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

Groups > sci.physics > #580183 > unrolled thread

Re: Is antimatter anti-gravity?

Back to article view | Back to sci.physics

This discussion starts older than the indexed window; earlier articles aren't shown. The article labeled Started by below is the oldest one visible, not the original post.

Contents

  Re: Is antimatter anti-gravity? Double-A <double-a3@hush.com> - 2016-05-24 13:31 -0700
    Re: Is antimatter anti-gravity? Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> - 2016-05-24 16:19 -0500
      Re: Is antimatter anti-gravity? Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> - 2016-05-24 16:35 -0500
        Re: Is antimatter anti-gravity? "reber g=emc^2" <herbertglazier0@gmail.com> - 2016-05-25 09:49 -0700
          Re: Is antimatter anti-gravity? Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> - 2016-05-25 11:54 -0500
            Re: Is antimatter anti-gravity? john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2016-05-25 10:08 -0700
              Re: Is antimatter anti-gravity? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-05-25 12:25 -0500
              Re: Is antimatter anti-gravity? HVAC <mr.hvac@gmail.com> - 2016-05-25 10:25 -0700
                Re: Is antimatter anti-gravity? benj <nobodyxx@gmail> - 2016-05-25 23:30 -0400
            Re: Is antimatter anti-gravity? "reber g=emc^2" <herbertglazier0@gmail.com> - 2016-05-25 12:53 -0700
              Re: Is antimatter anti-gravity? HVAC <mr.hvac@gmail.com> - 2016-05-25 13:13 -0700
                Re: Is antimatter anti-gravity? Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> - 2016-05-25 16:07 -0500
                  Re: Is antimatter anti-gravity? HVAC <mr.hvac@gmail.com> - 2016-05-25 15:20 -0700
                    Re: Is antimatter anti-gravity? Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> - 2016-05-25 20:25 -0500
                    Re: Is antimatter anti-gravity? benj <nobodyxx@gmail> - 2016-05-25 23:31 -0400
                Re: Is antimatter anti-gravity? benj <nobodyxx@gmail> - 2016-05-25 23:31 -0400
              Re: Is antimatter anti-gravity? Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> - 2016-05-25 16:06 -0500
                Re: Is antimatter anti-gravity? "reber g=emc^2" <herbertglazier0@gmail.com> - 2016-05-26 10:39 -0700
                  Re: Is antimatter anti-gravity? Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> - 2016-05-26 12:45 -0500
              Re: Is antimatter anti-gravity? Double-A <double-a3@hush.com> - 2016-05-26 14:56 -0700
                Re: Is antimatter anti-gravity? "reber g=emc^2" <herbertglazier0@gmail.com> - 2016-05-26 15:22 -0700
                  Re: Is antimatter anti-gravity? Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> - 2016-05-26 18:15 -0500
                    Re: Is antimatter anti-gravity? "reber g=emc^2" <herbertglazier0@gmail.com> - 2016-05-27 13:44 -0700
                Re: Is antimatter anti-gravity? Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> - 2016-05-26 18:14 -0500
                  Re: Is antimatter anti-gravity? Double-A <double-a3@hush.com> - 2016-05-27 14:46 -0700
            Re: Is antimatter anti-gravity? "reber g=emc^2" <herbertglazier0@gmail.com> - 2016-05-25 12:58 -0700
              Re: Is antimatter anti-gravity? Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> - 2016-05-25 16:10 -0500
                Re: Is antimatter anti-gravity? john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2016-05-25 19:06 -0700
                  Re: Is antimatter anti-gravity? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-05-26 10:23 -0500
                    Re: Is antimatter anti-gravity? john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2016-05-26 08:33 -0700
                      Re: Is antimatter anti-gravity? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-05-26 10:37 -0500
                        Re: Is antimatter anti-gravity? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-05-26 10:55 -0500
                          Re: Is antimatter anti-gravity? "Ross A. Finlayson" <ross.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2016-05-26 10:35 -0700
                            Re: Is antimatter anti-gravity? HVAC <mr.hvac@gmail.com> - 2016-05-26 18:03 -0700
                      Re: Is antimatter anti-gravity? moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2016-05-26 16:10 +0000
                        Re: Is antimatter anti-gravity? "Ross A. Finlayson" <ross.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2016-05-26 10:29 -0700
                          Re: Is antimatter anti-gravity? john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2016-05-26 15:22 -0700
                            Re: Is antimatter anti-gravity? "Ross A. Finlayson" <ross.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2016-05-26 16:42 -0700
                              Re: Is antimatter anti-gravity? john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2016-05-26 22:40 -0700
                                Re: Is antimatter anti-gravity? "Ross A. Finlayson" <ross.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2016-05-26 23:12 -0700
                                  Re: Is antimatter anti-gravity? john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2016-05-27 00:16 -0700
                                  Re: Is antimatter anti-gravity? Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> - 2016-05-27 09:25 -0500
                                  Alfven waves are a) slow, b) medium and c) noTthaTguY <abu.kuanysh05@gmail.com> - 2016-05-27 13:06 -0700
                              Re: Is antimatter anti-gravity? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-05-27 04:24 -0500
                                Re: Is antimatter anti-gravity? john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2016-05-27 08:15 -0700
                                  Re: Is antimatter anti-gravity? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-05-27 10:39 -0500
                                  Re: Is antimatter anti-gravity? HVAC <mr.hvac@gmail.com> - 2016-05-27 09:57 -0700
                                  Re: Is antimatter anti-gravity? Mahipal <mahipal7638@gmail.com> - 2016-05-27 13:26 -0700
                                Re: Is antimatter anti-gravity? "Ross A. Finlayson" <ross.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2016-05-27 09:47 -0700
                                  Re: Is antimatter anti-gravity? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-05-27 12:16 -0500
                                    Re: Is antimatter anti-gravity? john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2016-05-27 11:11 -0700
                                      Re: Is antimatter anti-gravity? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-05-27 15:04 -0500
                                    Re: Is antimatter anti-gravity? "Ross A. Finlayson" <ross.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2016-05-30 18:36 -0700
                                      Re: Is antimatter anti-gravity? "Ross A. Finlayson" <ross.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2016-05-30 18:46 -0700
                                        Re: Is antimatter anti-gravity? "Ross A. Finlayson" <ross.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2016-05-30 20:37 -0700
                                      Re: Is antimatter anti-gravity? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-05-31 09:49 -0500
                                        Re: Is antimatter anti-gravity? "Ross A. Finlayson" <ross.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2016-05-31 19:01 -0700
                                          Re: Is antimatter anti-gravity? Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> - 2016-05-31 21:08 -0500
                                            Re: Is antimatter anti-gravity? "Ross A. Finlayson" <ross.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2016-05-31 20:24 -0700
                                              Re: Is antimatter anti-gravity? Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> - 2016-06-01 08:22 -0500
                                          Re: Is antimatter anti-gravity? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-06-01 09:36 -0500
                                            Re: Is antimatter anti-gravity? "Ross A. Finlayson" <ross.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2016-06-01 19:11 -0700
                                              Re: Is antimatter anti-gravity? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-06-02 10:23 -0500
                                                Re: Is antimatter anti-gravity? "Ross A. Finlayson" <ross.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2016-06-02 18:03 -0700
                                                  Re: Is antimatter anti-gravity? john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2016-06-02 18:23 -0700
