Here is an amazing find! I came across this just yesterday and it directly relates to Move #8. I’ll have to read further, but this appears to be a conclusive match to nature of the “hypothetical” (now apparently verified) projections of the Dominium model.

Antimatter cloud at the galactic center
http://surinderdhar.blogspot.com/2008/0 ... actic.html

Move #9

In move #8 it was concluded what would occur to both micelles and the main matrix of an embryonic galaxy for material that were situated towards the centers of proto galaxies were compressed into black-hole material that together formed the “stable” central galactic supermassive black-holes seen in all galaxies. However, the center of the forming galaxy is only a subsection of the overall unit.

Near to the center, AMBH could have been formed that was not subsequently dragged to the gate-interface of the forming central galaxy. The presence of these micelles within the matrix of matter of the proto-galaxy would have acted as a deterrent for further collapse of the galaxy. Furthermore, the presence of this AMBH and/or antimatter that was not collapsed into black-hole material, would act as a deterrent against localized clumping of matter. In other words, this presence early on would act to puff-up the overall galaxy and keep star-size smaller than had they not been present. However, the presence of AMBH and/or non-compressed antimatter between the stars of the young Milky Way was only transitory. Unlike the AMBH that became trapped at the gate-interface, all antimatter-based objects within the mid and outer portions of the young galaxy would be expected to possess asymmetric gravitational force vectors. And all such objects would ultimately be ejected from the young galaxy. However, once purged, the affect that they had had (puffing up the overall galaxy, keeping stars smallish, etc) would remain.

Uncollapsed antimatter would be expected to have been most likely at the boundaries of the embryonic galaxy. As soon as conditions of immiscibility occurred, the purging of this material would have commenced. This was also the time of hyperinflation (see moves 1-5) so the distance between alternating matter v. antimatter dominia (proto-galaxies) was increasing exponentially. Therefore, the purged antimatter material from the proto Milky Way would have been a smeared excretion deposited on the ever-expanding frontier of space-time between neighboring opposite-type galaxies. This material (antimatter excretions in the case of the Milky Way) would continue to attempt to reach the nearest antimatter-based galaxy. Similarly matter excretions emitted from proto antimatter galaxies deposited on the frontiers of the ever-expanding space-time would continually travel towards the “nearest” matter-based galaxy.

The excreted material would be expected to be purged from the proto-galaxies in two waves. The first wave would consist of material that was originally situated closest to the outside boundary of a dominium/proto-galaxy at the moment of established immiscibility. As previously discussed, material at the outermost edges of all embryonic galaxies would have the least likelihood of being collapsed into black-hole material. The second wave to be purged would consist of the micelles that were closer to the center of the original embryonic galaxy and that had been collapsed into MBH.

Both waves of purged excreted material would be expected to be traveling towards the “closest” like-type neighboring galaxy to this day.
If all of the above is correct, then there are two possible outcomes:
1: The waves of excreted material have begun to reach their destinations. This option appears to mismatch nature. The amount of material in question could easily be incredibly large. There is no evidence of large amounts of material arriving to this galaxy from outside.
2: The waves of excreted material are still in transit between galaxies. This option does appear to match empirical observation. Multiple studies have detected a large gravitational presence between galaxies—exactly the wrong place to find it according to popular-bias theories. This “anomalous” observation is sometimes attributed to “dark matter” or “dark energy.” Either way, to explain its existence, completely new theories relying on odd assumptions are required. The Dominium explanation is “simple” and requires nothing more than the acceptance of the notion of gravitational repulsion between matter and antimatter.

Discussion
Given condition number 2 (that excreted materials are still migrating between galaxies and has appeared as measure “dark matter,”) the question becomes, would that migrating material ever reach the galaxy towards which it is heading? At this time, that is an impossible question to answer…more data is needed. What is highly probable is that even if in the future that traveling material will reach its destination, that outcome will not occur for a very long time.

More importantly, if what has been measured as “dark matter” is, in fact, AMBH flowing away from galaxies like ours and MMBH flowing towards galaxies like ours, and then the stability of both forms of MBH becomes certain. The reason is simple: if the notion of Hawking Radiation instability possessed any degree of correctness, then we should observe random signatures of this occurrence happening between the galaxies. However, we observe no energy signature of black-holes uncollapsing/evaporating between galaxies (or anywhere else for that matter.) The reason we know of “dark matter” is because of its strong gravitational signature—which is the match between the data and the Dominium deductive predictions.

Most ominous is the implication that stable MMBH have w/ respect to LHC. Eight years ago LHC was touted to generate many Nobel’s by “safely” producing man’s first black-hole specimen. Now the question of “safety” of any MMBH is fully drawn into question. Therefore, shouldn’t the entire direction of LHC be reevaluated?

