Antimatter galaxies

@Metal-Brain
And of course that means that the evidence I just provided, an experiment showing arrival times the same for neutrino's V anti neutrino's, because of your whatever it is agenda, you reject such evidence because it doesn't fit your preconceived notions, whatever those are.

@sonhouse said
@Metal-Brain
And of course that means that the evidence I just provided, an experiment showing arrival times the same for neutrino's V anti neutrino's, because of your whatever it is agenda, you reject such evidence because it doesn't fit your preconceived notions, whatever those are.

You said "most probable result".

Probable means not certain. You are writing statements like Fauci makes statements without scientific evidence. He says he thinks the gene vaccines are "likely" to give people protection from the new variant. That is called a guess, not evidence. He has no science to back up that opinion.

You didn't provide evidence. You provided a guess.

@Metal-Brain
Whatever you say oh master of physics. Like I said, there is evidence but it doesn't fit your agenda so you refuse to accept that as evidence.

Like I said, it is EVIDENCE.

Not proof but it is a VERY good indicator anti and regular matter follow the same spacetime curves as any other kind of matter.

@metal-brain said
Ooops.
I meant dark energy.

There is no evidence dark energy exists. It is a made up fantasy assertion to explain the accelerating expansion of the universe. Antimatter galaxies that repel matter is equally theoretical, but would also explain the expansion.

Again: dark matter, dark energy, anti-matter, neutrinos, are all defined terms in physics. You don't get to decide what they mean just because you don't like the agreed meaning. You are not Humpty Dumpty - a word doesn't mean what you like it to mean just because you use it.

@shallow-blue said
Again: dark matter, dark energy, anti-matter, neutrinos, are all defined terms in physics. You don't get to decide what they mean just because you don't like the agreed meaning. You are not Humpty Dumpty - a word doesn't mean what you like it to mean just because you use it.

What agreed meaning?

@sonhouse said
@Metal-Brain
Whatever you say oh master of physics. Like I said, there is evidence but it doesn't fit your agenda so you refuse to accept that as evidence.

Like I said, it is EVIDENCE.

Not proof but it is a VERY good indicator anti and regular matter follow the same spacetime curves as any other kind of matter.

"Like I said, it is EVIDENCE. "

"Not proof but it is a VERY good indicator anti and regular matter follow the same spacetime curves as any other kind of matter."

You said it. Not proof.
That means no evidence.

@Metal-Brain
You are really dense today.

Evidence is not by itself proof, NOBODY says different so you clearly misunderstand the idea of evidence.

One evidentiary expedition may show some effect or other but it takes looking at a situation from different angles and then maybe a theory comes out explaining the evidence,
But having evidence is neither proof OR non Proof by itself.

So whatever your real agenda is, you clearly want us to say something different which I have no idea what that is.

When you say no proof, you clearly don't understand the implications of particles arriving at the same time, you don't even have the FAINTEST idea of what that implies.

@sonhouse said
@Metal-Brain
You are really dense today.

Evidence is not by itself proof, NOBODY says different so you clearly misunderstand the idea of evidence.

One evidentiary expedition may show some effect or other but it takes looking at a situation from different angles and then maybe a theory comes out explaining the evidence,
But having evidence is neither proof OR non Pr ...[text shortened]... of particles arriving at the same time, you don't even have the FAINTEST idea of what that implies.

Evidence is not evidence?
No, you are really dense if you think people do not see through your BS.

@Metal-Brain
Evidence is one point on a map of a subject.

Evidence of the same thing from a bit of a different angle adds point to the subject and enough such points and scientists can start saying something about that subject.

There is also evidence in the CMB interpreted by some to mean our universe was bumped into by another whole universe, which is evidence but that is one point on a map, till more evidence comes it, the bumped universe remains a hypothesis.

Same with anti and regular matter, but that one piece of evidence is a pretty good indicator the two will react to gravity the same.
Otherwise the detection of anti matter and say followed a month later by matter, that would tell an entirely different story.

But to arrive at the same time tells a solid tale of anti and regular matter following the same rules of spacetime.

@sonhouse said
@Metal-Brain
Evidence is one point on a map of a subject.

Evidence of the same thing from a bit of a different angle adds point to the subject and enough such points and scientists can start saying something about that subject.

There is also evidence in the CMB interpreted by some to mean our universe was bumped into by another whole universe, which is evidence but th ...[text shortened]... t the same time tells a solid tale of anti and regular matter following the same rules of spacetime.

"pretty good indicator"

There you go again. Pretty good indicator means no evidence. Give it up.

@metal-brain said
"pretty good indicator"

There you go again. Pretty good indicator means no evidence. Give it up.

"Random thought" doesn't mean "scientific theory" either, but here you are blabbing along for all the world to laugh at you.

@shallow-blue said
"Random thought" doesn't mean "scientific theory" either, but here you are blabbing along for all the world to laugh at you.

So dark energy is your explanation?
There is no proof it exists.

At least anti-matter is proven to exist. For that reason alone my theory is superior to dark energy. Might as well call DE the Easter Bunny theory.

@Metal-Brain
What the HELL are you talking about? I never mentioned dark energy or dark matter.

MY theory? You do know it takes a LOT more than mere words to make an actual THEORY?

What you have now is HYPOTHESIS, which is lower on the science totem pole than Theory.

Theory is when you have evidentiary data to at least START a theory, you don't even have that.

@sonhouse said
@Metal-Brain
What the HELL are you talking about? I never mentioned dark energy or dark matter.

I wasn't talking to you.

@Metal-Brain
Ok, so explain "Your'' theory.