Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
Re: Moron Award 2012 Nominations
27 views
Skip to first unread message
Koobee Wublee
Sep 16, 2012, 11:29:14 PM9/16/12
to
On Sep 16, 8:08 am, rios wrote:
> For sure a mass equal to around 4,300,000 Suns is lying just
> at the center of our Galaxy, and not less than 128 stars are
> orbiting that mass. One of those stars, S2, has been observed
> for one complete orbit, so the mass is highly accurate. There
> is nothing known in Science which can produce this result,
> except for a black hole.
There is nothing to say that the equivalent of 4.3M suns in mass is a
black hole. Newtonian law of gravity explains so. You need to study
Newtonian law of gravity. A good book to start is Feynman’s Lectures
on Physics. <shrug>
> If you knew how to read (which you don´t), you would see that
> we are talking of 128 stars (whose orbits have been tracked
> for the last 20 years using infrared telescopes). The star S2
> has been measured for a whole orbit and from Kepler we know
> the mass S2 is orbiting corresponds to 4.3 million solar masses.
A better explanation is that in the galactic center there are so many
stars with a combined mass the 4.3M suns. There are no tell-tale
signs of a black hole. <shrug>
> Further more, that 4.3 million solar mass is located right at
> the center of our galaxy and so it is also very correct to say:
> our Sun is really orbiting the same 4.3 million solar mass
> object, which can only be a result of a black hole.
Still no indications of a black hole. <shrug>
> So who is the moron here imbecile?
papa rios is the moron and the imbecile here. Just read the shit he
wrote above. <shrug>
> For sure a mass equal to around 4,300,000 Suns is lying just
> at the center of our Galaxy, and not less than 128 stars are
> orbiting that mass. One of those stars, S2, has been observed
> for one complete orbit, so the mass is highly accurate. There
> is nothing known in Science which can produce this result,
> except for a black hole.
There is nothing to say that the equivalent of 4.3M suns in mass is a
black hole. Newtonian law of gravity explains so. You need to study
Newtonian law of gravity. A good book to start is Feynman’s Lectures
on Physics. <shrug>
> If you knew how to read (which you don´t), you would see that
> we are talking of 128 stars (whose orbits have been tracked
> for the last 20 years using infrared telescopes). The star S2
> has been measured for a whole orbit and from Kepler we know
> the mass S2 is orbiting corresponds to 4.3 million solar masses.
A better explanation is that in the galactic center there are so many
stars with a combined mass the 4.3M suns. There are no tell-tale
signs of a black hole. <shrug>
> Further more, that 4.3 million solar mass is located right at
> the center of our galaxy and so it is also very correct to say:
> our Sun is really orbiting the same 4.3 million solar mass
> object, which can only be a result of a black hole.
Still no indications of a black hole. <shrug>
> So who is the moron here imbecile?
papa rios is the moron and the imbecile here. Just read the shit he
wrote above. <shrug>
Brad Guth
Sep 17, 2012, 12:20:54 AM9/17/12
to
rather than just a bunch of ordinary though massive stars.
A few neutron stars should accomplish roughly the same results as a
SMBH.
The center of any galaxy could also be represented by having zero
gravity.
Sam Wormley
Sep 17, 2012, 12:26:04 AM9/17/12
to
On 9/16/12 11:20 PM, Brad Guth wrote:
>
> The center of any galaxy could also be represented by having zero
> gravity.
>
No mass has zero gravity, Guth!
>
> The center of any galaxy could also be represented by having zero
> gravity.
>
Koobee Wublee
Sep 17, 2012, 2:16:56 AM9/17/12
to
Newtonian law of gravity well, he will notice if the mass density in
vacuum in the center of the galaxy approaches that of mentioned, the
same affect to these orbits of these outline stars can be achieved the
same way. <shrug>
A good place to study Newtonian law of gravity is Wikipedia. However,
since the author with unknown credential is anonymous, another old
fashion place to start is Feynman’s Lectures on Physics. You will
find the subject of discussions are the same. <shrug>
Sam, make sure you study the basics before defecating all over these
group groups with your ignorance again, please. Please understand
that negative mass generate antigravity to ordinary (positive) mass in
which Tom Roberts, a professional physicist with a phd, has failed to
understand. <shrug>
Sam Wormley
Sep 21, 2012, 10:36:38 PM9/21/12
to
On 9/17/12 1:16 AM, Koobee Wublee wrote:
> Please understand
> that negative mass generate antigravity to ordinary (positive) mass in
> which Tom Roberts, a professional physicist with a phd, has failed to
> understand. <shrug>
Cite an observation of negative mass for me, Koobee.
