Jump to content
Science Forums

Hasanuddin

Members
  • Content Count

    163
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    3

Posts 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/imgres?imgurl=http://ossfoundation.us/projects/environment/global-warming/natural-cycle/images/542M_palaeotemps_2385x1067.png/image_large&imgrefurl=http://ossfoundation.us/projects/environment/global-warming/natural-cycle&h=343&w=768&sz=117&tbnid=ZKTxCLmOp8WK5M:&tbnh=90&tbnw=202&zoom=1&usg=__kBW_7m4O8-mZ2qgE8HNFmXcvKEI=&docid=gpRVAhfzHSDcRM&sa=X&ei=KLSZUuiQKc_roAS44IK4Dw&ved=0CGMQ9QEwCQ Which is significant if one also believes even a slight majority of studies coming out theorizing various climate change models. If the ideals of climate change are correct, and if past work correctly marks the temperature of the Earth 100M years ago at 4C higher than today, then significantly more polar/glacier ice would have been melted leading one to predict that the seas would have been much less salty that they are today.

     

    As far as peer review and merit are concerned, isn’t wise to take that in a case-by-case basis? To assume that anyone source is pure and without error is to become dogmatic and blind.

     

    In this case:

    -I believe some scientists to core samples from Maryland and Virginia

    -I believe they found an interesting formation

    -I agree with their hypothesis that it could have been formed from a meteor

    -I agree that their tests conclusively showed the presence of salts

     

    Now, as to the origins of those salts I cannot agree that the suspected origin of this high salinity was necessarily from ancient oceans.

     

    In order to believe that conclusion, one must hold two pretty high assumptions:

    1. That the formation of trapped water was significantly trapped from “the outside.”

    2. That there are no other naturally occurring sources of salt

     

    I believe that this study is shortsighted on both of these accounts.

     

    The authors of this article make the case pretty well how these pockets are isolated from any contact with the current ocean itself… that’s all well and good. But in terms of proximity to the described formation of trapped water, there is a lot more neighboring it than just the greater modern ocean… “outside” includes also a lot of rock, layer upon layer of rock. Common within the earth’s crust are various other formations within the rock, many of those involve layering or doming of salts.

     

    Now, when a meteor hits it shatters the rock… that’s how we can identify impact craters. If you went to Delmarva, you won’t see any visible signs of impact… but the ground is shattered. Mapping that shattering shows us our impact area.

     

    When meteors hit, they flip huge chunks of out and over backwards… thereby creating the potential for trapping ancient seawater.

     

    My point is that by simultaneously shattering the ground and flipped the land over to create this trapped area of water… the meteor could have also linked the newly trapped seawater with a common salt formation thereby allowing salinity levels within that pocket to rise, therefore it does not reflect the actual salinity of ancient oceans.

  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, these same findings could be the result of some water got trapped underground because of the meteor blast (assuming that part of their hypothesis is correct); but that "underground" does not equate with being hermetic sealed. Rather the meteor blast would have shattered the ground, thereby facilitating the of direct leaching of salts.

  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 predictions of this thread.

     

    Not only that, but I would also posit that if the point-of-no-return has been crossed by the reckless cocksure tinkerers at CERN, then the number of sinkholes will most definitely grow in both frequency and severity, probably in an exponential fashion.

     

    Oh well, if the worst-case scenario is correct then … fasten your seatbelts folks, it’s gunna be a bumpy ride.

     

    Personally, I am preparing spiritually. As I see it, that’s a win-win no matter what the case. Regardless of CERN or models, there’s always benefit in a little self-purification. If the worst-case condition has been breached, then I strongly advise any/all to reconnect with the-One-God while there is still time. (Be aware also that scriptures specifically foretell that God will neglect all attempts at repentance after a certain point in time during the manifestation of the End of Days, i.e., no time like the present to go to church, mosque, temple, etc.) I am also saying this because Sunday, 7/31, will be the last time I look at this website until Ramadan is over and I return from umrah in Mecca. No offense or result of anyone, but Ramadan is all about purifying and directing one’s thoughts to God and only to God.

  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 spell it out for you. not only is your model unsupported word-salad, it is unwelcome here.

