Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > sci.physics.relativity > #471036 > unrolled thread

The anti world doesn't exist

Back to article view | Back to sci.physics.relativity

Contents

  The anti world doesn't exist mitchrae3323@gmail.com - 2018-09-08 13:05 -0700
    Re: The anti world doesn't exist Lorent Regoires <ewab@ewgvpq.gn> - 2018-09-09 11:54 +0000
      Re: The anti world doesn't exist mitchrae3323@gmail.com - 2018-09-09 14:20 -0700
        Re: The anti world doesn't exist moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2018-09-10 12:15 +0000
          Re: The anti world doesn't exist mitchrae3323@gmail.com - 2018-09-10 10:20 -0700
            Re: The anti world doesn't exist Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-09-10 17:30 +0000
              Re: The anti world doesn't exist mitchrae3323@gmail.com - 2018-09-10 18:03 -0700
                Re: The anti world doesn't exist moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2018-09-11 01:54 +0000
                  Re: The anti world doesn't exist mitchrae3323@gmail.com - 2018-09-10 19:18 -0700
                Re: The anti world doesn't exist Edward Prochak <edprochak@gmail.com> - 2018-09-11 09:11 -0700
    Re: The anti world doesn't exist "Chris M. Thomasson" <invalid_chris_thomasson@invalid.invalid> - 2018-09-10 21:12 -0700
      Re: The anti world doesn't exist mitchrae3323@gmail.com - 2018-09-10 22:07 -0700
        Re: The anti world doesn't exist Edward Prochak <edprochak@gmail.com> - 2018-09-11 09:18 -0700
          Re: The anti world doesn't exist mitchrae3323@gmail.com - 2018-09-11 09:49 -0700
            Re: The anti world doesn't exist Edward Prochak <edprochak@gmail.com> - 2018-09-11 11:11 -0700
            Re: The anti world doesn't exist moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2018-09-11 18:28 +0000
              Re: The anti world doesn't exist mitchrae3323@gmail.com - 2018-09-11 12:22 -0700
                Re: The anti world doesn't exist moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2018-09-11 19:32 +0000
                  Re: The anti world doesn't exist mitchrae3323@gmail.com - 2018-09-11 12:54 -0700
                    Re: The anti world doesn't exist Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-09-11 20:49 +0000
                      Re: The anti world doesn't exist mitchrae3323@gmail.com - 2018-09-11 13:54 -0700
                        Re: The anti world doesn't exist Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-09-11 21:35 +0000
                          Re: The anti world doesn't exist Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2018-09-12 08:06 +0200
                          Re: The anti world doesn't exist moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2018-09-12 06:34 +0000
                            Re: The anti world doesn't exist mitchrae3323@gmail.com - 2018-09-12 21:24 -0700
                    Re: The anti world doesn't exist JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2018-09-13 14:10 -0700
                      Re: The anti world doesn't exist Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-09-13 22:35 +0000
              Re: The anti world doesn't exist JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2018-09-13 14:07 -0700
                Re: The anti world doesn't exist mitchrae3323@gmail.com - 2018-09-13 17:03 -0700
                  Re: The anti world doesn't exist Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-09-14 01:16 +0000
                    Re: The anti world doesn't exist mitchrae3323@gmail.com - 2018-09-13 18:28 -0700
                Re: The anti world doesn't exist Wilbur Foley <boue@eywffl.uf> - 2018-09-15 10:16 +0000
                  Re: The anti world doesn't exist Wilbur Foley <boue@eywffl.uf> - 2018-09-15 10:19 +0000
            Re: The anti world doesn't exist JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2018-09-13 14:06 -0700
              Re: The anti world doesn't exist mitchrae3323@gmail.com - 2018-09-13 17:01 -0700
    Re: The anti world doesn't exist consequently7990662@gmail.com - 2018-09-12 23:30 -0700
      Re: The anti world doesn't exist Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2018-09-13 12:06 +0200

Page 1 of 2  [1] 2  Next page →

#471036 — The anti world doesn't exist

Anti atoms would always be with real matter
annihilating before it can be contained...

Look at anti light... It doesn't exist...

[toc] | [next] | [standalone]

#471120

mitchrae3323 wrote:

> Anti atoms would always be with real matter annihilating before it can
> be contained... Look at anti light... It doesn't exist...

