 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
Natural Science Forum / Physics / General Physics / March 2008Anti matter disproven conclusively
Mesons are quark anti quark pairs. This makes them a matter anti matter mixture. The anti neutron would be 3 anti quarks with NEGATIVE strong force. Since there is NO ANTI strong force their can be no anti neutron or anti quarks. In proton anti proton colliders strong matter comes out when there should be some radiation from ANIHALATION from the matter anti matter (even if it is risidual.) This is what anti matter theory predicts: Radiation. This is not what is seen to happen. Anti matter theory was originally a hole in Dirac's electron equation. Anti matter is not real. Positronium has a positron that has atomic shells around it. This is poppycock. The way anrti matter is considered to be captured also shows of its impossibility. Cosmic rays of anti protons and anti electrons will interact strongly with the protons and electrons in the atmposphere. I have calculated there would be 400 quadrillion points of possible anihalation for the proton and electron passing through the atmosphere to be captured by the collider. We are colliding protons with high energy protons. That is all. Mitch Raemsch Twice Nobel Laureate 2008 [snip utter bullshit] Potassium-40 decays with positron emission, fuckwad. Go to your supermarket, get a bottle of KCl salt substitute, shove it up your a.s. Look at the antimatter flash in the dark, http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/sunshine.htm > Mitch Raemsch Twice Nobel Laureate 2008 Peace and Literature. Ha Ha Ha.  SignatureUncle Al http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/ (Toxic URL! Unsafe for children and most mammals) http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/lajos.htm#a2 > [...] You repeatedly make authoritative-sounding pronouncements that are completely wrong. You are clearly just repeating words you have heard, without understanding. Please grow up. The only way to say something sensible is to STUDY the subject. Or pick s subject you do understand. Your posts around here are just downright silly (which is why I usually ignore them). Tom Roberts On Mar 25, 9:24 pm, mitchg...@hotmail.com wrote: > Mesons are quark anti quark pairs. This makes them a matter anti > matter mixture. > > The anti neutron would be 3 anti quarks with NEGATIVE strong force. Um, no. I don't know why you would think so. [Rest, based on erroneous premise, snipped.] > On Mar 25, 9:24 pm, mitchg...@hotmail.com wrote: > [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > Um, no. I don't know why you would think so. > [Rest, based on erroneous premise, snipped.] Back yourself up. What is opposite about the 3 neutron quarks? The strong force? Mitch Raemsch Twice Nobel Laureate 2008 On Mar 26, 5:09 pm, mitchg...@hotmail.com wrote: > > On Mar 25, 9:24 pm, mitchg...@hotmail.com wrote: > [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > Back yourself up. What is opposite about the 3 neutron quarks? > The strong force? Nope. Some of the quantum numbers. Not the force. Please don't guess wildly. It just looks bad. > Mitch Raemsch Twice Nobel Laureate 2008 > On Mar 26, 5:09 pm, mitchg...@hotmail.com wrote: > [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > > Nope. Some of the quantum numbers. Not the force. It has to be the force. Otherwise shoiw how the numbers qualify it as anitmatter. Mitch Raemsch Twice Nobel Laureate 2008 On Mar 26, 7:02 pm, mitchg...@hotmail.com wrote: > > On Mar 26, 5:09 pm, mitchg...@hotmail.com wrote: > [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > > Mitch Raemsch Twice Nobel Laureate 2008 http://pdg.lbl.gov All the quantum numbers are in the listings. It's pretty obvious. Conclusively??? Positively not Bert On Mar 25, 7:24 pm, mitchg...