> Please understand
> that negative mass generate antigravity to ordinary (positive) mass in
> which Tom Roberts, a professional physicist with a phd, has failed to
> understand. <shrug>
Pete Weber
Sep 24, 2012, 4:45:10 PM9/24/12
to
Sam Wormley
Sep 24, 2012, 4:52:39 PM9/24/12
to
@jeff-relf.me
Sep 24, 2012, 8:59:49 PM9/24/12
to
Negative mass ? In his 3 part series, "Grand Design", Stephen Hawking recently said: space is negative mass⋅energy. My website ( Jeff-Relf.Me ) says: Mass⋅Energy = Space⋅Time, they are one and the same. Gravity is "EXergy", energy that can do work; net net (all things considered), it's forever being consumed away.
Tom Roberts
Sep 25, 2012, 10:06:57 AM9/25/12
to
On 9/24/12 9/24/12 3:45 PM, Pete Weber wrote:
> an antiparticle has a positive mass!?
Yes. All observed particles have non-negative masses. The mass difference
> an antiparticle has a positive mass!?
between the electron and its antiparticle, the positron, is less than 1 part per
billion. The mass difference between the proton and and the antiproton is also
less than 1 part per billion. [http://pdg.lbl.gov]
The only particle with zero mass is the photon, which currently has the
fantastically small upper limit of 1E-18 eV/c^2. [http://pdg.lbl.gov]
Tom Roberts
Pete Weber
Sep 25, 2012, 11:44:31 AM9/25/12
to
including its mass, not only a charge sign inversion
How about an antineutron and an antineutrino?
How about antimatter, what is it?
Has dark matter negative mass?
Tom Roberts
Sep 25, 2012, 11:45:41 AM9/25/12
to
On 9/25/12 9/25/12 - 9:06 AM, Tom Roberts wrote:
> The only particle with zero mass is the photon, which currently has the
> fantastically small upper limit of 1E-18 eV/c^2. [http://pdg.lbl.gov]
Oops. This got posted before I related this to the earlier part:
> The only particle with zero mass is the photon, which currently has the
> fantastically small upper limit of 1E-18 eV/c^2. [http://pdg.lbl.gov]
The photon is its own antiparticle. Think about what that means in the context
of this question.
[In contrast, gluons are also massless, but are not their own
antiparticles....]
Tom Roberts
Pete Weber
Sep 25, 2012, 11:50:40 AM9/25/12
to
and 1E-18 eV/c² is huge compared to zero
Big Dog
Sep 25, 2012, 12:58:30 PM9/25/12
to
On 9/25/2012 10:50 AM, Pete Weber wrote:
> By definition photons can't be antiparticles, they carries no charges
Having opposite nonzero charge is not what identifies an antiparticle.
> By definition photons can't be antiparticles, they carries no charges
Neutral neutrinos have neutral antineutrinos.
>
> and 1E-18 eV/c² is huge compared to zero
>
measurement EVER of an exact number. Getting a measurement of ANY value,
whether that is two, ninety-six or zero, to a precision of 1E-18 is a
darn good measurement.
Sam Wormley
Sep 25, 2012, 1:28:58 PM9/25/12
to
On 9/25/12 10:44 AM, Pete Weber wrote:
> In order to be a_real_ antiparticle it must have opposite everything,
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antiparticle
> Corresponding to most kinds of particles, there is an associated antiparticle with the same mass and opposite electric charge. For example, the antiparticle of the electron is the positively charged antielectron, or positron, which is produced naturally in certain types of radioactive decay.
> Although particles and their antiparticles have opposite charges, electrically neutral particles need not be identical to their antiparticles. The neutron, for example, is made out of quarks, the antineutron from antiquarks, and they are distinguishable from one another because neutrons and antineutrons annihilate each other upon contact. However, other neutral particles are their own antiparticles, such as photons, the hypothetical gravitons, and some WIMPs.
