The Dominium model by Hasanuddin

[modest]

Thank you for the kind response, Hasanuddin.

 

You say on the link you provided to your site that “Times are changing and internet discussion boards like this can potentially provided a much more transparent vetting than the old-school closed-door method.” While I think this has some fairly obvious drawbacks, I’d also like to think it can be a valid approach. But, in order for it to work I think a couple things are necessary.

 

First: 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. Second: You would need to be receptive to feedback. Valid objections raised to your idea would have to be seen as possible problems or shortcomings of your idea and would need to be addressed from that standpoint. Any and all negative feedback can’t be dismissed as current scientific dogma protecting itself.

 

The first criticism I would have is that your model does not appear to be a "model". I understand your postulates:

• the gravitational interaction between matter and antimatter is repulsive
  
• the universe has equal amounts of matter and antimatter
  

But, I don't see the laws of physics being used to model the outcome of those postulates. To give you a specific example of where and how this can be done, you say:

Using atomic/nano self-assemblage as a predictive model on would expect a type of patterned positioning similar to that, which has been produced in the lab. One such configuration involves alternate positioning as is seen in ionic crystals. Such a configuration necessitates a system that has a huge degree of order in terms of the distribution, size, and positioning or its components. Therefore, when applied to the developing Universe...

 

This is a good analogy and I would think a good place to start a model. An ionic solid such as salt has an energy of crystallization which you can find modeled at the following site under Lattice Energy toward the bottom:

The energy of crystallization (negative of the lattice energy) in ionic solids is mostly electrostatic energy, arising simply out of the Coulombic attractions and repulsions among all the positive and negatively charged ions in the solid piece, as per the Coulomb's law for electrostatic potential energy uij = qiqj/(4peorij) among any two ions i & j considered as point charges.

 

Solids and Ionic Solids

It goes on to give all formulas necessary to calculate the electrostatic interactions of a crystal made of positive and negative ions. If those coulomb forces are instead taken to be positive and negative forces of Newtonian gravity then the Madelung energy equation given in the link above can be made (naively) into a cosmological energy equation.

 

This is done in this paper which I posted the link to yesterday:

If we now visualize each positive ion as a cluster of matter galaxies, and each negative ion as an antimatter cluster, and replace the electrostatic interaction by the (anti)gravitational potential due to a point mass in the newtonian limit, we obtain from the Madelung model of an ionic solid:

 

[math]U_g = \frac12 N \alpha \frac{m^2}{R}[/math]

 

where Ug is the total gravitational energy, N is the total number of clusters, m would represent the mass of the clusters, R the separation between nearest neighbors, and α is the Madelung constant. For simplicity, and to keep the analogy with a crystal, m and R are assumed to be the same for all clusters. The Madelung constant takes values between 1.8 and 1.6 for most crystal structures. The overall force on the universe (dUg/dR) is repulsive. Such a model of the universe could not be static, the effective values of R, m, and α being a function of time.

 

Space-time reversal, antimatter, and antigravity in general relativity

This represents the first steps toward building a model. It becomes possible to use measured parameters (such as the mass density of the universe or the number of galaxy clusters) and put them in the model and make predictions about how the universe evolves over time. A good example of this is the concordance model of standard cosmology. It is based on known laws of physics (general relativity); it gives a numerical solution to model; and it makes predictions about the past and future of the universe. It "models" the universe.

 

I think what you're doing with the Dominium model is very thought-provoking and a great idea, but I don't think it's a model yet which I think it needs to be in order to convince people of the two postulates listed above. I say this because there is no direct evidence for either postulate. There has been no observation that matter gravitationally repels antimatter. There's also no experimental or observational evidence that there are any significant concentrations of antimatter in the observable universe. Convincing people of these will therefore require quantitative predictions that can be tested and confirmed.

 

I hope you don't take this as a completely negative assessment. I rather mean it as a recommendation on how to proceed with your ideas (which I think are fundamentally good ideas).

 

As to the specifics of your conclusions, I would enjoy discussing many things that you've brought up... I'll pick out one thing in particular to get the ball rolling...

 

inally, one of the implications deep w/in the Dominium model is that before the first light of CMB, micro black-holes (MBH) were created inside of embryonic galaxies of an opposite type the the galaxy itself. So, for the Milky Way, the type of MBH produced would have been antimatter-based (AMBH). Because of asymmetric geometries most of the AMBH from our galaxy would have been purged, as would have been the case for MMBH produced in mirror galaxies based on antimatter. However, both types of material would have been purged at a time after considerable expansion had already taken place. Both types, the model asserts, are still on-route to the nearest like-type galaxy, which means that today they are all located somewhere between galaxies. This perfectly matches the gravitational readings of what has been referred to as "dark matter."