     

    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 based on fact and observation. Opinions are worthless without those two prerequisites. Which brings me back to my original point: this upgrade of having a voting button where folks can anonymously vote/cheer/boo how they feel about a post (without supplying any evidence or reasoning) is the antithesis of real scientific methodology

     

    PS: Please refrain from inserting your cutsy turtle icons, or any other for that matter. Aside from being offensive, they detract from evidence or points that you are trying to make.

     

    Please get back to the real discussion on this thread. Do you, or do you not, accept the statistical analysis completed by IrishWeather.com indicating that 2011 is on its way to having more earthquakes than ever before? Can you admit, or do you deny that also, that in March this thread made the prediction of increased earthquakes?

     

    As far as the Dominium Model is concerned... please address the evidence that you find not supporting it on an appropriate thread, say http://scienceforums.com/topic/18475-the-dominium-model-part-2/

    ****Inserted edit: One's gotta laugh to see that Turtle's "response" was to "vote down" this post.

  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

    Seismologists argue that an increase in detected earthquakes does not necessarily represent an increase in actual earthquakes. The USGS, for example, says improved global communication and enhancements in detection technology have both contributed to higher earthquake numbers being recorded over time.

     

    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 assessment capabilities they have been able to fine tune, i.e., count most near 100% of that which occurs. Therefore over time, because of the technological learning curve, counting became more accurate and totals increased closer to what was actual. The debate over what to do with all of the painstakingly taken, yet grossly undercounted data from the time of the New Deal through the ‘70s and ‘80s… but eventually one reaches a point where accuracy has improved so much that data collection is precise. Such times are now. We have been at that level for roughly twelve years (hence the reason why the article can’t/isn’t saying anything about times before 2000 because those numbers are not accurate. No-one is debating about the reliability of readings since 2000.

     

    *Therefore the statistical spike is real, and cannot be dismissed by measuring error. We are also talking about an overnight doubling, and approaching tripling, of discrete events.

     

     

    Speaking of analysis of Statistics, I need further explanation of your own opinion of whether a more than doubling of occurrence over a 6-month time represents something of statistical significance or not.

    Statistics about a phenomena are not the phenomena! As explained above, these statistics don’t show an increase in the rate of earthquakes. <> Even if these data did indicate an actual increased earthquake rate, they increase beginning in 2003, and peaking in power in 2007.

     

    Actually, I agree. The data at hand is what we have, so it should be what we analyze. The debate whether we can/can’t use 1999 or before data is irrelevant. What is relevant is the spike in the data. I disagree with your assertions that the data that there were ever a nonsteady-state beginning in 2003. Rather, all of the data, through 2010 seems relatively constant. It’s 2011 that’s the anomaly and if they repeat in the 2nd half of the year would produce an unprecedented spike in statically measured earthquakes.

     

    At this point the question of LHC potency/impotence is irrelevant. Right now we are debating whether an unprecedented spike in the number of earthquakes ranging from 5.0 to 7.9 is credible data … (!) … Who cares about LHC any more? If we have reached the stage of increasing earthquakes … that means the point-of-no-return has been passed… who cares when? However, the question of when this could have happened is relevant to some degree. According to your Wikipedia report, they didn’t reach 7 TeV until early 2010. Creating a mini-black-hole would take a whole lot of initial input energy, therefore I’d guess that it they were to be *successful* it would have occurred closer to Mar 2010. But does that really matter any more?

     

    Remember: Creation of an MBH (or several) at that time could be deduced to escape, feed, and in the process destabilize the internal structure of the planet. As that occurs the rates of volcanic and seismic activities will increase as the Earth, slowly at first, but even continuously ever changes shape as its internal volume is reduced by the feeding MBH. The physical and measurable indication of this will be an ever increasing occurrence of volcanic and earthquake activity. The article presented shows a doubling spike as measured over the first half of 2011.

     

    Trust me, I don't want this to be true more than the next guy. But if it is, that means we all need to be extra Good to each other; we need to be extra careful with our interpersonal actions; and even careful with one's own eyes, tongue, and word. It appears that prophesies are coming to fruition, so then a necessary and final step is Reckoning ... to which we will be judged completely discretely.

