I have a little problem in few aspects about this one.

It is proven that anti-particles exist. They have been created in particle accelerators [straight translation from my language] or maybe generators. So anyway, anti-particles form anti matter and astronomers say that they have found large amounts of anti matter in our universe, judging by the gravitation force affecting other stars. A gravitation force in an empty space. And it is also known that anti-matter destroys matter and vice versa. So how the space between these two matters will look like? Will it be just empty space or something other? For a moment lets assume that there is an empty space, but photons are made of matter not anti-particles(again this is my assumption-point if I'm wrong about this one) So how does the light travel between these areas. Maybe it is destroyed) Okay I can bare with that, but what about gravity. I read somewhere that gravitational force is carried out by photons, I mean, that in order for objects in space to mutually react, they exchange gravitational forces, they create. And also they are affected to all other gravitational information reaching them. And if photons--"carriers"of gravitation force are destroyed by anti-matter, does that mean that some "deeper"parts of anti-matter aren't affected by our gravitation? And is it also vice versa?

made corrections consulted by John Devers
dark matter to anti-matter



Excuse for any grammar mistakes, I'm only learning English.

Dark matter is not anti-matter.

Both evidence of dark matter and anti-matter has been discovered by astronomers.

First did you know that light is it's own antiparticle?


I'll just add that people often confuse these three.


Dark energy is universal, not local. It has the same value everywhere. Local matter can affect local expansion, but does not influence the cosmological constant (which, like hubbles constant, is not a constant) Dark matter is believed to be responsible for the accelleration in the expansion of the universe.

Dark matter is any normal matter that is too cold or too small to be detected at present.


Antimatter is made of antiquarks it is almost the opposite of matter accept that it annihalates at a different rate to the matter it is in contact with.

(Correction. The above should read antimatter decays at a different rate to matter)

hi

I have read that anti matter is only due to spin of subatomic elements so it is always true matter (bound to gravity).
(the anickilation of the anti matter and matter generate not nothing but energy).


But i'm not an expert....so if someone may (confirm/or not) what i have write i would be glad.

Lund

Hi Lund,

You are correct. Antimatter is also bound to gravity, and from our current theories, it would follow that antimatter would also fall down (to earth) and not up as some people think (sidenote: we're still waiting for someone to construct and maintain enough antimatter to perform the experiment).

The reason why "antimatter" has the word "anti" in it, is because everything that is related to charge is opposite to the regular matter particle. For example: an electron has charge -e, while the positron (which is the electron's antiparticle) has a charge +e. The lepton number (which is also called a "charge", but this should not be interpretted in an electromagnetic sense) is also the opposite: +1 for the electron and -1 for the positron... There are numerous other examples (protons, antiprotons, ... ) but it all comes down to this: antimatter is "regular matter" with some intrensic properties that are the opposite of what we call "matter".

Bye!

Crisp

The real issue here is: What is Gravity ?
If we look at gravity as an "attracting force" we will invariably reach an inpasse.
However, if we consider the phenomenon of masses tending to converge we might as well postulate that there is an universal permeating field that the old ones called "Aether" that exerts a pressure from all directions unless there is "shielding" where two objects "cast a shadow" and the resulting "Aether" force pushes those objects together.
Of course, the experiments of Michelson-Morley utilizing statistics at the end of 1800 (and thoroughly disproven by the work of Silvertooth - sponsored by the US Airforce) wanted to eliminate the concept of "Aether" to "simplify" our world.
So, accepting the Aether as a pushing force will allow an elegant and understandable explanation of the concept of gravity.
CKB

G'day again avatar, there are only very small amounts of antimatter in the universe.

As I have been told by Geraint from the AAT, there is enough diffuse hydrogen in space to show a glow from any anti-matter interface present.

This is how very small clouds by galactic standards but big by solar standard have been detected in the outer halo of the Milky Way.

(I'll edit/add this bit I found below to the page for interest)


Discovery of an Antimatter "Cloud". Soon after the launch of CGRO, the OSSE instrument began observing the Galactic center region to try and determine the distribution of the positron annihilation emission. These observations were concentrated along the plane near the center of the Galaxy, since this is where novae and supernovae are primarily located. Observations soon showed that the emission in the plane of the galaxy was concentrated within ~10o-15o of the Galactic center.