> Quantum states of a particle and an antiparticle can be interchanged by applying the charge conjugation (C), parity (P), and time reversal (T) operators.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antiparticle#Properties_of_antiparticles
> In order to be a_real_ antiparticle it must have opposite everything,
> including its mass, not only a charge sign inversion
Perhaps a review of the definition of antiparticle
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antiparticle
> Corresponding to most kinds of particles, there is an associated antiparticle with the same mass and opposite electric charge. For example, the antiparticle of the electron is the positively charged antielectron, or positron, which is produced naturally in certain types of radioactive decay.
> Although particles and their antiparticles have opposite charges, electrically neutral particles need not be identical to their antiparticles. The neutron, for example, is made out of quarks, the antineutron from antiquarks, and they are distinguishable from one another because neutrons and antineutrons annihilate each other upon contact. However, other neutral particles are their own antiparticles, such as photons, the hypothetical gravitons, and some WIMPs.
> Quantum states of a particle and an antiparticle can be interchanged by applying the charge conjugation (C), parity (P), and time reversal (T) operators.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antiparticle#Properties_of_antiparticles
Sam Wormley
Sep 25, 2012, 1:31:40 PM9/25/12
to
On 9/25/12 10:50 AM, Pete Weber wrote:
> By definition photons can't be antiparticles, they carries no charges
>
> By definition photons can't be antiparticles, they carries no charges
>
Pete Weber
Sep 25, 2012, 4:53:58 PM9/25/12
to
On Tue, 25 Sep 2012 12:28:58 -0500, Sam Wormley wrote:
> On 9/25/12 10:44 AM, Pete Weber wrote:
>> In order to be a_real_ antiparticle it must have opposite everything,
>> including its mass, not only a charge sign inversion
>
> Perhaps a review of the definition of antiparticle
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antiparticle
Why dont you better reply to what is been said, without snipping
> On 9/25/12 10:44 AM, Pete Weber wrote:
>> In order to be a_real_ antiparticle it must have opposite everything,
>> including its mass, not only a charge sign inversion
>
> Perhaps a review of the definition of antiparticle
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antiparticle
Following your definition the antineutron is its own electron cloud
Opposite charges attract each other, what more?
Pete Weber
Sep 25, 2012, 4:58:53 PM9/25/12
to
On Tue, 25 Sep 2012 11:58:30 -0500, Big Dog wrote:
> On 9/25/2012 10:50 AM, Pete Weber wrote:
>
>> By definition photons can't be antiparticles, they carries no charges
>
> Having opposite nonzero charge is not what identifies an antiparticle.
> Neutral neutrinos have neutral antineutrinos.
Then tell your definition, you done it already, where?
> On 9/25/2012 10:50 AM, Pete Weber wrote:
>
>> By definition photons can't be antiparticles, they carries no charges
>
> Having opposite nonzero charge is not what identifies an antiparticle.
> Neutral neutrinos have neutral antineutrinos.
>
>
>> and 1E-18 eV/c² is huge compared to zero
>>
>>
> There will never be a measurement of EXACTLY zero.
> There is NO
> measurement EVER of an exact number. Getting a measurement of ANY value,
> whether that is two, ninety-six or zero, to a precision of 1E-18 is a
> darn good measurement.
Try to say something that makes sense
Pete Weber
Sep 25, 2012, 5:03:14 PM9/25/12
to
On Tue, 25 Sep 2012 12:31:40 -0500, Sam Wormley wrote:
> On 9/25/12 10:50 AM, Pete Weber wrote:
>> By definition photons can't be antiparticles, they carries no charges
>>
>>
>
> "Although particles and their antiparticles have opposite charges,
> electrically neutral particles need not be identical to their
> antiparticles. The neutron, for example, is made out of quarks, the
> antineutron from antiquarks, and they are distinguishable from one
> another because neutrons and antineutrons annihilate each other upon
> contact. However, other neutral particles are their own antiparticles,
> such as photons, the hypothetical gravitons, and some WIMPs".
This is what you say it is, but what defines an antiparticle?
