifying one or more of the traditional, yet unverified, assumptions that the Dominium seeks to overturn. Yet, aside from AEGIS, no money appears to be funding projects that could confirm this new, much more encompassing, and seamless model. At a time of global recession, how can we afford to continue stagnant status-quo thinking?

This new model opens the doors on several new avenues of study and human advancement. Unfortunately, a new model also means closing the doors on passages that have led nowhere and are proven dead-ends. If the new model is correct, some superfluous projects will necessarily need to stop, resulting in temporary loss of employment for some. On the other hand, the new opportunities offered by the newly opened avenues will mean rapid advancements for both scientific understandings and for individual scientists agile and nimble enough to adapt. (Personally, I feeling the greatest discoveries will come if man can produce AMBH.) But in order for this type of change to occur, people MUST know of the new model and how/why it is superior to stale status-quo popular-bias assumptions. It is dangerous to stop questioning assumptions. Therefore, it is imperative that as many high-powered individuals get directed to these threads as possible.

Thank you for your cooperation. In the meantime, stay tuned, there’s more to come.

#4 Hasanuddin

Hasanuddin

    Questioning

  • Members
  • 163 posts

Posted 20 May 2009 - 05:16 AM

Move 11

One of the most traditionally vexing observations of the CMB is the apparent uniformity of the titer of microwave photons that make up this phenomenon. The uniformity of the distribution of photons produced during CMB creation is superficially paradoxical to the necessary ultimate clumping of material into galaxies, which were assumed separated by vast distances of “void.”

In the last paragraph the word “void” was put in quotes for two reasons. The first reason is because Move #10 categorically asserts that material was deposited into these areas between galaxies as a part of development, i.e., micelles of opposite-type material were purged from all developing galaxies and smeared into this area while undergoing rapid expansion. The second reason for calling attention to the old assumption that galaxies are separated by the void of space is because this arcane notion has been proven categorically incorrect via the hard data of verified observation. Multiple analyses of the mass distribution of the Universe have categorically shown that large amounts of mass exists been galaxies … exactly the place where old assumptions said it couldn’t/wouldn’t exist … researchers who located this mass signature dubbed it “Dark-matter.”

Not only do the Dominium’s deductions match data that has been confirmed and verified, but also the data that it matches (observed measurements of dark-matter) are "anomalous" and absolutely defy explanation under conventional theories. Not only is the Dominium’s explanation for the creation of dark-matter simple, but also it is a necessary continuation of the well-understood process of self-assembly that would occur given conditions of gravitational repulsion. The goal of this analysis was never to give explanation/prediction for dark-matter, however, that outcome was a necessary byproduct of the deductions that flow naturally.

#5 Hasanuddin

Hasanuddin

    Questioning

  • Members
  • 163 posts

Posted 21 May 2009 - 10:56 AM

Move 12:

Implied premise: Antimatter is the mirror twin to matter

**Therefore: All functions that are possible within matter-based systems, will also be possible within antimatter-based systems.

Given truth: Light (photons) is the antiparticle of itself.

**Therefore: Light emanating from an antimatter source would be indistinguishable from that arriving from a matter-based source.

Implicitly, both of these premises were already used in Move 10: the uniform spread of photonic data of the CMB was a result of photons produced from the coupling of electrons w/ protons AND positrons w/ antiprotons. All across the Universe these two types of material reached the magic temperature of 3000°K at roughly the same time because the manner that both forms of material were deposited on the expanding space-time were mirror operations of each other. If it is true that the properties of both are mirrors of the other, conditions necessary for dynamics (such as coupling) would be identical. The resulting speed, wavelength, and frequency of the photon resulting from either for of coupling would also be identical and therefore indistinguishable from each other. Hence these conclusions predict a match to what is physically observed: the CMB field appearing seamlessly uniform even though it is the result of dynamics occurring in both areas of matter vs. areas of antimatter.

If there were a difference in the behavior of antimatter-based systems, then that difference would have shown up in the CMB data as a quilting/patchwork within the data between purged matter vs. purged antimatter. However, because there is no such quilting pattern (and assuming Moves 1-10 are sound) then support is given in favor of the notion that antimatter based systems function identically to matter based ones. In other words, it is a known fact that for protons to couple with electrons, conditions need to be below 3000ºK. According to the new premise, the same would hold true for antiprotons coupling with positrons. Also, the type of photon released (frequency/energy) would be exactly the same in either case. Hence the CMB appears to be uniform, even though part of it was the result of matter couplings and the other part from antimatter couplings.

