Jump to content
Science Forums

Hasanuddin

Members
  • Content Count

    163
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    3

Everything posted by Hasanuddin

  1. Morning Modest, You appear to have misinterpreted what has been presented: Call it “avoiding,” if you will, but never have I meant to imply anything regarding the gravitational interaction/dynamics of gluons. True, both photon and gluons are both their own antiparticle, but that similarity does not mean that their dynamics are similar. To generalize that all particles that are their own antiparticles possess identical (or even similar) dynamics, would be an unjustifiable accident. We only have a working understanding of the gravitational characteristics of photons, therefore I was able to
  2. Jay-qu, The last post in this series is way too emotional. On one hand you accuse me of insulting you—this is a misunderstanding for I never intended any personal offense. If you do find something I said abusive, then please quote such foul words so that I might apologize or explain. In the very next breath you use words such as “unfounded,” “strange,” and the phrase “get off your high horse” … yet you never elaborate what exactly is so distasteful to you. Let us try to start afresh. In this post I will reiterate the syllogistic points that I am making. If there is a flaw, please highlight s
  3. With regards to photon interaction to black-holes (AMBH or matter-based) the following discussion was asserted. The problem is that a reductio ad absurdum is not actually reached because prevailing truths are ignored. Specifically, the line it (photons) must be repelled by both because it is the opposite of both. This is an absurd premise, not an absurd conclusion. It is an established truth that light display attraction to known matter-based black-hole. When using an absurd premise, the consequence that the resulting conclusion is also absurd to be expected and is irrelevant to the issues b
  4. Actually, nothing in what I am saying conflicts with heart-felt truths of physics. Perhaps I used the wrong hinge-word in the statement you’ve quoted. I agree “types” is borderline incorrect, though “expressions” would be much more accurate and descriptive of my point: There are two expressions of charge; there are two expressions of mass. How’s that? I don't believe there is anything new in making that statement. Given the no-hair theorem, and given the correctness of the above statement, I stand by the assertiong that: 1. The only information retained by something accreted in a black-hol
  5. Hi Moontanman, Please refer to the threads: http://hypography.com/forums/alternative-theories/19536-the-dominium-model-part-2-a.html and http://hypography.com/forums/alternative-theories/18910-the-dominium-model-by-hasanuddin.html If you still have questions, post them there. Let's stay focused on AMBH, no-hair theorem, or related topics on this thread. edit: I don't mean to be rude, but this conversation is very interesting. Post 21, which you capped, presents a very profound challenge. I would like that challenge to be fully considered
  6. I believe your conflict can be resolved by replacing the word “opposite” with the word “mirror.” This subtle change allows for your later (rebuttal) conclusion, that I am in agreement with Yes, I believe you are correct. AMBH would similarly affect neighboring antimatter in an antimatter galaxy in an indistinguishable fashion to how matter-based black-holes affect the matter in a galaxy such as our own. Remember, the notion of gravitational repulsion is only between opposites; matter/matter interaction would be expected to be mirror-identical to antimatter/antimatter interactions. After th
  7. Hi freeztar, Just a quick note, and apologies that I can’t reply to all the others (I’m on the road to Chicago—Maumee, Ohio to be exact—I’m attending the American Library Association Book Show) But I will try to reply at night. Actually freetzar, low levels of background matter/antimatter annihilation signatures are expected by the Dominium model. Remember the MAC formation at the center of the Milky Way. We only see that structure because of the annihilation signatures of high energy particles colliding with its matrix. The original Dominium model’s conclusions 17 and 19 categorically de
  8. Sorry, but I only truly agree with only one sentence here. It is also the only sentence that was presented categorically, “Black holes will suck in all sorts of matter like electrons and protons, if it sucks in more electrons the black hole will have a net negative charge.” Ya, but so what? Under what conditions would a black-hole be sucking up more electrons than protons? Where does such a charge imbalanced section of the galaxy or Universe exist. Sorry, but I am not partial to hypotheticals that do not exist in nature or could not be reproduced. After that point, I agree with nothing, agai
  9. Wow, honestly, thank you for the informative and well-thought out post. There was a part, however, that you misinterpreted the line of my inquiry and spent much time tangent. I still adhere to the assertion. I was not referring to the density of the black-hole, I was referring to the density of the matrix of the region of space surrounding the baby black-hole. Let me lay it out a little more syllogistically: 1: If there is no matter/photons/other in the vicinity of the bitty black-hole, then the MBH will receive nothing. 2: If there is matter/photons/other within the vicinity of the MBH,
  10. Ja-qu, I will respond to you on the proper thread that regards AMBH: http://hypography.com/forums/physics-and-mathematics/20089-antimatter-black-holes-possibilities-consequences.html
  11. Hi again Modest, According to Theorem Definition | Definition of Theorem at Dictionary.com The no-hair theorem only fits (barely) the first definition. I find it very hard to consider “no-hair” to be proved when its whole “basis” is lack of data. No, the equations may appear to be tight, but that does not prove truth. Such proof can only come in the form of evidence; and lack of evidence does not constitute evidence. Consider the other definitions of “theorem” and see how such a description is a blatant overstatement when applied to no-hair. Def #2: The no-hair notion cannot be consi
  12. Hi Modest, Sorry, I believe I didn’t explain myself well enough. I know of this audacious hypothesis. I just don't have much respect for this particular theory. First off on what grounds/evidence/priority does one assert a hypothesis as a “Theorem.” Furthermore, I have never had much faith in this particular scenario because the structure of the argument is a classic example of Argumentum ad Ignorantiam: everything is based on no-recorded-data pointing in one particular direction. Yes yes, I know, this hypothesis comes from an interpretation of Maxwell and Einstein’s theories. That fact is
