The Dominium model by Hasanuddin

[Hasanuddin]

MOVE 2:

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 gravitational repulsion (GR) discourages annihilation, or the popular-bias "universal attraction" (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.

[Hasanuddin]

Move number 3-three.

Using the Hubble space telescope we can observe far back into the cosmologic record. However, we cannot see the first hundred thousand years or so of the development of the Universe. We could not “see” the galaxies until particles reached the magic temperature of 3000ºK. Only at this temperature can protons and electrons combine and form hydrogen, and release the first photons of light. However, one starling observation is that, except for a very small number of exceptions, galaxies tend to accelerate away from each other. In other words, the process of galaxy building seemed to cease after a certain time period, but before the advent of the first visible light.

Which test hypothesis possesses paths that lead to conclusions that match this natural observation? Again, for the third time, the notion of gravitational repulsion produces conclusions closest to nature:

Test of the Dominium premise (gravitational repulsion between matter and antimatter
As already established, gravitational repulsion between matter and antimatter will deter and discourage annihilation events. As the repulsion process continues to segregate regions of matter from regions of antimatter, gravitational attraction w/in each region will cause like-type particles to aggregate. As these clumps grow they will function as point sources of gravitational interaction—imposing attraction vectors on like-type neighbors and repulsion vectors on opposite type ones. Such a system is extremely similar to highly mixed mixtures employed by nanotechnologists that predictably go through the process of self-assembly—a natural phenomenon where highly chaotic systems naturally move to a more ordered configuration to achieve stability. Using atomic/nano self-assemblage as a predictive model on would expect a type of patterned positioning similar to that, which has been produced in the lab. One such configuration involves alternate positioning as is seen in ionic crystals. Such a configuration necessitates a system that has a huge degree of order in terms of the distribution, size, and positioning or its components. Therefore, when applied to the developing Universe one could conclude that every other galaxy is made of antimatter. Furthermore, because all of the closest neighboring galaxies are predicted to be of opposite-type, therefore there would be a continuous (yet decreasing over time) force of repulsion and subsequent acceleration apart.

Check to Nature: Triple match
1st: It almost goes without saying that the Earth is an all-matter object in what appears to be an all-matter galaxy
2nd: The observed Universe is incredibly evenly distributed, exactly like a system that was self-assembled
3rd: Verifiable observation of the expansion of the Universe shows that the rate of expansion is a continuous, yet decreasing, positive acceleration

Test of the popular-bias assumption of universal attraction
What about universal attraction? How would that have effected development? The first major difference is that one would not expect the basic boundaries of the Universe to be defined. Annihilation events would be a random and continuous occurrence (the mismatch mentioned in Move #2.) With no boundary mechanism, no counter-balance of forces to initiate self-assembly, and a supposed asymmetry of decay, the distribution of mass should not be uniform. If all galaxies are attractive of one another, then what would prevents random super-giants or dwarfs forming?…nothing. Therefore, asymmetry in the distribution of mass is expected. Also, if all galaxies experience attraction with their closest neighbor, then some areas of the Universe should be in a state of collapse

Check to Nature: Triple Mismatch
1st: No annihilation events appear in the visible record. No antimatter appears to exist in our solar system.
2nd: Given statistical randomness, no areas of the Universe possessing any mega-mega galaxies. Rather the most amazing aspect about observations of mass distribution throughout the Universe is the uncanny amount of evenness.
3rd: No areas of the Universe appear to be contracting

On three levels the predictions of a system where gravitational repulsion exists between matter and antimatter is matched. Those same natural observations are in contradiction to what one would expect under popular-bias conditions of universal attraction.

PS To all those viewing: Debate is welcome at any time. If I use a premise that does not seem categorical or if I make a conclusion that does not seem to necessarily follow, please stop me and call me on it. I will be happy to clarify any confusion that arise.

[Hasanuddin]

Although no-one has bothered to challenge the assertions of the Dominium model since the original launch of this thread, I am glad that the counter showing the number of views steadily rises. What this tells me is that folks are interested in the topics being presented on this thread, but they choose to passively read, assess, and hold judgment until they’ve digested the ramifications of this new model more thoroughly. Such a reaction would be completely understandable. Perhaps this next move will draw comments (because it is not part of the deductive flow, but is more connected to a very familiar graphic descriptive tool used by Einstein… only slighty augmented to fit the Dominium premise of gravitational repulsion.) By the way, if you are reading this, even if you don’t have anything to comment on, please tell others about what is being disclosed here and now.

