[modest]

Hasanuddin said:

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.

When I gave you those links you maybe assumed I was advocating their conclusions and supporting your model. When I pointed out where your model was lacking you maybe assumed I was disagreeing with your conclusions and opposing your model.

I think if you avoided making assumptions about my intentions you'd have no trouble seeing where I'm coming from. It was the first thing I said:

modest said:

People critiquing your idea would need to give honest and knowledgeable feedback which would include looking at your idea on its merits rather than trying to debate your idea as a means of supporting standard theory.

You see, I'm not trying to debate your idea. I gave you those links because they examine (and support) the same thing you're proposing. I pointed out the non-falsifiability of your model because I see it as a weakness and I'm giving honest feedback.

Hasanuddin said:

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.

Can you explain the cause of antimatter near the galactic core? Where did it come from?

The two explanations I've heard is that it comes from x-ray binaries or decaying dark matter. I'm personally excited at the prospect that it could be the result of some exotic particle like a neutralino because this could suggest the validity of supersymmetric theories and dark matter... and what an extraordinary leap in knowledge that would be. The characteristics of the "cloud" were predicted by a theory of decaying neutralinos in 2004:

[astro-ph/0409027] WMAP Microwave Emission Interpreted as Dark Matter Annihilation in the Inner Galaxy

so, it seems at least possible.

But, on the other hand, it's more likely that the antimatter comes from x-ray binaries. The cloud is shaped in such a way that it coincides with a heavy population of binaries, so that does seem a bit more likely.

It is, however, an open question, so I'm interested to hear your thoughts on the origin of this antimatter.

Hasanuddin said:

Come on, present your Friedmann assumptions and conclusions resulting in a all matter Universe. Honestly, I want to hear how you do it. You presenting the arguments of your champions is no less than what I have already done.

If you're interested in how a Friedmann universe agrees with observation then I certainly can answer any questions you have. A Friedmann model assumes that the universe follows the theory of General Relativity. Space is filled homogeneously with matter and the scale of the universe (the expansion) is solved. This can give us specific answers to questions about our universe.

For example, With paramaters: Ho = 71, OmegaM = 0.270, Omegavac = 0.730, we can ask the question: what would a galaxy that is exactly like the Milky Way look like if the light we are receiving from it took 11.5 billion years to reach us? The answers are as follows (source):

• Redshif we will measure = 3
  
• Flux we will receive (luminosity) =
  
• Size of galaxy in the sky = 0.00109 degrees

We can likewise measure the redshift/brightness/size of any galaxy in the sky and see if it matches up with what Friedmann proposed 80 years ago... and so far, yes it does.

This is not to say standard cosmology is the whole, complete, and final story. Surely there will be improvements and even paradigm shifts. There will be new physics and new models. But, you will find (and I can support) that the metric here applied to the model here does indeed accurately describe our universe. It does so by assuming that the universe is filled with matter which is gravitationally attractive (as is described by general relativity).

I really think you would do better developing your idea rather than trying to go after standard cosmology. ;)

~modest

[Hasanuddin]

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 deduction in the evolution of scientific understanding
5) The value of the Ripalda paper’s convergent conclusions with the Dominium’s deductive conclusions
6) The merit of the blind prediction of an antimatter shield surrounding the galactic central black-hole and the subsequent ESA Integral news release outlining such a structure
7) The need for all discussions to begin with fundamental premises and assumptions (even those based on preexisting popular-bias theories) because we are dealing with the repercussions resulting from an analysis that itself begins at fundamental levels and which is analyzing one of the most fundamental questions of all: the nature of gravitational interaction between matter and antimatter.
8) The courtesy of not using “smileys” because they are distracting, rude, and unnecessary when there is actual merit to the arguments being set forward

And I have one more request, if someone asks another potentially derailing question like Moontainman, please either answer it via PM or move it to its own thread. The issues being discussed here are too big, complex, and potentially important to be compromised.

*Note, there is no actual need to reply to this post unless there is opposition to where things were left off for the eight unaddressed issues. If no-one posts over the next twelve hours I’ll assume that we’re all “cool” and I will continue with Move 6.

[Hasanuddin]

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 Friedmann’s assumptions to a primary level that fits with anything observable. You simply summarized it rather than analyzing it. What you do say is

Quote

Space is filled homogeneously with matter and the scale of the universe (the expansion) is solved.

