The Dominium model by Hasanuddin

[Hasanuddin]

This does seem like a very good place to wrap up the first portion of the model, though that is not to say that discussions should end on this thread. Quite the opposite, I would be more than happy to entertain any questions concerning any issues brought up w/in the first eight moves. Fundamental challenges against the Dominium, justifications for status-quo assumptions, and/or alternate interpretations of the necessary deductive outcomes given a particular set of premises can all be presented. This thread should be the place where such questions, discussions, and challenges are made.

 

There are still plenty more moves to come. I don't want to put the entire model on one thread because discussions could become too lengthy and multi-layered to be understandable by the casual reader. Simultaneously to whatever happens here, I will move the model forward, starting with move 9, on a new thread: http://hypography.com/forums/alternative-theories/19536-the-dominium-model-part-2-a.html

 

Again, please tell others of these two threads discussing this new model. Sure the new model upsets the applecart, but that’s all the more reason for paying attention, isn’t it? The manner in which the applecart is upset is what is most significant—only the unverifiable hypothetical assumptions are discarded—ALL of the concrete verifiable data (including all such data that was “anomalous” under the old popular-bias assumptions) is both retained and compatible with the new model.

 

The Dominium model is the streamlined cohesive necessary deductive result of consideration of the natural repercussions from one maverick premise: the notion of gravitational repulsion. The assumptions/hypotheses that are potentially pushed aside by the new model are all unverifiable given accepted evidentiary facts; and all of the overturned notions are plagued by paradox and contradictions both between each other and with concrete verifiable natural phenomena.

 

If the Dominium model is more correct than popular-bias assumptions, then that means that many projects around the world are also being conducted under false premises. If this is true, such projects will necessarily fail to reach their desired conclusions. On the other side of the coin, if the Dominium is correct then huge potential exists for labs nimble enough to adapt to the changing landscape, test its predictions, and achieve advancements.

[Jeffocal]

Hasanuddin wrote:

 

"I like this subject. However I respectfully and absolutely do not agree with you to make conclusion based on this statement, “because no galaxies or intergalactic clouds of antimatter have yet been detected that have the ability to offset the observed quantity of matter in the universe. ” I disagree because this is an unknowable assertion. The truth is we possess no method of directly testing the composition of distant galaxies.

 

See the whole model as it is unfolded and debated at: "hypography" and please join in.

 

Thank you for the invitation and your comment in the article Matter Verse Antimatter | The Imagineer's Chronicles

Move number 3-three.

Test of the Dominium premise (gravitational repulsion between matter and antimatter

As already established, gravitational repulsion between matter and antimatter will deter and discourage annihilation events. [/i]

 

Correct there is no way we can directly test if galaxies are composed of matter or anti matter. However we can verify all observable ones are made out of same type of matter because we know they all share common gravitational property.

 

If gravitational forces of matter and antimatter are repulsive as you are suggesting we should see the gravitational effects of this repulsion in the movement of an antimatter galaxies when it interacts with those made up of matter. However all observable galaxies appear to move as if they share a common link with respect to the gravitational attractive forces associated with their mass. Therefore we can conclude with all observable galaxies are made up of the same type of matter.

 

Jeff

[Hasanuddin]

Welcome Jeff,

 

Glad to have you entering the discussions. Let’s see if I can address your concerns. With reference to Move #3 (post 12) you rebut

Originally written by Jeff However we can verify all observable ones are made out of same type of matter because we know they all share common gravitational property.

Let me see, you are referring to the commonality of gravitational effects on photons traveling from distant space and observed on Earth, are you not? If that is the case, then I possess no disagreement with the assertion made, however, my admission does not mean the all galaxies are necessarily matter-based. Let me show this syllogistically:

 

*Premise/truth 1: Photons are the antiparticle of themselves

*Therefore: photons will have as much in common with particles as they do with equivalent types of antiparticles.

*Premise/truth 2: Photons are known to interact with matter; the interaction is attractive

*Because photons have as much in common with antimatter as they do with matter, hence photons will be expected to be attracted to equivalent amounts of antimatter in exactly the same manner as they are to matter.

 

As far as the last paragraph of post 88 is concerned, please take into consideration the entirety of Move #3 (post 12). The well-documented phenomenon/process of self-assembly is always shown to occur very rapidly early on to achieve primary stability. Once fundamental stability has been achieved, placement of members within the self-assembled system becomes relatively locked. Please also consider that the visible Universe begins roughly one hundred thousand Earth-years after the Big Bang. Hence the likelihood of seeing any movement of galaxies dues to imbalances in primary gravitational distribution is just about null.

[Jeffocal]

No I am referring to the effects of the Dominium premise made in post #12 move 2 of the gravitational repulsion between matter and antimatter have on galaxies not on photons.

 

"Test of the Dominium premise (gravitational repulsion between matter and antimatter As already established, gravitational repulsion between matter and antimatter will deter and discourage annihilation events."

 

This means that the gravitational forces of a galaxy made up of anti-matter would repel those made up of matter. The effects this the gravitational repulsion would have on there movements would be easily observed with the Hubble and Spitzer space telescopes.

 

However, we observe that all the movements of all observed galaxies can only be explained by assuming that gravitationally they are all attracted to each other.

 

This observation contradicts the comment you made in the The Imagineer’s Chronicles blog

 

"The truth is we possess no method of directly testing the composition of distant galaxies."

