Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 123 LastLast
Results 31 to 60 of 86

Thread: galaxies and antimatter

  1. #31
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Posts
    136
    Quote Originally Posted by Mr. Peabody View 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'd rather see you presenting your view of the BB model on the terms discussed in this thread, so that the possible misconceptions can be corrected. Pretty much all of your post that have included anything about BB model have had statements that don't match the model. What are you basing your conception of BB model on?

  2. #32
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Posts
    141
    I apologize

    I wasn't singling anybody out, i meant all the posters, who happen to be opposed to me. I should have the right to answer questions and statements against me, as in a court of law.
    If these questions are important, let me answer them in order. Its like standing in line, there are people ahead of you. be patient....

    Q collisions in arms of colliding galaxies.

    No more or less collisions should occur in the arms of colliding galaxies because of the difference in matter and antimatter. All such collisions would result in supernovae, it should be easy to show no observations for massive collisions of stars in the arms. As stated before, the distance between stars is so great that collisions are rare.


    Having stated and restated these points, they should not be reargued. If "you" don't agree, that is fine, but it is not pertinent to the arguement.

  3. #33
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Posts
    141
    this thread is about matter-antimatter galaxy theory, not big bang. If you have a counter arguement or science or observation, that is what i want. Somehow, though, it is inevitable that something about BB comes up, and it doesn't have to come from me.

    Let us concentrate on the science of my statements. Is there enough potential energy in a system 600,000 light years across to do what a "powerful particle collider" does on Earth, that is, create matter in pair production?
    Check yes or no

    Checking yes doesn't prove that matter is created, but that the energy is present and available, and the proposed method doesn't violate laws of thermodynamics..

  4. #34
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Posts
    5,722
    Quote Originally Posted by Mr. Peabody View Post
    this thread is about matter-antimatter galaxy theory, not big bang. If you have a counter arguement or science or observation, that is what i want. Somehow, though, it is inevitable that something about BB comes up, and it doesn't have to come from me.

    Let us concentrate on the science of my statements. Is there enough potential energy in a system 600,000 light years across to do what a "powerful particle collider" does on Earth, that is, create matter in pair production?
    Check yes or no

    Checking yes doesn't prove that matter is created, but that the energy is present and available, and the proposed method doesn't violate laws of thermodynamics..
    A kilogram of matter has enough internal energy to make a kilogram of matter. Pretty much the definition.

    If quasars were antimatter annihilation then there should be very strong 511 keV and 931 MeV radiation peaks in the power/frequency distribution. Completely not seen.

  5. #35
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Posts
    4,335
    Quote Originally Posted by Mr. Peabody View Post
    No more or less collisions should occur in the arms of colliding galaxies because of the difference in matter and antimatter. All such collisions would result in supernovae, it should be easy to show no observations for massive collisions of stars in the arms. As stated before, the distance between stars is so great that collisions are rare.
    The problems with this have already been pointed out. Direct star collisions are not necessary, as stars emit stellar winds and a large portion of the star population will go through stages in which they eject a large part of their mass into the surrounding area. There's several billion solar masses of neutral atomic hydrogen in the Milky Way, producing 21 cm radiation easily measurable with radio telescopes. In some galaxies, the gas and dust even outmasses the stars. And then there's all the matter in intergalactic gas...

    You simply could not have a mix of matter and antimatter stars and have there be any doubt what you were looking at. If there are large masses of antimatter in the universe, it's nowhere we can see. This just isn't something you could fail to notice happening anywhere in your neighborhood.

  6. #36
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Posts
    17,308
    Quote Originally Posted by cjameshuff View Post
    The problems with this have already been pointed out. Direct star collisions are not necessary, as stars emit stellar winds and a large portion of the star population will go through stages in which they eject a large part of their mass into the surrounding area. There's several billion solar masses of neutral atomic hydrogen in the Milky Way, producing 21 cm radiation easily measurable with radio telescopes. In some galaxies, the gas and dust even outmasses the stars. And then there's all the matter in intergalactic gas...