> On 9/25/12 10:50 AM, Pete Weber wrote:
>> By definition photons can't be antiparticles, they carries no charges
>>
>>
>
> "Although particles and their antiparticles have opposite charges,
> electrically neutral particles need not be identical to their
> antiparticles. The neutron, for example, is made out of quarks, the
> antineutron from antiquarks, and they are distinguishable from one
> another because neutrons and antineutrons annihilate each other upon
> contact. However, other neutral particles are their own antiparticles,
> such as photons, the hypothetical gravitons, and some WIMPs".
The only thing that they annihilate each other?
>
> "Quantum states of a particle and an antiparticle can be interchanged by
> applying the charge conjugation (C), parity (P), and time reversal (T)
> operators".
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antiparticle#Properties_of_antiparticles
Sam Wormley
Sep 25, 2012, 5:34:24 PM9/25/12
to
On 9/25/12 3:53 PM, Pete Weber wrote:
> On Tue, 25 Sep 2012 12:28:58 -0500, Sam Wormley wrote:
>
>> On 9/25/12 10:44 AM, Pete Weber wrote:
>>> In order to be a_real_ antiparticle it must have opposite everything,
>>> including its mass, not only a charge sign inversion
>>
>> Perhaps a review of the definition of antiparticle
>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antiparticle
>
> Why don[']t you better reply to what is been said, without snipping
> On Tue, 25 Sep 2012 12:28:58 -0500, Sam Wormley wrote:
>
>> On 9/25/12 10:44 AM, Pete Weber wrote:
>>> In order to be a_real_ antiparticle it must have opposite everything,
>>> including its mass, not only a charge sign inversion
>>
>> Perhaps a review of the definition of antiparticle
>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antiparticle
>
>
> Following your definition the antineutron is its own electron cloud
>
> Opposite charges attract each other, what more?
>
Pete, your concept of "antiparticle" differs from that of the
> Following your definition the antineutron is its own electron cloud
>
> Opposite charges attract each other, what more?
>
physics community.
Tom Roberts
Sep 25, 2012, 7:02:11 PM9/25/12
to
On 9/25/12 9/25/12 10:44 AM, Pete Weber wrote:
> In order to be a _real_ antiparticle it must have opposite everything,
> including its mass, not only a charge sign inversion
No. When you use a technical word like "antiparticle", you need to apply the
> In order to be a _real_ antiparticle it must have opposite everything,
> including its mass, not only a charge sign inversion
TECHNICAL definition, and not some notion you made up yourself.
Indeed, your personal meaning is useless, because no such "antiparticles" have
ever been observed. But we observe lots of antiparticles, and they are essential
to our fundamental theories of physics.
BTW an antiparticle does not just invert EM charge, it also
inverts all other charges, specifically color and weak coupling.
A photon has none of those charges, and is its own antiparticle;
ditto for the W boson (but the photon is massless and the W isn't).
> How about an antineutron and an antineutrino?
> How about antimatter, what is it?
in our galaxy, and indeed in any visible galaxy (known from the absence of
annihilation lines from intersecting interstellar/intergalactic gas).
> Has dark matter negative mass?
Nor does dark energy. But dark energy has "tension" (in a generalized sense),
which is strange, indeed.
> Following your definition the antineutron is its own electron cloud
a proton is QUITE different from an electron.
Tom Roberts
Koobee Wublee
Sep 25, 2012, 7:32:40 PM9/25/12
to
On Sep 25, 4:02 pm, Tom Roberts <tjroberts...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
> On 9/25/12 9/25/12 10:44 AM, Pete Weber wrote:
> > Has dark matter negative mass?
>
> No.
>
> Nor does dark energy. But dark energy has "tension" (in a generalized sense),
> which is strange, indeed.
If dark energy is modeled with negative mass, it works for both
> On 9/25/12 9/25/12 10:44 AM, Pete Weber wrote:
> > Has dark matter negative mass?
>
> No.
>
> Nor does dark energy. But dark energy has "tension" (in a generalized sense),
> which is strange, indeed.