From the preceding discussions comes a testable aspect of the new Dominium model. Although attempts to produce and record the spectral signature of antihydrogen have resulted in failure, antihydrogen has been successfully produced in the lab. Given that the formation of antihydrogen is a coupling that will produce a single high-energy photon, such a photon could be measured (if it hasn’t already been done… which I am guessing it has.) Anyway, the “hard” part would be to recreate analogous conditions to allow a proton couple with an electron under similar and comparible conditions. The Dominium model asserts that the resulting photon would be the mirror twin, and therefore indistinguishable, compared to the photon byproduct of the creation of antihydrogen. This particular test would be far easier to conduct than spectral analysis because it involves comparing phenomena that are both known and reproducible; the trick will be to make the formations of hydrogen and antihydrogen similarly so that the measured photons can be considered comparable. Reasoning: we already know that the creation of antihydrogen is possible and we would expect a photon to be the result of such a coupling. The Dominium model predicts that the photon produced would be identical to that produced by a similar coupling of forming standard hydrogen. Popular-bias theories based on notions of asymmetry between matter and antimatter would be supported if the results of such a test were anything but identical.

#6 Hasanuddin

Hasanuddin

    Questioning

  • Members
  • 163 posts

Posted 28 May 2009 - 11:09 AM

Move 13

The subject of fusion (or anti-fusion—the potential mirror process occurring in an antimatter-based star in an antimatter-based galaxy) brings up a very interesting quandary that implies Dominium implications.

Premise: Stars in our galaxy produce antimatter (positions) as an ongoing byproduct of fusion
This premise is so well accepted by the scientific community that it is accepted as fact (even though direct observation of this natural process has never been conducted.) However, indirect observations do lead categorically to conclude that a star like our own Sun is, in fact, an antimatter synthesizer. For every helium atom that is fusion-constructed out of four hydrogens, two positrons are also being produced. Because of the rate of fusion occurring within our Sun, literally tons of positrons are being created every second.

A natural question (that is traditionally ignored/not-asked) is, “What becomes of all those tons/second of antimatter?” In modern descriptions of heliospheric dynamics this question is either not asked or simply glossed over. The assertion that antimatter is produced in the form of positrons is both prominent and universal among popular understanding of heliospheric functions. What happens next is far less clear and/or agreed upon. Some once believed that these positrons migrated to the corona where they annihilated with matter (thereby explaining the apparent higher temps in the corona.) Some discounted this notion because there is no clear reason (under current theory) that would facilitate such a migration. Regardless, the ultimate fate of the tons of antimatter produced every second by our Sun is far from clear.

One thing that is also categorically known about the Sun is that tons of material streaming off of its surface (defying understandings of gravity) in a unidirectional flow away from the Sun. This continual process is collectively known as the solar wind. The ESA and NASA possess satellites that are measuring the particles found within the solar wind structure. No matter which theory had been used to account for the fate of antimatter produced in Heliospheric fusion, original predictions all expected to find positrons measured within the solar wind matrix—not a single positron originating from the Sun has ever been recorded by the satellites measuring solar wind. Although an argument built off of a lack of evidence usually commits the fallacy of Appeal to Ignorance. However, the lack of the recording of a single positron by satellites designed to detect all particles of the solar wind—ones calibrated to record positrons—is potentially VERY significant given that the Sun is a natural positron generator and that classic assumptions predicted their presence.