    You simply could not have a mix of matter and antimatter stars and have there be any doubt what you were looking at.
    And this is why I asked the questions (still unanswered) about the GAS of merging galaxies. Astronomers have long considered the possibility of antimatter galaxies and looked for them, but haven't found them. They would be obvious if they did exist, so the idea of this thread is DOA, and it doesn't require BBT to say that.

    "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

  7. #37
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Posts
    2,877
    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.
    Most quasars are caused by collisions:

    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.
    Would you please consider using a spell and grammar checker? It would make your posts much easier to understand. As is, your credibility is undermined by the errors.

    Thanks, 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

  8. #38
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Posts
    141

    throw in the antimatter towel

    Would you please consider using a spell and grammar checker?
    My writing is practically illegible, frocked with errors, that is why i have no credibilty. I'm sorry, I like low-tec text document editor. I even use the old rich text format to include images. I used to do HTML but editing is a pain.
    Last edited by Mr. Peabody; 2012-Jan-17 at 07:29 AM. Reason: never mind

  9. #39
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Posts
    141
    If quasars were antimatter annihilation then there should be very strong 511 keV and 931 MeV radiation peaks in the power/frequency distribution. Completely not seen.
    There is a giant cloud of antimatter on on side of our galactic center, according to CERN's latest observations, referenced earlier. We should have seen this years ago according to your faith in our ability to observe the peaks at far greater distances.

    After all, if any antimatter cloud can't exist across the universe without your easy detection, why has it taken so many observations to finally discover a giant cloud of antimatter right in our own galaxy.....like we never looked at the center before?
    Obvious rhetorical questioning.
    Last edited by Mr. Peabody; 2012-Jan-17 at 07:18 AM. Reason: spelling!

  10. #40
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Posts
    5,722
    Quote Originally Posted by Mr. Peabody View Post
    There is a giant cloud of antimatter on on side of our galactic center, according to CERN's latest observations, referenced earlier. We should have seen this years ago according to your faith in our ability to observe the peaks at far greater distances.

    After all, if any antimatter cloud can't exist across the universe without your easy detection, why has it taken so many observations to finally discover a giant cloud of antimatter right in our own galaxy.....like we never looked at the center before?
    Obvious rhetorical questioning.
    Source? CERN is particle physics center, not an astronomy center.

  11. #41
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Posts
    4,335
    Quote Originally Posted by Mr. Peabody View Post
    My matter-antimatter galaxy theory seems to be less than a success. Q 1: If the antimatter aspect were removed, is there any science against the method i propose for galactic fission? It seems that most of the disagreement is based on the antimatter.
    Your "fission" process seemed founded on electromagnetic fields on a large enough scale violating conservation of energy and forming large amounts of particle-antiparticle pairs. Without that, it's not clear to me what's left. Where does the matter come from with which to build new galaxies? Where does the energy come from to drive matter apart against its self gravitation? What forces could possibly drive such a process?


    Quote Originally Posted by Mr. Peabody View Post
    You guys seem to know about galaxies, right? Please answer my questions, when Wilki or standard theory speaks of spiral galaxies on one hand and forming galaxies on the other, Q 2: what do they mean by forming galaxies?
    What do you mean what do they mean? I suppose it might be something else in some specific context, but when they talk about forming galaxies, I would generally assume they mean galaxies that are forming. Spiral galaxies are galaxies with a spiral shape.


    Quote Originally Posted by Mr. Peabody View Post
    Q 3: Why do some supernovas come from one and some from the other?
    Supernovas come from stars. Galaxies...have stars.

    If you're talking about different types of supernovas, various differences in star formation can influence the distribution. Supernovas that come from short-lived massive stars are only likely to be seen in galaxies with recent star formation, and will be more common in galaxies with the conditions to encourage formation of more massive stars.


    Quote Originally Posted by Mr. Peabody View Post
    There is a giant cloud of antimatter on on side of our galactic center, according to CERN's latest observations, referenced earlier. We should have seen this years ago according to your faith in our ability to observe the peaks at far greater distances.
    That's utterly backwards. First, the 511 keV emissions from the galactic center were detected in the 1970s using balloon-lofted instruments. That it wasn't seen earlier and more clearly is partly a result of there not being much to see...it's a region with unexpectedly large amounts of positrons, not a cloud of any significant mass of antihydrogen or such. The fact that we could detect such things decades ago, and can now produce images and more precise measurements (with the ESA INTEGRAL satellite, nothing to do with CERN) of such things only further backs the argument that there are not huge quantities of antimatter anywhere in sight.

