The Dominium model by Hasanuddin

[Hasanuddin]

Hi Rabe,

Instead of “antigravity” please use “gravitational repulsion.” The reason is simple. The term I prefer harkens to “electrostatic repulsion” not by accident. One of the beauties of this model is that upon its completion are ten different areas in which systems run by gravitational influence are supersymmetrically related from a systems-dynamics view. One of these fundamental alignments occurs here.

While we are on the subject of interrelation to electrical systems. Consider the central relationships in an electrical system:

p><q
q><p
p<>p
q<>q

Now consider central relationships of gravitational systems as proposed by the Dominium:

p<>q
q<>p
p><p
q><q

Who can miss seeing the beauty of the symmetry, simplicity, and/or the continued mirror understandings?

*Please notice that I intentionally did not use any negative signs. The reason is that there are a few bogus mathtific arguments trying to deny “gravitational repulsion” because that would lead to neg KE and mess up their equations. Besides, they forget that the negative sign was only an arbitrary convention employed by Ben Franklin to describe charges.

Going on you speak of “reaching stable superposition” – I believe this is what I was trying to describe when I spoke of the bundles being held rigidly in place in a form of crystalline type of pattern where the gravitational repulsion between neighbors assures that no annihilation events could happen (given the 3:2 ratio) within a proton, neutron, etc.

Okay, this is very cool. If this is true then forming into a proton would possess more stability than free quarks. Although that is true, I never saw why before. Thanks.

Reading on, you state that the RAB-Model has mapped out how the stresses build across the nucleus before, during, and after β-decay. Astonishing if you do! Actually something I would mind reading about.

=====
2. Wow, looking at your comparisons, using your notation of the your RAB-model I see trends that seem to point to a specific probable structural arrangement between the “3” matter and “2” antimatter subunits, radially symmetric with the three units along the equator and the two units at the poles. The three would form a ring pulling inward, while the two form tight bonds through the center of the ring. However, because of gravitational repulsion between them both, they will “forever” stabilized & stuck together like that. Beautiful! It works so well! WOW …Are you envisioning what I’m envisioning? A ring of one type of attraction with a barbell of another repulsive attraction stuck inside. The knot pulls tight and tightly achieving incredibly high stability!

Phew, I just want to take a breath and stop now. I’ve never heard of this RAB-model before, but I am actually smitten with what I’ve seen.

As for what follows, I’m not going commenting too heavily right now. Think about the shape that appears to follow using Dominium understandings. This could be a big breakthrough for both of our theories.

[Rade]

Hi Hasanuddin:

I think before we go further too much I need to read this thread in full, plus the Part 2, so that I have a better understanding of the Dominium Model.

I see no reason the ring dynamics you describe could not be a possible graphic understanding of how the matter and antimatter bags interact within the 3 matter and 2 antimatter possibilities, which end up being the matter proton [P] and matter [N]. However, I would think your ring dynamics would need to be reversed for the 3 antimatter and 2 matter possibilities, the antimatter [P^] and [N^]. Thus, the 3 antimatter subunits now in the "ring" and the 2 matter subunits within the 'barbell'. Would this be a correct understanding of the Dominion Model predictions ?

OK for me to use gravitational repulsion = antigravity, thus gravitational attraction = gravity. So, let us use these terms for the dialectic interaction gravitational repulsion <----> gravitational attraction.

I will read more about your model and post questions here.

[Hasanuddin]

Good Morning Rade,

I am so glad to have met you. Your RAD-model truly intrigues me. Honestly, I woke up thinking about the perfect stability that would be achieved by a ring/barbell dynamic. Given the different directions of push and pull the ring/barbell would become incredibly stabile—almost “forever”-stable.

You are correct in your assertion that the Dominium would predict a mirror ring/barbell configuration for antimatter. Hence would be equally stabile.

The thing I love about your RAD-model is that it takes only one true ”maverick” step—that 1 = 3-2. What results is something that very well might be the correct conclusion. The whole idea that you could have three bundles of one type and two bundles of the other to achieve a net of one—wow, I know that is the simplistic of math, but it is a brilliant spin. Actually, one of the things I like most is its simplicity because nature usually uses simple relationships. Looking over the basic underpinnings of the 3:2 arguments they appear to be without conflict or contradiction. I am really impressed. (I don’t give out complements freely.)

