We don't see those galaxies because they would stick out like a sore thumb because if it existed, there would be normal matter impinging on the edges of that galaxy and would show massive radiation streaming from the interface between our kind of matter, even if it is ga ...[text shortened]... e, we would see the excess blow of radiation and exploding gasses blowing out of the galactic edges.
Why didn't you just google it?
Maybe he wanted to discuss it on the RHP Science forum.
@shallow-bluesaid The word "antimatter" has a specific meaning in physics. You cannot assign random magical properties to it and expect your "what if" to make sense or have any reasonable answer. You might as well ask "what if dark matter turns out to be pink" - the only reasonable reply is "it isn't - next!"
Since we're living in the experimental arm of the simulation, 'pink' matter can exist with the ease of a keystroke.
@wildgrasssaid Since we're living in the experimental arm of the simulation, 'pink' matter can exist with the ease of a keystroke.
I can call it Easter Bunny Matter and you can call it Pink Matter. Doesn't matter if nobody can prove it exists. The name of the matter doesn't matter, so what is the matter?
@metal-brainsaid I can call it Easter Bunny Matter and you can call it Pink Matter. Doesn't matter if nobody can prove it exists. The name of the matter doesn't matter, so what is the matter?
My little niece said she likes "Easter Bunny Matter", and wants to know if it's soft and fuzzy.
@sonhousesaid @Metal-Brain When scientists talk about some 'fact' they couch it in probability terms and there is ZERO 100% proof of ANYTHING.
What you are really saying here is no science agrees with your agenda therefore any evidence shown can be dismissed because I just don't BELIEVE it.
Anthropogenic Global Warming too, right?
The majority of climate scientists agree with me, not you.
You merely believe the opposite is true because of propaganda. We have been though this all before and you must remember failing to prove a consensus of mostly AGW among climate scientists.
Not all scientists are climate scientists, remember?
My theory does away with dark energy. No need for that hypothetical fairy dust. Unlike dark energy, anti matter is proven to exist.
My theory does away with the mystery as to why there is matter dominating our universe and there is little anti matter. There are equal amounts of matter and antimatter and they repel so there are no explosive collisions, just accelerated expansion of the universe from the anti gravity.
There . I explained the accelerated expansion of the universe without making up an imaginary substance and also did away with Einstein's Cosmological Constant.
I am rather proud of myself.
Convenient I think. Too convenient too ignore.
My theory does away with dark energy. No need for that hypothetical fairy dust. Unlike dark energy, anti matter is proven to exist.
My theory does away with the mystery as to why there is matter dominating our universe and there is little anti matter. There are equal amounts of matter and antimatter and they repel so there are no explosive collisions, jus ...[text shortened]... mological Constant.
I am rather proud of myself.
Convenient I think. Too convenient too ignore.
@shallow-bluesaid 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.
Antimatter galaxies
01 Dec '21 18:16
Back to Top