The stupidest thing a creatonist has ever said to you

[Wainscotting]

Could it be then, that their own forces tend to keep them separate? That would mean antimatter would be abundant at the space in between the galaxies, kind of like a big rubbish bin.

No, they should be drawn together. The universe should have annihilated itself shortly after the big bang. If they repelled, then we wouldn't need dark energy and there would be "anti-galaxies" floating around.

However, this is kind of the limit to my understanding of antimatter.

 

[Baranduin]

Quick question along those lines; can antimatter transform into another state? Maybe antienergy, or into energy, or into matter?

Antimatter is matter. Some particles are their own antiparticles. Some particles are the antiparticles of other particles. Nothing more.

So yes, it can transform into matter - it's matter -, and into energy - E=mcc, so it's energy. I have no idea what do you mean with "antienergy", but if you are meaning "negative energy"... well, antimatter has mass so it has a gravitational field so it can be counted as such too...

Could it be then, that their own forces tend to keep them separate? That would mean antimatter would be abundant at the space in between the galaxies, kind of like a big rubbish bin.

Antimatter has positive masses, so it'll be attracted to normal matter by the gravitational laws. It has the opposite charge, so electrons (negative electric charge) and antielectrons (positive electric charge) attract each other (and antielectrons repel protons, for instance). There are no special forces keeping them separated. Probably we see so much matter and not antimatter precisely because there are no such forces, so they were attracted, they got destroyed, and a small asymmetry in the laws of the universe - CPT asymmetry, but don't ask me more - left a bit more of matter than antimatter, at least in our particular region of space. You can find this interesting: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baryogenesis

And... if there where antimatter in the space in between the galaxies, it'd still exert a gravitational effect - even in the case it was exotic matter with negative mass -, so it'll be detectable. Even worst, every time a particle met an antiparticle, they will get annihilated and liberate an lot of energy; if there was a big amount of antimatter anywhere near, we may see a big and more or less constant source of gamma rays coming from there - concretely, probably from the boundary of that region.
Antimatter is nothing strange, it's just stuff, so if it is there, we'll know. As long as I know, we haven't detected any of those things yet, so no, antimatter probably is not specially abundant in that space.

 

[aeroeng314]

And... if there where antimatter in the space in between the galaxies, it'd still exert a gravitational effect - even in the case it was exotic matter with negative mass -, so it'll be detectable. Even worst, every time a particle met an antiparticle, they will get annihilated and liberate an lot of energy; if there was a big amount of antimatter anywhere near, we may see a big and more or less constant source of gamma rays coming from there - concretely, probably from the boundary of that region.
Antimatter is nothing strange, it's just stuff, so if it is there, we'll know. As long as I know, we haven't detected any of those things yet, so no, antimatter probably is not specially abundant in that space.

There's something I've always been curious about: if a star was made entirely of antimatter, how does that change things? And by that I mean what would be different about the light it emits that would allow us to tell that it's made entirely from antimatter? This would also answer the question of how we could tell whether or not an entire galaxy was made of antimatter.

 

[Baranduin]

There's something I've always been curious about: if a star was made entirely of antimatter, how does that change things? And by that I mean what would be different about the light it emits that would allow us to tell that it's made entirely from antimatter? This would also answer the question of how we could tell whether or not an entire galaxy was made of antimatter.

Uh, I think we can assume safely that stars are mostly made of the same kind of stuff than the galaxies they are in - if they weren't, their interactions with the interstellar medium would make a fantastic spectacle*. But since antiparticles have the same mass (and spin) and the same charge (but with opposite sign) than particles, I suppose [and I'd like someone with a more adequate formation in physics to confirm or disconfirm this] their spectrum would be the same (same energies), so your anti-galaxy would be indistinguishable from "normal" galaxies from here with the current technology. If we could, however, take a look at the particles - not light - coming from there we'd have a chance (comparing mass/electrical interaction, or seeing the by-products of weak decay).

As I said, antimatter is just matter. We know that there isn't an antigalaxy anywhere near because there's a continuum of matter -our kind of matter- and there is no "frontier emitting gamma rays" as it would be expected if there was a region filled with antimatter next to one filled with normal matter.

* Note that there are some antiparticles just right over your heads. Yeah, there's a small amount of antimatter in our atmosphere, created by cosmic rays. And yeah, in the Sun's too. And probably inside you too The difference is just quantitative.

 

[Wainscotting]

Yay. Someone who knows more about antimatter came along to clear things up.