  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 backing? Dude (or Dudette), sorry but science ain’t no popularity contest… well, I guess the banquets, luncheons, prizes, and other sycophantic assns are… but ACTUAL scientific assertions/opinion should never be based on emotions alone.

     

    Perhaps they were voting down that I brought up the idea of Death, or was it the notion of God… We’ll never know because whoever voted is not willing to back up their vote with any justifications.

     

    Explain.

  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 this model, and all of these folks are using the term “gravitational repulsion” opposed to “antigravity.”

    http://www.google.com/search?client=safari&rls=en&q=gravitational+repulsion+example&ie=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.

  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 exactly the type of phenomena that the central hypothesis of this thread projected three months ago.

     

    If the worst case scenario is truly occurring, then the rate of earthquake and volcanic activity will steadily continue to rise.

     

    Since this has been relegated to “Strange Claims” let me reiterate the neutral and upsides of this plight (if indeed the worst-case triggers have been pulled.)

    Neutral: We have been fated to die since the first time we opened our eyes. This is not a game-changer, no matter what happens.

    Upside: This would be the “first” verifiable and tangible evidence of the existence of God (Allah swt.) True, it comes also with the vision of impending death, but isn’t that when most people achieve highest clarity and closeness with their creator?

     

    Trust me, I would love for this all to stop and go away. I would love to have people pull me aside fifteen years from now and joke about how I was once worried about CERN’s potential for a runaway mistake, creation of a stable black-hole, subsequent causation of increasing massive volcanic/seismic destruction, and the ultimate extermination of all Life. I would love to eat that form of crow.

     

    However, the predictions of the model ARE coming to pass. Earthquakes and volcanic activity IS increasing world-wide.

     

    A question to ponder becomes how will each individual personally react in the face of a potential Reckoning?

     

    For me?.. I’m going on a pilgrimage to Mecca during the last two weeks of Ramadan (next month.) The way I figure, if this is occurring, at some point society will begin to unravel and it will become impossible to travel. Besides, making this pilgrimage is a mandatory component of my religion and it is something I have never yet done. If the worst-case point of no-return has been crossed, then, like everyone else, there’s nothing that I can do and I’m just along for the ride. In that case, instead of trying to argue about theoretical physics with the hope of diverting the LHC trajectory as I have done since 2007, I must look inward and work on changing my own trajectory.

  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” as the lynch-pin of their claims that LHC is not dangerous??????????

     

    The Dominium model makes the opposite claim as HR: that black-hole material is stabile, even at small mass sizes. I’d suggest that you read and digest the discussions that have already taken place on this matter. http://scienceforums.com/topic/17892-the-dominium-model-by-hasanuddin/ Please continue this tangential discussion on that thread.

     

    This thread is assuming the Dominium assertion of stabile black-holes is correct. It is making the assertion that if that were true, and LHC did generate one, then we would find ourselves in a cycle of ever increasing seismic/volcanic activity and severity. Currently we find ourselves in such a cycle. Therefore,…

     

    All I have concluded (and predicted) that if all of that is true, then the frequency/severity of this activity will continue to increase AND the Earth will continue to speed up its spin.

     

    The assertions being made are very large, and based on the past unlikely to occur. Go ahead and scoff at me if you are so comfortable in your certainty. However, the predictions of this hypothesis do transpire the absolute conclusions I would make are even larger than just that LHC made a stabile black-hole … I would go on to conclude that there is a God, that the omens of the Quranic/Biblical texts are valid, and that the choices that each of us make will have dire consequences on us individually. Okay, we’re now relegated to the “Strange Claims Forum” … fine … I suppose that is appropriate, the claims I am making right now are quite strange… Let’s all hope that they are completely incorrect.

     

    Wait and see. Watch if more quakes, tsunami, and volcano continue to blast. That is the test of the hypothesis set forward.

  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 making the assertion that if the hypothesis that CERN did create a stabile black-hole to be true, then more mega-earthquakes and eruptions will be forthcoming, not in a matter of years, but months.

     

    How could increased volcanic activity be caused by the same thing? The black hole would relieve interior pressure.

