Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast
Results 1 to 30 of 86

Thread: galaxies and antimatter

  1. #1
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Posts
    141

    galaxies and antimatter

    Wilkipedia:
    There is considerable speculation... whether there exist other places that are almost entirely Antimatter....asymmetry of Matter and Antimatter in the visible universe is one of the greatest unsolved problems in physics.
    CP Violation is part of Standard Theory. BB Theory, beyond the "unknown first moments" begins at a point when the Universe was composed of equal ammounts of Matter and Antimatter. The Matter and Antimatter then recombine, and are anhialated, converted to pure Energy. The tiny fraction of Matter left over being our present Universe.

    This can be dismissed out of hand, as the ammount of Energy created by Matter and AntiMatter anhialations is tremendous, far too much to be absorbed by the remaining Matter, and the Universe is not observed to have even the smallest fraction of that Energy.

    Where is the AntiMatter?
    __________________________________________________ ____

    GALAXY FORMATION

    Standard Galactic FUSION Theory, or Supermassive Black Hole Theory, does not fit observations.

    Galaxies are described as collapsing vortexes of matter. Typically collapsing material spins faster approaching the center, in conservation of Angular Momentum. In contradiction, observations show that the arms of galaxies spin at the same rate no matter the distance from the center.

    Dark Matter was theorized, an unobserved substance, which creates itself and Gravitationally pulls the outer arms, to speed them up. This violates Conservation and Laws of Thermodynamics. After several rotations the ammount of Dark Matter material would grow exponentially, pulling the center of the Galaxy outward. Stars in the outer arms are too far from the theorized Supermassive Black Hole, and would not be affected by it.

    How do Galaxies form?
    _____________________________________

    IN DEEP SPACE......

    Magnetic fields form randomly in space. Over time, they can align and grow [A]. The EM fields of planets, stars, and galaxies prevent these fields from growing very large. In deeper space, far from the influences of EM fields, these magnetic fields can become extremely large.

    Magetic forces in space causes ions to move. Motion along the lines of these large magnetic fields causes high speed collisions, resulting in pair production of new particles.

    This causes the Hydrogen abundance observed in Nature, as larger atoms are not created by pair production.

    Particles are ejected in both polar magnetic directions, expelling Matter in one direction, and Antimatter in the other. This forms the stars in the two Galactic arms.

    This Matter-AntiMatter Galaxy Theory is supported by recent satellite observations:

    Wilkipedia:
    ...Recent observations by the European Space Agency's INTEGRAL satellite may explain the origin of a giant cloud of Antimatter surrounding the galactic center. The observations show that the cloud is asymmetrical....mostly on one side of the galactic center. While the "mechanism" is not fully understood, it is likely to involve the production of electron–positron pairs...

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    United Kingdom
    Posts
    4,457
    Quote Originally Posted by Mr. Peabody View Post
    This can be dismissed out of hand, as the ammount of Energy created by Matter and AntiMatter anhialations is tremendous, far too much to be absorbed by the remaining Matter, and the Universe is not observed to have even the smallest fraction of that Energy.
    I think you oversimplify (a lot) what is hypothesised to happen. CP violation is more like a hysteresis effect. Imagine this simplified model:
    Energy (E) is converted into Slightly unequal amount of matter (M) and antimatter. Assume, in these units, 1 unit of energy makes one unit of matter or antimatter. Let's start with 100E and assume that CP violation is 2%.
    100E -> 48A + 52M -> 96E + 4M -> 46A + 54M -> 92E + 8M
    So run this through a few hundred (or thousand) iterations and we end up with a matter dominated universe. Where is the energy? It is locked up in matter, where we expect to find it.

    Note that in the real universe you have issues like mean free path and so on complicating things. But the important fact is that assuming one huge annihilation event is essentially a huge oversimplification that can, of course, have holes picked in it.

    Quote Originally Posted by Mr. Peabody View Post
    Standard Galactic FUSION Theory, or Supermassive Black Hole Theory, does not fit observations.
    Galaxies are described as collapsing vortexes of matter. Typically collapsing material spins faster approaching the center, in conservation of Angular Momentum. In contradiction, observations show that the arms of galaxies spin at the same rate no matter the distance from the center.
    No, galaxies are not collapsing vortices of matter. Can you provide a reference for that description please?

    Quote Originally Posted by Mr. Peabody View Post
    Dark Matter was theorized, an unobserved substance, which creates itself and Gravitationally pulls the outer arms, to speed them up. This violates Conservation and Laws of Thermodynamics. After several rotations the ammount of Dark Matter material would grow exponentially, pulling the center of the Galaxy outward. Stars in the outer arms are too far from the theorized Supermassive Black Hole, and would not be affected by it.
    No idea where this comes from. Can you reference? Dark matter is not thought to create itself any more than matter creates itself. It is primordial as far as we know. Has to be, in fact, to get our models of large scale structure formation to work. The whole argument here is wrong to the best of my knowledge. It is based on a faulty first principle.

    Quote Originally Posted by Mr. Peabody View Post
    Magnetic fields form randomly in space. Over time, they can align and grow [A]. The EM fields of planets, stars, and galaxies prevent these fields from growing very large. In deeper space, far from the influences of EM fields, these magnetic fields can become extremely large.
    Magetic forces in space causes ions to move. Motion along the lines of these large magnetic fields causes high speed collisions, resulting in pair production of new particles.
    This causes the Hydrogen abundance observed in Nature, as larger atoms are not created by pair production.
    Particles are ejected in both polar magnetic directions, expelling Matter in one direction, and Antimatter in the other. This forms the stars in the two Galactic arms.
    This Matter-AntiMatter Galaxy Theory is supported by recent satellite observations:
    Several issues here. One - if the magnetic fields are so strong wouldn't we expect to see effects like Zeeman splitting? How would you explain the abundance of helium and deuterium? What about galaxies with many spiral arms?

    Those observations do not really help you. The asymmetry is not complete (about a 2:1 ratio) and more importantly:
    The new results give astronomers a valuable new clue and point away from dark matter as the origin of the antimatter. Beyond the galactic centre, the cloud is not entirely spherical. Instead it is lopsided with twice as much on one side of the galactic centre as the other. Such a distribution is highly unusual because gas in the inner region of the galaxy is relatively evenly distributed.

    Equally importantly, Integral found evidence that a population of binary stars is also significantly off-centre, corresponding in extent to the cloud of antimatter. That powerfully suggests these objects, known as hard (because they emit at high energies) low mass X-ray binaries, are responsible for a major amount of antimatter.
    From http://www.esa.int/esaCP/SEMKTX2MDAF_index_0.html (it is a good idea to give source links of quotes so people can find them easily)

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    a long way away
    Posts
    9,093
    Quote Originally Posted by Mr. Peabody View Post
    This can be dismissed out of hand, as the ammount of Energy created by Matter and AntiMatter anhialations is tremendous, far too much to be absorbed by the remaining Matter, and the Universe is not observed to have even the smallest fraction of that Energy.
    The annihilation of matter and antimatter does not create new energy; it just converts the existing energy (in the form of matter) into a new form (photons). So this doesn't change the total energy in the universe.

