Jump to content
Science Forums

Hasanuddin

Members
  • Content Count

    163
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    3

Everything posted by Hasanuddin

  1. Without further delay… Next move—#6 Up until this point, everything has been done with only one questionable assumption—the Dominium premise itself. In order to analyze the Dark Event, we need to expand our considerations. That means we need to make predictions about things whose nature is still unknown and debated. I am referring to black-holes. We know these are extremely common/ubiquitous features of the cosmologic map—every galaxy is known to have at least one supermassive black-hole at its center. Because of their ubiquity, any model/analysis of cosmology needs to take them into account
  2. I just realized something that we have all forgotten, discussions here are forgetting a fundamental aspect of Babar and other attempts to show asymmetric decay. These discussions are ignoring the fact that only a handful of all events showed any possible asymmetry. The vast majority (well over 99%) of all events at Babar were normal symmetric pair-production. The status quo “solution,” re: the Big Bang, was to assume that all of the mass created symmetrically would have gone out of existence via annihilation, hence leaving us with an all-matter Universe. However, that assumption assumes "unive
  3. we are chasing our tails for nothing, continue on to the next post
  4. Erasmus00, All the first step says is to this in post #40
  5. Erasmus00, Nothing in post 49 supports that claim that pair-production is verifiable asymmetric. Therefore, there is no actual challenge against the six steps presented to go from Big Bang to Universe w/ galaxies that is expanding
  6. Hello again Modest, Yes, Sakharov is the father of the current asymmetric all-matter based theories. That has already been established. That is the mainsteam theory. Please remember that this thread is to discuss the Dominium model and that this is the Alternative theories board. Please also remember that there are a number of issues that have been directly posed in our discussions that have been completely ignored. Unaddressed issues: 1) Five deductive moves already made 2) Whether Einstein’s checkerboard representation of space-time is a model 3) The worth of the posted Einstein quote 4)
  7. Dear Erasmus00, You continue to evade providing evidence that pair-production is an asymmetric phenomenon. You talk of “misnomers” but you name no evidence—the only misnomer I see it what you consider to be “evidence.” Formulaic musings are not evidence, nor are they necessarily bound to nature or anything empirical. You try to switch the subject by demanding I name the source of energy that was the Big Bang’s “E” that led to the “mc2” that was to become our Universe…but you are just evading the REAL question, by trying to reframe a new one. No, it is not me who must do the explaining; it is
  8. Dear Erasmus, You’re correct; the Nobel Prize was awarded for the suggestive work by Cronin in the ‘80s. Cool, and I’m not going to begrudge the guy for his prize or the funds given him to continue his work. But, the way you’re presenting things is that the Nobel automatically constitutes correctness and, therefore, we should all extend blind acceptance to all work done by winners of Nobels. Such hero worship of laureate is a dangerous and unscientific practice—though I’ve seen many folks faun and swoon in the presence of folks who have won Nobels. There is the very real possibility that Cro
  9. Dear Eramus00, Words… lots of words; let’s see some asserted facts that are tied to actual natural observations and/or experimentation. First of all, I believe that it you who are a bit confused. “CP Violation” refers to Sakharov’s suggestion of asymmetric decay… put simply, that antimatter conveniently “vanished” leaving us with the popular-bias view of an all-matter Universe. There are several facilities around the world that have tried to prove Sakharov’s assumptions (Babar, FermiLab, CERN…) but none have been able to do so beyond margins of error. One Russian detector specialist frien
  10. Dear Erasmus00, Hmm, so you're saying that E=mc2 (pair production), one of the most confirmed high-erengy events known, is a lie? All that LEP data is false? Huh, when I was studying at CERN nine years ago I was told by technicians that E=mc2 was one of the most documented (boring) events that occurred inside LEP. That they considered it to be such a known fact (equal amounts of matter and antimatter and positive and negative charge always produced) that the key was to filter out all the pair prodcution noise, to try to find something truly interesting. Huh, now you're trying to say that the
  11. Dear CraigD, You begin your post by stating status quo theory, but end that paragraph with the by-the-way admission that no evidence exists to establish gravitational relationships one way or the other. I don’t disagree. You are correct: if the Dominium is correct, then many models would need be abandoned because they are based on a flawed premise. But so what? Are you really comfortable with the huge number of evidentiary anomalies? Or the patchwork of little formulaic band-aid explanations that address one issue at a time, yet are not truly tied together? Or explanations without justific
  12. Dear Modest, I am so sorry to hear that you are leaving the thread with so many unanswered questions. Need I remind you of all of the questions, points, and issues that you have completely ignored: I have been confused by your actions on this thread. Although you have voiced interest in the model that I am presenting, you have actually shown very little interest in discussing the model itself: the premises that were used, the conclusions that were drawn, or how that either relates to or jibes with what is naturally observed. Instead, you have only wanted to talk about theories to which you
  13. Oh… Hi Modest, You did post a reply to me. Sorry I didn’t see that until I just posted the joint note to you and freeztar. My first impulse was to delete the post of a minute ago, but then I read yours and found that you ignored seven out of the eight issues on the table (though you did refrain from the use of smileys—thank you.) Because of these omissions, the post of a moment ago is still quite pertinent. The one request/issue that you did semi address was to partially breakdown your preferred (Friedmann) explanation for the lack of antimatter in our locale. However, you do not breakdown