     

    True, black-hole material would be expected to compact material that it comes in contact with. However, to assume that would result in negative pressure transmitted evenly across the Earth, as if it were a water balloon, would be an over simplification. The Earth is a complex heterogeneous structure. Also, assuming LHC did create stabile black-hole material, those samples would initially have KE and take orbits that spiral in towards the core, rather than simply dropping right down. As a result, the termite-tunnels bored would themselves be complex. Therefore, to readjust to the lost internal volume both quakes and volcanoes should occur.

     

     

    There's no need for an overall decrease in volume to give this effect, notice how the major quake in '04 caused it to an even greater degree, according to the news you linked to. That's about 4 years prior to LHC runs.

     

    I agree that big quakes are nothing new. I also agree that quakes of the past have been noted to slow the Earth down. What does appear to be new is the sheer number of large lethal quakes and mega-eruptions all occurring in one year.

     

    The big question is: Will the number of quakes/eruptions continue to occur in increased frequency and severity, as I have put forward; or will it be another 5-10 years before we get another notable geologic event??

  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. As the Earth’s volume slowly reduces, the surface will continually readjust, where seismic/volcanic activity will continue to get more intense. Over the past year we have seen lethal earthquakes in Haiti, Chile, S.China, New Zealand-x2, and now Japan; tsunami in the Solomons and Japan; and increased volcanism in Alaska, Indonesia, Italy, and Iceland. Also, as the Earth’s volume decreases, its rate of spin will increase (because of dynamics of angular momentum) and this too has been recorded-- http://www.boston.com/news/science/articles/2011/03/11/japan_quake_causes_day_to_get_a_wee_bit_shorter/

     

    Why wouldn’t CERN report this “major accomplishment?” Two possibilities: either they didn’t notice it when it did occur (because of either being drowned out by other noise or because black-hole material has no signature that LHC detectors are sensitive to) and was able to excape the machine leaving only the smallest of holes behind that the vacuum status of the machine was not compromised. Or, perhaps the marketing arm of CERN is not ready to take ownership of all of the life-loss their stupidity appears to have wrought. Would admitting to this "accomplishment" make CERN legally responsible to the pain and suffering consequent to such a mishap?

     

    I am also the author of a new scientific model—The Dominium—with ramifications that, unfortunately seem to be coming to pass. I wrote under the pseudonym “Hasanuddin” (my religious name) for many reasons, including a desire to stay out of spotlights. You can also find a summary of important parts of the new model at http://knol.google.com/k/hasanuddin-hasanuddin/the-dominium-model-concise-version-big/2jtincqf6gddc/1# or alternatively you can buy it cheaply enough at online booksellers. Either way, the scenario of increased frequency and severity of earthquakes/volcano/tsunami, such as is appearing now, is EXACTLY what was predicted by the model in the worst-case scenario that CERN succeeds in creating their synthetic black-hole & the Dominium model is correct.

     

    From 2007 to 2010 I fought very hard to stop CERN from proceeding with the LHC experiment and mission to generate man’s first synthetic black-hole material. I blogged and posted on scientific forums like you wouldn’t believe. Although debate was often contentious, in the end my opponents could not find any real faults with the model and have taken a wait-and-see attitude pending several ongoing experiments that could prove the central question of gravitational dynamics one way of another. See: http://scienceforums.com/topic/17892-the-dominium-model-by-hasanuddin/

    And also: http://scienceforums.com/topic/18475-the-dominium-model-part-2/

    Hundreds of books were sent out to universities, politicians, and news organizations all across the globe. CERN was contacted first. Unfortunately it all fell on deaf ears.

     

    After this track-record, I know that you, the reader, are probably going to be skeptical too. That’s cool. I don’t expect action immediately. However, if the earthquakes, tsunami, and volcanism continue to increase in both frequency and severity … please consider the ramifications. I believe there is so much more connected to this possibility than *just* destruction, death, and extinction.

     

    The biggest questions shall be how are we going to react. Should decision-makers at CERN be brought to justice? If so, what kind of justice is there worse than watching the world being destroyed and knowing that it is your fault?