Move #4
Einstein’s Graphic: the Checkerboard of Space-time
At this point let me pause, and change gears a little. I want to tell you a little vignette. The following is from a different game, not Deduction. Rather, this is a scientific role-playing game. The idea is that you take some other scientist’s model, metaphor, analogy, etc, and then try to meld it into your own application. Kind’a like a Borg assimilation (sorry I’m showing my age.) This Compatibility analysis will be between the Einstein’s checkerboard of space-time and its fit into Dominium implications.

The checkerboard graphic is so wellknown; it is almost cliché. Objects composed of matter cause the fabric of space-time to “buckle” under their gravitational presence. Gravitational attraction is shown like two cannonballs on a stretched sheet always coming together. For the Dominium model, this graphic becomes “perfect” with one minor alteration. For the sake of argument, antimatter causes space-time to buckle-up, rather than buckle-down. Just as in the cannonball demo, two buckle-up antiparticles would feel gravitational attraction among other antiparticles. Also consider placing a buckle-up next to a buckle down. Would there be an attraction?… no, quite the opposite, the most likely force given this configuration would be a repulsion. Also, using this graphic you can imagine how annihilation might occur. Consider it, a buckle up distorting particle occupying the same space as a buckle down particle. Unless space can tear, two particles could not exist simultaneously trying to warp space-time in opposite manners. Einstein’s graphic description of space-time being like a checkerboard fabric meshed perfectly with the Dominium model projections. With one minor “addition” (antimatter considered to exert a buckle-up effect,) this new understanding can now graphically shown gravitational repulsion AND graphically gives window into the reasoning behind annihilation events.

Einstein originally described this graphic as a sheet stretched tight with two cannonballs placed on it. No matter where the two are placed, they always roll together: hence, a description of like particles gravitationally attracting one another. Now consider one cannonball on the stretched sheet and someone crawls under the sheet and pokes a broom handle from below up into the sheet; no matter where this would be done, the cannonball would roll away.

The broom and cannonball cannot occupy the same place at the same time without tearing the sheet. Hence, annihilation.

Another answer that comes from the new&improved checkerboard graphic is an explanation for the flatness of both space-time and mass distribution. Consider this graphic on a much larger scale, where the particles under analysis are individual galaxies. The Dominium predicts self-assembly and therefore alternating galaxies, matter neighboring antimatter and antimatter neighboring matter, and so on, but not mixing. Consider that picture. Alternating galaxies, one buckle-up next to buckle down out infinitely in all directions. Because of the alternative pattern, roughly, if not exactly, half would be comprised of matter and half antimatter. Also, the degree of warp would appear to be even. Hence, measurements from a place like Earth would show uniformity in mass distribution and a flat event horizon.

[buddyzen]

In my opinion i think that Alexander would be best at answering to this post =)

[modest]

Hello Hasanuddin, this really is a fascinating subject. I've sometimes wondered just what General Relativity expects of antimatter. If we take a feynman diagram rather literally and say that an antiparticle is a normal particle moving backwards in time then perhaps this has some analog in general relativity.

There are physicists who have theorized along those lines and they have proposed some of the same things you are proposing such as cosmic acceleration and flatness resulting from an abundance of antimatter. Here are a couple good papers I've seen on the topic:

• http://www.citebase.org/fulltext?for...r-qc%2F9906012
• http://arxiv.org/ftp/gr-qc/papers/9906/9906012.pdf
• http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/arxiv/pdf/...804.4199v1.pdf

I've read your comments in this thread, but nothing else about your model. I'm wondering how it compares to the papers above. I'm also curious what your thinking is on the topic of neutrinos detected from the 1987 supernova. Many would take that observation as strong evidence for the equivalence of matter / antimatter gravitational attraction. Would you suggest that all of the detections were either neutrinos or antineutrinos, or some other explanation?

In any case, welcome to the forum and thanks for some very interesting reading.

