Hi Modest,
First let me emphatically state that I agree with your philosophy regarding forums such as these. The goal is not to “win” an argument, but to reach a better understanding of the truths of the natural world. This is not the place for ego, bias, competition, or mob-mentality. What we are discussing are issues; there is no bearing on either of us as individuals. Personally I enjoy debating ideas, because it has always helped be grow as an individual and in my own understandings of scientific truths. With respect to the Dominium, in the past, although some detractors did break the rules you just set forward (i.e., all they hoped for was to trash the new hypothesis thereby support their bias toward standard theory) inadvertently, five of these folks ultimately caused five new lines of tangential/direct evidentiary support favoring the new model to be identified. If we can stay focused and keep emotions out, this is the ideal forum for transparent review of new ideas--which is even more thorough than traditional closed-door peer review.
Okay, now let’s talk issues. The first assertion you make is that the Dominium is not a “model.” However, I feel like you are being unfairly premature in making this assessment, I have only made five moves on this thread. Also, your criticism goes on to mention that had I gone on to make comparisons to ionic solids, then I would be starting a model. Well, in the published book-version of the Dominium, that is actually one of the next implications that would have been discussed. This convergent conclusion between the original deductive Dominium analysis and the Ripalda paper was one of the biggest things that excited me so much yesterday.
Now, I believe there is a little bit of a disagreement between you and I concerning what constitutes a “model.” According to my version of Webster’s New World Dictionary a “model” is:
a) A small representation of a planned or existing object
b) A hypothetical representation or description
Definition “b” is most appropriate, agreed? At this early point you are correct that I have not given a complete model, but how can you argue that I have not given representation or description? Please review Move 4. Not only does that move describe one aspect of the Dominium model, but also it does so by augmenting Einstein’s well-known checkerboard graphic model.
Because you appear to ignore these presented attributes of a model, I dug a little into your words to find your intent and am alerted by the following phrases. When describing what you consider a good model, you say that it
Quote:
|
goes on to give all formulas necessary to calculate
|
And when faulting the current Dominium
“hypothetical representations or descriptions” you say
Quote:
|
I don’t see the laws of physics being used
|
Combining your two assertions, I need to wonder out-loud whether you are among those who feel that in order to discuss physics that it must be done formulaically or not at all. If that is your bias, please refer to the post that I made to
Suggestions & Wish List board:
http://hypography.com/forums/suggest...tml#post258965 Honestly, I do not fault you for having such a bias; it is a viewpoint quite widespread throughout the physics community. Regardless of its pervasiveness, that does not justify its correctness or reason for holding on to it.
In defense of the deductive method, let me take a few moments and describe my understanding of the history of science leading up to where we are today. Step one is the acquisition of facts, truths, and observations of the natural world. This step began millennia ago, and begins anew within each individual as they come into awareness. The next steps involve the formation of models. I’ll skip the individual’s perspective and step right to the formal societal steps in manifesting the formalized scientific disciplines. To describe this it is easiest using the analogy of a sculptor. The acquisition of phenomenological facts is analogous to the quarrying of the raw slab. The deductive method is synonymous to the sledgehammer that whacks away large chunks of uncertainty and yields the raw shape. Formulaic applications are akin to the fine tools that yield the exacting details and final beauty. For most mature disciplines, the sledgehammer has already been utilized, therefore it appears to be of little use and has gathered dust in the tool room. Cosmology and particle physics are very different from mature and classic disciplines, like Chemistry, because the phenomenological data is newly acquired and surrounded with uncertainty. For example, PAMELA has just reported that positrons are primary cosmic ray particles with energies as high as 2 TeV—that is a brand new phenomenological fact unlike anything observed (or even speculated before) and just released last month. Because of the newness of the data/understandings of the bulk of cosmologic data, the deductive process has not yet been applied (to my knowledge) before the little game/exercise that yielded the Dominium model. True, the sledgehammer of formal deduction has not been overtly “useful” for many decades, but that does not diminish the value of its function. The reason why formulaic attempts have been so unsuccessful accounting for “all” the data w/out anomaly, is because these fine-tools have been applied while there is still too much bulk uncertainty clinging/hiding the actual form of the system being analyzed. I have maintained throughout that if the Dominium were correct, then a formulaic proof would necessarily be forthcoming. The Ripalda paper is evidence of the soundness of that conclusion.
Now, onto real issues:
You first seem to assert that a model cannot be formed on the idea of gravitational repulsion because there is no direct measurement of matter and antimatter gravitational interaction. However, the same logic you use to discredit the Dominium also discredits all popular-bias models based on the notion of “universal attraction,” where, in fact, no direct observation of matter and antimatter gravitationally attracting exists. Sorry, but this reasoning commits the formal fallacy of
Argumentum ad Ignorantiam. No evidence actually implies a split in the road of possibilities. A model based on either assumption is equally as valid. For this reason I have applied the same analysis to both possible roads. Look back at the posted moves: gravitational-repulsion has consistently yielded matches to nature, while “universal-attraction” as achieved polar opposite mismatches.
Then you state that the Dominium cannot be formed because there is no evidence of any significant concentrations of antimatter in the observable universe. First, I hope you realize that such a statement is untrue and neglects the antimatter cloud surrounding the galactic center of our, and other observed, galaxies. Ignoring that verified data, your statement possesses the implied conclusion:
Therefore antimatter exists nowhere in the Universe. This conclusion commits the informal fallacy of
Composition: essentially concluding the status of the whole based on an extremely limited sample. Human direct sampling of Universe is extremely puny and limited to our measly solar system. You are also neglecting that I have supplied a mechanism explaining the lack of such data: immiscible equilibrium between matter and antimatter, which effectively prevents any large-scale annihilation events ever happening between materials of adjacent galaxies.
In the last paragraph I mentioned that you neglected the cloud of antimatter at the galactic center. Later in your response it becomes clear that the reason for this is that you are unaware of this verified structure/phenomenon.
NASA - Satellite Explains Giant Cloud of Antimatter
ESA - Space Science - Integral discovers the galaxy?s antimatter cloud is lopsided
Please don’t misread me, I am not being condescending; the actual existence of this cloud is something that I also just learned about myself. However, you will eventually see in Move 8 the existence of such a cloud is categorically deduced. I was actually floored last month to find verification of the cloud’s existence, because I had long considered “Move 8” the weakest and most speculative portion of the overall model published Jan 2008. NASA & ESA only publicly released their assessments Jan 2009. Because this blind prediction did turn out to be correct, it substantially supports the strength of the entire model.
You bring up facts about the galactic center that I agree with. However, those portions of the model have not yet been posted. There’s a lot on the table to digest as it is, so (no disrespect) I am going to wait on addressing those issues until we come to them.
