Hi Jeff,
Mechanism? Do you mean the sub-subatomic driver that causes the manifestation of gravity? No… the Dominium analysis is silent for this area; there are still some mysteries left to solve. On the subject of drivers for other fundamental forces, aren’t they also unknown? Consider electrostatics, we know that protons and positron “are” positive-typed; and we know antiprotons and electrons “are” negative-typed; but as far as I have read there is no idea how, or why, this is so (in terms of subatomic mechanisms.)
The applecart You are very correct when you assert that if the Dominium prevails then many aspects of traditional rote of assumptions that are necessarily flawed. I agree. Let it be noted, that none of the negated areas have yet been substantiated with any conclusive physical evidentiary support.
I wholeheartedly agree with the insight of the consequence to the scientific community if the Dominium premise is correct:
Quote:
|
Originally posted by Jeffocal to not only to rethink the relationship between matter and antimatter but completely revamp our understanding (of other areas of scientific thought.)
|
I parsed your words in the above quote because there are many more areas within the traditional rote of assumptions that would need to be reworked. You just mentioned a tip of what would need to be reconciled. The Dominium model would solve approximately 10 outstanding paradoxes that currently exist between the actual physical record and theories resulting from traditional assumptions. With each paradox that is solved, the Dominium negates—often-beloved—theories that had stood for decades.
That said, the Dominium model need not conflict with all models that touch on related areas of inquiry. For example, there is an ongoing discussion (posts 98-104) on the thread,
http://hypography.com/forums/alterna...nuddin-11.html, concerning the process of neucleogenesis (creation of baryons) as viewed by the Dominium and as viewed by the RAD-model. To date, I do not see any true conflicts between the two models. That is not to say that they are necessarily both correct. Rather, this is just an observation that the Dominium is not an exercise in being contrary. Nothing could be further off base, the Dominium (and apparently the RAD-model) are in tight adherence to all aspects of observed/recorded astronomic/experimental data. Because they both align with what is physically observed, therefore they necessarily align with each other.
Because many distinct anomalous dilemmas are solved by the Dominium, so too once standing assumptions will need to be reworked. For each distinct dilemma, there will be one or more distinct incorrect assumptions. Paradoxes/puzzles solved include the “missing antimatter,” the nature of dark-matter, the driver of the solar wind, the flat event horizon, the ever-accelerating Hubble-expansion, galaxy formation, uniform mass distribution, nature of CMB, heliospheric dynamics, and the topic of this thread…the MAC formation at the galaxy center. With each puzzle solved (assuming it was “correctly” solved), the previous faulty explanation must be abandoned. What’s wrong with that? So what if it pulls the rug out from under quite a few people. Cool. This would not be the first time that the rules for looking at scientific data were markedly improved/changed in one swipe.
If the Dominium model is correct, and if this lens change does negate many previous believed, yet unverified, theory; then research and discovery should catapult forward. Revamping the scientific machine is not a bad thing. I believe the truth of the impact of a revamping is quite the opposite. Look back to other points in scientific history when a lens change caused perceptions to change. In every case they were followed by an era of huge advancements. Therefore, if the Dominium is correct, those labs and individuals who are nimble and savvy enough to ride this wave of change early can be launched to distinction while the sociopolitical landscape is in upheaval. The big losers will be the ones who resist a rightful change, for they will be left in the dust.
My biggest hopes for future advancement rest on the creation and manipulation of AMBH. According to the Dominium model, mini and micro black-hole material will be stable. There are a few who believe that LHC might be able to synthesize black-hole material. If this possibility is correct then there is a huge potential possibility of retooling LHC to accelerate antiprotons, and therefore, potentially create AMBH. (Then there's always the ominous possibility that black-holes are stable and LHC generates a stable matter-compacting black-hole.) But these concerns are tangential to this thread and should be made at
http://hypography.com/forums/alterna...asanuddin.html
Let's chomp through that Big MAC, shall we?
Although the Dominium model would cause the traditional applecart to turn over, that wobbly cart is still riding on. Therefore, we must still refer to it in order to help explain natural phenomena. MAC is a nature, physical, and central structure in our galaxy. Why isn't there any tool in the cart to explain it... even a vague explanation would be nice. Yes, NASA made a casual causal linkage between binary systems and the MAC structure. The problem is that nowhere does either NASA or ESA given even a partial explanation how binary systems might produce the MAC antimatter. Rather, this is a slight shift in one of the most classic of all informal fallacies. Instead of drawing conclusions
Post hoc ergo propter hoc we are now drawing conclusions via
Prope hoc ergo propter hoc—basing a causal relationship based on proximal relationships. Therefore, I would like someone to explain MAC using traditional theory and assumption.
Let us focus on the quandary of the MAC formation at the center of the galaxy. Can anyone share an apple of traditional wisdom that would explain the existence, persistence, and residence of the MAC structure in the mass-densest portion of our galaxy?
Your Friendly Neighborhood Administrator