 

Am I to understand that the black hole at our galaxy's core is made of antimatter? Why and how would this be possible?

 

There are stars very near the black hole at the galaxy's core. They reveal through their motion that its mass is approximately 3.7 million solar masses and that mass attracts the stars in the nearby neighborhood. The image here shows observations over 9 years:

-

source

The motion reveals the extraordianry attractive power of the object at the core. If we are postulating that matter and antimatter are repulsed gravitationally wouldn't this observation indicated that both the ordinary stars and the black hole are of like content (either matter or antimatter)?

 

~modest

 

PS... Please understand when replying, I'm not out to get you or your model nor prove you or it wrong and I hope you don't take this and subsequent posts in that way. I'd very much like to explore the logical consequences of your ideas without any bias :)

[Hasanuddin]

Hi Modest,

 

First let me emphatically state that I agree with your philosophy regarding forums such as these. The goal is not to “win” an argument, but to reach a better understanding of the truths of the natural world. This is not the place for ego, bias, competition, or mob-mentality. What we are discussing are issues; there is no bearing on either of us as individuals. Personally I enjoy debating ideas, because it has always helped be grow as an individual and in my own understandings of scientific truths. With respect to the Dominium, in the past, although some detractors did break the rules you just set forward (i.e., all they hoped for was to trash the new hypothesis thereby support their bias toward standard theory) inadvertently, five of these folks ultimately caused five new lines of tangential/direct evidentiary support favoring the new model to be identified. If we can stay focused and keep emotions out, this is the ideal forum for transparent review of new ideas--which is even more thorough than traditional closed-door peer review.

 

Okay, now let’s talk issues. The first assertion you make is that the Dominium is not a “model.” However, I feel like you are being unfairly premature in making this assessment, I have only made five moves on this thread. Also, your criticism goes on to mention that had I gone on to make comparisons to ionic solids, then I would be starting a model. Well, in the published book-version of the Dominium, that is actually one of the next implications that would have been discussed. This convergent conclusion between the original deductive Dominium analysis and the Ripalda paper was one of the biggest things that excited me so much yesterday.

 

Now, I believe there is a little bit of a disagreement between you and I concerning what constitutes a “model.” According to my version of Webster’s New World Dictionary a “model” is:

a) A small representation of a planned or existing object

:) A hypothetical representation or description

Definition “b” is most appropriate, agreed? At this early point you are correct that I have not given a complete model, but how can you argue that I have not given representation or description? Please review Move 4. Not only does that move describe one aspect of the Dominium model, but also it does so by augmenting Einstein’s well-known checkerboard graphic model.

 

Because you appear to ignore these presented attributes of a model, I dug a little into your words to find your intent and am alerted by the following phrases. When describing what you consider a good model, you say that it

goes on to give all formulas necessary to calculate

And when faulting the current Dominium “hypothetical representations or descriptions” you say

I don’t see the laws of physics being used

Combining your two assertions, I need to wonder out-loud whether you are among those who feel that in order to discuss physics that it must be done formulaically or not at all. If that is your bias, please refer to the post that I made to Suggestions & Wish List board: http://hypography.com/forums/suggestions-and-wish-list/18831-split-of-the-forums-physics-mathematics.html#post258965 Honestly, I do not fault you for having such a bias; it is a viewpoint quite widespread throughout the physics community. Regardless of its pervasiveness, that does not justify its correctness or reason for holding on to it.

 

