oops

Dear lisa_shrika,

(robdegraves: you are giving me a lot to process and I want to do that properly and orderly. I will post my address to your posts tomorrow.)

I agree with the fact that you bring up that repeated observations have shown both the event horizon and the mass distribution of the Universe to be flat and even, respectively. On this premise, I believe it is safe to conclude that this applies universally throughout the Universe.

Even though the above is given, I agree with you that robdegraves’ conclusion of homogeneous filling in not necessarily correct. Under conditions of absolute randomness the arrangements of particles, though in initial chaos, can achieve patterning and order. You also gave a solution that “works” to account for this one observation (fractiles in combo w/ Dark Energy). However, to make this jump you needed to create a whole new scenario built around a whole new form of force/energy. Personally I am wary of stories that require a new belief in a new force/dimension/form-of-existence/etc that can be seen nowhere else in nature. Such solution, even though we’re talking about science, always reminded me of vampire-stories. I’m mean, in order to understand the story, then you need to understand the workings of these hypothetical things called vampires. To do so requires a whole set of needed hypotheses, axioms, etc, but they are all neatly bundled into a package called “vampires.” The number of axioms/hypotheses needed rises sharply. I’m not saying that all such solutions are necessarily wrong, though past experience shows that they are usually wrong. One must swallow a whole slew of new hypotheses in order to make any of these vampire solutions to rise from the dead.

My point is this. Perhaps you are 100% correct on the distribution of mass; 100% correct on the idea of clumping; but I don’t believe you needed a whole new force to get there.

I believe you’ll be interested in the more completed Dominium model that is available online. In the meantime, let me bring up a hot topic from the frontiers of nanotechnology: “self-assembly.” Turns out, this phenomenon is the center of the current nanotechnology revolution. Essentially, in this remarkable phenomenon a system moves naturally from disorder to order. (Much like the fundamental notion of fractiles.) These materials studied by the nanotechnologist that have conflicting properties, like hydrophilic vs. hydrophobic substances. It turns out that when combinations of such materials are combined an violently mixed to achieve a maximum degree of chaos, when the mixing stop, the matrix of the system will self-assemble into clumps of predictable size and distribution.

Also there could be a middle road also, where the notion of fractiles and self-assembly are compatible and sufficient without the need of the new vampire-story hypothesis of dark energy.

Also, regardless of the validity/soundness of the fractiles assemblage theory, it is not a third path for the crossroads defined by robdegraves. You see, there in no third option between the notions of force contributions favoring expansion vs those favoring contraction. That was the only conclusion that I have constructed so far. Remember, neither conclusion goes further than saying that, because of geometries, either expansive repulsion or contracting attraction would be exhibited given the two hypotheses. The Dominium hypothesis matched reality; the popular bias of universal attraction gave a contradictory mismatch. However, this is just the first move in the game. Just because the Dominium hypothesis won the first round does not mean that the game is over. For example, it could still be true that, even though universal attraction favors collapse, other forces more powerful were at work. …however, to take this path, one must eventually be able to name that force and why it was so strong.

The rest of your post was a collection of very interesting posts. Very many worthy discussions could result from any one of the topics that you brought up. However, you said very little of your own… I don’t like guessing people’s minds, if you have a challenge, question, consideration, or whatever, just make your case and I will respond.

Lastly is your parody of the Einstein quote, it really put a smile on my face! By the way, I don’t own any cats ... and I know that for a fact. It wasn’t until a few days ago that I bothered to look up the word “axiom,” so for most of my life I’ve been ignorant to any axioms I’ve had… Guess that means I’m not a scientist! Phew, I was worried for a while there.

Your last line is a jewel. I am not being facetious; they are words so good that they are worth saying again,


In many ways this whole thread could be dedicated to this one undeniable truth, and one unspoken truth. The unspoken true is that the greatest wonder and mystery and answers to every imaginable question can be found buried/locked/hidden within the nature. Note the rules of this game that give the natural/experimental record to be the final say in judging the worth between the two test hypotheses as we apply indisputable premises. The whole exercise being played on this thread is to use tied-&-true methods of deduction to probe possible outcomes of given various known and undeniable truths as premises.

Dear robdegraves,

W/out much preface you listed four “things” which you attempt to define as your “assumptions”—ignoring the 7 already identified. Please account for these. Instead of reducing your number of assumptions on the table, you add more (kind’a)

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.

