Jump to content
Science Forums


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


Everything posted by Hasanuddin

  1. Oh well, I suppose if serves me right for comparing man to animals at all. I should have just said man forms societies, which would have been perfectly correct. I didn't mean to dis' other city-societies of the animal kingdom, like the termites. But humans are different than swarms of bees, ants, or termites because we are not clones. The other animals don't form semi-static villages, that raid and compete against each other (tho one could make an argument for chimps.) I also knew that it is dangerous ground to ever talk of stereotypes. I agree, such practice is dangerous, and not applicable
  2. Hi Larv, I believe we are not in disagreement. Yes, I know of kin selection, but I was talking on a grander scale. Humans are unlike other animals in the we form societies. Anthropologists note this village behavior going back many thousands of years. Kin selection considers what happens within the nuclear family. What I’m talking is societal advancement on the village, valley, and nation status. Going back to the notion of a co-dominance between the gay phenotype and another societally beneficial trait. I put forward that stereotype, although not necessarily true for the individual, are
  3. It was probably good to move those comments. I apologize for contributing to causing the discussion to slide from science to politics. It is such a razor thin delineation. Back to the Biology. No-one commented on the notion that by definition, being gay is a "genetic lethal" characteristic. As such, rules of population dynamics would suggest genetic drift would have wiped it out of the population eons ago. But that didn't happen. Apparently all human populations, regardless of religion/culture, have approx the same proportion of gay phenotypes as each other. This homogeneity of statistics be
  4. Hi Rade, 1: Which part of the dark-matter reading is accounted for by Dominium & which by the RAD-model As I mentioned originally this is not an area I wish to argue at this point. Both the Dominium and the RAD-model appear to have two valid claims for the influences that caused both the readings of “dark-matter” and the necessity of the “dark-energy” djinni construct. As mentioned, in the decades to come, there will be plenty of time for all to quibble over the exact partitioning. For us here and now, the goal is to kill the djinni. Expose the construct for what it is: an unverified, e
  5. Hi Eric, I looked at the paper you mentioned, [0711.2256] Correlation of the highest energy cosmic rays with nearby extragalactic objects To me, it seems to present more questions than it answers. I’ll have to read a little closer to see their methodology, but it appears that the papers conclusion is that the origin of highest cosmic rays energy cosmic rays is from between galaxies and that their arrival is not isotropic. Both of these conclusions go against best understandings (though that means only a little.) Facts are facts, the real question is are these truly reliable “facts.” The
  6. Hi again Eric, Good to hear from you. This is a much better forum than the one we met at. The caliber of folks here is very high. Let me try to answer your questions: Yes, in every way, just the mirror operation. So then as to detecting light from antimatter galaxies, yes, we would be able to detect that light. The most perplexing question is, “Would we be able to differentiate light from an antimatter source from a matter source?” Unfortunately, the answer to that question is “No, because photon are the antiparticle of themselves, also because of perfect mirror symmetries between the dy
  7. Hi Eric, Welcome. You bring up and excellent point/observation. Let us focus on the data actual observation (and not the theory that someone else surmised.) Yes, someone else did have a crack at explaining the evidence, but as you note, their explanation falls short. It is the physical evidence that is most important. BTW, congratulations for figuring out the next moves, and that is that the escaping MPP’s are the drivers of the solar wind. You’re getting ahead of me, but I have never been one to avoid a direct question. Since you have preempted that move, let me summarize an overview of h
  8. "Silly" meant "saintly?" Wow, that's an odd twist. I wonder how that perversion occurred? Personally, I prefer being more silly over overly serious. This debate is over the wrong things. Look, as I said, by the laws of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts I was wed to the other-half of my heart, of now twelve years. The most important part of the event was not a slip of paper, a number, or bragging rights, it was to be in front of family (and God) to crystalize it. Just have both friends AND family in one place was important. I had over eighty relations from 16 state come to the Boat Slip in Pr
