Quizzical/deductive analysis of Dominium premise

Hasanuddin · **Joined:** Tue Apr 01, 2008 11:38 am **Posts:** 100

Hey j,cass

You really are quite remarkable. I mean, your “posts” are amazing; they truly are! These little bits of science-sounding references that are consistently tied to nothing, yet mixed together with the your persistent judgmental denigration, then couple-it-all with your insistence that you are much smarter than everyone else (especially me.) At first I thought you were just an angry soul or one that can’t think logically or write very well. (There are lots of people who can’t think/write linearly; it’s nothing to be ashamed of; and anyone can develop their abilities; so I’ve been patient to coach you along.) The way you seemed to shout out unrelated references apparently at random seemed to confirm this possibility. However, your honed “style” really makes me ask the question, who are you in reality? Your posts are short, inflammatory, and potentially derailing to an otherwise good conversation. Hmmm. Your posts “appear” long because they “seem” to take up a lot of space. However, further inspection shows that your “posts” are actually mostly “quotes” from me, Hasanuddin. Your snarking assessments are short, humorous, and belittling. What motivation could you have for leaving such consistently styled posts? The funniest thing is that you have never tried to pick up one of your undeveloped ideas and present them later on after I prodded you to. Hmmm. It is as if you had no ownership in what you were saying. If you were just angry or had problems with English/logic, I would have expected you to try to make your points clear. Instead you just dropped those ideas and shouted out new and further unrelated and untied-in snippets of science. Hmmm. Why would you write such things if you don’t believe them enough to follow-through with, solidify, or defend your ideas???

Actually, there is another potential reason to account for all your actions. I must wonder out-loud whether you are one of those paid bloggers I’ve heard so much about. I’ve seen on documentary television broadcast news programs reports that paid bloggers are the biggest rage in corporate PR, raiding, and targeted propaganda. These documentaries assert that major multi-billion dollar corporations institutions, on par w/ CERN, employ paid bloggers both to promote the corporate interests and also to subvert/bury any legitimate challenges (environmental, ethics, etc) against their interests. Is that the case? Will you do/say anything to derail any challenge against LHC? If so, are they paying you well?

If you are working for CERN, tell your bosses that I don’t want to shut them down. Actually, if the Dominium model is correct, then I believe that much more money urgently needs to, and should, be dumped into that place to retool LHC. So it is literally in term long-term benefits for CERN brass to listen to my challenges. I’m not joking; I love science, why would I want to hinder the project with the most potential to crack some of the biggest questions left for us to discover? The degree of potential discovery and future benefit of a retooled LHC appear to be huge for many generations to come. Conversely, if the Dominium is correct, no retooling occurs, and the envelope does get pushed too far … oh well. I guess the only thing that would really change would be the future generations and prosperity part. You and I would be just about as short-lived as we would in either case. It just seems to be in your bosses best interests (actually their grandchildren’s best interest) to pause and retool—or at least run the proposed test of the hypothesis using LEAR data—whichever way they choose, they will win awards, make money, and enjoy the public pulpit. Besides the question of risk, the only difference between the two paths of tooling vs retooling is Time … though how important is that? In terms of the universe, the process of full retooling would take virtually no Time at all.

Personally, I don’t really care who you are. You’re just another person—as puny and short-lived as myself or any other. Although you’re equally insignificant, I’m sure you possess qualities, insights, and abilities that make you distinctive. Like anyone, the study and acquisition of scientific knowledge makes you more whole, complete, and connected … right? Isn’t that the reason why you first began your studies and explorations of science? Or at least continued on to the point where to find yourself today? But ask yourself, “Do you already know All there is to know about All of the Sciences?” Surely the answer is, “No,” because reaching such a goal is am impossibility; yet, it is the pursuit of the goal that adds purpose to living. We are only alive for a very short amount of time; the acquisition of natural understanding is just one of those things that give life meaning, depth, and purpose. (By the way, in terms of developing oneself: I hope you know what it means to protect and give care to somebody else—especially a child. If not, I want you to try it; this is easily the most enlightening aspect of living.) In the meantime, if you want to relax, grow, and contribute to these discussions—please begin. Just open your mind, put down your saber, and begin discussing these incredibly interesting scientific facts and repercussions unemotionally and deductively. Then, I’ll be happy to engage you

