- Active Posts:
- 161 (0.11 per day)
- Most Active In:
- Alternative theories (83 posts)
- 19-March 09
- Profile Views:
- Last Active:
- Jul 17 2012 06:34 PM
- Member Title:
- Age Unknown
- Birthday Unknown
- Not Telling
- Boston, MA USA
- Gardening & chopping wood
- Physics & Chem instructor
Topics I've Started
21 March 2011 - 01:26 PMCould it have really happened?? The evidence is mounting that it may have. The autonomous experimental institution, CERN, disregarded much publicized warnings that their biggest project could generate man’s first synthetic black-hole material. They went ahead with the LHC project despite concerns.
What would happen if they were “successful” and created stable synthetic black-hole material? First, it wouldn't be instant because of the same principles preventing all the sand of an hour-glass to fall through when turned; though eventually all grains will fall they cannot pass through at once. As the Earth’s volume slowly reduces, the surface will continually readjust, where seismic/volcanic activity will continue to get more intense. Over the past year we have seen lethal earthquakes in Haiti, Chile, S.China, New Zealand-x2, and now Japan; tsunami in the Solomons and Japan; and increased volcanism in Alaska, Indonesia, Italy, and Iceland. Also, as the Earth’s volume decreases, its rate of spin will increase (because of dynamics of angular momentum) and this too has been recorded-- http://www.boston.co...ee_bit_shorter/
Why wouldn’t CERN report this “major accomplishment?” Two possibilities: either they didn’t notice it when it did occur (because of either being drowned out by other noise or because black-hole material has no signature that LHC detectors are sensitive to) and was able to excape the machine leaving only the smallest of holes behind that the vacuum status of the machine was not compromised. Or, perhaps the marketing arm of CERN is not ready to take ownership of all of the life-loss their stupidity appears to have wrought. Would admitting to this "accomplishment" make CERN legally responsible to the pain and suffering consequent to such a mishap?
I am also the author of a new scientific model—The Dominium—with ramifications that, unfortunately seem to be coming to pass. I wrote under the pseudonym “Hasanuddin” (my religious name) for many reasons, including a desire to stay out of spotlights. You can also find a summary of important parts of the new model at http://knol.google.c...jtincqf6gddc/1# or alternatively you can buy it cheaply enough at online booksellers. Either way, the scenario of increased frequency and severity of earthquakes/volcano/tsunami, such as is appearing now, is EXACTLY what was predicted by the model in the worst-case scenario that CERN succeeds in creating their synthetic black-hole & the Dominium model is correct.
From 2007 to 2010 I fought very hard to stop CERN from proceeding with the LHC experiment and mission to generate man’s first synthetic black-hole material. I blogged and posted on scientific forums like you wouldn’t believe. Although debate was often contentious, in the end my opponents could not find any real faults with the model and have taken a wait-and-see attitude pending several ongoing experiments that could prove the central question of gravitational dynamics one way of another. See: http://scienceforums...-by-hasanuddin/
And also: http://scienceforums...m-model-part-2/
Hundreds of books were sent out to universities, politicians, and news organizations all across the globe. CERN was contacted first. Unfortunately it all fell on deaf ears.
After this track-record, I know that you, the reader, are probably going to be skeptical too. That’s cool. I don’t expect action immediately. However, if the earthquakes, tsunami, and volcanism continue to increase in both frequency and severity … please consider the ramifications. I believe there is so much more connected to this possibility than *just* destruction, death, and extinction.
The biggest questions shall be how are we going to react. Should decision-makers at CERN be brought to justice? If so, what kind of justice is there worse than watching the world being destroyed and knowing that it is your fault?
More personally, how are we as individuals going to react? Will we become murderous savages clawing of each other in order to live one second longer; or do we become stoic kinder and aware of the pain felt by people less strong than ourselves? Over the past year we saw three different populations impacted. In Haiti gangs of lawless men raped, looted, and murdered over things as small as food; while in Japan there appears to be no looting at all and high levels of inter-cooperation; while Chile fell somewhere between. In a condition of mass destruction, would you comfort a scared orphaned child, or would you push her aside and pillage the remains of her broken home? Digest that last question very slowly and give it plenty of weight. In times of true crisis, the true goodness (or evil) of a person can come out. I have seen for a very long time the eerie connections between Quranic/Biblical texts and the tableau that appears of have played out—these are explained in detail in the published book. If CERN did create a black-hole, if the Dominium model is correct, and if I trust my own eyes for what they have witnessed, then beyond a doubt, there is a God, we all are interconnected, and that personal decisions made will have consequences lasting past our deaths. If these are the Last Days, the choices you make are likely to either save or damn you.