That is a summary of the conclusion, however you have totally neglected to include the premises and assumptions needed to show why this might have occurred. Sorry, but the conclusion is not the place that you need to begin.

In Moves 1-5 I began with the most basic assumptions, showed how immiscibility and self-assembly occurred using the necessary outcomes of categorical premises and the test postulate of gravitational repulsion. In other words, I provided both the beginning and the “end.” Please try to do the same if you wish to bring an incompatible and divergent explanation into this discussion. The only way to compare incompatible models is if the same burden-of-proof is applied.

As far as the Ripalda paper is concerned, I don’t really care what your motivations were, I thank you anyway. The fact that he used General Relativity to come to convergent conclusions with those made in the first portions of the Dominium model is extremely significant! Whether you were trying to help me or not, your contribution is very substantial.

[Moontanman]

My apologies Hasanuddin, that was not my intent, I leave you to your discussion.

[modest]

Hasanuddin said:

However, you do not breakdown Friedmann’s assumptions to a primary level that fits with anything observable.

The primary assumptions are a universe filled with homogeneous matter and follows the theory of general relativity. The observable outcome is distance, brightness, redshift data. A full derivation from one to the other is beyond the scope of this thread, but it certainly can be done (and might be fun to do).

Hasanuddin said:

You simply summarized it rather than analyzing it. What you do say is That is a summary of the conclusion

Both of these are postulates:

• The universe is filled homogeneously with matter
  
• The universe is a heterogeneous mix of matter and antimatter which repulse gravitationally

The only way to determine which is the case is to build a theory from each postulate and see which agrees with observation. Standard cosmology is the result of building a theory on the first and it does agree with observation. Your goal should be to build a theory on the second and have it agree with observation.

Hasanuddin said:

As far as the Ripalda paper is concerned...

You know, all three papers I linked are relevant to your ideas, not just the first. And the second two are much more scientifically rigorous as well.

Anyway, I've gotten no response to the two questions I've asked and the feedback I offered was misunderstood, so like Moontonaman I suppose I'll leave this thread to those who want to practice their debating techniques.

~modest

[CraigD]

A key assumption at the heart of this thread’s alternative theory, “the Dominium model”, is that antimatter and matter gravitationally repel one another. According to best accepted present-day theory, antimatter and matter attract one another, as do matter and matter, and antimatter and antimatter. This prediction, however, has not yet been directly tested.

If antimatter and matter do, in fact, repel, a large amount of particle physics would have to be rewritten, because the best theory of particle physics, the Standard Model, basically assumes that the laws of physics are symmetrical with regards to matter and antimatter – that is, were every particle in the universe to suddenly be replaced with its antiparticle, no difference would be detectable – and also that some particles, such as the two most common gauge bosons, the photon and the gluon, are their own antiparticles.

Consider, by way of explanation, that most of the mass of ordinary matter is not due to particles that are not their own antiparticles – quarks and electrons – but due to gluons. For example, for an atom of hydrogen, each of the 2 U quarks in its proton mass about 3 MeV, the 1 D quark about 6, its electron about 0.5, and the gluons binding the 3 quarks together about 926, so about 97% of its mass is in the form of gluons, a ratio roughly the same for all atomic matter. For atomic matter to gravitationally attract atomic matter, but repel atomic antimatter, the anti-gluons in antimatter must gravitationally interact differently than the gluons in matter. However, as gluons and anti-gluons are the same particle in the Standard Model, they can’t.

There’s nothing a-priori wrong with rewriting or replacing a large amount of particle physics, or any other physical theory, if antimatter and matter do, in fact, repel. Such a revision would be, to but it mildly, a big deal, and a lot of work. Therefore, if possible, scientists would want to be sure, via clear experimental results, that antimatter and matter do, in fact, repel.

Fortunately, and unlike when antimatter was first theoretically envisioned, or later, when its existence was experimentally verified, since about 2003, such an experiment is possible, because techniques to produce many (millions) of neutrally charged atoms of very cold (about 15 K) antihydrogen are available. A simple experiment involving the release of a small amount of cold antihydrogen in a vacuum and observing if it falls down or up in a vacuum, by the easily detectable location of where it annihilates with the ordinary matter of the walls of the vacuum chamber, would suffice.