  14. Hello Modest & freeztar, I’m a bit confused, this thread was originally started to keep the purity of discussion of another thread. Am I not correct? That is the moderator’s note that appears at the very beginning. Now Moontainman poses a non-related question and you both seem more than willing to change the subject. Please, let us stay focused. There are a number of issues on the table already. Unaddressed issues: 1) Five deductive moves already made 2) Whether Einstein’s checkerboard representation of space-time is a model 3) The worth of the posted Einstein quote 4) The value of deduc
  15. Dear Moontanman, Your question about the movement of positrons to the surface of the Sun {and then off into outer space} You really need to read the third thread on The Dominium ... or stay tuned on this thread... eventually I will explain that. Enjoy & take care
  16. Dear Modest, I don't know where you're coming from. You gave me that wonderful Ripalda paper; then you seemed to slash away about what is a real model, the scientific method, etc. My goals? I don't know. No, my goals are not what you assess. But honestly, this model is real. I never knew of this antimatter cloud until last month...but the model did assess it. Whether my "personal" experiences matter...I don't care, they're real nonetheless. If I were lying, then it would be a very elaborate lie. I publish a book a year and a half ago that is fully cited except for one particular segmen
  17. Hi Modest, What constitutes an appropriate model? You gave some interesting historical references. And then you boiled it down yourself by saying I must ask you directly, “Is that not exactly what just recently occurred with the deductive prediction of a large mass of antimatter surrounding the supermassive black-hole at the galactic center, which was then later categorically confirmed in existence by the Integral ESA satellite?” Sir, by your own definition, the Dominium has already completed the most important task in being a model: making a blind prediction which is later confirmed thro
  18. Good Morning Stereologist, Big Bang. This is a philosophical question that you begin with. Essentially it boils down to a question of when do you start the clock. At "E" or at "mc2?" Personally I like to start the clock at the point once material has been created. At that point, we know categorically that equal amounts of matter/antimatter, charge, etc were created. "Radiation" Before the creation of mass/change you infer that there was only radiation. I'd disagree. "Energy," yes, though it is difficult to pin down the exact form that energy took. It is impossible to categorical assert that it
  19. Hi Modest, First let me emphatically state that I agree with your philosophy regarding forums such as these. The goal is not to “win” an argument, but to reach a better understanding of the truths of the natural world. This is not the place for ego, bias, competition, or mob-mentality. What we are discussing are issues; there is no bearing on either of us as individuals. Personally I enjoy debating ideas, because it has always helped be grow as an individual and in my own understandings of scientific truths. With respect to the Dominium, in the past, although some detractors did break the ru
  20. Thank you again Modest, in gratitude I will move on Move 5 As already mentioned, the observed dynamic of the Universe is semi-static state, therefore suggesting equilibrium. The notion of stability on Earth is engrained in our language, “solid as a rock,” “terra-firma,” “bedrock,” etc. The idea that the particles that now make up the Earth once joined-in as part of that Big Bang seems quite distant. Yet they had to be players … but think of the conditions that they MUST have come from! Initially it would have been impossible for them to have clump together because they were formed completely
  21. Dear Modest, Your screen-name couldn’t be any more appropriate. I must admit that I am literally “blown away” by the links you provided, esp. the first. (Sorry about the slang but whenever my emotions are stirred I seem to revert to the surfer lingo of my youth.) I must say, I have never seen any of these papers before. The 1st Ripalda paper especially excites me. Up until today, I have tried very hard to hold off from giving an absolute assessment concerning General Relativity, string theory, or a number of other applications. The reason is simple, if the Dominium model is correct, then som
  22. Although no-one has bothered to challenge the assertions of the Dominium model since the original launch of this thread, I am glad that the counter showing the number of views steadily rises. What this tells me is that folks are interested in the topics being presented on this thread, but they choose to passively read, assess, and hold judgment until they’ve digested the ramifications of this new model more thoroughly. Such a reaction would be completely understandable. Perhaps this next move will draw comments (because it is not part of the deductive flow, but is more connected to a very fami
  23. Move number 3-three. Using the Hubble space telescope we can observe far back into the cosmologic record. However, we cannot see the first hundred thousand years or so of the development of the Universe. We could not “see” the galaxies until particles reached the magic temperature of 3000ºK. Only at this temperature can protons and electrons combine and form hydrogen, and release the first photons of light. However, one starling observation is that, except for a very small number of exceptions, galaxies tend to accelerate away from each other. In other words, the process of galaxy building s
  24. MOVE 2: 1: Undeniable premise: When matter and antimatter happen to be in the same place at the same time then they will always annihilate with one another 2: Established premise: equal amounts of matter and antimatter will be produced in the initial moments of the Big Bang Putting these two premises against one another presents quite a quandary. If matter and antimatter collide, then they disappear out of existence. However, one thing we know for sure is that matter has persisted…on Earth. Therefore, any solution must allow for matter to exist on Earth in the absence of antimatter. Howe
  25. Hi freezter, Good and thorough deduction to arrive at an answer: PAMELA does not ever clear the magnetosphere. I found out a little more since the last time posting by having a conversation with one of the folks working on this project. Without directly answering the question, he firmly asserted that the magnetosphere would not significantly affect the behavior of the positrons and electrons being detected by PAMELA because of the extremely high energies in these positrons/electrons... up to 2 TeV http://arxiv.org/pdf/0903.2794v1 As far as the directional capabilities of PAMELA are conce
×
×
  • Create New...