Of course there is always the chance that no black-holes have been made and that the recent blitz of earthquakes, volcanism, increased Earth-spin have nothing to do with LHC. It’s one of those wait and see deals. In the meantime, it might be prudent to make peace internally, spiritually, and with one's fellow man.
07 July 2009 - 02:12 AMAntimatter Black-holes: what is their nature?
This new thread is spun off of “Smallest stable black-holes” because the question of antimatter black-holes (AMBH) is exceedingly interesting, it is not actually 100% connected to the notion of the requirements of creating that smallest-sized black-holes.
Jay-qu said:Antimatter does not have anti-mass, it will act gravitationally just like any normal matter. Therefore I would not expect an AMBH to be repulsive.
This statement commits two mistakes. The first mistake is to liken the human-assigned prefix “anti” to the mathematical concept of negative-numbers. This equivocation lead to the truly wrong assignment of negative-mass. Although matter and antimatter are opposites, not all opposites a numeric-sign opposites. Just consider ♂ vs ♀, these are opposites of one another & they are the same genus of being, yet neither (sophomoric jokes aside) is truly “negative.”
The second mistake is to assume that the gravitational relationship between matter and antimatter is known. Although I agree that antimatter “will act gravitationally” and I expect this interaction to be “normal,” that does not preclude the possibility of gravitational-repulsion. There are two threads dedicated to the modern Dominium model that you will enjoy: http://hypography.co...hasanuddin.html
Currently the exact gravitational relationship between matter and antimatter is completely unknown. It is arguably one of the greatest unknowns of the frontiers of physical understanding. Fortunately, CERN is about to conduct a simple, but pivotal, experiment that will answer this question (hopefully) once and for all. WELCOME TO AEgIS
Further confusion of the Dominium notion of gravitational-repulsion is shown with the comment
Boerseun said:Besides, if anti-matter were gravitationally repulsive, they would never fall together to fall a black hole in the first place.
No. Gravitational-repulsion is only displayed between matter and antimatter. Between antimatter and antimatter, gravitational attraction would occur just as it does between matter and matter. In other words, it’s the inverse relationship seen in electrostatics: Likes attract; opposites repel.
Therefore AMBH could form; therefore parity between AMBH and MBH would be maintained.
I wholeheartedly agree when it was said:
Boerseun said:This is indeed very interesting, and definitely worthy of its own thread. (Sorry for thread-jackin', by the way)
No problems. Having topics being too interesting is much better than the alternative. I’m going to post this now in hopes of tying up the other thread… I am supremely interested in CraigD’s response… please continue any/all conversations of AMBH here. Thanks
Note: This thread is open to all aspects of the probable nature of AMBH. Although this opening answers the questions of Jay-qu and Boerseun re the gravitational-repulsion option, there is also the option of universal-attraction as discussed at:
03 July 2009 - 03:25 AMWhat is the smallest sized possible black-hole? And what are the implications of the answer to this question?
According to cosmologic observation, the smallest black-hole ever viewed from Earth is roughly 3.8 solar masses. SPACE.com -- Smallest Black Hole Found
However this observation does not establish the lower limit to achieve a stable black-hole. For one thing, that structure has been growing ever since its creation and is observed growing today. For another, there are several different models that do seem to suggest the lower limit of stability for a black-hole to be much smaller than 3.8 solar masses.
I posit this discussion not out of pure whimsy. The deductive Dominium analysis, on which I am working, asserts that in the primordial Universe, long before CMB, mini black-holes were formed near the centers of each galaxy. Those of a similar type to the galaxy itself (matter in the case of the Milky Way) went on to form the central AGN, while opposite-type MBH (antimatter for the Milky Way) either were trapped in the MAC structure or were ejected and are now recorded as “dark-matter.”
Unfortunately, the Dominium model is deductive, therefore it is only useful in supplying the big-picture narrative, but is unable to supply numeric specifics, such as the exact lower limit of the mass needed to achieve MBH stability. Hence I am quite interested how folks of this forum can weigh in and explain nuances of different arguments that are floating out there.
Specifically, of theories that do use numeric methods, there appears to be both agreement in general terms, but disagreement on specifics. It appears that all theories concur that MBH can be stable for all sizes larger than one Plank mass, which is about 2.0e−8 kg or 1.2e19 GeV/c2.. Micro black hole - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia However, there appears to be disagreement for masses below this. There are some who believe that special conditions might cause black-hole production at lower masses.