[Hasanuddin]

Dear Jeff,

 

I do see your confusion. Resolution comes recognizing there are two time-frames being considered. Under the Dominium understanding, the rapid organization process, self-assembly, would have occurred and completed before CMB. The visible Universe, which you are referring to, possesses no known part younger than roughly one-hundred-thousand years after the Big Bang. Therefore, when you are talking about observed data from telescopic information, you are referring to data that necessarily post the time of self-assemblage. Once primary gravitational stability has been established, it is established.

 

I take strong issue with the incorrectness of one of your statements:

we observe that all the movements of all observed galaxies can only be explained by assuming that gravitationally they are all attracted to each other.

Come on Sir, how can you say that an ever-expanding Universe, confirmed by red-shift in every direction, is easily explainable solely under the assumption of universal-attraction between all objects? If everything is attractive, it should be contracting in on itself, should it not? Ever-accelerating is not explained either if you only consider universal-attraction. In order to proceed, you’ll need to invent some magical form of energy/force or some exotic never before seen particle.

 

I don’t like arguments that rely on a djinni in order to make them work. That’s why I was always speculative against this traditional rote. This is also why I considered the alternate theories out there. I agree with Guth’s idea of Big Bang chaos as being heterogeneous with imperfections within the heterogeneity. To make it work one only need use the hypothetical premise of “gravitational repulsion.”

 

If gravitational primary stability rules trump over the ‘needs’ of all other aspects of absolute stability (i.e., black-hole material,) then the deductions of the Dominium flow naturally and necessarily reach model conditions—without any fancy flips, djins, or only-in-this-case assumptions. For example, if gravitational stability (i.e., sorting types and compartmentalizing regions “devoid” of the other.) Once that occurs the regions themselves will self-organize themselves via self-assembly. Assuming roughly equal amounts of two immiscible substances agitated together into a predictable alternating configuration. An equivalent natural structure to what is being described is an ionic crystalline solid: the ions arrange themselves in predictable pattern. This type of sorting is very common within chemical conditions. Given a super-matrix of galaxies distributed in an alternating pattern of matter galaxy to antimatter galaxy, one could easily see how communal repulsive forces between neighbors would lead to an ever present, but at an ever decreasing, acceleration rate. Think about it, that is an exact match to what we observe naturally—ever increase at an ever-decreasing rate. There was no need to stretch or manipulate theory in any way—no magical new energy or particle was needed to fill some niche—a direct match to the observed is a natural and necessary deductive outcome.

[Jeffocal]

I don’t like arguments that rely on a djinni in order to make them work. QUOTE]

 

Apparently you don't like arguments based on observations of the real world either.

 

 

The Imagineer's Chronicles

[Hasanuddin]

Sorry Jeff,

 

Your point is lost to me. Have I not knitted evidence into every conclusion and move? If I have not to your satisfaction, please indicate where evidence is lacking. After all, evidence from the physical record aligning with the predictions of the Dominium model are numerous, though dependent upon which area of the model does your concern relate.

 

Did I not show you the exact position of the incorrectness of your belief that universal-attraction is compatible with empirical data? (That is to say non-compatible without the use of some magical, unverified, and/or unrecorded djinni arguments/assumptions like "dark energy," "branes," "multiple other dimensions," etc.) It is impossible to account for the categorically recorded ever-increasing expansion at ever decreasing acceleration rates w/out a djinni-devise under traditional rote assumptions.

 

Let it be established that paradox of universal-attracting assumption vs ever-present red-shift expansion fact is not the only portion of traditional science-rote requiring djinnis. I have been leery, curious, and pondering these anomalous, yet positively factual and verifiable, phenomena that defy standard theory. Ironically, but not very surprisingly, under the Dominium model ALL of the anomalous phenomena are not only given explanation, but also they are all necessary follow the Dominium premise, i.e., without the use of any never-before-seen djinni assumptions (like those used to prop up the 70+ year-old crop of assumptions used today.) The only assumption needed to make the Dominium flow effortlessly to match the data is or gravitational repulsion between matter and antimatter.

 

Other Djinni requiring phenomena

Just so we’re all on the same page, I will list out some of the most blatant factual phenomena that cannot be easily explained under the old popular-bias assumptions. Traditionally, the “solution” to these apparent paradoxes is the creation of a djinn-argument. These arguments rest on a proposed (yet never measured/observed) constructs. Usually the djinn is limited and assumed to pertain narrowly; this characteristic allows to djinn to satisfy one question, while limiting testability. In contrast, the Dominium model is both inclusive and encompassing. All of the listed traditional paradoxes ties together cohesively under deductive consideration of the Dominium premise. Eventually these threads will display and give both meaning and purpose for all of these “anomalous” natural phenomena and/or physical structures.

 

Solar Wind: A unidirectional flow of material flying off of the Sun never to return. Despite the massive size of the Sun and large expected surface gravity, none of this material ever falls back down to the Sun itself. The djinni used is either a pull from the vacuum of space or a pull from magnetism.

 

Supermassive black-hole (SBH): At the center of our own galaxy is a confirmed SBH. This is also true of all observed other galaxies. The paradox is that they all are shown to reside in the most material-dense areas of the galaxy, however they have ceased feeding rapidly? Yet theory verified by past observations show black-hole consumption. The djinn used is that the SBH came into being by consuming material, however at some point in development a great wind blew away nearby material ceasing it’s eating. Yet, such a condition setting up an equilibrium wherein a hungry beast is momentarily out of reach of food would lead to beast eating again… somewhere. However, that is not what we see. In no observed galaxy has an SBH that ceased eating neighboring material has it ever been observed starting up again.

