|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
Lack of anti-matter is due to galaxy's rotation?
Galaxy sized twist in time pulls violating particles back into line
http://www.physorg.com/news/2011-07-...cles-line.html Quote: "Dr Hadley believes that the “frame dragging” affect of the whole Galaxy explains all of those observations. Matter and antimatter versions of the same particle will retain exactly the same structure except that they will be mirror images of each other. It is not unreasonable to expect the decay of those particles to also begin as an exact mirror image of each other. However that is not how it ends. The decay may begin as a exact mirror image but the galactic frame dragging affect is significant enough to cause the different structures in each particle to experience different levels of time dilation and therefore decay in different ways. However the overall variation of the different levels of time dilation averages out when every particle in the decay is taken into account and CP violation disappears and parity is conserved." My take: Okay, I think I understand what he's saying, our galaxy's gravitational field causes time to move in a specific direction. So how does that explain all of the other galaxies in the universe? They are all rotating too, and it looks like they are all oriented randomly from each other in the 3-space dimensions. Why are they all made of matter too, rather than antimatter? You'd think there should be just as many antimatter-dominated galaxies as matter-dominated ones? Also what about intergalactic space? Time must be all twisted up in the IGM due to randomly-oriented galaxies' gravitational fields. What causes our galaxy and all other galaxies to align their rotation with each other? So I think the author hasn't gone far enough, there must be a specific frame-dragging happening in the universe as a whole. It's occurring not in the 3 space dimensions but in the time dimension. So puny galaxies are all formed in full alignment in the time direction, due to the overwhelming frame-dragging of the whole universe. So the whole universe must be rotating too! Yousuf Khan |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
Lack of anti-matter is due to galaxy's rotation?
Dear Yousuf Khan:
On Jul 14, 5:14*am, Yousuf Khan wrote: Galaxy sized twist in time pulls violating particles back into line snip link now broken Quote: "Dr Hadley believes that the “frame dragging” affect of the whole Galaxy explains all of those observations. Matter and antimatter versions of the same particle will retain exactly the same structure except that they will be mirror images of each other. It is not unreasonable to expect the decay of those particles to also begin as an exact mirror image of each other. Of the baryons, only neutrons decay. Killing off the anti-neutrons early, still leaves anti-protons that have an infinite half-life. So he is expecting us to find only anti-hydorgen and anti-iron. However that is not how it ends. The decay may begin as a exact mirror image but the galactic frame dragging affect is significant enough to cause the different structures in each particle to experience different levels of time dilation and therefore decay in different ways. However the overall variation of the different levels of time dilation averages out when every particle in the decay is taken into account and CP violation disappears and parity is conserved." My take: Okay, I think I understand what he's saying, our galaxy's gravitational field causes time to move in a specific direction. I think he is talking about different "rates of time flow", based on whether a particle is anti or normal. Not direction. We have stored anti-hydrogen for minutes, so he has no leg to stand on. No anomalous decay noted while contained. So how does that explain all of the other galaxies in the universe? Similar mechanism. They are all rotating too, and it looks like they are all oriented randomly from each other in the 3-space dimensions. What about stellar clusters? Little rotation there. Why are they all made of matter too, rather than antimatter? You'd think there should be just as many antimatter-dominated galaxies as matter-dominated ones? Also what about intergalactic space? Time must be all twisted up in the IGM due to randomly- oriented galaxies' gravitational fields. "publish or perish". What causes our galaxy and all other galaxies to align their rotation with each other? So I think the author hasn't gone far enough, there must be a specific frame-dragging happening in the universe as a whole. It's occurring not in the 3 space dimensions but in the time dimension. It happens to the *set*, as defined. So puny galaxies are all formed in full alignment in the time direction, due to the overwhelming frame- dragging of the whole universe. So the whole universe must be rotating too! No. Doesn't follow. David A. Smith |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
Lack of anti-matter is due to galaxy's rotation?
