Page 3 of 3 FirstFirst 123
Results 61 to 86 of 86

Thread: galaxies and antimatter

  1. #61
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    a long way away
    Posts
    8,534
    Quote Originally Posted by Mr. Peabody View Post
    A giant cloud of antimatter is half of our galactic center.
    What do you mean by "half of our galactic center"; it certainly doesn't make up half the (mass of) the galaxy as you initially claimed. If it did, the signal wouldn't be so weak. No one denies there is antimatter, just not enough to support your theory.

  2. #62
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Posts
    1,410
    Quote Originally Posted by Mr. Peabody View Post
    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.
    Strange beat me to it, but I'll follow up by asking you if you now retract your earlier bold assertion that "half the mass of the galaxy" was made of antimatter. There's a world (galaxy?) of difference between "half of center" and "half of galaxy," now, wouldn't you say?

  3. #63
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Posts
    17,148
    I *still* haven't seen an answer to this question, despite the continued claims about this "cloud":
    Quote Originally Posted by Van Rijn View Post
    What is the estimated mass of this antimatter?
    Do provide references. If you cannot find an answer, say so.

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

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

    The Leif Ericson Cruiser

  4. #64
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Posts
    141
    Your antimatter twin
    He's on the other side
    He wants to ask you why
    His existence you've denied
    He wants to be your friend
    Better loved than hated
    Just don't shake his hand
    You'll be annihalated
    Oh by the way he says
    We are the matter people
    You are the antimatter
    That is the way we see you

    M lindsey 1/17/12

  5. #65
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Posts
    2,705
    Quote Originally Posted by Mr. Peabody View Post
    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.
    You can copy back and forth for your posts using Word or any other good word processor. It makes a difference.
    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

  6. #66
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Posts
    141
    Q: What is the mass of the “giant cloud” of antimatter at our galactic center, which has been recently observed?

    ANSWERS:
    1 The reference doesn’t estimate the mass. I wasn’t part of the experiment, I have no data to answer.
    2 You would expect my estimate to be through the eyes of big bang theory, taking the theorized SMBH into account. I promised NOT to speak for big bang theory.
    3 The mass of the cloud is irrelevant to Matter-Antimatter Galaxy Theory.
    4 You were given references.
    I thank all of you for your feedback, which embellished and corrected my theory.

    SUMMATION OF THREAD TO DATE:

    >Matter-Antimatter Galaxy Theory victories:

    1 Methodology of particle production: proven, observed and duplicated in experimentation.
    2 Energy is available for pair production, no violation of the laws of thermodynamics.
    3 Media, or dark matter, exists and is necessary for formation.(shared victory)
    4 Collisions of stars in arms do not occur more or less due to antimatter.
    5 Collisions of matter and antimatter stars are typical of observed 1c supernova.
    6 A clear connection has been made between collisions of galaxies/centers and the observations of quasars.

    >Matter-Antimatter Galaxy Theory losses:

    1 Elliptical galaxies not formed as previously explained. Further research is necessary to explain elliptical galaxies.

    2 CP violation argument was not relevant or necessary. Science claiming possibility of CP violation in modern epoch is not proof of a mass CP violation in an earlier epoch, and is therefore no threat to MAGT model.

    >Matter-Antimatter Galaxy Theory points yet conceded:

    1 Matter-Antimatter Galaxy Theory proposed EM lines of force and existing particle motion through the center of spiral galaxies, causing matter creation, and hydrogen abundance. This was supported by the galactic bar observation. No poster has shown any difference in my theory and observation.

    2 Posters didn't place any lower limits on the ability to detect antimatter across the cosmos before. These claims were disproved by the lack of detection of a "giant cloud" of antimatter in our own galaxy, which either covers half the core or, more likely, IS half the core.

    Even with the antimatter at the dense center of our galaxy, observations reveal more matter creation than matter annihilation. Mere existence of antimatter is not detectable, annihilations are required for it’s detection.

    This is the crux of the argument, the existing assumption that antimatter in the presence of matter will only result in quick annihilation. Observations of The Milky Way show that antimatter and matter coexist in working systems of matter and star production.

