Hello robdegraves,

I don’t understand the urgent need for a link for Supernova 1987. You already verified the most important aspect of the event (the 12 second gap) yourself. Why do you need somebody else’s writing to be able to see the dilemma? Do you agree or disagree that neutrinos and antineutrinos have the same mass and speed? Do you agree or disagree that those coming at us from a supernova would have been generated at the same exact time and would have traveled the same exact distance? You don’t need somebody else to verify those; either you agree or disagree. If you agreed to both statements, how can you not see the dilemma? Sorry I don’t have any of the historic papers that were written back then on this subject. The whole debate was pre-internet so the best cure would be through an old-fashioned library search. I’m sorry that you mistrust the testimonial of a witness and participant in that (seemingly) ancient debate. Perhaps somebody passively reading can procure some papers on the subject for you; but I don’t have time finding you citations for common-knowledge type items.

As far as the first half of Move #1 goes, you are 100% incorrect. Compatibility between theories is the true issue here—not a ‘false-dilemma,” as you’d like to portray. You see, Move #1 only states that the orientation of gravitational force vectors would be pointed outward under the case of gravitational repulsion. Furthermore, that outward pointing force vectors would contribute to a condition of expansion.

At this point, you scream, “false dilemma… heat caused hyperexpansion!” But heat is a discreet and unique “fundamental” of nature, right? Don’t you agree that both heat and gravity were present and active during the Big Bang? Therefore, perhaps you are right that heat also contributed to expansion. But that is a moot point with no bearing on the physics of gravity.

Move #1 holds (and there is no false-dilemma) regardless of what you say about heat.

Please focus your attention. Please do not insinuate any claims, goals, or inferences that I have not said for myself. For deduction to occur, nothing should be assumed, inferred, or generalized.

Also, you need to take account of your own actions. For example, when you pulled hierarchy out-of-a-hat as a “premise” I gave you the option of entering your hypothesis formally to this deductive analysis. Instead of taking ownership of your own hypothesis, you did a strange whitewash. You agree that the Big Bang was the most exotic time when galaxies were the size of sand and density/closeness/expansion were off the charts…and also that no human has any data about this period. (However, you never admit that conditions could be so exotic that the relative strengths between forces could be altered from how they are on Earth today.) Then in an almost flippant manner you say,


Are you for-real? How can you say that a clean charkboard negates the possibility of gravitational-repulsion… for that matter, how can a clean slate negate any potential argument? Come on, that’s the silliest argument I’ve ever heard.

Again, show Move #1 incorrect, i.e., addressing gravitational vector orientation etc
Comment on Move #2
Or I will continue w/ Move #3

Sigh... every post you make you claim victory. It's rather out of place in a debate. However...



The link is needed to demonstrate your contention that anyone but yourself considers this significant or a sign of gravitational repulsion. The 12 second delay you speak of comes after a distance that took 168 000 years to get here. This does not seem like a significant difference to anyone but you as far as I have been able to gather. If you have any scholarly work to the contrary, I would like to see it.

I will do a library search at the University I currently attend. Until then, it's hearsay.



I think I see where you are going. However... let's look at your first point then...



This is not a valid point. Let me prove that to you...




I didn't say that it negated the possibility of gravitational repulsion.

What I said was that there is no reason to say that the gravitational repulsion, if it exists, would have been stronger at moment zero.

When you say.. at moment zero there is no way for us to know what physical laws prevailed... you can't then go on to say that gravitational repulsion would have been stronger at that moment.

Since the normal logic we normally go by is invalid when describing that time... so is the logic by which you made that statement.

Hello robdegraves,

I’ve claimed victory for the last three posts because you haven’t been doing anything deductive nor have you supplied any concrete evidence that will change Move #1 assertions: vector orientation and subsequent contribution towards collapse/expansion.