Unfortunately, the people who have the ability to actually do this experiment – a single group, the CERN-centered Alpha collaboration (formerly the ATHENA collaboration), are not, I think, likely to undertake the considerable effort and expense of such an experiment, because they are nearly certain of its results. Thus, it may be necessary to wait until cold antimatter is more widely available for such an experiment to be done.

Rather than promoting the “Dominium model” through informal discussions, I recommend that people with a real scientific interest in it campaign for the cold antihydrogen experiment described above, to definitively support of falsify the theory’s key assumption, or, in the event that nearly all physicists are wrong, and antimatter and matter do, in fact, repel, trigger the revolutionary revision of particle physics and a host of other sciences that would surely result.

[modest]

CraigD said:

Consider, by way of explanation, that most of the mass of ordinary matter is not due to particles that are not their own antiparticles – quarks and electrons – but due to gluons.

Excellent point :agree:

I was assuming that if antimatter had negative gravitational mass then large clumps of antimatter would gravitationally repel matter as is naively figured here:

But we know gauge bosons will gravitationally attract no matter what, and the gravitational mass of both macroscopic clumps of matter and antimatter is mostly the result of binding energy from guage bosons... so they must gravitationally attract regardless.

Very clever :thumbs_up

~modest

[Hasanuddin]

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:

Quote

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 deduction in the evolution of scientific understanding
5) The value of the Ripalda paper’s convergent conclusions with the Dominium’s deductive conclusions
6) The merit of the blind prediction of an antimatter shield surrounding the galactic central black-hole and the subsequent ESA Integral news release outlining such a structure

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 have special bias and fondness for. I’ve been tolerant of your road-blocks because silent readers might have similar questions. Besides, the musty old explanations require so many assumptions and contradictions their faults are easily viewed, especially when laid out next to the beautiful, streamlined, and simple Dominium explanations.

You gave the appearance of trying to lie out the fundamentals of your traditional old-school views:

Quote

The primary assumptions are a universe filled with homogeneous matter and follows the theory of general relativity.

the problem with your dissection of fundamentals is that there is nothing fundamental or categorical about it. There are actually multiple layers in your condensed simplification that pose more questions than they fill:
1) Why did the Universe fill? What is driving the filling? Why was there space between particles. Why did that space increase. From where was it filling? You’ll need an axiom or two to account for this.
1b) If the matter was coming from E=mc2, where’s the antimatter? You’ll need some new postulates to explain this.
2) Homologous? Why? What natural systems that are all the same stuff is homologous? Systems that self-assemble because of opposing characteristics ultimately appear homologous…but that works for the Dominium, not your bias-favorite explanation. Has there ever been a recorded explosion that is 100% homologous? Asymmetric would make sense…in order to get the system homologous (w/out self-assembly) you’ll need to add in a few extra hypotheses to prop things up.
3) general relativity Is this where all the needed postulates, axioms, and hypotheses are hidden… or does this itself possess its own individual assumptions? It has it's own host of assumptions, doesn't it?

Sorry Modest, but just because you squeezed all of your necessary assumptions, axioms, and hypotheses down to one sentence does not mean that you have just one postulate.

Hmm, I don’t think Great-Uncle Albert would be too happy. Remember what he said:

Quote

“The grand aim of all science is to cover the greatest number of empirical facts by logical deduction from the smallest number of hypotheses or axioms.
--Albert Einstein (1879-1955)

Comparing all the assumptions and axioms you actually made against those needed by new the Dominium, we see a stark difference. The steps made by the Dominium are verified by nature, accept the one central premise. No new questions are raised by these steps. And nothing appears in contradiction or violation with nature or accepted theorems. See the following:
1) E=mc2 leads to equal matter and antimatter -- known fact
2) Gravitational repulsion repels matter from antimatter only hypothetical
3) Gravitational attraction between like particles causes clumping known fact
4) Self-assembly occurs in mixtures possessing opposing characteristic that are in maximum chaos known fact
5) The result of self-assemble is a organized uniform distribution of alternating domains known phenomenon
6) Such a distribution lead to expansion deductive conclusion

Okay Modest, let us take inventory. Can you in six simple steps with only one hypothetical get from the Big Bang to expansion??? No you can’t, can you? You even said,

Quote

A full derivation from one to the other is beyond the scope of this thread

But didn’t you once describe Friedmann’s views to be “simple?” This is not a question for debate: either something is “simple” or it’s “beyond the scope” of being easily presented. It can’t be one way once and then another way again. But then again, you’ve tried to have it both ways in the past on this thread: one moment on the 18th post claiming that no sizable accumulation of antimatter exists in the Universe, then when faced with very recent ESA evidence, you flip-flop on the 22nd post and chastise me because you apparently knew about it before you were born—(an interesting concept.)