Surprisingly, however, the total flux near the Galactic center observed by OSSE was found to be much lower than that observed by other larger FOV instruments. This indicated that there was additional emission located near the Galactic center, but in regions away from the plane of the Galaxy that had not been well observed by OSSE.

To try and identify where this excess emission might be located, a team of NASA scientists began developing methods for generating images of the annihilation radiation using the available overlapping OSSE observations. Various imaging methods were investigated, all of which suggested the presence of some excess emission above the plane of the Galaxy.

To search for this excess emission, a series of OSSE observations was performed in November and December of 1996 which included exposures above the plane of the Galaxy, and helped produce the image of the central region of the Galaxy in the 0.511 MeV positron annihilation line shown in Figure 2.

The map of the 0.511 MeV positron annihilation line has three general components: 1) a diffuse feature along the Galactic plane, 2) an extended region centered near the center of the galaxy, and 3) an extended feature or "cloud" located about 10o above the central region of the Galaxy.

The first two components correspond to the disk and the nuclear bulge of the Galaxy, which are known features of the Milky Way. The "cloud" of emission, however, does not correspond to any known features of the galaxy, and there are no known objects in this region which could have produced the observed positrons.

Originally posted by cblesius
T....
Of course, the experiments of Michelson-Morley utilizing statistics at the end of 1800 (and thoroughly disproven by the work of Silvertooth - sponsored by the US Airforce) wanted to eliminate the concept of "Aether" to "simplify" our world.
So, accepting the Aether as a pushing force will allow an elegant and understandable explanation of the concept of gravity.
CKB

cblesius,

Could you please expand on "Silvertooth"? I have not heard this reference before.

avatar, I'm not sure where your going with the ideas about photons, gravity wells effect the path of photons just like any other massive particle?

Gravitons are an unproved theory you may want to look at too.

Some thing else you may not know about anit-matter is that antiparticles are made in energetic process together with particles - whenever a particle is created, an antiparticle must also be made. This means that there must be sufficient initial energy to make all the mass of the particle and antiparticle, according to the equation E=mc2. All kinds of particle-antiparticle pair can be made in this way, provided there is enough energy.

Have a look at a real antimatter factory, or two.

<A HREF="http://cern.web.cern.ch/CERN/Announcements/2000/AD/story.html" target=new><FONT COLOR=blue size=+1> Antimatter factory story at CERN
</FONT></A>

<A HREF="http://www.fnal.gov/" target=new><FONT COLOR=blue size=+1> Antimatter factory called fermilab
</FONT></A>

To Seeker of Truth:
In response to your request about more INFO I have copied the following short description that should serve as a starting point:

"New Designed Experiments Detecting the Existence of Aether (E-MATRIX)
In 1987 Silvertooth performed experiments that detected the existence of aether. Concerning the Silvertooth experiment: The Michelson-Morley experiment, which did not show any translational motion through an aether or other medium of propagation, was later shown to have a fundamental flaw: the standing waves that are reflected back onto a mirror become phase locked on the mirror, and hence to its motion through space. Silvertooth built a standing wave experiment that avoids the phase locking encountered in the Michelson-Morley setup. It uses a configuration similar to the Sagnac experiment, which many years ago did detect motion relative to an aether. Silvertooth's addition was a sensor capable of measuring the spacing between standing wave nodes. This spacing is dependent upon the orientation of the apparatus relative to the Earth's motion, and this fact made the Earth's motion measurable. Silvertooth measured the 378 km/s motion of the Earth in this experiment. [The Earth is moving toward the constellation Leo] Some references are: Silvertooth, E.W., "Experimental Detection of the Ether", Speculations in Science and Technology, Vol.10, No.1, page 3 (1987) In that same issue beginning on page 9, is an excellent "plain English" summary by H. Aspden entitled "On the Silvertooth Experiment".