Instead your “arguments” boil down to a lot of rhetorical smoke&mirrors. Worse still, you won’t own up to your own mistakes and assumptions. I hope you are not one of those people who will argue with anyone over anything & just for the perverse thrill of being contrary. I ask this because in this last post you begin to contradict words that you said in the past…for the simple reason to be contrary. On your very first post on Friday 13th, you stated now you’re stating the polar opposite, yet now you are trying to argue down a different path saying, Sorry Dude, but you can’t have it both ways; this is an illegal move, you can’t change premises midstream to suit your whim.

Another example of the silly rhetoric (rather than serious science) that you pulled in the last post was to call Supernova 1987 “hearsay.”
1: Do you even know what that term means? I am a primary witness to those arguments—I was part of them—nothing I say on this matter could be considered “hearsay.”
2: You found the confirmation of the 12-second lag yourself.
3: You did not deny that between antineutrinos and neutrinos they share the exact same mass, speed, distance-traveled, and moment of creation. Therefore, how can you deny the dilemma that they arrived at statistically significant times in significant and normal –looking peak-patterns?
4: You did not give any reason why, even if they had been traveling a million, million, million years, why the two fronts would arrive at separate times?
Therefore, you don’t get off the hook just by brushing it off or by labeling facts (that you, yourself, uncovered) as being “hearsay.”

Also no link is needed to consider this issue—you have a brain; the game is deduction, so form a proof of your own. Why are there two distinct peaks in the data? The solution offered by gravitational repulsion is clean, straightforward, and needs very few axioms. (Uncle Al would be happy.) Can you come up with any reason for the gap…even a messy one?

Finally, after contradicting your first post, you pull out a complete wildcard hypothesis:

Huh? How do you know that? Dude, you just can’t make up stuff!!!!!!! First you come out with assumed hierarchies (which you have yet to prove other than saying, “We have no reason not to believe gravity is the weakest,” which, by the way, is the fallacy Argumentum ad Ingorantiam.”) Now you try to establish a “premise” that will let you weasel-out of adhering to the game-rules of deduction. I wish magic&fairies existed also so that I could make anything I wanted to say come out sounding true. But then I grew up.

I am not here to score points, puff out my shirt, or even to “win” this stupid argument. Originally I brought the Dominium model out to the blogosphere because I was hoping that someone knowledgeable, rational, and logical could find a fatal flaw within the model. You are not the first person that I’ve crossed dialogue with—some have been far nastier than you, and some I wish I knew how to contact to have them over for dinner or out to lunch. You are starting to fall into the same pattern as the others. Just like those who truly tried to knock down the Dominium, you have ended up supplying new insight that makes the model stronger. Your contribution was to bring up penning traps thereby suggesting a concrete test of the central hypothesis from existing data. Like them, your arguments are getting thin and more and more you need to rely on rhetoric, fallacies, and verbal trickery just to hold your ground against the new model.

Let me just remind you to give you a little perspective; this is an LHC watchdog website. It is no coincidence that I am here arguing this model—one that begins at the Big Bang (where any cohesive and seamless model would be expected to start)—on this “alarmist” website. I cannot forget where this model ultimately leads…to overturn the unproven assumption of Hawking Radiation. Eight years ago I attended a CERN lecture where the creation of a mini black-hole was presented as a certainty…just a matter of time before some lucky labs wins that race. Add those facts together and you get a real motivator. You already tried to label me as “paranoid”—don’t. Honestly, I don’t even care about the Death part…long story, but I “should” have died 20 yrs ago… this is borrowed-time for me, it doesn’t matter when it ends, I’m just grateful for the 2nd chance. I don’t even care about the Death of others any more…originally, that was the biggest motivator, but I’ve come to realize that nothing I can do could change the realities of Death/Judgment for anybody else (not even the children.) Also I’ve come to realize that many people really aren’t worth saving. Now this may sound stupid, but the only thing left that continues to drive me on is it the thought of a warm pitchfork of compost. Yes, it’s strange, but true. The amount of Life all wriggling around in that one space: so innocent, so violent, so beautiful, so ancient, and so complex. If humanity were to exterminate itself in any other method, that fork full of Life would be virtually unaffected. However, if a stable black-hole were to be generated, then all those ancient beings would have a finite and “short” time left. Sure, killing all the people seems like a condemning crime, and it probably would be. But killing all Life… could anything be more Evil?