On 14/07/2011 11:15 AM, dlzc wrote:
Dear Yousuf Khan: On Jul 14, 5:14 am, Yousuf wrote: Galaxy sized twist in time pulls violating particles back into line snip link now broken Quote: "Dr Hadley believes that the “frame dragging” affect of the whole Galaxy explains all of those observations. Matter and antimatter versions of the same particle will retain exactly the same structure except that they will be mirror images of each other. It is not unreasonable to expect the decay of those particles to also begin as an exact mirror image of each other. Of the baryons, only neutrons decay. Killing off the anti-neutrons early, still leaves anti-protons that have an infinite half-life. So he is expecting us to find only anti-hydorgen and anti-iron. Well, once created protons and electrons are extremely stable in this universe, they don't decay, and neither do neutrons when locked into a nucleus. This should also be the case for the antiparticles. So it's not these common particles that he's talking about. I think he's talking about particles that decay down to electrons, neutrons, and protons. I don't think we've seen any high-level particles decay into these common particles, other than gamma-ray photons, but that doesn't mean that there isn't an extremely short-lived higher stage particle that we just haven't seen yet. A type of particle that like a kaon, starts with exotic quarks but deteriorates into common quarks, but instead of being made of 2 quarks, they are made of 3 quarks. 3 quarks would produce the common nucleons. So whatever this particle is, it could go either way and produce matter or antimatter, but due to the conditions in this universe (which according the authors of this study is the rotation of our galaxy), more of them produce matter. However that is not how it ends. The decay may begin as a exact mirror image but the galactic frame dragging affect is significant enough to cause the different structures in each particle to experience different levels of time dilation and therefore decay in different ways. However the overall variation of the different levels of time dilation averages out when every particle in the decay is taken into account and CP violation disappears and parity is conserved." My take: Okay, I think I understand what he's saying, our galaxy's gravitational field causes time to move in a specific direction. I think he is talking about different "rates of time flow", based on whether a particle is anti or normal. Not direction. We have stored anti-hydrogen for minutes, so he has no leg to stand on. No anomalous decay noted while contained. I've often thought about time being the key factor in determining the balance of matter and antimatter too, but I don't think it can be linked to our galaxy's rotation. I think it's entirely linked to the initial rotation of the universe as a whole. All a galaxy can do is slow down the flow of time through time dilation. So puny galaxies are all formed in full alignment in the time direction, due to the overwhelming frame- dragging of the whole universe. So the whole universe must be rotating too! No. Doesn't follow. Every galaxy in the universe is traveling within the universe's time direction. Yousuf Khan |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
Lack of anti-matter is due to galaxy's rotation?
Yousuf Khan wrote:
Galaxy sized twist in time pulls violating particles back into line http://www.physorg.com/news/2011-07-...ing-particles- line.html Quote: "Dr Hadley believes that the “frame dragging” affect of the whole Galaxy explains all of those observations. Matter and antimatter versions of the same particle will retain exactly the same structure except that they will be mirror images of each other. It is not unreasonable to expect the decay of those particles to also begin as an exact mirror image of each other. However that is not how it ends. The decay may begin as a exact mirror image but the galactic frame dragging affect is significant enough to cause the different structures in each particle to experience different levels of time dilation and therefore decay in different ways. However the overall variation of the different levels of time dilation averages out when every particle in the decay is taken into account and CP violation disappears and parity is conserved." My take: Okay, I think I understand what he's saying, our galaxy's gravitational field causes time to move in a specific direction. So how does that explain all of the other galaxies in the universe? They are all rotating too, and it looks like they are all oriented randomly from each other in the 3-space dimensions. Why are they all made of matter too, rather than antimatter? You'd think there should be just as many antimatter-dominated galaxies as matter-dominated ones? Also what about intergalactic space? Time must be all twisted up in the IGM due to randomly-oriented galaxies' gravitational fields. What causes our galaxy and all other galaxies to align their rotation with each other? So I think the author hasn't gone far enough, there must be a specific frame-dragging happening in the universe as a whole. It's occurring not in the 3 space dimensions but in the time dimension. So puny galaxies are all formed in full alignment in the time direction, due to the overwhelming frame-dragging of the whole universe. So the whole universe must be rotating too! Yousuf Khan My personal opinion, the guy is not looking at the big picture. In the beginning a vast amount of black holes formed at the edge of the universe and got pushed out. That is where all of the mass of the universe resides and according to recent discoveries, thats exactly what they are detecting at the edge of the universe. Massive numbers of black holes with enormous red shifts. They are absolutely distinct from quasars (which I personally believe are also black holes but traveling faster than c and tearing up the fabric of space and time creating an intense form of light that cannot be matched by any other kind of objects in the universe). When a fireworks explode, the bulk of the sparkle is on the outside, i.e. the expanding shell is where the bulk of all matter resides in ANY explosion. So we talk about missing mass - when they haven't looked at the edges of the universe. The edges are now beginning to imaged and is found to be full of black holes. If all the matter is at the edge, it is possible that if anti-matter behaved differently it is just conceivable that antimatter has also moved to the edge of the universe leaving normal matter in the middle. Its just something that happened - either anti-matter could have flown to edge or normal matter, but one of them had to do it to make the universe stable. |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
Lack of anti-matter is due to galaxy's rotation?