                                                  Re: Is antimatter anti-gravity? noTthaTguY <abu.kuanysh05@gmail.com> - 2016-06-02 20:16 -0700
                                                  Re: Is antimatter anti-gravity? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-06-03 06:59 -0500
                                                    Re: Is antimatter anti-gravity? john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2016-06-03 05:47 -0700
                                                      Re: Is antimatter anti-gravity? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-06-03 07:49 -0500
                                                        Re: Is antimatter anti-gravity? john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2016-06-03 06:08 -0700
                                                          Re: Is antimatter anti-gravity? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-06-03 08:47 -0500
                                                            Re: Is antimatter anti-gravity? benj <nobodyxx@gmail> - 2016-06-03 10:42 -0400
                                                              Re: Is antimatter anti-gravity? john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2016-06-03 08:07 -0700
                                                                Re: Is antimatter anti-gravity? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-06-03 11:27 -0500
                                                                  Re: Is antimatter anti-gravity? HVAC <mr.hvac@gmail.com> - 2016-06-03 10:07 -0700
                                                                    Re: Is antimatter anti-gravity? benj <nobodyxx@gmail> - 2016-06-03 14:25 -0400
                                                                  Re: Is antimatter anti-gravity? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-06-03 12:32 -0500
                                                              Re: Is antimatter anti-gravity? HVAC <mr.hvac@gmail.com> - 2016-06-03 08:12 -0700
                                                                Re: Is antimatter anti-gravity? john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2016-06-03 08:24 -0700
                                                                  Re: Is antimatter anti-gravity? HVAC <mr.hvac@gmail.com> - 2016-06-03 08:50 -0700
                                                                    Re: Is antimatter anti-gravity? benj <nobodyxx@gmail> - 2016-06-03 14:21 -0400
                                                                  Re: Is antimatter anti-gravity? "reber g=emc^2" <herbertglazier0@gmail.com> - 2016-06-03 09:39 -0700
                                                                Re: Is antimatter anti-gravity? benj <nobodyxx@gmail> - 2016-06-03 14:20 -0400
                                                              Re: Is antimatter anti-gravity? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-06-03 10:45 -0500
                                                            Re: Is antimatter anti-gravity? noTthaTguY <abu.kuanysh05@gmail.com> - 2016-06-03 10:18 -0700
                                                              Re: Is antimatter anti-gravity? john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2016-06-03 10:25 -0700
                                                                Re: Is antimatter anti-gravity? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-06-03 12:44 -0500
                                                                Re: Is antimatter anti-gravity? moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2016-06-03 17:55 +0000
                                                                  Re: Is antimatter anti-gravity? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-06-03 13:07 -0500
                                                                    Re: Is antimatter anti-gravity? john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2016-06-03 11:17 -0700
                                                                      Re: Is antimatter anti-gravity? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-06-03 13:27 -0500
                                                                        Re: Is antimatter anti-gravity? john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2016-06-03 14:45 -0700
                                                                          Re: Is antimatter anti-gravity? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-06-03 16:59 -0500
                                                                            que noTthaTguY <abu.kuanysh05@gmail.com> - 2016-06-03 15:51 -0700
                                                        Re: Is antimatter anti-gravity? "Ross A. Finlayson" <ross.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2016-06-03 08:01 -0700
                Re: Is antimatter anti-gravity? "reber g=emc^2" <herbertglazier0@gmail.com> - 2016-05-26 10:42 -0700
                  Re: Is antimatter anti-gravity? Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> - 2016-05-26 12:59 -0500
                  Re: Is antimatter anti-gravity? benj <nobodyxx@gmail> - 2016-05-26 14:13 -0400
                Re: Is antimatter anti-gravity? Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2016-05-28 00:46 +0200
                  Re: Is antimatter anti-gravity? john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2016-05-27 18:47 -0700
                    Re: Is antimatter anti-gravity? Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2016-05-28 08:59 +0200
                  Re: Is antimatter anti-gravity? "reber g=emc^2" <herbertglazier0@gmail.com> - 2016-05-28 12:49 -0700
                    Re: Is antimatter anti-gravity? john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2016-05-28 13:10 -0700
                    Re: Is antimatter anti-gravity? benj <nobodyxx@gmail> - 2016-05-28 16:29 -0400
                      Re: Is antimatter anti-gravity? HVAC <mr.hvac@gmail.com> - 2016-05-28 16:57 -0700
                        Re: Is antimatter anti-gravity? benj <nobodyxx@gmail> - 2016-05-28 20:09 -0400
                      Re: Is antimatter anti-gravity? "reber g=emc^2" <herbertglazier0@gmail.com> - 2016-05-30 15:22 -0700
                        Re: Is antimatter anti-gravity? "hanson" <hanson@quick.net> - 2016-05-30 17:48 -0700
                    Re: Is antimatter anti-gravity? Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> - 2016-05-28 16:28 -0500
                      antijohn cersus johnboy noTthaTguY <abu.kuanysh05@gmail.com> - 2016-05-28 15:22 -0700
                        Re: antijohn cersus johnboy Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2016-05-29 12:46 +0200
                          Re: antijohn cersus johnboy john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2016-05-29 07:36 -0700
                            Re: antijohn cersus johnboy john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2016-05-29 09:10 -0700
                              Re: antijohn cersus johnboy Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2016-05-30 20:21 +0200
                                waves in anti-\matter noTthaTguY <abu.kuanysh05@gmail.com> - 2016-05-31 10:34 -0700
                              Re: antijohn cersus johnboy Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-05-31 09:20 -0500
                                Re: antijohn cersus johnboy john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2016-05-31 07:58 -0700
                                  Re: antijohn cersus johnboy Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-05-31 10:45 -0500
                                    Re: antijohn cersus johnboy john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2016-05-31 16:04 -0700
                                      Re: antijohn cersus johnboy moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2016-06-01 01:30 +0000
                                      Re: antijohn cersus johnboy Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-06-01 09:37 -0500
                                        Re: antijohn cersus johnboy john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2016-06-01 09:25 -0700
                                          Re: antijohn cersus johnboy Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-06-01 12:38 -0500
                            Re: antijohn cersus johnboy noTthaTguY <abu.kuanysh05@gmail.com> - 2016-05-29 12:00 -0700
                            Re: antijohn cersus johnboy Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2016-05-29 23:14 +0200
                            Re: antijohn cersus johnboy Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-05-31 09:16 -0500
                      Re: Is antimatter anti-gravity? Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2016-05-29 03:39 +0200
                    Re: Is antimatter anti-gravity? Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2016-05-29 03:29 +0200
    Re: Is antimatter anti-gravity? Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2016-05-30 21:09 +0200