Well... we are pretty well done here.

You don't answer my points... what you do is label them . I was being polite in engaging in this exercise with you despite the fact that your theory has been destroyed in every forum I have seen you in.... and that is quite a few. Your theory has never been published nor have you ever presented any sign that anyone with any actual knowledge of science has ever taken you seriously.

I am done here. Not only have you not won this or any argument but you have lost the chance to argue it, with me at any rate. I am sure you will claim victory again.. but quite frankly, it's not worth arguing with you. Come back when you are able and willing to do so properly.

Sometimes you are not always happy to see what appears in the mirror…

We, Robdegraves and I, did have our good discussions. The best were when he brought in legitimate scientific facts, thereby inadvertently opening a door to a potential inexpensive test of the Dominium hypothesis. For that I am thankful. Soon his arguments stretched thin, so he resorted to rhetoric, but the hollow tools of spin failed under deductive reflection, alas he fled with an indignant yelp.

This makes an opening: HELP WANTED! I need someone who knows these subjects—or at least is interested in learning, or that enjoys puzzles. You don’t necessarily even need to disagree with me—just play the Devil’s-Advocate. {The ironic spins off this idiom are unbelievable.} I need someone who can challenge me. The only way to make this thread attractive to outside readership is to make it provocative and interesting. The only way to do that is to unwrap the model slowly but dynamically, so those reading it will bookmark it, tell friends, and follow along and learn so really cool things about how the Universe might actually function.

Then there is the bigger issue that makes everyone’s help all the more important: LHC. If the Dominium is correct then mini black-holes are stable. That could be a very bad thing. In 2000, I attended a lecture at CERN where the lecturer proclaimed that the creation of man’s first matter-based mini black-hole was “just a matter of time” and most likely to occur at LHC.
However, before haste and hysteria overtake you, it is important to inhale and take account of what is important. Reconnect with nature; enjoy the flavors of your meals; protect/educate the weak/young; do what you can to improve as many systems as you can; reconnect with that which facilitates spiritualism/awe in you; do Good…in other words, remember what it means to be a contributing member of Humanity. Once you’ve regrouped, then it becomes important consider taking the next step: to stand up, act up, be heard, and be proactive.

Here are some ways that anyone (even someone who agrees 100% with me) can actively help this thread: follow along; ask questions; come up with repercussions I haven’t seen; challenge me; and ask for particular clarification if something I present either doesn’t make sense or conflicts with something you’ve heard before. If you’re confused, others are probably also, so asking your question is important. If you think there is an area of science that you think one aspect of the model might be applied to, yet hasn’t been mentioned, chime in.

The goal is to make this thread as educational, fun, and interesting as possible so that people bookmark it; make links to it ***a very important action***; and email news of this thread to friends interested in the blockbuster modern questions: Big Bang, antimatter, cosmology, or of course, LHC.

No, this need not be a “staged” performance on your behalf. Think of it as a boot-camp &/or laying out tools for others. According to robdegraves, the Dominium model is getting pummeled all over the web. Remember: many reputations and egos are propped up by the various unverified theories that are now called into question. The opposition feels that it is fighting for its life (though it is the other way around.) If Dominium model truly is the answer, then there is no reason why debates are being “lost” in blogosphere. If someone bullies you about this model and you don’t know how to respond, ask and I’ll advise a solution. Both your description of the attack and my posted solution will be visible for others to use as reference.

If this Dominium model is correct and provable danger exists at LHC, the only way Dominium evidence can be applied to policy-consideration is if people other than myself can see its beauty, know its strengths, defend it from detractors, and educate it to others.