Hope you have fun as an iconoclast !
CKB

Originally posted by cblesius
To Seeker of Truth:
In response to your request about more INFO I have copied the following short description that should serve as a starting point:

.... Silvertooth, E.W., "Experimental Detection of the Ether", Speculations in Science and Technology, Vol.10, No.1, page 3 (1987) In that same issue beginning on page 9, is an excellent "plain English" summary by H. Aspden entitled "On the Silvertooth Experiment".

Hope you have fun as an iconoclast !
CKB

Cblesius,

Thanks for the info.

Now why would you refer to me as a "breaker or destroyer of images or idols"?

Or is this what I will become after I read this information? :)

To SeekerOfTruth:
My comment anticipates the change to be expected when one learns about the falsehood of an existing belief system e.g. the notion that the speed of light is constant no matter what the circumstances might be or that there is no "aether": all these believes have been cherished and "iconized" and defended very similar to the Ptolomean World View.
I do not advocate destruction per se but support the "seeking of truth".
Have fun (generic). But please do not get into a burn-out situation like Giordano Bruno. (Gallileo was bad enough)
CKB

Very good, I understood it (I think:rolleyes: ) One thing I did understand is the empty space. I really dont think space is empty at all! Matter of all hues is there, swirling about. Space is full of hydrogen gas too but in miniscule particles per square whatever.
:rolleyes:

So if antimatter is available and we can create it is it possible to have anti fusion?

From my understanding and i might add its very limited, antimatter is the exact opposite of its counterpart matter atom, as such could you not create an antihydrogen fusion reaction?
Would the energy released in this reaction differ to that of normal hydrogen atoms?

anti-matter annihilates all matter it comes in contact with, so you would need to prevent it. you cannot make all reactor from
anti-matter. one possibility is to hold anti-matter with magnetic field. but I don't know if anti-matter fusion reactors would be more powerful than ordinary fusion. we haven't got a real one fusion reactor only prototypes where reaction lasts for about 1,5-1,9 sec. there is a project for anti-matter powered spaceships too.

Originally posted by Red Devil
Very good, I understood it (I think:rolleyes: ) One thing I did understand is the empty space. I really dont think space is empty at all! Matter of all hues is there, swirling about. Space is full of hydrogen gas too but in miniscule particles per square whatever.
:rolleyes:

I agree with that and I always have thinked like that. My question was about the place where matter and anti-matter meets. it has to annihilate each other. Maybe it is like cosmic storms there or just zones of nothing at all.

So, accepting the Aether as a pushing force will allow an elegant and understandable explanation of the concept of gravity.


What happens to a planets' orbit as it travels around the Sun, sure it would be "shielded from the aether" but you would have an unequal "aether" pressure in front and behind the planet, surely? As the planet orbitted it would "compress" the aether in front as there is nothing to shield it. A bit like running in the rain, your front gets wetter than your back.

First off, though matter is present in space it is very disffuse. There may only be a few atoms per cubic mile (for example). This means that there will not be a wall, so to speak, where anitmatter meets matter and is destroyed on a continual basis. It would be spead over a large area with minute events happening randomly.

Next, for some reason that is not yet understood, there is slightly more matter made than antimatter in nature. Otherwise the creation of antimatter would instantly annilate an equal amount of matter and nothing would be left but energy. Yet enough has remained that has not been destroyed to create the universe. The process is not yet understood, the scales do not evenly create matter and antimatter. Somewhere I have read that it is close to equal but enough remains to make our physcal world pro-matter.

Hi Wet1, a couple of antimatter clouds have been detected in our galaxy, some in the centre and a big one coming out the top of the halo, I think Chandra did the observations.

The thing about the difuse atoms is that they are most likely moving at high speeds and would come across their counterpart quite easily.


The difference between matter and anti-matter was discovered recently, here an article on it below.

<font color=red>Physicists find a new, striking difference between matter and antimatter

EDITORS:
Photographs and illustrations of the B Factory and BABAR detector can be found at: http://www.slac.stanford.edu/slac/media-info/.

All photo credits should be "Photo: SLAC."

For background on the B Factory and its physics program: http://www.stanford.edu/dept/news/.