~modest

[Hasanuddin]

Dear Modest,

Your screen-name couldn’t be any more appropriate. I must admit that I am literally “blown away” by the links you provided, esp. the first. (Sorry about the slang but whenever my emotions are stirred I seem to revert to the surfer lingo of my youth.) I must say, I have never seen any of these papers before. The 1st Ripalda paper especially excites me. Up until today, I have tried very hard to hold off from giving an absolute assessment concerning General Relativity, string theory, or a number of other applications. The reason is simple, if the Dominium model is correct, then some preexisting models will be necessarily incorrect, depending on whether or not they rely on a cornerstone of “universal attraction.”

There is also another reason that I hold my tongue: because I realize my own ignorance in those fields. My strength and training come from analyzing complex and poorly understood systems. The methodology used to construct the Dominium model is the ancient (though just as good now as it was centuries ago) syllogistic deductive method. Although the deductive method was applied to all aspects of nature early on, until recently has there been enough verifiable data to be able to formulate categorical premises accurately. Also, I believe very strongly that the wisest of people are those who know where they are ignorant; and the greatest of scientists are those who know what is verified by evidence and what is only propped up with assumption. I try very hard to reserve judgment when I do not yet possess the tools to judge.

I have also held my tongue about General Relativity because I “know” that if the Dominium is correct then necessarily there will be a way to prove its conclusions mathematically… so long as the math is conducted correctly. Honestly, I was hoping that either General Relativity, or some other application of math, would come along and confirm the Dominium predictions/conclusions.

I can’t tell you how delighted I am to have read your post and then read those papers. No, I’m not saying that those papers are necessarily correct; but it warms my heart that someone else reached the same conclusions using completely different methodology. It is easily the best news I have read in ages. I could tell this was a darn good forum after reading the first comments!

As far as Supernova 1987 is concerned, I know of that event quite well. It was one of the first places that people strongly considered gravitational repulsion. However, folks entrenched in theories based on “universal attraction” jumped on that topic and published papers slamming the idea. Their main methodology was an oversimplified proof, where the entire Universe was ignored (except our solar system.) In this oversimplified view, they calculated that the separation would be “months” apart rather than the recorded 12 sec. The problem with this reasoning is that the calculation could have been wrong simply because of the oversimplified conditions considered, but not because gravitational repulsion is incorrect. Besides, nothing in any of the papers published to diminish the importance of Supernova 1987 can diminish the actual statistical significance of a 12 sec gap between peaks of neutrinos vs antineutrinos. To be all honest, knowledge of Supernova 1987 was one of the first evidentiary “anomalies” that made me consider alternate possibilities, like gravitational repulsion.

(PS: You say that you haven’t read the book, The Dominium, I published on this model… good, I guess. I must admit, had I not been in such a rush and had a chance to write it again I would have toned it down. The science, I wouldn’t have changed, but I wouldn’t have highlighted the potential dangers implicated by the new model as nearly as strongly as I did. You might enjoy the papers at The Dominium & stay tuned there’s at least 12 more moves to reach a complete and comprehensive model of the past, present, and future Universe… that is, if the deductive steps used are sound.)

[Hasanuddin]

Thank you again Modest, in gratitude I will move on

Move 5
As already mentioned, the observed dynamic of the Universe is semi-static state, therefore suggesting equilibrium. The notion of stability on Earth is engrained in our language, “solid as a rock,” “terra-firma,” “bedrock,” etc. The idea that the particles that now make up the Earth once joined-in as part of that Big Bang seems quite distant. Yet they had to be players … but think of the conditions that they MUST have come from! Initially it would have been impossible for them to have clump together because they were formed completely randomly. During these times, none of the particles in existence were “secure.” All particles ran the risk of slamming into its antiparticle, therefore flashing out of existence. Compare those conditions that necessarily existed to those at hold today. The Dominium asserts that the boundary between these two periods was an equilibrium that involved a self-sorting of particles into clumps. Self-assembly is a well-studied principle where a system naturally chooses to move from a state of chaos to a more patterned and ordered condition. Nanotechnologists use the predictable aspects of self-assembly as a key driver in their engineering exploration.