On this thread, I want to teach. I want to teach the truth based on logic and nature, and how to use that to combat spin and rhetoric. No tricks…it’s hard to say this w/out sounding like one those boastful egomaniacs that irk me…but this model does not need any slight of hand to win arguments. Deduction was its origin and deduction is its strongest defense. My father once told me that he thought “deduction was useless for science because nothing other that which you already know can ever come from a deductive analysis.” I love my Dad, but he’s wrong here. True, deduction around household pastimes proves nothing and always seems to conclude the obvious. However, for that same reason is why deduction is such a powerful toll when applied to questions that are embedded in the unknown. As long as the premises are 100% categorical then the resulting conclusions MUST be 100% categorically correct. There is no margin of error or wiggleroom for debate. Look back at the robdegraves volleys: deduction is very defensible. If anyone ever gives you grief about using the deductive method, evoke the words of the opposition’s patron saint and pin-up model, Albert Einstein (he’s Uncle Al to me):



No opponent can easily deny the man or the words. Once they agree to Einstein’s rules for deductive analysis, their theories will get buried by number of times that nature verifies the Dominium predictions, yet never supports traditional popular-bias theories. Many of the Dominium detractors are just mathematicians pretending to be scientists. Remember Einstein advise: simplicity, deduction, and Nature are the key; not exotic chalkboard scrawlings of pretty formulae. Remember also Uncle Al’s sentiments on the number of hypotheses…this is important to adhere to. Godspeed to all those that brave this battle/struggle, and I’m here if you need me.

Anyone who wishes to post probing questions about Move #2: go ahead.

Finally, in the words of President Obama, “Yes we can.”

No... I left because you are ... A. Consistently insulting B. You claim victory at every turn despite not having responded to any legitimate points. C. You ignore questions by labeling them. D. You constantly expound on how logical and brilliant you are despite being obviously wrong on some very basic logic. E. Most importantly, you won't admit when you are wrong... ever. Making this an exercise in futility.

Why don't you publish your theory for peer review?.. oh.. wait.. right.. the worldwide conspiracy to keep you from showing the truth.

Robdegraves? You’re back?

You list off non-specific grievances. If they truly were so clear, then there really is no reason for you to go, is there? But you won't stay, because you do not stand on solid ground, do you?

A: If you stayed, you might want to quote (as you love doing) my alleged insults of you. The fact is you've had the sharp tongue, not me. I even thanked you in my last post. If you were to stay you'd have to back this charge up, but you can't, so you're leaving.
B: If you stayed, you might repeat those “legitimate” points for the entire world to see and assess. But you don’t have any, so I guess this is goodbye.
C: “Ignored your questions by labeling them??” What the hell does that mean? But we’ll never know cause you’re skip’n out.
D: If you stayed, you could show how ignorant and scummy I am by pointing out all those errors I made in logic. Hmm, why haven’t you quoted or commented on logical missteps before— bye-bye
E: Won’t admit past times of breaking the rule!! Now you've gone too far!Dude, that has always been my main qualm with you!!!! I outlined how you broke the rules of deduction in at least four different instances. Yet you have acknowledged none. When/where have you ever charged something against me that I didn’t acknowledge?? No Dude, that B you. See ya, wouldn’t wanna be ya (so don’t paint me as if I were you.)

You pwned yourself with that last post

==============================================

Note to everyone else: Do not be fearful of posting onto this thread. I only filleted robdegraves because that is what he was trying to do to me. I meant what I said about mirrors in my previous post. If you come to this thread with good intentions you will be met with honor and respect from me. Up above, I am just mirroring some angry departing words, just put into context. It is funny that his list of grievances are actually offenses he, himself, committed. Oh well.

==============================================

Now is the time to move forward. Please, anyone, comment on Move #2. For convenience sake I’ll reiterate it:

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.

Well.. this got ridiculous fast. It's too bad since it's the first time you have quoted something that is scientifically interesting.




However... this stuff...



OK...










Instead of answers, you provide ridicule.




You said...



I am hearing this only from you. In this case, from my side of the fence, it's hearsay since I am hearing it only from you. You get the point... hearsay.