Dear Yousuf Khan:
On Jul 14, 11:15*am, Yousuf Khan wrote: On 14/07/2011 11:15 AM, dlzc wrote: On Jul 14, 5:14 am, Yousuf *wrote: .... Galaxy sized twist in time pulls violating particles back into line snip link now broken Quote: "Dr Hadley believes that the “frame dragging” affect of the whole Galaxy explains all of those observations. Matter and antimatter versions of the same particle will retain exactly the same structure except that they will be mirror images of each other. It is not unreasonable to expect the decay of those particles to also begin as an exact mirror image of each other. Of the baryons, only neutrons decay. *Killing off the anti-neutrons early, still leaves anti-protons that have an infinite half-life. *So he is expecting us to find only anti-hydorgen and anti-iron. Well, once created protons and electrons are extremely stable in this universe, they don't decay, and neither do neutrons when locked into a nucleus. This should also be the case for the antiparticles. So it's not these common particles that he's talking about. It has to be these particles. This is where the break first occurs. There aren't enough antimatter versions of p-n-e *here*, no evidence of enough of them elsewhere in this Universe, and no mechanism we know of that would leave only normal matter, here. I think he's talking about particles that decay down to electrons, neutrons, and protons. I don't think we've seen any high-level particles decay into these common particles, other than gamma-ray photons, Muons, kaons, stuff like that do. but that doesn't mean that there isn't an extremely short-lived higher stage particle that we just haven't seen yet. They are called "nucleii"... A type of particle that like a kaon, starts with exotic quarks but deteriorates into common quarks, but instead of being made of 2 quarks, they are made of 3 quarks. So are neutrons and protons. 3 quarks would produce the common nucleons. So whatever this particle is, it could go either way and produce matter or antimatter, but due to the conditions in this universe (which according the authors of this study is the rotation of our galaxy), more of them produce matter. Our galaxy did not exist when the break first occurred. However that is not how it ends. The decay may begin as a exact mirror image but the galactic frame dragging affect is significant enough to cause the different structures in each particle to experience different levels of time dilation and therefore decay in different ways. However the overall variation of the different levels of time dilation averages out when every particle in the decay is taken into account and CP violation disappears and parity is conserved." My take: Okay, I think I understand what he's saying, our galaxy's gravitational field causes time to move in a specific direction. I think he is talking about different "rates of time flow", based on whether a particle is anti or normal. *Not direction. *We have stored anti-hydrogen for minutes, so he has no leg to stand on. *No anomalous decay noted while contained. I've often thought about time being the key factor in determining the balance of matter and antimatter too, but I don't think it can be linked to our galaxy's rotation. Agreed. I think it's entirely linked to the initial rotation of the universe as a whole. Mach would predict that a bucket sitting stationary would form up a parabolic surface, were that the case. All a galaxy can do is slow down the flow of time through time dilation. So puny galaxies are all formed in full alignment in the time direction, due to the overwhelming frame- dragging of the whole universe. So the whole universe must be rotating too! No. *Doesn't follow. Every galaxy in the universe is traveling within the universe's time direction. Which is one-dimensional, and cannot support "spin". David A. Smith |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
Lack of anti-matter is due to galaxy's rotation?