Page 6 of 7 — ← Prev page 1 2 3 4 5 [6] 7  Next page →

#581145

john wrote:

> Exactly.

Exactly *what*?  Learn to quote.

> Which is why it may be
> possible for free electrons
> to have different spin from
> bound electrons.

But the reason for that is not that one electron is free and another is 
bound.  But that (IIUC) either the measured free electron and the measured 
bound electron had opposite spins to begin with, or, that the same electron 
has been measured before and after interacting with one, three, or so on
fitting photons (of a magnetic field applied to it), changing its spin from 
−½ to +½ or vice-versa as photons have absolute spin 1 and spin is a 
conserved quantity.  [The interesting thing about QM is that you cannot be 
sure which possibility applied due to the uncertainty principle.]

Also, I learned in the meantime that one must differentiate between spin
and iso(baric )spin.  The former quantum number, although being related to 
intrinsic angular momentum, is not related to a rotational velocity as e.g. 
the electron is a *point(-like)* particle (a point cannot rotate or, IOW, 
rotation of a point is indistinguishable from not rotating it); but it is a 
*magnetic* property (how that electron behaves in a magnetic field). The 
latter quantum number is not related to angular momentum at all, but merely 
observes similar math.

See also:

<http://physics.stackexchange.com/a/137812>
<http://physics.stackexchange.com/a/178370>
<http://physics.stackexchange.com/a/159278>
<https://www.physicsforums.com/threads/electron-spin.312969/>
<http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/spin.html#c1>
<http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/particles/parint.html#c5>
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spin_(physics)>
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Isospin>

-- 
PointedEars

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

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

#581271

On Friday, May 27, 2016 at 3:46:47 PM UTC-7, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:
> Sam Wormley wrote:
> 
> > On 5/25/16 2:58 PM, reber g=emc^2 wrote:
> >> As a particle's spin speeds up
> > 
> >    The spin of a particle is a fixed property and not up for change.
> >    No exceptions.
> 
> Incorrect.  What can be said is that if the spin of a particle changes, then 
> it becomes a particle of a different kind.  (However, leptons like electrons 
> have *either* spin +½ *or* −½; which spin they have determines where they 
> can be located in an atom as only two electrons of opposite spin can inhabit 
> the same electron orbital [Pauli exclusion principle]).
> 
> For example, the I₃ (third component of the weak iso[baric ]spin) flavor 
> quantum number of a down quark (d) can change from −½ to +½ (thereby its 
> electric charge Q from −⅓ to +⅔, as its weak hypercharge Y_W remains 
> constant at ⅓ and Q = I₃ + Y_W∕2) through which it becomes an up quark (u), 
> and vice-versa.  This is what happens when a neutron (udd) "decays" into a 
> proton (uud), and vice-versa (weak interaction).
> 
> -- 
> PointedEars
> 
> Twitter: @PointedEars2
> Please do not cc me. / Bitte keine Kopien per E-Mail.

Thomas Nice post. I can see high energy photons changing the spin of free electrons.How say you?  Trebert

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

#581280

Electrons are either +1/2 or -1/2.
They don't switch.
Their spin represents the first choice
for matter at this level: direction of
spin around an axis.
The second choice is when the spinning
disc of axes chooses to precess left or right:
this is the difference between matter and
anti matter.

There are two jets coming from one
galactic Center: look down as you
ride one away, and you're spinning left;
look down as you ride the other away,
and you're spinning right. Jets make
matter happen: one makes matter stars,
and the other makes antimatter stars.
These stars' matter has opposite 
cyclonic rotation: therefore they will repel
each other and stay in their own
galactic arm. The numbers of each kind
of arm (antimatter and matter)
will be equal whenever possible
SINCE THERE ARE TWO 
OPPOSITELY-SPINNING JETS from each
galactic Centre.

Matter repels antimatter and vice versa.