@hotmail.com wrote: > Mesons are quark anti quark pairs. This makes them a matter anti > matter mixture. Hard to call quarks or antiquarks "matter" since they can't exist alone. Other than that quibble...okay... > The anti neutron would be 3 anti quarks with NEGATIVE strong force. > Since there is NO ANTI strong force their can be no anti neutron or > anti quarks. That's like saying there's no such thing as "anti-electricity" so there can't be such a thing as a battery with two oppositely charged poles. Quite silly. There's no need to assume antiquarks would produce an "antistrong" force. > In proton anti proton colliders strong matter comes out when there > should be some radiation from ANIHALATION from the matter anti matter > (even if it is risidual.) This is what anti matter theory predicts: > Radiation. This is not what is seen to happen. Anti matter theory was > originally a hole in Dirac's electron equation. Anti matter is not > real. What's "strong matter" supposed to be? Oh, and where did you get the notion that colliding protons and antiprotons doesn't generate annihilation radiation? > Positronium has a positron that has atomic shells around it. This is > poppycock. No, it has "orbitals" around it which an electron can occupy. Similarly, an electron has orbitals a positron can occupy. If you look at both of them as deBroglie wave phenomena it's fairly obvious that it has to be that way. > The way anrti matter is considered to be captured also shows of its > impossibility. Cosmic rays of anti protons and anti electrons will > interact strongly with the protons and electrons in the atmposphere. I > have calculated there would be 400 quadrillion points of possible > anihalation for the proton and electron passing through the atmosphere > to be captured by the collider. Well, you're obviously wrong. Mark L. Fergerson On Mar 27, 11:17 pm, "n...@bid.nes" <Alien8...@gmail.com> wrote: > On Mar 25, 7:24 pm, mitchg...@hotmail.com wrote: > [quoted text clipped - 32 lines] > No, it has "orbitals" around it which an electron can occupy. > Similarly, an electron has orbitals a positron can occupy. If you look occupy is a forbidden word in physics > at both of them as deBroglie wave phenomena it's fairly obvious that > it has to be that way. [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > > Mark L. Fergerson On Mar 27, 2:17 pm, "n...@bid.nes" <Alien8...@gmail.com> wrote: > On Mar 25, 7:24 pm, mitchg...@hotmail.com wrote: > [quoted text clipped - 45 lines] > > Mark L. Fergerson There is opposite electric charge. Not so for the strong force. This conclusively disproves anti matter theory. Mitch Raemsch Twice Nobel Laurate 2008 On Mar 27, 11:36 pm, mitchg...@hotmail.com wrote: > On Mar 27, 2:17 pm, "n...@bid.nes" <Alien8...@gmail.com> wrote: > [quoted text clipped - 49 lines] > > There is opposite electric charge. Not so for the strong force. Sure there is. The charges are labeled red, green, blue, anti-red, anti-green, anti-blue. Anti-red and red are exact analogs to positive and negative charges. Please refrain from just-plain-crazy statements as an attempt to learn something. > This > conclusively disproves anti matter theory. > > Mitch Raemsch Twice Nobel Laurate 2008 On Mar 27, 11:36 pm, mitchg...@hotmail.com wrote: > On Mar 27, 2:17 pm, "n...@bid.nes" <Alien8...@gmail.com> wrote: > [quoted text clipped - 49 lines] > > There is opposite electric charge. Not so for the strong force. | Sure there is. He said there is NOT. Naturally Phuckwit Duck says there is. > On Mar 27, 11:36 pm, mitchg...@hotmail.com wrote: > [quoted text clipped - 55 lines] > > He said there is NOT. He did indeed. And it's wrong. > Naturally Phuckwit Duck says there is. And naturally, reflexively, helplessly, you jerk your knee when I say when something IS (and condemn the statement for using "is"), and you jerk your knee when I say when something IS NOT (and condemn the statement for using "is not"). I notice that among your posts, the number that have any physics content in them whatsoever is reduced to about 1 in 50, the remainder being solely focused on condemning your targets for saying what is or for what is not, whichever. You may find more fun at alt.debate, where no matter what somebody says there, you'll get points for simply saying, "I disagree." As it is, I don't know what your point is anymore. If you ever had one other than passing long, slow hours. PD On Mar 28, 7:39 am, "Androcles" <Headmas...@Hogwarts.physics> wrote: > "PD" <TheDraperFam...@gmail.com> wrote in message > [quoted text clipped - 62 lines] > > He said there is NOT. | He did indeed. And it's wrong. He's not wrong. You are wrong. > On Mar 28, 7:39 am, "Androcles" <Headmas...