An international collaboration of physicists conducting experiments at the Department of Energy's Stanford Linear Accelerator Center (SLAC) has discovered a second fundamental difference between the behavior of matter and that of antimatter. They observed this intriguing phenomenon - known as charge-parity (CP) violation and first seen decades ago in experiments with another particle - in disintegrations of heavy, short-lived subatomic particles called B mesons. The collaboration reported its result in a paper submitted July 5 for publication in Physical Review Letters, a leading scientific journal.

"After 37 years of searching for further examples of CP violation, physicists now know that there are at least two kinds of subatomic particles that exhibit this puzzling phenomenon, thought to be responsible for the great preponderance of matter in the Universe," said Princeton University physicist Stewart Smith, spokesman of the collaboration. "We are poised for further discoveries that should open up new directions for particle physics."

The international collaboration includes more than 600 scientists and engineers from 75 institutions in Canada, China, France, Germany, Great Britain, Italy, Norway, Russia and the United States. They built and have been operating the sophisticated 1,200-ton detector, named BABAR, which was used to make the discovery.

The detector records subtle distinctions between decays of B mesons and those of their antimatter counterparts, called anti-B mesons. Both are more than five times heavier than protons and survive just over a trillionth of a second. Physicists employed the detector to observe an unmistakable difference, or asymmetry, between the rates at which B and anti-B mesons decay into a special set of specific final states.

From these measurements, they calculated a parameter called sin 2ß (sine two beta), which expresses the degree of asymmetry between matter and antimatter. A non-zero value of this parameter is clear evidence for CP violation among B mesons.
In the paper just submitted, the BABAR collaboration reported measuring a value of sin 2ß = 0.59 ± 0.14, which is substantially different from zero. There are now fewer than 3 chances in 100,000 that the actual, physical asymmetry could be consistent with zero.

This BABAR result is easily the most precise measurement of sin 2ß reported to date. Earlier measurements made at Fermi National Accelerator Laboratory, the Japanese National Laboratory for High-Energy Accelerator Research (KEK), and at SLAC by the BABAR collaboration are consistent with the present result but not as accurate. The value just reported agrees with expectations based on the Standard Model, today's dominant theory of particle physics.

The precision of the BABAR result was made possible by the outstanding performance of the PEP-II B Factory at SLAC. Built in collaboration with the Energy Department's Lawrence Berkeley and Lawrence Livermore National Laboratories, this pair of 2.2-kilometer storage rings collides unequal-energy beams of electrons and their antimatter counterparts, called positrons. Piermaria Oddone, now deputy director of the Berkeley lab, first proposed this innovative experimental approach, which greatly enhances the accuracy of many B meson measurements.

"The B Factory has performed beyond expectations, permitting the BABAR collaboration to make the world-class measurements on B mesons," said SLAC Director Jonathan Dorfan, who played a pivotal role in designing and building this particle collider. Since it began operating in June 1999, the B Factory has produced more than 32 million pairs of B mesons, from which data the present BABAR result was extracted.

The mysterious phenomenon of CP violation was first discovered in a 1964 experiment led by James Cronin and Val Fitch at the Brookhaven National Laboratory. Their group observed this behavior in decays of subatomic particles called K mesons, which are about one tenth as heavy as B mesons and live much longer; the two physicists shared a Nobel Prize for the discovery.
Several observations of CP violation have since occurred in experiments with K mesons. But until the recent BABAR discovery, no other subatomic particles had clearly exhibited this exceedingly rare phenomenon. Having this second striking example of CP violation should aid theorists trying to understand what causes it.

Scientists are interested in this puzzling behavior because it can help explain the abundance of matter in the Universe. In 1967, Russian theorist Andrei Sakharov used CP violation to suggest how the present matter-dominated Universe could have emerged from one that contained exactly equal amounts of matter and antimatter during the earliest moments of the Big Bang.

The Stanford Linear Accelerator Center is a national laboratory for high-energy physics and synchrotron-radiation research operated by Stanford University on behalf of the U.S. Department of Energy. The Department's Office of Science funded the construction of the B Factory at $177 million and contributed about 60 percent of the cost of the BABAR detector, with the remainder coming from foreign sources.