Newtonian law of gravity as well as GR. <shrug>
We went through that before:
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics.relativity/msg/42704956e667e302
<shrug>
Brad Guth
Sep 25, 2012, 10:01:20 PM9/25/12
to
On Sep 16, 9:26 pm, Sam Wormley <sworml...@gmail.com> wrote:
universe, or even within the core of a galaxy) can be logically and
perhaps even objectively proven to offer zero gravity.
http://groups.google.com/groups/search
http://translate.google.com/#
Brad Guth,Brad_Guth,Brad.Guth,BradGuth,BG,Guth Usenet/”Guth Venus”
Pete Weber
Sep 26, 2012, 3:12:10 PM9/26/12
to
On Tue, 25 Sep 2012 18:02:11 -0500, Tom Roberts wrote:
> On 9/25/12 9/25/12 10:44 AM, Pete Weber wrote:
>> In order to be a _real_ antiparticle it must have opposite everything,
>> including its mass, not only a charge sign inversion
>
> No. When you use a technical word like "antiparticle", you need to apply
> the TECHNICAL definition, and not some notion you made up yourself.
>
> Indeed, your personal meaning is useless, because no such
> "antiparticles" have ever been observed. But we observe lots of
> antiparticles, and they are essential to our fundamental theories of
> physics.
>
> BTW an antiparticle does not just invert EM charge, it also
inverts all
> other charges, specifically color and weak coupling.
> A photon has none of those charges, and is its own antiparticle;
ditto
> for the W boson (but the photon is massless and the W isn't).
>
>
>> How about an antineutron and an antineutrino?
>
> Both are well known anti-particles. Well, there are three different
> antineutrinos.
>
This is unfortunate projecting own errors on other people, anti means
> On 9/25/12 9/25/12 10:44 AM, Pete Weber wrote:
>> In order to be a _real_ antiparticle it must have opposite everything,
>> including its mass, not only a charge sign inversion
>
> No. When you use a technical word like "antiparticle", you need to apply
> the TECHNICAL definition, and not some notion you made up yourself.
>
> Indeed, your personal meaning is useless, because no such
> "antiparticles" have ever been observed. But we observe lots of
> antiparticles, and they are essential to our fundamental theories of
> physics.
>
> BTW an antiparticle does not just invert EM charge, it also
inverts all
> other charges, specifically color and weak coupling.
> A photon has none of those charges, and is its own antiparticle;
ditto
> for the W boson (but the photon is massless and the W isn't).
>
>
>> How about an antineutron and an antineutrino?
>
> Both are well known anti-particles. Well, there are three different
> antineutrinos.
>
opposite, if you dont like the TECHNICAL definition of of the word ANTI, i
would suggest to use another word for that particle
Clearly, those particles are NOT anti!!!
>
>> How about antimatter, what is it?
>
> Matter made from antiprotons, antineutrons, and positrons. It is
> EXTREMELY rare in our galaxy, and indeed in any visible galaxy (known
> from the absence of annihilation lines from intersecting
> interstellar/intergalactic gas).
I suspect there is no such
>
>
>> Has dark matter negative mass?
>
> No.
>
> Nor does dark energy. But dark energy has "tension" (in a generalized
> sense), which is strange, indeed.
>
>
>> Following your definition the antineutron is its own electron cloud
>
> No. The antineutron is QUITE different from an antielectron (positron).
> Just as a proton is QUITE different from an electron.
electrons, the antiproton
Is the antiproton for a proton its electron cloud, why not, an electron
cloud and an antiproton has the same negative charge
>
>
> Tom Roberts
Thanks, what is the "technical" definition of an antiparticle, in two
lines please
Tom Roberts
Sep 27, 2012, 1:13:51 PM9/27/12
to
On 9/26/12 9/26/12 - 2:12 PM, Pete Weber wrote:
> On Tue, 25 Sep 2012 18:02:11 -0500, Tom Roberts wrote:
>> When you use a technical word like "antiparticle", you need to apply
>> the TECHNICAL definition, and not some notion you made up yourself.
>
> On Tue, 25 Sep 2012 18:02:11 -0500, Tom Roberts wrote:
>> When you use a technical word like "antiparticle", you need to apply
>> the TECHNICAL definition, and not some notion you made up yourself.
