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

Groups > sci.physics > #548424 > unrolled thread

Neutral result charges up antimatter research

Started bySam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com>
First post2016-01-26 16:53 -0600
Last post2016-02-04 11:45 -0500
Articles 20 on this page of 66 — 11 participants

Back to article view | Back to sci.physics

Contents

  Neutral result charges up antimatter research Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> - 2016-01-26 16:53 -0600
    Re: Neutral result charges up antimatter research jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2016-01-27 00:02 +0000
      Re: Neutral result charges up antimatter research "nuny@bid.nes" <Alien8752@gmail.com> - 2016-01-26 21:48 -0800
        Re: Neutral result charges up antimatter research jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2016-01-27 06:19 +0000
          Re: Neutral result charges up antimatter research benj <none@gmail.com> - 2016-01-27 02:23 -0500
        Re: Neutral result charges up antimatter research benj <none@gmail.com> - 2016-01-27 02:18 -0500
      Re: Neutral result charges up antimatter research Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> - 2016-01-28 16:36 -0600
        Re: Neutral result charges up antimatter research jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2016-01-28 23:12 +0000
          Re: Neutral result charges up antimatter research Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> - 2016-01-28 17:23 -0600
            Re: Neutral result charges up antimatter research jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2016-01-29 01:31 +0000
              Re: Neutral result charges up antimatter research Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> - 2016-01-28 19:54 -0600
                Re: Neutral result charges up antimatter research jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2016-01-29 02:16 +0000
                  Re: Neutral result charges up antimatter research Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> - 2016-02-03 07:30 -0600
                    Re: Neutral result charges up antimatter research shan <shan@enterapps.org> - 2016-02-03 17:32 +0000
                    Re: Neutral result charges up antimatter research shan <shan@enterapps.org> - 2016-02-03 17:33 +0000
                    Re: Neutral result charges up antimatter research jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2016-02-03 19:19 +0000
                      Re: Neutral result charges up antimatter research Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> - 2016-02-03 13:38 -0600
                        Re: Neutral result charges up antimatter research jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2016-02-03 19:54 +0000
                          Re: Neutral result charges up antimatter research Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> - 2016-02-03 14:03 -0600
                            Re: Neutral result charges up antimatter research jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2016-02-03 20:18 +0000
                              Re: Neutral result charges up antimatter research Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> - 2016-02-03 14:35 -0600
                                Re: Neutral result charges up antimatter research Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> - 2016-02-03 15:49 -0600
                                Re: Neutral result charges up antimatter research "reber g=emc^2" <herbertglazier0@gmail.com> - 2016-02-03 15:22 -0800
                                  Re: Neutral result charges up antimatter research john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2016-02-03 15:44 -0800
                                  Re: Neutral result charges up antimatter research jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2016-02-03 23:35 +0000
                                    Re: Neutral result charges up antimatter research john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2016-02-03 15:53 -0800
              Re: Neutral result charges up antimatter research jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2016-01-29 02:16 +0000
    Re: Neutral result charges up antimatter research Double-A <double-a3@hush.com> - 2016-01-28 14:35 -0800
    Re: Neutral result charges up antimatter research Yousuf Khan <bbbl67@spammenot.yahoo.com> - 2016-01-29 00:47 -0500
      Re: Neutral result charges up antimatter research john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2016-02-03 06:17 -0800
        Re: Neutral result charges up antimatter research Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-02-03 11:06 -0600
        Re: Neutral result charges up antimatter research "nuny@bid.nes" <Alien8752@gmail.com> - 2016-02-03 19:16 -0800
          Re: Neutral result charges up antimatter research john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2016-02-04 02:36 -0800
            Re: Neutral result charges up antimatter research Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-02-04 08:58 -0600
              Re: Neutral result charges up antimatter research john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2016-02-04 07:55 -0800
                Re: Neutral result charges up antimatter research john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2016-02-04 08:12 -0800
                  Re: Neutral result charges up antimatter research HVAC <mr.hvac@gmail.com> - 2016-02-04 08:31 -0800
                  Re: Neutral result charges up antimatter research john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2016-02-04 08:34 -0800
                    Re: Neutral result charges up antimatter research john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2016-02-04 08:39 -0800
                    Re: Neutral result charges up antimatter research HVAC <mr.hvac@gmail.com> - 2016-02-04 09:17 -0800
                    Re: Neutral result charges up antimatter research Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-02-04 11:19 -0600
                      Re: Neutral result charges up antimatter research john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2016-02-04 09:26 -0800
                        Re: Neutral result charges up antimatter research HVAC <mr.hvac@gmail.com> - 2016-02-04 09:36 -0800
                          Re: Neutral result charges up antimatter research john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2016-02-04 09:49 -0800
                            Re: Neutral result charges up antimatter research Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> - 2016-02-04 11:56 -0600
                              Re: Neutral result charges up antimatter research john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2016-02-04 10:02 -0800
                                Re: Neutral result charges up antimatter research Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> - 2016-02-04 12:03 -0600
                                  Re: Neutral result charges up antimatter research john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2016-02-04 10:22 -0800
                                    Re: Neutral result charges up antimatter research Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> - 2016-02-04 12:42 -0600
                                      Re: Neutral result charges up antimatter research john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2016-02-04 11:06 -0800
                  Re: Neutral result charges up antimatter research Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-02-04 10:46 -0600
                    Re: Neutral result charges up antimatter research shan <shan@enterapps.org> - 2016-02-04 16:53 +0000
            Re: Neutral result charges up antimatter research Yousuf Khan <bbbl67@spammenot.yahoo.com> - 2016-02-04 18:27 -0500
            Re: Neutral result charges up antimatter research "nuny@bid.nes" <Alien8752@gmail.com> - 2016-02-04 18:39 -0800
          Re: Neutral result charges up antimatter research Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-02-04 08:10 -0600
            Re: Neutral result charges up antimatter research john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2016-02-04 06:34 -0800
            Re: Neutral result charges up antimatter research Yousuf Khan <bbbl67@spammenot.yahoo.com> - 2016-02-04 19:02 -0500
              Re: Neutral result charges up antimatter research john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2016-02-04 17:23 -0800
                Re: Neutral result charges up antimatter research Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-02-05 07:04 -0600
                  Re: Neutral result charges up antimatter research john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2016-02-05 05:41 -0800
                    Re: Neutral result charges up antimatter research Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-02-05 07:57 -0600
                      Re: Neutral result charges up antimatter research john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2016-02-05 06:21 -0800
                        Re: Neutral result charges up antimatter research Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-02-05 08:47 -0600
                          Re: Neutral result charges up antimatter research john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2016-02-05 06:56 -0800
                            Re: Neutral result charges up antimatter research Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-02-05 09:13 -0600
        Re: Neutral result charges up antimatter research Yousuf Khan <bbbl67@spammenot.yahoo.com> - 2016-02-04 11:45 -0500