I’ll rebut in order:

1: Sure, that IS a categorical premise
2: Illegal move. Gravitational-repulsion is one of the test-hypotheses! You can’t profess to know the outcome before an analysis!! That’s how bogus answers get formed
3: Okay’ish.
4: Ditto to #3. Neither observation results in an obvious conclusion



B: Return of the False-Dilemma:
Your only “attack” against my first move in this game was to accuse me of false-dilemma. My move was this:

1. Gravitational repulsion (GR) would produce force vectors between particles pointed outward. Outward orientation favors expansion.

2. Reciprocally, the bias-notion of universal attraction (UA) led to inwardly oriented force vectors, which would favor contraction.

At this you cried foul; and screamed that there was a third option. However, there is no middle option between this dichotomy (expansion vs contraction.) The topic is the orientation of force vectors. The “third option” to prove a false-dilemma must include an interpretation of those force vectors.

You attempted to introduce “Heat” as an alternate explanation. However, you have yet to frame an argument. Even if you’re onto something, an alternate explanation cannot negate the truth of the unrelated conclusions I have already established.

D) Your last gasp left all attempts of even the appearance of deduction behind. You said:


Your first blatant error is to suggest that I am the first person in existence that suggested the notion of GR. That assertion is 100% incorrect. There have been many times this possibility has been brought up, e.g., Supernova 1987. Then you spring “Heat” as being your champion. But fail to show a connection to the test-hypotheses. I have never mentioned “Heat;” yet you seem to assert mutual exclusivity. This is a pitiful strawman argument



You have yet to establish a single hole in my first move. Perhaps you are building thoughts based on heat, but have yet to present a construct. In this interlude, I will now take my NEXT MOVE:

1: Undeniable premise: When matter and antimatter happen to be in the same place at the same time then they will always annihilate with one another

2: Established premise: equal amounts of matter and antimatter will be produced in the initial moments of the Big Bang

Putting these two premises against one another presents quite a quandary. If matter and antimatter collide, then they disappear out of existence. However, one thing we know for sure is that matter has persisted…on Earth. Therefore, any solution must allow for matter to exist on Earth in the absence of antimatter. However, before pondering the solution, one must consider the initial conditions:

The two test hypotheses lead to only two possible conclusions: either GR discourages annihilation, or the popular-bias, UA, enhances occurrence of annihilation. The longterm affects of either hypothesis can be calculated using statistical functions commonly applied to genetic populations. Consider an annihilation event to be synonymous with a lethal heterozygote:

Test of the popular-bias hypothesis: The force orientation of UA increases the propensity for the heterozygote to be produced… in this case, the statistical solution indicates that over time the heterozygote is favored. Whenever there is a genetic lethal heterozygous phenotype, where heterozygous mating is favored: the condition always leads to system collapse. The decline curves of all phenotypes are predictably asymptotic, therefore annihilation would be predicted to be occurring at lesser and lesser rates infinitely into the future. Therefore, such events should be visible and detectable in sky. But this is not seen. Quite the contrary, NO evidence of annihilation events ever occurring can be found, even in the oldest sections of the cosmologic data. Therefore, popular bias of UA produces a mismatch w/ what is naturally observed.

Oppositely, the force, GR, reduces the propensity for the heterozygote. This is a completely different condition, a type very well documented throughout nature. In this case the “deterrent” against a heterozygous mating is this test-hypothesis’ proposition: GR. Whether you’re talking about solutions reaching equilibrium or biological system achieving stasis, the process works the same. Whenever there is a deterrent against the heterozygote, an equilibrium translates into a division that eventually forms between groups that are 100% of one homozygous intermarrying phenotype, separated from other groupings of oppositely homozygous & intermarrying individuals. Therefore, this path predicts that stasis will be reached where there are clumpings of monocultures.

Our Earth matches such a description: stable all-matter object—a matter-monoculture. But, this observation only half matches the test-hypothesis; it also predicts monocultures of antimatter to exist elsewhere in the Universe. How can we, via direct sampling, collect material from “elsewhere in the Universe?” …Impossible. The Earth does exist as a virtually all matter object; that is undeniable. However, we have no ability to directly sample distant galaxies, therefore, that only half of this conclusion is completely verified—most importantly, no aspect of nature appears to be contrary to the Dominium premise; & the 2nd time nature contradicts the popular-bias UA conclusions.

Your move

Without writing a lengthy scenario, could you comment on a very general idea concerning universal matter distribution? Regarding earlier comment: “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.”

Being extremely elemental, and referring to, let’s say, earthly metals: The cold temperature during cryogenic processing (roughly -300° F) slows movement at the atomic level, increasing internal molecular bonding energy and promoting a pure structural balance throughout the material. The end result is a material with an extremely uniform, refined, and dense microstructure with vastly improved properties.