If proto-galaxy clusters (referred to as dominia) can be considered to be individual particles, then the game becomes very interesting. If every dominium where considered to be either matter-dominant or antimatter-dominant, then the assembled matrix of dominial-particles would be exerting dueling attractive and repulsive forces against and between neighbors. Initial orientation of objects would have been completely random. As a direct result some of the vectors between neighbors would be especially strong, while some would be weak. During this stage of development like-type dominial neighbors would quickly merge. However, this growth stage was short-lived because of the subsequent/similar growth of neighboring opposite-typed dominia, between which there is a continual state of repulsion. Eventually all of the dominia become walled-off by opposite-typed neighbors, and the growth phase is over. (this was est Moves 1-3) There is no reason to believe that speed of and duration of growth would differ between dominia. Therefore, one can conclude with high certainty that boundary formation occurred near simultaneously around the Universe.

From the visible cosmologic record, the Universe already was in the early stages of an established equilibrium. Therefore, the division of matter from antimatter must have occurred before the advent of light. From now on, for the purpose of this thread, that moment, when the boundaries between matter and antimatter are first established, shall be called the “Dark Event.” The reason for the special name is because more than just the boundaries of immiscibility become established, but some necessarily profound events deductively must have occurred once those boundaries were established.

First, remember that we are considering a three-dimensional matrix of particles, at the earliest moments complete randomness. Then self-assembly begins causing particles to clump. In many respects the self-assemblage process is very similar to watching a highly shaken bottle of shampoo to reorganize itself. Although the boundary between gaseous air and liquid shampoo is defined very early on, the process begins with air underrepresented and trapped within the liquid shampoo, correct? For the sake of this illustration, we are going to assume that another exact condition could occur where trapped and underrepresented drops of liquid shampoo are suspended in gaseous air. These are the conditions of the protogalaxies/dominia at this earliest stage of development.

Let’s just do a deductive reality check between our two test hypotheses. Ok, if in the randomness areas of predominantly matter is established, though there still are bubbles of antimatter mixed in. Under the popular-bias universal attraction (UA) theory, the bubbles of antimatter would have been attracted to matter & annihilate. The curve of “consumption” of these internal antiparticles would be asymptotic based on probabilities of random future occurrences (see moves 1-3.) Again, the popular-bias UA mismatches nature. An asymptotic relationship implies that it goes on infinitely, therefore, there should be record of an annihilation event occurring in today's sky—yet there is none. Also UA between all particles would favor total collapse/annihilation of all particles, but the fact that the Earth exists mismatches that prediction.

Again the Dominium premise leads to conclusions matching nature. If the surrounding bubbles were actively repelling the matrix of the shampoo walls then once boundaries were formed, these boundaries would be permanent separations, i.e., the two types of mass would be immiscible w/ one another. An area of “void” would form between them. Once boundaries are firmly established, neither population (matter/antimatter) could lose any more mass through an accidental annihilation. Also following directly is that the cosmologic record would have no cases of annihilation—this does Match the natural record. Also, the physical presence of small immiscible populations of antimatter micelles w/in a proto matter galaxy, such as our own, would act as a deterrent against overall galaxy collapse. This time, the fact that the Earth exists matches the deductive predictions

PS: Please tell others who are interested in these subjects about this thread

[modest]

Thank you for the kind response, Hasanuddin.

You say on the link you provided to your site that “Times are changing and internet discussion boards like this can potentially provided a much more transparent vetting than the old-school closed-door method.” While I think this has some fairly obvious drawbacks, I’d also like to think it can be a valid approach. But, in order for it to work I think a couple things are necessary.

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.

The first criticism I would have is that your model does not appear to be a "model". I understand your postulates:

• the gravitational interaction between matter and antimatter is repulsive
• the universe has equal amounts of matter and antimatter

But, I don't see the laws of physics being used to model the outcome of those postulates. To give you a specific example of where and how this can be done, you say:

Originally Posted by Hasanuddin

Using atomic/nano self-assemblage as a predictive model on would expect a type of patterned positioning similar to that, which has been produced in the lab. One such configuration involves alternate positioning as is seen in ionic crystals. Such a configuration necessitates a system that has a huge degree of order in terms of the distribution, size, and positioning or its components. Therefore, when applied to the developing Universe...

This is a good analogy and I would think a good place to start a model. An ionic solid such as salt has an energy of crystallization which you can find modeled at the following site under Lattice Energy toward the bottom:

The energy of crystallization (negative of the lattice energy) in ionic solids is mostly electrostatic energy, arising simply out of the Coulombic attractions and repulsions among all the positive and negatively charged ions in the solid piece, as per the Coulomb's law for electrostatic potential energy uij = qiqj/(4peorij) among any two ions i & j considered as point charges.

