Jump to content
Science Forums

Recommended Posts

Yes. You will be very interested in discussions ongoing here at hypography. Here are the threads:





You'll be especially interested in the first link because I list off all the anomalies that I, personally, know of:

Hypotheses and/or axioms used by popular-bias consensus beliefs

1: Matter and antimatter were created in equal parts at the moment of the Big Bang (*The same exact starting hypothesis for both popular-bias and Dominium models)

2: Matter and antimatter gravitationally attract

3: We exists in an all-matter Universe where the antimatter long ago disappeared.

4: No residual annihilation events are observed in the sky from statistically certain residual amounts of ancient antimatter. Therefore all antimatter was erased from the Universe before the advent of first light (CMB.)

4a: This observation and conclusion are paradoxical because of what one would expect statistically given the combination of Universal-attraction and annihilation upon contact. If matter and antimatter attract, they should both annihilate to extinction, also this process should be asymptotic. The solution to the first half of the paradox is the creation of yet another new hypothesis: The assumption that antimatter is more unstable than matter, therefore, even though massive annihilation events did occur, only matter now remains.

4b: However, the question of the statistically expected asymptotic graph of annihilation depletion of Big Bang antimatter is ignored. Statistically, we should observe large annihilation events in the cosmic record extending infinitely at decreased rates, but we observe nothing like that. An unspoken hypothesis is that statistical understandings somehow do not apply and can be ignored with respect to the lack of observed annihilation events.

4c: In more recent experiments of the past decade, evidence has been produced that is in direct conflict with premise 4a (the assumption of an inherent instable nature of antimatter leading to an all-matter Universe.) Recently experiments have conclusively shown that antihydrogen can be produced and stored for very long periods of time. The recorded stability of antihydrogen stands in direct offense to consensus hypothesis 4a, a hypothesis is needed to account for this paradoxical disparity.

5: A, yet to be reproduced or directly measured, exotic “dark energy” is hypothesized to account for pushing the Universe apart and explain observe Hubble expansion.

6: In a, yet to be explained or directly measured manner, all matter of the Universe was laid out uniformly. Although some claim that “dark energy” is also responsible for observed uniformity, no other natural form of energy is known to both move things apart and organize them. Although some devotees to consensus theories wish to merge hypothesis 5 with hypothesis 6, the notions of Hubble expansion and even mass distribution are two different things requiring two different sets of hypothetical attributes to this magical catch-all yet-to-be-directly-observed thing called “dark energy.”

7: In a, yet to be ironed out fashion—though it has been directly measured—the event horizon is flat. Again, there are some that wish to merge this bugbear in with 5 & 6. However, the very relativistic calculations that seemed to partially explain 5 and/or 6 also led to the conclusions of curved, buckled, donut-shaped, etc event horizons. This question was settled through direct observation showing the event horizon to be flat. Because the direct observations do not align with the popular theories, new hypotheses are needed.

8: A, yet to be observed, “wind” is hypothesized to have blown all materials away from the supermassive black-hole (AGN) at our galaxies’ center stopping its feeding. No hypothesis is given to account for the incredible "stability" that supermassive black-holes have been observed to maintain once they cease rapidly growing, i.e., once they stop growing rapidly they appear to stay stopped. This observation contains degrees of paradox because these black-holes reside in the most matter-dense portions of their home galaxies. If that "wind" established an equilibrium by chance, then that equilibrium would be unstable at best... but that is not what is observed.

9: Binary star systems are hypothesized to have created the massive antimatter cloud surrounding the AGN, in a yet to be described manner.

10: Mass calculations of our own galaxy do not come close to matching, this disparity is attributed to dark-energy, dark-matter, or something else depending who you ask. Many separate and conflicting hypotheses exist to account for the mass disparities between calculation methods.

I am quite interested in your own perception of the number of anomalous observations that do not jive with current assumptions. Do you agree with the ones I listed? Can you add more that I didn't include.


Nice meeting you. I share an extreme curiosity of the anomalies. I believe that it is the anomalies that have always held the keys to scientific advancement throughout scientific history. I am hoping that you are referring to yet other anomalies of which I am not yet aware. Take care.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Oh ya, it seems that I forgot to include the anomalous observation of a unidirectional flow of large amounts of measured material in a paradoxical unidirectional flow away from the Sun and against gravitational expectations (i.e., the "solar wind".) ... that's also explained by the Dominium model but later on in that thread.

Link to post
Share on other sites
We exists in an all-matter Universe where the antimatter long ago disappeared. /


This is not exactly true. Positrons, which are an aspect of anti-matter are generated by matter and are contained in the nuclei. The electrons are not allowed to mess with these positrons, except when we do it accelerators. In these synthetic conditions the above appears to be more true.


This leads to an anomaly. The positrons in nuclei larger than iron, avoid the inner electrons of these atoms (easy restricted annihilation targets) even though this would give off a lot of energy. Instead these remain within an endothermic situation as the nuclei get larger and larger. Matter sort of neuters them, while making use of their potential.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Have there been solutions offered for the gravitational anomalies other than dark matter and energy?


Dark matter isn't one solution, but rather a family of related solutions (there are many different "dark matter" models.)


And other solutions, such as MOND (modified Newtonian dynamics) alters general relativity instead of adding dark matter. However, these modified theories have failed somewhere else (Bullet Cluster - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia). The bullet cluster observations have heavily favored dark matter models.


Dark energy is just sort of a catch all for anything that may be causing universal expansion, I am less familiar with it.

Link to post
Share on other sites

The reason I started this thread is because I question one of Newton's 322 year old law's, F = ma. The equation is only valid in the frame of reference in which it is used. For instance, if I am in orbit and I test this equation I will find no problems, but to an observer on the ground, since the sec^2 portion of the equation in orbit is different from the observer's doesn't this present a paradox?

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 2 weeks later...

There have been quite a large number of papers about the pioneer anomaly whereby it was found that pioneer 10 or 11 began to be recorded - from about Saturn distance - as not continuing to move away fast enough from the sun as predicted by Newton. As of yet, the fact has not been satisfactorily explained by various attempts dealing with the details of the probe itself. see pioneer anomaly wikipedia. The most interesting paper I saw suggested that incorporating the 'rotational doppler effect' reduces the remaining detected frequency discrepancy from pioneer transmission. I wonder if this could be something to do with Doppler only vs Relativistic Doppler where SR is taken into account. Unfortunately it is not made clear which of them is relied on for calculations of what Newton's law of gravity should imply. I've seen results for Hubble redshift calculation that didn't use SR, but they are fairly old. There is a MOND explanation of this, which has been countered.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

  • Create New...