"The foreign contributions to this experiment, both monetary and scientific, have been absolutely crucial to its success," noted former BABAR spokesman David Hitlin of the California Institute of Technology.

Did a search for Silvertooth and Aspden. Dubious to say the least.

A lot of links in the pages found to such things as UFO and Free Energy etc. No pages returned from edu. sites, so if people want to believe they can, but I don't.

You might be interest in this tidbit about dark matter...

http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/astronomy/dark_matter_010906.html

check out this link>>>>http://www.eso.org/outreach/press-rel/pr-2001/pr-28-01.html

dark matter is an ad-hoc explanation
it's plain stupid, idiot

it's the result of astronomers caught in their paradigma's, hence they will never see the things as they are outside their thinking-frame

dark matter will always remain dark because there is none

it was invented to save their theory

doppler interpretation is wrong
Alton Harp discovered what really causes red shift
this means, no expanding at all

astronomers have introduced science fiction in their most-beloved theorie, black holes, dark matter, etc etc

wonder what other exciting new things there are waiting for us in the future ...........

it can't be exciting enough, can it?

A site about Halton C. Arp.

http://www.astroleague.org/al/obsclubs/arppec/arphalt.html

So people can get an idea of what he is on about.

Originally posted by c'est moi
dark matter is an ad-hoc explanation
it's plain stupid, idiot

it's the result of astronomers caught in their paradigma's, hence they will never see the things as they are outside their thinking-frame

How then, oh learmed and wise sophont, do you explain the observed rotation curves of Spirals Galaxies? That is, why does the spiral display a solid body rotation indicating more mass than is visible.

Same for Ellipticals, the gravity required to keep it together, against internal pressure, is larger than the mass of the galaxy.

The masses of clusters is too small to hold them together against the random, so called peculiar, motions of the galazies themselves.

How do you explain the observed dark matter candidates being found by the MACHO search.

While we are at it, how do you explain gravitational lensing.

Note that red shift is not needed in any of the above.

(Apologies if this posts twice, something is fritzed)

"How then, oh learmed and wise sophont, do you explain the observed rotation curves of Spirals Galaxies? That is, why does the spiral display a solid body rotation indicating more mass than is visible."

solid body ==> electric forces hold it
requires different maths
the electric force is 1/r whereas gravity is only 1/r^2
which means the electric forces are millions of times stronger
see Peratt et. al for this (his book, can't remember the name contains all the maths and physics needed to describe this, all search it up)

this applies to all the rest of your questions

"How do you explain the observed dark matter candidates being found by the MACHO search. "

the MAssive Compact Halo Objects (MACHOs) - things like ... black holes, and neutron stars and Weakly Interacting Massive Particles (WIMPs), which possess mass are supposed not to interact with ordinary matter - baryons such as protons and neutrons - because they are composed of something entirely foreign and unknown. What's that supposed to mean?????

Dark matter even comes in two flavors, hot (HDM) and cold (CDM).....
1. Cold dark matter - supposedly in dead stars, planets, brown dwarfs ("failed stars") etc.
2. Hot dark matter - postulated to be fast moving particles floating throughout the universe, neutrinos, tachions etc.

Sure, astronomers and physicists have refined their dark matter theories without ever getting their hands on a single piece of it. But where is all of this dark matter? The truth is that after more than 30 years of looking for it, there's still no definitive proof that WIMPs exist or that MACHOs will ever make up more than five percent of the total reserve of missing dark stuff.

So, you explain me that

and also, explain me why this isn't a great example of scientists being caught in their paradigma solving things with ad hoc explanations

Originally posted by c'est moi
[B] "How then, oh learmed and wise sophont, do you explain the observed rotation curves of Spirals Galaxies? That is, why does the spiral display a solid body rotation indicating more mass than is visible."

solid body ==> electric forces hold it
requires different maths
the electric force is 1/r whereas gravity is only 1/r^2
which means the electric forces are millions of times stronger
see Peratt et. al for this (his book, can't remember the name contains all the maths and physics needed to describe this, all search it up)

Last I saw electrostatics obeyed an inverse square laq as well, F=q e_1 e_1 / r^2? Most bodies are electrically neutral so the above does not hold. If it did there would be no large scale structures as electrical forces would force things apart.


this applies to all the rest of your questions

No it does it not so please answer the questions.

