Jump to content
Science Forums

Hasanuddin

Members
  • Content Count

    163
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    3

Everything posted by Hasanuddin

  1. Dear Sman, I hope you realize that your reply did not contain any mechanism that would account for a higher salinity level 100M years ago, given that that was a time which was substantially warmer than it is today, hence less water would be trapped in glaciers than is today; therefore one should expect lower salinity. Thank you for the article, but I already acknowledged that salinity levels are both complex and connected to glaciation, therein lays the paradox. One hundred million years ago, scientific consensus of multiple studies puts it about 4C higher than today. http://www.google.com
  2. I found this article and am perplexed as to the merit of the scientific logistics inherent in the data described: http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v503/n7475/full/nature12714.html Can anyone describe a mechanism how the oceans would have been much more salty 100M years ago, as this study claims, even though the planet was warmer (i.e., and the ice caps would've been more melted) and 100M year of salt leaching from the land had yet to happen??? Popular wisdom would suggest that the ancient oceans were less salty, not more, than they are today. Assuming that popular wisdom holds true, th
  3. A picture speaks 1000 words, let's try 21 pictures. The linked article discusses and documents 25 sinkholes http://truthfrequencynews.com/?p=4665 Only four of these occurred before the start-up of LHC… while 21 occurred in the short two years since start-up. Although I never specifically spelled out sinkholes as being a result of the worst-case scenario, i.e., where the Dominium Model is correct; LHC does succeed in generating man’s first (and last) black-hole specimen; and the Earth is subsequently compacted down to annihilation—this reported phenomenon is 100% in-line with the prediction
  4. Turtle … you just told me to shut-up, go away, and take the theory that annoys you with me. However, other than your personal visceral dislike of words/logic, you give no reason why the Dominium Model is not correct or worth considering. Let me remind you that your emotional ad-Hominum response echoes many sentiments of the past: ptolomites vs Galileo, or the reception given Maxwell or even to Einstein. Until you supply evidence/reasoning your reaction puts me in very fine company... thanx, I guess. Please set aside the ancillary barbs and please address the model itself. Science is bas
  5. Dear CraigD (long time … Asalam alai’kum) First I apologize for the overused and misused quotation marks—natural fluctuations—should have been italics. There is a very vague paragraph that you quote. Actually, the news organization, IrishWeather, should never have clumped those words with the rest of the article at all The problem here is that this paragraph is a stand alone issue unrelated to the article itself. It is IrishWeather that is guilty of this Fallacy of Composition. In this case the issue is time. Very true, as seismologists have steadily increased their monitoring and ass
  6. Very Funny new features to this website: the ability to "vote" about scientific discourse but not back up their opinions! Since when did Science become of opinion and not fact????? In the last posting I laid out evidence that verifiably matches a direct prediction of the Dominium Model in the worst case situation for the repercussions had LHC “succeeds” in producing man’s first (last) sample of black-hole material. Cool. Wild assertions? Yes, but they are backed up by strong statistical evidence. The response?? Somebody “voted down” the entry. Huh? An anonymous opinion w/out any back
  7. 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 thi
  8. Here is an interesting bit of number crunching that seems to back up this hypothesis. http://www.irishweatheronline.com/news/earthquakesvolcanos/number-of-recorded-earthquakes-rises-sharply/20688.html Notice that the graphs at the end of the article compare half a year’s data for 2011 with full years’ data for all other years, 2000-2010, which is why they say that we’ve already surpassed the full year's data for 2002 & 2003 w/in the first six months of this year. True, I agree that this could all be due to “natural fluctuations” as the article discusses. However, these statistics are
  9. Dear Polymath, Twice you have referred to the dogmatic assumption that black-holes must evaporate harmlessly away. Yes that is a core question. This dogma is also paradoxically intertwined with LHC itself. Did you know that this assumption is referred to as “Hawking Radiation” (HR) and that there has never been any experimental or empirical confirmation of this suggested phenomenon? Did you also know that one of the goals of LHC was to find evidence that this hypothesis was actually valid? Isn’t it a bit scary that LHC proponents have traditionally used the notion of “Hawking Radiation” a