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

#581290

On 05/28/2016 03:49 PM, reber g=emc^2 wrote:
> On Friday, May 27, 2016 at 3:46:47 PM UTC-7, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:
>> Sam Wormley wrote:
>>
>>> On 5/25/16 2:58 PM, reber g=emc^2 wrote:
>>>> As a particle's spin speeds up
>>>
>>>     The spin of a particle is a fixed property and not up for change.
>>>     No exceptions.
>>
>> Incorrect.  What can be said is that if the spin of a particle changes, then
>> it becomes a particle of a different kind.  (However, leptons like electrons
>> have *either* spin +½ *or* −½; which spin they have determines where they
>> can be located in an atom as only two electrons of opposite spin can inhabit
>> the same electron orbital [Pauli exclusion principle]).
>>
>> For example, the I₃ (third component of the weak iso[baric ]spin) flavor
>> quantum number of a down quark (d) can change from −½ to +½ (thereby its
>> electric charge Q from −⅓ to +⅔, as its weak hypercharge Y_W remains
>> constant at ⅓ and Q = I₃ + Y_W∕2) through which it becomes an up quark (u),
>> and vice-versa.  This is what happens when a neutron (udd) "decays" into a
>> proton (uud), and vice-versa (weak interaction).
>>
>> --
>> PointedEars
>>
>> Twitter: @PointedEars2
>> Please do not cc me. / Bitte keine Kopien per E-Mail.
>
> Thomas Nice post. I can see high energy photons changing the spin of free electrons.How say you?  Trebert
>
Wobbling electrons actually CREATE photons, Reber!

This is part of my "wobble theory that is very well respected. I may 
have to give a lecture at MIT on it.

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

#581345

BJ quacked
Wobbling electrons actually CREATE photons, Reber! 

This is part of my "wobble theory that is very well respected. I may 
have to give a lecture at MIT on it. 
----------

Eddington wing?

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

#581348

On 05/28/2016 07:57 PM, HVAC wrote:
> BJ quacked
> Wobbling electrons actually CREATE photons, Reber!
>
> This is part of my "wobble theory that is very well respected. I may
> have to give a lecture at MIT on it.
> ----------
>
> Eddington wing?
>

You Betcha!

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

#581754

On Saturday, May 28, 2016 at 1:30:07 PM UTC-7, benj wrote:
> On 05/28/2016 03:49 PM, reber g=emc^2 wrote:
> > On Friday, May 27, 2016 at 3:46:47 PM UTC-7, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:
> >> Sam Wormley wrote:
> >>
> >>> On 5/25/16 2:58 PM, reber g=emc^2 wrote:
> >>>> As a particle's spin speeds up
> >>>
> >>>     The spin of a particle is a fixed property and not up for change.
> >>>     No exceptions.
> >>
> >> Incorrect.  What can be said is that if the spin of a particle changes, then
> >> it becomes a particle of a different kind.  (However, leptons like electrons
> >> have *either* spin +½ *or* −½; which spin they have determines where they
> >> can be located in an atom as only two electrons of opposite spin can inhabit
> >> the same electron orbital [Pauli exclusion principle]).
> >>
> >> For example, the I₃ (third component of the weak iso[baric ]spin) flavor
> >> quantum number of a down quark (d) can change from −½ to +½ (thereby its
> >> electric charge Q from −⅓ to +⅔, as its weak hypercharge Y_W remains
> >> constant at ⅓ and Q = I₃ + Y_W∕2) through which it becomes an up quark (u),
> >> and vice-versa.  This is what happens when a neutron (udd) "decays" into a
> >> proton (uud), and vice-versa (weak interaction).
> >>
> >> --
> >> PointedEars
> >>
> >> Twitter: @PointedEars2
> >> Please do not cc me. / Bitte keine Kopien per E-Mail.
> >
> > Thomas Nice post. I can see high energy photons changing the spin of free electrons.How say you?  Trebert
> >
> Wobbling electrons actually CREATE photons, Reber!
> 
> This is part of my "wobble theory that is very well respected. I may 
> have to give a lecture at MIT on it.

 benj you are getting the picture.No perfect circle no perfect spin.spinning out of axis creates wobble,and wobble creates waves in space. Its all Noble thinking. All particles spin,and thus haVE WAVES. waves give univrses meanin g.waves give universes to reaCH OUT.Waves give Treb and I a way to comunicate. TreBert