------
*Note to Detractors:
It’s more fun when you guys try to defend current theory. Just because you might not have physical evidence to support the popular-bias positions should not be a reason to refuse consideration of the differences between the two models. Or better yet, if you believe you can site physical evidence that supports consensus assumptions… then present it. The goal of the evolution of scientific understanding is to continually debate how well natural evidence fits into theoretical explanation (see the Einstien quote at the beginning of this thread.) Honestly, I have no issue/problem if the natural record can call into question the Dominium model with some sort of contrary undisputable natural phenomenon standing against its predictions—but that has yet to happen. Perhaps you could be the one to present evidence or argument that proves the new Dominium model is flawed—Good, and good luck!—none have succeeded in that quest to date.
------
Note to the silent readership:
Alert others of this new model. More is at stake in this discussion than has been brought up. If you know any who you feel have superior intellect or understanding of the issues that have been brought up on these two threads, then invite them to join in an prove this clarity. Besides, these threads are more fun when there is an active discussion taking place. My only requests are that discussions are based on evidence, the rules of deductive logic, and that arguments are presented with levelheaded mutual respect. After all…

#7 Hasanuddin

Hasanuddin

    Questioning

  • Members
  • 163 posts

Posted 05 June 2009 - 03:31 PM

Move 14

The subject of fusion (or antifusion for that matter) brings up a very interesting quandary that implies Dominium implications.

Acceleration Syllogism
Premise: Stars in our galaxy produce antimatter positions as a byproduct
This premise is so well accepted by the scientific community that it is accepted as fact (even though direct observation of this natural process has never been conducted.) For every helium atom that is constructed out of four hydrogens, two positrons are also being produced. Because of the rate of fusion occurring within our Sun, literally tons of positrons are being created every second.

Central premise: Positrons produced within a matter-based Sun, being antimatter, will be instantly gravitational repulsed by the solar material that just generated it.

Geometric premise: Except for the rare case of positrons created at the exact gravitational center, ALL positrons produced will possess asymmetric gravitational repulsion vectors that would point away from the exact center of the star.

*Therefore, they will be accelerated away from the center of the star and towards the surface.


The preceding deductive syllogism is absolutely categorical.

Now, let’s proceed forward probabilistically to predict the most likely subsequent chain of events. As they come into existence and begin heading towards the solar surface, some of these positrons will collide with solar matter and annihilate. Though this conclusion will be true for some of the positrons, it does not necessarily follow that All of the positrons will collide with solar matter. In Moves 2-8, it was established that antimatter and matter self-assemble and reached conditions of immiscibility very early on within the Big Bang fireball. Because this process necessarily occurred very early on, it follows that a chaotic system/mixture of matter and antimatter will self-assemble to achieve a degree of primary stability. Because this appears to have held true for the Big Bang, one would expect it to also hold true inside a star, which near the core, would be a system of chaotically mixed matter and antimatter.

Immiscibility Syllogism
Premise: Self-assemblage of matter apart from antimatter is a primary driver of a system at absolute chaos.

*Therefore, at some finite distance away from the point of creation within the star, the chaotic mix of matter and antimatter will satisfy its primary driver to stability—gravitational sorting through self-assembly and the establishment of immiscible boundaries.

Hence, one would expect that conditions could be met where positrons within the Sun would self-assemble into micellular positron packets (MPP) that are being accelerated via gravitational repulsion upward toward the solar surface. In many ways the MPP would behave very similar to schooling fish: loosely connected, reacting, and veering to similar stimulus. Also similar to fish schooling, the fact that they are traveling in a school increases the survivability of all members at the expense of a few. This conclusion is from the simple fact that before conditions of immiscibility have been met, some of the positrons on the outer boundaries of the MPP will be expected to collide with and be annihilated by solar material. However, the sacrifice of these outer few, increases the odds of those within the core of the MPP to reach the threshold of immiscibility. As the MPP travel upward through the heliosphere, they would be expected to be encountering conditions that are increasingly more conducive to the establishment of immiscibility. Therefore, if the MPP do reach conditions where immiscibility is established, most likely immiscibility would be permanent. Because it has already been established that immiscibility was established very early on during the Big Bang, therefore it is quite possible that the minimum requirements to attain immiscible conditions could be met in beneath the corona.

#8 Rade

Rade

    Understanding

  • Members
  • 1,147 posts

Posted 15 June 2009 - 07:03 AM

Re: The Dominium Model: Part 2, Move 13

The subject of fusion (or anti-fusion—the potential mirror process occurring in an antimatter-based star in an antimatter-based galaxy) brings up a very interesting quandary that implies Dominium implications. Premise: Stars in our galaxy produce antimatter (positions) as an ongoing byproduct of fusion.