>
> This is unfortunate projecting own errors on other people, anti means
> opposite, if you dont like the TECHNICAL definition of of the word ANTI, i
> would suggest to use another word for that particle
I am not "projecting", and I am using the standard meanings of these words --
> opposite, if you dont like the TECHNICAL definition of of the word ANTI, i
> would suggest to use another word for that particle
the errors are all yours.
Your meaning of "anti" is, as I said, USELESS -- no such "antiparticle" has ever
been observed, while there are literally zillions of observations of
antiparticles (standard meaning).
The standard, technical meaning of "antiparticle" is: related to the particle by
the charge conjugation operator.
That operator inverts all types of charges, but does not affect the particle's
mass (which is non-negative for all particles and antiparticles).
> Is there any waterproof proofs that the annihilation is complete, 100%?
field in which proof is possible.
Measurements of e+ e- annihilation at rest show that the total energy of the two
gammas is equal to the sum of the rest masses of the two particles to high
accuracy. I do not offhand know the accuracy; it is surely at least a part per
thousand or so, and could be much better. You'll have to look it up to know for
sure.
>> But dark energy has "tension" (in a generalized
>> sense), which is strange, indeed.
>
> You mean negative mass perhaps?
>>> Following your definition the antineutron is its own electron cloud
>> No. The antineutron is QUITE different from an antielectron (positron).
>> Just as a proton is QUITE different from an electron.
>
> Here is my fault, i should had asked about the counterpart of the
> electrons, the antiproton
"counterpart" of electrons. Can't you even read the names????
> Is the antiproton for a proton its electron cloud, why not, an electron
> cloud and an antiproton has the same negative charge
Except the antiproton does have the same charge as an electron,
measured with an accuracy of about a part per billion.
The thing corresponding to the electron cloud around a proton in a hydrogen atom
is the positron (anti-electron) cloud around an antiproton in an anti-hydrogen atom.
> Thanks, what is the "technical" definition of an antiparticle, in two
> lines please
Tom Roberts
Pete Weber
Sep 27, 2012, 2:14:51 PM9/27/12
to
On Thu, 27 Sep 2012 12:13:51 -0500, Tom Roberts wrote:
> On 9/26/12 9/26/12 - 2:12 PM, Pete Weber wrote:
>> On Tue, 25 Sep 2012 18:02:11 -0500, Tom Roberts wrote:
>>> When you use a technical word like "antiparticle", you need to apply
>>> the TECHNICAL definition, and not some notion you made up yourself.
>>
>> This is unfortunate projecting own errors on other people, anti means
>> opposite, if you dont like the TECHNICAL definition of of the word
>> ANTI, i would suggest to use another word for that particle
>
> I am not "projecting", and I am using the standard meanings of these
> words --
> the errors are all yours.
I cant believe you cant see that the errors are all yours
> On 9/26/12 9/26/12 - 2:12 PM, Pete Weber wrote:
>> On Tue, 25 Sep 2012 18:02:11 -0500, Tom Roberts wrote:
>>> When you use a technical word like "antiparticle", you need to apply
>>> the TECHNICAL definition, and not some notion you made up yourself.
>>
>> This is unfortunate projecting own errors on other people, anti means
>> opposite, if you dont like the TECHNICAL definition of of the word
>> ANTI, i would suggest to use another word for that particle
>
> I am not "projecting", and I am using the standard meanings of these
> words --
> the errors are all yours.
>
> Your meaning of "anti" is, as I said, USELESS
> -- no such "antiparticle"
> has ever been observed,
other people
> while there are literally zillions of
> observations of antiparticles (standard meaning).
> The standard, technical meaning of "antiparticle" is: related to the
> particle by the charge conjugation operator.
>
> That operator inverts all types of charges, but does not affect the
> particle's mass (which is non-negative for all particles and
> antiparticles).
for instance, charge inverted particles (CIP)
>
>> Is there any waterproof proofs that the annihilation is complete, 100%?
>
> Asking for "proof" in physics is useless. Physics is not math, which is
> the only field in which proof is possible.
hereby the vast area of physics, what else !!??
Physics without math is imbecility, you know that, no??