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

#550316

FromSam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com>
Date2016-02-03 14:35 -0600
Message-ID<H_SdnaWQaP8B-S_LnZ2dnUU7-b_OydjZ@giganews.com>
In reply to#550312
On 2/3/16 2:18 PM, jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:
> Fuck off and die, shit head.



   Now, now, jimp, your *obsessive-compulsive* behavior is outta control,
   your *language inappropriate* and your absolute contempt and total
   disgust are addressed in these Anger Management classes. You, jimp,
   need these services:
 > http://yellowpages.com/rancho-cucamonga-ca/anger-management-classes


Cosmic Rays Are Intensifying
 > http://www.curezone.org/forums/fm.asp?i=2300240
 > 
http://www.spaceweather.com/images2016/27jan16/cosmicrays_mar15_jan16_strip.png


 > INTENSIFYING COSMIC RAYS: For the past 11 months, neutron monitors
 > around the Arctic Circle have sensed an increasing intensity of
 > cosmic rays. Polar latitudes are a good place to make such
 > measurements, because Earth's magnetic field funnels and concentrates
 > cosmic radiation there. However, it turns out Earth's poles aren't
 > the only place cosmic rays are intensifying.



-- 

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]

#550329

FromSam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com>
Date2016-02-03 15:49 -0600
Message-ID<MOidnco76NJR6C_LnZ2dnUU7-dednZ2d@giganews.com>
In reply to#550316
On 2/3/16 3:34 PM, jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:
> Fuck off and die, shit head.