[hep-ph/0106219] High Energy Colliders as Black Hole Factories: The End of Short Distance Physics
[hep-ph/0106295] Black Holes at the LHC
The case for mini black holes - CERN Courier
Although, the common understanding is that below one Plank mass, MBH will evaporate away; this belief is not assumed by all. [gr-qc/0304042] Do black holes radiate?
Most recently, there are even those who have asserted that MBH could be much more stable than originally assumed [0901.2948] On the Possibility of Catastrophic Black Hole Growth in the Warped Brane-World Scenario at the LHC
So the question is: which is it & why? What is the smallest size for a black-hole to stably exist? And what are the implications of this debate?
27 June 2009 - 10:09 AMHello All,
If you’ve been following along these thread you’ll know that I am the author of a modern cosmologic model that is revolutionary, both in terms of its methodology and its primary hypothesis. Although several popular, yet unverified, existing assumptions are over-turned by the new model, all of the experimental and observational data is both compatible and explained by the new Dominium model—even data that is without explanation under traditional approached, e.g., the massive antimatter cloud at the center of our galaxy, See thread: http://hypography.co...ic-big-mac.html
Although the Dominium model has had a very good run here on hypography.com, itneeds to expand out and be reviewed by more people within the scientific community. The question is this:
“How/where to publish a work as meverick as the Dominium so that it can be read and reviewed by as many science-minded people as possible?”
I should probably tell all a little about myself. Actually, I have three paper written journal style and semi-ready to go at this site: The Dominium I’m strangely terrified of the process and haven’t even attempted to contact anyone about publishing them. Why? Because I work in a high school. I am your typical Gen-X “underachiever,” though the truth is there were no opportunities for my generation. Even though I graduated in the top 10% of my class, the recession of the 1990’s meant no job. None of my friends got jobs. I was one step away from standing in the bread-line that formed every Sunday at the Lutheran book-store. Long strong short, out of desperation I applied for p/t work at the schools, and ultimately that led to the vocation of teaching. Having the summers free meant that I had three months to take educational sabbaticals, enroll in classes, and do formal research in any of the local universities. UMASS Boston had the most convenient library for me to do my research for the Dominium. CERN, nine years ago, is where I learned and worked all summer in the HST program. NASA (space-camp) is where I learned additional aspects of cosmology. And then in 2007 was an MIT symposium that introduced me to self-assembly from a nanotechnology lecturer. This is also the time that the Dominium was first being written. I love science. Back in grade-school kids used to tease me dubbing me “nature boy” because I have always been so fascinated about every single aspect of science. Actually, the moniker never really bothered me, I could never understand how those same classmates could be so obtuse when it came to the natural beauty that is essentially everywhere. So basically, I’m just a humble man who loves all the sciences. I live in, of all places, Dot Mass (Dot is the locals name for Dorchester; Mass is the short version of Massachusetts.) I don’t know how to publish these papers. I do not know procedures. I do not know who to call or talk to. What I do know is that the Dominium model is damn near perfect. If anyone does know something about journal publishing—the summer started yesterday 6/26—I have the time, energy, motivation, and a beautiful, seamless, and inclusive model to promote—all I need is a little direction and advise. Hopefully the readers of this forum and thread can supply the answers and insight that I require. Thank you.
For reference sake, see the two main Dominium discussions here at hypography (I’d start w/ part 2, since part part 1 is summarized in the first post, and if interested go back to the beginning.)
11 June 2009 - 12:50 PMA massive antimatter cloud (MAC) has been mapped by the ESA/NASA satellite Integral. The mission shows that MAC completely encapsulates the central black-hole at our galaxy’s center.
ESA - Space Science - Integral discovers the galaxy?s antimatter cloud is lopsided
NASA - Vast Cloud of Antimatter Traced to Binary Stars
The existence of the MAC formation is completely contradictory to traditional rote. We are lead to believe, by consensus theories that all the Universe’s antimatter disappeared during the first seconds of after creation. MAC’s existence, stability, and continuance all appear in direct contradiction to the assumption that antimatter is necessarily short-lived or more prone to spontaneous decay. Even more perplexing is that MAC has persisted in the matter-densest portion of the galaxy.
The existence of MAC was a crucial centerpiece predicted, before the release of the ESA/NASA Integral data, by the modern Dominium model being debated at hear on hypography at http://hypography.co...hasanuddin.html You’re invited to come over and join that pivotal dialog.
Now the question is, using preexisting theory, please explain away the apparent paradoxes to give reason, purpose, and clarity to the MAC structure.