There are no anti forces to build anti matter
BURT
electron. Anti matter is shown to be wrong. I rest my laurels on it. I
challenge anyone on this. It will soon be common knowledge.
Mitch Raemsch
bert
Do not put you balls on the line with your thinking,or they will
bounce up your ass. Think positron. TreBert
Michael Moroney
>There was just a mathematical hole in Dirac's equation for an
>electron. Anti matter is shown to be wrong.
More stupid physics by proclamation. Too bad for you that we've already
created things like positrons and antiprotons, and they respond just
fine to ordinary forces.
> I rest my laurels on it.
The only "laurels" you have is you making yourself out to be a fool here.
This note just adds to your reputation as a fool.
Sam Wormley
That's pretty nasty language coming from you, Herb. I thought
you were a mild-mannered guy.
BURT
A positron could not make it through the atmosphere.
Mitch Raemsch
bert
Mitch we know the positron is the ant-particle of the electron
(opposite charge and spin fits) Seems both get to be from the energy
of space(my idea) and when hitting each other they give this energy
back to space(natures balancing act) I read this is a provcess known
as "quantum fluctuation." Quantum space fluctuating must be a
continuos process in the QWM world?/]?? (again my thimnking) Even
photons can I fit in with quantum fluctuations(why not) I can even
throw in neutrinos(why not) I am not misled by the name "virtual" I
see them juxt as rfeal as real is. TreBert
BURT
>
> - Show quoted text -
What about the anti strong force of an anti neutron? What about an
anti magnetic force as well?
No. Anti matter will be seen to disappear from theory.
Mitch Raemsch
Michael Moroney
>What about the anti strong force of an anti neutron? What about an
>anti magnetic force as well?
No "anti" strong or magnetic forces, just normal strong or magnetic
forces. Antineutrons have been created and follow the "anti" rules
of antimatter.
BURT
wrote:
Anti rules flunk. There are no opposites of force.
Mitch Raemsch
BURT
"Anti matter will disappear from our minds as soon as everyone can see
that there belief in it was insane."
Mitch Raemsch
Michael Moroney
No there is no opposite of force. A positron is attracted to a negative
charge by the exact same force that a proton responds to. No "opposite
of force", whatever that means, is necessary.
Just because you obviously don't understand antimatter doesn't mean
it doesn't exist.
BURT
It doesn't exist. I will bet you right now.
Mitch Raemsch
Michael Moroney
You lose.
http://www.lbl.gov/Science-Articles/Archive/sabl/2005/October/01-antiproton.html
shows tracks left by antiprotons (last two pictures).
http://livefromcern.web.cern.ch/livefromcern/antimatter/history/AM-history01-a.html
gives a history of antimatter, including the detection of the antideuteron
(showing how antiprotons and antineutrons bind with the normal strong
force) in 1965, and antiatoms.
This is from a quick google search. An extensive search will show much,
much more.
BURT
wrote:
> BURT <macromi...@yahoo.com> writes:
> >On Mar 1, 10:50 am, moro...@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney)
> >wrote:
> >> BURT <macromi...@yahoo.com> writes:
> >> >Anti rules flunk. There are no opposites of force.
>
> >> No there is no opposite of force. A positron is attracted to a negative
> >> charge by the exact same force that a proton responds to. No "opposite
> >> of force", whatever that means, is necessary.
>
> >> Just because you obviously don't understand antimatter doesn't mean
> >> it doesn't exist.
> >It doesn't exist. I will bet you right now.
>
> You lose.
>
> shows tracks left by antiprotons (last two pictures). http://livefromcern.web.cern.ch/livefromcern/antimatter/history/AM-hi...
> gives a history of antimatter, including the detection of the antideuteron
> (showing how antiprotons and antineutrons bind with the normal strong
> force) in 1965, and antiatoms.
>
> This is from a quick google search. An extensive search will show much,
> much more.
A positron can't make it through the atmosphere.
Mitch Raemsch
Michael Moroney
>A positron can't make it through the atmosphere.
Yeah, so what? A beam of light can't make it through a lead brick, too.
What is that supposed to prove?
BURT
wrote:
We cannot collect a positron to accelerate if it cannot make it
through the atmosphere.