==

I have a question, do you have a typo error here in the Premise ? should it be (positrons) and not (positions) ? Just checking because words can be so important.

==

Oh, and here I see the same wording--again do we replace (positions) with (positrons) ?:

Move 14

The subject of fusion (or antifusion for that matter) brings up a very interesting quandary that implies Dominium implications. Acceleration Syllogism
Premise: Stars in our galaxy produce antimatter positions as a byproduct

#9 Rade

Rade

    Understanding

  • Members
  • 1,147 posts

Posted 15 June 2009 - 07:35 AM

Concerning Moves 13 & 14, I think there is possibility that the missing positrons from fusion could be in the form of the recently discovered (experimentally), but long known in theory (going back to John Wheeler),molecule called 'di-positronium'. This state of matter is created by the union of two 'positronium' unstable entities {(e-)+(e+)}, thus

Di-positonium = {(e-)+(e+)} + {(e-)+(e+)}

[Note: I like to call the 'electron' by its original name, the 'negatron' (e-) because this then helps with understanding its mirror charge lepton, the 'positron' (e+), and of course thus logically explains the charge dialectic that is so important to your Dominion Model]

See this link to the experiment to document the di-positronium molecule:

Newsroom: Physicists Observe New Molecule in Lab.

It does appear that under certain conditions this new state of matter can form a type of "stable' existence as a Bose-Einstein Condensate, and thus perhaps this is why no measurement of pure 'positrons' have been made--we not look for them in the proper time and space dimension.

I am not sure if this is consistent with your Dominion Model, but it does appear to me that gravitational repulsion & attraction predicted by the Dominion Model could lead to a di-positronium state of matter ?

#10 Hasanuddin

Hasanuddin

    Questioning

  • Members
  • 163 posts

Posted 15 June 2009 - 03:40 PM

Hey Rade,

Nice try guessing the fate of the “missing positrons” (p.s. a difficult set of characters for me to “position.”) The candidate of positronium does have its merits. However, I think I have a better answer. Let me move on.

Move 15

Considering the conclusions from move 14 to be sound, then positrons generated by a matter-based star’s fusion will form MPP and journey up through the layers of the star. If this is occurring, then All MPP are charged moving objects. Like All charged moving objects the MPP will produce magnetic fields that spiral around them perpendicular to the direction of motion (F=qvβ). Because MPP would be expected to be traveling away from the center of the star in every spherical direction, the generated magnetic fields would be expected to compete, twist, and interfere with each other. These interfering magnetic fields would be expected to have two manifestations.

1) First the magnetic fields generated by one MPP would act to retard the speed of others nearby. The retarded speed would act to increase the survivability of All positrons and allow conditions of immiscibility to be met deeper within the layers of the star than would have been expected if free acceleration were permitted.

2) The second manifestation of the interfering of the magnetic fields formed by the traveling MPP would be to the heliosphere itself. As the MPP make progress towards the surface, they would be free to merge with one another. As this process occurs, the net charge of the MPP would grow proportional to the number of positrons accrued. The higher the charge, the stronger the magnetic fields generated. The dynamic of the magnetic fields generated would be expected to be in a continual state of flux, because although MPP would continually be moving upward in the heliosphere, there exit points would be random and changing depending on dynamic conditions. Also, as MPP move upward, matter-based solar material will necessarily cycle downward to occupy area vacated by the traveling MPP. This downdraft of matter-based solar material would also contain charged particles and therefore would generate its own spiraling magnetic fields.

Check to Nature: Match
. One of the most vexing questions of the dynamics of the Sun are its well-documented strong twisting and ever-changing surface magnetic fields. An obvious conclusion is that these fields are produced by moving charged particles within the Sun’s corona, but a mechanism that would produce such tightly twisting and conflicting fields has never been advanced satisfactorily. The idea of MPP moving upward through the layers of the star not only predicts the observed conditions, but only requires the acceptance of one main hypothetical premise: gravitational repulsion.