    The current lack of observational proof of antimatter in distant galaxies lies in the difficulty of detection, except for quasars and type 1c supernovae.

    Logically, if our galaxy has antimatter, it is likely that all spiral galaxies have antimatter.

    I have demonstrated that Matter-Antimatter Galaxy Theory is the best fit for observations and proven science, and it should be the new model for spiral galaxies.

  7. #67
    Join Date
    Nov 2002
    Posts
    6,238
    Quote Originally Posted by Mr. Peabody View Post
    SUMMATION OF THREAD TO DATE:

    >Matter-Antimatter Galaxy Theory victories:
    1 Methodology of particle production: proven, observed and duplicated in experimentation.
    You do realize that particle pair production is explained and seen in mainstream theory and observations, right? So this really isn't a victory, especially as you haven't provided an actual calculation showing how much.

    Quote Originally Posted by Mr. Peabody View Post
    2 Energy is available for pair production, no violation of the laws of thermodynamics.
    In mainstream theory also. So?

    Quote Originally Posted by Mr. Peabody View Post
    4 Collisions of stars in arms do not occur more or less due to antimatter.
    Well, you claim they occur to explain supernova. What calculations can you produce that show that enough stellar collisions occur in the arms to explain the observed supernova?

    Quote Originally Posted by Mr. Peabody View Post
    5 Collisions of matter and antimatter stars are typical of observed 1c supernova.
    Actually, you have not provided the calculations for your model that show it will produce the light curve of the known 1c spectra observations. You also have not provided your stellar model that blows off the hydrogen and helium layers. The mainstream stellar model provides the mechanism for getting rid of the hydrogen and helium, but that process also provides the mechanism for the supernova which then produces the 1c spectrum, so your collision model isn't needed. We need your stellar model, and your calculations for the light curve of your supernova. When can you provide us with those?

    Quote Originally Posted by Mr. Peabody View Post
    6 A clear connection has been made between collisions of galaxies/centers and the observations of quasars.
    A clear connection has been made for the connection between the collision of the galaxies, the collision of their gas during galactic collisions, which in turn feed the supermassive blackholes that power quasars, AGN Seyfert Galaxies BL Lac objects, etc. Along with powering the jets that are observed in some of the previous objects. The original idea was developed in 1977 and variations on the original have been modeled since. Calculations have been done for models and these model results match observations for High energy spectra with jets , radiogalaxy specta among others. In addition, this paper provides a variety of spectral line that are observed in quasars. Please provide us with your calculations showing your matter-antimatter stars will produce the observed power output, the observed jets, and the same kind of spectra for quasars.

    Yeah, those victories for matter-antimatter galaxies, not so much.

    Quote Originally Posted by Mr. Peabody View Post
    >Matter-Antimatter Galaxy Theory points yet conceded:

    1 Matter-Antimatter Galaxy Theory proposed EM lines of force and existing particle motion through the center of spiral galaxies, causing matter creation, and hydrogen abundance. This was supported by the galactic bar observation. No poster has shown any difference in my theory and observation.
    You haven't shown, NUMERICALLY, that your idea matches any kind of observations for how much matter is created, how this creation leads to, produces, and produces the amount of hydrogen abundance. How does the galactic bar observation support your idea NUMERICALLY?

    Quote Originally Posted by Mr. Peabody View Post
    This is the crux of the argument, the existing assumption that antimatter in the presence of matter will only result in quick annihilation. Observations of The Milky Way show that antimatter and matter coexist in working systems of matter and star production.
    Can you show that the matter or antimatter have come in contact and not annihilated? After all, if you can't show that, then the possibility is still there that they will, once they come in contact.

    Quote Originally Posted by Mr. Peabody View Post
    The current lack of observational proof of antimatter in distant galaxies lies in the difficulty of detection, except for quasars and type 1c supernovae.
    What observations in the quasars and type 1c supernovae, specifically, can only be due to antimatter?