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

#581778

<herbertglazier0@gmail.com> "reber g=emc^2" Full Swine Glazier wrote:
 benj you are getting the picture. Its all Noble thinking. 
>
hanson wrote:
Glazier, you cretin, you don't need to tell that to
Ben Jacoby. He got the picture long ago, when...
>
benj" <nobody@gmail.com> wrote:
One only has to read Glazier's posts to see when Bert was lobotomized.
>
... details of why and which can be seen as soon as.... 
>
... <herbertglazier0@gmail.com> Glazier, the loud mouth,
the Jewish Jailbird, the Hatemonger, Liar, schizoid mental 
cripple, Pervert Face-Shitter,  criminal Graveyard vandal,
Bigot, Racist, War-monger & Communist :B::ert Glazier 
do introduce yourself with/as....
>
:B:: "I am a proud Jew with a Superiority complex &
:B:: an IQ of 122", & "I do know how everything works,.."
:B:: "My Grandfathers had tails". -- Trebert
:B:: "Being Jewish I know this is so very true" -- Bert.
:B:: "I'm a non-bible(torra) Jew. I'm the only Jew that
:B:: got 2 form letters from two Popes". Bert
:B:: __** "Why am I not loved by all?" --- Bert **__.
 >
:B:: "I'll be sitting on Benj's, Saul Levi's & HVAC's face
:B:: to take a shit & say: "Open your mouth wide".
:B:: "Hanson, I will piss on your grave. And laugh".
:B:: __** "Why am I not loved by all?" --- Bert **__.
>
:B:: "I'm M&M's Clueless Fuck-faced turd".Bert.
:B:: I'm "Siegman Fraud", "Bert, the Bowel Movement".
:B:: "I gave G=EMC^2 (wrong & stolen) to the world"
:B:: "Israel will drop its first H-bomb 'David' ". TreBert
:B:: __"I'm glad when war breaks out"__ Bert
:B:: __** "Why am I not loved by all?" --- Bert **__.
 >
:B:: "Even the FBI has me as a trouble maker and
:B:: the FBI blocks my phone from calling them. "....
:B:: cuz "I was mixing sulfur, carbon & iron together
:B:: to make gun powder" ... & "while I was in custody
:B:: of Osceola Sheriff Bob Hansel, for thieving, his
:B:: deputies beat the shit out of me. So I bought a
:B:: 357 magnum for death threats by Sheriff Bob.
:B:: __** "Why am I not loved by all?" --- Bert **__.
 >
about which ....
Moderator General "HVAC" <Mr.HVAC@gmail.com> aka
"Richard A." aka Harlow Campbell wrote:
>
"Bert, your opinion doesn't count"
"a trained cockroach is smarter than Bert"
"Bert, you are a clueless cocksucker"....
"Bert you are senile, dazed & confused"
"Bert, you are Fucked in the head.
>
"Bert is a racist. (And he's stupid too)"
"TreBert, you are one stupid cocksucker".
"Bert, Seriously. You are the stupidest cocksucking
moron who ever came down the Mass Pike."
"Bert, does your stupidity know no bounds?"
>
"Bert, you really are a pathetic excuse for a human
fucking being". "Bert you are an idiot."
"Bert, are the stupidest cocksucker on the planet."
"Spin THIS, Glazier, you fucking idiot." "Bert get
some spelling lessons, you feeble-minded fuck".
>
"Bert, you should be arrested"
"Bert, I will call the police and tell them that your
van seems to be a center for drug activity in the
Wal-Mart parking lot"... .... .... about which....
 >
Glazier's ex-tutor Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> wrote:
>
"Glazier, do not post in a science newsgroup."
"Glazier, quit posting __ your Gutter Science__."
"Glazier, exit USENET. -- IOW Glazier, beat it!."
>
"Glazier, your science is far worse than the man's on the street."
"Glazier, your postings are old man's garbage."
"Glazier, your brain is entangled with a used garbage can."
>
"reber, take your 'you know it all thinking' to your grave" .
"reber, your horseshit gets old. Say hi to Allah for me.:
"reber, you don't believe in science."
>
Jim Pennino jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:
Glazier, you are a spamming piece of shit...
Your Cocaine usage explains a lot of your posts.
You are drunk again. Give up and kill yourself.
 >
Astrophysicist "Saul Levy" <saullevy1@cox.net> wrote:
GLAZIER YOU ARE A LAMEbrain PIECE OF SHIT!
Saul Levy
 >
Rocket Scientist Virdy "Mahipal" <mahipal7638@gmail.com> wrote:
I know, you reber are an idiot. Glazier, you are babbling
desperately. Is it sympathy or pity you're grasping for?
Stop it, either way.
 >
benj" <nobody@gmail.com> wrote:
One only has to read Glazier's posts to see when Bert was lobotomized.
But Herb found poster "Double-A" who likes to be like Glazier,
but "Alkie-Alkie" is another kook who is as dumb as Bert is!
Now they party and frolic!...still waiting "to be loved by all"...
 >
hanson wrote:
So Glazier, given your Jewish Superiority complex and
your IQ of 122 and you knowing how how everything works,
... how come ended up shitting into a bucket in a 25 year
old Minnie Mouse van that you use as your residence
on Wal-Mart's Parking Lot? ..... .... What went wrong, Glazier?
 >
 "What are they gonna say when Swine Glazier dies? Are
they gonna say he was a kind man? He was a wise man?
He had plans? He has wisdom? .... BULLSHIT, MAN!"...
<https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4TAixFYnDh4> [D]
BULLSHIT,... because Swine Glazier DOES have plans
which Glazier, the Full-Swine, announced and posted at
the ripe age of eighty (80) when Glazier became a criminal
Graveyard Vandal who wrote:
>
(1)
On 25Mar2008 Swine Glazier wrote in:
https://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics/msg/3ffe7b2257cf8a9a
https://groups.google.com/forum/#!msg/sci.physics/uYtpFTRnW4k/morPVyJ7_j8J
Hanson, I will piss on your grave. And have a good laugh
when it seeps down on your face. -- Bert.
 >
Glazier's geriatric decay worsened, along with Glazier's chronic
alcoholism and Glazier, the Olde Kacker, became a Coprophile
IOW Glazier became a filthy Face Shitter at his age of 86, which
Glazier proudly announced & posted...
 >
(2)
On 06Dec2014, when the Christian-Hater, Jew-Swine Glazier
said to "benj" <nobody@gmail.com>: Reality is you always
post under me for you are an ass kisser.
For Christmas I'll shit on your kisser.
<http://pbs.twimg.com/media/A8MGOU-CQAEaZw4.jpg>
Benj, you can thank me in advance. - TreBert. ... after
which...
 >
Glazier, the Criminal Graveyard Vandal & Face Shitter got even
worse over the next year and at Glazier's age of 87, Glazier
widened his piggish Face-shitting habit, as seen when Glazier
threatened...
 >
(3)
On 07Feb 2015 & on 08Feb2015, as Swine Glazier wrote:
Harlow HVAC, Mr.HVAC@gmail.com, Saul Levy <saullevy1@cox.net
& Jacoby Benj, <nobody@gmail.com>:
"I'll be sitting on your face to take a shit & say: "Open wide".
<http://pbs.twimg.com/media/A8MGOU-CQAEaZw4.jpg>
after...
>
(4)
The Criminal Swine Glazier refused to stop his practices & rejected
to be taken down, because Glazier at his age of 87+, Swine Glazier
labeled himself as "Siegman Fraud" which is synonym with "Bowel-
movement, actually saying that __ "Glazier is a piece of shit"__.
who, to boot, also announced that Glazier is a Transvestite who dons
female dresses and a Sarah Palin mask, saying that he has "nice
legs"...
 >
hanson wrote:
Now Glazier, since you are a curse and an embarrassment, day-in
and day-out, to every Jew everywhere, has it dawned on you
sorry, geriatric Transie-Swine, that as soon as you have been
"put away and under" Google will remove ALL YOUR posts from
the USENET and the only thing that will remain and show your
legacy, is because:
 >
Glazier the Swine fortunately posted:
.... "hanson made me famous"....
 >
hanson wrote
So, Glazier you Swine, you should be grateful to me & not wish
me ill like you did above, in your sick hate mongering, since
it is only because of hanson, that Web searches show for:
>
--- Swine Glazier G=EMC^2 Cretin ----            27'833 hits & rising
--- reber g=emc^2 Face-shitter & Vandal ----   27'953 hits & rising
>
which is why  the mental cripple <http://tinyurl.com/Swine-Glazier>
badly needs to be administered to with
<http://tinyurl.com/G-EMC2-Recall-Therapy> ...
>
Now Glazier, you filthy Swine, "you will never be loved by all"
but incredibly, Glazier you have a few groupies who love you,
like:
>
"AA" <double-a3@hush.com> Abner Afterduft", the "Alcoholic Addict"
alias <nobody@home.invalid> "Anon E. Mouse" the Yiddle pig,
plus restroom attendant kike Bodaisky, etc., including 
>
Halbmutt Wabnigger, <hwabnig@.- --- -.dotat> who said:
  "Jews are a residue of failed evolution"
>
& Islamist Mehram Maleki <clutterfreakincarnate@gmail.com>
who said: " 'Jews' lineage and law must be accounted as filth."
Yet Maleki quotes Glazier daily in his Muslim prayers... LOL!.
>
All of those are personal slaves of Faceshitter Glazier, who
demonstrate their worship & their devotion to their master
Glazier, by lying under & literally shit-eating Glazier's turd:
<http://pbs.twimg.com/media/A8MGOU-CQAEaZw4.jpg>
>
This bizarre perversion is well documented as seen here in:
<http://tinyurl.com/magnum-opus-the-rectal-jew>
<https://theendofzion.com/the-fecal-fixation-of-the-chosen-ones/>
<https://www.google.com/?gws_rd=ssl#q=jewish+:
>
>
---------- Glazier's introduction by his SLAVE/S ----------
.     <http://tinyurl.com/Glaziers-turd-eating-Slaves>.
>
"ClutterFreak" <ClutterFreak@FakeAddress.com> the 
gay, black, Iranian Muslim, Mehram Maleki, posted his 
<http://tinyurl.com/Maleki-Mehram-Selfie>, & wrote loud 
& clear, on 19-May-2016, in "Re: Thou shalt not covet", 
>
that ____ "Maleki is talking bullshit"________, which he
compulsively does, Ad Infinitum, as he lays himself UNDER 
the Sphincter of Face shitter Jew Glazier "reber g=emc^2" 
who bragged to have _"PFM"_= "Poop For Maleki"  
<http://pbs.twimg.com/media/A8MGOU-CQAEaZw4.jpg>
which Maleki happily swallows, after which Maleki smiled 
& wrote:
_______   " iss aaal goo, biatch :-)" __________,
with which Maleki showed his proficiency in Ebonics,
>
and so, Maleki proselytizes for Glazier & wrote:
    "Hanson, I will piss on your grave. And
     have a good laugh when it seeps down on
    your face."
          - (said) Bert Glazier, Maleki's intellectual Guru,
>
... to which Maleki added and wrote:
"Hanson is in a class of his own. I give him a look, and
(in girly fashion) I spit on him. Yeah. Enough of that."... cuz...
>
"<clutterfreakincarnate@gmail.com> "ClutterFreak",
aka Mehram Maleki the Iranian USA hater, is one of 
<http://tinyurl.com/Glaziers-turd-eating-Slaves>, was
profoundly impressed when Glazier  announced that:
>
"Glazier is a Transvestite who dons female dresses 
& a Sarah Palin mask, saying that he has "nice legs".

