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

Groups > sci.physics > #593758 > unrolled thread

Galaxies are half antimatter and half matter

Back to article view | Back to sci.physics

Contents

  Galaxies are half antimatter and half matter john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2016-08-18 17:19 -0700
    Re: Galaxies are half antimatter and half matter Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-08-19 07:45 -0500
      Re: Galaxies are half antimatter and half matter moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2016-08-19 22:48 +0000
      Re: Galaxies are half antimatter and half matter john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2016-08-24 16:48 -0700
        Re: Galaxies are half antimatter and half matter Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-08-25 07:56 -0500
    Re: Galaxies are half antimatter and half matter Double-A <double-a3@hush.com> - 2016-08-19 12:25 -0700
      Re: Galaxies are half antimatter and half matter "reber g=emc^2" <herbertglazier0@gmail.com> - 2016-08-20 14:12 -0700
    Re: Galaxies are half antimatter and half matter Michael J. Strickland <michael06582@comcast.net> - 2016-08-19 23:11 -0400
      Re: Galaxies are half antimatter and half matter john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2016-08-20 06:14 -0700
        Re: Galaxies are half antimatter and half matter Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-08-20 10:17 -0500
      Re: Galaxies are half antimatter and half matter Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2016-08-21 19:08 +0200
        Re: Galaxies are half antimatter and half matter Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2016-08-24 01:44 +0200
      Re: Galaxies are half antimatter and half matter edprochak@gmail.com - 2016-08-22 23:36 -0700
        Re: Re: Galaxies are half antimatter and half matter Michael J. Strickland <michael06582@comcast.net> - 2016-08-23 04:38 -0400
          Re: Galaxies are half antimatter and half matter Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-08-23 07:06 -0500
            Re: Re: Galaxies are half antimatter and half matter Michael J. Strickland <michael06582@comcast.net> - 2016-08-24 02:15 -0400
              Re: Galaxies are half antimatter and half matter Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-08-24 07:39 -0500
                Re: Galaxies are half antimatter and half matter john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2016-08-24 05:57 -0700
                  Re: Galaxies are half antimatter and half matter Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-08-24 09:02 -0500
                    Re: Galaxies are half antimatter and half matter john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2016-08-24 08:01 -0700
                      Re: Galaxies are half antimatter and half matter Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-08-24 10:53 -0500
                      Re: Galaxies are half antimatter and half matter moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2016-08-27 19:25 +0000
                    Re: Galaxies are half antimatter and half matter john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2016-08-24 08:07 -0700
                      Re: Galaxies are half antimatter and half matter john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2016-08-24 08:37 -0700
                        Re: Galaxies are half antimatter and half matter Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-08-24 11:40 -0500
                          Re: Galaxies are half antimatter and half matter john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2016-08-24 13:09 -0700
                            Re: Galaxies are half antimatter and half matter john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2016-08-24 13:27 -0700
                            Re: Galaxies are half antimatter and half matter Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-08-24 15:57 -0500
                              Re: Galaxies are half antimatter and half matter john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2016-08-24 16:36 -0700
                                Re: Galaxies are half antimatter and half matter Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-08-25 07:54 -0500
                                  Re: Galaxies are half antimatter and half matter Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2016-08-26 05:25 +0200
                                  Re: Galaxies are half antimatter and half matter john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2016-08-28 07:26 -0700
                                    Re: Galaxies are half antimatter and half matter john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2016-08-28 11:09 -0700
                        Re: Galaxies are half antimatter and half matter moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2016-08-27 19:35 +0000
                      Re: Galaxies are half antimatter and half matter Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-08-24 11:18 -0500
                      Re: Galaxies are half antimatter and half matter moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2016-08-27 19:33 +0000
              Re: Re: Galaxies are half antimatter and half matter edprochak@gmail.com - 2016-08-24 12:12 -0700
                Re: Re: Re: Galaxies are half antimatter and half matter Michael J. Strickland <michael06582@comcast.net> - 2016-08-25 01:55 -0400