I agree, if our two models are so mutualistic it is prudent that we both familiarize ourselves with each other’s work. I think you will enjoy what you read posted. Sorry thread two in not yet completed. I won’t say how now, but I but I’ll be a spoiler and say that coming up in thread 2 the solar wind, thread pattern between galaxies, systemic supersymmetry between gravitational and electrical systems, increasing instability in the supermatrix of the Universe, and eventual collapse into the next Big Bang. Very cool stuff. Also, if you want to read more traditional style writing where all premises are cited in modern scientific Journal articles, go to The Dominium

The coolest thing about the new model is its streamlined beauty. I have always been fascinated with the paradoxes within scientific understanding. Intuition states that a paradox is the most likely place to expose an invalid theory. Why, because if the theory is correct there will be NO paradoxes because the theory would have accounted for all natural phenomena. Therein lies the true beauty of the Dominium model: there are no conflicts or contradictions (like your model, apparently) with any physical/experimental evidence.

As far as your work and/or the RAD-model are concerned, where can I read up? Please send me a link, journal number, or whatever.

As I do read along, don’t expect any comments on your math. That is not my talent. Excuse the fact that I’m a systems and logic person. My training can be summarized as an unbelievable string of exposure to many levels behavioral analysis and systems dynamics. Deduction is my tool of choice, not math. It’s not that I don’t like formulae, but my “equations” are the necessary deductive constructs based on categorical premises. Deduction and mathematics trace their roots back to the same period in history, but different parts of the world. In many ways they are quite similar. Deduction could be called “the mathematics of language.” Similarly, mathematics could be called “numeric deductions.” Actually, I believe that it is because I used the hewing tools of deduction that the Dominium model was able to crack the code of so many of the previously considered “anomalous” phenomena.

Thank you again for educating me of a new possible (and very impressive in its simplicity) solution—of course, three minus two “feels” like one. I also love the vying ring/barbell conjoined duo. The inherent stability to such a structure would be truly enormous. Because that dynamic is achieved using Dominium conditions, that implies synergy between models. Both theories are given a boost, by this apparent seamless linkage between models. Although the possible correctness of one model does not insure the absolute truth of the other, such a condition would go a long way in indicating the correctness of the other. Although both models appear to stand independently of each other, they stand all the more solidly connected.

Sincerely,

[Hasanuddin]

Dear Rade,

There are a couple other connections that I have identified between the Dominium and RAD models.

Well, at least one major point at which they rub: the moment in history described when the protons, neutrons, antiprotons, and antineutrons (baryons) all came into existence (baryonogenesis). Anyway, at the time of baryonogenesis proximity would have been close. This is also near the point indicated by the Dominium to be the advent of the period of Immiscibility. This moment happened so early on that the Universe was still near absolute chaos.

Okay the synergy between the two models is both subtle and strong. I’ll try to show this syllogistically

Dominium aid to RAD-model:
1. The Dominium concludes that Immiscibility occurred very early on in the Big Bang fireball
2. At this moment the matrix was near supreme disorder
3. Matter and antimatter were intermixed
4. Therefore quark bundles could form randomly three-dimensionally
5. There the creation of a relatively complex structure like a 3:2 conjoined RAD duo is quite reasonable.

At this point in the construct, Dominium assertion aid in the set scene for RAD-model structures to form.

RAD-model aid to Dominium
1. RAD-model predicts that the stable form for particles like proton is always a 3:2 ratio
2. Guth-imperfections are expected in the original heterogeneity
3. The ratio 3:2 is nowhere near as far off from 50:50 than 100:0 is.


I believe the connection here is a little bit subtler than the first. You see, the Dominium predicts that sorting of matter from antimatter is a primary driver of a system in absolute chaos. I suppose by saying it is “primary” assumes the front of the line, though the process isn’t stated. The RAD-model appears to give plausible possible steps within that process.

For example, given the fact that for each baryon produce, it masks 40% of its matrix of the other type of material. This is conveniently huge in terms of organizing towards conditions of Immisnibility. Baryonogenesis itself would mean the formation of composite structures that are both stable and immiscible within it. Because fundamental gravitational stability, i.e., sorting, is the primary driver of a system at absolute chaos, therefore it would occur very early on. Because of the tight predicted ring/barbell configuration of baryons, their creation must have occurred very early on. Do you see the two models dovetailing as I do? I may be mistaken, but they appear to be reinforcing each other.