>
> Measurements of e+ e- annihilation at rest show that the total energy of
> the two gammas is equal to the sum of the rest masses of the two
> particles to high accuracy. I do not offhand know the accuracy; it is
> surely at least a part per thousand or so, and could be much better.
> You'll have to look it up to know for sure.
>
>
>>> But dark energy has "tension" (in a generalized sense), which is
>>> strange, indeed.
>>
>> You mean negative mass perhaps?
>
> No. I mean what I said.
>
>
>>>> Following your definition the antineutron is its own electron cloud
>>> No. The antineutron is QUITE different from an antielectron
>>> (positron).
>>> Just as a proton is QUITE different from an electron.
>>
>> Here is my fault, i should had asked about the counterpart of the
>> electrons, the antiproton
>
> You just dig yourself deeper into a hole full of errors. The antiproton
> is no "counterpart" of electrons. Can't you even read the names????
counterpart of proton, the antiproton, which by your charge definition
should relate to its electron cloud
>
>> Is the antiproton for a proton its electron cloud, why not, an electron
>> cloud and an antiproton has the same negative charge
>
> Pure nonsense.
>
> Except the antiproton does have the same charge as an electron,
> measured with an accuracy of about a part per billion.
> The thing corresponding to the electron cloud around a proton in a
> hydrogen atom is the positron (anti-electron) cloud around an antiproton
> in an anti-hydrogen atom.
>
>
>> Thanks, what is the "technical" definition of an antiparticle, in two
>> lines please
>
> See above.
>
> Tom Roberts
Big Dog
Sep 27, 2012, 3:08:17 PM9/27/12
to
On 9/27/2012 1:14 PM, Pete Weber wrote:
>
> Not my, the 7 billions that agreed in that ANTI shall mean OPPOSITE
>
The vast majority of the 1.35 billion in China and the 1.21 billion in
>
> Not my, the 7 billions that agreed in that ANTI shall mean OPPOSITE
>
India have never used the word "anti" to mean "opposite". So there's 36%
of your claimed number that have agreed no such thing.
Words mean what the community using that word means.
"Inoperable" means one thing to a surgeon, a completely different thing
to an industrial engineer, and neither of those meanings has anything to
do with "opera".
If you want to know what "antiparticle" means, then you should ask the
community that uses that word. Now, what community do you think you
should ask? Hint: Don't go to back country in China.
Pete Weber
Sep 27, 2012, 4:36:09 PM9/27/12
to
On Thu, 27 Sep 2012 14:08:17 -0500, Big Dog wrote:
> On 9/27/2012 1:14 PM, Pete Weber wrote:
>
>
>> Not my, the 7 billions that agreed in that ANTI shall mean OPPOSITE
>>
>>
> The vast majority of the 1.35 billion in China and the 1.21 billion in
> India have never used the word "anti" to mean "opposite". So there's 36%
> of your claimed number that have agreed no such thing.
>
> Words mean what the community using that word means.
> "Inoperable" means one thing to a surgeon, a completely different thing
> to an industrial engineer, and neither of those meanings has anything to
> do with "opera".
Unbelievable wrong, but good point, "inoperable" means the same for both,
> On 9/27/2012 1:14 PM, Pete Weber wrote:
>
>
>> Not my, the 7 billions that agreed in that ANTI shall mean OPPOSITE
>>
>>
> The vast majority of the 1.35 billion in China and the 1.21 billion in
> India have never used the word "anti" to mean "opposite". So there's 36%
> of your claimed number that have agreed no such thing.
>
> Words mean what the community using that word means.
> "Inoperable" means one thing to a surgeon, a completely different thing
> to an industrial engineer, and neither of those meanings has anything to
> do with "opera".
only their target differ, the target is not in discussion here
thank you for making the point clearer
Tom Roberts
Sep 28, 2012, 12:42:35 AM9/28/12
to
On 9/27/12 9/27/12 1:14 PM, Pete Weber wrote:
> On Thu, 27 Sep 2012 12:13:51 -0500, Tom Roberts wrote:
>> Your meaning of "anti" is, as I said, USELESS
>
> Not my, the 7 billions that agreed in that ANTI shall mean OPPOSITE
As I keep pointing out, "antiparticle" is a TECHNICAL word, and you must use the
> On Thu, 27 Sep 2012 12:13:51 -0500, Tom Roberts wrote:
>> Your meaning of "anti" is, as I said, USELESS
>
> Not my, the 7 billions that agreed in that ANTI shall mean OPPOSITE
TECHNICAL meaning. For many words that is different from the everyday meaning.