                  Re: Re: Re: Galaxies are half antimatter and half matter Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2016-08-25 08:21 +0200
                    Re: Re: Re: Galaxies are half antimatter and half matter john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2016-08-25 05:58 -0700
                      Re: Galaxies are half antimatter and half matter Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-08-25 08:51 -0500
                      Re: Galaxies are half antimatter and half matter Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-08-25 08:55 -0500
                        Re: Galaxies are half antimatter and half matter john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2016-08-25 08:35 -0700
                          Re: Galaxies are half antimatter and half matter Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-08-25 10:39 -0500
                            Re: Galaxies are half antimatter and half matter john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2016-08-25 09:11 -0700
                              Re: Galaxies are half antimatter and half matter Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-08-25 11:21 -0500
                                Re: Galaxies are half antimatter and half matter john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2016-08-25 10:29 -0700
                                  Re: Galaxies are half antimatter and half matter Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-08-25 13:58 -0500
                          Re: Galaxies are half antimatter and half matter moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2016-08-27 20:05 +0000
                            Re: Galaxies are half antimatter and half matter john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2016-08-27 15:02 -0700
                              Re: Re: Galaxies are half antimatter and half matter Michael J. Strickland <michael06582@comcast.net> - 2016-08-29 03:30 -0400
                                Re: Galaxies are half antimatter and half matter Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2016-08-30 20:18 +0200
                                Re: Re: Galaxies are half antimatter and half matter Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2016-08-30 20:35 +0200
                      Re: Galaxies are half antimatter and half matter Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2016-08-25 19:45 +0200
                        Re: Galaxies are half antimatter and half matter john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2016-08-25 11:14 -0700
                          Re: Galaxies are half antimatter and half matter john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2016-08-25 11:17 -0700
                            Re: Galaxies are half antimatter and half matter Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-08-25 14:00 -0500
                          Re: Galaxies are half antimatter and half matter Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2016-08-25 20:57 +0200
                          Re: Galaxies are half antimatter and half matter Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-08-25 16:24 -0500
                      Re: Galaxies are half antimatter and half matter moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2016-08-27 20:00 +0000
                  Re: Re: Re: Galaxies are half antimatter and half matter edprochak@gmail.com - 2016-08-25 11:42 -0700
          Re: Re: Galaxies are half antimatter and half matter edprochak@gmail.com - 2016-08-23 10:31 -0700
            Re: Re: Re: Galaxies are half antimatter and half matter Michael J. Strickland <michael06582@comcast.net> - 2016-08-24 02:54 -0400
            a krok is when noTthaTguY <abu.kuanysh05@gmail.com> - 2016-08-24 10:24 -0700
          Re: Galaxies are half antimatter and half matter Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2016-08-24 01:31 +0200
            Re: Galaxies are half antimatter and half matter john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2016-08-23 17:57 -0700
              Re: Galaxies are half antimatter and half matter Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-08-24 07:29 -0500
            pre-Alfvenic notions of space\Universe noTthaTguY <abu.kuanysh05@gmail.com> - 2016-08-24 10:28 -0700
              Re: pre-Alfvenic notions of space\Universe Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2016-08-24 21:20 +0200
                could be simpler, ug ... ugh noTthaTguY <abu.kuanysh05@gmail.com> - 2016-08-29 11:21 -0700
                  Re: could be simpler, ug ... ugh Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2016-08-30 08:45 +0200
                    1/c is in units of seconds per second per secondpower meters ... regular tetragona were not hurt in the attempt noTthaTguY <abu.kuanysh05@gmail.com> - 2016-08-30 13:36 -0700
      Re: Galaxies are half antimatter and half matter john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2016-08-23 14:17 -0700
    Re: Galaxies are half antimatter and half matter "Sergio" <invalid@example.com> - 2016-08-20 15:17 -0700
    Re: Galaxies are half antimatter and half matter "reber g=emc^2" <herbertglazier0@gmail.com> - 2016-08-27 12:54 -0700
      Re: Galaxies are half antimatter and half matter Double-A <double-a3@hush.com> - 2016-08-30 12:39 -0700

Page 4 of 4 — ← Prev page 1 2 3 [4]

