The Dominium Model: Part 2
Posted 14 August 2009 - 09:07 PM
Posted 14 August 2009 - 09:41 PM
Good news hasanuddin, the search for antimatter galaxies is on!
NASA - In Search of Antimatter Galaxies
Other instruments such as the Italian PAMELA satellite have looked for anti-helium nuclei, but none have been sensitive enough to rule out the existence of antimatter galaxies. AMS has about 200 times the particle-collecting power of anything that has flown before. If AMS detects no anti-helium nuclei, Ting says scientists will know that there are no antimatter galaxies within about 1000 megaparsecs — or roughly to the edge of the observable universe.
To either rule out or find evidence of large cosmic antimatter bodies will be a great achievement. The ISS takes a lot of criticism from people who wish the money were spent on different endeavors, but they really are doing some invaluable and fascinating science there.
Posted 31 December 2010 - 07:44 PM
I really have been away from this for a LONG TIME …. WOW!!!!
This really is cool!! I love the fact so that they’re spinning it that the Dominium’s revolutionary and new prediction of antimatter galaxies, is just what everyone agrees is a valid probability and known commodity. This tone was most acute in a summarization in the 8th paragraph where they state:
The way that this reads to me is: with the first line the author props up the notion of antimatter galaxies as something NASA and everyone else, had always considered it. Despite the reality of the fact that the Dominium Model was only published two years ago. Before that, literally no-one was considering the chance of an all antimatter galaxy out there. There was “no reason” to consider that possibility because we-all-knew we lived in an “All-matter-Universe” and that the antimatter somehow all disappeared because, again, we-all-knew that despite Einstein’s hope of finding over-arching symmetry, but fundamental asymmetry must exist because we live in an All-matter-Universe. The second sentence seems to say: the best discoveries are ones no-one sees coming, as if it were some kind of holdout for pre-Dominium fancy-math relativistic theories. The funny this is that the Dominium explanation was exactly what the author prescribes (but doesn’t cite): a sequencing of events that matches nature/experiment and comes from one premise that no-one say coming: what if matter and antimatter gravitationally<<>>repel one-another.
NASA said on http://science.nasa.gov/science-news/science-at-nasa/2009/14aug_ams/ Antimatter galaxies, dark matter, strangelets--these are just the phenomena that scientists already know about. If history is any guide, the most exciting discoveries will be things that nobody has ever imagined.
I also think you’re right Moontainman, folks at NASA must be reading the Dominium. Check out this 4th to last paragraph where NASA says:
One explanation could be that some distant galaxies are made entirely of antimatter instead of matter. Since antimatter doesn't look any different than ordinary matter, astronomers would not be able to tell whether a distant galaxy is made of matter or antimatter just by looking at it. However, AMS would find strong evidence of antimatter galaxies if it detected even a single nucleus of anti-helium or a heavier antimatter element.
Up until the last sentence of the paragraph, that is an uncanny summarization of the Dominium model without ever giving credit to the model. I don’t understand why they wouldn’t want to mention the Dominium model? I’ve been in direct contact with some of their employees regarding this model. Also, at least 100 copies of this book were sent to NASA facilities. Besides, NASA can take partial credit for the development of the paradigm sifting Dominium model: the summer training course that NASA put me on at Goddard SFC supplied some of the bases of this model.
The only thing I really don’t understand about the above quote is the last sentence. I know they don’t have the ability to sense the remote presence of single atoms a kilometer away and they certainly don’t have that precision a galaxy away.