I just realized you had a previous thread on the dominium model, in which Northofthenorthpole clearly showed the flaws both in the premises of your model (in all of them) and in your knowledge of the physics involved.
I don't think I can improve what he did, so I,m not trying.

Aside, I have some questions I would like to make:

- You seem to ignore the question itself, but I would like to know how can you concede that a Black Hole could be created in LHC, which would mean that string theory or other exotic theory would be right, and at the same time claiming that such black hole would be stable by virtue of the conclusions of the dominium model.
Both theories cannot be right at the same time, so either the dominium model is right, and string theory isn't (and so, BHs are not created) or string theory is right, and dominium is not (and so, BHs are not stable).
By the way, the prediction of formation of Black Holes is just a byproduct of these "fancy maths" theories, so don't worry, they cannot be true at all.

- The article you link above does not claim the discovery of an antimatter cloud, but the discovery of the origin of such cloud. Its existence has been known since the 70s.



I don't think it's me who has to address anything. It's up to you to prove why should we trust your opinion against years of knowledge, backed by both facts and numbers (note the words in bold , they are important to the matter).



I don't dismiss things because they are old. I dismiss things because they are demonstrably wrong. And your deductive method is indeed wrong. Your model being a result of it is proof enough. But if you needed more, you can take a book of history and see how many silly, wrong conclusions have been reached with the application of your method.

- By reading some of your ideas, it seems to me that you have read several novels by Isaac Asimov and Sir A.Conan Doyle, provided that you seem to quote exact ideas or phrases from them (as you do with Aristotle). While I concede that you can write much better than I would do, those bases don't make sufficient scientific background to develope a groundbreacking new physics model.

Oh Sidney,

You really do have a tendency to gloss over things and just see what you want to see. I did start a thread on this forum long ago while simultaneous running a blog on the Scientific American community blog. I stopped posting here for two reasons:

First, folks here were abusive and nasty. After reading his old posts, it appears you are trying North’s old tricks of baseless accusations and hoping they stick. “Flaws?” what are you talking about?…do you even know? Or is this like you’re driving into a brick wall analogy, just a silly non-related diversion you hope might stick or sound good?

Secondly, at the time I was debating a man from the Tevatron complex on the SciAm forum. That discussion was based on facts and logic, rather than emotion, slander, and ad-Hominum insults based on biased opinions. Ultimately, that discussion ended in the identification of CMB data supplying evidence in support of the new model. Ironically and unfortunately, that entire forum “disappeared” from cyberspace a week after the conclusion of that discussion.

Black-holes at LHC
Look how clear do I have to be with you???? I never made the claim that LHC would produce black-holes A CERN LECTRURER DID THAT!! Sure, now the PR arm of CERN has taken over and said that there is no possibility that LHC could produce black-holes; “that LHC is nothing more than a giant refrigerator” (that was by far the funniest misrepresentation I ever read); and that there is no cause for commoners and peasants to concern their little minds about the doings of the omniscient altruistic scientists (okay, no-one ever made a press-release saying exactly that…but it sure seems like that is the pill they wish we’d all swallow.) Sorry, but no matter what you say, you cannot reverse the personally witnessed boastful projections I heard of the glorious days to come for CERN after “it wins the worldwide race to produce man’s 1st synthetic black-hole,” (those words, I remember very clearly, were said.) And followed by the claim that by creating this new species of material, “many future Nobels were guaranteed for CERN scientists.”

All I have asserted is if the boastful projections of that CERN lecturer do come to pass, then the created MBH will be stable. Therefore, I advocate creating AMBH, which will not be extremely dangerous, rather than MMBH, which would be apocalyptic.

Strings
As far as string theory is concerned, I haven’t really analyzed if the Dominium overturns it or not. Perhaps some assumptions held by proponents of string theory will be overturned, while others remain. I don’t know; and I don’t really care, we’ll find out once all the dust settles. What is clear is that the Dominium carves out a much clearer and more fully encompassing account for the empirical data than anything that has come before it.

Antimatter cloud.
Cool, it’s been known since the 70’s, I like that because it means that this evidence is stronger than I originally suspected. So I just found out yesterday? That only proves I am not omniscient…but I never claimed to be. Regardless of the moment of its discovery, the presence of a cloud antimatter at the center of the galaxy is a match to nature for move #8, rather than a hypothetical prediction. As a result, this evidence gives major support to the overall model, rather than a yet to be proven possibility.