     

    More personally, how are we as individuals going to react? Will we become murderous savages clawing of each other in order to live one second longer; or do we become stoic kinder and aware of the pain felt by people less strong than ourselves? Over the past year we saw three different populations impacted. In Haiti gangs of lawless men raped, looted, and murdered over things as small as food; while in Japan there appears to be no looting at all and high levels of inter-cooperation; while Chile fell somewhere between. In a condition of mass destruction, would you comfort a scared orphaned child, or would you push her aside and pillage the remains of her broken home? Digest that last question very slowly and give it plenty of weight. In times of true crisis, the true goodness (or evil) of a person can come out. I have seen for a very long time the eerie connections between Quranic/Biblical texts and the tableau that appears of have played out—these are explained in detail in the published book. If CERN did create a black-hole, if the Dominium model is correct, and if I trust my own eyes for what they have witnessed, then beyond a doubt, there is a God, we all are interconnected, and that personal decisions made will have consequences lasting past our deaths. If these are the Last Days, the choices you make are likely to either save or damn you.

     

    Of course there is always the chance that no black-holes have been made and that the recent blitz of earthquakes, volcanism, increased Earth-spin have nothing to do with LHC. It’s one of those wait and see deals. In the meantime, it might be prudent to make peace internally, spiritually, and with one's fellow man.

  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:

    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.

    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.

     

    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.publicradio.org/display/web/2010/07/13/university-of-minnesota-neutrino-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.com/Structure-Scientific-Revolutions-Thomas-Kuhn/dp/0226458083/ref=sr_1_fkmr1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1293830683&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.

  13. Sorry for the break from this dialogue, life called. Please understand.

     

    I’d like to absolutely agree with Eric’s concern.

    The fact that within extra dimensions the duration of micro black holes is presented so much by CERN and elsewhere as extremely rapid' date=' is a terrible disaster..

    [/quote'] That is why I so hastily wrote the syllogism/book THE DOMINIUM Sequencing antimatter and gravity effects; Big Bang to black hole and implications for a manmade near-future doomsday: End-of-life on Earth back in the summer of 2007. LHC was just nearing completion. What a tense time that was.

     

    Today LHC is running. That is true. Nothing much has happened. …literally. Yes, lot’s of data, but basically a lot of more-of-the-same, just at a larger scale. That is not something to tote.

     

    Instead, CERN got in the media by a hoopla about containment of anti-Hydrogen.

    http://public.web.cern.ch/press/pressreleases/Releases2010/PR22.10E.html

    http://arstechnica.com/science/news/2010/11/researchers-trap-antihydrogen-atoms.ars

    The problem w/ these stories is that they portray this as some kind of “new” achievement. It’s not. When I was at CERN in 2000 they were actively producing anti-Hydrogen in an ongoing and routine basis. A decade ago CERN rountinely created anti-hydrogen and even opened a full facility for this process. (notice the dates in these citations:)

    http://ad-startup.web.cern.ch/AD-Startup/Atrap/atrap-en.html

    http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2002-10/aiop-fgi102802.php

     

    Despite the lack of any significant NEWS originating from CERN, nothing addresses Eric’s concern regarding mini-black-holes (synthetic or naterual.) The fact that there is no knowledge of the generation of any black-hole material at LHC has occurred does not negate the questestion, whether black-hole material is dangerous. All it means is that LHC has been not yet more successful than previous machines. This certainty only refers to the track-record of a paricular, but unsuccessful, machine. This fact says nothing to the question of whether black-holes are stable or not. Hence the question of this thread, what is the smallest size, in kg, that a black-hole need be to exist longer that a second.

     

    One side of the argument, is the idea that small black-holes will safely evaporate” away via “Hawking Radiation.” Cool, sound great. The problem has always been: the hypothesis of Hawking’s Assumptions has no basis in tangible evidence/experimentation. The irony has been the backers of the H-Assumptions have hoped that LHC itself, would prove the H-Assumptions by watching/recording a synthesized back-hole evaporating away. So far, they too have been disappointed, LHC has shown no signs of any black-holes. Again, this lack of data only conclusively shows the failure of LHC… not to any of the theories regarding black-holes once/if they are formed.