    On what do you base the claim that the released energy was "far too much to be absorbed by the remaining Matter"? Why does it have to be absorbed? What happens to matter when it absorbs this radiation? Could you quantify this statement: How much could be absorbed? How much energy is the universe observed to have?

  4. #4
    Join Date
    May 2003
    Posts
    4,716
    Quote Originally Posted by Mr. Peabody View Post
    CP Violation is part of Standard Theory. BB Theory, beyond the "unknown first moments" begins at a point when the Universe was composed of equal ammounts of Matter and Antimatter. The Matter and Antimatter then recombine, and are anhialated, converted to pure Energy. The tiny fraction of Matter left over being our present Universe.

    This can be dismissed out of hand, as the ammount of Energy created by Matter and AntiMatter anhialations is tremendous, far too much to be absorbed by the remaining Matter, and the Universe is not observed to have even the smallest fraction of that Energy.
    Others have commented on this, but I think they left out a piece of the puzzle. It's true that there are several directions of investigation that all suggest that for every billion or so antiparticles, there were a billion and one particles, so that when they annihilated, there would be a little bit of matter left over. And in a sense, you're right to point out that all that radiation couldn't just be absorbed by the remaining matter and have that be the end of it. If those photons were absorbed, the matter would end up in a very energetic state, and so you'd expect to have the energy re-radiated as photons again. Of course, as the universe expanded, everything would spread out more, so the collisions would happen less often, but if this really happened, all those photons should still be out there. You'd expect there to be somewhere on the order of a billion photons in the universe for every proton. You might be thinking, "that can't be right, then, where are all the photons?" The thing is, there are about a billion photons in the universe for every proton. They're in the cosmic microwave background. The CMB might seem very weak, but that's because we live in a spot where there happens to be a lot of matter all clumped together, with a star nearby providing a lot of local radiation. But there are more CMB photons by far than there are photons from starlight, or baryons in the universe as a whole. If you look beyond our little corner of the universe, you find that there's about one baryon per four cubic meters. On the other hand, there are about 500 million CMB photons per cubic meter, filling the entire universe.

    Quote Originally Posted by Mr. Peabody View Post
    Dark Matter was theorized, an unobserved substance, which creates itself and Gravitationally pulls the outer arms, to speed them up. This violates Conservation and Laws of Thermodynamics. After several rotations the ammount of Dark Matter material would grow exponentially, pulling the center of the Galaxy outward. Stars in the outer arms are too far from the theorized Supermassive Black Hole, and would not be affected by it.
    You don't seem to have a good grasp of the mainstream view of galactic dynamics. The central black hole has very little to do with the orbital speed of the stars in a galaxy, since even though it's very massive by black hole standards, it still accounts for a very small fraction of the mass of the galaxy as a whole. Moreover, the rotation curves of galaxies specifically implies that the mass needed to account for it needs to be less concentrated in the center than the visible matter in the galaxy. The central black hole is thus not a candidate that can account for the observed rotation curves. Dark matter is also not theorized to "create itself". We think that the dark matter is simply some form of matter that does not interact strongly, except through gravity, but it obeys conservation laws just like any other matter. We know that there is at least one type of particles that does not interact through the electromagnetic or strong nuclear forces (neutrinos), so it's not really that unreasonable to suspect that there may be others. Models of galaxy formation and interaction that rely on dark matter compare very well to our observations of galaxies.

    Quote Originally Posted by Mr. Peabody View Post
    Particles are ejected in both polar magnetic directions, expelling Matter in one direction, and Antimatter in the other. This forms the stars in the two Galactic arms.
    If this were the case, then in at least some of the galactic collisions we observe, we'd see a matter arm colliding with an antimatter arm. There would be gamma rays with strong peaks at 938 MeV and 511 keV, the rest energies for protons and electrons, as those particles were annihilated. We do not observe this from any galactic collisions.
    Conserve energy. Commute with the Hamiltonian.

  5. #5
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Posts
    2,914
    As Grey said, there is no evidence of significant anti-matter aggregation(s) in our universe. How do you account for this?
    I'm not a hardnosed mainstreamer; I just like the observations, theories, predictions, and results to match.

    "Mainstream isn’t a faith system. It is a verified body of work that must be taken into account if you wish to add to that body of work, or if you want to change the conclusions of that body of work." - korjik

  6. #6
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Posts
    4,377
    Quote Originally Posted by Grey View Post
    If this were the case, then in at least some of the galactic collisions we observe, we'd see a matter arm colliding with an antimatter arm. There would be gamma rays with strong peaks at 938 MeV and 511 keV, the rest energies for protons and electrons, as those particles were annihilated. We do not observe this from any galactic collisions.
    Not just that, he appears to be claiming that each galaxy has two arms, an antimatter one and a matter one. In reality, spiral galaxies can have many more arms, and they aren't cleanly separated from each other, so we'd be seeing constant matter-antimatter annihilation in regions where arms overlap and blend together. And then there's the many galaxies that aren't even spirals, and the galaxies that are colliding...it might be worthwhile to point out that both of these are currently involved in the Milky Way: it is in the process of absorbing several elliptical dwarf galaxies, and there are even streams of stars and gas identifiable as being from those galaxies and others from galaxies that no longer exist as separate entities, passing through the Milky Way without regard to which arm they're going through. What we don't see is hellish gamma radiation from antimatter and matter stars and gas mixing and annihilating, in our galaxy or any others visible in the sky.

  7. #7
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Posts
    141
    No, galaxies are not collapsing vortices of matter. Can you provide a reference for that description please?
    Wilkipedia
    In top-down theories (such as the Eggen–Lynden-Bell–Sandage [ELS] model), protogalaxies form in a large-scale simultaneous collapse lasting about one hundred million years.
    How do protons and antiprotons form first before the quarks and gluon that they are made of? Like saying "you start with a house.." when you should begin with "we got some wood and nails". You can't answer that, that is within the religious, first second aspect of BB thery where God starts everything with no explanations or science neccessary....

    Energy (E) is converted into Slightly unequal amount of matter (M) and antimatter...
    Where did the energy come from? Why and how is this energy converted? The laws of motion demand equal ammount of matter and antimatter. There is no science to the claims of more matter than antimatter, and there are no observations of this occurring.

    The annihilation of matter and antimatter does not create new energy..
    I didn't say NEW energy was created.