In defense of the deductive method, let me take a few moments and describe my understanding of the history of science leading up to where we are today. Step one is the acquisition of facts, truths, and observations of the natural world. This step began millennia ago, and begins anew within each individual as they come into awareness. The next steps involve the formation of models. I’ll skip the individual’s perspective and step right to the formal societal steps in manifesting the formalized scientific disciplines. To describe this it is easiest using the analogy of a sculptor. The acquisition of phenomenological facts is analogous to the quarrying of the raw slab. The deductive method is synonymous to the sledgehammer that whacks away large chunks of uncertainty and yields the raw shape. Formulaic applications are akin to the fine tools that yield the exacting details and final beauty. For most mature disciplines, the sledgehammer has already been utilized, therefore it appears to be of little use and has gathered dust in the tool room. Cosmology and particle physics are very different from mature and classic disciplines, like Chemistry, because the phenomenological data is newly acquired and surrounded with uncertainty. For example, PAMELA has just reported that positrons are primary cosmic ray particles with energies as high as 2 TeV—that is a brand new phenomenological fact unlike anything observed (or even speculated before) and just released last month. Because of the newness of the data/understandings of the bulk of cosmologic data, the deductive process has not yet been applied (to my knowledge) before the little game/exercise that yielded the Dominium model. True, the sledgehammer of formal deduction has not been overtly “useful” for many decades, but that does not diminish the value of its function. The reason why formulaic attempts have been so unsuccessful accounting for “all” the data w/out anomaly, is because these fine-tools have been applied while there is still too much bulk uncertainty clinging/hiding the actual form of the system being analyzed. I have maintained throughout that if the Dominium were correct, then a formulaic proof would necessarily be forthcoming. The Ripalda paper is evidence of the soundness of that conclusion.

 

Now, onto real issues:

You first seem to assert that a model cannot be formed on the idea of gravitational repulsion because there is no direct measurement of matter and antimatter gravitational interaction. However, the same logic you use to discredit the Dominium also discredits all popular-bias models based on the notion of “universal attraction,” where, in fact, no direct observation of matter and antimatter gravitationally attracting exists. Sorry, but this reasoning commits the formal fallacy of Argumentum ad Ignorantiam. No evidence actually implies a split in the road of possibilities. A model based on either assumption is equally as valid. For this reason I have applied the same analysis to both possible roads. Look back at the posted moves: gravitational-repulsion has consistently yielded matches to nature, while “universal-attraction” as achieved polar opposite mismatches.

 

Then you state that the Dominium cannot be formed because there is no evidence of any significant concentrations of antimatter in the observable universe. First, I hope you realize that such a statement is untrue and neglects the antimatter cloud surrounding the galactic center of our, and other observed, galaxies. Ignoring that verified data, your statement possesses the implied conclusion: Therefore antimatter exists nowhere in the Universe. This conclusion commits the informal fallacy of Composition: essentially concluding the status of the whole based on an extremely limited sample. Human direct sampling of Universe is extremely puny and limited to our measly solar system. You are also neglecting that I have supplied a mechanism explaining the lack of such data: immiscible equilibrium between matter and antimatter, which effectively prevents any large-scale annihilation events ever happening between materials of adjacent galaxies.

 

In the last paragraph I mentioned that you neglected the cloud of antimatter at the galactic center. Later in your response it becomes clear that the reason for this is that you are unaware of this verified structure/phenomenon.

NASA - Satellite Explains Giant Cloud of Antimatter

ESA - Space Science - Integral discovers the galaxy?s antimatter cloud is lopsided

Please don’t misread me, I am not being condescending; the actual existence of this cloud is something that I also just learned about myself. However, you will eventually see in Move 8 the existence of such a cloud is categorically deduced. I was actually floored last month to find verification of the cloud’s existence, because I had long considered “Move 8” the weakest and most speculative portion of the overall model published Jan 2008. NASA & ESA only publicly released their assessments Jan 2009. Because this blind prediction did turn out to be correct, it substantially supports the strength of the entire model.

 

You bring up facts about the galactic center that I agree with. However, those portions of the model have not yet been posted. There’s a lot on the table to digest as it is, so (no disrespect) I am going to wait on addressing those issues until we come to them.

[stereologist]

My limited understanding of the Bing Bang is that there were no particles at the start of the universe, only radiation. At some point in time, after or during the inflationary period particles were formed.

 

Also, is it necessarily true that in the early stages of the universe that gravity was expressed as a separate force with an inverse square relationship.

[Hasanuddin]

Good Morning Stereologist,

Big Bang. This is a philosophical question that you begin with. Essentially it boils down to a question of when do you start the clock. At "E" or at "mc2?" Personally I like to start the clock at the point once material has been created. At that point, we know categorically that equal amounts of matter/antimatter, charge, etc were created.

"Radiation" Before the creation of mass/change you infer that there was only radiation. I'd disagree. "Energy," yes, though it is difficult to pin down the exact form that energy took. It is impossible to categorical assert that it took one form or another without making unsubstantiated assumptions. Photonic radiation did not occur for approximately one hundred thousand Earth-years after the Big Bang... is my understanding of best estimates of CMB.