Absolute, you never hear about anti-photons travelling at -c. That's 
hidden agenda, tehy are working at it right now as we speech.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#471195

On Sunday, September 9, 2018 at 4:54:16 AM UTC-7, Lorent Regoires wrote:
> mitchrae3323 wrote:
> 
> > Anti atoms would always be with real matter annihilating before it can
> > be contained... Look at anti light... It doesn't exist...
> 
> Absolute, you never hear about anti-photons travelling at -c. That's 
> hidden agenda, tehy are working at it right now as we speech.

It could never be handled... it would annihilate right off the bat...

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#471237

mitchrae3323@gmail.com writes:

>On Sunday, September 9, 2018 at 4:54:16 AM UTC-7, Lorent Regoires wrote:
>> mitchrae3323 wrote:
>> 
>> > Anti atoms would always be with real matter annihilating before it can
>> > be contained... Look at anti light... It doesn't exist...
>> 
>> Absolute, you never hear about anti-photons travelling at -c. That's 
>> hidden agenda, tehy are working at it right now as we speech.

>It could never be handled... it would annihilate right off the bat...

It interacts at a low enough rate to be studied, or to accelerate
positrons and antiprotons in particle accelerators. You can also track
antiprotons in bubble chambers and sometimes see them encountering a
proton or something and exploding in a bunch of mesons or something.
Pretty cool.

But yes, you can never have a chunk of the stuff sitting on earth without
it immediately exploding.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#471293

On Monday, September 10, 2018 at 5:15:30 AM UTC-7, Michael Moroney wrote:
> mitchrae3323@gmail.com writes:
> 
> >On Sunday, September 9, 2018 at 4:54:16 AM UTC-7, Lorent Regoires wrote:
> >> mitchrae3323 wrote:
> >> 
> >> > Anti atoms would always be with real matter annihilating before it can
> >> > be contained... Look at anti light... It doesn't exist...
> >> 
> >> Absolute, you never hear about anti-photons travelling at -c. That's 
> >> hidden agenda, tehy are working at it right now as we speech.
> 
> >It could never be handled... it would annihilate right off the bat...
> 
> It interacts at a low enough rate to be studied, or to accelerate
> positrons and antiprotons in particle accelerators. You can also track
> antiprotons in bubble chambers and sometimes see them encountering a
> proton or something and exploding in a bunch of mesons or something.
> Pretty cool.

None of it is real. Anti particles would annihilate always.
They can't escape real matter...

Mitchell Raemsch

> 
> But yes, you can never have a chunk of the stuff sitting on earth without
> it immediately exploding.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#471297

<mitchrae3323@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Monday, September 10, 2018 at 5:15:30 AM UTC-7, Michael Moroney wrote:
>> mitchrae3323@gmail.com writes:
>> 
>>> On Sunday, September 9, 2018 at 4:54:16 AM UTC-7, Lorent Regoires wrote:
>>>> mitchrae3323 wrote:
>>>> 
>>>>> Anti atoms would always be with real matter annihilating before it can
>>>>> be contained... Look at anti light... It doesn't exist...
>>>> 
>>>> Absolute, you never hear about anti-photons travelling at -c. That's 
>>>> hidden agenda, tehy are working at it right now as we speech.
>> 
>>> It could never be handled... it would annihilate right off the bat...
>> 
>> It interacts at a low enough rate to be studied, or to accelerate
>> positrons and antiprotons in particle accelerators. You can also track
>> antiprotons in bubble chambers and sometimes see them encountering a
>> proton or something and exploding in a bunch of mesons or something.
>> Pretty cool.
> 
> None of it is real. Anti particles would annihilate always.
> They can't escape real matter...

Well, it’s interesting that there is a specific and unique signal
associated with annihilation. So if you see those particular gamma rays,
you know the annihilation happened, and if the annihilation happened then
you know it was antimatter that annihilated with matter. 

PET scanners are a kind of medical device that relies specifically on
seeing those gamma rays from matter-antimatter annihilation, so we know the
antimatter was there. 