  12. #42
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Posts
    5,722
    Ignore my last post, I found out what you are talking about.

    By the way, that cloud actually proves my point, not yours. The 511 keV emission was detected quite easily (from a balloon in the 1970s), it what just the source was not easy to find.

    If there were alot of antimatter out there, the EGRET on the Compton Gamma Ray Observatory would have been seeing 931 MeV sources from proton annihilation. Since that would have been a career making result, if not a trip to Oslo, I doubt that they found much. You can be sure more than one person looked tho.

    Additional note: For gamma telescopes, you have to look at detector sensitivity ranges. INTEGRAL cant detect proton annihilation, the detectors dont go that high. The EGRET on the Compton did tho.
    Last edited by korjik; 2012-Jan-17 at 07:48 AM. Reason: additional note

  13. #43
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Posts
    141
    from page one:

    Models of galaxy formation and interaction that rely on dark matter compare very well to our observations of galaxies.
    I agree; what i call the media, you call dark matter, is vital.

    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.
    Is this a problem with SMBH theory? Is there a fix that explains the rotation curves?

    If there were alot of antimatter out there, the EGRET on the Compton Gamma Ray Observatory would have been seeing 931 MeV sources from proton annihilation.
    So you officially dispute the findings and the wording of the CERN describing half of our galactic center as antimatter?

  14. #44
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Posts
    17,308
    Quote Originally Posted by Mr. Peabody View Post
    So you officially dispute the findings and the wording of the CERN describing half of our galactic center as antimatter?
    What is the estimated mass of this antimatter?

    Then, I have these questions still waiting:

    http://www.bautforum.com/showthread....08#post1979808

    "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

  15. #45
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Posts
    5,722
    Quote Originally Posted by Mr. Peabody View Post
    from page one:

    I agree; what i call the media, you call dark matter, is vital.



    Is this a problem with SMBH theory? Is there a fix that explains the rotation curves?



    So you officially dispute the findings and the wording of the CERN describing half of our galactic center as antimatter?
    Yeah, especially since CERN dosent do astronomy, and the source you are talking about is known now.

  16. #46
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Posts
    4,335
    Quote Originally Posted by Mr. Peabody View Post
    Is this a problem with SMBH theory? Is there a fix that explains the rotation curves?
    No. While the SMBHs are quite massive, they are a tiny fraction of the mass of the galaxy, and could be removed entirely without greatly changing the rotation curves of stars outside the core. You seem to have a persistent idea that the stars of a galaxy are supposed to be orbiting the SMBH at the center, they aren't.

    And yes, there is a fix for the rotation curves not fitting those expected from the visible matter...the fix is dark matter.


    Quote Originally Posted by Mr. Peabody View Post
    So you officially dispute the findings and the wording of the CERN describing half of our galactic center as antimatter?
    I dispute that they ever said such a thing. Please cite the exact statements where CERN describes half the galactic center as being composed of antimatter.

  17. #47
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Posts
    17,308
    Quote Originally Posted by Van Rijn View Post
    What is the estimated mass of this antimatter?
    Oh, when you answer this question, please provide reference information. One thing for sure: It's not going to be half the mass of the galactic center.

    "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. #48
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Posts
    141
    What is the estimated mass of this antimatter?
    If CERN is right, half the mass of the center of our galaxy. While looking that up, i found:

    The nature of the Galaxy's bar which extends across the Galactic center is also actively debated, with estimates for its half-length and orientation spanning between 1-5 kpc (short or a long bar) and 10-50 degrees.[9][10][11] Certain authors advocate that the Galaxy features two distinct bars, one nestled within the otherThe bar may be surrounded by a ring called the "5-kpc ring" that contains a large fraction of the molecular hydrogen present in the galaxy, as well as most of the Milky Way's star formation activity.
    That sounds like my description of narrow bands of force in the middle of galaxy halo's, and new particle production resulting in stars, hydrogen abundance....