You assert that Arp disproves redshift and thence posit Dark Matter does not exist. Prove it, where is your evidence, my evidence is in the many papers published by Astronomers every month and in thousands of hours of observations they do to get to the truth of the matter.

You obviously understand what Dark Matter is postulated to be. As I am sure you also realise that it is but one hypothesis to an observed problem. If Dark Matter is not found then a new hypothesis has to be raised or the models reinvestigated. Astronomy does not claim to have 'The Truth' in the same way you are claiming Dark Matter does not exist. If it does not exist what did the Macho team measure. Answer that.

on Dark Matter and its role in the formation of galaxies...

http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/astronomy/dark_matter_011211.html

"Last I saw electrostatics obeyed an inverse square laq as well, F=q e_1 e_1 / r^2?"

wrong

"Most bodies are electrically neutral"

wrong again

"If it did there would be no large scale structures as electrical forces would force things apart. "

double wrong
electric forces BOTH attract and repulse

"You assert that Arp disproves redshift and thence posit Dark Matter does not exist."

read his book and papers

"Prove it, where is your evidence, my evidence is in the many papers published by Astronomers every month and in thousands of hours of observations they do to get to the truth of the matter."

Your evidence??

Ding dong, there is no "I" and "You and Them". This not a fight or something. I am not an astronomer, I happen to read stuff that is related to it. Sometimes I agree with some people pointing out at such unacceptable things like dark matter, sometimes I don't agree with these people questioning conventional theories.

I don't need to go and disproof these observations. Why should I? It is the explanations applied to those observations that can be questioned.

"If Dark Matter is not found then a new hypothesis has to be raised or the models reinvestigated."

A new one could very well be related to electric forces. Most astronomers think interstellar plasmas etc. are neutral but not all of them think this. If it has charge, it can account for the dark matter as it would be much stronger than gravity.

"Astronomy does not claim to have 'The Truth' in the same way you are claiming Dark Matter does not exist."

I do not want to make it look that. Truth is relative (also see Godel's theorem).

"If it does not exist what did the Macho team measure. Answer that. "

Wimps and black holes are still not prooved.
Neutron stars cannot account for the missing mass.

cheers

Originally posted by c'est moi
"Last I saw electrostatics obeyed an inverse square laq as well, F=q e_1 e_1 / r^2?"

wrong

"Most bodies are electrically neutral"

wrong again

Would you care to explain WHY I am wrong. Apart from goofing the Coulomb Equation (writing at 7am local time I was asleep) how is The Coulomb Law (http://www.pa.msu.edu/courses/1997spring/PHY232/lectures/coulombslaw/) not applicable. Since when are most bodies not electrically neutral. Specific examples please.

"If it did there would be no large scale structures as electrical forces would force things apart. "

double wrong
electric forces BOTH attract and repulse

Yabut. But you said previously,

solid body ==> electric forces hold it
requires different maths
the electric force is 1/r whereas gravity is only 1/r^2
which means the electric forces are millions of times stronger

You strongly imply electric forces 'hold it', galaxies that is, together but now assert something different. Contradicting yourslf?

Yes, electrostatic forces attract and repulse. You need like and unlike charges, as in the above Coulomb Force. Unless we are talking a different physics than the one we use everyday. Elucidate please?

Generally you need large charge distributions and densities for the electrostatic forces to overcome gravity. Like in magnetic tubes. Otherwise the charges normally cancel.

"You assert that Arp disproves redshift and thence posit Dark Matter does not exist."

read his book and papers

You are making the assertion without evidence or substantiation, not me. Provide your reasoning and proof. Actually, I have read Arps work and it has nothing to do with Dark Matter and a lot do with redshift.

{snippage}

Ding dong, there is no "I" and "You and Them". This not a fight or something. I am not an astronomer, I happen to read stuff that is related to it.