 

Antimatter cloud {huge} at galactic center (MAC): The MAC formation is a complete anomaly for popular assumption--a gigantan stable cloud of antimatter surrounding the supermassive black-hole and smashed inbetween highly dense clusters of stars--yet it is not annihilating rapidly with the surrounding matter. The djinni used implicates binary star systems but doesn't mention a mechanism for antimatter production. The only implication against binary stars relates to a mapped bulge in the profile of the MAC structure that happens to be near a clustering of binary systems Notice this fallacy is a fancy twist of the classic Post hoc ergo propter hoc. This case uses Prope hoc ergo propter hoc—near this therefore because of this. The official Press Release of this djinni can be viewed at NASA - Vast Cloud of Antimatter Traced to Binary Stars

 

Lack of antimatter on Earth: The djinnis used are multiple. In combination, it is assumed, these djinnis annihilated all of the antimatter in the Universe … ignoring pesky facts like all known stars are assumed to be massive antimatter synthesizers; our Sun alone literally produces tons of positrons per second; and the existence of the MAC formation described in the previous paragraph.

 

 

And more… There are actually many more paradoxes and conflicts that are all ironed smooth by the new Dominium model, but I ggg.

 

A plea for consideration goes out to all readers. Although we are talking about issues that involve absolutes and things on the grandest of scales. Let me partially digress. Compared to that scale, we are all insignificant... true, that is my moniker. However, within our own insignificant place within the Universe both temporally and spacially, we still matter. We matter both individually and combined. The only thing wrong about the Dominium model, is that it hasn't broken through that invisible glass barrier. In other words this model needs any and all publicity, exposure, introductions, and consideration. There are no anomalies between the physical record and the Dominium model. Popular assumptions are over 70 yrs old; multiple layers of paradox mar them; they require many different yet-unverified djinni-functions; and they are frayed assemblage of disjointed accounts of phenomena with no apparent interrelation. How can anyone say that the old popular assumptions/biases are better or possess more evidentiary support that the Dominium??

 

Please, tell others about this forum; encourage others to debate their cases; jump onto the screen if you feel that I make an assertion you feel is scientifically flawed; and publicize in your own way any possible mention to either bring folks here or make them aware of this debate.

[Jeffocal]

Sorry Jeff,

 

Supermassive black-hole (SBH): At the center of our own galaxy is a confirmed SBH. This is also true of all observed other galaxies. The paradox is that they all are shown to reside in the most material-dense areas of the galaxy, however they have ceased feeding rapidly? Yet theory verified by past observations show black-hole consumption. The djinn used is that the SBH came into being by consuming material, however at some point in development a great wind blew away nearby material ceasing it’s eating. Yet, such a condition setting up an equilibrium wherein a hungry beast is momentarily out of reach of food would lead to beast eating again… somewhere. However, that is not what we see. In no observed galaxy has an SBH that ceased eating neighboring material has it ever been observed starting up again.

I agree there are many paradoxes between theory and observational data some of which may be answered by the Dominium model.

 

However you should spend some time learning what they are. A theoretical paradox occurs when it is unable to explain or predict an observation consistently in terms of its internal theoretical structure. For example, there is a logical and non-contradictory explanation regarding the consumption of a black hole in terms of the internal structure of the theoretical models being used today. Therefore you are providing a solution to a problem, or as you can it a paradox that already has one. What you have to do is show us that Dominium model can provide a solution to a problem that does exist, like what is dark matter composed of, and then show how that solution can also explain the consumption of a black hole.

 

If you are interest review the video Black Holes Mystery and Myths for the current theoretical explanations regarding the consumption of a black hole.

 

Because claiming you have a solution to a paradox that does not exist destroys any creditability for the solutions you may provide for the ones that do.

Jeff

[Hasanuddin]

Jeff,

 

This is not politics, so do not add Rovian methodology to the discussions. You offer only a diversionary attack of a strawman that did not exist. You ignore the incorrectness of your own claim

Orignally posted by Jeffocal we observe that all the movements of all observed galaxies can only be explained by assuming that gravitationally they are all attracted to each other.

Sorry, the burden of proof is on you. Please back up your grand statement with evidence and logic. Sorry, this is scientific discourse, so when one makes a sweeping statement, as you have done, it needs to be backed up with evidence, retracted, or my point admitted. You have yet to explain any possible resolution between your statement and the paradox between the concept of universal-attraction and known ever accelerating Universal expansion. Please step up to that.

 

Reminder, we were talking about logic and evidence. There is no reason for use of distraction rhetorical devices. What exactly is your charge, Sir? Is there no paradox in the situation of the SBH within the most mass-dense area of the galaxy, yet not feeding? I personally find that very paradoxical. It is especially curious when considering all the galaxies that have been observed. According to that data, galaxies tend to fall into one of two different categories: SBH that are practically dormant, like our own, vs, SBH that have varying degrees of consistent activity. If deep within the formulae there is a natural solution or trend causing larger massed SBH to have less power to accrete, then one would expect to observe uniformity within the behavior of SBH of comparable sizes… but that is not want we see. We observe variability within the data between members but consistency within the individual.

 

Although classic assumptions have difficulty explaining the observed conditions, the Dominium does so with ease. The SBH either slowed or stopped their ability to accrete the material of the galaxy surrounding it based on how much micellular antimatter is trapped at the gate-interface as part of initial self-assembly. This would be a probabilistic amount based on the regional degree of Guth-imperfections within the heterogeneity of the initial Hubble expansion. Therefore the degree of variability that has been measured in consistent with the Dominium, but does not mesh with the uniformity expected form popular formulaic methods.