> 
> Mitchell Raemsch
> 
>> 
>> But yes, you can never have a chunk of the stuff sitting on earth without
>> it immediately exploding.
> 
> 



-- 
Odd Bodkin — Maker of fine toys, tools, tables

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#471356

On Monday, September 10, 2018 at 10:30:11 AM UTC-7, Odd Bodkin wrote:
> <mitchrae3323@gmail.com> wrote:
> > On Monday, September 10, 2018 at 5:15:30 AM UTC-7, Michael Moroney wrote:
> >> mitchrae3323@gmail.com writes:
> >> 
> >>> On Sunday, September 9, 2018 at 4:54:16 AM UTC-7, Lorent Regoires wrote:
> >>>> mitchrae3323 wrote:
> >>>> 
> >>>>> Anti atoms would always be with real matter annihilating before it can
> >>>>> be contained... Look at anti light... It doesn't exist...
> >>>> 
> >>>> Absolute, you never hear about anti-photons travelling at -c. That's 
> >>>> hidden agenda, tehy are working at it right now as we speech.
> >> 
> >>> It could never be handled... it would annihilate right off the bat...
> >> 
> >> It interacts at a low enough rate to be studied, or to accelerate
> >> positrons and antiprotons in particle accelerators. You can also track
> >> antiprotons in bubble chambers and sometimes see them encountering a
> >> proton or something and exploding in a bunch of mesons or something.
> >> Pretty cool.
> > 
> > None of it is real. Anti particles would annihilate always.
> > They can't escape real matter...
> 
> Well, it’s interesting that there is a specific and unique signal
> associated with annihilation. So if you see those particular gamma rays,

And how do you know where to look? where you have to detect?

> you know the annihilation happened, and if the annihilation happened then
> you know it was antimatter that annihilated with matter. 

No. You don't know that.

> 
> PET scanners are a kind of medical device that relies specifically on
> seeing those gamma rays from matter-antimatter annihilation, so we know the
> antimatter was there. 

That's not happening.

> 
> > 
> > Mitchell Raemsch
> > 
> >> 
> >> But yes, you can never have a chunk of the stuff sitting on earth without
> >> it immediately exploding.
> > 
> > 
> 
> 
> 
> -- 
> Odd Bodkin — Maker of fine toys, tools, tables

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#471357

mitchrae3323@gmail.com writes:

>On Monday, September 10, 2018 at 10:30:11 AM UTC-7, Odd Bodkin wrote:

>> PET scanners are a kind of medical device that relies specifically on
>> seeing those gamma rays from matter-antimatter annihilation, so we know the
>> antimatter was there.

>That's not happening.

Oh dear! What are going to tell all the people who had PET scanners 
locate cancers in their bodies? Will they get their money back?
Will they have to have the doctors put the cancer back into their
bodies, since it obviously couldn't have been found with nonexistent 
antimatter? What will happen????

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#471358

On Monday, September 10, 2018 at 6:55:00 PM UTC-7, Michael Moroney wrote:
> mitchrae3323@gmail.com writes:
> 
> >On Monday, September 10, 2018 at 10:30:11 AM UTC-7, Odd Bodkin wrote:
> 
> >> PET scanners are a kind of medical device that relies specifically on
> >> seeing those gamma rays from matter-antimatter annihilation, so we know the
> >> antimatter was there.
> 
> >That's not happening.
> 
> Oh dear! What are going to tell all the people who had PET scanners 
> locate cancers in their bodies?

I'll tell them isotopes are decaying radiating Gamma rays.
Its not anti matter. There is only real matter radiating Michael.

Mitchell Raemsch

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#471400

On Monday, September 10, 2018 at 9:03:59 PM UTC-4, mitchr...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Monday, September 10, 2018 at 10:30:11 AM UTC-7, Odd Bodkin wrote:
> > 
> > PET scanners are a kind of medical device that relies specifically on
> > seeing those gamma rays from matter-antimatter annihilation, so we know the
> > antimatter was there. 
> 
> That's not happening.

Strange, our company makes and sells PET scanners.
They work just as the physics says they should.

If it is not antimatter (positrons specifically) that make
the scanners work, then what is it? Careful. You have to explain
both the generation of the matched gamma ray photons AND
the decay of the radioisotope that produces the positrons.

Or you can continue to close your eyes to reality.
Poor Mitchell. You have so much to learn.
Ed

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#471367

On 9/8/2018 1:05 PM, mitchrae3323@gmail.com wrote:
> Anti atoms would always be with real matter
> annihilating before it can be contained...
> 
> Look at anti light... It doesn't exist...
> 

What about clever ways of trying to isolate anti-matter for just the 
right amount of time? Well, please try to excuse me for a moment, but 
Bob Lazar says anti-matter can work in a reactor. Alien! ;^)

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#471372

On Monday, September 10, 2018 at 9:12:35 PM UTC-7, Chris M. Thomasson wrote:
> On 9/8/2018 1:05 PM, mitchrae3323@gmail.com wrote:
> > Anti atoms would always be with real matter
> > annihilating before it can be contained...
> > 
> > Look at anti light... It doesn't exist...
> > 
> 
> What about clever ways of trying to isolate anti-matter for just the 
> right amount of time? 