Inverse-square. You ask a very interesting question. I concur; it does not categorically follow that at extremely close distances inverse-square still applies. I posited that early on in this thread because to say that the inverse-square relationship of Newton's well-known equation still holds is much less controversial than saying what I actually believe. I believe that at extremely close distances gravitational interactions have a ballooning effect, similar to what has been observed in the electric repulsion of like charges where proportional relationships have been observed to balloon to (F∝1/d7)* and even more sever. I held back, because using existing understanding still yields the same deductive conclusions.

 

*PS: The ballooned relationship I meant to write is "force inversely proportional to distance to the 7th" Could someone PM me to tell me how to code for superscript on this forum?

[modest]

Okay, now let’s talk issues. The first assertion you make is that the Dominium is not a “model.”... I believe there is a little bit of a disagreement between you and I concerning what constitutes a “model.” According to my version of Webster’s New World Dictionary a “model” is:

a) A small representation of a planned or existing object

b) A hypothetical representation or description

 

It's not your use of the word model that I'm directing your attention toward—it's the incomplete (or, rather, undeveloped) nature of the model itself. Consider the heliocentric model of the solar system. I quote the wikipedia article on Heliocentrism:

Though discussions on the possibility of heliocentrism date to antiquity, it was not until 1,800 years later, however, in the 16th century, that the mathematician and astronomer Copernicus presented a fully predictive mathematical model of a heliocentric system

and the wikipedia article on Nicolaus Copernicus:

Although Greek, Indian and Muslim savants had published heliocentric hypotheses centuries before Copernicus, his publication of a scientific theory of heliocentrism, demonstrating that the motions of celestial objects can be explained without putting the Earth at rest in the center of the universe, stimulated further scientific investigations and became a landmark in the history of modern science that is known as the Copernican Revolution.

The postulate or hypothesis of heliocentrism was a good one. It was proposed and advocated by many people over more than a thousand years. But, it wasn't until Copernicus made a predictive physical model which explained the observed motion of the planets that the idea was considered to have merit.

 

This is what I'm encouraging you to do with your model. The idea is to start with the Hypothesis,

• Matter and antimatter repel gravitationally
  
• The observable universe has equal amounts of matter and antimatter

Then use physics and logic to develop the idea into a model or theory which makes predictions. Then test the predictions with observation and experiment thereby confirming or falsifying the hypothesis. That is the scientific method. I would encourage you to read:

APPENDIX E: Introduction to the Scientific Method and, in particular, the sections on:

• II. Testing hypotheses, and
  
• IV. Hypotheses, Models, Theories and Laws
  

Section 4 will explain what a model means in the setting of science.

I dug a little into your words to find your intent and am alerted by the following phrases. When describing what you consider a good model, you say that it

goes on to give all formulas necessary to calculate

And when faulting the current Dominium “hypothetical representations or descriptions” you say

I don’t see the laws of physics being used

Combining your two assertions, I need to wonder out-loud whether you are among those who feel that in order to discuss physics that it must be done formulaically or not at all. If that is your bias...

Physics can be discussed with or without using formulas and with or without using math—I do it all the time. But, if you want to propose new physics or a new model based on existing physics where this new idea substantially alters the contents and mechanics of the universe then you are going to need to use math and physics in order to make quantitative predictions. Such is unavoidable.

 

You should recognize this is not a negative or a biased thing. Imagine developing your model to the point of deriving predictions from first principles and being able to say: "According to my deduction, the Virgo cluster should be receding from us at ~1,000 km/sec". It troubles me that you see someone encouraging you to accomplish that as some kind of bias against your idea. Falsifiability has nothing to do with bias, it's just how science works. From the link I gave above on the scientific method:

Note that the necessity of experiment also implies that a theory must be testable. Theories which cannot be tested, because, for instance, they have no observable ramifications (such as, a particle whose characteristics make it unobservable), do not qualify as scientific theories.

 

In defense of the deductive method...

 

I would not disagree with using the deductive method in this case. You have no choice but to do so. Your two main postulates are:

• Matter and antimatter repel one another gravitationally
  
• The visible universe contains equal parts matter and antimatter
  

Neither of these postulates have been observed, so your reasoning will be deductive by necessity. A question like: "does matter repel antimatter with a force equal to which matter attracts matter?" must be answered by some non-inductive means.