 

Please review the established Dominium moves relating specifically to black-holes before you make any more ill-informed charges. Black-holes were discussion extensively in moves 6,7,8, & 9. Please refer to posts 59, 60, 71 for the 6-8, and for move 9 go to the 2nd post of the other thread http://hypography.com/forums/alternative-theories/19536-the-dominium-model-part-2-a.html

 

The reason why I am now forcefully encouraging you to read what has transpired because of these words:

Originally posted by Jeffocal What you have to do is show us that Dominium model can provide a solution to a problem that does exist, like what is dark matter composed of,

From this is it obvious to see that you are currently not considering all that has been presented to date. You see, one of the Dominium’s deductive conclusions HAS been to divulge the nature of the material between galaxies: Move #10, which is the third post on the second thread (use the link above.)

 

I don’t understand why you are using color on your last paragraph above your name. Is that a closing salutation? Is it a wish, belief, or hope of your goal with post 94? The problem it is not so much that paradox doesn’t exist, it is that you hadn’t read what was established on this thread and you misunderstood the direction I was referring to. Please, refrain from the use of unnecessary “smiley” or color. If your words have merit they will stand out on their own.

[Hasanuddin]

Well, we are approaching the 2-yr birthday of the Dominium model. Wow, it has been quite a ride. When this began I was actually responding to the ignorance displayed by an MIT professor. During a lecture entitled “Physics Frontiers” a decorated MIT professor made the segue statement, “Now that we know everything there is to know about the Higg’s boson…” My hand shot up like lightning. “Sir,” I said, “How can you or anyone else claim to know much of anything about a particle that has never been detected nor has any trace of its existence ever been noted." He stammered a bit and then acquiesced my point. After that lecture, I asked this man his opinion of an alternate Big Bang evolution based on the notion of Guth-imperfections within the heterogeneity of the initial Big Bang fireball. To my horror and disbelief that man (earning more than 70k more than me and whose area of primary “expertise” was the inflection point of the Hubble-expansion curve) was ignorant able a 30 yr-old alternative explanation by Guth and others.

 

I don’t know why, but the whole experience kind’a pissed me off: I strongly feel that someone who is paid as a professor and whose “expertise” in Hubble expansion should know all the proposed theories pertaining to his/her own area… not just the popular ones or the ones just favoring his/her biases. I vowed to write him a letter to educate him out of his ignorance and teach him about something he should have already known about. As I started working of this letter I employed the rules of classic formal deduction to streamline and organize my thoughts. To my surprise, the letter unfolded rapidly, smoothly, and alarmingly surely. Soon it became clear that the deduction that necessarily resulted because of the first steps taken were breaking into new ground that had never before been considered.

 

When the basic backbone of the model had been nailed down I contacted my friend and former mentor at CERN. To my surprise, he was outraged. If the new model was correct, then the notions of CP Violation (for which he is still hoping Nobel recognition) would be dashed. He ordered me to hold off on saying anything else until LHC had been started up. Why? Because if the Dominium is correct, then some of the underpinning safety arguments—such as the assumption of Hawking-Radiation instability—would not only be called into question, but also could be overturned completely.

 

Fortunately, my father in New Mexico, who had helped with the first round of editing, had forced me to read Kuhn’s Structure of Scientific Revolution, so I was prepared for a visceral reaction. It did hurt a little that my former buddy at CERN became an insant enemy, I had been prepped by Kuhn for this type of reaction. I must congratulate those participating in the discussion on the hypography.com site. I mean, of all forums, this has been the most scientifically grounded and the least emotional. On other sites I’ve been mocked, attacked, and derided; however, to date, no detractor has brought forward any actual evidence against the new model. In fact the reverse is usually true: six or seven of the past detractors have ultimately enriched the case in favor of the new model by inadvertently highlighting tangential supporting evidence, considerations, and/or phenomena. Time after time it has been consistently shown that the physical evidence all supports the Dominium, while the physical record offers multiple layers of paradoxical contradiction for traditional rote assumptions.

 

So why hasn’t the Dominium busted through that invisible barrier that would make it widely known and discussed? Well there are several reasons, all of them relating to society, not science. The first reason is that it hasn’t been published in a peer review journal (for the simple reason it has never been submitted for publication.) Honestly, if anyone reading now is attached to a journal, check out The Dominium possesses three articles reference to the literature ready for whatever mag to publish. I haven’t gone through the motions in that direction because of my ignorance in doing that (Though the book is fully copyrighted at the Library of Congress.) Any advise or help from others in this direction would be appreciated. Don't underestimate the potential worth of even small actions.

 

The truth is we are all insignificant. No degree-decorated, socially elevated, high-paid, and adored living idol/star is any less insignificant than you or me. This is probably the most important thing in life to realize. We all eat, assimilate, and excrete food in exactly the same manner. We all breathe the same air and walk the same planet, though our own microworlds may differ superficially, we are all interconnected. Once you see how you potentially fit in on a grand scale, you will realize your own value/worth is on par with presidents, Nobels, Einsteins, policemen, cashiers, or/and the homeless people who collect bottles. All of those people will be forgotten some day… long before time runs out. Humanity itself, has only a finite lifetime. Yet for us here and now, we do matter. The true difference between people in society is not what happens to them in terms of the awards/money they accrue … it is the actions chose to commit that defines their worth. I am asking you know to take action that could have “historic” implications.