  13. Hi lawcat, The quick answer to your observation is, “yes, again.” Yes, as long as symmetry and parity hold then all things possible in matter based chemistry should be possible in antimatter based chemistry. In our sun the process of fusion is converting a net four hydrogens at a time into one helium-4, two positrons, and energy. Similarly an antimatter star would be expected to undergo a process of antifusion where four antihydrogens is converted into one antihelium-4, two electrons, and energy. The photonic energy between the two cases would be identical because light is the antiparticle
  14. Replying to unsettled questions from the other thread: I disagree. The site provided does not answer this particular question. In fact, this article ultimately twists the question around to conclude that the question can’t be asked. Saying The reasoning for this non-answer evasion is given by human-sampling limitations Problem: Although “no information” appears leaves a black-hole (for us to record other than mass, charge, and angular momentum), does that mean that no other information exists? No. Past failure to detect information does not mean that no other info exists. Also, even if
  15. I agree(ish). If you were just looking at a chunk of something that is contained within a vacuum, I agree that you would not be able to know whether it is matter or antimatter. Matter and antimatter should both interact identically with light (because light is the antiparticle of itself and would therefore have as much in common with matter as it does antimatter.) Therefore, what you are viewing would “look” identical in either case. However when that post goes on to say: I totally disagree that you have any basis to make such claims with the absolute certainty that is conveyed. There is n
  16. Hi folks, A new thread has been started to address and discuss the nature of AMBH I wholeheartedly agree with: I have no problem that several interesting lines of discussion have been opened. However, I want to stay focused (and I'm keenly interested in CraigD's response, and if anyone wishes to join the discussion of how/what could achieve the smallest stable black-hole.
  17. Antimatter Black-holes: what is their nature? This new thread is spun off of “Smallest stable black-holes” because the question of antimatter black-holes (AMBH) is exceedingly interesting, it is not actually 100% connected to the notion of the requirements of creating that smallest-sized black-holes. This statement commits two mistakes. The first mistake is to liken the human-assigned prefix “anti” to the mathematical concept of negative-numbers. This equivocation lead to the truly wrong assignment of negative-mass. Although matter and antimatter are opposites, not all opposites a numeric
  18. The question of antimatter black-holes is a truly intriguing question… and one to which I have applied quite a deal of thought to over the past couple years. First, I believe that no matter which theory one refers to there is indication, on a fundamental level, that anti-matter black-holes (AMBH) are theoretically predicted. Most would agree that antimatter is supposed to be the mirror particle of matter. Assuming parity and symmetry, one would assume that all functions possible in a matter-based system should be possible in an antimatter-based system, e.g., anti-fusion, anti-biochem, and th
  19. Good I am glad that there are some good answers and considerations. I’ll reply in two sections because there appears to be two sub-threads. As to the primary question of the smallest size that a black-hole can be and exist stably. Okay, let me just clarify… you are talking about only the evaporating side of the equation… correct? What about the other side of the dynamic? Consumption. Does a black-hole consume more when the density of compactable material is high? Deductively the answer must be, “Yes.” If a black-hole is in a pure vacuum then nothing could be consumed. As material is add
  20. Hi Eric, Sorry for not being clear. The definition of MPP… okay, but again sorry, I am so close to this model that it’s easy to think that others are as familiar with the meaning, use, and significance of all of the acronyms used. MPP: Micellular Positron Packets These are 3-dimensional spheroid structures formed within matter-based stars generating antimatter positrons as a byproduct of fusion. To achieve primary gravitational stability the antimatter positrons clump forming the MPP structure. The dynamic of the MPP would be highly similar to schooling fish: positrons will travel and move
  21. What is the smallest sized possible black-hole? And what are the implications of the answer to this question? According to cosmologic observation, the smallest black-hole ever viewed from Earth is roughly 3.8 solar masses. SPACE.com -- Smallest Black Hole Found However this observation does not establish the lower limit to achieve a stable black-hole. For one thing, that structure has been growing ever since its creation and is observed growing today. For another, there are several different models that do seem to suggest the lower limit of stability for a black-hole to be much smaller
  22. Perhaps it is impossible to reconcile religion and science for others, though it is possible within one’s self, as exemplified early by Curie, Einstein, and Sagan. (It saddens me no-one wanted to discuss either Einstein or Sagan.) Pride is a blinding motivator that causes some to subject their views on others. This is a perversion; whether the pride originates from foregone absolute-correctness of one religious or atheistic beliefs the results always seem to be to the detriment of the rest of society. As I said before, I believe, we’re all born alone; we will all die alone; and we will all
  23. Are these fanciful and fictional musings really appropriate for "astronomy and cosmology." Is there a science-fiction or "what-if" board? I don't see how any of the rules governing burned of proof could apply to chimera like these.
  24. Hi Moontanman, I will not defend atrocities done “in the name” of religion. Why, because such actions actually go against the teachings of the religion itself. When you said, I believe you are actually misdiagnosing the illness… though I do agree there is pervasive sickness. No, the fault/cause is not religion, but religious pride. They are two very different things. The Catholics list “pride” as one of their 7 deadly sins. Yet Catholic-pride has led to murder in Northern Ireland, the Inquisition, and the crusades. No argument from me. From my own metaphysical understanding I would take an
  25. Hi Moontanman, Yes, is the straightforward answer to your question If the AEGIS project categorically shows that matter and antimatter gravitationally attract, then game over. I’ll collect my marbles and leave the playground. The Dominium model is a falsifiable construct. The central premise is its cornerstone, dislodge that and everything falls. There are two other outcomes that could come out of AEGIS, and/or other current experiments seeking to discover the gravitational relationship between matter and antimatter: 2: Gravitational repulsion is indicated. Although this outcome would
×
×
  • Create New...