 

Cosmology and particle physics are very different from mature and classic disciplines, like Chemistry, because the phenomenological data is newly acquired and surrounded with uncertainty. For example, PAMELA has just reported that positrons are primary cosmic ray particles with energies as high as 2 TeV—that is a brand new phenomenological fact unlike anything observed (or even speculated before) and just released last month.

 

Cosmology is undergoing an exciting period of discovery—there is no doubt. I'm not sure, on the other hand, your characterization of PAMELA is quite right. The instrument cannot distinguish between electrons and positrons at 2 TeV. The positron detection energy is 50 MeV - 270 GeV. Where you say: "positrons are primary cosmic ray particles", that doesn't seem to make sense. At normal cosmic ray energies the composition is 90% protons, 9% helium nuclei, 1% electrons, and less than 0.1% positrons.

 

At higher energies the percentage of positrons will go down. For example, at 1 GeV there are one thousand times more protons as positrons and at 100 GeV there are ten thousand times more (source: middle of page 4). Positrons cannot be considered "primary cosmic ray particles" by any reasoning I can conjure.

 

What PAMELA found is far-less sensational. They found the fraction of positron flux to total (positron + electron) flux increases with energy rather than decreasing. At 5 GeV the fraction is about 0.1 and at 100 GeV it's about 0.15. The fraction is the number of positrons divided by the number of positrons and electrons. This is graphed here. Balloon-based experiments have also shown a spike in total (electron + positron) flux at about 700 GeV graphed here.

 

The reason this got some play in some low-key science journals is because there were theories of dark matter that had predicted these results (at least as a possibility). Here's one from 1998: Positron Propagation and Fluxes from Neutralino [dark matter] Annihilation in the Halo. I don't know enough about the results or the prediction to say how likely that is... but I wouldn't bet the farm on it.

 

I have maintained throughout that if the Dominium were correct, then a formulaic proof would necessarily be forthcoming.

 

Good deal :thumbs_up Now you're talking my language :)

 

If the idea has merit then the best course of action would surely involve proving its merit...

 

You first seem to assert that a model cannot be formed on the idea of gravitational repulsion because there is no direct measurement of matter and antimatter gravitational interaction.

I'm quite sure I said absolutely nothing of that sort. You should probably reread my post perhaps keeping in mind that when I say "you don't have a model yet and you'll need one in order to convince people of your postulates" I mean that you need to develop your idea into a system of making quantitative predictions in order to convince people that the universe is half antimatter which is repulsed gravitationally by matter. That actually means the opposite of "a model cannot be formed".

However, the same logic you use to discredit the Dominium also discredits all popular-bias models based on the notion of “universal attraction,” where, in fact, no direct observation of matter and antimatter gravitationally attracting exists.

I have no idea what you're talking about. There have been no observations of any gravitational interactions between matter and antimatter. Any theory which asserts either would be speculative at this point.

No evidence actually implies a split in the road of possibilities. A model based on either assumption is equally as valid. For this reason I have applied the same analysis to both possible roads. Look back at the posted moves: gravitational-repulsion has consistently yielded matches to nature, while “universal-attraction” as achieved polar opposite mismatches.

 

First, there are more than 2 possible roads. Gravity may have no effect on antimatter at all. Or, the gravitational constant may be different, or when general relativity is written in Post-Newtonian formalism,

[math]\text{Gravitational Force}=-\frac{GM}{r^2}+\frac{c^2{\Lambda}r}{3}[/math]

normal matter may obey the first term only while antimatter follows the second term only (the cosmological constant). There are many possibilities and without direct observation we must (as you say) use deductive reasoning to determine which is most plausible.

 

Second, your statement that universal attraction has not matched nature is untrue. Alexander Friedmann and Georges Lemaître described how a universe filled with normal matter obeying the rules of general relativity would behave. Over 80 years later their description is still the best and simplest model of the universe we have and it absolutely does agree with observation.

 

Trying to advance your model by saying that their model disagrees with observation will surely be an ineffective tactic. The way science works, your theory will supplant their theory when your theory makes better predictions, explains the evolution of the universe better, and is in better agreement with observation. For example, according to standard cosmology the mass density of the universe should be X and according to your cosmology the mass density should be Y. The actual measured mass density is Z. Which cosmology is closer? Again, for example, standard cosmology says the galaxy count should be X. Your cosmology says it should be Y. It's measured at Z. Which is closer?