 

 

But truly, the basic flaw possessed by the Dominium right now is that so few people know of its existence. Any ideas on how to publish, publicize, or promote this new model, please tell me your ideas. Please help. Please act.

 

Remember, if someone tries to dismiss the new model, then goad them into post against it here on this forum. If they are fully correct and possess pure clarity, then they must be able to prove basis of for bias against the new model. Honestly, after two years, I am afraid to go head to head with anyone over this new model. The evidence in the form of well documented structures and phenomena that supports the new model is multiple and widespread. In contrast, the traditional rote assumptions are plagued with multiple paradoxes between the predictions of theory and the realities of the physical world.

 

Act now. Continue to act. For now it is only your actions that will allow this new model to be discussed. And also, potentially it is your inaction that could allow status-quo for all those over-paid, shortsighted, ill-informed scientific traditionalists wishing to cling to the 70+ yr-old bug-filled, yet comfortable, assumptions.

 

Just do something…

[Rade]

To Hasanuddin,

 

I am new to this thread and your Dominium model. I have a great interest in the topic of matter-antimatter interactions and their possible relationship to gravity-antigravity.

 

To get to the point, a model of the atomic nucleus I study makes a revolutionary prediction that there exists a gravity-antigravity interaction (derived from a matter-antimatter superposition) within the proton [P] that is as follows when viewed at the microscopic level of the quark-gluon (here I use ^ to mean antimatter):

 

The Proton = {(uud)(ddu)(uud)}, a 9 quark matter bag + {(u^u^d^)+(d^d^u^)}, a 6 quark antimatter bag.

 

As you can see, when the quantum field equations are modified to allow for all quantum interactions to be ONLY between the two bag entities (one with 9 units of matter, the other 6 units of antimatter) there is absolutely no reason to predict any annihilation between the matter and antimatter bags, but instead a type of stable superposition that then demands that there be a gravity-antigravity interaction involving the gluons that would bind this quantum system together. Thus, the gravity-antigravity interaction must be between the following members of the 9 sets of quarks that I highlight in red color:

 

(uud)(ddu)(uud)<-----gravity ----- antigravity ----->(u^u^d^)+(d^d^u^)

 

and the gravity-antigravity interaction thus results in a type of veiled quantum superposition leaving the (uud) matter portion as the valence quarks that are "observed" or "measured" as the proton [P] with the rest of the action involving gluons and quarks and gravity-antigravity within what is called the 'proton sea'--what are called virtual mesons that derive from the zero-point energy according to the Standard Model, but, which, according to the model I study are not virtual at all, but the result of the matter-antimatter and gravity-antigravity interactions of the 9 and 6 quark bags that comprise the proton [P]. One could of course derive the neutron [N] in a similar matter, and then all light isotopes such as deuterium, tritium, helium-3, etc. etc. to all known isotopes and the implications to neuclogenesis and the problem "where is all the antimatter in the universe" has the obvious solution--it is mostly (~98%) with hydrogen and helium isotopes as a type of veiled reality involving matter-antimatter linked to gravity-antigravity quantum superposition dynamics.

 

Now, for my question, does your Dominium Model allow for such a coexistence of quarks and gluons and gravity-antigravity to form the proton [P] , and if not, I am very interested in learning how your Dominium model falsifies what I have presented.

 

I will wait for your answer before I continue with more questions, which of course would be a waste of time if your Dominium model falsifies what I present above.

 

Cordially....

[Hasanuddin]

Hello Rade,

 

You bring up some interesting angles. First we’ll need to narrow a few things. Let’s start with language. I know it seems trivial, but language and definitions are essential to me. Indeed language is the keel to logic, and logic is the rope that holds our ship of scientific understanding together. Loose definitions lead to unnecessary ambiguity, it hides fallacy, and leads to false conclusions.

 

My first thing to ask is what exactly is meant by the following?

Originally posted by Rade

“that there exists a gravity-antigravity interaction.”

 

I ask you this question on my levels.

1. Definition & Usage: Please don’t use the term ”antigravity.” It is misleading. I personally don’t like the unnecessary and distracting fantasy/sci-fi connotations that come when using that word. As far as I have read, it is only used in papers with the goal to denounce the notion of gravitational-repulsion between matter and antimatter. What exactly is meant by "gravity-antigravity" and what is meant by "interaction?"

2,. Philosophical: What frame is used to view these “interactions.” Is the argument using notion that gravity and this “antigravity”-thing are two separate phenomena, or do you see them as different expressions of the same thing? I see the gravitational attraction and gravitational repulsion different ends of a symmetrical continuum, equivalent to the continuum of possible electrostatic interaction. If you see them as two separate and distinct entities, please present reasoning to defend this position.

3. Measurability Lastly I would like to know where this “interaction” displayed? Would differences in the display of this interaction have between protons and neutrons? What visible/measurable repercussions would there be?

 

Going on, in reference to a new atomic model, the composition of a proton was displayed. Cool. However, and to my confusion, conclusions started to be drawn. I say this because the full story has not yet been told. Atoms are not completely comprised of protons, right? Neutrons are not only cousins they are actually more like clone-sisters, because they can transmute (beta-β decay) from one to another depending on the stresses of the particular nucleus. It would have been nice to see that profile in this discussion. Also, any discussion about the workings of matter to antimatter would not be complete if the realities for antiprotons and antineutrons were not also included. I like seeing all relavent data all in one spot before making assessments. Only when together do the trends become visible. The is a request, not a critique.

