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 physical/known observations beginning with the Big Bang, organization of galaxies, creation of AGN (supermassive black-holes at the hearts of all galaxies,) and the creation of the giant antimatter cloud known to surround the AGN. All of the discussions to date involve moments and developments that appear to have occurred before the advent of the first light of the Universe (CMB.)
At this moment of summarization and introspection, let us inventory of the ability of the two different models to account for these undeniable natural phenomena. One of the best ways to assess the worth of the two divergent models is to use the lens of the Great-grandfather of modern relativistic theory
--Albert Einstein (1879-1955)
By this measure, the Dominium model is quite far ahead:
Hypotheses and/or axioms used by the Dominium
1: Matter and antimatter were created in equal parts at the moment of the Big Bang
2: Matter and antimatter gravitationally repel one another
3: Black-holes are the result of an imbalance of forces
Only two very simple hypotheses were required. The Dominium analysis is just an account of the necessary implications and repercussions that result from these two premises. What naturally falls deductively from these two premises are the necessary conclusions of an ordered self-assembled Universe, flat event horizon, AGN at the centers of galaxies, MAC antimatter clouds surrounding AGNs, and pervasive symmetry with quadrants, such as our own, being composed of either all matter or all antimatter.
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.
A simple comparison of the two different models (Dominium vs. popular-bias consensus theories) appears show the Dominium’s superiority, given Einstein’s standards for judging the merits of a scientific model. On the first thread, http://hypography.co...hasanuddin.html, the two models were compared side-by-side beginning with the Big Bang through the construction of the basic prominent galactic features of the well-known AGNs, and now widely recognized antimatter clouds surrounding these galactic centers. To reach this point in the narrative, the Dominium utilizes just three hypothetical premises and possesses no paradoxical conflicts. In contrast, the collection of entrenched popular assumptions is dependent on no less than thirteen different hypotheses and axioms and is confounded by at least five separate true paradoxes between observed data and theory.
This thread will be devoted to the 2nd half of the model. We will begin where the 1st thread left off: in the middle of the explanation of the “Dark Event.” The time when immiscibility had been established, major regions or (which are referred to in the published book as "dominia" and which are implicated to later form individual galaxies) had been formed, within these major regions opposite-typed material was trapped and formed immiscible micelles, force vectors and geometries caused some of these micelles to collapse forming black-holes (MBH), geometries and vectors at the centers of major regions led to the creation of the AGNs, growth of the AGNs were halted by the accumulation of opposite type material (AMBH for our Milky Way) at the gate-interface of the AGN. Move #9 will be posted approximately 24 hours from now if no-one posts.
Also, if you have issue with any of the moves made up until this point, to avoid confusion please post on the original thread (http://hypography.co...hasanuddin.html)