 

Without a direct observation of massive amounts of repulsive antimatter out in the universe the method above is necessary to assert your idea over that idea. That... is the way of science.

 

Then you state that the Dominium cannot be formed because there is no evidence of any significant concentrations of antimatter in the observable universe.

I said nothing of the sort.

First, I hope you realize that such a statement is untrue and neglects the antimatter cloud surrounding the galactic center of our, and other observed, galaxies.

In reading my posts you might want to avoid trying to read my intentions between the lines. Neither I nor cosmology in general deny the existence of antimatter. It does exist and it can be formed by natural processes. My statement was the same as you'll find on wikipedia which I'll quote,

Indeed, there is no experimental evidence that there are any significant concentrations of antimatter in the observable universe.

 

Baryogenesis - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

There's no point in making that statement into a strawman and attacking it. It is strictly true and the only thing I'm implying with it is that you're going to find it difficult to convince people that half of the observable universe is made of antimatter when there is no observational or experimental evidence for significant concentrations of antimatter in the observable universe.

 

Ignoring that verified data, your statement possesses the implied conclusion: Therefore antimatter exists nowhere in the Universe. This conclusion commits the informal fallacy of Composition:

Your strawman of my comment contains the logical fallacy of composition... nice :hihi:

 

In the last paragraph I mentioned that you neglected the cloud of antimatter at the galactic center. Later in your response it becomes clear that the reason for this is that you are unaware of this verified structure/phenomenon.

NASA - Satellite Explains Giant Cloud of Antimatter

ESA - Space Science - Integral discovers the galaxy?s antimatter cloud is lopsided

Please don’t misread me, I am not being condescending; the actual existence of this cloud is something that I also just learned about myself.

:confused:

Hasanuddin, your whole post is noting but assumptions about what I'm implying, what my bias is, and what I know. So far, I don't think you've gotten any of those right... really just a wasted exchange. I tell you that I like your idea and I'm willing to help develop the physics of it and I don't think you've said one thing about your model in the response.

 

It has been known since before I was born that antimatter annihilation emitted gamma rays near the center of the galaxy... :shrug:

 

You bring up facts about the galactic center that I agree with. However, those portions of the model have not yet been posted. There’s a lot on the table to digest as it is, so (no disrespect) I am going to wait on addressing those issues until we come to them.

 

... and you avoid the one question I asked.

 

~modest

[Hasanuddin]

Hi Modest,

 

What constitutes an appropriate model? You gave some interesting historical references. And then you boiled it down yourself by saying

Then use physics and logic to develop the idea into a model or theory which makes predictions. Then test the predictions with observation and experiment thereby confirming or falsifying the hypothesis.

I must ask you directly, “Is that not exactly what just recently occurred with the deductive prediction of a large mass of antimatter surrounding the supermassive black-hole at the galactic center, which was then later categorically confirmed in existence by the Integral ESA satellite?”

 

Sir, by your own definition, the Dominium has already completed the most important task in being a model: making a blind prediction which is later confirmed through experiment.

 

The fact that folks over at ESA conducted the experiments, does not negate the predictive application and validation of the model. Similarly, the fact that Ripalda used General Relativity, and not myself, to arrive at convergent conclusions to the Dominium model does that meet your stated need for the eventual application of mathematical supports?

 

Perhaps I am misreading your position, but it appears as if you are stating that I must provide a complete model of the Universe with all the mathematical equations and all the experimentation conducted, in advance of being worthy for consideration. If that is your position, then I feel that it is unfair. Science is not something that is done in total isolation. Like all new models that have ever been (successfully) advanced, if this model is more correct than current understandings, then there will be plenty of work for many folks to do to fill in the blanks.

 

Besides ignoring my blind prediction and subsequent ESA verification, there are a number of other points made in the last post that you disregarded in your reply. Probably the largest omission has to do with Einstein’s checkerboard model of space-time and the Dominium’s subsequent augmentation of it. Is that non-numerical and well-known representation and description of Einstein’s notion of space-time a model, or not? If it is not a model, please explain why? If you feel that it is a model, then please explain why that could be so and the Dominium not be one.