     

    The reason why I kept going back to this idea of what is the smallest mass-size of a black-hole (either synthetic or natural)?? is because I know that until it is actually recorded then no-one can know for certain.

     

    This, then leads to the ethical questions concerning future use/direction of giant scientific endevours, such are the one going on at CERN and countless labs across the world. How to proceed efficiently (i.e., maximize potential for major scientific leaps) ethically with regard to risks to humanity. The reason for this concern, for me, comes from the deductive conclusions of the Dominium Model, especially the assertion that black-hole material is the 5th, and final phase of matter. All the known trends (density, energy-content, and most importantly, stability) would continue effortlessly if this were true.

     

    The beauty and simplicity of this ominous assertion demanded to be written down and disseminated using unconventional means, such as publishing it as a book and went via social-media (such as hypography.com) rather than by formal journal article. That way, the potential for danger could be known/assessed sooner rather than later.

     

    Oh well, the failure of LHC to weigh in either way does not to abate the potential of mini black-holes to be dangerous. Nor does it answer the central question of this thread concerning the minimum "safe" size of black-hole material.

  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

    a black hole with no infalling normal matter would still absorb the matter portion of virtual particle pair creations near the event horizon' date=' ejecting the antimatter portion at speed relative to the mass and distance from its center. [/quote'] 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.com/topic/18722-digesting-the-galactic-big-mac/

    http://www.esa.int/esaSC/SEMKTX2MDAF_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.nasa.gov/stargaze/Sblkhole.htm

    http://www.eso.org/public/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' date=' it follows that they would be gravitationally repulsed by antimatter. [/quote'] 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' date=' [i']turning the deductive description into numeric code[/i] 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?
  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.

    One way to look at the fifth dimension is connected to two different space-time references interacting. The more contracted reference sees things different in space and time.

    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 nanoseconds after the Big Bang. I hope this sounds a bit familiar folks, but these assertions are the heart of the Dominium model. http://hypography.com/forums/alternative-theories/18910-the-dominium-model-by-hasanuddin.html#post259329 So, I suppose it is safe to conclude that the Dominium model is truly an examination of necessary interaction within the 5th dimension. I have no problem with that; the Dominium model is a 5th dimensional analysis. Cool

     

    Do you even know what you are saying? Tell me, are spatial dimensions physical things? Yes/no.

    Not fun to bring in philosophy and semantics. To steve9, I hope when you redefine an English word, like “dimension,” that you do so explicitly. Under lay terms, the lead post of this thread is satisfactory. After all, it is worded as a question

     

    Negative mass and negative energy are just ways to express ideas that cannot be thought of in any other way. Like imaginary numbers, there is no reason why they cannot exist but no real reason to think they do either.

    I wholeheartedly agree, though with a cautionary note. One important aspect of arbitrarily assigned mathematic labeling to non-mathetmatical, but physical, particles, then one risks transposing the mathematical constraints where they don’t apply. For example, one simplistic argument initially leveled against the Dominium: if you call antimatter the “negative” mass then that means you’d have a “negative” KE, because KE=0.5mv^2. But that’s a paradox because you can’t have negative energy. In fact, no paradox exists, because the mistake comes from the assumption that assigning a mathematic label assumed transfer of mathematical traits. I don’t think that is what you are implying. But I just wanted to insert clarification for those reading.

     

    I must say that I am not quite sure what to make of Yoron’s poetic post preceding this one. I’m not sure I agree or disagree with any of his points because it is unclear to me what was asserted and what could have a factious jest. Or maybe I was just derailed by the God-statement

    As I'm God in this system I will give it length and height. Width? Uhhu, no way, bad idea. And I'm God here.

     

    I guess in summary, the Dominium model is not only compatible with the understanding of a 5th dimension, but the fundamental inquiry is one of 5th dimensional interaction. Where the 5th dimension is understood to be the interactions and interrelationships between "particles," i.e., galaxies, within the supermatrix of galaxies. Let me extend my sincere thanks for the PM and to its sender. For what it's worth, some truly cool corroborating forms of evidence have been published in the last few months. Ironically, the best evidence comes from the initial papers published by LHC which have offered the strongest support in favor of the Dominium model and against status quo assumptions. See full details at http://hypography.com/forums/alternative-theories/18910-the-dominium-model-by-hasanuddin-13.html#post292328 where it was stated: [qutoe=Hasanuddin;292328]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.