    Quote Originally Posted by Mr. Peabody View Post
    I have demonstrated that Matter-Antimatter Galaxy Theory is the best fit for observations and proven science, and it should be the new model for spiral galaxies.
    No, you have made many unsupported claims, without giving any quantitative support. When can we expect the calculations to provide that support?

  8. #68
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Posts
    141
    Do the calculations, you are the scientist. or are you?

    MATTER-ANTIMATTER GALAXY THEORY

    The ionization of space is well observed. Motion of ions in space creates Electromagnetic fields. The EM fields of planets and stars prevent these fields from growing very large. Beyond galaxies, these magnetic fields can align and grow, and become extremely large.

    The Milky Way Galaxy is observed to be within a halo of "dark matter", or media, some 600,000 light years across. The potential energy of this system concentrates in narrow bands of Electromagnetic force through the center. The large magnetic field accelerates existing matter causing high speed collisions resulting in pair production of new particles.

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

    Particles are ejected from both magnetic poles, Matter in one direction, and Antimatter in the other. This gas collapses to form the stars in the two Galactic arms.

    Until recent observations, the science community has assumed that antimatter in the presence of matter will only result in quick annihilation. Observations of the center of the Milky Way Galaxy show that antimatter and matter coexist in working systems of matter and star production.

    Without annihilation, antimatter cannot be detected. There appears to be more matter creation at the Milky Way Galaxy core than there is annihilation. If this occurs in other galaxies, it would explain the lack of detection of galactic antimatter in other galaxies.

    Matter and antimatter stars are only attracted due to gravitation, and collide no more or less often than two stars composed of matter. The stars in the arms of galaxies are typically far apart, often separated by the width of millions of stars. Collisions are rare.

    Collisions of matter stars with antimatter stars will occur, and they are observed to be typical of type 1c supernovae. The hydrogen and helium are stripped by close association, and subsequent collision. Gamma ray bursts occur in the collision, as the inferior star is annihilated, and the energy released quickly levels out.

    Collisions of galaxies involving the center are typically observed to cause quasars. The increase in matter-antimatter collisions at the center would result in a tremendous release in energy, the observed x-ray and gamma radiation would be predicted.

    Because our galaxy has antimatter, it is likely that all spiral galaxies have antimatter.
    __________________________________________________ ___

    I have demonstrated that Matter-Antimatter Galaxy Theory is the best fit for observations and proven science, and should be the new model for spiral galaxies. M. Lindsey 1/21/12

  9. #69
    Join Date
    Nov 2002
    Posts
    6,238
    I noticed that you didn't even bother to answer any of my specific questions. As all but one are basically repeated in your statements below in this post, I've only brought over the one question you didn't answer and didn't repeat in this post.

    Quote Originally Posted by Mr. Peabody View Post
    The current lack of observational proof of antimatter in distant galaxies lies in the difficulty of detection, except for quasars and type 1c supernovae.
    What observations in the quasars and type 1c supernovae, specifically, can only be due to antimatter?


    Quote Originally Posted by Mr. Peabody View Post
    Do the calculations, you are the scientist. or are you?
    I can't do the calculations, it's not my idea. I don't know how your idea is supposed to calculate these things. It's your idea. I would think that you would know how to calculate these things. Do you? After all, it is a requirement that you defend your idea.

    Quote Originally Posted by Mr. Peabody View Post
    MATTER-ANTIMATTER GALAXY THEORY

    The ionization of space is well observed. Motion of ions in space creates Electromagnetic fields. The EM fields of planets and stars prevent these fields from growing very large.
    How large is very large? Where are your calculations and can you present them for this claim?

    Quote Originally Posted by Mr. Peabody View Post
    Beyond galaxies, these magnetic fields can align and grow, and become extremely large.
    How large is extremely large. Where is your calculations and can you present them for this claims?

    Quote Originally Posted by Mr. Peabody View Post
    The Milky Way Galaxy is observed to be within a halo of "dark matter", or media, some 600,000 light years across. The potential energy of this system concentrates in narrow bands of Electromagnetic force through the center.
    How narrow are the bands? How much is the force in these bands? Where are your calculations and can you present them for these claims?

