Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > sci.physics.relativity > #471036 > unrolled thread
| Started by | mitchrae3323@gmail.com |
|---|---|
| First post | 2018-09-08 13:05 -0700 |
| Last post | 2018-09-13 12:06 +0200 |
| Articles | 17 on this page of 37 — 10 participants |
Back to article view | Back to sci.physics.relativity
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 2 of 2 — ← Prev page 1 [2]
| From | mitchrae3323@gmail.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-09-11 13:54 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <d199be2c-8933-4a9c-b23f-dac683fc24f3@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #471447 |
On Tuesday, September 11, 2018 at 1:50:04 PM UTC-7, Odd Bodkin wrote: > <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? Roy Masters... Your sanity is in question. You are a schizophrenic in jail. The only particles are the ones that belong in atoms and neutrinos are the one particle outside. Neutrinos don't absorb. Mitchell Raemsch > > > 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]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-09-11 21:35 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <pn9cf4$66s$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #471450 |
<mitchrae3323@gmail.com> wrote: > On Tuesday, September 11, 2018 at 1:50:04 PM UTC-7, Odd Bodkin wrote: >> <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? > > > Roy Masters... Your sanity is in question. > > You are a schizophrenic in jail. Which of course is how I have internet access. And the sky on your planet, what color is it? > > The only particles are the ones that belong in atoms > and neutrinos are the one particle outside. Neutrinos > don't absorb. > > Mitchell Raemsch >> >>> 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 > > -- Odd Bodkin — Maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-09-12 08:06 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <1b76c018-4eab-414d-c3a7-1066c5185995@PointedEars.de> |
| In reply to | #471460 |
Odd Bodkin wrote: > <mitchrae3323@gmail.com> wrote: >> Roy Masters... Your sanity is in question. >> >> You are a schizophrenic in jail. > > Which of course is how I have internet access. > > And the sky on your planet, what color is it? JFYI: <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internet_in_prisons> But you are talking to someone who is projecting, so… -- PointedEars Twitter: @PointedEars2 Please do not cc me. / Bitte keine Kopien per E-Mail.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-09-12 06:34 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <pnac14$o69$3@pcls7.std.com> |
| In reply to | #471460 |
>> Roy Masters... Your sanity is in question. >> >> You are a schizophrenic in jail. >Which of course is how I have internet access. >And the sky on your planet, what color is it? Judging from some of his posts, probably plaid.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | mitchrae3323@gmail.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-09-12 21:24 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <16af4e14-63ed-482b-bbe8-ceed557c006b@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #471490 |
On Tuesday, September 11, 2018 at 11:34:14 PM UTC-7, Michael Moroney wrote: > >> Roy Masters... Your sanity is in question. > >> > >> You are a schizophrenic in jail. > > >Which of course is how I have internet access. > > >And the sky on your planet, what color is it? > > Judging from some of his posts, probably plaid. Why is the air in front of you not blue?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-09-13 14:10 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <30a4a908-a12b-4eb2-aba7-08af4bca4abf@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #471435 |
On Tuesday, September 11, 2018 at 12:55:02 PM UTC-7, mitchr...@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. Where did you get THAT idea from? You just make stuff up like that cretin Plutonium on sci.math. It's just mental chaos. > Protons don't quantum leap out > of their shell to annihilate Michael. > We are not seeing charge... we are > seeing the same electric field. Gobbledygook. -- Jan
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-09-13 22:35 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <pneomp$15v3$2@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #471706 |
JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> wrote: > On Tuesday, September 11, 2018 at 12:55:02 PM UTC-7, mitchr...@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. > > Where did you get THAT idea from? You just make stuff up like that cretin > Plutonium on sci.math. It's just mental chaos. Mental chaos is a way of life for Mitch. > >> Protons don't quantum leap out >> of their shell to annihilate Michael. >> We are not seeing charge... we are >> seeing the same electric field. > > Gobbledygook. > > -- > Jan > -- Odd Bodkin — Maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-09-13 14:07 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <dc77230e-94d1-4d22-8957-e6ec9553a2c1@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #471418 |
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. It's also the standard one. -- Jan
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | mitchrae3323@gmail.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-09-13 17:03 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <a4a8c5a9-5c15-48de-a913-f03f9886e97b@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #471704 |
On Thursday, September 13, 2018 at 2:07:59 PM UTC-7, JanPB wrote: > 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. No. Scientists are idiots. They are not doing what they say. > > > > >> Poor, poor, Mitchell. You have so much to learn. > > > > Ignorance and arrogance. A bad combination. > > It's also the standard one. > > -- > Jan