  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 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

  17. 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 glance at any of these pages for over six months.

     

    These conversations are important. We are discussing the very edges of known understanding. The area where the pieces are still coming in and those that we do have don’t fit together as neatly as we’d like them to. There are still too many vexing paradoxes. I personally believe that it is a duty for all humans to explore and question the natural world, in which we only ephemerally exist. Fame, ego, and money actually mean nothing towards the question of whether or not you've lived a Good life. We are all going to die at some point, and then our names a specific contributions become forgotten. And our Earth... compared to the Universe as a whole is so insignificant it's hardly worth mentioning. Herein lays a paradox of sorts: if we are each infinitely infinitesimal within the Universe, why should any of us work hard to do anything?? Within this paradox, I find strength and inspiration. We are all most insignificant than microbes in this universe of ours. But we try hard, not despite this fleeting and finite status of the moment exist, but because of it.

     

    Any way, to your statement (which I totally disagree with.)

    This gives a (slightly) more conventional view' date=' involving annihilating positrons produced from primordial black hole Hawking radiation, these would aniilhilate with the electrons in the radiation.[/quote']

    Following your presentation you link to a NewScientist article on a theory for “the creation of a source to account for observe antimatter that has been measured and which is being referred to as MAC on this thread.

     

    I strongly take issue with your claim that the view of this article is in any way conventional. Consider what the basis of their views:

    Legions of tiny black holes created during the big bang may lurk at the centre of the galaxy, creating a prodigious antimatter factory

    Milky Way's antimatter linked to exotic black holes - space - 22 January 2008 - New Scientist

    I am in agreement with Mr Clark on the first assertion, tiny black-holes created during the Big Bang probably did occur. The second half of the logic falls apart: why would tiny black-holes become antimatter factories? No observed black-hole has been seen to be a “factory” of anything. True, jets have been recorded when black-hole ingest mass-quantities, but the net flow of material is inward. Also, to my knowledge there is no mathematic fundamental that predicts a polar switch from observed black-holes that consume, to not-yet recorded tiny black-holes that are net producers of antimatter—of all things? Wouldn’t the favoring of the production of antimatter violate known fundamental observed principles, e.g., ubiquitous pair-production events recorded “nearly” countless times? Wouldn’t the favored production of antimatter violate the conventional assumption used as a basis for the all-matter Universe????

     

    Also missing from this article is a complete dodge on the question, why does MAC persist? How can MAC persist in the most mass-dense quadrants of the known galaxy??? This “theory” not only goes against conventional doctrine it also does not fit into known observable trends. Worse, applies a façade over acknowledging all the paradoxes surrounding the MAC structure.

     

    Hey, since my seven month hiatus began, some recent advances have been made. As one might expect, some of these new advanced insights enter areas where a model, such as the Dominium, would necessarily be impacted. Surprise-surprise, two very conclusive sets of data point to new evidence categorically in support of the Dominium model. Ironically one of the strongest pieces of evidence came from LHC herself. The first widely published release of LHC data tells of "surprising" levels of luminosity, i.e., rates of collision significantly higher than all reknowned theorists had projected. However, this exact occurrence was predicted on discussions threads, such as this, more than a year ago and well before LHC was ever successfully run! The other grandslam comes from the Voyager Mission, one of the longest and most fruitful missions that NASA has ever accomplished.

     

    Check out the other thread where that’s all coming together... very cool developments in favor for the merit of the Dominium model itself.

    http://hypography.com/forums/alternative-theories/18910-the-dominium-model-by-hasanuddin-13.html#post292328

  18. 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.

  19. 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' 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

    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.

  20. 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.

  21. 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

  22. 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.

  23. 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:

    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.

    I am quite interested in your own perception of the number of anomalous observations that do not jive with current assumptions. Do you agree with the ones I listed? Can you add more that I didn't include.