Mitch Raemsch
J. Clarke
Not to mention the everyday use of positrons in medical diagnosis.
BURT
> On 3/1/2010 4:23 PM, Michael Moroney wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
> >> On Mar 1, 10:50 am, moro...@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney)
> >> wrote:
> >>> BURT<macromi...@yahoo.com> writes:
>
> >>>> Anti rules flunk. There are no opposites of force.
>
> >>> No there is no opposite of force. A positron is attracted to a negative
> >>> charge by the exact same force that a proton responds to. No "opposite
> >>> of force", whatever that means, is necessary.
>
> >>> Just because you obviously don't understand antimatter doesn't mean
> >>> it doesn't exist.
>
> >> It doesn't exist. I will bet you right now.
>
> > You lose.
>
> > shows tracks left by antiprotons (last two pictures).
> > gives a history of antimatter, including the detection of the antideuteron
> > (showing how antiprotons and antineutrons bind with the normal strong
> > force) in 1965, and antiatoms.
>
> > This is from a quick google search. An extensive search will show much,
> > much more.
>
>
> - Show quoted text -
And where do those positrons orginate?
Mitch Raemsch
Michael Moroney
So we accelerate ones found right here on earth. That yummy banana
over there is shooting off a few of them right now!
BURT
What force is required to liberate atomic protons from their neuclear
shells?
Mitch Raemsch
Michael Moroney
I thought we were talking about positrons, or antimatter in general, not
protons.
BURT
It is still a legitimate question. What is the proton source?
Liberating protons is a tricky bussiness. It happens in an atomic or
high energy explosions.
Mitch Raemsch
Michael Moroney
Why are you changing the subject? We're discussing positrons and other
forms of antimatter. (Don't get too near that banana! It might just shoot
a positron right at your face!)
If you want to discuss the unrelated topic of releasing protons from
nuclei, start a new topic.
Inertial
"Michael Moroney" <mor...@world.std.spaamtrap.com> wrote in message
news:hmhhr3$ad2$1...@pcls4.std.com...
BURT (mitch) is a troll who posts random phrases in response to just about
every thread .. sometimes just posting random threads with his nonsense in
it. His replies are rarely on topic. I think he may be a software program
and not a real person (with only an occasional real-person reply if he feels
the need). Best just to ignore him as unwanted noise.
Inertial
"Inertial" <relat...@rest.com> wrote in message
news:4b8c50b1$1$8837$c3e...@news.astraweb.com...
BTW: AS evidence .. look at the series of replies to himself in the 'Slowing
aether rates' .. I've removed a couple of amusing interjections from waldofj
which were ignored
===
On Mar 1, 3:51 pm, BURT <macromi...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > On Feb 28, 5:10 pm, BURT <macromi...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > > On Feb 28, 2:06 pm, BURT <macromi...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > > > On Feb 27, 9:34 pm, BURT <macromi...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > > > > Two times slow down. Once can be slower than the other. They come
> > > > > togther as one flow over flowing energy.
> > > > > Mitch Raemsch
> > > > Falling as in drop is being pushed into a slower aether flow over
> > > > energy. There are two times.
> > > > Mitch Raemsch
> > > Increasing flow of energy through space and the gravity strength set
> > > up the two times that come together mathematically and flow over
> > > energy.
> > > Mitch Raemsch
> There are two aether rates to slow. Gravity time is primary followed
> by energy flow through space time.
> Mitch Raemsch
===
These same nonsense phrases are posted in other threads every so often.
Richard Tobin
BURT <macro...@yahoo.com> wrote:
How soon? Will it still be soon in 10 years time?
-- Richard
--
Please remember to mention me / in tapes you leave behind.
BURT
Positrons can't make it through the atmosphere to be collected and
accelerated.
Mitch Raemsch
Michael Moroney
I know that, we've already been through that. That's why I grabbed a
banana to get our positrons! We'll put the banana in a vacuum chamber so
we won't have to worry about the atmosphere.
BURT
Please demonstrate how many positrons can make it through.
Mitch Raemsch
Michael Moroney
BURT
There is no vacuum to talk about. You qualify yourself as a moron to
claim that.
