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.
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..
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.
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.
I'm not a hardnosed mainstreamer; I just like the observations, theories, predictions, and results to match.
"Mainstream isnít 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
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.Would you please consider using a spell and grammar checker?
Last edited by Mr. Peabody; 2012-Jan-17 at 07:29 AM. Reason: never mind
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.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.
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!
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.
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
from page one:
I agree; what i call the media, you call dark matter, is vital.Models of galaxy formation and interaction that rely on dark matter compare very well to our observations of galaxies.
Is this a problem with SMBH theory? Is there a fix that explains the rotation curves?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.
So you officially dispute the findings and the wording of the CERN describing half of our galactic center as antimatter?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.
Then, I have these questions still waiting:
And yes, there is a fix for the rotation curves not fitting those expected from the visible matter...the fix is dark matter.
If CERN is right, half the mass of the center of our galaxy. While looking that up, i found:What is the estimated mass of this antimatter?
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....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. 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.
It appears that it wasn't CERN, sorry....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...
Wierd that the last two observational references together sound like my theory verbatum, huh?
Whatever.Get a life.
i don't think there is any need to go on here. I have clearly won.
Not much like your theory, no. Some qualitative similarities, if one is being generous. Quantitatively completely different.Wierd that the last two observational references together sound like my theory verbatum, huh?
Last edited by Strange; 2012-Jan-17 at 10:31 AM. Reason: n't
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.
For note, post #52 earned Mr. Peabody an infraction, and post #53 does not remove from Mr. Peabody the obligation to answer questions.
Get up, a get-get, get down.
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
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.