The fallacies of Complex Question and Appeal to Ignorance
Dude, I have already showed that the evaporation-assumptions of the cosmic ray arguments violate both of these formal fallacies. Both fallacies well understood; look them up. No, the burden of proof is on you and the ball is in your court, Why/how do the evaporating-assurances of the cosmic rays arguments not violate these do well understood rhetorical mistakes?

Quoting
I don't read fiction so I've only heard of Asimov and Doyle. Never have I used anyone's words but my own; don't insinuate otherwise w/out proof. (Also, are you trying to tell me you've read books by Aristotle?? Hmm, sounds suspiciously like a fib.)

Deduction
The only proof you give of deduction being “demonstrably wrong” comes from unmentioned historical incidents. Though you give no specifics in this post, you mentioned the Inquisition in the post before this. Of course deduction didn’t work in that case. Remember what I said, if the premises used are 100% categorically correct, then the conclusions will be 100% categorically correct. The Inquisition was a human and societal event. You cannot make 100% categorical premises for human systems. Humans, by their fundamental nature, are both contradictory and conflicted. The conclusions made are necessarily fallacious. To say that deduction is “bad” because fallacies were once used to justify atrocities, is like faulting math for mistakes that have been made (e.g., multiple Mars mission failures) because of poor application.

You obviously hate deduction very much. And you give the "reasoning" (Whatever that means??) I think you mean, that you hate the new model because it conflicts with your beloved theories that you have expended so much time and effort studying and trying to prove. The idea that those theories could be wrong warps your sense of being to the core, doesn’t it? Although you have no formal argument against the new model, you hate its very existence, don’t you? You should give history a real look: the acolytes of Ptolemy resisted the Copernican model tooth and nail…not because they could identify a fault w/in it, but because it conflicted with their preexisting and beloved mathematical constructs. Most of those folks died w/out ever admitting that Galileo had a valid point. If you lived back then, would you be like them or would you have been openminded enough to listen to the points Galileo delivered?

Somehow my previous post didn't get through. So let's assume that was somehow my mistake.

Looking at recent research http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/hep-ph/pdf/0611/0611184v1.pdf searching for higher strength gravity at the sub millimetre scale, cf large extra dimensional string theory and mbhs, it seems that gravitational influences from small objects - 5cm diam perforated disks in this - can infact be detected. This influence upon the upper of two disks which is suspended by a tungsten fibre can be detected through influence of rotational oscillation rates upon this fibre. As I understand it, even with standard gravity, this influence is detectable.

In this way then, I can see how electron positron gravitational repulsion at extreme close ranges ( << 1 nanometer say) and with much greater than rest mass relative particle masses given the near light speeds, could - especially with large extra dimensional string theory applying - lead to noticeable effect upon collision rates for LEP.

I've been looking at the dark energy issue and within it you find this from 'Sachs-Wolfe effect' wiki: From 'dark energy' wiki:From 'Late -time integrated Sachs-Wolfe effect' within Sachs-Wolfe effect webpage:
Gravitational potential wells and hills..

Does look like Dominium or something similiar. Also what is this E=mc^2, unless there's just energy involved. Just energy, then no mass, but E=mc^2 noone questions.

How can no mass be ok; if E=mc^2 is ok? Then you get, energy associated with photons, or even momentum from them, with measurement of it outside of the photon's frame of motion. Rarely though would relative mass of a photon be referred to. But why not?

If you have photon's rest mass = 0, you have photon's 'rest energy' E(0) = mc^2 = 0.

Yet somehow we can get actual energy applying to the same just by being in a different reference frame of motion. Well, I guess, that's the way kinetic energy is supposed to work. But, if a mass is moving with us it has zero kinetic energy, but we can still grant it potential energy on account of its rest mass.

How can that be right - to grant light relative kinetic energy and then to grant the same light zero rest energy?

This is why I go for discoverer of wave aspect of light, Christian Huygen's, extraordinary view of things.

For him space was made up of moving matter particles that transmits light through the resonation of its constituent particles. Relative mass explained as the involvement of the speed of light-resonating motion of many ultralow density dynamic ether particles. These particles making up space can also move relative to each other (not just resonatingly), responsible then for mobilising the speed of orbit for planets which depends mainly on orbitting radius, not planetary mass. This approach can question the basis for the criticism of the (universally static) ether at the turn of the century. This dynamic ether was one similiar to what Maxwell used to explain how e-m could actually work, even though he couldn't really believe it was true in nature!

So maybe what the Sachs-Wolfe theory refers to is some form of matter that makes up space itself, some of it repelling the cosmic microwave background light we receive and some of it attracting the cosmic microwave background light we receive. The repelling dynamic ether matter domains would then be

- antimatter.