Whereas I have spent 5 years studying Astrophysics to postgraduate level, specialising in Galactic Structure (Lin-Shu density waves and stochastic models) and the evidence for Dark Matter. Plus a further eleven years trying to keep up to date in the subject.

You are right, this is not a fight. But, in the best traditions of science if you make a bald statement I expect you to provide evidence, reasoning and fact. Not unsubstantiated facts and statements and quoting known fringe elements as proof.

If you want to make statements at least provide some level of evidence you know what you are talking about.

BTW, I am also passing familiar with magnetohydrodynamics and its role in astrophysics. I have studied Alfvens work as work on plasmas as well.

As I say, please provide your evidence/facts/reasoning/proof that there is no dark matter, electric forces determine galactic structure or overcome gravity on a regular basis and Arp is right.

Originally posted by c'est moi
Wimps and black holes are still not prooved.
Neutron stars cannot account for the missing mass.
cheers

There is one point there I do agree with. There is no evidence for WIMPS. It was a hypothesis (based on some supersymmetrical models of particle physics) that has not been born out be experimental evidence. Where as the MACHO hypothesis is now tentaively backed by experimental evidence.

Black Holes are almost proven. The HST recently caught an image of a plasma disappearing in the vicinity of a black hole candidate. Too many objects with the characteristics of black holes have been observed. The data is in very cose agreement with black hole/Relativity theories.

Neutron stars have nothing to do with dark matter and have never been posited as a solution to it. You would need tens of billions of neutron stars to account for dark matter. This implies the early universe had a much larger stellar population so early galaxies would have had vastly higher luminosities. This is simply not observed.


------------------------------- edit -----------------------------------------

I'll clarify a point. At present it is hypothesised that about 90% of the mass of the Universe is dark matter. Our galaxy is about 10 billion solar masses. You would need about 90 billion solar masses of neutron stars to account for this. Or about 90 billion of them. Nine or ten neutron stars for every star on the main sequence. We should have 3 or 4 neutron stars within a light year of us. This simply does not work.
---------------------------- end edit ---------------------------------------

http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2001-12/rtsu-ras121101.php

"Would you care to explain WHY I am wrong. Apart from goofing the Coulomb Equation (writing at 7am local time I was asleep) how is The Coulomb Law (http://www.pa.msu.edu/courses/1997spring/PHY232/lectures/coulombslaw/) not applicable. Since when are most bodies not electrically neutral. Specific examples please........."

The answer is simply that the forces between current carrying plasma
streams varies as 1/r instead of gravity's much weaker 1/r^2. The current streams imply huge, weak electric fields and the electric force is one thousand million million million million million million times stronger than gravity! Gravity only takes over once the electric currents in a galaxy have coalesced widely dispersed gases to form stars and planets.

The book of Anthony Peratt is "Physics of the Plasma Universe" for these issues

"You strongly imply electric forces 'hold it', galaxies that is, together but now assert something different. Contradicting yourself?"

Just one question: Wouldn't you agree that IF it turns out that plasmas are charged (and not neutral as most think) and the mathematics in books such as Peratt's book are Correct, that it would be a BETTER explanation than some unknown yet to be prooven ad hoc explanation like dark matter?

"Actually, I have read Arps work and it has nothing to do with Dark Matter and a lot do with redshift."

of course, it has to do with red shift
but red shift is relevant for astronomers to explain how galaxies are hold together
a non-expanding universe means different conclusions and interpretations

"Whereas I have spent 5 years studying Astrophysics to postgraduate level, specialising in Galactic Structure (Lin-Shu density waves and stochastic models) and the evidence for Dark Matter. Plus a further eleven years trying to keep up to date in the subject."

good for you

"I have studied Alfvens work as work on plasmas as well. "

good

you proof me why plasmas shouldn't be charged and why gravity should hold the universe together although it leads to ad hoc explanations like dark matter (jeesh)
just think about it

just, for one second, step outside the idea of a gravity-controlled universe with neutral gasses

and see then if the immediate acceptance of unvisible undetectable matter to explain this UNEXPECTED (this means: it doesnt FIT in their MODEL!! => everyone seems to forget this) behaviour of the galaxies is the best explanation scientists can give