    Quote Originally Posted by Mr. Peabody View Post
    The large magnetic field accelerates existing matter causing high speed collisions resulting in pair production of new particles.
    How large is the magnetic field? How much is the existing matter accelerated? How high is the speed of these collisions? What energy is produced by these collisions? What particles are produced by these particles. Where are your calculations and can you present them for these claims?

    Quote Originally Posted by Mr. Peabody View Post
    This causes the Hydrogen abundance as observed in Nature; larger atoms are not created by pair production.
    Well, how does this abundance match these observations? What calculations have you done, and can you present them to show your idea matches these observations?

    Quote Originally Posted by Mr. Peabody View Post
    Particles are ejected from both magnetic poles, Matter in one direction, and Antimatter in the other. This gas collapses to form the stars in the two Galactic arms.
    Notice that in my last post I provided an actual link to the calculations for the jet model. You provided...., what, exactly to support your particle ejection model? By what process are the particles ejected? How was this determined? What model calculations were done that verify the ejection model? What calculations were done to verify the gas collapse claim? Where are your calculations and can you present them for these claims?

    Quote Originally Posted by Mr. Peabody View Post
    Until recent observations, the science community has assumed that antimatter in the presence of matter will only result in quick annihilation. Observations of the center of the Milky Way Galaxy show that antimatter and matter coexist in working systems of matter and star production.
    I asked this before. What evidence do you have that the antimatter in our galaxy has never interacted with matter?

    Quote Originally Posted by Mr. Peabody View Post
    Matter and antimatter stars are only attracted due to gravitation, and collide no more or less often than two stars composed of matter.
    By what calculations do you base this claim on? Where are your calculations and can you present them for these claims?

    Quote Originally Posted by Mr. Peabody View Post
    The stars in the arms of galaxies are typically far apart, often separated by the width of millions of stars. Collisions are rare.
    Then what are the odds of a matter star anti-matter star collision, according to your idea? How does this match with the observed SN 1c rates? Where are your calculations and can you present them for these claims?

    Quote Originally Posted by Mr. Peabody View Post
    Collisions of matter stars with antimatter stars will occur, and they are observed to be typical of type 1c supernovae. The hydrogen and helium are stripped by close association, and subsequent collision.
    If this was the case, there would still be hydrogen and helium in the spectra. This does not explain the lack of both of those in your supposed type 1c supernova. How are they stripped?

    Quote Originally Posted by Mr. Peabody View Post
    Gamma ray bursts occur in the collision, as the inferior star is annihilated, and the energy released quickly levels out.
    What are the calculations that show the light curve for a stellar matter-antimatter collision? How do those calculations match the observed type 1c light curves?.

    Quote Originally Posted by Mr. Peabody View Post
    Collisions of galaxies involving the center are typically observed to cause quasars.
    Off center collisions also cause quasars. Collisions with irregular dwarf galaxies also cause quasars. How does your idea explain these two?

    Quote Originally Posted by Mr. Peabody View Post
    The increase in matter-antimatter collisions at the center would result in a tremendous release in energy,
    How much energy? What calculations did you do to determine this? Where are your calculations and can you present them for these claims?

    Quote Originally Posted by Mr. Peabody View Post
    the observed x-ray and gamma radiation would be predicted.
    How much x-ray radiation is predicted by your idea? How much gamma radiation is predicted by your idea? How were those two values calculated? Where are your calculations and can you present them for these claims?

    Quote Originally Posted by Mr. Peabody View Post
    I have demonstrated that Matter-Antimatter Galaxy Theory is the best fit for observations and proven science, and should be the new model for spiral galaxies. M. Lindsey 1/21/12
    Again, you have not demonstrate any kind of NUMERICAL support for your idea. There are 27 NUMERICAL values, just in this post, that you have not provided for your idea. Which means your idea comes no where close to being the best fit to observations. There are also five different observations I point out that contradict your claims. So, your idea is pretty much flat out wrong, no matter how much you may claim otherwise. So, when do you expect to answer those questions?