 

[cthulhu_caller]

Not to me directly, and wasn't on topic but I laughed pretty hard at this one:

Advocate of Creationist Idiocy on Facebook says "I realize this is off topic, but Rush Limbaugh has been documented to be accurate 99.5% of the time, and he always cites his sources for his stories on his web page - in fact, he generally has several sources for each news story he presents. My answer for these people is generally, "the truth is the truth, regardless of who speaks it."

 

[Pulsar]

science without religion is dull
religion, without science is blind
-alfred einstein

 

[IrBubble]

Hahahahahahahahahaha that was a treasure pulsar!

 

[Japeo]

After directing a YouTube creationist to the overwhelming evidence for evolutionary theory in the channels of AronRa, cdk007, donexodus2, thunderf00t AND AndromedasWake I got the following reply:

Thank you, I have seen many of their videos. I still find no evidence to support the theory.

He must be deaf, dumb and blind then :!:

 

[DrunkCat]

...Did you ask why?

 

[Jorick]

Not an exact quote, more of a conversation result... Basically, I got stuck on a plane next to a fundie creationist and he kept wanting to talk about religion. I told him I'm not religious so he just HAD to try and convert me. When he asked me why I was "godless," I busted out the old "I just dismiss one more god than you do; once you know why you dismissed Allah, Odin, and Zeus you'll know why I dismiss your god." And then he said he hadn't ever dismissed a god! I asked him how he could believe in the Biblical deity if he didn't dismiss the rest, and he said he only knows that this one is right, not that the others don't exist. I went through a list of all the gods I could think of, basically making him admit that Allah and the various Norse, Greek, and Egyptian gods are probably real.

 

[creamcheese]

I have never met a creationist in real life. On the internet, sure, but I've never spoken to one. They sound repellent.

 

[Dusty341]

Got this one just today..preciousXD

@Dusty341 He used science to debunk evolution. Paintings, buildings, and trucks all have a maker therefore human beings must have a maker.

Unless you're trying to say paintings, Ford trucks, and other inanimate objects aren't the same thing as living organisms.

Also, please don't turn that logic around on me and say that since paintings, buildings and trucks all have a creator therefore God must have a creator.

 

[FaithlessThinker]

The most confusing thing a religious person has ever said to me in response to a scientific argument:

I hate you.

Hate me for what?

 

[ExplorerAtHeart]

The most confusing thing a religious person has ever said to me in response to a scientific argument:

I hate you.

Hate me for what?

I guess for bringing out doubts from inside of him. Those doubts scare the religious. They are afraid of reality because their indoctrination promotes the fear of hell by rejecting the bibles teachings.

 

[FaithlessThinker]

I guess for bringing out doubts from inside of him. Those doubts scare the religious. They are afraid of reality because their indoctrination promotes the fear of hell by rejecting the bibles teachings.

I agree with much of what you say, but you presumed that "religious person" means "christian". Now that's wrong. By "religious person" I mean one who believes in any religion among all the religions in the world.

 

[alimck]

A friend and I (although we don't speak much now) had a long stint of debates on facebook regarding evolution and creationism. He wrote some notes, I wrote some notes and i went back and forward for several months. Here is a small selection of the things he came out with:

Discussing population models and settlements:

The oldest settlements and monuments are around 5000 years old (Pyramids, Stonehenge etc..) and languages are also approximately 5000 years old (e.g. Greek). Historical accounts give a recorded history of about 5000 years. For the last 5000 years we have been steadily increasing in numbers following a classic exponential (unrestricted) growth model. So assuming more than 5000 years is unwarranted from this data. Interestingly 5000 years is exactly what the Bible says has elapsed since Adam and Eve.

Discussing the fossil record:

The Archaeopteryx fossil, hailed as a significant transitional missing link. Of the six fossils found only two had the interesting feathers that so interested the evolutionists but this inconsistency was conveniently overlooked. The fossils with feathers have now been declared by scientists to be forgeries.

Discussing evolution as a scientific theory:

There comes a time in almost every theory's life where it is shown to be inaccurate, or is superseded by an improved version.

 

[RichardMNixon]

Just stumbled onto this today while searching for a scripture quote: http://brittgillette.com/WordPress/?p=107

One of her reasons for why we should believe in god is that even demons are scared of him, and if demons acknowledge he exists, how could humans possibly not?

 

[DepricatedZero]

I have never met a creationist in real life. On the internet, sure, but I've never spoken to one. They sound repellent.

You're lucky.

I work next to the Creation Museum. . . :facepalm:

 

[alimck]

Define Museum:

mu,·se,·um 
-noun
a building or place where works of art, scientific specimens, or other objects of permanent value are kept and displayed.

Define an oxymoron:

'Creation Museum'.




lol