Open Questions to consider
If RAD-model structures are correct, in regions of ultimate matter-predominance, a huge amount of the original antimatter is essentially masked, not annihilated within the structure itself, does this conflict with any other preexisting theories or observations?

If antimatter and matter both warp space-time oppositely, will the 80% that is masked ever affect instruments in a recordable fashion?

Has the 80% of masked mass ever been recorded in previous experiments, but been given an incorrect initial assessment?

[Rade]

Hasanuddin,

For the time being, we will develop the predictions of the RAB Model as we go. The details of the model were not published, only secondary papers. Like the Dominion Model, the RAB Model makes predictions not accepted by conventional physicists, thus it was very difficult for the inventor of the model to publish anything. I had a web site about the model, which is down now because the web host went out of business. So, it would be best at this time, until I get the web site running again, that you ask questions about the RAB Model, one or two at a time, and I will do my best to answer.

You asked this question.....If antimatter and matter both warp space-time oppositely, will the 80% that is masked ever affect instruments in a recordable fashion? Has the 80% of masked mass ever been recorded in previous experiments, but been given an incorrect initial assessment?.......

I think the answer is in the experiments dealing with dark matter and dark energy. These experiments predict ~ 4-5 % of universe is dark matter and ~ 74-75% is dark energy, so combined is ~ 78-80% of so-called dark matter-energy that could be considered 'masked' as predicted by the RAB-Model. The important point being is that the RAB-Model predicts all of this so-called missing mass and energy is not missing at all but within the four fundamental baryons [P], [N], [P^], [N^] that collectively can interact at the quark-gluon level, in the manner I presented previously.

As to neucleogensis, the RAB-Model has much to offer as you explain. It predicts that the process must have a start with the formation of fundamental sets of quarks (uud), (ddu), (u^u^d^), (d^d^u^), and the mesons such as (ud^), (u^d), which at this early point in time in the universe are unnamed and undefined and most likely in a form of a hot plasma. But quarks are in sets since we now know they must be so constrained, that is, so-called free quark does not exist.

I believe your Dominion Model explains this process and the subsequent neuclogenesis of how these quark sets can form stable unions--please correct me if I error here. The RAB Model is silent with respect to the dynamics of how the binding of quarks may have occurred. And here I see important connection of the two models, one (RAB) provides the structure (quark identity rules) the other (Dominion) provides the dynamics (quark interaction rules).

Now the RAB-Model predicts that the end result of this random binding process of sets of quarks (often called quark bags) resulted in six fundamental stable clusters of quark sets, three matter {(uud)(ddu)}, {(uud)(ddu)(uud)}, {(ddu)(uud)(ddu)}, and three antimatter {(u^u^d^)(d^d^u^)}, {(u^u^d^)(d^d^u^)(u^u^d^)},{(d^d^u^)(u^u^d^)(d^d^u ^)}. And, then, as I previously presented, these quark bags began a process of union that resulted in what we call baryons: proton [P], neutron [N], [P^], and [N^].

====
And, from my previous post, for clarity, here they are:

Matter Proton [P] = {(uud)(ddu)(uud)}, a 9 quark matter bag + {(u^u^d^)(d^d^u^)}, a 6 quark antimatter bag.

Matter Neutron [N] = {(ddu)(uud)(ddu)}, a 9 quark matter bag + {(d^d^u^)(u^u^d^)}, a 6 quark antimatter bag.

Antimatter Proton [P^] = {(u^u^d^)(d^d^u^)(u^u^d^)}, a 9 quark antimatter bag + {(uud)(ddu)}, a 6 quark matter bag.

Antimatter Neutron [N^] = {(d^d^u^)(u^u^d^)(d^d^u^)}, a 9 quark antimatter bag + {(ddu)(uud)}, a 6 quark matter bag.

====
Again, we must look to the Dominion Model to explain the dynamics of how these superpositions came about--the RAB-Model is silent. It would appear you have some ideas concerning interacting energy rings, which for now can be a starting point. And, as you say, both of us must look to some quantum mathematical genius to show us the field equations that predict how these quark bags would merge, matter with antimatter via combination of gravitational attraction and repulsion, to form stable union, stable baryons.

Now, let me explain another very fundamental prediction of the RAB-Model as relates to formation of stable baryons such as the proton [P]. It predicts there is not only one correct way that quark bags of matter and antimatter and unite, there are many, and the upper limit is constrained only by energy limitations. So, and I know this will sound to you very strange indeed, there are many different quantum realities of what we call the proton [P] predicted by the RAB-Model, and it is, taking the approach of Feynman, the 'sum-over-history' of all the many quantum possibilities that result in what our instruments measure as being the proton [P].