@Hogwarts.physics> wrote: > [quoted text clipped - 68 lines] > > He's not wrong. You are wrong. Let's see if I have your motive tracked here. The objective is: whatever physicists say, say the opposite. That way, at least on this newsgroup, there will be as much noise in one direction as there is signal in the other direction, thereby making it harder for readers to discern which is correct. There is no value other than vandalism and noise generation, but given your current level of self-respect, penny-ante vandalism seems like as good a pursuit for you as any. Think you're being effective? Do you care? Got anything better to do? PD On Mar 28, 8:29 am, "Androcles" <Headmas...@Hogwarts.physics> wrote: > "PD" <TheDraperFam...@gmail.com> wrote in message > [quoted text clipped - 77 lines] > > He's not wrong. You are wrong. | Let's see if I have your motive tracked here. Ok, let's see. | The objective is: whatever physicists say, say the opposite. That is your motive, I was merely demonstrating it. We establish by definition that p = mv. PD: No it isn't! I have your motive tracked here, bigot. > > "PD" <TheDraperFam...@gmail.com> wrote in message > [quoted text clipped - 75 lines] > saying, "I disagree." As it is, I don't know what your point is > anymore. If you ever had one other than passing long, slow hours. <Monty Python> Man: I came here for a good argument! Other Man: AH, no you didn't, you came here for an argument! Man: An argument isn't just contradiction. Other Man: Well! it CAN be! Man: No it can't! Man: An argument is a connected series of statements intended to establish a proposition. Other Man: No it isn't! </MP> - Randy | > > "PD" <TheDraperFam...@gmail.com> wrote in message | > [quoted text clipped - 99 lines] | No it isn't! | </MP> That's Phuckwit Duck alright. Scientist/Engineer/Rest of world/Newton: p = mv is a definition of momentum/motion. PD: "No it isn't!" Einstein: 'we establish by definition that the "time" required by light to travel from A to B equals the "time" it requires to travel from B to A' . PD: Yes, yes, Einstein said it so it must be so. What a fuckin' BIGOT. >> > "PD" <TheDraperFam...@gmail.com> wrote in message >> [quoted text clipped - 99 lines] > No it isn't! > </MP> Indeed. I'm not sure whether the dead parrot or the cheese shop would come in second for relevance. --John Park On Mar 27, 9:36 pm, mitchg...@hotmail.com wrote: > On Mar 27, 2:17 pm, "n...@bid.nes" <Alien8...@gmail.com> wrote: > [quoted text clipped - 49 lines] > > There is opposite electric charge. Yup. > Not so for the strong force. How do you know this? What supporting evidence have you? > This conclusively disproves anti matter theory. Saying a thing doesn't make it so. Where's your evidence? Mark L. Fergerson mitchg...@hotmail.com wrote: > Mesons are quark anti quark pairs. This makes them a matter anti > matter mixture. [quoted text clipped - 23 lines] > > Mitch Raemsch Twice Nobel Laureate 2008 Wont it be interesting when the creatures from Beta Lyrae 7 land in 2089 and try to make sense out of our "civilization" by combing through the rubble and they come across statements such as "Anti matter disproven conclusively" and they teleport back to their home to write their reports and they say to each other "Those guys sure believed in a bunch of false stuff in Usenet, but out in the real world where people had to grow food to support such posters they had to keep it real or else the Flargonian Burlon Thelmer (FBT) would destroy the crop." > Mitch Raemsch Twice Nobel Laureate 2008 And it's so early in the year 2008 still. With all these great theories you're cranking out (you don't have any experimental data, do you?), you're bound to be awarded even more Nobel Laureates before the year is out. On Mar 26, 5:24 am, mitchg...@hotmail.com wrote: > Mesons are quark anti quark pairs. This makes them a matter anti > matter mixture. [quoted text clipped - 23 lines] > > Mitch Raemsch Twice Nobel Laureate 2008 =============================================== To Mitch Raemsch Twice Nobel Laureate 2008 ===. 1. When Light quantum which fly with constant speed c=1 stops its moving we call it anti matter. 2. When Electron interact with Vacuum we call it anti matter too. 3. It is only my interpretation the laws of Physics. . 4. I also hope to be Twice Nobel Laureate next year. 5. Best wishes. =================== |
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2009 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.