Could this simple earthly certainty be realized on an extremely macro level? (i.e. progression toward cooling after Big Bang)

Sorry that I missed your post. I was a busy weekend.

First of all.. you really seem to find it hard to argue without using insults.





Keep at it and you will lose any chance of arguing with the few people who will even listen to you at all.


Next.. to the argument itself.

OK.. I said...



You countered with this...



Where does that leave us.

1. OK... we agree.

2. A bizarre thing to say. Gravitational repulsion is the basic first principle of your whole theory. It is your foremost assumption and that is why I posit that you are using a false dilemma.

3. Obviously true.

4. Again obviously true.

So... number two is where we are going to go.


Return of the false dilemma indeed....





So would pressure due to heat. It would be greatest at the core, radiating outwards relatively equally. Outward pressure due to heat favors expansion.



However, since gravity is the weakest of the forces, your argument does not hold.

You posit gravity, both attractive and repulsive, as being the prime forces in the Big Bang's expansion. This is obviously a false dilemma since there are many other forces that are much more powerful and thus more likely.


Your situation would be a dilemma only... and I emphasize the term only... if gravity was the only force that could be responsible.

Now.. to some of the details.




An alternate explanation... particularly when it's a more likely one... certainly does negate your false dilemma.





Citation rather badly needed.

I did a search on that Supernova. I didn't find anything on gravitational repulsion but I did find this bit from Wiki. While not an authoritative source, it is quite interesting nonetheless. I will look into it if you actually provide any links to what you are trying to demonstrate.





I do not need to provide my own construct as their is one already in place... constructed by real physicists and cosmologists. I just need to point out the holes in yours.



By the way... statements like...



typically are used by people who are not willing to accept a real debate. I am not saying that this is the case but it hardly endears you to anyone in a debate.

Dear curiosity only,

I don't have anything lengthy to say because I fundamentally do not believe that your analogy of cryogenic metals at -300C can be compared to a matrix of matter and antimatter in an uncoupled states at tempteratures far avove 3000K.

Perhaps you have a point, but you really need to lay out a case defining the connection.

In the meantime, feel free to supply input into the game of deduction being played.

Hasanuddin, thanks for the reply. I am not qualified to lay out any sort of case for a connection. I've just been reading all of your posts and wanted someone with your/Rob's background to reason simply if universe expansion questions that were discussed here could be qualitatively compared to my simple example (again, just exponentially magnified to a macro scenario regarding all properties involved (temp, etc as you noted)) I didn't mean to interrupt your thread ... just find it interesting and, without telling a long story, wanted your input on this comparison and the possibility the components could be similar, although on an exponentially grander scale. Thanks again.

No problem Curiosity Only.

I will answer your question in a short form. If you wish for a longer debate, you need only ask.



Frankly this would be a mistake.

Macro and micro are driven by entirely different forces and though they sometimes appear to be similar, such as the orbit of planets and the orbits of electrons for example, the truth is much more complex and different.

In your case, you are talking about a situation where the atoms, forces, etc., are all in contact or in close proximity to each other. Therefore they can influence each other.


In the case of the Universe, the various parts have fairly little to do with each other, except in infrequent cases. Gravity does tend to affect them but this is a very minor influence overall.

Lastly, as most physicists will tell you, when looking at really big things and distances, Relativity dominates. In the case of very small things, you are looking at the quantum universe. The two have very different rules.

Dear robdegraves,

Lighten up. Unlike your past treatment of me, I have never tried to label your person. I came closest by once saying I “overestimated” you. I’ve only ridiculed your words, logical missteps &/or attempted illegal twists. One of us has gotta be wrong—no biggie. Besides, I endeavor to always back my words up with evidence.

Yes, you committed error (“blatant,” to me) by stating that I was the first to propose the notion of gravitational repulsion. That idea was floated several times. The most recent occurrence was to explain Supernova 1987. This is the indisputable recording of data coming from the arrival of neutrinos and antineutrinos from that blast to the Earth. Concurrently, in several labs across the globe, two separate and distinct peaks were recorded. The only possible answer, later confirmed in the data, was that one peak was predominantly neutrinos and the other antineutrinos. The separation in the arrival times caused considerable debate. How could two particles that possess the exact same speed, mass, point of origin, AND time of creation, arrive to Earth not together? Many “solutions” were suggested. One promising explanation involved an undeclared repulsive force of repulsion between one of these particles and the Earth. Gravitational repulsion between matter and antimatter was among those suggested and strongly considered. There was great resistance (as it is today) because many battle-bitter theories are pinned to the popular-bias universal-attraction premise.