Move 10

In move 9, it was put forward that underrepresented antimatter micelles would be purged from an embryonic galaxy (like the Milky Way) as soon as conditions of immiscibility were established. Simultaneously mirror purging of micellular matter would be occurring from antimatter-based galaxies. Concurrently gravitational repulsion between galaxies caused a condition of hyperexpansion. Therefore material that was being purged from All galaxies would be deposited on the ever-expanding fabric of space-time in a similar manner throughout the Universe. The resulting consequence would be a smearing effect of purged material. Because this same effect would be occurring from all developing galaxies at once and in similar fashion, the net effect would be a near uniform smearing of both antimatter (purged from galaxies like our own) and matter (from antimatter-based galaxies.) Because this material was all similarly smeared onto the fabric of space-time, one would expect the physical conditions (temperature, density, etc) of this purged material to be relatively uniform across the entire Universe.

As the Universe continues its increase in the acceleration of expansion, the near uniformly deposited material will cool at roughly the same rate. Therefore, the magic temperature of 3000ºK would be reached throughout this purged material at the same time. This is important because below this temperature, protons and electrons (& antiprotons and positrons) will begin to couple and form the first atoms of hydrogen (& antihydrogen.) Consequently releasing the first light of the Universe. Hence the “cosmic microwave background” (CMB)

This is true of all the purged material. The galaxy cores, themselves, would be expected to be “hotter” than 3000ºK at the time of CMB because of the fact that material in the galactic core was not smeared onto the fabric of space-time. Therefore at the moment of the CMB, all the galactic clusters of the Universe would not be emitting any light.

The obvious question becomes, why aren’t there a bunch of black empty spots in the CMB data where all of the different galaxies are? To answer that question, one must consider exactly what the CMB is. We are so used to looking up in the sky and seeing billions of galaxies at once, that the following definition may, at first, be confusing. When we analyze the CMB, we are actually seeing a razor-thin spherical shaped glimpse of the Universe, where Earth is at the center of that sphere. The reason is simple, all of the photons that we might view on a particular day must have been traveling for the same exact amount of time, and assuming a constant speed of light, therefore they all traveled the same distance radiating inward to Earth forming a sphere. Best estimates of the CMB put its occurrence roughly one hundred thousand years after the Big Bang—all the while the Universe has been expanding extremely rapidly. Therefore, by the moment in time that the CMB occurred, the distances between galaxies had already become immense. Therefore, the likelihood of a galactic cluster being exactly the correct distance away from the Earth to match the distance traveled by the photons of the CMB is very slight…though the probability would exist.

Now, let us assume a galactic cluster did exist at exactly the correct distance away from the Earth that it matches the distance traveled by the photons of the CMB, how would that affect the resulting data collected on Earth of that galaxy? Conclusion: it would appear as a blank and empty spot in the CMB data that will appear much larger in size than an actual galaxy would today. The reasoning behind this conclusion comes from observations of systems that undergo expansion, consider either a bicycle tire or bubblegum. In either case, if a pinprick is made in a wall of the expanding “thing” then as the entire system expands so too does the size of the hole. Once the system becomes fully inflated the once tiny hole will appear much larger than one might predict (w/out having seen this phenomenon occur beforehand.) Check to nature: an apparent exact match. See the following link: http://www.nrao.edu/pr/2007/coldspot/

**Note: this particular prediction and observation are not part of my published book, “The Dominium.” Rather Move #10 is the direct result of the debate that occurred last year on the Scientific American community forum with a man from FermiLab’s Tevatron complex who went by the screen-name, “MrSheepish.” The prediction of the possibility of such a rare and large blank spot in the CMB data was made as a deductive conclusion of the Dominium model/premises before I personally was aware of the existence of such data. Which is exactly what happened earlier this week regarding the existence of an antimatter cloud surrounding the supermassive black-hole at the galactic center. Two times now, the Dominium model has made blind deductive assertions only to be later verified by concrete empirical evidence from the scientific record. Also let the recent contributions of Eric be duly noted: twice now has he brought forward two new pieces of evidence, the “Sachs-Wolfe effect” and confirmation of the ballooning affect to gravitational interactions at extremely close ranges, that either complement Dominium assertions or provide a new level of application of Dominium principles.

The question becomes, how long can this model be ignored? How much proof is sufficient? How many of the evidentiary anomalies need to be given explanation before people stop mulling the traditional dead-ends and begin considering the potentials offered by this beautiful, clean, and seductive model? Most importantly of all: when do we demand that all of the considerations of the Dominium be taken into consideration when it comes to LHC? To date, two (or 3 depending on how you tally) blind predictions have been clearly verified by the scientific record. The Dominium categorically asserts that MBH will be stable. Is it rational to proceed with LHC in its present form and see if MMBH are formed? No, it is only prudent to: acknowledge the Dominium; tweak LHC to accelerate antiprotons; conduct all the same experiments; potentially create the new species AMBH; and not risk the farm in the process.