The game: Deduction
The topic: Big Bang creation and the formation of the modern Universe
The issue/conflict is between the tested hypotheses: Gravitational repulsion between matter&antimatter vs universal gravitational attaction
The Rules: Use undisputable and verifiable aspects of nature and/or experimental data as premises. Combine these premises to the two disputed hypotheses to create categorical conclusions. Compare these conclusion to nature. Matches to what is naturally “Real” would suggest support for the test hypothesis. Mismatches, i.e., nonsensical conclusions in conflict with what actually exists in nature, will indicate against the test hypothesis being examined

robdegraves · **Joined:** Thu Jun 05, 2008 7:28 am **Posts:** 1131

Hasanuddin

While I have defended actually engaging this topic... you are making me reconsider the attempt to discuss your theory in any logical way.

1. This latest post was basically one long ad hominem exercise mixed with paranoia. You alternate between paranoid accusations and grandiose self aggrandizing. It's not professional.

2. You barely respond to my posts, even though I am playing by your rules specifically, but occupy your time with accusations and emotional outbursts. Read my last post and respond... that will be a better use of your time don't you think?

3. I have read all of cass j's posts to you. The only difference is that cass j is using actual science rather than playing the deductive game you want to play.

If you want to have this deductive try out... then do it. Stop worrying about what is said other than the points that are made.

Lastly...

Quote:

Actually, there is another potential reason to account for all your actions. I must wonder out-loud whether you are one of those paid bloggers I’ve heard so much about.

I wonder how much cass j takes in... after taxes of course. More to the point... are they still hiring?

Hasanuddin · **Joined:** Tue Apr 01, 2008 11:38 am **Posts:** 100

Dear robdegraves,

You confuse arrogance with irreverent effrontery; either way I reject your waxy barriers-to-entry for legitimate independent-thought. Science belongs to all of us. Who are you to assess/deem who is or isn’t allowed to think for themselves?

Also, please let’s continue our discussion and let j,cass fend for her/him-self

A: Actual instantaneous velocity:
You protest, saying, “We have no way to know our velocity relative to the "Universe"”... I concur. We cannot actually derive our actual instantaneous velocity relative to the Universe w/out making a misstep and introducing error. Aren’t all numbers approximations of the truth? Besides it is the subtle variations that often hold the most significant data, not always what is strongest &/or most constant

See this syllogism:
A1: Once the neutral anti-H formed they were no longer strongly affected by the fields of the Penning Trap
A2: Consider the Dominium premise to be correct
A3 Then all antiparticles are going to be affected by a reverse directional gravitational push from the Moon, Sun, and Earth
A4: The orientation of the “actual” direction of velocity will change relative to the Moon and Sun over time
A5: Therefore the effect of the Sun and the Moon on velocity would be varying amounts of linear vs centripetal acceleration depending on instantaneous Geometries of force and momentum vectors

Look at premise 1A. Let it be noted that I did not state that the new anti-atoms would become unaffected to the strong fields of the penning trap. Although as a whole, the antiatoms are neutral and can now escape the penning trap,the parts of the antiatom are still charged and in the presence of strong field will feel affect effecting motion. Because the machine’s influence is semi-constant and because the Earth’s gravitational influence is constant, both would disappear in the ‘noise’ of the data. It is the fluctuations induced by the Moon and Sun that are the most interesting for statistical analysis—i.e., as our independent variable.

B: Was gravity a force that was present and active during the Big Bang?
That was the only premise I used: the assumption that gravitational forces were present and active. I said nothing of hierarchy between forces—you took that plunge, not me. The only question I asked of the two test hypotheses is whether they would favor expansion or contraction during the earliest moments.

Keeping it clean led to clean categorical conclusions. The Dominium conclusions matched the reality—hyperexpansion; the popular-bias of universal attraction led to the preposterous mismatch conclusion favoring contraction. For this move you cried foul and claimed I was missing things...yet you never state what it is that bars the established premises from forming conclusions? True, at this early stage of the model, we can only lightly project onto the big-picture—we are still in evidence-gathering phase, not yet in a position to evaluate worth of the test-hypotheses.