Given my background, I was absolutely awestruck by your Wikipedia account for this same incident. My jaw just dropped. (No, I’m not faulting you in any way; how’d you know, especially if you were looking it up for the first time.) I’ve heard that these popular make-your-own-spin sites warp truth, but I had never been served up such a sample before. Your Wiki quote does correctly report the 12 second gap. I hope you realize how HUGE and significant (statistically and otherwise) 12 seconds is in terms of being a unit of time considered by particle physicists! This was immensely controversial. The most amazing aspect of your Wiki quote is that it ends by, not only ignoring the stalemate of the ensuing arguments, but also doing tricky flip by using it as if it were evidence for the same theory it actually had called into question. You just taught me why I should never use/trust Wikipedia.

Now to the core discussion, you quote the 1st half of Move #1 and say:



My answer: You are reading too much into Move #1. All this move does is deductively and categorically state the orientation of force vectors and then categorically concludes that such an orientation would favor expansion.
You alternate explanation is erroneous to the argument I presented. Are you stating that “heat” can affect the nature of gravitational force vectors? I hope not.

Theories exploring heat vs gravity Big Bang affects are compatible—not mutually exclusive. Categorically true: Both were present & active during the Big Bang. Nothing in your hypothesis of heat promoting hyperexpansion can diminish the validity of Move #1’s handling of its test-hypotheses, resulting vector orientations, or whether due to geometries the system would favor expansion/collapse.

You quote the other prong in my 1st Move before assessing:

Stop, robdegraves! You made the plunge into hierarchy, not me. Neither side of my argument made in Move #1 made any mention or assumption of hierarchy, relative strength, or anything comparative between forces. No, these are your projections…not mine. Don’t say I “posited” anything.

If anyone posited anything it was you: “weakest of the forces.” Huh? How do you know which of force was the weakest in this most exotic condition? No-one has data from the Big Bang—no-one could. No-one knows how the normal relationships might change when whole galaxies are squeezed down to the size of sand ALL packed up together. No, what you have done is here is to hatch a hypothesis of your own. That’s cool. It can be part of the game…just recognize it for what it is.

If you wish to bring a new hypothesis into this deductive analysis then we test/treat it in the same fashion: test against its polar extreme in tandem against the main test-hypotheses and the established categorical premises. In other words, if you wish, we can take your suggested hypothesis that gravity is the weakest force; deduce what that implies, and then check for a match/mismatch with nature. Then we do the same thing with its polar opposite, “What if gravity were strongest,” deduce what that implies, and check nature. If you wish to investigate this road, let’s do a full analysis. You start…

Sad ending
The ending of your post was true disappointment. You declare, “I just need to point out the holes in yours.” However, that is not how you proceeded. You evaded the question by quoting a voluminous semi-related tome. However interesting or well-cited, nothing in that text dealt with Move #1 or Move #2, did it? The issues are force vectors, gravity, and resulting influence. So now you’ve shared your prejudice towards some guy’s model. That’s cool. If you want, use something undeniable from his/her model as a premise and enter it into the arena.

Until then, I’ll consider Move #1 established
Please comment on Move #2, (or do you acquiesce this one?)
May I proceed to Move #3?
Your play

Well... you are going to have to move past number one and quite frankly I don't think you can... for now at any rate.




You need a link here. You give a long background explanation with no evidence. What scientists proposed this? What happened to the idea... etc. Not just your word for it but actual information please.



By whom?

Next...



And...



It does not matter if the theories are compatible. It only matters if the theory that heat caused expansion is possible.

That is what proves that you presented a false dilemma.

Are you saying that gravitational repulsion contributed to the inflation of the universe?

If so.. that is a different thing. You would need to discuss how much it could have contributed and why you are making that assumption.

Obviously the universe could have exploded outward without gravitational repulsion, if it exists. Also obviously, normal gravity does not mean that it could not have expanded as it did.

If either of these fairly obvious posits are true, then gravitational repulsion is not a necessary force to explain expansion.




The very start of the universe... event time zero... is not well understood by anyone. At the current stage of physics it cannot be understood. All of the laws of physics would not be applicable at that moment.

However, if we are talking about event zero, there is no reason to posit gravitational repulsion over the nigh infinite other possibilities. Any thing could have happened at that point, including a number of forces we simply don't know about yet.

Again.. a false dilemma.