  10. #70
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Posts
    17,148
    Quote Originally Posted by Mr. Peabody View Post
    Q: What is the mass of the “giant cloud” of antimatter at our galactic center, which has been recently observed?

    ANSWERS:
    1 The reference doesn’t estimate the mass. I wasn’t part of the experiment, I have no data to answer.
    [...]
    2 Posters didn't place any lower limits on the ability to detect antimatter across the cosmos before. These claims were disproved by the lack of detection of a "giant cloud" of antimatter in our own galaxy, which either covers half the core or, more likely, IS half the core.
    This is ridiculous. You admit you can't support your claim, but you try to sneak it in again anyway.

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

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

    The Leif Ericson Cruiser

  11. #71
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    a long way away
    Posts
    8,534
    First you say this:
    Quote Originally Posted by Mr. Peabody View Post
    Do the calculations, you are the scientist. or are you?
    which implies you cannot do the necessary calculations (and you certainly haven't presented any quantitative data to support your ideas).

    But then you say:
    I have demonstrated that ...
    No. You haven't demonstrated anything. You have just claimed things and made some unsupported connections.

    We need data.

  12. #72
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Location
    New Zealand
    Posts
    9,571
    For the record, another infraction given to Mr Peabody for not answering questions.
    Thank you, members of cosmoquest forum, you are a part of my life I value.

  13. #73
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Posts
    2,705
    Quote Originally Posted by Mr. Peabody View Post
    (snip)

    This is the crux of the argument, the existing assumption that antimatter in the presence of matter will only result in quick annihilation. Observations of The Milky Way show that antimatter and matter coexist in working systems of matter and star production.

    (snip)
    .
    This is arrant nonsense. Observations do not support this idea. If you think they do, please cite references – real references, from legitimate peer reviewed scientists.

    Good luck.
    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

  14. #74
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Posts
    141
    Fallacious and unfair debating. Denying previously conceded points.

    You state factually that calculations would prove my theory incorrect. You have done none of the calculations, and have no legs for your statement.

    You have the nerve to ask me to try to do calculations to prove myself wrong, which I can't do either. If I don't come up with a formulae that proves me wrong, I don't SATISFY YOUR REQUEST, so by your rules I'm wrong anyway.

    Either way, your game is to deny my science without demonstrating science to disprove it.

    This theory is presented, and has been argued.

  15. #75
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    a long way away
    Posts
    8,534
    Quote Originally Posted by Mr. Peabody View Post
    You have the nerve to ask me to try to do calculations to prove myself wrong
    No. You need to do the calculations, or at a minimum present quantitative data, that demonstrates your theory is even possible.

  16. #76
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    United Kingdom
    Posts
    4,171
    And your game is to argue that your ideas are a better basis for a theory than the mainstream without being able to prove that it does a better job at modelling what we see and making predictions we can use.

    Burden of proof is on the new ideas, always has been. Until you can show that your model works better than the current ones, we keep the current ones. If you are happy that you have convinced everyone who is going to be convinced then I guess the thread is over. As far as I can tell you have made no testable predictions, presented no quantitative models and shown pretty much nothing more than a series of fairly fuzzy arguments that might make sense if you accept your interpretation of a couple of bits of evidence - but even then only work for a few very specialised cases.

  17. #77
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Posts
    1,410
    Quote Originally Posted by Mr. Peabody View Post
    Fallacious and unfair debating.
    How is asking you to support your assertions "unfair"?

    You state factually that calculations would prove my theory incorrect. You have done none of the calculations, and have no legs for your statement.
    The mainstream view is taken as correct as a default because of the vast number of experiments that support it -- that's how the mainstream becomes mainstream. So, rather than asking the mainstream to disprove each and every contrary idea that comes along (and the number of such ideas is legion), the burden is rightfully placed on the would-be revolutionary who is proposing the new idea.

    You have the nerve to ask me to try to do calculations to prove myself wrong, which I can't do either. If I don't come up with a formulae that proves me wrong, I don't SATISFY YOUR REQUEST, so by your rules I'm wrong anyway.
    I'd characterize it a bit differently. You've proposed an idea, flaws have been found. You aren't able to refute the arguments with science, so your ideas won't gain acceptance.