 

Finally, it appears that your logical sequence commits the informal fallacy of Accident by assigning the characteristics of the whole/parent to the workings of the parts. The conflict arises because of labelling the proton’s bundle of 6 to be “antimatter” and the nine being “matter.” By what definition can that be done? It is undeniably true that a pure object, say a bar of gold, is the same substance if you were to cut it in half. This is true all the way down to the atomic level. Cut again, and your gold is no longer gold, and the properties are completely different. I believe you are making such a mistake. Cutting a proton up is crossing a similar fundamental boundary. There is no reason to believe the subunits would retain any of the properties displayed by the whole proton. Therefore, although the whole possessed certain properties (in this case matter/antimatter annihilation) there is no reason to suggest that the subunits, quark bundles, would also possess this property.

 

So, in answer to your final question (but in two parts)

1: The Dominium model categorically allows the coexistence of quarks and gluons to form the proton.

2: I don’t know. At this point I don't understanding the question clearly enough to answer whether the Dominium allows the coexistence of gravity-antigravity to form the proton. Reason… I honestly am not 100% by what you mean by “gravity-antigravity.”

 

Sir, please do not misunderstand me. I am not saying that your atomic model is in any way incorrect… I don’t have enough information to make even a preliminary assessment. Also, just because the lack of annihilation within the proton is not significant (unless by “accident”) does not mean that your work is not significant. What I mean is that the Dominium model is not necessarily in conflict with all models. From what you have told me, I did not see anything that would be overtly incompatible between the atomic model you discussed and the Dominium.

 

Again getting back to language, I want to learn what your exactly mean by “gravity-antigravity.” Especially focus your explanation how you see this occurring w/in the proton. Then we will be closer understanding the two, Dominium and your atomic model, either mesh or conflict.

 

Looking forward to that. Take care.

[Hasanuddin]

Hi Rabe,

 

I was thinking about the “coexistence of gravity-antigravity” to form a proton and I believe that I have something else for you to consider. (your final summarizing question.)

 

Even before hearing your reply, I think I can answer this question (no matter which slant your question was oriented.)

 

Part 2: Yes, the Dominium model is compatible for the coexistence of attractive and repulsive gravitational interaction between quark assemblage of the proton.

 

Let me explain: not only would the Dominium state that there would exist both attraction and repulsion, this competing dynamic could allow for internal structure being crystalline and alternating. Repulsion between neighbors would negate any ability for annihilation events to ever occur.

 

I think the two models are indeed compatible.

[Rade]

To Hasanuddin:

 

It is good that you see possible relationship of the model I study and your Dominion Model. So, it does appear we can continue and see where our discussion leads. You made many useful comments and questions. I'll do my best, but please understand that the inventor of the model of the nucleus I study has passed away, and not much was put in writing about 'dynamics', so we will have to fill in the blanks as we go.

 

Let us call the model of the atomic nucleus I study the RAB-Model, after the inventor; your model of course the Dominion Model. It will become obvious very quickly that I am not a nuclear physicist, so if that is a problem for you please let me know.

 

Let me try my best to respond to comments and questions in your post, I do think it best that in future we try to discuss one topic at a time, make sure we both understand (not necessarily agree) each other. Then move on. So, this may take some time to develop.

 

Here we go:

 

1. You request that I not use the term 'antigravity'. OK, but you did not provide another term, so if you have one, we can use it.

 

The English language word 'antigravity' relates to a 'concept', and as I see it, that concept is but the other end of a phenomenon (a type of interaction) that has at the other end the concept 'gravity'. And, I think this answers one of your questions, I do not believe the RAB-Model views gravity and antigravity as two separate phenomena, but as you say, two ends of the same phenomenon (a type of interaction). There are of course other types of interactions possible--electomagnetic, weak force, strong force.

 

But, the reason I like the terms (1) gravity<--->antigravity for the concepts of this type of interaction is because the RAB-Model predicts they are directly related to concepts of (2) matter<--->antimatter as deals with mass and charge and spin and other good quantum numbers. I also believe the RAB-Model relates both of these concepts to (3) positive energy density<--->negative energy density, and (4) positive mass<--->negative mass. So, I believe the RAB-model predicts that (1),(2),(3),(4) interaction types are all interrelated (and most likely there are other interaction dialectics to be considered). You see, the RAB-Model derives as a philosophic dialectic, it predicts that opposites (of things and forces and fields) in many different ways have the ability to form a superposition that can be stable in some situations and unstable in others, and it is the stable superposition (at a quantum level) that results in a perfect symmetry that explains the structure and function of what we call 'beta-stable isotopes'. There are many beta-stable isotopes, the RAB-Model predicts the quantum structure for all of them. It then can be extended to explain all known and yet to be discovered beta-unstable isotopes.

 

So, if you think it important for our discussion, please provide another term for 'antigravity' that relates to 'gravity' as a dialectic term and we can use it.

 

===========

 

2. You stated that you need more information about the RAB-Model predictions for neutrons and antimatter nucleons. Yes, of course--very important.

 

So, in my first post I provided the RAB-Model quark predictions for the structure of the unbound proton [P]. (note: I will use the ^ = antimatter since I do not have a bar function on my keyboard). I believe you are asking to see the RAB-Model predictions for the quark structure of matter proton [P], matter neutron [N], antimatter proton [P^], and antimatter neutron [N^]--so here they all are:

 

Matter Proton [P] = {(uud)(ddu)(uud)}, a 9 quark matter bag + {(u^u^d^)(d^d^u^)}, a 6 quark antimatter bag.