    Why would black holes form in a profoundly homogenous universe? Computer models show that even if a black hole formed in the early universe, it would only accumulate one percent of its mass each 100 million years.

    How could the unobserved "supermassive black hole" affect matter that is beyond it's gravitational pull, which is most of the galaxy? Do you think stars in the inner galaxy can attract more matter forming stars in the outer arms? Show me the science for that.

    The center of our galaxy is very dense, but not a black hole. Hubble just spent how many years unsuccessfully trying to locate a SMBH?

    if the magnetic fields are so strong wouldn't we expect to see effects like Zeeman splitting
    Existing matter collects and new matter forms as the gravity field grows, obscuring light that would shine through the field, one should not expect to see light through the forming galaxy.

    assuming one huge annihilation event is essentially a huge oversimplification
    I didn't invent BBtheory "recoupling". Do you have an alternative to "recoupling"?

    There are about a billion photons in the universe for every proton.
    So you believe in the corpuscular theory of light? What are photons shaped like? How do they hit all targets simultaneously?

    some of the galactic collisions we observe, we'd see a matter arm colliding with an antimatter arm. There would be gamma rays.
    Wilkipedia
    NASA is... looking for X-ray and gamma-ray signatures of annihilation events in colliding superclusters.
    Stars are typically very far apart, millions of times their width. the chances of collisions are very small. Galaxies are often spaced apart by the width of a galaxy or two, and they collide.

    We do see ratiation from colliding galaxies. Quasars, the center of galaxy, emit extremely high energy. Most quasars occur after collisions with other galaxies. This is from matter and antimatter collisions. Perhaps aging galaxies account for the rest, as the outer arms have fallen back into the center of the galaxy.

    I've only seen and am only talking about galaxies with two arms. Show me a link to a picture of a multi-armed galaxy. Galaxies do collide and combine....

    You can't find a real depiction of elliptical galaxies, only pictures. In the pictures, most of the "outer arm" is closer to the center than the inner arm[as the outer arms have fallen back into the center of the galaxy].

    Standard galaxy fusion/SMBH theory cannot explain this.

    From singularity to energy, energy to matter and antimatter, recoupling, black holes, Supermassive black holes, galaxies. There is no logic, science to connect any of these events.
    Last edited by Mr. Peabody; 2012-Jan-13 at 11:21 PM.

  8. #8
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Posts
    4,377
    Quote Originally Posted by Mr. Peabody View Post
    How do protons and antiprotons form first before the quarks and gluon that they are made of? Like saying "you start with a house.." when you should begin with "we got some wood and nails". You can't answer that, that is within the religious, first second aspect of BB thery where God starts everything with no explanations or science neccessary....
    Who said protons formed before quarks and gluons?


    Quote Originally Posted by Mr. Peabody View Post
    The laws of motion demand equal ammount of matter and antimatter. There is no science to the claims of more matter than antimatter, and there are no observations of this occurring.
    The "laws of motion" do not demand this, and a slight "handedness" to the laws of physics has in fact been measured. Not enough to alone explain the lack of antimatter we see, IIRC, but an example that the type of effect that would explain it can in fact exist.


    Quote Originally Posted by Mr. Peabody View Post
    The center of our galaxy is very dense, but not a black hole. Hubble just spent how many years unsuccessfully trying to locate a SMBH?
    Well, how many years? What specifically was the approach used, when was it done?
    The Hubble Space Telescope isn't even the instrument that would be used for such an attempt, there is far too much dust in the way for the optical observations that Hubble specializes in. What about the many observations with x-ray and radio telescopes?


    Quote Originally Posted by Mr. Peabody View Post
    So you believe in the corpuscular theory of light? What are photons shaped like? How do they hit all targets simultaneously?
    It's not a matter of belief. It is not difficult to count individual photons, the evidence is overwhelmingly in favor of them existing. Their "shape" is described by the math of quantum mechanics, and they don't "hit all targets simultaneously".


    Quote Originally Posted by Mr. Peabody View Post
    Stars are typically very far apart, millions of times their width. the chances of collisions are very small. Galaxies are often spaced apart by the width of a galaxy or two, and they collide.
    But stars emit stellar winds, and when they die often eject a large fraction of their mass as an expanding shell of gas. You could not have a mix of antimatter and matter stars without unmistakable side effects.


    Quote Originally Posted by Mr. Peabody View Post
    I've only seen and am only talking about galaxies with two arms. Show me a link to a picture of a multi-armed galaxy. Galaxies do collide and combine....
    Look at virtually any picture of a spiral galaxy. Only a few even approach an "ideal" spiral shape. Many don't even have clear arms, just spiral streaks.


    Quote Originally Posted by Mr. Peabody View Post
    You can't find a real depiction of elliptical galaxies, only pictures. In the pictures, most of the "outer arm" is closer to the center than the inner arm[as the outer arms have fallen back into the center of the galaxy].

    Standard galaxy fusion/SMBH theory cannot explain this.
    I can't figure out what you're trying to say here. There's few diagrams of elliptical galaxies, which doesn't surprise me one bit because there's not much to diagram. There's a great many photos showing no signs of spiral arms, however. Is a photo not a "real depiction"? What exactly can't standard theory explain?

  9. #9
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    United Kingdom
    Posts
    4,457
    Quote Originally Posted by Mr. Peabody View Post
    How do protons and antiprotons form first before the quarks and gluon that they are made of? Like saying "you start with a house.." when you should begin with "we got some wood and nails". You can't answer that, that is within the religious, first second aspect of BB thery where God starts everything with no explanations or science neccessary....
    Nobody said that as far as I can tell.

    Quote Originally Posted by Mr. Peabody View Post
    Where did the energy come from? Why and how is this energy converted? The laws of motion demand equal ammount of matter and antimatter. There is no science to the claims of more matter than antimatter, and there are no observations of this occurring.
    Sorry, are you now denying the Big Bang theory too? In that the universe starts in a hot, dense state. It contains a lot of energy. As for matter antimatter symmetry - not only is it scientific, it is observed. Look up CKM matrices and the unitary triangles associated with them.


    Quote Originally Posted by Mr. Peabody View Post
    Why would black holes form in a profoundly homogenous universe? Computer models show that even if a black hole formed in the early universe, it would only accumulate one percent of its mass each 100 million years.
    References please?

    Quote Originally Posted by Mr. Peabody View Post
    How could the unobserved "supermassive black hole" affect matter that is beyond it's gravitational pull, which is most of the galaxy? Do you think stars in the inner galaxy can attract more matter forming stars in the outer arms? Show me the science for that.
    You know how gravity works, right? It doesn't have a maximum range. I actually have no idea who you are replying to here.