Hello All,

A very extraordinary article just came to my attention: http://www.citebase.org/fulltext?format ... %2F9906012

Apparently, using General Relativity, this author came up with many of the same conclusions as the first part of the Dominium deductive analysis and resulting model. No, I'm not saying that this paper is 100% correct, but the fact that two works have been completed using two vastly different methodologies, yet yielding convergent conclusions does reinforce both. Also, this is exactly what I predicted: If the Dominium is actually correct, then it is just a matter of time before someone develops a mathematic proof reaching the same conclusions.

Given this new layer of supporting evidence, how can we continue to ignore the models conclusions that MBH will be stable and/or that AMBH hold great potential and pose no real danger while MMBH hold no foreseeable application and could wreak maximum havoc?

The amusing part is that this paper is actually interesting. However, since I was asked to stay out of the conversation and no one else cares... all I can say is "meh".

Hasanuddin, I think your fundamental assumption, that antimatter and matter gravitationally repel each other is courageous, and perhaps true. Why not? Your theory is not yet excluded by the empirical evidence. Not by a long shot!

Cheers,
Warren

Hi again folks,

Results of LHC are being released. http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/8505203.stm

Let us focus on the "surprises" because those are always the most important things when it comes to scientific inquiry.

According to a quote in this recent BBC article
Although "most popular models" did not predict much higher levels of collision that "expected" because of like-on-like gravitational attract for this machine as opposed to past accelerators (LEP, Tevatron, SLAC, etc) where opposite-opposite gravitational repulsion acting to decrease resulting energy of collision. The Dominium model explicitly predicts higher levels energy of collision in a matter2x collider like LHC because of like/like gravitational attraction coming into effect at extremely small distances.

The model would also project a steep increase in energies of collision as the collider ramps things up. The Dominium model would make the same prediction as Dr Roland's approximation
As mentioned, with that the Dominium model also concurs. The big question is what are the upper boundaries of physical stress levels. When that stress level is crossed, what is the outcome. No-one knows for certain because no human has ever crossed certain lines. Not even the Dominium model can ascertain where those levels actually are or what might be the consequence.

Although LHC has published its first results, let us remember that those results have produced "surprises." Please let it be duly noted that the Dominium model predicts these anomalous results, and that that prediction was made before these results were compiled and reported. Let it also be duly noted that one possible scenario of passing this physical stress level is the creation of a black-hole. Let it also be duly noted that the Dominium model predicts that black-hole material is the most stabile phase of matter; any sample created at a place like LHC would/could not be unmade. The Dominium also predicts the ability of even a micro-black-hole (MBH) would persist. The Dominium also predict the MBH, if formed, would be able to feed itself, and grow, under usual Earth conditions.

How many more times must it be that the Dominium model must explain the “anomalous” phenomena that baffle popular models? If the Dominium projections for future higher energy collisions continue to ring true, will anyone begin to ask ethical, but expensive questions. Remember, the Dominium model is not “against” the LHC experiment. No, the Dominium model is only against this program in its present form. The Dominium-based solution is to retool LHC to fire antiprotons into antiprotons. Being the same mass, charge, and angular moment as the protons currently being used, such a retooling would be almost as easy and the recalibrations necessary to make way for the proposed heavy-ion collisions.

The logic of the Dominium-solution is simple: If like/like interactions cause the formation of MBH, it’d better it be an antimatter-MBH (AMBH.) The Dominium predicts that fundamental gravitational relationships would be the same, though vastly enhanced compared to “known” solids…

Matter attracting Matter
Matter repelling Antimatter.

Therefore an AMBH would be repelled from its laboratory of creation. Therefore instead of consuming/accreting the laboratory, the Earth would repel the AMBH. Damage could still result (a whopper of an annihilation event as it ploughs through the ceiling/wall to escape the neighborhood of the Earth.

This form of moderation would:

• Allow LHC to continue to operate
• Scientific discovery would forge forward
• Possesses no danger of cataclysmic failure (as, unfortunately moving forward status quo possesses.)

PROBLEM: Money

Antiprotons are “easy” to make, but they are incredibly expensive. Satus-quo stripping of atoms to make ions and proton is quite easy, hence, cheaper.

QUESTION: When was money a primary concern of research facilities like CERN?
(Actually, please don’t answer this rhetorical question; it’s partially a jest. Let us focus on science and ethics.)