#594674

On Thursday, August 25, 2016 at 1:55:41 AM UTC-4, Michael Strickland wrote:
> On Wed, 24 Aug 2016 12:12:53 -0700 (PDT), edprochak@gmail.com wrote:
> 
> >On Wednesday, August 24, 2016 at 2:15:52 AM UTC-4, Michael Strickland wrote:
> >[]
> >> 
> >> Or maybe you could just think for yourself instead of regurgitating
> >> what you have been told by the "party line" physics community. That's
> >> another tried and true method of determining what to believe.
> >> 
> >I'll say it again, Physicists do not believe in theories.
> 
> Do you know any physicists that don't believe in the fundamental
> theorems of algebra or calculus? Do you think continuing to lie about
> them will make them agree with you?

Just a reminder, you are the one claiming to believe without evidence.
 From your first post in this thread:

On Friday, August 19, 2016 at 11:11:49 PM UTC-4, Michael Strickland wrote: 
> I believe atoms are half matter and half antimatter. 


> >> After all, I'm sure there were plenty of data, "papers", and theories
> >> claiming the earth was flat back when that was the "consensus."
> >
> >And a flat earth was the current best theory for a long time, until
> >EVIDENCE showed that it was wrong. Scientists did not suddenly
> >change the theory of the earth/universe. It took data.
> 
> Exactly my point. There is new data coming in every day. Theory, being
> logically designed instead of contorted to fit empirical data and
> popular notions and consensi, often predicts new experimental data.
> 

Somehow you think model theories are not "logically designed". Okay.
Somehow you think modern science is not progressing the way it did
in the past.
Somehow you think posting "I believe..." will make that all go away,
just because you said so.

Interesting.
> 
> >> The original definition of anti-matter was same mass, opposite charge
> >> (Dirac's prediction and Anderson's discovery) before "parity" was
> >> added to the "zoo" of particle characteristics to account for
> >> experimental results that conflicted with predicted ones.
> >> 
> >And that is the was science works. A theory lasts only as long
> >as its predictions are correct and useful. Relativity grew out of
> >the need to explain the Michelson/Morley results and other evidence
> >that contradicted the prevailing theory of the time, Aether theory.
> 
> In English please. Did you mean "that is the way science works?"

Thanks for correcting my typo. :)

> 
> Michelson/Morley, if you've bothered to examine it instead of just
> accept and regurgitate one interpretation of it, is consistent with
> both Galilean Relativity and Special Relativity.

Yes. But Special relativity goes on to explain more than Galilean
relativity does. Just as Newton's theory of gravity is good except
for extreme masses and extreme speeds.
> 
> 
> >So, you have choices:
> >1. You can believe atoms are half matter/half antimatter.
> >
> >In which case your posts are more appropriate in talk.religion
> 
> No they will stay here. Just use a "kill filter" if they bother you.
> This obsession of yours with "talk.religion" is getting tiresome.

That's your right. But now I know your choice.
> 
> 
> >2. You can propose the half-and-half theory and make some
> >predictions that can test whether it works or not.
> >
> >You haven't done so to this point. You only argue that physics
> >should be more open to ideas from inexperienced people.
> 
> I'm very experienced. Are you experienced?

I notice first that you make no predictions about your
Half-and-half theory. Still just a believer then?

Since you asked:
Just for reference, I admit I am not a full time physicist.
My background is BS Physics, MS Electrical Engineering,
30+ years in systems and software development.

So can you provide a summary or your experience?
> 
> >3. You can learn what the current prevailing theories are instead
> >of mocking them.
> 
> I've studied your "current prevailing theories" long ago and recently.

This study consisting of...?

> If I agreed with them I would not be posting original content. I would
> be regurgitating the "party line" like you and adding no new thought
> or information to the discussion (like you).

Original content like: "I believe atoms are half matter and half antimatter."
> 
> >Of course you must also gain the knowledge that these theories
> >WILL change over time as new evidence and understanding is found.
> >
> >Now if you continue to pick choice 1. I will continue to suggest your
> >posts are off topic for sci.physics and should be in talk.religion.
> >
> >Make your choice and have a nice day.
> 
> I made my choice long ago and your demand that I make one of your
> "choices" is just more abusive tripe. Please read the below message
> carefully.