Slave Mehram Maleki, the Iranian Muslim, so loves Jew 
Glazier that Maleki showed his devotion and solidarity by
going TG & had a Sex change operation, whose result
she posted in <http://tinyurl.com/Maleki-the-TG-Girl>
just to be "loved by Glazier"         ....  ROTFLMAO. 
>
The "Rectal Vacuumist (Seattle), Jeff-Relf.Me <@.>::JR:: wrote:
::JR:: I no longer want sex anymore.  I  masturbate. I've found  that
::JR:: all these erections & masturbations can irratate my prostate.
::JR:: My problem mostly happens a few hours before I want to
::JR:: wake up, so I can't take Sudafed.
::JR:: Ejaculation is a mind-altering drug, no better than heroin
::JR:: or meth.    So I've recently vowed to not masturbate...
::JR:: I use my left hand to smoke, masturbate and to type ...
::JR:: Does that make me smart ? --  I'd rather masturbate.
::JR:: She likes to squirt meth up her rear ( it makes her cum).
::JR:: but pussy is the last thing I want.
::::::: (cuz Relf is apparently interested now too, with his "mouth 
::::::: wide open", to let Swine Glazier shit into Relf's "kisser")
::JR:: My dreams, however, have been semi-erotic as of late..."
>
<snip Clutter and Freak show crap of 'Thou shalt not covet".
>
ClutterFreak wrote:
Good, Relf, you didn't buy my lounge talk bullshit. I wish I
could say the same for Hanson though. The poor guy has
developed a Babadook over this (IOW hanson is telling the
truth about the monster Glazier that entered the home of 
Muslim Maleki through the pages of sci.physics and now
poor Mehram can't get rid of it without loosing face)
>>
I don't know. But your description of the zoo with different
animals in it (like Maleki [1], Relf [2], AA Abner Afterduft [3]
& Ferkelson [4], who laid themselves under Kike Glazier's [5]
Sphincter & happily eat Glazier's turds) is kind of realistic.
... with our ridiculous bodily and mental needs, (of the
above mentioned quintet) the dreaded time may come.
>
"benj" <nobodyxx@gmail> wrote:
What a bunch of Lib fantasy. What is it with you 5 guys anyway?
>
hanson wrote:
Benj, "Lib".. that's the least of it. Look at their full commonality.
>
--- All 4 of'em gravitated to and defend Cretin Glazier, and
made Bert to become their Face-shitter & Slave master.
>
--- All 4 of'em adore, worship, mimic & help cretin Glazier
and do their best to behave and do like Glazier does:
>
--- All 4 of'em eat Glazier's turds and brag about it.
>
--- All 5 of'em have a superiority complex, and brag about it
>
--- All 5 of'em are carreer fuck-ups & losers &
     brag about it &  portray it as being a VIRTUE.
>
--- All 5 of'em are unemployed,  and demand
    that working folks GIVE them goodies for free.
>
--- All 5 of'em are on welfare or assisted living, & brag about it.
>
--- All 5 of'em became homeless, do brag about
     it &  advertise it as a that being a VIRTUE.
>
--- All 5 of'em live/d in their cars wherein they shit
    into a bucket and brag it to be an accomplishment
>
--- All 5 of'em are far Left Progressives Libs & Communists.
>
--- All 5 of'em are vicious America Haters, and brag about it.
>
--- All 5 of'em exhibit criminal behavior and brag about it.
>
--- All 5 of'em are on an FBI's watch list & brag about it
>
--- All 5 of'em are geriatric, sick, on meds or drugs & brag about.