    Either way, your game is to deny my science without demonstrating science to disprove it.
    You're effectively arguing for a lowering of standards to accept your assertions just because you believe that you're right. Instead, you should start working on showing that you're right. Successfully countering the challenges presented to you is the way to get respect for your ideas. Whining about the unfairness of being asked to prove your ideas isn't going to get you very far.

  18. #78
    Join Date
    Nov 2002
    Posts
    6,238
    Quote Originally Posted by Mr. Peabody View Post
    Fallacious and unfair debating.
    This forum is not a debate. It's a discussion of your idea. You present your idea, we provide a critique of your idea.

    Quote Originally Posted by Mr. Peabody View Post
    Denying previously conceded points.
    Pointing out where and what your idea hasn't provided isn't denying previous points. It's just providing specific points where your idea fails.

    Quote Originally Posted by Mr. Peabody View Post
    You state factually that calculations would prove my theory incorrect.
    I don't recall saying that. I have said no calculations fails to provide support for your claims.

    Quote Originally Posted by Mr. Peabody View Post
    You have done none of the calculations,
    As I said, it's your idea. How, exactly, am I supposed to know how the calculations in your idea are to be done?

    Quote Originally Posted by Mr. Peabody View Post
    and have no legs for your statement.
    Hmmmm, I don't recognize this idiom. Perhaps you mean you don't have leg to stand on?

    Quote Originally Posted by Mr. Peabody View Post
    You have the nerve to ask me to try to do calculations to prove myself wrong,
    No, I asked you to do a calculation to provide support for your idea.

    Quote Originally Posted by Mr. Peabody View Post
    which I can't do either.
    Why? Doesn't your idea involve calculating anything?

    Quote Originally Posted by Mr. Peabody View Post
    If I don't come up with a formulae that proves me wrong, I don't SATISFY YOUR REQUEST, so by your rules I'm wrong anyway.
    Not at all. You make a claim. Certainly your idea can provide a numerical prediction, right? You simply have to show how your idea calculates that prediction, and then show how that prediction matches observations. If you don't provide those, it's doesn't make your idea automatically incorrect. But, it does mean that your idea is not better than current theory.

    Quote Originally Posted by Mr. Peabody View Post
    Either way, your game is to deny my science without demonstrating science to disprove it.
    Nope, I'm asking you to provide the specific numerical predictions from your science, and how those predictions match observations. You seem to have the belief that it is necessary for us to prove your idea false. It is you who have an idea that you believe is better than the predictions made by mainstream theory. It's up to you to provide the numerical data and the calculation used to get that data, that show your idea gets better numerical results than mainstream theory. If you don't provide those, then your idea has been falsified by a lack of viable evidence.

    Quote Originally Posted by Mr. Peabody View Post
    This theory is presented, and has been argued.
    Yeah, but with no numerical predictions. The problem can be illustrated with the following quote of yours, made in post #68:

    Quote Originally Posted by Mr. Peabody View Post
    Beyond galaxies, these magnetic fields can align and grow, and become extremely large.
    Can be countered with a simple, No, those magnetic fields align and grow and become somewhat large. So then we can go around in circles arguing whether the difference in large is somewhat or extremely. This can be settled quite simply by you providing the calculations of your idea, and matching the observations, to see if the predictions of your idea match observations. If your predictions say the fields are on the order of 1,000,000 Kpc3 and the observation indicate they are only 1,000 Kpc3, I think we would both agree that your idea's predictions, in this case, fail.

    The fact that you haven't provided any kind of calculations for any part of your ideas, means that your idea simply can't provide any predictions better than current theory. And, until you provide, from your idea, the calculations, the predictions that come from those calculations, and show that those predictions are better than current theory, your idea will be considered wrong. Simple really. When do you expect to answer the questions?

  19. #79
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Posts
    105
    Quote Originally Posted by Mr. Peabody
    After several rotations the amount of Dark Matter material would grow exponentially, pulling the center of the Galaxy outward.
    Where have I seen this before..I can't quite put my finger on this, but the way your op is laided out it looks quite familiar.