Such as this one.
And you GREATLY overstate the case. "Anti-" means "opposite"
only in a rather general, unspecific sense. A few minutes with
a dictionary will show you it has other meanings.
Tom Roberts
Pete Weber
Sep 28, 2012, 3:06:47 PM9/28/12
to
Typical relativity, when cornered snip and deny the obvious
There is no "technical" meaning of ANTI, what am I crazy, sending me
minutes to deal with dictionaries!!!
Your "antiparticles" are not very anti, here is the thing, is not my fault
that you cant find a really ANTI antiparticle
Until then give those "antiparticles" another name
Big Dog
Sep 28, 2012, 3:32:27 PM9/28/12
to
On 9/28/2012 2:06 PM, Pete Weber wrote:
>
> Until then give those "antiparticles" another name
>
Physicists give names to things specifically to confuse you personally.
>
> Until then give those "antiparticles" another name
>
Physicists do nothing without a plan, and they are pretty successful at
their plans.
bja...@iwaynet.net
Sep 28, 2012, 5:08:36 PM9/28/12
to
VERY successful. So much so, in fact, they usually confuse themselves.
Pete Weber
Sep 28, 2012, 5:13:31 PM9/28/12
to
This also is called "funny practice", so they can shift when cornered, to
everything else
Lord Androcles, Zeroth Earl of Medway
Sep 28, 2012, 5:22:01 PM9/28/12
to
"bja...@teranews.com" <bja...@iwaynet.net> wrote in message
news:mlo9s.276$w_2...@newsfe12.iad...
The puppy Pig Dog is so confused he dreams he’s an inertial big dog.
--
This message is brought to you from the keyboard of
Lord Androcles, Zeroth Earl of Medway
Lord Androcles, Zeroth Earl of Medway
Big Dog
Sep 28, 2012, 5:34:41 PM9/28/12
to
EXACTLY what they are doing. It's only laypeople that are targets of the
deliberate confusion.
Physicists have been trying to use a private language for decades, with
words wholly unrecognizable and not appearing in normal dictionaries.
"Quark", "boson", "hadron" and "quanglement" were all unfortunate leaks
of the secret dictionary. But since they were caught at that, laypeople
insisted that physicists speak in regular English. So they started to do
that, using normal-sounding words like "particle" and "field" and
"spin", but which are really code words in the secret language. Most
people just accept them without thinking twice. It's only the unusually
suspicious that figure out that it isn't regular English.
Pete Weber
Sep 28, 2012, 5:38:57 PM9/28/12
to
On Fri, 28 Sep 2012 16:34:41 -0500, Big Dog wrote:
> On 9/28/2012 4:08 PM, bja...@teranews.com wrote:
>> On 9/28/2012 3:32 PM, Big Dog wrote:
>>> On 9/28/2012 2:06 PM, Pete Weber wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>> Until then give those "antiparticles" another name
>>>>
>>>>
>>> Physicists give names to things specifically to confuse you
>>> personally.
>>> Physicists do nothing without a plan, and they are pretty successful
>>> at their plans.
>>
>>
>> Just so. Usually the plan is to confuse everyone and typically they are
>> VERY successful. So much so, in fact, they usually confuse themselves.
[snip crap]
> On 9/28/2012 4:08 PM, bja...@teranews.com wrote:
>> On 9/28/2012 3:32 PM, Big Dog wrote:
>>> On 9/28/2012 2:06 PM, Pete Weber wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>> Until then give those "antiparticles" another name
>>>>
>>>>
>>> Physicists give names to things specifically to confuse you
>>> personally.
>>> Physicists do nothing without a plan, and they are pretty successful
>>> at their plans.
>>
>>
>> Just so. Usually the plan is to confuse everyone and typically they are
>> VERY successful. So much so, in fact, they usually confuse themselves.
or how to use 128 words and say absolutely nothing
0 new messages