On 14/07/2011 3:58 PM, dlzc wrote:
Dear Yousuf Khan: On Jul 14, 11:15 am, Yousuf wrote: Well, once created protons and electrons are extremely stable in this universe, they don't decay, and neither do neutrons when locked into a nucleus. This should also be the case for the antiparticles. So it's not these common particles that he's talking about. It has to be these particles. This is where the break first occurs. There aren't enough antimatter versions of p-n-e *here*, no evidence of enough of them elsewhere in this Universe, and no mechanism we know of that would leave only normal matter, here. I think he's talking about particles that decay down to electrons, neutrons, and protons. I don't think we've seen any high-level particles decay into these common particles, other than gamma-ray photons, Muons, kaons, stuff like that do. Yeah, similar to a kaon, but more complex. A muon decays into an electron, so we already know of that mechanism. Now we need a particle that decays into a neutron or proton, complete with their 3 quarks. A particle such as this would be massive, and would likely decay extremely quickly. Maybe it decays so quickly that we don't even detect it in particle detectors because it's already decayed before it reaches the first level detector? Let's say something that's already decayed within a few Planck Lengths of its creation. I don't know how sensitive these detectors are, but I'm sure events happening and finishing within a few Planck Lengths are too small for them to detect. but that doesn't mean that there isn't an extremely short-lived higher stage particle that we just haven't seen yet. They are called "nucleii"... Well no, I'm thinking something like a kaon, which is made of two quarks (a strange quark or antiquark, plus an up/down quark/antiquark). I'm thinking maybe something made of a Top or Bottom quark, and two other quarks. The Top or Bottom would decay down to Up/Down quarks while still in the nucleus. A type of particle that like a kaon, starts with exotic quarks but deteriorates into common quarks, but instead of being made of 2 quarks, they are made of 3 quarks. So are neutrons and protons. That's the point. Something that starts out as a triplet of quarks already, could just decay down to neutrons and protons. That's because neutrons and protons are also triplets of quarks. 3 quarks would produce the common nucleons. So whatever this particle is, it could go either way and produce matter or antimatter, but due to the conditions in this universe (which according the authors of this study is the rotation of our galaxy), more of them produce matter. Our galaxy did not exist when the break first occurred. Exactly, it existed soon afterwards, but not at the Big Bang. So something else must've been spinning to create the imbalance. My feeling is that it was the Universe itself. Not just any old galaxy inside it. The galaxies have retained the spin direction of the original universal spin. I've often thought about time being the key factor in determining the balance of matter and antimatter too, but I don't think it can be linked to our galaxy's rotation. Agreed. The galactic spin is just a reflection of the original universal spin. In other words, the galaxy's spin is just an effect, not a cause. I think it's entirely linked to the initial rotation of the universe as a whole. Mach would predict that a bucket sitting stationary would form up a parabolic surface, were that the case. Too slow for that to happen. Even the Earth's spin is too slow for that to happen. Every galaxy in the universe is traveling within the universe's time direction. Which is one-dimensional, and cannot support "spin". They wouldn't be spinning in the time direction, they'd be spinning "perpendicular" to the time direction. That means that all three other directions could be involved in the "spin" Yousuf Khan |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
Lack of anti-matter is due to galaxy's rotation?
On 14/07/2011 3:54 PM, 7 wrote:
My personal opinion, the guy is not looking at the big picture. In the beginning a vast amount of black holes formed at the edge of the universe and got pushed out. That is where all of the mass of the universe resides and according to recent discoveries, thats exactly what they are detecting at the edge of the universe. Massive numbers of black holes with enormous red shifts. They are absolutely distinct from quasars (which I personally believe are also black holes but traveling faster than c and tearing up the fabric of space and time creating an intense form of light that cannot be matched by any other kind of objects in the universe). We already know what quasars are, there's no need for an alternative explanation. Quasars are blackholes as you suspected, but they aren't travelling faster than c. They are simply blackholes sucking down gas which some of it gets spun into an accretion disk which gets spun out of the poles of the blackhole before it falls completely into the blackhole. As for the rest of the stuff you're talking about, I have no idea why you think that way. Yousuf Khan |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
Lack of anti-matter is due to galaxy's rotation?