As I have stated on the Hypography.com forums before: there is a very easy way to test whether a distant galaxy is made of matter vs antimatter, assuming that we can build a machine that can both act like a telescope pinpointing the origin (exact galaxy) of a neutrino and also differentiate and count occurrence of neutrinos vs antineutrinos. That is a very tall order, but the technology is coming on-line that should be able to do those two ”simple” things. Now it’s a race. My money wouldn’t be on either CERN or NASA to win this race, actually I think University of Minnesota is a little bit further along. Here’s what I mean http://minnesota.pub...trino-detector/
Though honestly Moontainman, do you think it bothers me that NASA is now putting out releases discussing missions that could potential back 100% or completely shatter the underpinnings of the Dominium model without giving credit to either the model or the author?????? I couldn’t be tickled pinker that they show enough interest to have read, seen the possibilities, and allocated resources to resolve very fundamental unanswered questions that the Dominium model points to. This is better than anything I could have hoped for. To be all honest, that was always be my hope, that I could write this theory, refocus the direction of inquiry to safer more productive direction, and have science/technology march on into the new millennium … all while not allowing myself to bothered. Hasanuddin is a pseudonym. I knew this was big from the very beginning; I guess I’m a bit intimidated as to how this would upset my life if the best-case scenario—The Dominium is categorically correct and becomes accepted into the scientific lens. Call me naïve, but because of the sheer simplicity, beauty, and symmetry of the Dominium explanation, I thought it was going to be much easier to get the syllogism considered. Fortunately my father forced me to read Kuhn http://www.amazon.co...83&sr=8-1-fkmr1 To prepare me for the actual reception I did incur. At times the battles were quite savage and emotional. The Scientific American Community forums was where I began. Not only were the battles massive and fierce, but also I was winning. Not only that, but the defenders of the status quo did shoot my attention to data/situations that I hadn’t considered for the original publication. To their horror and dismay, challenger after challenger dug up new and compelling articles of support for the Dominium model. Battles in cyberspace itself was also furious during that time resulting in Scientific American being knocked off-line. Battles on the Scientific American thread got so heated that higher and higher caliber exported tried to best the Dominium assertions. One of the longest and most productive skirmishes was with a man who went by the name of “Mr Sheepish” who claimed to be, and acted like, a person who has worked a long time at the Tevatron facility outside Chicago. Suddenly, and w/out a second’s warning, SciAm pulled the plug on the Community Forum, they hid from view all of the fascinating discourse. I was told by a SciAm representative, that they words I wrote were my own property, but the replies… and the discourse was property of SciAm. Fortunately, I tend to be verbose. I always rephrase/quotes my opponents’ arguments both for myself, the reader, and for my sparring rival. Therefore I revised the published version of The Dominium to contain my responses to challenges they posed against some aspect of the Dominium’s frameworkings.
As far as the question of right and wrong goes… I suppose that when NASA summarized the Dominium model, they should have cited either it, or me, even citing Hypography.com would have been acceptable. Just because this model was written by a “commoner” does not mean that what it conveyed was ever “common knowledge.”
If the Dominium model is correct, then it marks the biggest paradigm shift in nearly a century. This is a Big Deal! No, my sarcastic guess is that NASA folks consciously did not mention the Dominium model as a way of jockeying themselves to lay false claim to the discovery. Though my intentions were never to promote myself; however, the thought of some of those very same snobby establishment elitists who were so rude during the first SciAm days to try to change their tunes and then take credit for what I penned irks my sense of justice.
So, in this New Year’s posting, I’ll change the playing rules again. Perhaps the NASA authors justify not citing the Dominium because it was pseudonymously published. Okay, time to give a face to Hasanuddin:
My actual name is Paul Eaton
I have taught at Boston Latin Academy, a BPS exam school for talented/gifted inner-city children since 1998.
I currently teach three subjects: AP Physics, Honors Chemistry, and MCAS Physics
Until recently, I was the AP Physics specialist for all Boston Public Schools.
Also, I run the Moslem Student Assn (the first in Greater Boston) & am the Asst Debate Coach for the school
My interest in particle physics was piqued when NSF selected me to represent the United States to join in CERN’s HST2000 program; similarly for astrophysics when NASA selected me to go to Goddard SFC as part of NEW2003 (space camp.)
Hasanuddin was the name given to me as an adolescent in Indonesia while I was studying abroad.
Hmmmm, wonder if this will change things? Honestly, Moontainman, this news is wonderful… but there’s a lot that’s not quite right about it. ...Like pretending that the Dominium model is common-knowledge and that they have no obligation to recogize it, and therefore the full range of possibilities it offers. Though I'm not a member of the inner-circle, that does not mean that I cannot think out of the box and produce paths those insular pals never considered, but that they can now follow to discovery... & I hope they do and I wish them success. (Just cite the model for what it is) Perhaps my honesty today will afford the respect that it actually deserves for opening up the possibility of research and discovery … like looking for antimatter galaxies.