I find it comical that you make your exit by chastising me for “debate.” However, it was you who began a forum to debate by demanding that this thread stop presenting the Dominium model and instead consider your biased-preference Friedmann assumptions.

As far as the two questions you’ve demanded immediate response to, I actually can remember only one: why the antimatter accumulation exists shielding the galactic black-hole? Problem, again you ignore what I have stated. That is explained in Move 8, you have only allowed me to show five moves. To reach “8” we must pass through “6” and “7”. I already told you I would show that once we get to it… but again you ignore what’s been put in front of you on this thread.

[Hasanuddin]

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 justification or verification? Again, I do not disagree with this assertion.

Now, when you start summarizing the Standard Model, I take issue. I wholeheartedly agree with your first statement.

Quote

the Standard Model basically assumes that the laws of physics are symmetrical with regards to matter and antimatter

I’m in 100% agreement. I hope you realize that the Dominium model is in 100% accordance with the Standard Model. It is the status quo popular-bias theories that necessarily must “violate” the Standard Model in order to exist. That was one of the assumptions that I was just now pressing Modest to admit. Essentially, in order to reach Friedmann’s assumptions and an all-matter Universe, the Standard Model must be violated… but that is creates a 2nd quandary rather than actually solving one.

I take issue with your oversimplification of the Standard Model by saying

Quote

that is, were every particle in the universe to suddenly be replaced with its antiparticle, no difference would be detectable

On this I disagree, in phrasing, but perhaps not in principle. Under the Dominium model, if the Milky Way suddenly became antimatter, that would have drastic implications for neighboring galaxies. What I think you mean is that under the Standard Model, matter and antimatter will have similar properties (so musings like Modest’s bizarre gravity options on post 18 would be violations)—this too, I agree with. The Standard Model notion that matter and antimatter exhibit similar properties is implicit in the Dominium assertion that within antimatter galaxies antifusion is be occurring, yet is undetectable on Earth because (of your next Standard Model assertion) that light/photons are the antiparticles of themselves.

Your third paragraph I totally disagree with. The problem is that your argument rests on the assumption that all quarks/antiquarks and electrons/positrons can be ignored. No they can’t. Sorry, you have no basis for ignoring them… except to twist a point.

Fourth paragraph. Okay. So are you telling me that scientists are just fine assuming that “universal attraction” is the case (without any corroboration); but that gravitational-repulsion cannot be considered without undeniable proof? I agree that this is the case that exists today, but I hope you see that this creates a Catch-22: how is such proof going to come if the question is never considered? No disrespect, but what I am advancing is a totally comprehensive, coherent, and complete model. There are no evidentiary anomalies. Isn’t that justification enough?

Fifth and sixth paragraphs: I applaud! CERN does possess the ability to fashion an experiment to test this fundamental relationship. Perhaps not tomorrow… but they do possess the means.

The seventh paragraph I cheer, but then I remember who/what I am and am lost with a feeling of uncertainty and helplessness. How? How is it possible to get the ear of folks in control? I am nothing. I am nowhere near CERN. I was born in the wrong decade, the wrong race, the wrong sex, and to the wrong family to be able to reach a position of stature and power at this point in history. I am unimportant in the eyes of society and those in power. All I have is an appreciation for nature, logic, and compassion for others. I rub no elbows, except those of strangers on the subway. But I am satisfied and comfortable with my little life—there is nothing wrong with being small and unrecognized. But I have this model… a model that is so clean, beautiful, seductive, coherent, all-encompassing and powerful. Despite my own peace and love of privacy I am putting it out there… it is just too big and important to keep to myself. But how can someone as meek, lowly, and unimportant as myself be able to show the powerful, respected, famous, and connected this apparent truth? My only hope is to show it to as many people as possible. In this forum… and in the internet itself, I see hope. Perhaps someone more connected than myself will see the beauty of it. This is why I continually call on the silent readership to tell others of this thread, this forum, and the new model. This is why I will weather any and all rhetoric abuse that is thrown my way. Besides, I have found that the nastiest and most abusive folks often bestow the greatest ultimate gifts supporting the new model. Modest (who has been quite polite compared to the rage I’ve seen elsewhere) is now the 6th detractor who ultimately presented valuable support (Ripalda’s convergent mathematically based conclusions matching the first steps of the deductive model) favoring the Dominium model. The ultimate hope is that eventually too many people will know about the Dominium model for it to be ignored. Ultimately the goal is to force those at CERN to consider this model determining which projects go forward and how.