You also said...


No.. it's not.





The rest if pretty obvious.

Listen.. it's clear you are very invested in your theory. Note also that I didn't exactly have to line up to answer your post.

No one cares because...

A. You have not bothered to even try a proper peer review process.
B. You haven't bothered to learn real physics. (I take it that you have no formal and in depth education on the subject).
c. You alternate between denigration and self aggrandizement while always claiming victory no matter what.

It's hardly surprising that no one wants to discuss this with you.

If you want to debate it.. get off your soap box and actually learn something. You need to learn before you can teach.

Hasanuddin

Reading from earlier posts on this thread it looks like your talking about matter and antimatter gravitationally repelling each other. Intuitively, I find this idea to be genuinely credible. I can't see that there would be evidence against (or for) it as of yet. Perhaps this would imply that antimatter would have 'negative mass'. I've read that, generally, virtual antimatter is supposed to have negative mass, while real antimatter has supposedly positive mass. This has struck me as contradictory, particularly with regard to the Hawking radiation scenario.

Hawking radiation has been explained mechanistically, in terms of the ingoing (virtual??) particle of the created particle pair having negative energy/mass which subtracts from the mass in the singularity, while the real one quantum tunnels out with its positive mass. Even though my immediate concern with lhc cautiously bases itself on trusting Hawking radiation but with the very slow evaporation assessments given earlier by Casadio/Harms, then later followed with fast enough accretion to allow for extreme dangerous luminosity when the 4d domain is approached or reached.

I do question the details atleast of Hawking radiation though anyway. Particularly, the similiar 'Schwinger radiation' does involve produced pair particles if near enough to an electric charge. As far as I can interpret, in the latter case, both real particles are supposed to have positive mass and, in the case of an mbh, one of them neutralises any remaining charge in the singularity. The only way for me to more seriously accept Hawking radiation is if I can believe the incoming new real particle can have negative mass. To me, what you suggest seems by implication to even make Hawking radiation more credible.

So I'm puzzled that you oppose Hawking radiation, when you've just given me a reason to seriously believe in it!

On reflection, a few, somewhat contradictory, points

A Pair produced particle should surely have trouble reaching singularity of black hole if with negative mass (whether 'virtual' or real)..
from Newton's law:
F = m1g = (Gm1m2)/r^2
g=Gm2/r^2
if m2 is negative
g is negative.
Hence repulsion.
g applies to the other mass than m2

Notice that if m1 was also negative, both m1's having been again cancelled out, the same effect would apply.

So:
positive mass attracts positive mass. {m1 positive, m2 positive}
positive mass repels negative mass {m1 positive, m2 negative}
negative mass repels negative mass {m1 negative, m2 negative}
negative mass attracts positive mass {m1 negative, m2 positive}


This looks really weird and I don't know where this is going, but I think it works mathematically. It would have to be analogous to the idea of gravitational active (gravity generating aspect of) mass operating differently with the other mass's gravitationally passive (receptive) aspect.
.
Anyway, the particle with positive mass should surely reach singularity, effectively increasing the mass of the black hole (worse than either standard radiation or no radiation for risk) and then negative mass is emitted - whatever that would mean - partly through your gravitational repulsion and without needing quantum tunneling to take place for it.

B Pair production from a high energy gamma ray photon has presumably been closely studied. Surely there would be something to go by there in terms of the calculated net mass of the two short lived particles, going by E=mc^2. How does this work out
i) Produced pair total mass = double the mass of one particle ?
or otherwise, I suppose
ii) the question would be what happened to the energy in the gamma ray. Similarly problem where matter anti matter pair annihilates into high energy photon.

C Seems like this matter-antimatter gravitational repulsion could have something to do with dark energy.

Perhaps all this is to do with my too much reliance on opposite as opposed to differing types of mass. It may well work in the context of applying to Newton's law of gravity as above A and C - ie gravitational repulsion - but not where gravity is not taken into account - pair production/annihilation.