 

Speaking of, let us remember a very wise directive from that man:

“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)

Nowhere in this directive does Einstein say that the process need be numeric. In fact, by stating that logical deduction is the ultimate tool he is specifying that the process be qualitative. But then again, numeric data is just qualitative representation of grand overarching relationships, isn’t it? Nowhere does he state that it need be predictive; rather the goal he states is descriptive. Yes, you could argue that predictions are forms of descriptiveness—in that I would agree—but it is just one form of description (and one that the Dominium has already accomplished.) Notice however, that Einstein stresses that the “greatest number of empirical facts” is the goal of the descriptive process. Status quo theories are filled with evidentiary anomalies that are essentially ignored, in favor of formulaic proofs that seem to answer one or two questions at a time. That is not the case with the Dominium model. This model eventually covers all of the evidentiary anomalies. So far, we’ve already covered one (the apparent lack of large quantities of antimatter in the visible Universe given equal creation) and the others will follow.

 

One clarification that needs to be made: there are not two “postulates” being advanced--only one. Currently I have introduced one, and one only, hypothetical premise for consideration: the notion of gravitational repulsion. The prediction that the visible universe is made up of alternating regions of matter vs. antimatter was a necessary conclusion resulting from that one hypothetical premise and other established categorical conclusions. Please refer back.

 

The end of your post becomes rather mean. May I make a request: please refrain from using “smileys” they are distracting and have the appearance of being mocking. Come on, by you saying

It has been known since before I was born that antimatter annihilation emitted gamma rays near the center of the galaxy...

is just condescending and mean. There are things that you know and I don't, and vice versa. I was actually trying to be nice to you at that point, because on post #18 you said

Am I to understand that the black hole at our galaxy's core is made of antimatter?

But never had I made such a claim. Actually, I had only mentioned the antimatter cloud surrounding the supermassive black-hole at the galactic center. Remember also that I was referring to the antimatter cloud in response to your words in post #18 saying,

There's also no experimental or observational evidence that there are any significant concentrations of antimatter in the observable universe.

Yet now you appear to mock me for bringing it up. Based on your words and the newness of the astonishing ESA/NASA accomplishment, bringing it up seemed appropriate. But if you were so familiar with this giant antimatter concentration, why would you have made such a statement in the first place? Personally, I feel that that it is a sign of strength, not weakness, to be aware of the things that you do not know for certain. I meant no offense against you. So what if I just found out about its existence after the NASA/ESA news releases? I apologize that I assumed that this knowledge was new to you as well… it sure seemed that way because the graphic of the center of the Universe that you inserted showing no indication of the placement of the antimatter cloud. I wouldn’t fault you for learning something new; that is a personal, yet often unachievable, daily goal that I wish upon myself. Also, the fact that I just learned about the antimatter cloud does not diminish the fact that the model deductively predicted its existence in the absence of personal knowledge of it.

 

I wholeheartedly agree with your words in an introductory post

First: 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. Second: You would need to be receptive to feedback. Valid objections raised to your idea would have to be seen as possible problems or shortcomings of your idea and would need to be addressed from that standpoint. Any and all negative feedback can’t be dismissed as current scientific dogma protecting itself.

I would also add that we both need to put our emotions aside. I am not trying to attack you. Nor do I see us as combatants. However, I feel that there are times in the last post that you are getting personal (especially the areas mined with smileys.) Let's focus on the deduction and the science, please. Are the premises categorical? Do the conclusions necessarily follow from the premises provided? Is there a different conclusion that could come from a certain set of premises? Do the conclusions necessarily match nature or are they a mismatch? To match nature, what further assumptions would be necessary?

 

One more thing I would like to request: When you bring up a challenge, please don’t assert it as self-evident. The name of the game on this thread is deduction and an analysis beginning with the fundamentals. That means evidence, categorical premises, and necessary conclusions. You cannot simply bring up an incompatible model and present it as fact in and of itself as evidence against the Dominium. For example, you bring up the Friedmann/Lemaitre model as if were a solid premise by itself—it is not. You use the word "simple" to describe it, but you give nothing other than your opinion and tradition as proof. As a model, it necessarily has its own premises and conclusions. If you wish to bring up alternate explanations (even the popular/traditional variety) then please start with their fundamental premises. How many hypotheses or axioms are needed? Are they categorical? And do the conclusions drawn necessarily follow. We are dealing with one of the most fundamental questions possible. Therefore, our discussions need to begin at the fundamental level. If the status quo options you prefer better describe truth, then this minor request I am making will actually streamline our discussions and show that truth most quickly. Conversely, if you cannot break it down into its primary assumptions and conclusions, then maybe its not as simple as previously assumed.

[modest]

Also, the fact that I just learned about the antimatter cloud does not diminish the fact that the model deductively predicted its existence in the absence of personal knowledge of it.