 

Matter Neutron [N] = {(ddu)(uud)(ddu)}, a 9 quark matter bag + {(d^d^u^)(u^u^d^)}, a 6 quark antimatter bag.

 

Antimatter Proton [P^] = {(u^u^d^)(d^d^u^)(u^u^d^)}, a 9 quark antimatter bag + {(uud)(ddu)}, a 6 quark matter bag.

 

Antimatter Neutron [N^] = {(d^d^u^)(u^u^d^)(d^d^u^)}, a 9 quark antimatter bag + {(ddu)(uud)}, a 6 quark matter bag.

 

So, you may ask---why not annihilation of all the matter and antimatter ?

 

The reason is that the RAB-Model predicts all interactions within nucleons [P], [N], [P^], [N^] are between 'bags' of quarks of different sizes. In all of the above the quark bag interactions are asymmetrical, always a 9 unit entity with a 6 unit entity and thus there are no symmetric matter-antimatter mirror interactions to result in annihilation, only binding is possible. Now, it is my understanding that this is NOT how current quantum field theory treats such interactions. Please correct me if I error, but it is my understanding that current quantum field theory only looks at interactions of single quarks vs quarks, not asymmetrical bags of quarks with each other. If so, then the RAB-Model points the direction how the mathematics of quantum field theory needs to be modified, or perhaps replaced with a different theory, such as to explain how the interactions above are mathematically predicted.

 

Also, see this link to recent information on the proton structure and the 'proton sea':

symmetry breaking Blog Archive Making 3D images of the proton

 

It does appear that the proton is much more than three quarks--and, looking at the RAB-Model this is exactly what is predicted, but not only for the matter proton [P], but also for [N], and antimatter [P^] and [N^].

 

From the above I hope you can see the relationship of the RAB-Model to nucleogenesis.

 

Take for example the formation of the deuteron [NP], which is a stable superposition of the [P] and [N] and was very early in nucleogenesis.

 

From above, the [P] at the microscopic level can be re-arranged as:

 

(uud) valence + {{(ddu)(uud)}+{(u^u^d^)(d^d^u^)}} in proton sea

 

and [N] as:

 

(ddu) valence + {{(d^d^u^)(u^u^d^)} + {(uud)(ddu)}} in neutron sea

 

which during during nucleogenesis results as deuteron [NP]:

 

{(uud)(ddu)} valence quarks,

 

with total annihilation of the mirror image matter-antimatter 12 quark bags present with the 'sea' of each of the [P] and [N]. Recall, the RAB-Model requires that quark interactions are between bags of quarks of different sizes and in this situation the sizes are identical (12#) thus the result must be total annihilation of all 'sea' quarks that were present in the [P] and [N]. So, the RAB-Model predicts two different types of [P] and [N] and their antimatter, the first being the pure nucleons never bound to form larger isotopes, the second being the [P] and [N] that compose all isotopes with nucleon number A => 2. I am not aware of any other model of the nucleus that makes such a prediction.

 

The RAB-Model does not predict an identical 'sea' structure of quarks for the deuteron [NP] as found within the 'proton [P] sea', and if one is known to exist then the RAB-Model would have problems (at least that is my understanding of it). Note also the very strange prediction of the RAB-Model that the [P] is more quark complex than the [NP] given all the sea quark interactions within the [P] not predicted to be present within the [NP]. Thus it would appear that the RAB-Model predicts that the interactions of quarks and gluons within single nucleons [P],[N],[P^],[N^] is different than the interactions that occur when nucleons are combined into clusters, such as [NP].

 

Now, the question is, how does any of the above relate to the Dominion Model ?

==========

 

3. You asked, what is the form of the gravity<---->antigravity interaction. This is an important question, and the answer I believe is that it will be found in the field equations that will predict the stable co-existence of the quark structure that I presented above for the [P], [N], [P^], [N^]. So, the RAB-Model predicts two different types of gravity<---->antigravity interactions: (1) those that occur within the confinement of the nucleons and (2) those that occur between clusters of nucleons. So, as I see it, to answer this question you must first see if the Dominion Model can supply the quantum field equations that allow for the [P], [N], [P^], [N^] structures presented above.

 

I will stop now, and wait to see your comments. I do greatly appreciate your interest in the RAB-Model. I realize it demands significant out-of-box type thinking.

[Hasanuddin]

Hi Rabe,

 

Instead of “antigravity” please use “gravitational repulsion.” The reason is simple. The term I prefer harkens to “electrostatic repulsion” not by accident. One of the beauties of this model is that upon its completion are ten different areas in which systems run by gravitational influence are supersymmetrically related from a systems-dynamics view. One of these fundamental alignments occurs here.

 

While we are on the subject of interrelation to electrical systems. Consider the central relationships in an electrical system:

 

p><q

q><p

p<>p

q<>q

 

Now consider central relationships of gravitational systems as proposed by the Dominium:

 

p<>q

q<>p

p><p

q><q

 

Who can miss seeing the beauty of the symmetry, simplicity, and/or the continued mirror understandings?

 

*Please notice that I intentionally did not use any negative signs. The reason is that there are a few bogus mathtific arguments trying to deny “gravitational repulsion” because that would lead to neg KE and mess up their equations. Besides, they forget that the negative sign was only an arbitrary convention employed by Ben Franklin to describe charges.

 

Going on you speak of “reaching stable superposition” – I believe this is what I was trying to describe when I spoke of the bundles being held rigidly in place in a form of crystalline type of pattern where the gravitational repulsion between neighbors assures that no annihilation events could happen (given the 3:2 ratio) within a proton, neutron, etc.