Solids and Ionic Solids

It goes on to give all formulas necessary to calculate the electrostatic interactions of a crystal made of positive and negative ions. If those coulomb forces are instead taken to be positive and negative forces of Newtonian gravity then the Madelung energy equation given in the link above can be made (naively) into a cosmological energy equation.

This is done in this paper which I posted the link to yesterday:

If we now visualize each positive ion as a cluster of matter galaxies, and each negative ion as an antimatter cluster, and replace the electrostatic interaction by the (anti)gravitational potential due to a point mass in the newtonian limit, we obtain from the Madelung model of an ionic solid:



where Ug is the total gravitational energy, N is the total number of clusters, m would represent the mass of the clusters, R the separation between nearest neighbors, and α is the Madelung constant. For simplicity, and to keep the analogy with a crystal, m and R are assumed to be the same for all clusters. The Madelung constant takes values between 1.8 and 1.6 for most crystal structures. The overall force on the universe (dUg/dR) is repulsive. Such a model of the universe could not be static, the effective values of R, m, and α being a function of time.

Space-time reversal, antimatter, and antigravity in general relativity

This represents the first steps toward building a model. It becomes possible to use measured parameters (such as the mass density of the universe or the number of galaxy clusters) and put them in the model and make predictions about how the universe evolves over time. A good example of this is the concordance model of standard cosmology. It is based on known laws of physics (general relativity); it gives a numerical solution to model; and it makes predictions about the past and future of the universe. It "models" the universe.

I think what you're doing with the Dominium model is very thought-provoking and a great idea, but I don't think it's a model yet which I think it needs to be in order to convince people of the two postulates listed above. I say this because there is no direct evidence for either postulate. There has been no observation that matter gravitationally repels antimatter. There's also no experimental or observational evidence that there are any significant concentrations of antimatter in the observable universe. Convincing people of these will therefore require quantitative predictions that can be tested and confirmed.

I hope you don't take this as a completely negative assessment. I rather mean it as a recommendation on how to proceed with your ideas (which I think are fundamentally good ideas).

As to the specifics of your conclusions, I would enjoy discussing many things that you've brought up... I'll pick out one thing in particular to get the ball rolling...

Originally Posted by Hasanuddin

inally, one of the implications deep w/in the Dominium model is that before the first light of CMB, micro black-holes (MBH) were created inside of embryonic galaxies of an opposite type the the galaxy itself. So, for the Milky Way, the type of MBH produced would have been antimatter-based (AMBH). Because of asymmetric geometries most of the AMBH from our galaxy would have been purged, as would have been the case for MMBH produced in mirror galaxies based on antimatter. However, both types of material would have been purged at a time after considerable expansion had already taken place. Both types, the model asserts, are still on-route to the nearest like-type galaxy, which means that today they are all located somewhere between galaxies. This perfectly matches the gravitational readings of what has been referred to as "dark matter."

Am I to understand that the black hole at our galaxy's core is made of antimatter? Why and how would this be possible?

There are stars very near the black hole at the galaxy's core. They reveal through their motion that its mass is approximately 3.7 million solar masses and that mass attracts the stars in the nearby neighborhood. The image here shows observations over 9 years:

-source

The motion reveals the extraordianry attractive power of the object at the core. If we are postulating that matter and antimatter are repulsed gravitationally wouldn't this observation indicated that both the ordinary stars and the black hole are of like content (either matter or antimatter)?

~modest

PS... Please understand when replying, I'm not out to get you or your model nor prove you or it wrong and I hope you don't take this and subsequent posts in that way. I'd very much like to explore the logical consequences of your ideas without any bias

[Hasanuddin]

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

goes on to give all formulas necessary to calculate

And when faulting the current Dominium “hypothetical representations or descriptions” you say

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.

[stereologist]

My limited understanding of the Bing Bang is that there were no particles at the start of the universe, only radiation. At some point in time, after or during the inflationary period particles were formed.

Also, is it necessarily true that in the early stages of the universe that gravity was expressed as a separate force with an inverse square relationship.