  9. Hi Larv, Personally I am hoping that there is no chromosomal "gay marker" or if there is that the scientific community never divulges or tries to use it. Seriously, think of religious-hatred induced abortions of unborn gay fetuses? Though think of the sociologic paradox such a condition would cause: The folks most hating gays and wish'n 'em all dead, being the folks picketing Planned Parenthood. Ha. Serves them right, actually. There is something balancing about the notion of haters having gay children and ultimately shifting away from the conservative rote. I saw this with Arlan Spector
  10. Hey Rade, Nice try guessing the fate of the “missing positrons” (p.s. a difficult set of characters for me to “position.”) The candidate of positronium does have its merits. However, I think I have a better answer. Let me move on. Move 15 Considering the conclusions from move 14 to be sound, then positrons generated by a matter-based star’s fusion will form MPP and journey up through the layers of the star. If this is occurring, then All MPP are charged moving objects. Like All charged moving objects the MPP will produce magnetic fields that spiral around them perpendicular to the direc
  11. Good Morning Rade, Novelty vs Ubiquity: I understand your frustration with the scientific establishment. Trust me, I know. You think your model steps on toes? The Dominium nearly crushes a few. I think the reason more scientists aren't open to new ideas is inherent human xenophobia. I heard a great program on NPR a month or so ago about “novelty,” and about how most folks absolutely loath the exposure and insecurity of trying new things. Although the individual might say, or even think, that they are open-minded. In reality, they are eating, doing, listening to, and using the same things ov
  12. Hi Jeff, Mechanism? Do you mean the sub-subatomic driver that causes the manifestation of gravity? No… the Dominium analysis is silent for this area; there are still some mysteries left to solve. On the subject of drivers for other fundamental forces, aren’t they also unknown? Consider electrostatics, we know that protons and positron “are” positive-typed; and we know antiprotons and electrons “are” negative-typed; but as far as I have read there is no idea how, or why, this is so (in terms of subatomic mechanisms.) The applecart You are very correct when you assert that if the Dominium pr
  13. Dear Rade, There are a couple other connections that I have identified between the Dominium and RAD models. Well, at least one major point at which they rub: the moment in history described when the protons, neutrons, antiprotons, and antineutrons (baryons) all came into existence (baryonogenesis). Anyway, at the time of baryonogenesis proximity would have been close. This is also near the point indicated by the Dominium to be the advent of the period of Immiscibility. This moment happened so early on that the Universe was still near absolute chaos. Okay the synergy between the two mode
  14. Good Morning Rade, I am so glad to have met you. Your RAD-model truly intrigues me. Honestly, I woke up thinking about the perfect stability that would be achieved by a ring/barbell dynamic. Given the different directions of push and pull the ring/barbell would become incredibly stabile—almost “forever”-stable. You are correct in your assertion that the Dominium would predict a mirror ring/barbell configuration for antimatter. Hence would be equally stabile. The thing I love about your RAD-model is that it takes only one true ”maverick” step—that 1 = 3-2. What results is something that
  15. Hi Rabe, Instead of “antigravity” please use “gravitational repulsion.” The reason is simple. The term I prefer harkens to “electrostatic repulsion” not by accident. One of the beauties of this model is that upon its completion are ten different areas in which systems run by gravitational influence are supersymmetrically related from a systems-dynamics view. One of these fundamental alignments occurs here. While we are on the subject of interrelation to electrical systems. Consider the central relationships in an electrical system: p><q q><p p<>p q<>q Now consi
  16. Hi Tormod, The lead to this thread was written in terms of the consensus view, biases, and popular opinion—not the language used by w/in journals. What I mean is that what people believe versus what they publish are often two different things. I am not avoiding the legitimate call to divulge sources for an assertion, like the one forwarded. Rather, because I am referring to the psychology of the scientific community the source is not Arxiv, but it is to be found within the educational press statements and news stories that our their scientific reporting to the words of a few “experts.” Tru
  17. A massive antimatter cloud (MAC) has been mapped by the ESA/NASA satellite Integral. The mission shows that MAC completely encapsulates the central black-hole at our galaxy’s center. ESA - Space Science - Integral discovers the galaxy?s antimatter cloud is lopsided NASA - Vast Cloud of Antimatter Traced to Binary Stars The existence of the MAC formation is completely contradictory to traditional rote. We are lead to believe, by consensus theories that all the Universe’s antimatter disappeared during the first seconds of after creation. MAC’s existence, stability, and continuance all appea
  18. Hi Rabe, I was thinking about the “coexistence of gravity-antigravity” to form a proton and I believe that I have something else for you to consider. (your final summarizing question.) Even before hearing your reply, I think I can answer this question (no matter which slant your question was oriented.) Part 2: Yes, the Dominium model is compatible for the coexistence of attractive and repulsive gravitational interaction between quark assemblage of the proton. Let me explain: not only would the Dominium state that there would exist both attraction and repulsion, this competing dynamic
  19. Hello Rade, You bring up some interesting angles. First we’ll need to narrow a few things. Let’s start with language. I know it seems trivial, but language and definitions are essential to me. Indeed language is the keel to logic, and logic is the rope that holds our ship of scientific understanding together. Loose definitions lead to unnecessary ambiguity, it hides fallacy, and leads to false conclusions. My first thing to ask is what exactly is meant by the following? I ask you this question on my levels. 1. Definition & Usage: Please don’t use the term ”antigravity.” It is misl
  20. Well, we are approaching the 2-yr birthday of the Dominium model. Wow, it has been quite a ride. When this began I was actually responding to the ignorance displayed by an MIT professor. During a lecture entitled “Physics Frontiers” a decorated MIT professor made the segue statement, “Now that we know everything there is to know about the Higg’s boson…” My hand shot up like lightning. “Sir,” I said, “How can you or anyone else claim to know much of anything about a particle that has never been detected nor has any trace of its existence ever been noted." He stammered a bit and then acquiesced
  21. Move 14 The subject of fusion (or antifusion for that matter) brings up a very interesting quandary that implies Dominium implications. Acceleration Syllogism Premise: Stars in our galaxy produce antimatter positions as a byproduct This premise is so well accepted by the scientific community that it is accepted as fact (even though direct observation of this natural process has never been conducted.) For every helium atom that is constructed out of four hydrogens, two positrons are also being produced. Because of the rate of fusion occurring within our Sun, literally tons of positrons are
  22. Dear Arkain, We share similar interests. However, I cannot agree with where you have taken this narrative of your if I cannot agree with the starting point you choose. You have ignored, it appears for convenience sake, the question of the missing observed antimatter in our quadrant of space: Do you not agree that from what we know of high-energy events adherence to equal amounts of matter to antimatter as a byproduct of pair-production? Do you not agree that the Big Bang was the highest energy event ever? The conclusion necessarily follows that equal amounts of matter/antimatter were
  23. Jeff, This is not politics, so do not add Rovian methodology to the discussions. You offer only a diversionary attack of a strawman that did not exist. You ignore the incorrectness of your own claim Sorry, the burden of proof is on you. Please back up your grand statement with evidence and logic. Sorry, this is scientific discourse, so when one makes a sweeping statement, as you have done, it needs to be backed up with evidence, retracted, or my point admitted. You have yet to explain any possible resolution between your statement and the paradox between the concept of universal-attractio
  24. Sorry Jeff, Your point is lost to me. Have I not knitted evidence into every conclusion and move? If I have not to your satisfaction, please indicate where evidence is lacking. After all, evidence from the physical record aligning with the predictions of the Dominium model are numerous, though dependent upon which area of the model does your concern relate. Did I not show you the exact position of the incorrectness of your belief that universal-attraction is compatible with empirical data? (That is to say non-compatible without the use of some magical, unverified, and/or unrecorded djinni
  25. Dear Jeff, I do see your confusion. Resolution comes recognizing there are two time-frames being considered. Under the Dominium understanding, the rapid organization process, self-assembly, would have occurred and completed before CMB. The visible Universe, which you are referring to, possesses no known part younger than roughly one-hundred-thousand years after the Big Bang. Therefore, when you are talking about observed data from telescopic information, you are referring to data that necessarily post the time of self-assemblage. Once primary gravitational stability has been established, it
  • Create New...