   Now, now, jimp, your *obsessive-compulsive* behavior is outta control,
   your *language inappropriate* and your absolute contempt and total
   disgust are addressed in these Anger Management classes. You, jimp,
   need these services:
 > http://yellowpages.com/rancho-cucamonga-ca/anger-management-classes


Cosmic Rays Are Intensifying
 > http://www.curezone.org/forums/fm.asp?i=2300240
 > 
http://www.spaceweather.com/images2016/27jan16/cosmicrays_mar15_jan16_strip.png


 > INTENSIFYING COSMIC RAYS: For the past 11 months, neutron monitors
 > around the Arctic Circle have sensed an increasing intensity of
 > cosmic rays. Polar latitudes are a good place to make such
 > measurements, because Earth's magnetic field funnels and concentrates
 > cosmic radiation there. However, it turns out Earth's poles aren't
 > the only place cosmic rays are intensifying.


-- 

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]

#550363

From"reber g=emc^2" <herbertglazier0@gmail.com>
Date2016-02-03 15:22 -0800
Message-ID<31437631-d2dc-4276-a0ae-a85208d76365@googlegroups.com>
In reply to#550316
On Wednesday, February 3, 2016 at 1:46:08 PM UTC-8, ji...@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:
> Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> wrote:
> > On 2/3/16 2:18 PM, jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:
> >> Fuck off and die, shit head.
> > 
> > 
> > 
> >   Now, now, jimp, your *obsessive-compulsive* behavior is outta control,
> 
> Fuck off and die, shit head.
> 
> 
> -- 
> Jim Pennino

Jim wishing others to die only proves you are a hate monger and the police should be told . You could be a great danger to yourself and others. You need help badly.  TreBert

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

#550366

Fromjohn <johnsefton288@gmail.com>
Date2016-02-03 15:44 -0800
Message-ID<f6d753eb-b3d4-4808-a05f-c5c4d2d513c4@googlegroups.com>
In reply to#550363
I THINK they're just goofing around, Bert.
It's sure getting old, though.

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

#550367

Fromjimp@specsol.spam.sux.com
Date2016-02-03 23:35 +0000
Message-ID<7ffaoc-do6.ln1@mail.specsol.com>
In reply to#550363
reber g=emc^2 <herbertglazier0@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Wednesday, February 3, 2016 at 1:46:08 PM UTC-8, ji...@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:
>> Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> wrote:
>> > On 2/3/16 2:18 PM, jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:
>> >> Fuck off and die, shit head.
>> > 
>> > 
>> > 
>> >   Now, now, jimp, your *obsessive-compulsive* behavior is outta control,
>> 
>> Fuck off and die, shit head.
>> 
>> 
>> -- 
>> Jim Pennino
> 
> Jim wishing others to die only proves you are a hate monger and the police should be told . You could be a great danger to yourself and others. You need help badly.  TreBert

At least I pay my taxes.


-- 
Jim Pennino

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

#550370

Fromjohn <johnsefton288@gmail.com>
Date2016-02-03 15:53 -0800
Message-ID<ecd34560-4851-4b3b-ac7d-b03b1f790424@googlegroups.com>
In reply to#550367
You also discuss very interestingly.

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

#548961

Fromjimp@specsol.spam.sux.com
Date2016-01-29 02:16 +0000
Message-ID<5kuqnc-voo.ln1@mail.specsol.com>
In reply to#548942
jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:
> Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On 1/28/16 5:12 PM, jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:
>>> Where is your copyright required commentary on the material you copied,
>>> shit head?
>>>
>> 
>> 
>>   Now, now, jimp, your *obsessive-compulsive* behavior is outta control,

Your copyright violating, cut and paste spamming is out of control.