--- All 5 of'em are incontinent, Diaper-wearers & brag about it

--- All 5 of'em are gay, senile or childish (spit) & brag about it.
    70 year old [4] still hates & blames his father for his sorry state.
>
--- All 5 of'em  post their Gutter physics which is far worse
    then Glazier's G=EMC^2 crap, and they brag about it.
>
...and lastly when gay Maleki [1] was asked to talk about stuff
on which he does not bullshit, like on ancient Persian history
on which he is quite good at, Maleki reacted like a pissed off
old bitch and whined: 
______ "I ain't gonna talk to you anymore, hanson"... _____
>
and to boot Maleki in his obenflentl woprship of his master
Hal;zie
>
So, Ben, that then is (in part) "what it is with these 5 guys."
ROTFLMAO... ahahahaha.... ahahahahanson
>
"benj" <nobodyxx@gmail> who wrote:
> Reality too much for your 5 brains or something? I know
> you 5 (and especially Rolf) are all just as described

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

#581300

On 5/28/16 2:49 PM, reber g=emc^2 wrote:
> I can see high energy photons changing the spin of free electrons

   Free electrons and bound electron have an spin of 1/2, where spin
   is the intrinsic angular momentum of particles. Spin is given in
   units of h/2π = ℏ (the quantum unit of angular momentum), where
   ℏ = 6.58E-25 GeV s = 1.05E-34 J s .

-- 

sci.physics is an unmoderated newsgroup dedicated
to the discussion of physics, news from the physics
community, and physics-related social issues.

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

#581316 — antijohn cersus johnboy

ah, h-bar, htanks.  now,
"john gave a tiny theory, that
antimnatter spins oppositely from matter, but
is there anyway to address that?

>    units of h/2π = ℏ (the quantum unit of angular momentum), where
>    ℏ = 6.58E-25 GeV s = 1.05E-34 J s .
> 
> -- 
> 
> sci.physics is an unmoderated newsgroup dedicated
> to the discussion of physics, news from the physics
> community, and physics-related social issues.

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

#581404 — Re: antijohn cersus johnboy

noTthaTguY wrote:

> "john gave a tiny theory, that antimnatter spins oppositely from matter,

Where did they do that?

> but is there anyway to address that?

(_any way_)

Only insofar as if only one pair of a particle and its antiparticle would
form, they would have to have opposite projected spins as total spin is a
conserved quantity.  That is, if, for example, an electron–positron pair
would form, and the electron had projected spin +½, then the positron would
have to have projected spin −½ for the total projected spin of the system to
be 0.  However, the absolute spin of either particle would still be ½, and
the projection can be the other way around and still conserve total spin: an
electron with spin −½ and a positron with spin +½.

So it is already not true that all positrons have the opposite spin of all
electrons; corollary: it is not true that the spin of all antimatter is
opposite to the spin of all matter.

Learn to quote.

-- 
PointedEars

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

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

#581444 — Re: antijohn cersus johnboy

One of the Thomases in the preceding post
or thread or perhaps awhile ago (a while) said:

"Learn to quote."

I haven't figured that out for this iPhone6
piece of crap.

There are THREE axes of spin to
create matter/antimatter.
The FIRST contains the electron, making
it up or down.
The SECOND defines the disc, wherein the
electron is placed in the up or down position.
The THIRD, which precesses the disc 
positive or negative to the second, 
decides matter or antimatter.

You are missing a spin. That is why
you confuse intrinsic electron spin
(calling it + /- interchangeably with up/down),
with antimatter/matter.
The same electron can be in matter or antimatter-
it will be 'up' in the one and 'down' in the other
because it keeps its spin.

Do you see that, Thomas Pointed Ears?

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

#581472 — Re: antijohn cersus johnboy

Also, that negative up electron in
matter will be a positive down electron
in matter.
CHARGE IS SIMPLY A FUNCTION OF SPIN

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

#581723 — Re: antijohn cersus johnboy

john wrote:

> Also, that negative up electron in
> matter will be a positive down electron
> in matter.

[For brevity, I am referring to electric charge as just “charge” in the
following.  In particle physics, there are other quantities of charge that
are not relevant here.]

Since the electron has negative charge, a "positive electron" would be an
anti-electron or positron, a constituent of anti-matter.  Positrons do not
occur in matter (for more than about 1.42 × 10⁻⁷ s) as they annihilate with
any real, negatively charged electron that is a constituent of matter.
(This is how Positron Emission Tomography works.)

<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Annihilation> pp.

And as I have showed before, neither is positive spin (“up”) reserved for
electrons nor is negative spin (“down”) reserved for positrons.  Nor is the
opposite case true.

> CHARGE IS SIMPLY A FUNCTION OF SPIN

(Were you, failing to read or understand my posting properly, not just
accusing *me* of confusing charge with spin, when I actually had not?)

Charge and spin are *independent* quantities.  For example, the charge of
the photon is 0 e and its spin is ±ℏ; the charge of the W boson is ±1 e and
its spin is ±ℏ; the charge of the positron is +1 e and its spin is ±ℏ∕2.