  20. #80
    Mr. Peabody It is up to you to answer questions and support your speculation and ideas.
    It is not up to other posters to do any calculations.

    Your Idea, you support it.

    Please take some time to read the rulesfor posting tothe ATM Forum and the Advice for ATM Posters both linked at the bottom of this post.
    Rules For Posting To This Board
    All Moderation in Purple

  21. #81
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Posts
    2,705
    Quote Originally Posted by Mr. Peabody View Post
    Fallacious and unfair debating. Denying previously conceded points.

    You state factually that calculations would prove my theory incorrect. You have done none of the calculations, and have no legs for your statement.

    You have the nerve to ask me to try to do calculations to prove myself wrong, which I can't do either. If I don't come up with a formulae that proves me wrong, I don't SATISFY YOUR REQUEST, so by your rules I'm wrong anyway.

    Either way, your game is to deny my science without demonstrating science to disprove it.

    This theory is presented, and has been argued.
    Please, could you quote whomever you are replying to. A reply post with no clue as to whom you are replying is difficult to follow.

    You have not presented ‘science’. You have presented unsupported assertions. That you think something is so is not enough; you must have observations, a theory that explains those observations (and fits in with all other observations), and makes testable predictions, and more observations that confirm those predictions. That is science. This is a science forum. If your ATM cannot do these things, then it will not be accepted. The responsibility for proving your ideas lies with you, not with us.

    To quote korjik, “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.”

    Good luck, John M.
    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

  22. #82
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Posts
    141
    My galaxy theory fits all observations with disprovable statements and proven science.
    None of the existing galaxy theories explains antimatter, OBSERVATION. They all have many problems, which for some reason doesn't bother you.

    I did'nt say MAGT was proven, theory by definition cannot be proven. I have more than demonstrated that it is THE BEST FIT.

    Presenting the theory, I have provent the science of all seven points brought up. I could prove three hundred more, noone here will ever agree with anything non-status quo. That is YOUR problem. I have jumped through more hoops than neccessary to prove my points.
    Hey, I have an idea. All those scientists, labs, and observatories could do research. That is what they get paid for.

    I pay attention to such observations, because you can't believe what "THEY" tell you! That is why i knew about antimatter, and have a theory that explains it.

    YOU still fight with the observation, instead of trying to understand it and work with it.

    This is not a forum of free thought and debate, but I used you people to my benefit anyway, taking your fear of new ideas to play devil's advocate.

    I'm done, have been done reading new posts.

    I would like to correct my gravity before i leave.

    I assumed a baseline energy of zero, omitting the value. Replacing it i get:

    Gravity = (E1 - E2) * Density of media

    E1 = energy of quark (torque)
    E2 = Energy of surrounding media (baseline energy)
    Last edited by Mr. Peabody; 2012-Jan-27 at 03:48 AM.

  23. #83
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Posts
    1,022
    You really expect me to get a lab, a research team, and then bring my research HERE?[...]?
    That would be really nice. Would you do that for us?

  24. #84
    Join Date
    Nov 2002
    Posts
    6,238
    Quote Originally Posted by Mr. Peabody View Post
    My galaxy theory fits all observations with disprovable statements and proven science.
    Your galaxy idea has a lot of generalized statements, with nothing specific, numerically. That disproves it right there.

    Quote Originally Posted by Mr. Peabody View Post
    None of the existing galaxy theories explains antimatter, OBSERVATION.
    And neither does yours, numerically, except for the generalized, "about half"

    Quote Originally Posted by Mr. Peabody View Post
    They all have many problems, which for some reason doesn't bother you.
    It might, if we were talking about those theories. We're not. We're talking about your idea.

    Quote Originally Posted by Mr. Peabody View Post
    I did'nt say MAGT was proven, theory by definition cannot be proven. I have more than demonstrated that it is THE BEST FIT.
    Anybody can prove just about anything is a best fit with handwaving generalized statements. What's the problem with providing the numerical predictions from your idea?