Although I believe analogy is a strong analysis tool; the systems compared MUST be comparable. You chose situations that are not comparable, other than superficially. At one moment in time the Whole Universe was the size of a grenade—every one of the countless number of galaxies, each galaxy’s trillions of star systems, where each star system potentially supports several planets—all that, and more, packed down the size of a grenade. And, yes, it did explode (on these two trivial points we agree) but this is where the two stories become incompatible. Gunpowder caused grenade system to go from stable to unstable. But what’s the gunpowder in the Big Bang fireball? Also, you are not taking into account the possibility for bizarre nature within the ultra dense fireball. Uncle Al would not be happy:

Assumption #1: Gravitational forces were irrelevant during the Big Bang fireball
Assumption #2: The [unnamed] force of the explosion was enormously greater
Assumption #3: When all the matter (and antimatter) at one spot the relative strength between forces would be the same as at STP
Assumption #4: All conditions during Big Bang hyperexpansion are completely analogous to conditions on Earth
Assumption #5: Super-dense (when galaxies were the size of crumbs) Big Bang fireball material behaves analogously to shards of shrapnel
Assumption #6: Gravity is always the weakest force
Assumption #7: As distances decrease the degree of affect is identically shared between all forces

You made a huge number of assumptions … without being conscious of them.

C: False-Dilemma
You accuse me of creating a false-dilemma. However, aside from this hollow accusation, you make no case. Here is how you boiled things down:

Quote:

1. If particles and anti particles do not repel each other, then the inflation could not have happened
2. If particles and anti particles do repel each other, then inflation would have happened

This is a fallacy because you ignore the fact that there could have been other causes than gravity for expansion

I’ll accept the numbered statements as the fork. You correctly state, if there were a third option then this may be a false-dilemma. But what is this third option? On this most important specific, you are vague. Don’t hold out, if you know the true cause of Hubble hyperexpansion, then state it! If you produce no such solution then we have a True-dilemma, do we not?

Remember Uncle Al’s words:

Quote:

“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)

Einstein gives us both a two-pronged challenge. Analyze our two test hypotheses simultaneously. Whichever path can cover the greatest number of empirical facts using the conventions of deduction is most likely correct. Remember also the caveat that to this analysis we are instructed to use the fewest number of assumptions.

The Dominium model truly only needs one hypothesis (gravitational repulsion), how many does universally attraction actually need?

robdegraves · **Joined:** Thu Jun 05, 2008 7:28 am **Posts:** 1131

Well... let us try to do this with as few assumptions as we can.

1. The Big Bang consisted of all matter and energy in the universe.
2. We do not have any evidence of gravitational repulsion.
3. We do have evidence that compressed matter heats up.
4. We do have evidence that heat causes pressure.

This is the most common current view of the Big Bang

Quote:

he earliest phases of the Big Bang are subject to much speculation. In the most common models, the universe was filled homogeneously and isotropically with an incredibly high energy density, huge temperatures and pressures, and was very rapidly expanding and cooling. Approximately 10−37 seconds into the expansion, a phase transition caused a cosmic inflation, during which the universe grew exponentially.[24] After inflation stopped, the universe consisted of a quark-gluon plasma, as well as all other elementary particles.[25] Temperatures were so high that the random motions of particles were at relativistic speeds, and particle-antiparticle pairs of all kinds were being continuously created and destroyed in collisions. At some point an unknown reaction called baryogenesis violated the conservation of baryon number, leading to a very small excess of quarks and leptons over antiquarks and anti-leptons—of the order of 1 part in 30 million. This resulted in the predominance of matter over antimatter in the present universe.[26]

Which one of us is making the most assumptions?

lisa_shrika · **Posted:** Fri Feb 20, 2009 11:20 am

robdegraves wrote:

the universe was filled homogeneously

Incorrect.

Quote:

data shows the opposite: the universe continues to look fractal as far out as our telescopes can see.

The universe is hierarchically inhomogenously structured and clumpy, like a fractal.

Dark energy and fractals: The third road...

Modelling a fractal universe with general relativity is possible in theory.

Quote:

An equally bizarre implication is that the universe is pervaded with a strange sort of "antigravity," a concept originally proposed by and later abandoned by Einstein as the greatest blunder of his life. This force, which has lately been dubbed "dark energy," isn't just keeping the expansion from slowing down, it's making the universe fly apart faster and faster all the time, like a rocket ship with the throttle wide open. http://www.time.com/time/covers/1101010625/story.html

Quote:

Modelling a fractal universe with general relativity is possible in theory, but in reality it would be devilishly complicated. That would leave cosmologists without a working model, like acrobats without a net

According to Einstein, the universe's curvature is determined by the amount of matter and energy it contains. The universe we evidently live in could have been flattened purely by matter—but the new discoveries prove that ordinary matter and exotic particles add up to only about 35% of what you would need. Ergo, the extra curvature must come from some unseen energy—just about the amount, it turns out, suggested by the supernova observations. "I was highly dubious about dark energy based only on supernovas," says Princeton astrophysicist Edwin Turner (no relation to Michael, though the two often refer to each other as "my evil twin"). "This makes me take dark energy more seriously." http://www.time.com/time/covers/1101010625/story.html

Quote:

A lot is at stake, and the matter distribution has become a source of impassioned debate between those who say the distribution is smooth and homogeneous and those who say it is hierarchically structured and clumpy, like a fractal.

Is the matter in the universe arranged in a fractal pattern? A new study of nearly a million galaxies suggests it is - though there are no well-accepted theories to explain why that would be so.

Cosmologists trying to reconstruct the entire history of the universe have precious few clues from which to work. One key clue is the distribution of matter throughout space, which has been sculpted for nearly 14 billion years by the competing forces of gravity and cosmic expansion. If there is a pattern in the sky, it encodes the secrets of the universe.

According to their latest paper, which has been submitted to Nature Physics, Sylos Labini and Pietronero, along with physicists Nikolay Vasilyev and Yurij Baryshev of St Petersburg State University in Russia, argue that the new data shows that the galaxies exhibit an explicitly fractal pattern up to a scale of about 100 million light years.

And they say if the universe does become homogeneous at some point, it has to be on a scale larger than a staggering 300 million light years across. That's because even at that scale, they still observe large fluctuations - a cluster here, a void there - in the matter distribution.

Most cosmologists interpret such fluctuations as being no more significant than small waves on the surface of the sea, but Sylos Labini and colleagues say that these are more like tsunamis.

To support the homogeneity assumption, cosmologists point to the smoothness of the cosmic microwave background (CMB), relic radiation from the nascent universe. The CMB is perfectly uniform up to one part in 100,000, suggesting the early universe was nearly homogeneous.

"The standard picture of a homogeneous universe on large scales is holding up very well when tested with very large-scale observations like those mapping the cosmic background radiation, X-rays and radio galaxies," says physicist Neil Turok of Cambridge University in the UK.

"If the observations of galaxies in optical surveys don't agree, there may be a number of possible explanations, without resorting to an extremely inhomogeneous, fractal universe," he told New Scientist.

But inferring the matter distribution from the CMB is not always simple. CMB maps show a 3D distribution projected onto a 2D surface, and it is possible for a clumpy 3D distribution to appear smooth when projected in 2D. The same is true of the X-ray background, which appears homogeneous in two dimensions. Finally, using galaxies that are bright at radio wavelengths is also problematic, as it is difficult to measure their distances accurately enough to pinpoint their positions in 3D. http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn14200

Quote:

The flatness of the universe also means the theory of inflation has passed a key test. Originally conceived around 1980 (in the course of elementary-particle, not astronomical, research), the theory says the entire visible universe grew from a speck far smaller than a proton to a nugget the size of a grapefruit, almost instantaneously, when the whole thing was .000000000000000000000000000000000001 sec. old. This turbo-expansion was driven by something like dark energy but a whole lot stronger. http://www.time.com/time/covers/1101010625/story.html

Quote:

We have investigated BBN in high baryon density region.
In these regions, not only light elements which
are synthesized in standard BBN but also very heavy
elements are produced. We found BBN is both the pprocess
like and the r-process like. The transition from
the p-process to the r-process is due to the Coulomb barriers
of proton-rich nuclei and the amounts of neutrons
when heavy elements begin to be synthesized. The loci
of the reaction flows change drastically above = 10−3.
6
Above = 10−3, a lot of seed nuclei cause active proton
capture and the reaction flows end before very heavy
elements are synthesized.
Our calculations demonstrate that very heavy elements
can be synthesized in BBN, including proton-rich nuclei.
These nuclei will be related to the origin of the solar
abundances, heavy elements observed in high redshifts
and early star formations via cooling effects.
For more realistic models in BBN, we need to include
diffusion effects. Comparison with the nucleosynthesis
in supermassive stars is also important. We leave these
issues for future study. http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/astro-ph/pdf/ ... 7439v2.pdf

“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)

You can't tell a crazy man his cat isn't on fire cause he doesn't have a cat...

You can't tell a crazy physicist his axiom is wrong cause he doesn't have legitimate axiom.

With every event there is a discrete distribution of probable outcomes. To deny this is to deny nature.

Edit: [BBN in high baryon density region] http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/astro-ph/pdf/ ... 7439v2.pdf

robdegraves · **Joined:** Thu Jun 05, 2008 7:28 am **Posts:** 1131

Hasanuddin

One thing I would like for us to agree on as we discuss this...

I will ignore Niksan/Lisa and anything he/she brings up.

Hasanuddin · **Joined:** Tue Apr 01, 2008 11:38 am **Posts:** 100

Dear robdegraves,

As far as I'm concerned conversations are discreet ... and they always have been. Remember, you were the one that brought j,cass up in these discussions. I hope you also realize that, two posts ago, you angrily reacted to a letter that wasn't posted to you.

As far as I am concerned, nothing that a third party could say would either increased or decrease the amount of validity contained within yours.

I have not read this person's post yet so I do not have any opinion. However, I do chose to spar with this newcomer,

Hasanuddin · **Joined:** Tue Apr 01, 2008 11:38 am **Posts:** 100

Dear robdegraves,

As far as I'm concerned conversations are discreet ... and they always have been. Remember, you were the one that brought j,cass up in these discussions. I hope you also realize that, two posts ago, you angrily reacted to a letter that wasn't posted to you.

As far as I am concerned, nothing that a third party could say would either increase or decrease the amount of validity contained within your words.

I have not read this person's post yet so I do not have any opinion. However, if I do chose to spar with this newcomer, I hope that does not anger you.

In the mean time, there are many open aspects of our conversation that have been dropped/unanswered by you. Deduction is the name of the game. I have made a decisive move in this game of ours against the popular bias theory of universal attraction, showing that the Dominium hypothesis matches naturally observed expansion, while your status quo model concludes the opposite and nonsensical option favoring collapse. You have not really made much of a response, and you ignored key aspects of my post.

1: Find to fault with the steps I made, or...
2: Produce a different deductive analysis showing how universal attraction produces what is empericly observed, or ...
3: Agree to move on and examine the next phenomenon using the methodology of deduction against our two test hypotheses.

Tsk... remember the game, the rules, and the challenge in Einstein's words

I'll more fully respond to what little you have given me tomorrow.

lisa_shrika · **Posted:** Fri Feb 20, 2009 8:53 pm

Hansanuddin,

Hi, sorry if I have inadvertently imposed on your thread, but be warned: robdegraves enjoys his games of [smoke and mirrors] doublespeak.

I will leave your thread alone, however...I felt it imperative to warn you that robdegraves is incapable of having a rational discourse, as his posting history clearly indicates.

These issues are very very important and robdegraves seems to think this is all a big game.

Again, sorry to have derivated you.

Edit to append: [BBN in high baryon density region] http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/astro-ph/pdf/ ... 7439v2.pdf

robdegraves · **Joined:** Thu Jun 05, 2008 7:28 am **Posts:** 1131

Quite frankly the interruptions are bothering me somewhat.

I don't mind having people jump in the thread.. but I don't much care when they bring nothing but hate and stupidity.

I will do a bit more when you respond later.. right now I don't much feel like it.

Just this...

Quote:

1: Find to fault with the steps I made, or...

I have been doing just that.

You said...

Quote:

You correctly state, if there were a third option then this may be a false-dilemma. But what is this third option? On this most important specific, you are vague. Don’t hold out, if you know the true cause of Hubble hyperexpansion, then state it! If you produce no such solution then we have a True-dilemma, do we not?

I presume you meant a third option to explain inflation.

I then provided a third option...

Quote:

3. We do have evidence that compressed matter heats up.
4. We do have evidence that heat causes pressure.

It is up to you to indicate why particle - anti particle repulsion... a phenomenon never encountered or theorized other than by yourself... is a better candidate than heat... a phenomenon that we do know exists.

PS... if you want to debate with Niksan/Lisa.. be my guest.. but I won't be involved.

Quizzical/deductive analysis of Dominium premise

Who is online