No. Science is not doing that. It doesn't matter how clever you are.


Mitchell Raemsch

> Well, please try to excuse me for a moment, but 
> Bob Lazar says anti-matter can work in a reactor. Alien! ;^)

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#471401

On Tuesday, September 11, 2018 at 1:07:51 AM UTC-4, mitchr...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Monday, September 10, 2018 at 9:12:35 PM UTC-7, Chris M. Thomasson wrote:
> > On 9/8/2018 1:05 PM, mitchrae3323@gmail.com wrote:
> > > Anti atoms would always be with real matter
> > > annihilating before it can be contained...
> > > 
> > > Look at anti light... It doesn't exist...
> > > 
> > 
> > What about clever ways of trying to isolate anti-matter for just the 
> > right amount of time? 
> 
> No. Science is not doing that. It doesn't matter how clever you are.
> 
> 
> Mitchell Raemsch
>

Poor, poor, Mitchell. You have so much to learn.

Trapping positrons for low energy antihydrogen production
https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/BF02628218

"This method promises to produce 10^6 trapped positrons at
 a density of 10^7 to 10^8 per cm3. Such densities of positrons
 would be useful in producing antihydrogen in combination with
 existing antiproton plasmas."
BTW - dated 1992.

Since then they have actually isolated anti hydrogen and found
it's properties to match precisely those of normal hydrogen,
namely the atomic spectra, atomic mass, and other properties.

Or you can choose to just make stuff up.

Enjoy,
  Ed

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#471405

On Tuesday, September 11, 2018 at 9:18:36 AM UTC-7, Edward Prochak wrote:
> On Tuesday, September 11, 2018 at 1:07:51 AM UTC-4, mitchr...@gmail.com wrote:
> > On Monday, September 10, 2018 at 9:12:35 PM UTC-7, Chris M. Thomasson wrote:
> > > On 9/8/2018 1:05 PM, mitchrae3323@gmail.com wrote:
> > > > Anti atoms would always be with real matter
> > > > annihilating before it can be contained...
> > > > 
> > > > Look at anti light... It doesn't exist...
> > > > 
> > > 
> > > What about clever ways of trying to isolate anti-matter for just the 
> > > right amount of time? 
> > 
> > No. Science is not doing that. It doesn't matter how clever you are.
> > 
> > 
> > Mitchell Raemsch
> >
> 
> Poor, poor, Mitchell. You have so much to learn.


Anti matter doesn't exist.

> 
> Trapping positrons for low energy antihydrogen production
> https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/BF02628218
> 
> "This method promises to produce 10^6 trapped positrons at
>  a density of 10^7 to 10^8 per cm3. Such densities of positrons
>  would be useful in producing antihydrogen in combination with
>  existing antiproton plasmas."
> BTW - dated 1992.
> 
> Since then they have actually isolated anti hydrogen and found
> it's properties to match precisely those of normal hydrogen,

It proves my point... If they are precise match it is not anti hydrogen...

Mitchell Raemsch

> namely the atomic spectra, atomic mass, and other properties.
> 
> Or you can choose to just make stuff up.
> 
> Enjoy,
>   Ed

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#471417

On Tuesday, September 11, 2018 at 12:49:03 PM UTC-4, mitchr...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Tuesday, September 11, 2018 at 9:18:36 AM UTC-7, Edward Prochak wrote:
> > On Tuesday, September 11, 2018 at 1:07:51 AM UTC-4, mitchr...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > On Monday, September 10, 2018 at 9:12:35 PM UTC-7, Chris M. Thomasson wrote:
> > > > On 9/8/2018 1:05 PM, mitchrae3323@gmail.com wrote:
> > > > > Anti atoms would always be with real matter
> > > > > annihilating before it can be contained...
> > > > > 
> > > > > Look at anti light... It doesn't exist...
> > > > > 
> > > > 
> > > > What about clever ways of trying to isolate anti-matter for just the 
> > > > right amount of time? 
> > > 
> > > No. Science is not doing that. It doesn't matter how clever you are.
> > > 
> > > 
> > > Mitchell Raemsch
> > >
> > 
> > Poor, poor, Mitchell. You have so much to learn.
> 
> 
> Anti matter doesn't exist.
> 
> > 
> > Trapping positrons for low energy antihydrogen production
> > https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/BF02628218
> > 
> > "This method promises to produce 10^6 trapped positrons at
> >  a density of 10^7 to 10^8 per cm3. Such densities of positrons
> >  would be useful in producing antihydrogen in combination with
> >  existing antiproton plasmas."
> > BTW - dated 1992.
> > 
> > Since then they have actually isolated anti hydrogen and found
> > it's properties to match precisely those of normal hydrogen,
> 
> It proves my point... If they are precise match it is not anti hydrogen...
> 
> Mitchell Raemsch
> 
I think the group you really want is talk.religion
You obviously do not want to talk about physics.
Ed