#11 Eric

Eric

    Thinking

  • Members
  • 18 posts

Posted 17 June 2009 - 02:35 PM

The following issue you may well be aware of. Some months ago I was looking at what my astronomy books say about solar wind. They refer to Eugene Parker's 50's theory as a prediction for it and the explanation. From another forum, I know that your not keen on wikipedia, but its quite interesting to look at the solar wind entry there. His work was criticised at the time but then solar wind evidence turned up. Now apparently, Eugene Parker's theory is thought to be insufficient to fully explain observations -

'In the late 1990s the Ultraviolet Coronal Spectrometer (UVCS) instrument on board the SOHO spacecraft observed the acceleration region of the fast solar wind emanating from the poles of the sun, and found that the wind accelerates much faster than can be accounted for by thermodynamic expansion alone. ' wikipedia

So this seems to indicate an inadequacy (assuming the criticism's made of Eugene Parker's theory at the time don't hold up anyway). This leads on to a question I have about whether there is data that solar wind speed averages increase with distance from the sun.

One of my astronomy books seems to suggest this - but not clearly enough. But this would support gravitational repulsion.

#12 Hasanuddin

Hasanuddin

    Questioning

  • Members
  • 163 posts

Posted 18 June 2009 - 05:05 AM

Hi Eric,

Welcome. You bring up and excellent point/observation. Let us focus on the data actual observation (and not the theory that someone else surmised.) Yes, someone else did have a crack at explaining the evidence, but as you note, their explanation falls short. It is the physical evidence that is most important.

BTW, congratulations for figuring out the next moves, and that is that the escaping MPP’s are the drivers of the solar wind. You’re getting ahead of me, but I have never been one to avoid a direct question. Since you have preempted that move, let me summarize an overview of how that will happen:

MPP eventually escape the Sun’s surface (causing CME’s and twisted magnetic fields as they go. Some matter is pushed along in front of MPP. Continual nudging gives enough energy to also escape the Sun’s surface.

Now, we know (I believe confirmed by SoHo also) that the matter measured in the solar wind jumps from planet to planet of the equatorial ring of inner and outer planets. Within the ring of planets would also be away from where the MPP would want to travel. With fewer MPP drivers, the matter of the solar wind would not be accelerated as much as to more scarce matter remnant of the solar wind directly away from the poles.

The long and the short of your final question is "Yes, this observation does allign with a notion of gravitational repulsion."

In two moves your question will be given much more filling than I did just a moment ago. Please stay tuned. Also, tell as many people as you can about the ongoing, potentially pivotal, debate on this thread. There is more at stake than meets the eye.

#13 Hasanuddin

Hasanuddin

    Questioning

  • Members
  • 163 posts

Posted 22 June 2009 - 12:50 PM

Move 16

As the stream of positron MPP flow into inersteller space, they will continue to drive electrons along with them. Gravitational repultion would continue to accelerate the MPP, which in turn will accelerate the electrons. Because both the MPP and electrons will be traveling at similar relative speeds, conditions maintaining immiscibility would be expected to hold between these two types of particle packets.

The electrons would be accelerated by the MPP in two different ways.

Push from behind: Because of immiscibility, MPP can be considered discrete objects compared to the space occupied by electrons. The MPP would feel gravitational repulsion at first mainly from the star of origin, but that dominance would slowly be replaced by net gravitational repulsion from the overall galactic cluster; only to be later (a very long time later) replaced by dominance of gravitational attraction from the nearest like-type (antimatter) galaxy to which the MPP are heading. Therefore, the acceleration of the MPP will be “continuous” (given known conditions.) In a very similar manner the energies of the electrons being driven will also be increased, especially within the galactic cluster itself.

Pull from ahead: Although it was established that gravitational stability is a primary driver of a system in chaos, it was also established that once a system becomes gravitationally sorted, other forces with assert more dominant roles. Expected interaction between positively charged MPP and negatively charged driven electrons would be such an example. MPP are being accelerated out of a galaxy to achieve higher gravitational stablility. However, the charge differential between positrons and electrons will act to link the two. Therefore, the accelerated positrons will also drag trailing electrons thereby accelerating them to similar speed achieved by the positrons.

Near to the galactic center, this dynamics would be expected to accelerate out of a star’s bubbling matrix, launched into near space, pushed ever further by successions of MPP, pushed past the Sun’s influence and beyond. Could this process go on forever? The answer to that question is clearly no for many reasons. First and foremost, because of basic immiscibilty laws the MPP will be permitte to enter the neighboring galaxy, but the matter of the solar wind would never be allowed in.