Mitch Raemsch
Michael Moroney
Why do you say that? You state positrons wouldn't make it through the
atmosphere, which is a reasonable claim. I mention getting them from a
banana instead, using a vacuum chamber to prevent their loss. You ask
how well that would work, and I say it'd work well with a hard vacuum.
Now you say I don't have a vacuum?? Who are you to say what kind of
vacuum I do or do not have? For all you know I may work for a vacuum
pump company or a research firm performing experiments in hard vacuums.
If I am going to perform experiments with my banana-created positrons,
I'm going to need a vacuum to prevent premature annihilation.
BURT
>
> - Show quoted text -
I guess your stuck holding that banana.
Mitch Raemsch
Michael Moroney
>I guess your stuck holding that banana.
I guess you are no longer able or willing to discuss antimatter.
This thread is over.
BURT
wrote:
Yes. All over. Positrons can't make it through the atmosphere without
interacting.
Mitch Raemsch
Darwin123
> There was just a mathematical hole in Dirac's equation for an
> electron.
in antimatter. That is the only way he can prescribe a PET scan.
PET=Positron Emission Tomography
In other words, PET scans use positrongs. Positrons are
antielectrons, by the way.
BURT
There is no emission source for positrons. They are mistaken.
Mitch Raemsch
Michael Moroney
I'll respond one more time on this on the off-chance that you are
ignorant (1%), and not just stoopid (99% chance). Do you know why I was
talking about bananas? It's because bananas contain lots of potassium,
and natural potassium contains a small amount of a radioactive isotope
(K-40). K-40 sometimes decays by emitting a positron (and a neutrino)
becoming Ar-40, completely naturally. Google "positron decay" or "beta
plus decay" for details. So, positrons may be as close as the nearest
banana. Actually, potassium is in your body, so you may be spewing
positrons now, no need for bananas.
There are quite a few other isotopes that decay by positron emission,
including whichever one(s) they use for PET machines (I don't know what
they use). I think K-40 is the only natural one, however.
Super-energetic X or gamma rays (more than 1.022 MeV) can also produce
positrons via pair production.
So, are you ignorant or just plain stoopid? Your response to this will
let us know.
BURT
wrote:
Isotopes are radioactive and are not anti matter.
Pair production doesn't exist. Light does not degrade to matter and
there are no opposites of any of the forces. The anti or opposite
force matter doesn't exist.
Mitch Raemsch
waldofj
so now we know.
btw PET uses a form of glucose tagged with F-18, or O-15, or C-11, or
N-13. None of them occur naturally.
Michael Moroney
>On Mar 2, 7:30 pm, moro...@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney)
>wrote:
>> I'll respond one more time on this on the off-chance that you are
>> ignorant (1%), and not just stoopid (99% chance). Do you know why I was
>> talking about bananas? It's because bananas contain lots of potassium,
>> and natural potassium contains a small amount of a radioactive isotope
>> (K-40). K-40 sometimes decays by emitting a positron (and a neutrino)
>> becoming Ar-40, completely naturally. Google "positron decay" or "beta
>> plus decay" for details. So, positrons may be as close as the nearest
>> banana. Actually, potassium is in your body, so you may be spewing
>> positrons now, no need for bananas.
>>
>> There are quite a few other isotopes that decay by positron emission,
>> including whichever one(s) they use for PET machines (I don't know what
>> they use). I think K-40 is the only natural one, however.
>>
>> Super-energetic X or gamma rays (more than 1.022 MeV) can also produce
>> positrons via pair production.
>>
>> So, are you ignorant or just plain stoopid? Your response to this will
>> let us know.
>Isotopes are radioactive and are not anti matter.
>Pair production doesn't exist. Light does not degrade to matter and
>there are no opposites of any of the forces. The anti or opposite
>force matter doesn't exist.
Congratulations. You showed me that you are, in fact, stooopid and
incapable of learning anything. Incapable of typing something like
"positron decay" into Google and actually learning something. Too
stooopid to even realize I never claimed isotopes were antimatter.
We know the difference between ignorance and stupidity is.
BURT
>
> - Show quoted text -
Where do you get isotopes if they do not occur in nature?
Isotopes are radioactive not a source of anti matter.
Mitch Raemsch