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#471418

mitchrae3323@gmail.com writes:

>On Tuesday, September 11, 2018 at 9:18:36 AM UTC-7, Edward Prochak wrote:
>> On Tuesday, September 11, 2018 at 1:07:51 AM UTC-4, mitchr...@gmail.com wrote:
>> > On Monday, September 10, 2018 at 9:12:35 PM UTC-7, Chris M. Thomasson wrote:
>> > > On 9/8/2018 1:05 PM, mitchrae3323@gmail.com wrote:
>> > > > Anti atoms would always be with real matter
>> > > > annihilating before it can be contained...
>> > > > 
>> > > > Look at anti light... It doesn't exist...
>> > > > 
>> > > 
>> > > What about clever ways of trying to isolate anti-matter for just the 
>> > > right amount of time? 
>> > 
>> > No. Science is not doing that. It doesn't matter how clever you are.

Except that people much more clever than you are doing just that.

>> Poor, poor, Mitchell. You have so much to learn.

Ignorance and arrogance. A bad combination.

>Anti matter doesn't exist.

Well, antimatter doesn't believe that you exist, so there.


>> Since then they have actually isolated anti hydrogen and found
>> it's properties to match precisely those of normal hydrogen,

>It proves my point... If they are precise match it is not anti hydrogen...

Hey Mitch! Look at this! An antiproton blowing bubbles in a bubble chamber
before it annihilates with a proton!!

https://picryl.com/media/bubble-chamber-event-antiproton-annihilation-four-charged-pions-neutral-pion-d9582c

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#471429

On Tuesday, September 11, 2018 at 11:28:28 AM UTC-7, Michael Moroney wrote:
> mitchrae3323@gmail.com writes:
> 
> >On Tuesday, September 11, 2018 at 9:18:36 AM UTC-7, Edward Prochak wrote:
> >> On Tuesday, September 11, 2018 at 1:07:51 AM UTC-4, mitchr...@gmail.com wrote:
> >> > On Monday, September 10, 2018 at 9:12:35 PM UTC-7, Chris M. Thomasson wrote:
> >> > > On 9/8/2018 1:05 PM, mitchrae3323@gmail.com wrote:
> >> > > > Anti atoms would always be with real matter
> >> > > > annihilating before it can be contained...
> >> > > > 
> >> > > > Look at anti light... It doesn't exist...
> >> > > > 
> >> > > 
> >> > > What about clever ways of trying to isolate anti-matter for just the 
> >> > > right amount of time? 
> >> > 
> >> > No. Science is not doing that. It doesn't matter how clever you are.
> 
> Except that people much more clever than you are doing just that.
> 
> >> Poor, poor, Mitchell. You have so much to learn.
> 
> Ignorance and arrogance. A bad combination.
> 
> >Anti matter doesn't exist.
> 
> Well, antimatter doesn't believe that you exist, so there.
> 
> 
> >> Since then they have actually isolated anti hydrogen and found
> >> it's properties to match precisely those of normal hydrogen,
> 
> >It proves my point... If they are precise match it is not anti hydrogen...
> 
> Hey Mitch! Look at this! An antiproton blowing bubbles in a bubble chamber
> before it annihilates with a proton!!

And how do we know what it is if it is a precise match?
Science has never been accurate.