    Quote Originally Posted by Mr. Peabody View Post
    The center of our galaxy is very dense, but not a black hole. Hubble just spent how many years unsuccessfully trying to locate a SMBH?
    Um... From Wikipedia. There are links in the Supermassive Black Hole page to the papers.
    On March 28, 2011, a supermassive black hole (SMBH) was for the first time seen tearing a mid-size star apart . That is, according to astronomers, the only likely explanation of the observations that day of sudden X-ray radiation and the follow-up broad-band observations
    Quote Originally Posted by Mr. Peabody View Post
    Existing matter collects and new matter forms as the gravity field grows, obscuring light that would shine through the field, one should not expect to see light through the forming galaxy.
    New matter forms? What do you mean by that? We see dust and gas in galaxies. Are you arguing that any forming galaxy should be totally dark?

    Quote Originally Posted by Mr. Peabody View Post
    I didn't invent BBtheory "recoupling". Do you have an alternative to "recoupling"?
    Well, according to Google you did. Recoupling is an investment term. What do you mean by it?

    Quote Originally Posted by Mr. Peabody View Post
    So you believe in the corpuscular theory of light? What are photons shaped like? How do they hit all targets simultaneously?
    How is this relevant? I accept the QM description of light as a particle and wave because that model is best fit to observations.

    Quote Originally Posted by Mr. Peabody View Post
    I've only seen and am only talking about galaxies with two arms. Show me a link to a picture of a multi-armed galaxy. Galaxies do collide and combine....
    Suggest you look harder. Try M51, Andromeda, the Triangulum galaxy....

    Quote Originally Posted by Mr. Peabody View Post
    You can't find a real depiction of elliptical galaxies, only pictures.
    What does this mean? You cannot find any depiction of a spiral galaxy other than a picture because they are an inconvenient size to bring here and look at 'for real'

    Quote Originally Posted by Mr. Peabody View Post
    From singularity to energy, energy to matter and antimatter, recoupling, black holes, Supermassive black holes, galaxies. There is no logic, science to connect any of these events.
    Except there is. Because they are part of a model framework that makes testable predictions that match observations.

  10. #10
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Posts
    2,914
    If you intend to dispute mainstream cosmology, you should understand it first. I would recommend any good entry level general astronomy text, or Wiki, or just reading the daily news items here on BAUT for few years. If you want to dive into this pool without checking the depth of the water first, then please answer my previous simple question. Remember, this is a science forum; I expect your answer to meet all four steps of the methodology in the signature line below. You might also take a look at the ATM rules: you are expected to answer our questions, not we yours.

    Good luck, John M.
    I'm not a hardnosed mainstreamer; I just like the observations, theories, predictions, and results to match.

    "Mainstream isn’t a faith system. It is a verified body of work that must be taken into account if you wish to add to that body of work, or if you want to change the conclusions of that body of work." - korjik

  11. #11
    Join Date
    Nov 2002
    Posts
    6,238
    Quote Originally Posted by Mr. Peabody View Post
    No, galaxies are not collapsing vortices of matter. Can you provide a reference for that description please?
    Wilkipedia
    In top-down theories (such as the Eggen–Lynden-Bell–Sandage [ELS] model), protogalaxies form in a large-scale simultaneous collapse lasting about one hundred million years.
    Since you seem to be fond of using Wikipedia, there is this:
    Quote Originally Posted by Wikipedia
    Known as a top-down formation scenario, this theory is quite simple yet no longer widely accepted because observations of the early universe strongly suggest that objects grow from bottom-up (i.e. smaller objects merging to form larger ones). It was first proposed by Leonard Searle and Robert Zinn that galaxies form by the coalescence of smaller progenitors.
    Just for your info. the ELS theory was proposed in 1962, the bottom-up of theories of Searle and Zinn, first proposed in 1978,

    Quote Originally Posted by Mr. Peabody View Post
    How do protons and antiprotons form first before the quarks and gluon that they are made of? Like saying "you start with a house.." when you should begin with "we got some wood and nails". You can't answer that, that is within the religious, first second aspect of BB thery where God starts everything with no explanations or science neccessary....
    Well, science doesn't say anything before 10-43 seconds, the theories just don't work, due to quantum fluctuations. As far as protons and antiprotons forming before quarks, quarks freeze out at 10-12 to -6 seconds after the Big Bang and the proton and antiprotons didn't freeze out until after 10-6 seconds. Here is the Timeline for the Big Bang. You will clear up some of your misconceptions if you look at that.

    Quote Originally Posted by Mr. Peabody View Post
    Where did the energy come from?
    Where does the energy for virtual particles come from. You know, the ones that cause the Casmir Effect

    Quote Originally Posted by Mr. Peabody View Post
    and how is this energy converted?
    Energy will change to mass, if it is possible. It happens all the time in particle accelerators here on Earth.

    Quote Originally Posted by Mr. Peabody View Post
    The laws of motion demand equal ammount of matter and antimatter.
    Actually, the Laws of Motion don't really apply to equal amounts of matter and antimatter. It more the purview of Quantum Field Theory

    Quote Originally Posted by Mr. Peabody View Post
    There is no science to the claims of more matter than antimatter, and there are no observations of this occurring.
    Well, as Shaula pointed out, there are the CKM Matrices . You'll also find in that paper, some links to experiments where the asymmetry of matter-antimatter has been observed.

    I don't think there is any need to go any farther. If you are going to claim current mainstream theories are wrong, you would have a lot more credibility if what your claim as to what was wrong with mainstream theories, actually was part of mainstream theories. Otherwise, it appears that you are just trying to setup a strawman.

  12. #12
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Posts
    141
    Q1 No idea where this comes from. Can you reference? Dark matter is not thought to create itself ... The whole argument here is wrong.
    Every time i read a description of the BBtheory something is different. Its like the hamburger you can get 96,000 ways.There are six string theories. Multiple universe theories, finite and infinite universe, beginning and no beginning in time, space is empty, space has a media, etc.

    scientific american:
    The evolution of inflationary theory has given rise to a completely new cosmological paradigm, which differs considerably from the old big bang theory.. the universe appears to be both chaotic and homogenous, expanding, and stationary.
    You tell me what version of big bang> galaxy formation you believe in an i will be able to argue the SCIENCE of it versus my theory.

    Q2 New matter forms? What do you mean by that?
    In particle colliders, we form new matter in what is called pair production. This is also observed in space. If you don't know that, you shouldn't be part of this discussion.
    A series of magnets cause ions to speed up and collide, just as in galaxies.

    Space moves, the ionization of space is observed, motion of ions cause what? EM fields.

    a supermassive black hole (SMBH) was for the first time seen tearing a mid-size star apart . That is, according to [big bang theorists] astronomers, the only likely explanation of the observations that day.
    This is not scientific proof, just an interpretation through the eyes of big bang.
    Telescope time and funding only go to BBtheorists, who of course control the "likely explanation".

    Q3 So you believe in the corpuscular theory of light? ....How is this relevant?
    It denies the media, which is accepted by all cosmological models, and is important to this galaxy theory.

    Einstein stated that no rotating interferometer could prove (or DISPROVE) the existence of a MEDIA since relativity would cancel out the apparent changes in the length of the arms of the rotating apparatus.

    Some Big-Bang theorists still deny a MEDIA, but refer to Spacetime and Dark Matter as filling the Universe. In reality, the entire scientific community agrees that a MEDIA exists, whether it is called Spacetime, Aether, Elysium, Zero Force Particles, Higgs Boson, Fermionic Field, Dark Matter, or Space.

    If Space if filled with a MEDIA, then Light must either propogate THROUGH the MEDIA or be propogated BY the MEDIA.Scattering would occur if Light propogated THROUGH a MEDIA. This is not observed or believed to occur by any credible scientist.

    We should have no problem accepting that the MEDIA itself propogates Light. This propogation through a MEDIA is inelastic, losing energy, causing the redshift over great distances we observe and refer to as the distance indicator.

    This also gives light the particle behaviour, the fact that waves are traversing a physical media. Photons are quantized because of the way em disturbances occur.

    You cannot find any depiction of a spiral galaxy other than a picture because they are an inconvenient size to bring here and look at 'for real'
    The depictions of ellipticals never show what pictures show; that the middle stars of the arms are much further away from the center than the "outer stars". Because it would contradict the description of how these form.

    Q4 obscuring light that would shine through the field, one should not expect to see light through the forming galaxy... Are you arguing that any forming galaxy should be totally dark?
    The effect doesn't come from the forming galaxy, it would only be seen by distant light behind it shining through it. A forming galaxy could have its own light, further obscuring the observation of the Zeeman splitting.
    I will try to research and answer more questions, please give me a little time to catch up.

  13. #13
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Posts
    4,377
    Quote Originally Posted by Mr. Peabody View Post
    Every time i read a description of the BBtheory something is different. Its like the hamburger you can get 96,000 ways.There are six string theories. Multiple universe theories, finite and infinite universe, beginning and no beginning in time, space is empty, space has a media, etc.
    Yes, there's multiple competing theories under the umbrella of "Big Bang theory". However, many of your arguments are against ideas that don't exist anywhere in mainstream theory. Dark matter creating itself, for example. I don't know where you got that idea, but it doesn't resemble anything I've ever seen, and I would also be interested in knowing where you got it from.


    Quote Originally Posted by Mr. Peabody View Post
    In particle colliders, we form new matter in what is called pair production. This is also observed in space. If you don't know that, you shouldn't be part of this discussion.
    A series of magnets cause ions to speed up and collide, just as in galaxies.

    Space moves, the ionization of space is observed, motion of ions cause what? EM fields.
    So your claim here is that magnetic fields accelerate charged particles, charged particles produce magnetic fields that accelerate themselves more, until they reach energies high enough to cause pair production?

    Problem: a static magnetic field will not add energy to charged particles. And moving charged particles will not pull energy out of nowhere to accelerate themselves. Unfortunately for your idea (and free energy schemes everywhere), electromagnetism conserves energy. And yes, we see pair production in accelerators...I'm not sure how this has escaped your notice, but particle accelerators also consume a fair bit of power. Pair production doesn't create matter from nothing.


    Quote Originally Posted by Mr. Peabody View Post
    The depictions of ellipticals never show what pictures show; that the middle stars of the arms are much further away from the center than the "outer stars". Because it would contradict the description of how these form.
    Why don't we look at, oh, lets say Messier 87...
    http://apod.nasa.gov/apod/ap100520.html

    Could you perhaps sketch in what you mean by "the middle stars of the arms are much further away from the center"?

  14. #14
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Posts
    141

    further response to questions

    And then there's the many galaxies that aren't even spirals,
    Galaxies can be formed by other methods, I am explaining twin arm spirals..

    It is suggested that ring shaped galaxies began as spirals and were changed by a collision through the center.

    so we'd be seeing constant matter-antimatter annihilation in regions where arms overlap and blend together.
    Matter and antimatter anhialate, but they dont attract like two opposite magnetic forces. Do stars constantly collide in galactic arms? No. This would be rare, and appear as a supernova.
    The largest majority of collisions/anhialations are occuring in the center of galaxies, seen as quasars.

    in at least some of the galactic collisions we observe, we'd see a matter arm colliding with an antimatter arm. There would be gamma rays... as those particles were annihilated. We do not observe this from any galactic collisions.
    Most quasars are caused by collisions:
    Wilkipedea:
    The most luminous quasars radiate at a rate that can exceed the output of average galaxies, equivalent to one trillion (1012) suns. This radiation is emitted across the
    spectrum, almost equally, from X-rays to the far-infrared with a peak in the ultraviolet-optical bands, with some quasars also being strong sources of radio emission and of gamma-rays
    Could you perhaps sketch in what you mean by "the middle stars of the arms are much further away from the center"?
    I can't find pictures, i will withdraw statement about ellipticals. As a product of fission, spiral galaxies can be seen as a small big bang. An open galaxy bang means the stars don't fall back to the centers of galaxies. I will have to research this more.

    Thank you all for your attention, references, questions, feedback.
    Last edited by Mr. Peabody; 2012-Jan-14 at 07:33 AM. Reason: adding info without

  15. #15
    Join Date
    Nov 2002
    Posts
    6,238
    Quote Originally Posted by Mr. Peabody View Post
    Matter and antimatter anhialate, but they dont attract like two opposite magnetic forces.
    Actually, they do. matter and antimatter have opposite charges (the case of neutral particles not withstanding), and opposite charges will attract. You have misrepresented Quantum Field Theory.

    Quote Originally Posted by Mr. Peabody View Post
    Do stars constantly collide in galactic arms? No.
    But the dust and particles being blown off from stars in the stellar wind do collide. Which would produce the same, actually a greater effect.

    Quote Originally Posted by Mr. Peabody View Post
    This would be rare, and appear as a supernova.
    What type of supernova?

    Quote Originally Posted by Mr. Peabody View Post
    The largest majority of collisions/anhialations are occuring in the center of galaxies, seen as quasars.
    Most quasars are caused by collisions:
    Actually, you are just flat out wrong here.

    That quote is from the Wikipedia article on Quasars. No where in that article does it say anything about quasars being collisions. The article does state, several times and in several different ways, the following:

    ...that a quasar is a compact region in the center of a massive galaxy surrounding its central supermassive black hole. Its size is 10–10,000 times the Schwarzschild radius of the black hole. The quasar is powered by an accretion disc around the black hole.

    You continue to either misrepresent or misunderstand mainstream theories. How about you actually learn mainstream theories before you incorrectly tell us what is wrong about them?

  16. #16
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Posts
    17,367
    Quote Originally Posted by Mr. Peabody View Post
    Matter and antimatter anhialate, but they dont attract like two opposite magnetic forces. Do stars constantly collide in galactic arms? No. This would be rare, and appear as a supernova.

    The largest majority of collisions/anhialations are occuring in the center of galaxies, seen as quasars.

    Most quasars are caused by collisions:
    Star collisions appear as supernovae, galaxy collisions seen as quasars . . . are these claims supposed to be based on something, or are you just randomly making stuff up?

    What do you think happens when the gas of two merging galaxies meet? What would happen if the gas of one of those galaxies happened to be anti-matter?

    "The problem with quotes on the Internet is that it is hard to verify their authenticity." — Abraham Lincoln

    I say there is an invisible elf in my backyard. How do you prove that I am wrong?

    The Leif Ericson Cruiser

  17. #17
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Posts
    17,367
    Quote Originally Posted by Tensor View Post
    What type of supernova?
    Yes, and what type of stars in the collision?

    "The problem with quotes on the Internet is that it is hard to verify their authenticity." — Abraham Lincoln

    I say there is an invisible elf in my backyard. How do you prove that I am wrong?

    The Leif Ericson Cruiser

  18. #18
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Posts
    141
    The latest Hubble pictures of quasars show that they are associated with galaxies and in most cases there is evidence that these galaxies have recently collided with other galaxies.
    My statement:The largest majority of collisions/anhialations are occuring in the center of galaxies, seen as quasars.
    Most quasars are caused by collisions:
    Actually, you are just flat out wrong here.

    That quote is from the Wikipedia article on Quasars. No where in that article does it say anything about quasars being collisions. ...You continue to either misrepresent or misunderstand mainstream theories
    You are wrong, i was stating my theory, not standard theory.
    BTW, i use wilkipedia as a reference, but it is not the last word, and it is prejudiced to big bang theory.

  19. #19
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Posts
    141
    What type of supernova?
    Yes, and what type of stars in the collision?
    The supernova would be typical of a 1c, with gamma ray bursts. The more exotic the collisions the more rare they would be, observed less often, if at all.

    Matter has magnetic attractions to itself, in that same way appropriate matter and antimatter particles are attracted, like positrons to electrons. Not on a large scale, however.

    Magnetic attaction of matter to antimatter would have no effect in the long range, would not make stars collide. Normal gravitation makes matter and antimatter stars collide.

  20. #20
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    United Kingdom
    Posts
    4,457
    In particle colliders, we form new matter in what is called pair production. This is also observed in space. If you don't know that, you shouldn't be part of this discussion.
    A series of magnets cause ions to speed up and collide, just as in galaxies.
    You are aware that pair production is canonically used to describe photon-nucleus interactions? You seem to be using the term to mean any process that creates particles. Generally when someone says pair production they mean a photon interacting with a nucleus to product electron/positron pairs. I do apologise if my inability to guess what your non-standard use of terminology actually means makes it hard to discuss things with you. Maybe we could agree to stick to using the terms as generally used?

    How does your collision of matter and antimatter model explain quasar spectra being largely thermal? And having spectral lines in that are not just due to annihilation?

    And if your model only explains two arm spirals and has to rely on other models to explain other galaxies forming why do you think it necessary? I would rather see an n-arm spiral galaxy formation model than a 2-arm, 3-arm, 4-arm series relying on different explanations.

    OK and I note that you are also proposing a tired light explanation for redshift? Do you want that to be part of this model discussion or would you prefer to focus on your galaxy formation model?

  21. #21
    Join Date
    Nov 2002
    Posts
    6,238
    Quote Originally Posted by Mr. Peabody View Post
    My statement:The largest majority of collisions/anhialations are occuring in the center of galaxies, seen as quasars.
    Exactly where in that wikipedia article does it say anything about stars colliding with stars? Or that the majority of the collisions take place in the center of the galaxies?

    Quote Originally Posted by Mr. Peabody View Post
    Most quasars are caused by collisions:
    This part you may have right. Quasars are caused by the accretion disk around the central supermassive black hole. Galactic collisions may provide that central black hole with large amounts of dust, gas, and other material to allow the central black hole to turn on.

    Quote Originally Posted by Mr. Peabody View Post
    You are wrong, i was stating my theory, not standard theory.
    You do realize that the quote about collision is in reference to main stream theories, right? If you are not going to accept the main stream theory part of the article, then you pretty much have to ignore the actual description of the mainstream article. To do otherwise would be called cherry picking.

    Quote Originally Posted by Mr. Peabody View Post
    BTW, i use wilkipedia as a reference, but it is not the last word, and it is prejudiced to big bang theory.
    If that is the case, then you will have to show exactly how whatever part you are using, does not fit into mainstream theory or how the reference actually fits your idea. You can't say "Wikipedia says quasars are caused by collisions, I'll use that", when the only reason for the statement in Wikipedia, is because mainstream theory claims the dust and gas feeds the black hole. Not because galactic collisions cause stellar collision.

  22. #22
    Join Date
    Nov 2002
    Posts
    6,238
    Quote Originally Posted by Mr. Peabody View Post
    The supernova would be typical of a 1c, with gamma ray bursts. The more exotic the collisions the more rare they would be, observed less often, if at all.
    Why not 1b without helium? And why wouldn't there be any hydrogen or helium in the spectra of a collision supernova?

  23. #23
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Posts
    141

    Slow down please

    OK and I note that you are also proposing a tired light explanation for redshift?
    I am showing that my description of a media propogating light matches observation, in that a redshift is PREDICTED.
    No, galaxies are not collapsing.... Can you provide a reference for that description please?
    You have the answers to galaxy formation? Science doesn't have this answers....
    wilkipedia:
    There are many models for the formation of black holes of this size. The most obvious is by slow accretion of matter starting from a black hole of stellar size. Another model[6] of supermassive black hole formation involves a large gas cloud collapsing into a relativistic star of perhaps a hundred thousand solar masses or larger.[clarification needed] The star would then become unstable to radial perturbations because of electron-positron pair production in its core, and may collapse directly into a black hole without a supernova explosion, which would eject most of its mass and prevent it from leaving a supermassive black hole as a remnant. Yet another model[7] involves a dense stellar cluster undergoing core-collapse as the negative heat capacity of the system drives the velocity dispersion in the core to relativistic speeds. Finally, primordial black holes may have been produced directly from external pressure in the first instants after the Big Bang.
    OK, so there are many different big bang galaxy theories [surprise], how do we argue any or all of them versus my galaxy theory?

    I appreciate the feedback, but you're overpowering me, not with logic and science, but with time and effort.

    I am one person, not a research team. I have a job and a life. Can you please slow down, ask specific questions, not refer me to "treatises" . Please explain with science what you mean, assuming you understand your own references; instead of referring me to thirty pages i don't have time to read and readers won't either, and assume your intelligent sounding claim has merit.

    I rely on wilkipedia for observations, use it for credibility when people play dumb as to what proven science or standard theory says, and i dismiss it's unfounded conclusions. References are for you to take as you will, i'm not legally bound to believe everything a reference that i use says.

    I am not going to waste my time referencing stupid big bang statements to prove they were said. If you want to call me a liar call me a liar. i don't care if the whole world believes in the big bang or santa claus or anything. I have no need to disprove the big bang per se, but it is bad science standing in the way of all cosmological progress, as you demonstate. Open letter to science.

    http://www.cosmologystatement.org/

    Please, give me half a chance to respond to some of your statements. You are a multiple of people. in fairness why don't you back off for a few days while i research and answer previous questions.

    To give me more than i can possibly chew on will result in a multitude of unanswered statements, misrepresentations.
    Last edited by Mr. Peabody; 2012-Jan-16 at 11:33 AM.

  24. #24
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Posts
    17,367
    Okay, here are two questions I asked before that I think are pretty important given your claims:

    Quote Originally Posted by Van Rijn View Post
    What do you think happens when the gas of two merging galaxies meet? What would happen if the gas of one of those galaxies happened to be anti-matter?

    "The problem with quotes on the Internet is that it is hard to verify their authenticity." — Abraham Lincoln

    I say there is an invisible elf in my backyard. How do you prove that I am wrong?

    The Leif Ericson Cruiser

  25. #25
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Posts
    141
    Thank you for isolating previous key questions.

    You realize the depth of research in viewing a new model through all science, every observation, interpretation and counter arguement. Status quo forces damn you for disagreeing with one aspect of existing theory and for agreeing with another aspect, though that is what the process involves....
    Each question requires real consideration.
    My initial response would be to determine the density of the "gas", the normal collision rate for particles of that density, figure the energy and the ammount of gamma radiation released, spread over how large a distance. Is that observed or observable? Most of the gas is near the center, no? That would take us back to the quasar, center, as the source of collisions.

    That takes research and time.
    Your questions are important. So give me time, please.
    Last edited by Mr. Peabody; 2012-Jan-16 at 12:23 PM.

  26. #26
    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Location
    The Wild West
    Posts
    7,794
    You claimed:

    This can be dismissed out of hand, as the ammount of Energy created by Matter and AntiMatter anhialations is tremendous, far too much to be absorbed by the remaining Matter, and the Universe is not observed to have even the smallest fraction of that Energy.
    To which Grey responded:

    It's true that there are several directions of investigation that all suggest that for every billion or so antiparticles, there were a billion and one particles, so that when they annihilated, there would be a little bit of matter left over.... The thing is, there are about a billion photons in the universe for every proton.
    To which you responded:

    So you believe in the corpuscular theory of light? What are photons shaped like? How do they hit all targets simultaneously?
    This is called "moving the goal posts." You claimed our observations are not consistent with this matter/antimatter annihilation theory. Grey pointed out that, actually, our observations are consistent with this matter/antimatter annihilation theory. And what's your response? You go off in some other direction! Corpuscular theory? No. This is called quantum theory. When matter and antimatter meet, a photon (energy) is released. That's what you started with. Don't go moving the goal posts.

    An excellent rendition of what real researchers are doing about this question can be found in The Mystery of the Missing Antimatter [2007] -- Helen Quinn & Yossi Nir
    Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not his own facts.

  27. #27
    Join Date
    Nov 2002
    Posts
    6,238
    Quote Originally Posted by Mr. Peabody View Post
    OK, so there are many different big bang galaxy theories [surprise], how do we argue any or all of them versus my galaxy theory?
    Your ignorance of mainstream theory is showing again. There is one Big Bang Theory(BBT). There may be many hypotheses of separate pieces falling under the umbrella of the BBT. For instance, that galaxies form is part of the BBT. How they form currently has several different interpretations, based on several different observations.

    Quote Originally Posted by Mr. Peabody View Post
    I am not going to waste my time referencing stupid big bang statements to prove they were said. If you want to call me a liar call me a liar.
    Then don't. Reference actual papers. Don't reference popular science articles, that can be very open to interpretation. Have no intention of calling you a liar, saying you don't understand mainstream theory, is another matter.

    Quote Originally Posted by Mr. Peabody View Post
    i don't care if the whole world believes in the big bang or santa claus or anything. I have no need to disprove the big bang per se, but it is bad science standing in the way of all cosmological progress, as you demonstate. Open letter to science.

    http://www.cosmologystatement.org/
    LOL, have you read the works of some of those "Scientists" who signed that letter? Some of them have even posted here(or continue to post here). Their work is sloppy, doesn't have the required support, and what more damning than anything else, they interestingly support one another, even though their own work is in direct contradiction to the person they are supporting. If they believed in their own work, they should be working to find flaws in the other persons work, but they don't. Some just don't like that their own theory has been shot down by evidence. It's nothing but sour grapes.

    Quote Originally Posted by Mr. Peabody View Post
    Please, give me half a chance to respond to some of your statements. You are a multiple of people. in fairness why don't you back off for a few days while i research and answer previous questions.
    Well, how about you refrain from making new claims in your answers to our previous questions. And, how about you research current mainstream theory, before you claim a part of such theory is wrong?

    Quote Originally Posted by Mr. Peabody View Post
    To give me more than i can possibly chew on will result in a multitude of unanswered statements, misrepresentations.
    You've been misrepresenting mainstream theory since the first post. How will cutting down on the questions we ask you changing that?

  28. #28
    Join Date
    May 2003
    Posts
    4,716
    Okay, others have addressed most of the substantive problems already, but I'm particularly unamused by your selective quoting here.

    Quote Originally Posted by Mr. Peabody View Post
    Matter and antimatter anhialate, but they dont attract like two opposite magnetic forces. Do stars constantly collide in galactic arms? No. This would be rare, and appear as a supernova.
    The largest majority of collisions/anhialations are occuring in the center of galaxies, seen as quasars.

    in at least some of the galactic collisions we observe, we'd see a matter arm colliding with an antimatter arm. There would be gamma rays... as those particles were annihilated. We do not observe this from any galactic collisions.
    Most quasars are caused by collisions:

    Wilkipedea:
    The most luminous quasars radiate at a rate that can exceed the output of average galaxies, equivalent to one trillion (1012) suns. This radiation is emitted across the
    spectrum, almost equally, from X-rays to the far-infrared with a peak in the ultraviolet-optical bands, with some quasars also being strong sources of radio emission and of gamma-rays
    Here's what I actual said, with emphasis on the part that you chose to leave out.

    Quote Originally Posted by Grey
    If this were the case, then in at least some of the galactic collisions we observe, we'd see a matter arm colliding with an antimatter arm. There would be gamma rays with strong peaks at 938 MeV and 511 keV, the rest energies for protons and electrons, as those particles were annihilated. We do not observe this from any galactic collisions.
    Your decision to leave that out is an attempt to make it appear that we do observe things that could be large amounts of matter and antimatter colliding, but that's not the case. There are a variety of sources of gamma rays, but neither quasars nor supernovae have the characteristic peaks that would identify them as matter-antimatter annihilation, nor do we see such a signature in any galactic collisions, as I'd stated. Note in particular that the study you cited in the OP did exactly that to identify the presence of antimatter: astronomers recognized strong emissions at 511 keV, which indicates that we have positron annihilation happening. Just having gamma rays produced is not a marker for antimatter.

    Additionally, while it's true that most of the stars do not collide or interact other than gravitationally, that's not the case for the gas and dust, which interact quite strongly (colliding, slowing, and heating) during a galactic collision. So again, your contention that galaxies are half matter and half antimatter is trivially refuted by the lack of observation of gamma rays (with the appropriate energy distribution) from galactic collisions. And what you've done in the post I'm quoting appears to be not just misunderstanding the facts, but a deliberate attempt to distort the evidence and my statement to make it appear that there is observational support for your idea when in fact there is not.
    Conserve energy. Commute with the Hamiltonian.

  29. #29
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Posts
    141
    You are spamming my thread. Also using it as a soapbox for big bang theory.

    You've been misrepresenting mainstream theory since the first post.
    big bang theory misrepresents big bang theory. I just want to argue my theory. How would you argue, answer statements based on belief of the standard model when there are countless published versions of it, and the poster won't commit to any of them, and blames the original threader for the confusion that they create.

    I will no longer speak for big bang, you will have to explain it, instead of merely stating that it has all the answers but not saying what they are in your big bang version.

    No cutting down on questions, don't put words in my mouth. Let me handle the previous questions first, is that hard to understand? I had an ex girlfriend who would send an angry text. halfway through my response i recieve three more angry texts. You claim unanswered statements you make as points for you, when you don't allow me time to answer, you have piled on how many more questions since the third request i've made for you to let me answer previous questions. Obviously you don't wanrt to play fair, you are confounding the post with spam.

    I am looking at a sea of posts and statements and questions, many questions themselves could require much work. Just scrolling to find a quote that i have an answer for is taking forever, as i search, there appears three new posts.

    I shouldn't have to constantly restate points, posters need to read my previous statements closer.


    I will handle previous business, ignore the past two posts for now.

    How does your collision of matter and antimatter model explain quasar spectra being largely thermal? And having spectral lines in that are not just due to annihilation?
    There is more activity in a galactic center than just collisions of matter-antimatter.

    can't find quotes in this sea, i'll paraphrase:
    so your galaxy formation theory may explain only one way galaxies are formed. what good is it, if there are others you haven't explained, while solving the Kennedy assasination as well?
    I might have been ambiguous, or given an incomplete answer.
    What is the definition of a galaxy? 1 A number of stars in close proximity, or 2 a working system of star creation?or 3 a working system of matter and star creation?

    By the first definition i would say there is more than one way for galaxies to form.
    By the second, i hold out the possibility for an area to have enough existing matter to collapse into stars. I don't see but one way for the third definition.

    I tend to believe at least some irregulars are first definition, but remnants of a dead spiral galaxy.

    Why not 1b without helium? And why wouldn't there be any hydrogen or helium in the spectra of a collision supernova?
    The progenitors of Types Ib and Ic have lost most of their outer envelopes [Hydrogen and Helium]due to strong stellar winds or else from interaction [and subsequent collision?] with a close companion. Matter-antimatter anhialations cause gamma ray bursts.

    I am getting some ideas about ellipticals, good theory doen't come immediately.

    There is some contradiction in definition of types, even at wilki.

    Some supernovas are only observed in spirals and ellipticals, some are only in new forming galaxies.
    Why would this be, by standard theory? What do they mean by the latter? Is there references or pics?


    Problem: a static magnetic field will not add energy to charged particles. And moving charged particles will not pull energy out of nowhere to accelerate themselves. Unfortunately for your idea (and free energy schemes everywhere), electromagnetism conserves energy. And yes, we see pair production in accelerators...I'm not sure how this has escaped your notice, but particle accelerators also consume a fair bit of power. Pair production doesn't create matter from nothing.
    Good Q bad manners.
    Scientific American:
    given the strong evidense that spiral and elliptical galaxies lie embedded in dark-matter halos...the Milky Way's halo..may extend ...to 600,000 light years.
    Looking at only the area of activity, it seems to be a violation of thermodynamics, an increase in energy.

    The halo would be the source of the energy, concentrated and focused in narrow EM bands throught it where the energy can be converted to motion and to matter production, etc.

    Most quasars are caused by collisions:
    This part you may have right...... Quasars are caused by the accretion disk around the central supermassive black hole.
    You agree with my observational data, yet you just have a different conclusion. Thank you for at least admitting to the observation. I have read at least twenty statements denying it.

    You haven't disproven my conclusion, just offered the standard explanation..
    Last edited by Mr. Peabody; 2012-Jan-16 at 09:49 PM.

  30. #30
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Location
    New Zealand
    Posts
    9,672
    Quote Originally Posted by Mr. Peabody View Post
    You are spamming my thread. Also using it as a soapbox for big bang theory. ...
    If you have an issue with a members posts, report - don't argue about it in-thread.

    And no, there is nothing wrong with Grey's posts, and you simply need to answer the questions.


    A note to everyone: please keep the reference in quote tags... [QUOTE=Whom;9999]. It makes tracing the conversation much easier.
    I don't see any Ice Giants.

Similar Threads

  1. Replies: 3
    Last Post: 2011-Jan-13, 01:09 PM
  2. starbursts, galaxies, merging galaxies
    By Henry Krinkle in forum Space/Astronomy Questions and Answers
    Replies: 10
    Last Post: 2010-Dec-04, 10:54 PM
  3. Antimatter
    By mercury in forum Astronomy
    Replies: 8
    Last Post: 2006-Apr-20, 08:43 AM
  4. Antimatter
    By mercury in forum Space/Astronomy Questions and Answers
    Replies: 15
    Last Post: 2005-Jul-14, 03:38 PM
  5. Antimatter
    By Powerman 5000 in forum Off-Topic Babbling
    Replies: 14
    Last Post: 2004-Feb-11, 12:35 AM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
here
The forum is sponsored in-part by: