anti-matter has anti-gravity, shower of positrons is the result

We have all been indoctrinated into the idea that everything goes into a black hole, and nothing comes out. That would not be true of anti-matter if it had anti-gravity, and I claim this is the reason there is a fountain of positrons over the black hole in the center of our galaxy. It would also explain the mysterious jets that arise in a number of contexts, such as quasars, active galaxies, and even the act of creation of a star.

Matter falling into a black hole will pick up energy unless it is in a stable orbit around the center. As it picks up energy, it sheds that energy as pairs of electrons and positrons. The positrons then shoot out the poles, since there is no ordinary matter there. It will be tremendously accelerated, and emerge at near the speed of light.

I believe the quasars produce both positrons and anti-nucleons, allowing the formation of anti-hydrogen. I suggest the anti-hydrogen accumulates in the voids we see in the soap bubble universe. Since anti-gravity makes each particle stay as far away from every other particle as possible, ordinary matter (including dark matter) is pushed out to the surface. Where bubbles collide, we see the formation of strings of superclusters of galaxies. There is a general effect throughout the visible universe, causing a temporary acceleration of the Hubble expansion. Thus, there is no need for Dark Energy as a theoretical contstruct.

Hi, there is no theoretical reason to expect, the antimatter poses an antigravity. No kind of deformation of space was described yet, which can produce a negative gravity/energy. The appearance of antimatter in highly energetic jets coming from black holes is normal a predicted by the classic theory.

Hello Cebrakon (Hello Zephir).

TO ZEPHIR: Again, please be careful. While the theory you allude to DOES explain the jets, it DOES NOT explain why they are so 'straight' for so 'far' (evidence the pulsars/quasars etc.); also, it does NOT give a MECHANISM for BOTH Gravity AND Anti-Gravity in the first place. So please make such things clear when asnwering, as it could put those not 'up to speed' in these matters on a descent trajectory to cross-confusion. That's all, mate!


TO CEBRAKON: Not bad, not bad at all. Your ‘shorthand’ model of the effects/processes of your anti-gravity/anti-matter scenario has similar (if less consistent) aspects in common with the more ‘complete’ theory described in the five explanatory papers posted on:

www.earthlingclub.com.

When I say that your ‘take’ on the ‘production’, ‘expansion’, ‘content’ and ‘distribution’ of the astronomical ‘void-cell’ structure is less consistent, it is because your proposition appears based on a confusion between the nature/effects of antiMATTER with the nature/effects of antiGRAVITY. Let me explain...

....ANTI-MATTER involves/implies ELECTRO-MAGNETIC structure/properties whose forms/effects are arranged in an opposing (or counter-acting) manner to that of the ELECTRO-MAGNETIC structure/properties of ORDINARY-MATTER (including, as you say, so-called ‘dark matter); whereas....

- ANTI-GRAVITY on the other hand, involves implies GRAVITO-INERTIAL mechanisms/forces in opposing configuration/action to the GRAVITO-INERTIAL mechanisms/forces (that is, NOT electro-magnetic forces).

So you see, even if we allow your anti-MATTER flows/processes (which to a certain extent I DO, by the way), your scenario still does NOT explain the mechanism of GRAVITY PER SE ------(just as the current Standard Model STILL fails to do even as we speak; so don’t feel bad, you’re in good company on that one!)------let alone explain the mechanism for the ANTI-GRAVITY that you invoke in you brief modeling.


In comparison, when I say that the theory as outlined by the 5 papers on the above website IS ‘complete’, I mean that the papers DO explain a mechanism for GRAVITY/ INERTIA (as WELL as for electro-magnetic phenomena). They also GO FURTHER into the ‘sub-stratum particles/processes involved in BOTH.

Given that you have already gone some way along the same path that the papers do, it might be interesting to hear what you think is in those papers that might ‘help’ or ‘hinder’ your own view of things in this field. Can’t wait to hear more.


Suspenseful regards from: RealityCheck.
.

Thread noted

Well, I have a maybe more interesting hypothesis about antimatter, but with contrary to my other suggestions it's a just idea really and cannot be derived from my theory directly. As the most of us know, the universe exhibits a huge discrepancy between matter and antimatter content, which is explained by the CP symmetry breaking concept...

I understand this a quite well and my theory explains this too - but it's a quite possible, that antimatter is a much more common, than we expect. But most of it stays spreaded in the form of neutrino's and other lower Aether vibrations, which interfere with our EMG-based world wery rarelly.

Moreover, the antineutrino carries a very low mass/energy, so its anihilation is difficult to observe due to it's low energy. Maybe we are swimming in the very diluted antimatter sea, without notifying it!

The even more realistic hypothesis is, that the dark matter is formed by the quantum vibration of Aether/vaccuo, which are in equilibria with the inner energy of it. Althougth these particles have a level of convoluted dimension too low, so they're not interracting with common matter (like the neutrino doesn't), they exhibit a statistically important effects, like the additional mass density of vaccuo, which is attracted by the massive objects in the space.

It can be understood easily on the model system of virtual particles, which are present in the sea or atmosphere due to mutual collisions of water/air molecules. Although they're trully virtual, they exhibits a important effect, namely the shortwavelength light scattering (known as the Rayleigh scattering), which gives a blue color to atmosphere. So they have a permanent effects, too.

As you can see, the wave theory of Aether is abble to explain a quite easily a lot of important unsolved problems of today's physics. On the other hand, the current astronomy has a big reserve in observing of dark particles in general (for example, the highly ionised atoms are nearly invisible for us, because they doesn't emit a light). So it's a quite possible, the most of the dark matter is formed by the rather classical type of matter, in fact.

But nevertheless it seems, this theory is incompatible with the idea of antigravity too. I needn't it for explanation of any effect in my theory.

The distortion of the geodesics that produces attraction is like a funnel. The opposite distortion that produces repulsion would be like a funnel turned upside down.

Hi Reality-Check!

I am quite aware that my suggestion contradicts General Relativity, however, we know that GR is not the final word, because of its logical self-contradictions. I won't go into that in detail, but GR allows singularities. There is also the "fly caught on the event horizon" paradox. Imagine two spaceships. One falls past the event horizon. The other remains outside, watching. To the one outside, the one inside remains trapped forever on the event horizon, even if time were infinite. But to the one inside, things happen very rapidly, and instantly lead to spaghettification and the complete breakup of the ship and its occupants. These two observations are not consistent. It is not like the seeming paradox in 1905 relativity, that is resolved by saying that space-time is the underlying reality, while space and time separately are illusions.

We cannot test our theories against other theories. We can only test them against the fact. The fountain of positrons at the center of our galaxy is a fact, a very puzzling, so far inexplicable fact. Please understand that I am very aware that inertia is one thing, and the force of gravity is another. By remarkable good fortune, the same number, representing mass, works in both formulas not just in Newtonian physics, but also in Einsteinian.

It is known from particle accelerator experiments that anti-matter has positive inertia, and thus, positive mass. However, it has never been possible to determine whether neutral anti-matter repels or attracts. It is probably an impossible experiment. Fortunately, astronomy has done the experiment for us.

I have put the URL you recommend on my "hot list" and I shall visit that site soon. I haven't yet, because tonight is the first time I have seen your comments.

Negative energy is indeed possible, but it is not associated with anti-matter. As you've stated, anti-matter, with all its negative connotations, is at heart positive (both mass and energy wise).

Hello Cebrakon, JavaTool, Zephir.

CEBRAKON: JavaTool has also (more succinctly than I) pointed to the 'crux' of the 'anti-matter' matter, hehehe. This is that, if we consider (-) electro-magnetic stuctures (e.g., electrons) to be MATTER; then under that convention system, any and all (+) electro-magnetic structures (e.g., positrons) would be ANTI-MATTER (which is labled as 'positively' CHRAGED energy/mass).

Whereas I suspect that Zephir was alluding to 'negative energy/mass' in the sense of an 'anti' GRAVITO-INERTIAL 'space-curving' FORCE rather than in the sense of an 'anti' ELECTRO-MAGNETIC 'charge-interaction' FORCE. [Is this so, Zephir?]

And Cebrakon...I too am not a fan of the composite 'geometric/mathematical' entity on which Relativity depends for its 'internal consistency'; mainly because, as you have pointed out, it allows but does not explain the 'mathematical singularities' which arise because of the very mathematics it uses!

Regarding view 'gravity' in 'funnel orientation' terms (up-side-down funnel indicating 'anti'-gravity): it still does not say WHAT the mechanism/cause of the funnel is in the first place. Something, by the way, that IS expplained at www.earthlingclub.com.

And when you say "...Please understand that I am very aware that inertia is one thing, and the force of gravity is another. By remarkable good fortune, the same number, representing mass, works in both formulas not just in Newtonian physics, but also in Einsteinian.", you are selling youself short: because there is a good reason why the INERTIA terms and GRAVITY terms co-incide---the mechanism/effects are the same in BOTH cases...it is merely the MASS-SPACE distribution/arrangement SITUATIONS which determine whether the consequences of these mechanisms/processes are observed as 'SYMMETRIC' (GRAVITATIONAL) OR NON-SYMMETRIC (INERTIAL) phenomena. So you must not be too hasty in accepting 'current' conventions having to do with these two aspects (of the same thing!).


Encouraging regards from: RealityCheck.
.

Yes, of course Basically speaking, the left-handed vortex has the (nearly) the same absolute energy, comming from spacetime curvature, as the right-handed one...

When both of these vortices are met together, it's energy not disappear, of course - but it will be transformed (less or more completelly) just to the other kind of energy (please note these beautifull videos of the fluid analogy 1, 2 from this page). You can see, the more kinetic energy exceeds the anihillation energy, the more (and heavier) new particles is forming during particle collision)

Zephir -

The almost complete absence of antimatter in this universe is exactly one of the great unanswered mysteries of modern physics. But there really is very little around. Could you explain yourself further to try and substantiate such a radical and likely false statement??

Also, the notion of negative energy is exemplified in the Casimir effect, no?

-ss

There are a two main explanations here: the officiall CP asymmetry model and antimatter spreading model of mine. As concerning the antimatter absence in universe - please try to search my contributions here, because of I've delt with my explanation in a greater detail before.

I believe, the Cassimir efect is not a evidence of the negative energy of universe, but the negative deviation effect of the overall positive kinetic energy of Aether/quantum vaccuo, which is compensated at the short distances by the negative energy of the gravity.

Hello solidspin, hello Zephir.


TO SOLIDSPIN:....Casimir effect purportedly demonstrates the exclusion of higher-wavelength/lower-frequency wave-particle/energy phenomena owing to the separation distance not being able to ‘bound’ those phenomena between plates...and thus not being able to extract the otherwise ‘interstitial pressure’ of the phenomena’s ‘collissions’ with the internal surfaces. In other words, it is not the PRESENCE OF ‘NEGATIVE’ ENERGY, but rather the ABSENCE OF ‘POSITIVE’ ENERGY that is being demonstrated by casimir plates setup.

Just as ‘holes’ in semiconductors are the ‘absence’ of electrons rather than the ‘presence’ of positrons (which latter are actually anti-electron MATTER, as opposed to the absence of MATTER).


‘Present’ regards from: RealityCheck.

This question is somewhat speculative.

Since all ordinary matter has anti-matter partners, which appear identical in all respects (mass, spin) except that they have the opposite electric charge, could the spin be chiral and antichiral?

How does one differentiate clockwise spin 1 or 1/2 from counterclockwise spin 1 or 1/2, respectively?

Consider the following category table to illustrate this concept:

Chiral Anti-chiral
amino acids levorotatory L-isomer
Heart location Levocardia dextrorotatory

Planet rotation Earth Venus

leptons electron positron

My apologies for needing to repost, since the table in the first effort was not readable.

This question is somewhat speculative.

Since all ordinary matter has anti-matter partners, which appear identical in all respects (mass, spin) except that they have the opposite electric charge, could the spin be chiral and antichiral?

How does one differentiate clockwise spin 1 or 1/2 from counterclockwise spin 1 or 1/2, respectively?

Consider the following category table to illustrate this concept:

Category ----- Chiral ----- Anti-chiral
amino acids ----- levorotatory ----- dextrorotatory
Heart location ----- Levocardia ---- dextrocardia

Planet rotation ----- Earth ----- Venus

leptons ----- electron ----- positron