Mitchell Raemsch
> 
> https://picryl.com/media/bubble-chamber-event-antiproton-annihilation-four-charged-pions-neutral-pion-d9582c

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#471431

mitchrae3323@gmail.com writes:

>On Tuesday, September 11, 2018 at 11:28:28 AM UTC-7, Michael Moroney wrote:
>> mitchrae3323@gmail.com writes:
>> 
>> >> Since then they have actually isolated anti hydrogen and found
>> >> it's properties to match precisely those of normal hydrogen,
>> 
>> >It proves my point... If they are precise match it is not anti hydrogen...
>> 
>> Hey Mitch! Look at this! An antiproton blowing bubbles in a bubble chamber
>> before it annihilates with a proton!!

>And how do we know what it is if it is a precise match?

Not completely a match. The antiproton is negatively charged, for example
and can be easily distinguished from a proton in the bubble chamber.

>Science has never been accurate.

It's easy enough to tell the difference between a - charged antiproton and
a + charged proton!

>> https://picryl.com/media/bubble-chamber-event-antiproton-annihilation-four-charged-pions-neutral-pion-d9582c

Can you believe that picture? Three impossible things all happening at once!
1) Antimatter 2) 'blowing bubbles' and 3) got into a bubble chamber!!!

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#471435

On Tuesday, September 11, 2018 at 12:32:17 PM UTC-7, Michael Moroney wrote:
> mitchrae3323@gmail.com writes:
> 
> >On Tuesday, September 11, 2018 at 11:28:28 AM UTC-7, Michael Moroney wrote:
> >> mitchrae3323@gmail.com writes:
> >> 
> >> >> Since then they have actually isolated anti hydrogen and found
> >> >> it's properties to match precisely those of normal hydrogen,
> >> 
> >> >It proves my point... If they are precise match it is not anti hydrogen...
> >> 
> >> Hey Mitch! Look at this! An antiproton blowing bubbles in a bubble chamber
> >> before it annihilates with a proton!!
> 
> >And how do we know what it is if it is a precise match?
> 
> Not completely a match. The antiproton is negatively charged, for example
> and can be easily distinguished from a proton in the bubble chamber.
> 
> >Science has never been accurate.
> 
> It's easy enough to tell the difference between a - charged antiproton and
> a + charged proton!

Particles belong only in the atom.
Not outside. Protons don't quantum leap out
of their shell to annihilate Michael.
We are not seeing charge... we are
seeing the same electric field.

Mitchell Raemsch

> 
> >> https://picryl.com/media/bubble-chamber-event-antiproton-annihilation-four-charged-pions-neutral-pion-d9582c
> 
> Can you believe that picture? Three impossible things all happening at once!
> 1) Antimatter 2) 'blowing bubbles' and 3) got into a bubble chamber!!!

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#471447

<mitchrae3323@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Tuesday, September 11, 2018 at 12:32:17 PM UTC-7, Michael Moroney wrote:
>> mitchrae3323@gmail.com writes:
>> 
>>> On Tuesday, September 11, 2018 at 11:28:28 AM UTC-7, Michael Moroney wrote:
>>>> mitchrae3323@gmail.com writes:
>>>> 
>>>>>> Since then they have actually isolated anti hydrogen and found
>>>>>> it's properties to match precisely those of normal hydrogen,
>>>> 
>>>>> It proves my point... If they are precise match it is not anti hydrogen...
>>>> 
>>>> Hey Mitch! Look at this! An antiproton blowing bubbles in a bubble chamber
>>>> before it annihilates with a proton!!
>> 
>>> And how do we know what it is if it is a precise match?
>> 
>> Not completely a match. The antiproton is negatively charged, for example
>> and can be easily distinguished from a proton in the bubble chamber.
>> 
>>> Science has never been accurate.
>> 
>> It's easy enough to tell the difference between a - charged antiproton and
>> a + charged proton!
> 
> Particles belong only in the atom.
> Not outside. 

Tell me, Mitch. On the planet where you live, does water flow downhill?

> Protons don't quantum leap out
> of their shell to annihilate Michael.
> We are not seeing charge... we are
> seeing the same electric field.
> 
> Mitchell Raemsch
> 
>> 
>>>> https://picryl.com/media/bubble-chamber-event-antiproton-annihilation-four-charged-pions-neutral-pion-d9582c
>> 
>> Can you believe that picture? Three impossible things all happening at once!
>> 1) Antimatter 2) 'blowing bubbles' and 3) got into a bubble chamber!!!
> 
> 



-- 
Odd Bodkin — Maker of fine toys, tools, tables

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

Page 1 of 2  [1] 2  Next page →

Back to top | Article view | sci.physics.relativity

csiph-web