Science Forums 2

[Hasanuddin]

Hi Modest,

What constitutes an appropriate model? You gave some interesting historical references. And then you boiled it down yourself by saying

Then use physics and logic to develop the idea into a model or theory which makes predictions. Then test the predictions with observation and experiment thereby confirming or falsifying the hypothesis.

I must ask you directly, “Is that not exactly what just recently occurred with the deductive prediction of a large mass of antimatter surrounding the supermassive black-hole at the galactic center, which was then later categorically confirmed in existence by the Integral ESA satellite?”

Sir, by your own definition, the Dominium has already completed the most important task in being a model: making a blind prediction which is later confirmed through experiment.

The fact that folks over at ESA conducted the experiments, does not negate the predictive application and validation of the model. Similarly, the fact that Ripalda used General Relativity, and not myself, to arrive at convergent conclusions to the Dominium model does that meet your stated need for the eventual application of mathematical supports?

Perhaps I am misreading your position, but it appears as if you are stating that I must provide a complete model of the Universe with all the mathematical equations and all the experimentation conducted, in advance of being worthy for consideration. If that is your position, then I feel that it is unfair. Science is not something that is done in total isolation. Like all new models that have ever been (successfully) advanced, if this model is more correct than current understandings, then there will be plenty of work for many folks to do to fill in the blanks.

Besides ignoring my blind prediction and subsequent ESA verification, there are a number of other points made in the last post that you disregarded in your reply. Probably the largest omission has to do with Einstein’s checkerboard model of space-time and the Dominium’s subsequent augmentation of it. Is that non-numerical and well-known representation and description of Einstein’s notion of space-time a model, or not? If it is not a model, please explain why? If you feel that it is a model, then please explain why that could be so and the Dominium not be one.

Speaking of, let us remember a very wise directive from that man:

“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)

Nowhere in this directive does Einstein say that the process need be numeric. In fact, by stating that logical deduction is the ultimate tool he is specifying that the process be qualitative. But then again, numeric data is just qualitative representation of grand overarching relationships, isn’t it? Nowhere does he state that it need be predictive; rather the goal he states is descriptive. Yes, you could argue that predictions are forms of descriptiveness—in that I would agree—but it is just one form of description (and one that the Dominium has already accomplished.) Notice however, that Einstein stresses that the “greatest number of empirical facts” is the goal of the descriptive process. Status quo theories are filled with evidentiary anomalies that are essentially ignored, in favor of formulaic proofs that seem to answer one or two questions at a time. That is not the case with the Dominium model. This model eventually covers all of the evidentiary anomalies. So far, we’ve already covered one (the apparent lack of large quantities of antimatter in the visible Universe given equal creation) and the others will follow.

One clarification that needs to be made: there are not two “postulates” being advanced--only one. Currently I have introduced one, and one only, hypothetical premise for consideration: the notion of gravitational repulsion. The prediction that the visible universe is made up of alternating regions of matter vs. antimatter was a necessary conclusion resulting from that one hypothetical premise and other established categorical conclusions. Please refer back.

The end of your post becomes rather mean. May I make a request: please refrain from using “smileys” they are distracting and have the appearance of being mocking. Come on, by you saying

It has been known since before I was born that antimatter annihilation emitted gamma rays near the center of the galaxy...

is just condescending and mean. There are things that you know and I don't, and vice versa. I was actually trying to be nice to you at that point, because on post #18 you said

Am I to understand that the black hole at our galaxy's core is made of antimatter?

But never had I made such a claim. Actually, I had only mentioned the antimatter cloud surrounding the supermassive black-hole at the galactic center. Remember also that I was referring to the antimatter cloud in response to your words in post #18 saying,

There's also no experimental or observational evidence that there are any significant concentrations of antimatter in the observable universe.

Yet now you appear to mock me for bringing it up. Based on your words and the newness of the astonishing ESA/NASA accomplishment, bringing it up seemed appropriate. But if you were so familiar with this giant antimatter concentration, why would you have made such a statement in the first place? Personally, I feel that that it is a sign of strength, not weakness, to be aware of the things that you do not know for certain. I meant no offense against you. So what if I just found out about its existence after the NASA/ESA news releases? I apologize that I assumed that this knowledge was new to you as well… it sure seemed that way because the graphic of the center of the Universe that you inserted showing no indication of the placement of the antimatter cloud. I wouldn’t fault you for learning something new; that is a personal, yet often unachievable, daily goal that I wish upon myself. Also, the fact that I just learned about the antimatter cloud does not diminish the fact that the model deductively predicted its existence in the absence of personal knowledge of it.

I wholeheartedly agree with your words in an introductory post

First: People critiquing your idea would need to give honest and knowledgeable feedback which would include looking at your idea on its merits rather than trying to debate your idea as a means of supporting standard theory. Second: You would need to be receptive to feedback. Valid objections raised to your idea would have to be seen as possible problems or shortcomings of your idea and would need to be addressed from that standpoint. Any and all negative feedback can’t be dismissed as current scientific dogma protecting itself.

I would also add that we both need to put our emotions aside. I am not trying to attack you. Nor do I see us as combatants. However, I feel that there are times in the last post that you are getting personal (especially the areas mined with smileys.) Let's focus on the deduction and the science, please. Are the premises categorical? Do the conclusions necessarily follow from the premises provided? Is there a different conclusion that could come from a certain set of premises? Do the conclusions necessarily match nature or are they a mismatch? To match nature, what further assumptions would be necessary?

One more thing I would like to request: When you bring up a challenge, please don’t assert it as self-evident. The name of the game on this thread is deduction and an analysis beginning with the fundamentals. That means evidence, categorical premises, and necessary conclusions. You cannot simply bring up an incompatible model and present it as fact in and of itself as evidence against the Dominium. For example, you bring up the Friedmann/Lemaitre model as if were a solid premise by itself—it is not. You use the word "simple" to describe it, but you give nothing other than your opinion and tradition as proof. As a model, it necessarily has its own premises and conclusions. If you wish to bring up alternate explanations (even the popular/traditional variety) then please start with their fundamental premises. How many hypotheses or axioms are needed? Are they categorical? And do the conclusions drawn necessarily follow. We are dealing with one of the most fundamental questions possible. Therefore, our discussions need to begin at the fundamental level. If the status quo options you prefer better describe truth, then this minor request I am making will actually streamline our discussions and show that truth most quickly. Conversely, if you cannot break it down into its primary assumptions and conclusions, then maybe its not as simple as previously assumed.