I try to be polite so I'll drop the off topic point.
> 
> 
> 
> -----------------------------------------------------------------
> This is my last post/reply on this subject so if you want the last
> word, read no further. 
> 
> Please don't construe this as a sign of surrender or defeat. Let's
> just consider it a temporary truce and we can resume the "debate"
> later on another thread/topic.
> Feel free to add any number of additional posts below. This is just a
> notice that I will not read them. I'm sure any wider audience that may
> be interested will be highly entertained as you "vanquish" me in my
> absence (lol).
> -----------------------------------------------------------------
> ---------------------------------------------------
> Michael J. Strickland			Reston, VA
> ---------------------------------------------------

Well if that is how you feel. At least I think I understand
your view, even though I disagree with it.

I sometimes do not read or post here for days or weeks.
So if you post on another thread and I do not reply, don't
take any special meaning in that either.
Hope you have a nice day.
  Ed

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

#594329

On Tuesday, August 23, 2016 at 4:38:52 AM UTC-4, Michael Strickland wrote:
> On Mon, 22 Aug 2016 23:36:39 -0700 (PDT), edprochak@gmail.com wrote:
> 
> >On Friday, August 19, 2016 at 11:11:49 PM UTC-4, Michael Strickland wrote:
> >[]
> >> 
> >> I believe atoms are half matter and half antimatter.
> >> 
> >
> >Then you are in the wrong group.
> >sci.physics is not about believing.
> >Try talk.religion
> 
> So do you believe in the "faster than light" inflationary era where
> anti-matter was "magically" left out of the distribution?
> 
NO, I do have religious beliefs, but in Physics, I acknowledge
that, using your example, Inflation is the best theory we have
to date to explain many astronomical observations and measurements.

I think we still do not have a clear picture on the imbalance
of matter and anti-matter. Which should reinforce the point to
you. I do not believe any theory is the absolute final truth.


> sci.physics is, in fact, all about "believing." What you claim to know

We know what we observe. What you keep trying to peg as belief is
just acceptance of teh best explainations we have SO FAR.

> is merely what you "believe" based on what yo have heard. It is no
> more reliable than the "flat earth" theory was back in antiquity. You
> just "believe" you have reliable information when in fact you do not
> know how reliable or unreliable it is.
> 

Let us know when you have THE ANSWER.

Meantime, science will continue to move ahead with or without
 your distractions/"help".

Enjoy talk.religion.

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

#594451

On Tue, 23 Aug 2016 10:31:21 -0700 (PDT), edprochak@gmail.com wrote:

>On Tuesday, August 23, 2016 at 4:38:52 AM UTC-4, Michael Strickland wrote:
>> On Mon, 22 Aug 2016 23:36:39 -0700 (PDT), edprochak@gmail.com wrote:
>> 
>> >On Friday, August 19, 2016 at 11:11:49 PM UTC-4, Michael Strickland wrote:
>> >[]
>> >> 
>> >> I believe atoms are half matter and half antimatter.
>> >> 
>> >
>> >Then you are in the wrong group.
>> >sci.physics is not about believing.
>> >Try talk.religion
>> 
>> So do you believe in the "faster than light" inflationary era where
>> anti-matter was "magically" left out of the distribution?
>> 
>NO, I do have religious beliefs, but in Physics, I acknowledge
>that, using your example, Inflation is the best theory we have
>to date to explain many astronomical observations and measurements.
>
>I think we still do not have a clear picture on the imbalance
>of matter and anti-matter. Which should reinforce the point to
>you. I do not believe any theory is the absolute final truth.
>
>
>> sci.physics is, in fact, all about "believing." What you claim to know
>
>We know what we observe. What you keep trying to peg as belief is
>just acceptance of teh best explainations we have SO FAR.
>
>> is merely what you "believe" based on what yo have heard. It is no
>> more reliable than the "flat earth" theory was back in antiquity. You
>> just "believe" you have reliable information when in fact you do not
>> know how reliable or unreliable it is.
>> 
>
>Let us know when you have THE ANSWER.