-- 
Jim Pennino

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

#548885

FromDouble-A <double-a3@hush.com>
Date2016-01-28 14:35 -0800
Message-ID<89a0ac03-d941-4d59-a0ac-4d6a3cd3ebf9@googlegroups.com>
In reply to#548424
On Tuesday, January 26, 2016 at 2:53:43 PM UTC-8, Sam Wormley wrote:
> Neutral result charges up antimatter research
> > http://phys.org/news/2016-01-neutral-result-antimatter.html
> 
> 
> > Scientists of the international ALPHA Collaboration have once again
> > pushed the boundaries of antimatter research with their latest
> > breakthrough studying the properties of antihydrogen. Published today
> > in the prestigious journal Nature, the collaboration's result
> > improved the measurement of the charge of antihydrogen, essentially
> > zero, by a factor of 20. Their work is the latest contribution in the
> > quest to chase down the answer to the basic antimatter question, "If
> > matter and antimatter were created in equal amounts during the Big
> > Bang, where did all the antimatter go?"


More important is what the gravitational relationship is between matter and antimatter.

Double-A

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

#548998

FromYousuf Khan <bbbl67@spammenot.yahoo.com>
Date2016-01-29 00:47 -0500
Message-ID<bJidnV9zo597YTfLnZ2dnUU7-cWdnZ2d@giganews.com>
In reply to#548424
On 26/01/2016 5:53 PM, Sam Wormley wrote:
> Neutral result charges up antimatter research
>> http://phys.org/news/2016-01-neutral-result-antimatter.html
>
>
>> Scientists of the international ALPHA Collaboration have once again
>> pushed the boundaries of antimatter research with their latest
>> breakthrough studying the properties of antihydrogen. Published today
>> in the prestigious journal Nature, the collaboration's result
>> improved the measurement of the charge of antihydrogen, essentially
>> zero, by a factor of 20. Their work is the latest contribution in the
>> quest to chase down the answer to the basic antimatter question, "If
>> matter and antimatter were created in equal amounts during the Big
>> Bang, where did all the antimatter go?"

So after all of that experimentation, they found that the overall charge 
of an anti-hydrogen atom is zero? Awesome result, bravo!

Really the reason for the lack of antimatter in *this* universe is 
because it's all in our twin antimatter universe, which has it's own 
mysterious "lack of matter" problem.

	Yousuf Khan

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

#550207

Fromjohn <johnsefton288@gmail.com>
Date2016-02-03 06:17 -0800
Message-ID<d8aef2bf-89f6-4318-9eb6-67e4465292c6@googlegroups.com>
In reply to#548998
How do you know that the star-arms
adjacent to ours AREN'T antimatter?
The emr is the same.
Odd says, "Oh, there would be annihilations!!",
but not if they repel each other.
Now, half the Universe is antimatter, again.
Whew!! You're welcome.

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

#550236

FromOdd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com>
Date2016-02-03 11:06 -0600
Message-ID<n8tc2r$qet$1@gioia.aioe.org>
In reply to#550207
On 2/3/2016 8:17 AM, john wrote:
> How do you know that the star-arms
> adjacent to ours AREN'T antimatter?
> The emr is the same.
> Odd says, "Oh, there would be annihilations!!",
> but not if they repel each other.

John, is there space between the arms, or is there a line you can trace 
that goes from one arm to the next, all the while passing through some 
star fields? Here is a map of our galaxy.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2015/06/16/milky-way-map_n_7587610.html

> Now, half the Universe is antimatter, again.
> Whew!! You're welcome.
>


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

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

#550393

From"nuny@bid.nes" <Alien8752@gmail.com>
Date2016-02-03 19:16 -0800
Message-ID<3cff3488-d49f-4d53-a032-e47ac784c213@googlegroups.com>
In reply to#550207
On Wednesday, February 3, 2016 at 6:17:29 AM UTC-8, john wrote:
> How do you know that the star-arms
> adjacent to ours AREN'T antimatter?
> The emr is the same.
> Odd says, "Oh, there would be annihilations!!",
> but not if they repel each other.

  Logic fail.

  If matter and antimatter repel each other, why would both accumulate in the same galaxy?


  Mark L. Fergerson

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

#550432

Fromjohn <johnsefton288@gmail.com>
Date2016-02-04 02:36 -0800
Message-ID<09ac5766-d6bd-4989-bfa7-8cfb7d886fc1@googlegroups.com>
In reply to#550393
If electrons have either up spin
or down spin, why would one of
each be in the same orbital?
If electrons repel each other,
why would they be in the same atom?