I am also in total agreement with you, if this model is correct then a rewriting of physics would be a great thing! Everyone would benefit—even the scientists. It would herald in huge advances of unknowable proportion. There would be lots of work for everyone. Funding would surely increase. Facilities would be opened/expanded, not closed because of lack of prospects (as is now the case.) Discoveries, applications, advances… literally, the sky is the limit!

Or, if the model is correct, it could be ignored and the status quo of dead-end and evidentiary anomalies could continue for decades or centuries. As Modest pointed out early on, heliospheric models were ignored for a long time in favor of Ptolemaic math proofs. Even the Copernican solution was ignored for roughly 60 years. Will we allow history to repeat itself? The main problem is psychological… folks don’t like change, novelty, or alteration. But sometimes, change is the best thing that we can do.

[Erasmus00]

Hasanuddin said:

1) E=mc2 leads to equal matter and antimatter -- known fact

Not only is this not a known fact, its wrong. There are small CP violating terms in the standard model, and so certain processes favor matter over anti-matter.

Most processes are not CP violating, but some certainly are.

[Hasanuddin]

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 they had it all wrong? Wow... I'd be very interested if you had a point... many text books would be wrong also (which I guess isn't a big deal since most things have a degree of error to them.)

Question: are you citing data... or are your referring to a mathematical musing that is not linked to empirical evidence?

*By the way, even if you are "correct" that E=mc2 isn't perfectly symmetric, that doesn't change the Dominium deductive conclusions. Conditions do not necessarily need to be 50:50 in order for self-assembly to occur. Even if limited CP "Violation" occurs, self-assemblage of the different dominia would also occur. The galaxies would still be established and expansion would still occur. {Nice try}

[Erasmus00]

Hasanuddin said:

Hmm, so you're saying that E=mc2 (pair production), one of the most confirmed high-erengy events known, is a lie?

You are confusing two things- E=mc^2 just tell us photons/etc can be converted to matter, it doesn't specify that it has to be matter/anti-matter symmetric. In general, other conservation laws (like charge), require a balance of matter/anti matter.

Quote

Huh, now you're trying to say that they had it all wrong? Wow... I'd be very interested if you had a point... many text books would be wrong also (which I guess isn't a big deal since most things have a degree of error to them.)

Any textbook written after 1965 or so should mention the CP asymmetry. The 1980 nobel prize was awarded to Cronin and someone I can't remember for this discovery. It is confirmed data (see information of Kaon oscillations).

Quote

*By the way, even if you are "correct" that E=mc2 isn't perfectly symmetric, that doesn't change the Dominium deductive conclusions.

Actually, it could. If matter is more likely to be produced in certain reactions, then its possible that after the first few moments of the big bang these reactions drove anti-matter into matter, so there was very little anti-matter left.

[Hasanuddin]

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 friend of mine even confided that the best “evidence” that had come out in favor of asymmetric decay could easily be attributed to a faulty CEM or other simple error. The other problem with the notion of asymmetric decay is that given the best-case fluke results (I say that because such trials couldn’t be repeated/reproduced predictably) the amount of “matter” in the visible Universe cannot be accounted for. Essentially, the explanation of the evidentiary anomaly of lack of antimatter is traded in for an evidentiary anomaly of too much matter. That is a zero-sum trade-off.

Sakharov never questioned the symmetry of pair production because that is easily, and commonly, reproduced. My understanding is that symmetric pair production accounts for up to 99.9% of initial collision data coming out of high-energy events. The initial reason for this world-wide-web, that we now use to communicate, was to extract all of this ultra common predicable symmetric noise to be able to find that one needle-in-the-haystack. You appear to be calling into question that data, without provided any data of your own.