I just gave you the answer and you rejected it. I only have so much
time and energy to dispense my "wisdom."

>Meantime, science will continue to move ahead with or without
> your distractions/"help".

Like it moved ahead to the "flat earth"?

>Enjoy talk.religion.

Never been there but I can see you have since you keep shilling for
it.

When you "see it" we'll call it "magic" for you so you'll be able to
cope.

As the saying goes: "Its not what you don't know that "gets you", its
what your "dead sure" of that turns out to be "dead wrong".

---------------------------------------------------
Michael J. Strickland			Reston, VA
---------------------------------------------------

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

#594505 — a krok is when

that is just the pre-Alfvenic ideal of space,
being merely an absolute vacuum,
through which newtonion roktons must fly, on their own ...
which you refer to as a photon, although
all properties of lighwaves are wavey,
without any exception ... even teh so-called photon-electron effect

> that, using your example, Inflation is the best theory we have
> to date to explain many astronomical observations and measurements.
> 
> I think we still do not have a clear picture on the imbalance
> of matter and anti-matter. Which should reinforce the point to
> you. I do not believe any theory is the absolute final truth.
> 
> 
> > sci.physics is, in fact, all about "believing." What you claim to know
> 
> We know what we observe. What you keep trying to peg as belief is
> just acceptance of teh best explainations we have SO FAR.
> 
> > is merely what you "believe" based on what yo have heard. It is no
> > more reliable than the "flat earth" theory was back in antiquity. You
> > just "believe" you have reliable information when in fact you do not
> > know how reliable or unreliable it is.
> > 
> 
> Let us know when you have THE ANSWER.
> 
> Meantime, science will continue to move ahead with or without
>  your distractions/"help".
> 
> Enjoy talk.religion.

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

#594387

Michael J.  Strickland wrote:

> On Mon, 22 Aug 2016 23:36:39 -0700 (PDT), edprochak@gmail.com wrote:
>>On Friday, August 19, 2016 at 11:11:49 PM UTC-4, Michael Strickland wrote:
>>[]
>>> 
>>> I believe atoms are half matter and half antimatter.
>>Then you are in the wrong group.
>>sci.physics is not about believing.
>>Try talk.religion

Full ACK.
 
> So do you believe in the "faster than light" inflationary era where
> anti-matter was "magically" left out of the distribution?

Again, first of all you are in the wrong newsgroup hierarchy to argue based 
on belief.  Scientists do not believe; they postulate theories and falsify 
them or confirm them through *observation*.

Second, astronomical *observation* (of distant supernovae) showed and shows 
what general relativity not only allows but *predicts*: that the universe is 
already expanding at the boundary of the observable universe faster than 
light (see the Hubble equation).  So it is not much of a stretch to assume 
that it did before.

Third, you also *still* have no idea what you are talking about when you are 
referring to anti-matter, although it has been explained to you several 
times now.

And your newsreader is borked, it produces duplicate “Re:” prefixes in 
Subject header field values.  Fixed here.

-- 
PointedEars

Twitter: @PointedEars2
Please do not cc me. / Bitte keine Kopien per E-Mail.

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

#594407

Thomas pointed ears  said
"Scientists do not believe; they postulate theories and falsify 
them or confirm them through *observation*. "

Babies observe.
Children observe and postulate.
Primitives observe our jet liners
and work them into their prophecy.
Pfft

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

#594476

On 8/23/2016 7:57 PM, john wrote:
> Thomas pointed ears  said
> "Scientists do not believe; they postulate theories and falsify
> them or confirm them through *observation*. "
>
> Babies observe.
> Children observe and postulate.
> Primitives observe our jet liners
> and work them into their prophecy.
> Pfft
>

So you dismiss the value of observation in science, John?