Logic-less QMer speaks

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

#550464

FromOdd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com>
Date2016-02-04 08:58 -0600
Message-ID<n8vov6$gac$1@gioia.aioe.org>
In reply to#550432
On 2/4/2016 4:36 AM, john wrote:
> If electrons have either up spin
> or down spin, why would one of
> each be in the same orbital?

That is explained by the quantum mechanical solution of the 
electrostatic field around the nucleus.

> If electrons repel each other,
> why would they be in the same atom?

Let's say we're talking helium. There are two electrons, two protons, 
and two neutrons.

Let's look at the atom from the perspective of one of the electrons. 
There's one other electron, which is repelling it. There are two protons 
that are attracting it. There are two neutrons that neither attract nor 
repel this electron. So the attraction of two protons would outweigh the 
repulsion of one other electron. That's why the electron stays in, 
though it wants to be as far as possible from the other electron. Does 
this seem any less illogical to you now, John?

>
> Logic-less QMer speaks
>


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

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

#550468

Fromjohn <johnsefton288@gmail.com>
Date2016-02-04 07:55 -0800
Message-ID<67a121fe-5fe6-445d-8064-cf23faabe1aa@googlegroups.com>
In reply to#550464
So, why would galaxies not have parts that
repel each other, you simpleton?

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

#550473

Fromjohn <johnsefton288@gmail.com>
Date2016-02-04 08:12 -0800
Message-ID<122a7290-121c-4984-89c9-f0e932563ae5@googlegroups.com>
In reply to#550468
If we are going to divide the Universe
into matter and antimatter,
each galaxy must be half and half,
as well as each atom.
When atoms strive for neutrality, they are
trying to balance their opposite spins- the
up and down spins.
Likewise, the galaxy tries to balance
the opposite spins of matter and
antimatter

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

#550477

FromHVAC <mr.hvac@gmail.com>
Date2016-02-04 08:31 -0800
Message-ID<660a24d3-b500-492e-936c-218d59c6ef57@googlegroups.com>
In reply to#550473
11:12 AMjohn
If we are going to divide the Universe 
into matter and antimatter, 
each galaxy must be half and half, 
as well as each atom. 
When atoms strive for neutrality, they are 
trying to balance their opposite spins- the 
up and down spins. 
Likewise, the galaxy tries to balance 
the opposite spins of matter and 
antimatter 
----------

John are you on acid now?

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

#550478

Fromjohn <johnsefton288@gmail.com>
Date2016-02-04 08:34 -0800
Message-ID<94d1375d-d343-4f30-9c3e-aaeea48eea52@googlegroups.com>
In reply to#550473
Obviously, the jets from AGNs on opposite
sides of the spinning galaxy must be of
opposite spin. We know such jets are
involved in star formation: if the jet from
one side stimulates matter stars, the jet
from the other will cause antimatter stars
to form.
(Note PREDICTION about jets being opposite, Odd)

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

#550479

Fromjohn <johnsefton288@gmail.com>
Date2016-02-04 08:39 -0800
Message-ID<6358cf4d-fe7a-4fc4-a474-93c77f0ec934@googlegroups.com>
In reply to#550478
HVAC, not on acid-
just hula-hooping and filming it-
gonna make a GIF (they're all the rage)

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

#550486

FromHVAC <mr.hvac@gmail.com>
Date2016-02-04 09:17 -0800
Message-ID<eb756bc0-17c4-4a84-936f-e2b52d992d6e@googlegroups.com>
In reply to#550478
john said
Obviously, the jets from AGNs on opposite 
sides of the spinning galaxy must be of 
opposite spin.
-------------

John, serious question... How many lsd25 tablets did you take before you wrote that?



 We know such jets are 
involved in star formation: if the jet from 
one side stimulates matter stars, the jet 
from the other will cause antimatter stars 
to form. 
(Note PREDICTION about jets being opposite, Odd) 
--------------

Because I mean, this goes way beyond the level of kook. Even BJ isn't kooky enough to say that.

BTW wtf is an antimatter star?

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

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

Back to top | Article view | sci.physics

csiph-web