Therefore, at some point the electrons would be halted and the positrons would flow on. In the other direction “anti-solar-wind,” it might be called, is being produced and is coming at us. From the anti-solar-wind the electrons will separate out and enter our galaxy’s dominium, while positrons for the anti-solar-wind would stay in the adjacent antimatter galaxy.

The net out come of the cumulative effects of both processes is a net separation of charge. Our galaxy is continuously loses (+) particles while retaining (-), at the same time we are gaining (-) from antimatter abutting dominia. Therefore as time goes on, the Universe is moving from a from an initial stable-state where charge was distributed evenly throughout the Universe, to a state were charge is becoming increasingly localized. This gradual, but continuous, process would be expected to move the system from the initial stable state through various forms of instability, to eventual collapse. This process would be analogous to the stages of development of a star as the process of fusion/antifusion change its gravitational dynamics slowly by changing its density. Potentially, this process can lead to system collapse to a black-hole. The relationship between these two systems is not just analogy, but an equivalency. Solar collapse is the gravitational equivalent for the predictor of the future electrical imbalances an increasing tensions across the entire matrix, leading to ultimate collapse, i.e., the next Big Bang.

#14 Eric

Eric

    Thinking

  • Members
  • 18 posts

Posted 25 June 2009 - 03:24 PM

Hasanuddin

Can you clarify the following:

MPP eventually escape the Sun’s surface (causing CME’s and twisted magnetic fields as they go. Some matter is pushed along in front of MPP. Continual nudging gives enough energy to also escape the Sun’s surface.

Now, we know (I believe confirmed by SoHo also) that the matter measured in the solar wind jumps from planet to planet of the equatorial ring of inner and outer planets. Within the ring of planets would also be away from where the MPP would want to travel. With fewer MPP drivers, the matter of the solar wind would not be accelerated as much as to more scarce matter remnant of the solar wind directly away from the poles.


From what I could remember, I get as far as MPP = Micellular, but P? P? (also CME ..).

#15 Hasanuddin

Hasanuddin

    Questioning

  • Members
  • 163 posts

Posted 06 July 2009 - 08:20 AM

Hi Eric,

Sorry for not being clear. The definition of MPP… okay, but again sorry, I am so close to this model that it’s easy to think that others are as familiar with the meaning, use, and significance of all of the acronyms used.

MPP: Micellular Positron Packets These are 3-dimensional spheroid structures formed within matter-based stars generating antimatter positrons as a byproduct of fusion. To achieve primary gravitational stability the antimatter positrons clump forming the MPP structure. The dynamic of the MPP would be highly similar to schooling fish: positrons will travel and move together, but are associating only loosely with each other and will part and merge again as a result of obstacles (cause by inherent gravitational repulsion with the resident objects in the solar system of creation.) Although all particles within MPP are electrically (+) they therefore feel electric repulsion with one another, therefore would not ever be expected to collide with one another while in transit. Even though there is electrostatic repulsion between members, the MPP stay in formation because the hierarchy of needs places primary gravitational stability (sorting into cordoned areas of matter vs antimatter) exceed electric conditions for stability.

I agree, the notion of MPP are quite complex at first glance. However, given further consideration and notice to tight ties to other aspects of nature for all the conclusions defining this concept, it seems quite backed up and clean.

#16 Eric

Eric

    Thinking

  • Members
  • 18 posts

Posted 18 July 2009 - 01:09 PM

Hasanuddin:

Even though there is electrostatic repulsion between members, the MPP stay in formation because the hierarchy of needs places primary gravitational stability (sorting into cordoned areas of matter vs antimatter) exceed electric conditions for stability.

I can see how positrons within solar wind being gravitationally repelled out from the sun could explain how fast solar wind is, but I have trouble seeing how this metaphor can be relied on when the electromagnetic force surpasses the gravitational by an order of 10^36. How can such gravitational positron concentration/repulsion of matter be significant relative to that?

#17 Moontanman

Moontanman

    Unobtainium...

  • Members
  • 8,622 posts

Posted 14 August 2009 - 08:01 PM

Good news hasanuddin, the search for antimatter galaxies is on!

NASA - In Search of Antimatter Galaxies