-- 
Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables

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

#594506 — pre-Alfvenic notions of space\Universe

as there is no antilight,
it is impossible to see, whc
being, there is no antilightwaves in free space,
there is no way to tell whre exists antimatter, except
for sone places where antimatter meets matter,
via the "leidenfrost effect ... speeled incorrectly, or not

> Second, astronomical *observation* (of distant supernovae) showed and shows 
> what general relativity not only allows but *predicts*: that the universe is 
> already expanding at the boundary of the observable universe faster than 
> light (see the Hubble equation).  So it is not much of a stretch to assume 
> that it did before.
> 
> Third, you also *still* have no idea what you are talking about when you are 
> referring to anti-matter, although it has been explained to you several 
> times now.
> 
> And your newsreader is borked, it produces duplicate “Re:” prefixes in 
> Subject header field values.  Fixed here.

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

#594529 — Re: pre-Alfvenic notions of space\Universe

noTthaTguY wrote:

> as there is no antilight,

Ex falso quodlibet.

-- 
PointedEars

Twitter: @PointedEars2
Please do not cc me. / Bitte keine Kopien per E-Mail.

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

#595081 — could be simpler, ug ... ugh

light needs electrons to propogate electromagnetically
through space composed of a)
atoms, amd b)
anti-atoms;
the secomdpower of the speed of light is the rate of expansion
of the wavefront

> > as there is no antilight,
> 
> Ex falso quodlibet.

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

#595212 — Re: could be simpler, ug ... ugh

noTthaTguY wrote:

> light needs electrons to propogate electromagnetically
> through space composed of a)
> atoms, amd b)
> anti-atoms;

Wrong.

-- 
PointedEars

Twitter: @PointedEars2
Please do not cc me. / Bitte keine Kopien per E-Mail.

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

#595273 — 1/c is in units of seconds per second per secondpower meters ... regular tetragona were not hurt in the attempt

well, nothing could be simpler, but
I hope to use this to calculate an integer valuation
of Avagadro;s numbeR ... pretty c00l

> > light needs electrons to propogate electromagnetically
> > through space composed of a)
> > atoms, amd b)
> > anti-atoms;
> 
> Wrong.
> 
> -- 
> PointedEars
> 
> Twitter: @PointedEars2
> Please do not cc me. / Bitte keine Kopien per E-Mail.

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

#594374

Michael Strickland said:

"I believe atoms are half matter and half antimatter"

Yes. Since galaxies are atoms, and
vice versa, you would be correct. 

I love how some people think
they know all the rules about
what can and cannot be possible,
and the answer will be staring them
in the face. Like the assymetric galactic
rotation curves- how can stars be
slowing down and speeding up?
They can't. The disc-edges must be
moving differently RELATIVE TO US-
the discs are precessing!!!

But they believe this to be impossible,
so, whatever

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

#593973

How unusual!  A google-poster with a gmail address is posting complete shit.

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

#594892

On Thursday, August 18, 2016 at 5:19:45 PM UTC-7, john wrote:
> For instance, in a perfectly-balanced,
> 10-arm structure, where opposites/ neighbors 
> are always opposite, everything can
> be continually made to cancel,
> like so:
> http://users.accesscomm.ca/john/NeonAnimation.GIF

Galaxy's come together,and that adds to their density,and size(Mass) Only if there BHs collide would there be any great disturbence. That hardly ever happens unless you have money riding on LIGO  O ya  TreBert

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

#595262

On Saturday, August 27, 2016 at 12:54:56 PM UTC-7, reber g=emc^2 wrote:
> On Thursday, August 18, 2016 at 5:19:45 PM UTC-7, john wrote:
> > For instance, in a perfectly-balanced,
> > 10-arm structure, where opposites/ neighbors 
> > are always opposite, everything can
> > be continually made to cancel,
> > like so:
> > http://users.accesscomm.ca/john/NeonAnimation.GIF
> 
> Galaxy's come together,and that adds to their density,and size(Mass) Only if there BHs collide would there be any great disturbence. That hardly ever happens unless you have money riding on LIGO  O ya  TreBert


If time truly grinds to a halt at the event horizons of black holes, logically a collision of black holes should never happen.

Double-A

[toc] | [prev] | [standalone]

Page 4 of 4 — ← Prev page 1 2 3 [4]

Back to top | Article view | sci.physics

csiph-web