  10. Dear Exhausted Gondolier, Revelent correlation? I agree, what has been put forward certainly does seem to have a degree of post hoc ergo propter hoc to it. Had I not put down in published ink that a stabile black-hole would lead to series of increased seismic activity and volcanism then I wouldn’t have much to stand on. The fact that the prediction is that both frequency and magnitude would steadily increase, coupled with the fact that the Japan quake was the biggest in its history align with these theoretical predictions. I hope you notice that within the post, and again in this one, I am
  11. Could it have really happened?? The evidence is mounting that it may have. The autonomous experimental institution, CERN, disregarded much publicized warnings that their biggest project could generate man’s first synthetic black-hole material. They went ahead with the LHC project despite concerns. What would happen if they were “successful” and created stable synthetic black-hole material? First, it wouldn't be instant because of the same principles preventing all the sand of an hour-glass to fall through when turned; though eventually all grains will fall they cannot pass through at once. A
  12. Hi Moontainman, 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 Domi
  13. Sorry for the break from this dialogue, life called. Please understand. I’d like to absolutely agree with Eric’s concern.
  14. 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 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 gr
  15. A member sent me a personal message saying that I ought to check out this thread and that maybe the question of a 5th dimension could be addressed via the Dominium Model. I’m glad I followed that recommendation. To address this question I will pay respects to the views/insights posted thus far. To this insight' date=' I whole-heartedly agree. The Dominium model would see the 4th dimension as the interactions with the supermatrix of galaxies. Forces of magnitude beyond anything achieved in a lab must be interplaying between galaxies. Those forces would have been strongest during the first nan
  16. 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
  17. 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
  18. Dear Eric, I apologize for my tardy reply. I have been diverted as of late. No, nothing to do with science, quite the contrary actually. Metaphysics and spirituality would be the best way to categorize it. One tangible project that has borne fruit is the official commencement of Boston’s first MSA (Moslem Student Assn) at a public school. Let’s just say that the need was definitely unmet. Currently there are thirty student members who are eager raising money to aide Haiti and making poetry and video to practice intramural scholastic competitions. Please accept my apologies; I didn’t even gla
  19. 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 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 repo
  20. Hello freeztar, have you missed me? I agree wholeheartedly with your demand in the important of concrete evidence. Truth be known this prediction was made on March 16' date=' 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 Freetzar (and all else for that matter) we have been over this before, the Dominium is the product of the application of pure de
  21. 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
  22. 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 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 ba
  23. Oh ya, it seems that I forgot to include the anomalous observation of a unidirectional flow of large amounts of measured material in a paradoxical unidirectional flow away from the Sun and against gravitational expectations (i.e., the "solar wind".) ... that's also explained by the Dominium model but later on in that thread.
  24. Yes. You will be very interested in discussions ongoing here at hypography. Here are the threads: http://hypography.com/forums/alternative-theories/19536-the-dominium-model-part-2-a.html http://hypography.com/forums/alternative-theories/18910-the-dominium-model-by-hasanuddin.html http://hypography.com/forums/astronomy-and-cosmology/19807-digesting-the-galactic-big-mac.html You'll be especially interested in the first link because I list off all the anomalies that I, personally, know of: I am quite interested in your own perception of the number of anomalous observations that do not jive wit
  25. Qfwfq, let me understand you a bit more clearly. Now, just for the record, your are referring to this syllogism, correct? Now, you claim that the “counterfactual side” follows just as easily. Okay, that is an interesting claim. So please, just as I have done, show syllogistically how the “counterfactual side” is just as easy to draw. Sorry but the last part of your post is disjointed and needs more elaboration before any agreement/rebuttal can be made. Specifically, there appear to be two, possibly three lines of reason that appear to be packed into your last words. Please elaborate and,
×
×
  • Create New...