Thus we find the following probability wavefunctions = matter proton [P] according to the RAB-Model, with at this point an unknown upper limit to the number of quark bags that can be superposed:

The matter proton [P] as predicted by the RAB-Model:

= 1 {(d^d^u^)(u^u^d^)} + 1 {(uud)(ddu)(uud)} probability # 1
= 1 {(d^d^u^)(u^u^d^)(d^d^u^)} + 2 {(ddu)(uud)} probability # 2
= 4 {(d^d^u^)(u^u^d^)} +1 {(ddu)(uud)(ddu)} + 2 {(uud)(ddu)(uud)} probability # 3
= etc, etc, of the mathematical series
= (upper limit of bags allowed via energy constraint unknown at this time)

Therefore, from above, we see that the matter proton [P] is the sum-over-history of all these probabilities plus others to some unknown limit. The RAB-Model predicts great complexity for the proton, and it all derives from correct understanding of the ability of matter and antimatter quarks to form strong union, not only via the strong force, but also via gravitational attraction and gravitational repulsion. I know this must sound strange, (it sure is not how the proton is explained in the physics textbooks), but it is the prediction of the RAB-Model waiting to be experimentally falsified.

Now, perhaps the Dominion Model can supply the dynamics of this process, that is, provide the upper limit to the series number of quark bags that can be combined to form the matter proton [P] ?

Of course, all I show above for the proton [P] can be derived for all the other baryons [N], [P^], [N^] because the RAB Model is completely symmetrical for all beta stable isotopes, both matter and antimatter. There is also a quark bag selection rule that I could share if there is interest.

I will stop here to see if you or anyone else has questions or comments.

[Hasanuddin]

Good Morning Rade,

Novelty vs Ubiquity: I understand your frustration with the scientific establishment. Trust me, I know. You think your model steps on toes? The Dominium nearly crushes a few. I think the reason more scientists aren't open to new ideas is inherent human xenophobia. I heard a great program on NPR a month or so ago about “novelty,” and about how most folks absolutely loath the exposure and insecurity of trying new things. Although the individual might say, or even think, that they are open-minded. In reality, they are eating, doing, listening to, and using the same things over and over. When something extremely novel comes around, the first impulse is to dismiss it as not worth trying. So, in the initial phase, something that is truly novel begins by being ignored by society. During the next phase, some members of the pack are naturally more receptive to nontraditional actions, food, things, or music. Once one tries the novel item, the pack will watch for its reaction. Turns out, the adage, “monkey see monkey do,” is more accurate than one might have thought. The key for us both is to find those adventurous few. Hence my perennial call on these threads for the silent-readership to contact nerd, geek, and academic friends/family and tell them about the Dominium model. The importance of any individual in society varies with each action he/she takes. Within society, a scientific model should rise to the top, if and only if people know of it. The last phase of the assimilation process of a foreign/new thing, is the spreading of the practice/thought/item throughout society leading to ubiquity. That is the goal for both of the models that we advance.

Missing 80% You and I might have to share the disparities in the data that lead to the djinni assumptions of dark-matter and dark-energy—there is a lot to divvy, so I don’t think we impinge on the other’s claim. Though I can see room for decades worth of debates over the exact partitioning between the two claims. For right now, squabbling would be pointless; we must kill the djinni first. The majority favors/knows the dark energy "solution." Very few see it as a rhetorical djinni... I am glad to see that you're a skeptic also.

I believe the Dominium has more of a claim to supplant dark-matter over your RAD-model account. Reason: the mass signature was detected studying the lensing of very distant objects. Dark-matter, as I understand, was/is measured by the lensing that occurs between galaxies (where traditional rote predicts none to exist.) The Dominium does give an account that matches the "anomalous" measurements of its existence--purged opposite type materials, much of it smashed down to the black-hole phase of existence.

What the Dominium asserts is that the galaxies were like full sponges at the time that galactic boundaries were first drawn. Because of gravitational repulsion the “liquid” w/in the sponge was purged spherically outward. Because of ever-acceleration expansion, purged material most likely has never reached the closest like-typed galaxy. Also, the Dominium predicts that much of this purged material would be in the form of highly stable and nearly undetectable black-hole material.