If I were a betting man, and I’m not, I’d wager that you are using one of those bastardized “Standard Models,” which I hope you realize is no longer the Standard Model. Sorry, but in the Standard Model that I know and love, it says: charge, parity, and time (CPT) all are conserved. To that Standard Model, both Friedmann and Sakharov assume violation. Actually to any who assume and all-matter Universe, must ultimately violate the Standard Model. Hence the need and development of bastardized versions because the results "feel" more comfortable though the paradox is simply buried, not solved—no “violation” appears to occur because the basic theorem has been mutated to meet the need of producing predetermined desired outcome of an all-matter Universe.

Conversely, compared against the original and pure version of the Standard Model, the Dominium is in 100% accordance, and no corruption is needed to reach its conclusions.

What to you say to my charge that Sakharov’s wish that the Universe be all-matter is based on committing the informal fallacy of “Composition,” i.e., basing conclusion for the composition of an entire system based on a very limited and localized samples/sampling? Subsequently, he fashioned mathematical proofs (in the spirit of Ptolemy) to reach his preconceived conclusion? I also believe that the bastardized versions of the “Standard Model” (which you appear to be quoting) were formed by similar human Ptolemaic desires to force the math to reach a preestablished consensus conclusions. Although this process is not scientific, it is a dangerous and well documented perversion of both science and logic to achieve outcomes that are deceptively alluring but ultimately hollow and false.

[Erasmus00]

Hasanuddin said:

Words… lots of words; let’s see some asserted facts that are tied to actual natural observations and/or experimentation.

Look at the 1980 nobel prize work of Cronin on Kaon oscillations, as I suggested above. CP violation has been measured.

Quote

First of all, I believe that it you who are a bit confused. “CP Violation” refers to Sakharov’s suggestion of asymmetric decay…

This is actually incorrect- CP violation refers to a violation of a specific symmetry (Charge conjugation AND parity reversal).

What Sakharov did was to show that in order for a matter universe to emerge from the big bang, certain conditions needed to be satisfied. You need processes that are baryon number violating, that are CP violating, and that are C violating.

Quote

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.

This isn't quite true- CP violation has been established beyond a doubt, the 1980 nobel prize was awarded for it! No baryon violating process has ever been established.

Quote

If I were a betting man, and I’m not, I’d wager that you are using one of those bastardized “Standard Models,” which I hope you realize is no longer the Standard Model. Sorry, but in the Standard Model that I know and love, it says: charge, parity, and time (CPT) all are conserved.

This isn't true. C, P, and T are not individually conserved. Only charge conjugation+parity+time reversal is conserved. All weak interactions in the standard model maximally violate parity (see Wu's work on the beta decay of cobalt), and there are CP violating CKM mixing processes (see Kobayashi and Maskawa's work, or there 2008 nobel speech)

[Hasanuddin]

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 Cronin’s work could be 100% on-base but only show one part of the overall story. For example, the apparent violations of fundamental symmetry principles in the decay of neutral K-mesons could be complemented by a yet to be observed complementary asymmetric decay favoring antimatter. If that were the case then perfect symmetry would still result. *Note: this is only a possibility, not a categorical assertion.

Actually the fervor of your post brings up a very interesting philosophical question: Did all Nobel laureates contribute equally to the advancement of science? The answer is obviously “No.” Another question comes to mind: What does the Nobel committee do on particularly slow years?…withhold the prize?…or just give it to the most potentially promising? Personally I’d hope that they give it away to someone in the hope that person can make their work bare fruit (all labs could use more resources)…but in doing so, couldn’t that inadvertently signal a seal of absolute “Nobel-correctness” on work that was still incomplete? Looking back at the records a year has never been skipped. With that evidence it begs the question: Has the Nobel committee ever given out the prize in error, to someone not truly deserving, or for some claim that that was not a justifiable advancement—or just plain wrong? A very interesting question… and one that I am not prepared to answer. However, given statistic probabilities, eventually the answer will be, “Yes.”

For the sake of this thread there is no reason to quibble over either the merits of Nobels of the past or the intricacies of the definitions of CP Violation assumptions, because both subjects are tangential/superfluous to the issues being discussed.

In post #38, I laid out a six-step way using the Dominium premise to go from the Big Bang to a Universe with galaxies that are expanding apart from each other. You interjected in post #40 and tried to stop me at the first step attempting to claim pair-production (E=mc2) is an asymmetric process. You have yet to provide a single shred of evidence to back up this claim. Without such evidence, your arguments against the Dominium fall apart as tangential fluff. Please get back on topic, defend your original point, and begin to discuss the deductive analysis that is this model.