 

No, I’m sure it doesn’t. But you can’t expect that kind of personal discovery to validate your model to the scientific community at large.... which.... unless I'm mistaken, is the goal.

 

Understand, if your model is successful, it will completely supplant 80 years of cosmology—overturning standard cosmology and rewriting the scientific understanding of the makeup of the universe. In order to do this you are going to need (at the very least) a quantitative model that works at least as well as the concordance model. I’m not making this up and I’m not saying it to be mean... it’s just the reality of the situation. It would be just as true whether or not I was telling it to you.

 

So that is a goal. That should be where you want to get your model so that professional cosmologists will take it seriously as a valid description of the universe. Of course, you don’t need to reach that goal in order to talk about your idea on this forum. I personally would be more than willing to investigate your idea and help you develop its physics. But, so far it doesn’t seem like we’ve been able to talk about your model as much as argue about the scientific method.

 

~modest

[Moontanman]

I wan t to ask a question i hope is on topic.

 

If the sun is producing positrons via hydrogen fusion they must be produced near the core. Assuming this how would they manage to travel through the dense matter of the sun with out annihilating electrons and disappearing? How could they make it to the surface?

[freeztar]

I wan t to ask a question i hope is on topic.

 

If the sun is producing positrons via hydrogen fusion they must be produced near the core. Assuming this how would they manage to travel through the dense matter of the sun with out annihilating electrons and disappearing? How could they make it to the surface?

 

That's a good question. With a little googling, I came up with the following which answers your question.

 

We treat in detail positron production from the decay of radioactive nuclei produced in nuclear reactions of accelerated 3He. Because of their large cross sections and low threshold energies, these reactions can significantly contribute to positron production in solar flares with accelerated-particle compositions enriched in 3He. The addition of these 3He reactions extends earlier calculations of positron production by accelerated protons and α-particles. 3He reactions not only add significantly to the total positron yield in flares, but can also yield a positron depth distribution that peaks higher in the solar atmosphere. We discuss the impact these reactions have on the analysis of the annihilation line observed with RHESSI from the 2002 July 23 flare. A significant contribution from 3He reactions expands the utility of the annihilation line as a sensitive tool for investigating the structure of the flaring solar atmosphere.

Kozlovsky, Murphy, & Share, Positron-Emitter Production in Solar Flares

[Moontanman]

Ok, i thought we were talking about reactions in the suns core. Another thing comes to mind, according to Hawking, a black hole is not matter or antimatter. In other words adding antimatter to a matter black hole would have no negative effect on it's gravity or mass. If this true then how can antimatter have a negitive gravitational potential? I am sorry to be so simplistic but these basic things do seem to need answering before you dive into the more rarefied areas.

[Hasanuddin]

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.

 

My goals? I don't know. No, my goals are not what you assess.

 

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.

 

If I were lying, then it would be a very elaborate lie. I publish a book a year and a half ago that is fully cited except for one particular segment. My "master plan" involves neglecting all that the published book says is at stake until I end up at hypography.com discussing the intricacies of obscure science with you...when I spring out my knowledge of the antimatter cloud (that no-one that I know knows about) to stage the "validity" of the Dominium model.

 

Honestly, I do want your help. I do want your input. And I do want to discuss deductively with you. 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.

[Hasanuddin]

Dear Moontanman,

 

Your question about the movement of positrons to the surface of the Sun {and then off into outer space} You really need to read the third thread on The Dominium ... or stay tuned on this thread... eventually I will explain that.

 

Enjoy & take care

[modest]

Ok, i thought we were talking about reactions in the suns core. Another thing comes to mind, according to Hawking, a black hole is not matter or antimatter. In other words adding antimatter to a matter black hole would have no negative effect on it's gravity or mass. If this true then how can antimatter have a negitive gravitational potential? I am sorry to be so simplistic but these basic things do seem to need answering before you dive into the more rarefied areas.

 

You're correct. In relativity mass is just another name for energy. That energy can be in the form of matter or antimatter. You can think of throwing antimatter in a matter black hole. The antimatter would annihilate with the matter and turn into photons. Those photons are still just energy (energy is always conserved) and that energy would be trapped in the black hole increasing its mass.

 

~modest

[modest]

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:

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.

 

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.

 

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) = [math]1 \times 10^{-50} \ J \ s^{-1}/m^2[/math]
  
• 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

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.