In contrast, although the RAD-model may mask 80% of the space-time affect, that would not put any material between galaxies. Therefore, it would not produce conditions similar to what was read to be a gravitational presence of "dark-matter."

Neucleogenesis Cool, very cool. Agreed there seems to be a high degree of synergy between the two models. The first two paragraphs on this subject I am in complete agreement with you.

However, when you continue on and talk about “six fundamental stable clusters of quark sets,” I am left scratching my head a little. Here is the sequence I see you presenting:

quark ==> quark set ==> quark set cluster ==> baryon

It seems to me that you are taking an unnecessary step. Why can’t you just go:

quark ==> quark set ==> baryon

As stated in the other post, due to the near chaos of the Big Bang, quark sets would have been randomly distributed. Remember also the Dominium assertion that it was the advent of Immiscibility that caused the ring/barbell configuration to become cemented. Now there is wiggle-room in this conclusion.

One possible solution is that both paths are correct. If some baryons are made directly from quark sets, that does not preclude others from being made via quark clusters. (Actually a mixed condition sounds more statistically acceptable.) In other words, as immiscibility began to become established, both baryons and quark-set-clusters were produced.

Now, the question posed to the RAD-model by the Dominium would be a question of overcoming immiscibility. Could quark-set-clusters overcome conditions of immiscibility to form baryons? At this time, I don’t believe this is an answerable question.

Another unanswered question is, "Would collision lead to total annihilation or is it possible for partial annihilation + baryon to occur?" This would need to be tested in conditions like these can be produced in the lab.

A question from me to you is, "Has anyone every created a quark-set-cluster in the lab?" This is your area. If you have a link (if the answer is yes) I'd be very interested.

Actually, the answer to that quandary is not necessary for us to continue. The question at this juncture is a question of statistics and probability, "Which forms would be most likely to pervail and persist?" My money is on the ring/barbell conjoined duo. The equations to prove this would no doubt be complex, I cannot think of another combination that would be such a natural and stable knot.

Remember that initially, because of the randomness, density, and extreme-energy of the matrix initially, all possible combos of collisions would be expected. But this condition would be replaced by another. Because gravitational interaction would possess both attractive and repulsing conditions between members, the process of self-assembly would necessitate an entropy-dropping sorting of material in the Universe. Initially collisions would be completely random. As self-assembly continues, the types of collision would become increasingly less random. After immiscibility is established, collisions between matter and antimatter would become non-existent. Ultimately, given the millennia of probabilistic collisions and coolness of the modern Universe, only the most stable forms of matter (and antimatter) would be expected to persist.

Given the statistical rules/trends of population dynamics, the only likely scenario is based on an argument of ultimate stabilities. The ring/barbell structure would be incredibly stable and strong...I can't imagine a strong geometric knot. A cluster of the same (clusters of three or more like-typed material,) not as stable. Statistical evolution favors the most stable forms. Therefore over time only conjoined-duos remain, and the quark-set-clusters are so rare they are unimportant to the system.

Probabilities & quantum realities Earlier we mentioned β-decay. That is caused, correct me, by a transmutation of quarks within a quark set (or would it be transfer between quark sets in the RAD-model?) Anyway, my point is that under certain pressures the baryon can internally adjust to the most environmentally adjusted stability. Therefore, even though there may be a plethora of mathematical diversity, the natural state will be that which achieves the greatest degree of stability. Again, the vying ring/barbell unit would be nearly “forever” stable.

Therefore, in answer to your question about the upper limits of conglomeration of quark bags

Originally posted by Rade
Now, perhaps the Dominion Model can supply the dynamics of this process, that is, provide the upper limit to the series number of quark bags that can be combined to form the matter proton [P] ?

I ask, “Why does there need be an upper limit?” Actually, this is a serious question. The position on the continuum of most interest is not the limits, but the point of maximum equilibrium/stability. The reason the configuration of max stability is most important because that is what statistically would be persisting after many2 millenia. As mentioned, the most stabile structure would appear to be the ring/barbell, 3:2 = 5, combination. The reason why that position is most important is because statistically and over time it will prevail while other forms perish.

Symmetry: You speak my language. The fact that the RAD-model is completely symmetric is a huge bonus in my book. The Dominium’s finest achievement is showing absolute symmetry between electric and gravitation forces.

[Eric]

I've communicated with you Hasanuddin on another forum, hello again.