The charge quantum number Q of an elementary particle is actually a function
of the third component of the particle’s weak isospin (which has nothing to
do with spin, it just observes the same mathematics) T₃, and its weak
hypercharge Y_W:

  Q = T₃ + Y_W∕2

<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Weak_hypercharge>

-- 
PointedEars

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

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

#581918 — waves in anti-\matter

ah, p.e.t is cOOl.  also,
see Alfven waves; in his old cosmology,
Universe is half antimatter, but there is no antilight
whereby it is to be seen, since light is waves electromagnetique
in anti-\matter

> Since the electron has negative charge, a "positive electron" would be an
> anti-electron or positron, a constituent of anti-matter.  Positrons do not
> occur in matter (for more than about 1.42 × 10⁻⁷ s) as they annihilate with
> any real, negatively charged electron that is a constituent of matter.
> (This is how Positron Emission Tomography works.)
> 
> <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Annihilation> pp.
> 
> And as I have showed before, neither is positive spin (“up”) reserved for
> electrons nor is negative spin (“down”) reserved for positrons.  Nor is the
> opposite case true.
> 
> > CHARGE IS SIMPLY A FUNCTION OF SPIN
> 
> (Were you, failing to read or understand my posting properly, not just
> accusing *me* of confusing charge with spin, when I actually had not?)
> 
> Charge and spin are *independent* quantities.  For example, the charge of
> the photon is 0 e and its spin is ±ℏ; the charge of the W boson is ±1 e and
> its spin is ±ℏ; the charge of the positron is +1 e and its spin is ±ℏ∕2.
> 
> The charge quantum number Q of an elementary particle is actually a function
> of the third component of the particle’s weak isospin (which has nothing to
> do with spin, it just observes the same mathematics) T₃, and its weak
> hypercharge Y_W:
> 
>   Q = T₃ + Y_W∕2
> 
> <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Weak_hypercharge>
> 
> -- 
> PointedEars
> 
> Twitter: @PointedEars2
> Please do not cc me. / Bitte keine Kopien per E-Mail.

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

#581841 — Re: antijohn cersus johnboy

On 5/29/2016 11:10 AM, john wrote:
> Also, that negative up electron in
> matter will be a positive down electron
> in matter.
> CHARGE IS SIMPLY A FUNCTION OF SPIN
>

John, there are spin-up and spin-down electrons in most atoms, and both 
of those varieties have negative electric charge.

What are you smoking?

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

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

#581859 — Re: antijohn cersus johnboy

On 5/29/2016 11:10 AM, john wrote: 
> Also, that negative up electron in 
> matter will be a positive down electron 
> in matter. 
> CHARGE IS SIMPLY A FUNCTION OF SPIN 
> 
Odd replied:
"John, there are spin-up and spin-down electrons in most atoms, and both 
of those varieties have negative electric charge. "

Exactly!
When you install the positively-charged
antimatter 'up' electron in the 'down'
position in matter, thereby making it go
BACKWARDS, it becomes NEGATIVE!!
:)

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

#581876 — Re: antijohn cersus johnboy

On 5/31/2016 9:58 AM, john wrote:
>
> On 5/29/2016 11:10 AM, john wrote:
>> Also, that negative up electron in
>> matter will be a positive down electron
>> in matter.
>> CHARGE IS SIMPLY A FUNCTION OF SPIN
>>
> Odd replied:
> "John, there are spin-up and spin-down electrons in most atoms, and both
> of those varieties have negative electric charge. "
>
> Exactly!
> When you install the positively-charged
> antimatter 'up' electron in the 'down'
> position in matter, thereby making it go
> BACKWARDS, it becomes NEGATIVE!!
> :)
>

???
John, you don't have to insert positrons in atoms to get this.
You can take a collection of electrons (such as from a metal), ALL with 
negative charge, and they will to into a positive ion such that some 
will be spin up and some will be spin down, and none of them will change 
the sign of their charge along the way.

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

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

#581992 — Re: antijohn cersus johnboy

Odd said
"John, you don't have to insert positrons in atoms to get this. 
You can take a collection of electrons (such as from a metal), ALL with 
negative charge, and they will to into a positive ion such that some 
will be spin up and some will be spin down, and none of them will change 
the sign of their charge along the way. "

'A collection of electrons' will consist of
spin up negative electrons and spin down
negative electrons. None of them change
their spin along the way, either.

You DO recognize the difference between 
speculating on how things are structured
and discussing actually MAKING atoms?

I'm just trying to understand a structure,
that's all. Everything has one. Electrons, 
especially.

Electrons and positrons are mirrors
of each other.
In the Galaxy Model, a disc rotating at
1 and precessing at 2, every position
on the disc mirrors its opposite.
There are 2 precessions possible.
If antimatter is, for example, a counter
clockwise precession compared to
a clockwise precession of matter,
all of its 'up' positrons will have exactly 
the same pathway and spin as
what is required for a 'down' electron-
which runs OPPOSITE to the 'up'
electron.

You need to play with this 1 spin 2 precession 
model to see how electrons appear to
go around TWICE per cycle.

Train wreck

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

#582037 — Re: antijohn cersus johnboy

john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> writes:

>Electrons and positrons are mirrors
>of each other.

OK, lots of things are mirrors of each other in lots of ways.

>In the Galaxy Model, a disc rotating at
>1 and precessing at 2, every position
>on the disc mirrors its opposite.
>There are 2 precessions possible.
>If antimatter is, for example, a counter
>clockwise precession compared to
blah blah blah

What is this with your precessing spinny thing obsession?  There are lots
of ways for things to be opposites/mirror images, and very few of them
involve spinny things.  In particular, charge is a conserved quantity, the
amount of charge in a closed system remains the same. Having equal and
opposite charge (the total being 0) is one way that allows electrons and
positrons to annihilate completely, leaving nothing but energy (photons).

You can't change the spin of a spinny thing and get a completely different
unrelated property such as charge, especially if charge is conserved.

>Train wreck

You said it, not me!

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

Page 6 of 7 — ← Prev page 1 2 3 4 5 [6] 7  Next page →

Back to top | Article view | sci.physics

csiph-web