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-09-14 01:16 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <pnf258$1hn9$2@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #471733 |
<mitchrae3323@gmail.com> wrote: > On Thursday, September 13, 2018 at 2:07:59 PM UTC-7, JanPB wrote: >> 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. > > No. Scientists are idiots. They are not doing what they say. If scientists are idiots, why are you visiting a discussion forum for fans of science? I think horoscopes are nonsense, and you won’t find me haunting a horoscope newsgroup. > >>> >>>>> Poor, poor, Mitchell. You have so much to learn. >>> >>> Ignorance and arrogance. A bad combination. >> >> It's also the standard one. >> >> -- >> Jan > > -- Odd Bodkin — Maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | mitchrae3323@gmail.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-09-13 18:28 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <06b5ba8b-a8a6-485a-a209-3595e636f07b@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #471746 |
On Thursday, September 13, 2018 at 6:16:28 PM UTC-7, Odd Bodkin wrote: > <mitchrae3323@gmail.com> wrote: > > On Thursday, September 13, 2018 at 2:07:59 PM UTC-7, JanPB wrote: > >> 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. > > > > No. Scientists are idiots. They are not doing what they say. > > If scientists are idiots, why are you visiting a discussion forum for fans > of science? I think horoscopes are nonsense, and you won’t find me haunting > a horoscope newsgroup. You're an idiot Roy Masters. Mitchell Raemsch > > > > >>> > >>>>> Poor, poor, Mitchell. You have so much to learn. > >>> > >>> Ignorance and arrogance. A bad combination. > >> > >> It's also the standard one. > >> > >> -- > >> Jan > > > > > > > > -- > Odd Bodkin — Maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Wilbur Foley <boue@eywffl.uf> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-09-15 10:16 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <pnim53$1a07$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #471704 |
JanPB wrote: > On Tuesday, September 11, 2018 at 11:28:28 AM UTC-7, Michael Moroney > wrote: >> mitchrae3323@gmail.com writes: >> >> Poor, poor, Mitchell. You have so much to learn. >> >> Ignorance and arrogance. A bad combination. > > It's also the standard one. Let's say that you believe we went to the moon. You tell me one of the time, in the entire history of the WORLD, when NEW technology was DEVELOPED, then after DELIBERATELY destroyed. Leave me alone. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bP6hDD8-FFI
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Wilbur Foley <boue@eywffl.uf> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-09-15 10:19 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <pnimbp$1a07$2@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #471897 |
Wilbur Foley wrote: > JanPB wrote: > >> On Tuesday, September 11, 2018 at 11:28:28 AM UTC-7, Michael Moroney >> wrote: >>> mitchrae3323@gmail.com writes: >>> >> Poor, poor, Mitchell. You have so much to learn. >>> >>> Ignorance and arrogance. A bad combination. >> >> It's also the standard one. > > Let's say that you believe we went to the moon. You tell me one of the > time, in the entire history of the WORLD, when NEW technology was > DEVELOPED, then after DELIBERATELY destroyed. Leave me alone. > https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bP6hDD8-FFI And btw, your snipage will constitute the proof on your guild.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-09-13 14:06 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <399f4535-406c-443e-858a-7e7aaa722220@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #471405 |
On Tuesday, September 11, 2018 at 9:49:03 AM UTC-7, 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. That's not an argument. > > 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... They are not 100% precise match, that's the point. BTW, do you really think that all physicists have been wrong for decades and decades and you are right? -- Jan
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | mitchrae3323@gmail.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-09-13 17:01 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <07024a98-118f-4cae-a113-bb884e1841b1@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #471703 |
On Thursday, September 13, 2018 at 2:06:32 PM UTC-7, JanPB wrote: > On Tuesday, September 11, 2018 at 9:49:03 AM UTC-7, 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. > > That's not an argument. > > > > 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... > > They are not 100% precise match, that's the point. BTW, do you really > think that all physicists have been wrong for decades and decades and > you are right? Show how the subatomic properties are observed Jan... Yes. Einstein never went along with Quantum mechanics and he was right. You are wrong Jan. Mitchell Raemsch > > -- > Jan
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | consequently7990662@gmail.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-09-12 23:30 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <9ab563ae-956b-46f1-a59b-d8bee0468a9b@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #471036 |
On Saturday, September 8, 2018 at 1:05:29 PM UTC-7, mitchr...@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... ___________________________________________________ Anti-matter violates energy conservation.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-09-13 12:06 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <d5c30325-7098-8aa7-b1fa-dfd48d3be590@PointedEars.de> |
| In reply to | #471633 |
consequently7990662@gmail.com wrote: > Anti-matter violates energy conservation. No, it fulfills it instead. -- PointedEars Twitter: @PointedEars2 Please do not cc me. / Bitte keine Kopien per E-Mail.
[toc] | [prev] | [standalone]
Page 2 of 2 — ← Prev page 1 [2]
Back to top | Article view | sci.physics.relativity
csiph-web