 

Okay, this is very cool. If this is true then forming into a proton would possess more stability than free quarks. Although that is true, I never saw why before. Thanks.

 

Reading on, you state that the RAB-Model has mapped out how the stresses build across the nucleus before, during, and after β-decay. Astonishing if you do! Actually something I would mind reading about.

 

=====

2. Wow, looking at your comparisons, using your notation of the your RAB-model I see trends that seem to point to a specific probable structural arrangement between the “3” matter and “2” antimatter subunits, radially symmetric with the three units along the equator and the two units at the poles. The three would form a ring pulling inward, while the two form tight bonds through the center of the ring. However, because of gravitational repulsion between them both, they will “forever” stabilized & stuck together like that. Beautiful! It works so well! WOW …Are you envisioning what I’m envisioning? A ring of one type of attraction with a barbell of another repulsive attraction stuck inside. The knot pulls tight and tightly achieving incredibly high stability!

 

Phew, I just want to take a breath and stop now. I’ve never heard of this RAB-model before, but I am actually smitten with what I’ve seen.

 

As for what follows, I’m not going commenting too heavily right now. Think about the shape that appears to follow using Dominium understandings. This could be a big breakthrough for both of our theories.

[Rade]

Hi Hasanuddin:

 

I think before we go further too much I need to read this thread in full, plus the Part 2, so that I have a better understanding of the Dominium Model.

 

I see no reason the ring dynamics you describe could not be a possible graphic understanding of how the matter and antimatter bags interact within the 3 matter and 2 antimatter possibilities, which end up being the matter proton [P] and matter [N]. However, I would think your ring dynamics would need to be reversed for the 3 antimatter and 2 matter possibilities, the antimatter [P^] and [N^]. Thus, the 3 antimatter subunits now in the "ring" and the 2 matter subunits within the 'barbell'. Would this be a correct understanding of the Dominion Model predictions ?

 

OK for me to use gravitational repulsion = antigravity, thus gravitational attraction = gravity. So, let us use these terms for the dialectic interaction gravitational repulsion <----> gravitational attraction.

 

I will read more about your model and post questions here.

[Hasanuddin]

Good Morning Rade,

 

I am so glad to have met you. Your RAD-model truly intrigues me. Honestly, I woke up thinking about the perfect stability that would be achieved by a ring/barbell dynamic. Given the different directions of push and pull the ring/barbell would become incredibly stabile—almost “forever”-stable.

 

You are correct in your assertion that the Dominium would predict a mirror ring/barbell configuration for antimatter. Hence would be equally stabile.

 

The thing I love about your RAD-model is that it takes only one true ”maverick” step—that 1 = 3-2. What results is something that very well might be the correct conclusion. The whole idea that you could have three bundles of one type and two bundles of the other to achieve a net of one—wow, I know that is the simplistic of math, but it is a brilliant spin. Actually, one of the things I like most is its simplicity because nature usually uses simple relationships. Looking over the basic underpinnings of the 3:2 arguments they appear to be without conflict or contradiction. I am really impressed. (I don’t give out complements freely.)

 

I agree, if our two models are so mutualistic it is prudent that we both familiarize ourselves with each other’s work. I think you will enjoy what you read posted. Sorry thread two in not yet completed. I won’t say how now, but I but I’ll be a spoiler and say that coming up in thread 2 the solar wind, thread pattern between galaxies, systemic supersymmetry between gravitational and electrical systems, increasing instability in the supermatrix of the Universe, and eventual collapse into the next Big Bang. Very cool stuff. Also, if you want to read more traditional style writing where all premises are cited in modern scientific Journal articles, go to The Dominium

 

The coolest thing about the new model is its streamlined beauty. I have always been fascinated with the paradoxes within scientific understanding. Intuition states that a paradox is the most likely place to expose an invalid theory. Why, because if the theory is correct there will be NO paradoxes because the theory would have accounted for all natural phenomena. Therein lies the true beauty of the Dominium model: there are no conflicts or contradictions (like your model, apparently) with any physical/experimental evidence.

 

As far as your work and/or the RAD-model are concerned, where can I read up? Please send me a link, journal number, or whatever.

 

As I do read along, don’t expect any comments on your math. That is not my talent. Excuse the fact that I’m a systems and logic person. My training can be summarized as an unbelievable string of exposure to many levels behavioral analysis and systems dynamics. Deduction is my tool of choice, not math. It’s not that I don’t like formulae, but my “equations” are the necessary deductive constructs based on categorical premises. Deduction and mathematics trace their roots back to the same period in history, but different parts of the world. In many ways they are quite similar. Deduction could be called “the mathematics of language.” Similarly, mathematics could be called “numeric deductions.” Actually, I believe that it is because I used the hewing tools of deduction that the Dominium model was able to crack the code of so many of the previously considered “anomalous” phenomena.

 

Thank you again for educating me of a new possible (and very impressive in its simplicity) solution—of course, three minus two “feels” like one. I also love the vying ring/barbell conjoined duo. The inherent stability to such a structure would be truly enormous. Because that dynamic is achieved using Dominium conditions, that implies synergy between models. Both theories are given a boost, by this apparent seamless linkage between models. Although the possible correctness of one model does not insure the absolute truth of the other, such a condition would go a long way in indicating the correctness of the other. Although both models appear to stand independently of each other, they stand all the more solidly connected.

 

Sincerely,