Would you expect positrons from Dominium galaxies to emit photons as electrons do? I'm left with the question of whether we should be able to see/ detect antimatter galaxies from here. Then there is the question of whether we would be able to know. As we can observe galaxies beyond them, light wouldn't seem to be significantly gravitationally deflectable. Regarding cosmic rays I've seen arguments that cosmic ray detectors may not be adjusted to register atleast some of any antimatter cosmic rays. On the other hand, I don't think its clear that atleast high energy cosmic rays could be gravitationally captured by intervening antimatter galaxies. For cosmic rays above 5 x 10^19eV energy, deflections of around only 5degrees are expected by the much stronger interstellar magnetic fields.

[Hasanuddin]

Hi again Eric,

Good to hear from you. This is a much better forum than the one we met at. The caliber of folks here is very high.

Let me try to answer your questions:

”Would you expect positrons from Dominium galaxies to emit photons as electrons do?”

Yes, in every way, just the mirror operation. So then as to detecting light from antimatter galaxies, yes, we would be able to detect that light. The most perplexing question is, “Would we be able to differentiate light from an antimatter source from a matter source?” Unfortunately, the answer to that question is “No, because photon are the antiparticle of themselves, also because of perfect mirror symmetries between the dynamics of matter vs. antimatter the spectral signature of all antiatoms is expected to be exactly the same as for their mirror matter counterpart.

As far as cosmic rays are concerned, I don’t see the relationship you’re trying to draw or how it relates to the new model.

[Eric]

If you look at this you will see a suggestion of the sources for the highest energy cosmic rays arxiv:0711.2256. The cosmic ray expected range is thought to be about 75megaparsecs, so can reach into the next superclusters. I would assume that antimatter galaxies would emit antimatter cosmic rays as matter galaxys' emit matter cosmic rays.

For the cosmic rays considered in the paper deflection is only around 5degrees even from interstellar magnetic fields. Presumably antimatter gravity wouldn't be able to restrict antimatter cosmic rays through gravitational capture otherwise we would predict that cosmic rays from adjacent superclusters would be gravitationally captured in the same way - so wouldn't reach us.

I'm not arguing that non detection/identification of antimatter cosmic rays disvalidates Dominium, I don't know think it necessarily presents a difficulty. I don't know though whether we should have been able to detect any approaching antimatter cosmic rays with available methods. I've forgotten the source unfortunately - but I did read that new methods for such detection have been recently considered. I'll see if I can find it.

If some should have been identified with Dominium, there might anyway be an issue of likelihood of such collisions here depending on whether the sources are near enough or not blocked by dark nebulae eg like the very extensive 'lane' all around the Milky Way hub. Then there's the blotchy pattern of the Sachs Wolfe effect and how photons lose more energy from the interpreted domains of primordial dark energy. But these areas where photons have been relatively slightly gravitationally redshifted (losing energy through lowered frequency) are described as having become voids. The microwave background radiation domains I think are supposed to correlate with these. Then CMB and Sachs Wolfe have been correlated together with galaxy superclusters and with the intervening voids but I would doubt how accurate that claim is.

According to your argument though, we should be able to observe antimatter superclusters emerging from these supposed post primordial dark energy domains. That seems a bit of a shame as these 'voids' were looking like good potential antimatter domain candidates. I could just only guess that maybe photon travel gets limited by distance more when it traverses through alternate matter antimatter domains, a little like as suggested for the cosmic ray 75megaparsec limit before interference with CMB hastens decay (I've no idea how that would be either). But that looks pretty sketchy. I earlier had another idea about this, but on reflection I don't think it helps.

Maybe there's actually a better way to deal with non antimatter CR detection (if a problem) and the CMB supercluster/void correlations. The 'local' 'Great Attractor' is a colossul Supercluster cluster that we move towards. It is much larger than our own Supercluster. So perhaps there's a way these earlier dark energy domains morphed into larger 'Attractors' whilst with the more high dark energy/gravitational repulsive strength becoming less/non detectable through enough expansion of the universe.