     

    Nice meeting you. I share an extreme curiosity of the anomalies. I believe that it is the anomalies that have always held the keys to scientific advancement throughout scientific history. I am hoping that you are referring to yet other anomalies of which I am not yet aware. Take care.

  24. Qfwfq, let me understand you a bit more clearly.

    Your syllogism only shows one side of the matter, the factual side, it ignores the counterfactual side which just as easily follows.

    Now, just for the record, your are referring to this syllogism, correct?

    RE: Light interaction with AMBH

    A: Light is the antiparticle of itself

    B: Therefore photons have as much in common with particles as they do with their equivalent antiparticles

    C: Light has been observed to bend (attractively) as a result of the influence of matter-based black-hole

    D: Therefore, light would be expected to bend (attractively) as a result of the influence of AMBH

    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, if possible cite supporting evidence to back up these unfinished thoughts

    anihilation would produce zero net energy if the masses were of opposite sign. I could add that, since a photon or gluon is equivalent to a fermion-antifermion pair, then it would follow in this manner too, that the boson could be neither attracted nor repelled.

    I have no problem responding to your points, but I would just request that you spell them out a bit further so that I know what to respond to.

     

    =====

     

    Jay-qu, on what grounds do you accuse me of “abusing” the Composition Fallacy?

    You are abusing this so called Composition Fallacy - it surely applies to chemistry where the dynamics of the entire system are dependent on the configuration, but you cant then just extend this deduction to physics. It simply does not apply to this physical situation as you have stated.

    First of all, fallacies are not situation-specific. Fallacies are the result of flawed argumentation structure. Therefore, they would not be (as is suggested) applicable to one situation (chem) but non-applicable to another (physics.) Also, Composition fallacies are not “so-called” I was actually referring to descriptions of this informal fallacy from Copi’s Introduction to Logic 6th edition pages 124-126. Now, you have just made a huge claim: Compostion fallacies cannot apply to this physical situations. That is truly huge. Why? Why can Composition fallacies apply to flawed chemical-arguments, but when speaking physics there is no flaw?

     

    The last part of this paragraph is disjointed from the conversation. Let me remind you, the conversation was about the dynamics of gluons, gravitational influences of matter, and possible expressions of antimatter. Although the words following regarding Composition fallacies may actually link in to the line of conversation, no actual linkage appears visible:

    As said earlier gluons contribute most of the rest mass to the overall atoms mass. I may also add that inside the proton there are hundreds of particle antiparticle pairs being brought into existence and annihilated, all of these component particles add to the mass of the atom - since you cant mask gravity or change its influence in any way it doesnt matter how any of this is arraged, the atoms mass is the sum of its component pieces.

    *Just a side note: Your unlined ending is a bit misleading and borderline incorrect. In nuclear operations there is commonly a mass-defect. To say that an atom’s mass is the sum of its parts gives the impression that there is no mass-defect. (I know, surely you meant to include the energy involved, I just wouldn’t want silent reader to become confused.)

     

    The last paragraph of this post hinges around the concept of pair production. I’m not quite sure I follow your narrative. Perhaps you are referring to a different form of pair production of which I am not yet aware. Let me spell out my understanding of pair-production in a simple clean manner so that you might correct/add nuances that I might be missing. My goal is to ultimately build a working syllogism to which we can both agree. Once we have a working syllogism that we both agree represents the scientific principles and flows logically, then we can advance further.

     

    A: Pair-production is a manifestation of energy conversion into mass, E=mc^2

    B: Pair-production produces a positron (antimatter; positive charge) and an electron (matter; negative charge)

    C: In the process of pair-production net increase in charge produced is zero

    D: In the process of pair-production net increase mass produced is zero

    E: If an electron and a positron happen to be at the same place at the same time the annihilate, through the reverse process, mc^2=E

    F: For the entire process, pair-production/annihilation, conservation of energy, charge, and mass holds.

     

    That is my understanding. From the truths associated with pair-production, I don’t see how you can reach the conclusion that the atom loses mass. Perhaps there is a different type of pair-production of which I am currently unaware that you are referring to. If so, please be kind enough to supply a link so that you might enlighten me. Regardless, please use the skeletal syllogism provided and revise it so that it meets your intended message.

×
×
  • Create New...