    Quote Originally Posted by Mr. Peabody View Post
    Presenting the theory, I have provent the science of all seven points brought up.
    You have? What SPECIFIC, NUMERICAL points did you bring up? Everything I saw, excepting the claim for the half antimatter, was nothing but flat out assertions, with no actual specific evidence.

    Quote Originally Posted by Mr. Peabody View Post
    I could prove three hundred more, noone here will ever agree with anything non-status quo. That is YOUR problem.
    Actually, no, it's your problem. It's your idea, you have to provide your calculations, and you haven't. Why are you so reticent about providing the calculations from your idea?

    Quote Originally Posted by Mr. Peabody View Post
    I have jumped through more hoops than neccessary to prove my points.
    No, you have jump through as many hoops as necessary to avoid presenting specific calculations from your idea.

    Quote Originally Posted by Mr. Peabody View Post
    You really expect me to get a lab, a research team, and then bring my research HERE? for you to language on?
    And why exactly do you need a lab and a research team to provide calculations from an idea you developed?

    Quote Originally Posted by Mr. Peabody View Post
    Don't even talk down to me, Your science is weak. Your game is to deny credibility at all costs.
    I'm just asking you to provide the specific numerical values, along with the specific calculations you did to get those values. How is that talking down to you? What has that got to do with any science other than yours? How is that denying your idea? All I'm doing is asking for specifics.

    Quote Originally Posted by Mr. Peabody View Post
    Not one person has the nerve to step up to the plate to talk about this new science,
    Well, when you present the calculations and the numbers from those calculations, I'll be more than happy to talk about the new science. Until you provide those, there really isn't anything to discuss except your assertions, which isn't science.

    Quote Originally Posted by Mr. Peabody View Post
    you are afraid of being blackballed by your good ol' boys club for not holding the line.
    You know whats funny about this, is that no one wanted to accept the idea of a place holder for a universe with an accelerating expansion in 1998. The problem was, the group had the SPECIFIC NUMERICAL evidence that showed that at some point in the past, the expansion of universe started accelerating. The problem here is that you, unlike that previous group, haven't provided any specific numerical evidence.

    Quote Originally Posted by Mr. Peabody View Post
    This is not a forum of free thought and debate, but I used you people to my benefit anyway, taking your fear of new ideas to play devil's advocate.
    Blustering about a good ol' boys club, claiming a lack of free thought and debate, and saying there is a fear of new ideas here is the norm of people who don't have actual evidence to support their ideas. Mostly because people who can't support their ideas with specifics, try to hide that fact , with bluster.

    Quote Originally Posted by Mr. Peabody View Post
    ...I'm done with you people.
    I guess that mean's your idea can't provide the answers I've asked for?

    Quote Originally Posted by Mr. Peabody View Post
    I assumed a baseline energy of zero, omitting the value. Replacing it i get:

    Gravity = (E1 - E2) * Density of media

    E1 = energy of quark (torque)
    E2 = Energy of surrounding media (baseline energy)
    And, how do you use this to match the observation of the advance of the perihelion of Mercury?
    Last edited by pzkpfw; 2012-Jan-27 at 04:07 AM. Reason: Quoted language

  25. #85
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Location
    New Zealand
    Posts
    9,571
    Just to note to the reader: Mr. Peabody edited his post, after Tensor had hit the "reply with quote" button. Thus the text in the post by Tensor does not quite match the current text in the post by Mr. Peabody. (No fault to Tensor). This is one reason why revisionism is against the rules. Also, the bad language in the original version of the post was going to earn an infraction, but got edited out by Mr. Peabody, so was left alone; however, a different item (the content of his signature) did lead to infraction.
    Thank you, members of cosmoquest forum, you are a part of my life I value.

  26. #86
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    United Kingdom
    Posts
    4,171
    Given that you are still just arguing by assertion and using that one misquoted bit of 'evidence' (which is not really evidence for what you are saying at all) I'll give the in depth and considered reply that you deserve, argued using the same style you have adopted (minus the bits that are confrontational):

    I have more than demonstrated that it is THE BEST FIT.
    No you didn't.

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: