Jump to content
Science Forums

Hasanuddin

Members
  • Content Count

    163
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    3

Everything posted by Hasanuddin

  1. Welcome Jeff, Glad to have you entering the discussions. Let’s see if I can address your concerns. With reference to Move #3 (post 12) you rebut Let me see, you are referring to the commonality of gravitational effects on photons traveling from distant space and observed on Earth, are you not? If that is the case, then I possess no disagreement with the assertion made, however, my admission does not mean the all galaxies are necessarily matter-based. Let me show this syllogistically: *Premise/truth 1: Photons are the antiparticle of themselves *Therefore: photons will have as much in c
  2. Move 13 The subject of fusion (or anti-fusion—the potential mirror process occurring in an antimatter-based star in an antimatter-based galaxy) brings up a very interesting quandary that implies Dominium implications. Premise: Stars in our galaxy produce antimatter (positions) as an ongoing byproduct of fusion 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.) However, indirect observations do lead categorically to conclude that a star like our own Sun is, in fact, an a
  3. Move 12: Implied premise: Antimatter is the mirror twin to matter **Therefore: All functions that are possible within matter-based systems, will also be possible within antimatter-based systems. Given truth: Light (photons) is the antiparticle of itself. **Therefore: Light emanating from an antimatter source would be indistinguishable from that arriving from a matter-based source. Implicitly, both of these premises were already used in Move 10: the uniform spread of photonic data of the CMB was a result of photons produced from the coupling of electrons w/ protons AND positrons w/ an
  4. Move 11 One of the most traditionally vexing observations of the CMB is the apparent uniformity of the titer of microwave photons that make up this phenomenon. The uniformity of the distribution of photons produced during CMB creation is superficially paradoxical to the necessary ultimate clumping of material into galaxies, which were assumed separated by vast distances of “void.” In the last paragraph the word “void” was put in quotes for two reasons. The first reason is because Move #10 categorically asserts that material was deposited into these areas between galaxies as a part of deve
  5. This does seem like a very good place to wrap up the first portion of the model, though that is not to say that discussions should end on this thread. Quite the opposite, I would be more than happy to entertain any questions concerning any issues brought up w/in the first eight moves. Fundamental challenges against the Dominium, justifications for status-quo assumptions, and/or alternate interpretations of the necessary deductive outcomes given a particular set of premises can all be presented. This thread should be the place where such questions, discussions, and challenges are made. There
  6. Move 10 In move 9, it was put forward that underrepresented antimatter micelles would be purged from all embryonic matter-based galaxies (like the Milky Way), while an equivalent mirror process would occur in antimatter-based galaxies. The purged material would be expected to be comprised of both micelles that had been collapsed to a black-hole state (AMBH) and one’s that were not collapsed. Also, this process would begin as soon as conditions of immiscibility were established (actually, it follows that this process of purging is simply a continuation of the self-organization process of “sel
  7. Move #9 In move #8 it was established that the main matrix of an embryonic galaxy situated near the centers of proto galaxies was compressed into black-hole material forming the AGN. Simultaneously, micelles of antimatter in the same region would also be compressed to black-hole material (AMBH). Together formed the “stable” central galactic supermassive black-holes seen in all galaxies, when AMBH accumulated at the gate-interface of the AGN thereby preventing further accretion. However, the center of the forming galaxy is only a subsection of the overall unit. This move will examine the dynami
  8. Because the discussions on the first hypography thread (see http://hypography.com/forums/alternative-theories/18910-the-dominium-model-by-hasanuddin.html ) seemed to end in such a clean manner, and because that thread already has over eighty long posts to it, therefore it seems wise to start the last half of the Dominium model on a clean new thread of its own. Before the next segment, Move 9, is posted let it be summarized exactly what occurred on the first thread: a simultaneous comparison of the steps required for both popular-bias theories and the alternative Dominium model to account for
  9. It seems we’ve reached an interesting juncture; a halfway point, if you will. It’s time for a little introspective tally of how things stand. Let me reiterate to those following along: please tell others of the discussions here. It is of utmost importance that all views are shared and that the rules of evidence and deduction are adhered to. Please step in with any questions, assertions, or insights of your own. Although I don’t mind chasing tangents (if a poster feels a concern is related then I will address it head-on) but in reflection, it is rather funny that most of the discussions on t
  10. Hi Glenn, Its funny how a simple question can uncover a can of worms. Your original guess was correct, gravity is decreased at the top of a mountain. The fact can be proven by a simple pendulum. Because of the diminished gravity the time it takes the bob to complete one full cycle (period) will increase. Using the well-known period formula the exact value for period can be calculated. An even bigger question (that is tied to your original inquiry) is what is gravity fundamentally and how does gravity relate between fundamental particles, i.e., between matter and antimatter? That question i
  11. Wow, something very important just occurred to me. It is so important that with this “edit” I am going to completely remove Move 9 from the thread… to be discussed at a later point. In the post previous to this one regarding past attempts to measure the spectral signature of antihydrogen (the ATRAP project and the “s” of AEGIS), I replied to past attempts as “failed.” On the surface, my assessment is justified: no spectral signature has been forthcoming. However, even though the intended results did not occur, that is not to say that those experiments did not produce data or that the data
  12. Dear CraigD, Please excuse my lag in responding, I have been hit by a perfect alignment of jet-lag, influenza, allergies, and piled up deadlines. Post 82’s historical synopsis for the development of the understanding of antimatter is largely correct. However, I do not believe that one can use the movement of the historical whims and trends of scientific exploration to build the basis of an argument to make assertion either for or against the Dominium, or any other proposed model for that matter. I say this taking issue with the underpinnings of the statement: There are two main “mistake
  13. Dear CraigD, Hello again, I hope you are well rested. There is a lot of work ahead and much more of the model to unfold. I was surprised that you made no comment to my rather bold assertion, in post #78, for the cause and reasoning for a mass disparity between the different methodologies used for calculating the mass of our galaxy’s core could be explained by Dominium posited interaction of MAC. The subsequent resolution I provided is of the genre of blind-predictiveness that is required for a valid and sound scientific model, is it not? As far as AEGIS is concerned, that project has been
  14. Dear CraigD, freeztar, Modest, moontanman, Tormod, and whoever else has been following along, Happy Easter and I’m off to Italy. (My opening statement was not meant to have any “religiousness” to it, but it is Easter Sunday and I am leaving for the Boot.) The ground is thawed here, the bulbs are popping up, and the buds are starting to swell. Even so, I must leave for a short couple of weeks and miss some of that action. Poppa Pat and Muma Lorraine are celebrating their 50th wedding anniversary. So they’ve bought tickets and reserved a couple villas and the entire family is going back to t
  15. I agree, depending on which “event” you are talking about. The creation of the AGN seed would have been instantaneous and would happened early on in the Dark Event. The sealing off of the gate-interface by micellular build up would have been gradual. And the amount of time needed would be variable depending on the local initial conditions. Post 76 contained a more official representation of the current popular-bias explanation for the paradoxical aging-cycle of the AGN from a ravenous seed-monster to an anorexic behemoth (itself a contradiction in ideas: The AGN is most able to eat when small
  16. Three very interesting articles on this subject were introduced by Modest. The first article http://hypography.com/forums/astronomy-news/1528-black-holes-regulate-galaxy-formation.html is an interesting report of a simulation software analysis of data that appears to correlated the size of the galaxy to the size of the black-hole at its center. In terms of the Dominium model this article aligns quite tightly to its findings. Because of random variability that would have occurred at the time of self-assembly, some dominia/protogalaxies would have been larger/smaller than others. Depending
  17. Ooops, I though I was replying to Modest, on the discussion of the Dominium Model on the Alternate Theories board in the Physical Sciences group. Modest had just shown three articles, and this was one of them. I'll include my critique here as well as in the full response to Modest. The third article http://hypography.com/forums/astronomy-news/16106-yale-astronomer-discovers-upper-mass-limit.html although interesting, I do not agree with the absolute soundness of the ultimate conclusions being made by the scientists referenced. Essentially this article represents an account of observations of
  18. I believe I am beginning to understand what Tormod meant and the culture of this forum. This conversation, in many ways, is directed at the silent readership and at just the science/logic. I am very cool with that. As I have mentioned many times, I am very impressed by this forum… I was since the very first moment I saw how this thread started and the fair consideration afforded at the time. A side note to the silent-readership: continue reading, there are about ten more moves to go in order to give a complete understanding, i.e., until the model deductively arrives at its own beginning, th
  19. Move #8 Let it be reiterated that the “Dark Event” is profound, complex, and multi-layered. The separate occurrences being discussed would have happened in quick succession of one another. Because of the inherent complexity of this event, I wish to pause and specify our frame of reference. For the purpose of discussion we will talk in terms of the developing Milky Way. (Let it be understood, that mirror conditions would have been occurring in areas predominantly antimatter, which will later develop into mirror-functioning antimatter-based galaxies.) But, for the sake of this discussion, mice
  20. Okay, now we are getting down to the nitty-gritty of the problem: and indeed, the problem is confusion caused by the deceptively sound “appearing”, yet totally unsound application of the informal fallacy Converse Accident. This becomes apparent in the following string of thought: Bingo! I have never seen a clearer example of this particular fallacy. I mean no offence, the fallacies have bedeviled the smartest of the smart for centuries. It is easy to get tricked by them. Essentially what is being concluded is that the constructed particle will possess characteristics based on the propertie
  21. I believe we not actually in disagreement on all levels--though there are some misunderstandings that exist between each other’s meanings. First, I was sleepy when I typed “a time when gluons attracted”…I was inexact, I apologize. I was referring to the time in Big Bang creation before gluons had been bound into the cement of protons, antiprotons, etc. This time is the time immediately before the consideration of the Dominium deductive analysis. The fact that quarks and gluons (as well as antiquarks and gluons) eventually bound is a certainty evidenced by our planet and empirically gathered
  22. Now, I will play the Devil’s-Advocate game for a pause. Okay, let's pretend that the period before the establishment of particles was a time when gluons attracted because they are their own antiparticle. Fine, therefore gluons would begin to interact with one another. So? Wouldn’t such interaction just lead to the establishment of the more familiar gluon-bound larger particles and/or antiparticles? If you are trying to suggest that gluon interaction would lead to the annihilation of the 99% of expected symmetric matter/antimatter…then you have yet to make any case. You see, if gluons are the a
  23. Post 61 was one of the oddest volleys yet. It begins by quoting my epiphany in post 58 that we were chasing our tails over nothing. Yet, that quote is never addressed... neither agreeing nor disagreeing, huh? So what was the point of quoting me? Moves 6-7 are now on the table, but nothing is addressed from them either. Instead of addressing any issues on the table post 61 begins with a short synopsis of quarks… cool, but the point?—it doesn’t relate at all to the quote coming before it. Hmm, let me see… oh I get it, the point is to resurrect the “quarks/antiquarks and electrons/positrons
  24. Can someone answer this question: the Blasi paper mentioned earlier on this thread states that electrons (and/or positrons) were measured with energies of 2TeV... but how is that possible give the mass of an electron and the understanding that it can't move faster that 3e8? I realize the answer must be simple/obvious, but I am not making the connection
  25. Move 7 Tangential evidence supports the notion that black-hole material is the most stable form of matter (and/or antimatter.) Consider the phases that everyone knows: solid, liquid, gas … right? But that’s not all, is it? Plasma is another phase at the high end of the spectrum, where particles are ultra energetic and electrons do not couple with nuclei. Now, what about the other end of the scale? Couldn’t there be something more stable than solids? Yes, such a thing is imaginable. A state so stable particles barely moved at all, right? All of the trends that are demonstrated by the other ph
×
×
  • Create New...