But I'm seeing now that this Sachs Wolfe related argument anyway is likely to differ from your light attracted to antimatter view. So let me ask something about that. You say that light is the antiparticle of itself. But why should light not be deflected by antimatter in the same way as matter would be, anymore than light should be attracted to antimatter. I don't really see how you can guarantee the motion of light with respect to antimatter from your basic pattern. Wouldn't there be more symmetry in a sense if light is deflected by antimatter:

matter >< matter
matter <> antimatter
antimatter >< antimatter

then..

light > matter
light > antimatter
or
light > matter
light < antimatter

Anyway. Such distances would make cosmic rays from such sort of 'Attractor' antimatter domains more inaccessible. For that matter, distances beyond even our supercluster would make intergalactic travel to antimatter planets much more difficult (assuming we make it past an lhc operation (apologies)). But landing on an antimatter planet wouldn't be too enjoyable!

nb I'm afraid to tell you my sources for most of this are wikipedia.

[Rade]

Hi Hasanuddin:

You asked a few questions about the RAB-Model, here are some thoughts I have:

1.-question:
In contrast, although the RAD-model may mask 80% of the space-time affect, that would not put any material between galaxies. Therefore, it would not produce conditions similar to what was read to be a gravitational presence of "dark-matter."
1.-answer:
I would suggest as a hypothesis that the RAB-Model predicts the material between galaxies is very high energy protons [P], moving at relativistic speed. Such particles have been observed, please see this link, where it is specifically stated that proton [P] are believed to be such particles.
Ultra-high-energy cosmic ray - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Thus, given that the RAB-Model predicts hidden antimatter within the [P], and if there are in fact many such high energy particles between galaxies, then the RAB-Model is in complete agreement with observation--the so-called 'dark-matter' between galaxies (as well as within) are predicted by the RAB-Model to be associated with baryons such as [P]---and recall, the RAB-Model also predicts dark-matter within neutrons [N], to complete the symmetry requirement.

2.-question:
Now, the question posed to the RAD-model by the Dominium would be a question of overcoming immiscibility. Could quark-set-clusters overcome conditions of immiscibility to form baryons? At this time, I don’t believe this is an answerable question.
2.-answer:
The RAB-Model does not make a distinction between 'quark-cluster sets' and 'baryons', they are one and the same--that is, what we call a baryon at the macroscopic level of the nucleon is nothing more than a matter-antimatter stable quantum superposition of quark-cluster sets united by the strong force and gravitivational attraction-repulsion force (at the quantum scale of distance between matter entities).

3.-question:
Another unanswered question is, "Would collision lead to total annihilation or is it possible for partial annihilation + baryon to occur?" This would need to be tested in conditions like these can be produced in the lab.
3.-answer:
The RAB-Model predicts yet another outcome, different from the two options you provide. The RAB-Model predicts that the superposition of matter and antimatter in the proton [P] can lead to (1) baryon formation--what in our measurements we call the "valence quarks" and (2) a hidden matter-antimatter quantum superposition--what in our measurements we call the "sea quarks". The current Standard Model does not accept such a proposition as being possible, thus, if the RAB-Model is correct, the Standard Model is at best "incomplete"--it would need to be modified to allow for the possibility of stable superposition of matter and antimatter quarks bound by a combination of the strong force and gravitational attraction and repulsion (which then is where the RAB-Model and Dominion Model show strong agreement). Well, at least this is how I see the two models interact--please let me know if I error.

4.-question:
I ask, “Why does there need be an upper limit?” Actually, this is a serious question. The position on the continuum of most interest is not the limits, but the point of maximum equilibrium/stability.
4.-answer:
Well, this is an important concept, and I think the RAB-Model answer is that there are multiple points of equally maximum equilibrium/stability along the continuum (not just one), that is, there are many, many ways for quark sets of matter and antimatter to form beta-stable isotopes, and each "way" has exactly the same stability (but not the same probability of existence). The RAB-Model does recognize that there is an upper limit to how many quark-sets can be united to form a baryon, and it may be possible that each isotope has its own unique number. This is an aspect of the RAB-Model that is unknown at this time. There is experimental evidence for some isotopes of distinct quark-set structures to form multiple beta-stability entities (good example is 3-Lithium-6). The RAB-Model predicts completely all experimentally observed stable cluster structures of 3-Lithium-6. Perhaps this could become a model isotope for future discussion to see how RAB-Model and Dominion Model relate ? Let me know if you have interest in such effort.

Please let me know if I missed any important questions or if you now have others. From what I have read about the Dominion Model is that it is completely in agreement with the RAB-Model, just two different ways to look at the same problem. RAB-Model deals with "structure", Dominion Model deals with 'function". The dialectic of the two provides understanding of baryons and quarks in a new physics manner that differs from the Standard Model.