Jump to content
Science Forums

Hasanuddin

Members
  • Content Count

    163
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    3

Everything posted by Hasanuddin

  1. Hi freeztar, The site you list only narrows the first question down (w/out fully answering) and doesn't address the 2nd question at all. Yes, the mission's cover does say that PAMELA is in an eliptical orbit, but does it fully clear the magnetosphere? That home page does mention that a mission goal is to count particles in the upper layers of the magnetosphere, which is helpful. Probably the most important question to me has to do with establishing the trajectories of the particles counted. I know that extra layer of precision would have required more weight, thus increasing expense of t
  2. Data is starting to come in from the PAMELA project. Before we start forming conclusions based on this data is it extremely important to fully understand the conditions under which this data was collected. I have read several Arxiv papers on the subject and have not found two vital pieces of information. I am hoping that there are those w/in this community who have had better luck, or who know 1st hand. Where was the data collected? Inside the magnetosphere, just outside, very far away from, at S2, between planets—if so which ones, etc?? Perhaps this obvious question is clearly answered, bu
  3. Well, I was expecting more of a debate. Let me see if I can give fuel for a debate. Unless anyone wishes to stop and object to a move that I make, for the next couple days I will slowly unfold the new model on this forum. The methodology is simple formal deduction. Premises will be identified that are 100% categorically true, and from these conclusions will be drawn that necessarily follow and are therefore, 100% correct (this is the fundamental understanding of the deductive process.) Let's begin: Move #1: A: The Big Bang was the moment in time when All particles of the Universe were a
  4. I must say that I am extremely impressed by the level-headed and informed caliber of discussion that takes place on this forum. There were many things said that I profoundly agree with. I especially like the counter-intuitive statement made by Tormod I especially like these words because it seems to contradict the observations of red-shift, yet at the same time makes perfect and clean sense given an idea of the stretching of the fabric of space-time. Now the theoretical points of this thread that I "disagree" with I do so, not because of those points themselves, but because I know of an
  5. I truly appreciate the way that Juggernot opens this thread by admitting his ignorance. I believe that is always the first step towards wisdom. I will also admit my own ignorance regarding the fundamental question asked by Juggernot, "What lies outside the Universe?" What I do see are many paradoxes. LaurieAG & lawcat exposed one of the most interesting ones, is the Universe finite or is it infinite? Like all paradoxes, this question can be viewed from both ways. First, to ask Juggernot's original question, demands one to assume that there is a finite aspect to the Universe. However, wh
  6. Thanks for the tip and the link. Hopefully folks will start debating me on the thread concerning the model itself. That would be the easiest way to get my post count up. I don't like the idea of posting just to post. Though this forum seems very broad with many interesting things and people on it. So perhaps it won't be so difficult.
  7. I agree. These two categories should be split because they are not the same nor to their goals align. Math is a tool of physics, though it is not physics. Physics is a science, therefore the goal is to account for phenomena empirically known through verifiable evidence and experimentation. Math has no such constraints. Because traditionally we squeeze these two disciplines together into the same box, it leads some to falsely conclude that they are the same and/or inseperable. However, if that were true then it would be impossible to have a class taught on "conceptual physics," though that
  8. Hello again, Well, I've made my first replies but I'm having a little difficulty setting up my signature and customizing an avatar. Any advice?
  9. Last but not least, to reply to CraigD You say: Please pause. Can you not see that one case is artificial and one case is natural? Accelerators are designed to focus the beams to collide. Whereas in the case of the solar wind, we are dealing with a natural system where particles came move wherever. I do not see how these two things can be considered comparible. Eotvos revisited—I’m glad to see that you read this study as inconclusive. I agree with you for the need for a test to conclusively find the gravitational relationship between matter and antimatter—I agree, that is the only rati
  10. Dear freeztar, I have several points to make. First, I’m wondering if you read the thread at the above link starting with thread #3 or thread #1? No offense; I am serious, that site was poorly designed. If you read thread #3 first, then I totally understand your confusion regarding the solar wind. In threads #1, it is firmly established that gravitational stability is the primary driver of all systems at absolute chaos, i.e., particles of mixed charge and mixed antimatter/matter. Because of gravitational repulsion self-assembly will occur segregating regions into the different matter types (
  11. Hello Folks and thank you Mr E for the invitation, My name is Hasanuddin and I am the author of the Dominium model. Although I’m starting to feel a little stretched, I am impressed by the caliber of the comments that have hit this thread. I’m actually glad to hear that others are inspired to talk about the model I am advancing, I only wish Mr E had tried his hand at defending it. Though no concrete arguments have been levied against the new model; no data has been shown to be anomalous to its assertions; and multiple previously unexplainable verifiable phenomena are both predicted and exp
  12. Hello Folks, My name is Hasanuddin. Strange as it may sound I'm the author of a new (potentially groundbreaking) cosmologic model. I was invited here by one of your members who showed that the model was being discussed on your "Physical Science Forums" section on the "Alternative theories" board on the thread "The Dominium Model by Hasanuddin." I was very impressed by the caliber of the posts that have been submitted so far. However, there are a few points regarding the Dominium model that need to be clarified. Momentarily I will begin responding to that thread. I look forward to good d
×
×
  • Create New...