Yousuf Khan wrote:
On 14/07/2011 3:54 PM, 7 wrote: My personal opinion, the guy is not looking at the big picture. In the beginning a vast amount of black holes formed at the edge of the universe and got pushed out. That is where all of the mass of the universe resides and according to recent discoveries, thats exactly what they are detecting at the edge of the universe. Massive numbers of black holes with enormous red shifts. They are absolutely distinct from quasars (which I personally believe are also black holes but traveling faster than c and tearing up the fabric of space and time creating an intense form of light that cannot be matched by any other kind of objects in the universe). We already know what quasars are, there's no need for an alternative explanation. Yes there is a need, superilluminal objects are emitting debris as they travel and no matter how the analysis is done, it no longer makes sense when measuring distance between outgassing of debris. They are traveling faster than c. We don't understand why because of Einstein relation holding back our understanding. My guess is that a black hole has no speed limit because space and time gets distorted and sucked into it so there is no reason for Einstein rules to apply for a speeding black hole. A black hole can travel as fast it wants to without violating Einstein because the space and time around it does not exist for it to violate it!!! Quasars are blackholes as you suspected, but they aren't travelling faster than c. They are simply blackholes sucking down gas which some of it gets spun into an accretion disk which gets spun out of the poles of the blackhole before it falls completely into the blackhole. If only. There are not enough structures around the black hole to drive matter into them. The heat and radiation would blow it away. Today we got large structures driving matter into black holes. Not in them by gone days of early creation. Simple oversight like that is fatal for this theory of quasars. As for the rest of the stuff you're talking about, I have no idea why you think that way. Yousuf Khan |
#9
|
|||
|
|||
Lack of anti-matter is due to galaxy's rotation?
On 16/07/2011 7:20 AM, 7 wrote:
Yousuf Khan wrote: We already know what quasars are, there's no need for an alternative explanation. Yes there is a need, superilluminal objects are emitting debris as they travel and no matter how the analysis is done, it no longer makes sense when measuring distance between outgassing of debris. They are traveling faster than c. Not sure what problem you are seeing. We don't understand why because of Einstein relation holding back our understanding. My guess is that a black hole has no speed limit because space and time gets distorted and sucked into it so there is no reason for Einstein rules to apply for a speeding black hole. A black hole can travel as fast it wants to without violating Einstein because the space and time around it does not exist for it to violate it!!! If any of that happens, it happens inside the blackhole not outside. Quasars are blackholes as you suspected, but they aren't travelling faster than c. They are simply blackholes sucking down gas which some of it gets spun into an accretion disk which gets spun out of the poles of the blackhole before it falls completely into the blackhole. If only. There are not enough structures around the black hole to drive matter into them. The heat and radiation would blow it away. Today we got large structures driving matter into black holes. Not in them by gone days of early creation. Simple oversight like that is fatal for this theory of quasars. In the early universe there was more gas available to fuel the blackholes than now, since everything was much closer together. As for the rest of the stuff you're talking about, I have no idea why you think that way. Yousuf Khan This statement still stands. Yousuf Khan |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Anti-Matter ,and Negative Matter are two Different Things O Ya | herbert glazier | Misc | 27 | March 11th 11 01:21 AM |
Anti Gavity Anti Matter Anti universe Treb & Bert = | bert | Misc | 5 | July 25th 10 01:40 PM |
Ooops Answering oc on matter and anti matter I forgot this. | G=EMC^2 Glazier[_1_] | Misc | 19 | February 15th 09 12:49 AM |
Dark Matter responsible for lack of virgins on Earth | G=EMC^2 Glazier[_1_] | Misc | 32 | March 28th 07 07:12 AM |
Dark Matter responsible for lack of virgins on Earth | greysky | Misc | 94 | February 22nd 07 06:46 AM |