  19. #49
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Posts
    17,308
    Quote Originally Posted by Mr. Peabody View Post
    If CERN is right, half the mass of the center of our galaxy.
    Provide references or withdraw the claim.

    "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

  20. #50
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Posts
    141
    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...
    It appears that it wasn't CERN, sorry.

    Wierd that the last two observational references together sound like my theory verbatum, huh?

  21. #51
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Posts
    17,308
    Quote Originally Posted by Mr. Peabody View Post
    If CERN is right, half the mass of the center of our galaxy.
    (Emphasis added). Again: Provide references or withdraw the claim.

    "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

  22. #52
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Posts
    141
    Whatever.Get a life.

  23. #53
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Posts
    141
    i don't think there is any need to go on here. I have clearly won.

  24. #54
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    a long way away
    Posts
    8,824
    Quote Originally Posted by Mr. Peabody View Post
    Wilkipedia:

    It appears that it wasn't CERN, sorry.
    And it wasn't "half the mass of the center of our galaxy" either.

    Wierd that the last two observational references together sound like my theory verbatum, huh?
    Not much like your theory, no. Some qualitative similarities, if one is being generous. Quantitatively completely different.
    Last edited by Strange; 2012-Jan-17 at 10:31 AM. Reason: n't

  25. #55
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    a long way away
    Posts
    8,824
    Quote Originally Posted by Mr. Peabody View Post
    That sounds like my description of narrow bands of force in the middle of galaxy halo's, and new particle production resulting in stars, hydrogen abundance....
    Doesn't sound anything like it to me. No mention of "force". No mention of new particle production.

    By the way, the reason there is so much uncertainty about the exact shape of our galaxy (unlike so many others out there) is simply because we are looking at it sideways on and trying to recreate the structure from that limited view.

  26. #56
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Posts
    17,308
    Quote Originally Posted by Mr. Peabody View Post
    i don't think there is any need to go on here. I have clearly won.
    Except for the bit that observation quite dramatically fails to support your claims. The mass of the positrons in the cloud you mention are a minuscule fraction of the mass of the galaxy.

    "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

  27. #57
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Posts
    4,335
    Quote Originally Posted by Mr. Peabody View Post
    i don't think there is any need to go on here. I have clearly won.
    No, you haven't. You don't win in this forum by making absurd claims that you can't back up. (Though it does seem to be a common misconception for some reason.)

  28. #58
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Location
    New Zealand
    Posts
    9,648
    For note, post #52 earned Mr. Peabody an infraction, and post #53 does not remove from Mr. Peabody the obligation to answer questions.
    I don't see any Ice Giants.

  29. #59
    Join Date
    Feb 2003
    Posts
    13,105
    Quote Originally Posted by Mr. Peabody View Post
    Whatever.Get a life.
    Mr. Peabody No. This is not how it is done. Please read the rules for posting on BAT. Read the rule regarding Civility and Decorum and the rules for posting in the ATM Forum. They are linked at the bottom of this post.

    You are requird to answer questions. If you make a claim then you must support it. IF you say (for example) that CERN claims 'half the mass of the centre of our Galaxy is antimatter' then you must support this with a ref to the source or a link.
    Rules For Posting To This Board
    All Moderation in Purple

  30. #60
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Posts
    141

    sorry

    Undetectable by ground telescopes, a balloon above the atmosphere in the 70's detects peaks typical of annihalations of matter/antimatter, coming from the center of our galaxy. As is, the signals were so weak they weren't even associated with our galaxy.

    A star being consumed in 20 seconds due to matter/antimatter annihalations would put out a good gamma burst, but a field of small matter/antimatter dust, gas, plasma, and particles colliding emit a constant trickle of gamma, but not very intensely.

    A giant cloud of antimatter is half of our galactic center. The fact that this has escaped us for so long demonstrates that the intensity of light from this slow flow is very weak.
    It is likely that we detect antimatter in our own galaxy first before we discover it far across the cosmos, and we just now have done that.

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: