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

Groups > sci.physics > #579588 > unrolled thread

Is antimatter anti-gravity?

Back to article view | Back to sci.physics

Contents

  Is antimatter anti-gravity? Double-A <double-a3@hush.com> - 2016-05-22 14:05 -0700
    Re: Is antimatter anti-gravity? "Ross A. Finlayson" <ross.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2016-05-22 14:55 -0700
      Re: Is antimatter anti-gravity? Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> - 2016-05-22 18:01 -0500
        Re: Is antimatter anti-gravity? "Ross A. Finlayson" <ross.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2016-05-22 18:03 -0700
          Re: Is antimatter anti-gravity? john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2016-05-22 19:06 -0700
            Re: Is antimatter anti-gravity? HVAC <mr.hvac@gmail.com> - 2016-05-22 19:17 -0700
            Re: Is antimatter anti-gravity? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-05-23 11:34 -0500
              Re: Is antimatter anti-gravity? john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2016-05-23 09:38 -0700
                Re: Is antimatter anti-gravity? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-05-23 12:29 -0500
                  Re: Is antimatter anti-gravity? Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2016-05-28 00:10 +0200
                    Re: Is antimatter anti-gravity? john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2016-05-27 15:15 -0700
                      Re: Is antimatter anti-gravity? "nuny@bid.nes" <Alien8752@gmail.com> - 2016-05-28 17:27 -0700
                        Re: Is antimatter anti-gravity? ClutterFreak <ClutterFreak@FakeAddress.com> - 2016-05-29 12:30 -0500
                          Re: Is antimatter anti-gravity? "nuny@bid.nes" <Alien8752@gmail.com> - 2016-05-29 11:56 -0700
                            Re: Is antimatter anti-gravity? ClutterFreak <ClutterFreak@FakeAddress.com> - 2016-05-29 17:23 -0500
                              Re: Is antimatter anti-gravity? "hanson" <hanson@quick.net> - 2016-05-30 00:05 -0700
                              Re: Is antimatter anti-gravity? HVAC <mr.hvac@gmail.com> - 2016-05-30 01:10 -0700
                                Re: Is antimatter anti-gravity? john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2016-05-30 06:32 -0700
                                  Re: Is antimatter anti-gravity? HVAC <mr.hvac@gmail.com> - 2016-05-30 07:05 -0700
                                    Re: Is antimatter anti-gravity? john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2016-05-30 07:15 -0700
                                      Re: Is antimatter anti-gravity? HVAC <mr.hvac@gmail.com> - 2016-05-30 07:30 -0700
                                        Re: Is antimatter anti-gravity? benj <nobodyxx@gmail> - 2016-05-30 14:29 -0400
                                Re: Is antimatter anti-gravity? "hanson" <hanson@quick.net> - 2016-05-30 08:35 -0700
                                  Re: Is antimatter anti-gravity? HVAC <mr.hvac@gmail.com> - 2016-05-30 08:44 -0700
                                    Re: Is antimatter anti-gravity? benj <nobodyxx@gmail> - 2016-05-30 14:32 -0400
                                      Re: Is antimatter anti-gravity? "hanson" <hanson@quick.net> - 2016-05-30 12:45 -0700
                                      Re: Is antimatter anti-gravity? HVAC <mr.hvac@gmail.com> - 2016-05-30 15:30 -0700
                                        Re: Is antimatter anti-gravity? john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2016-05-30 17:28 -0700
                                        Re: Is antimatter anti-gravity? benj <nobodyxx@gmail> - 2016-05-30 21:08 -0400
                                Re: Is antimatter anti-gravity? ClutterFreak <ClutterFreak@FakeAddress.com> - 2016-05-30 13:41 -0500
                                  Re: Is antimatter anti-gravity? "hanson" <hanson@quick.net> - 2016-05-30 12:17 -0700
                                    Re: Is antimatter anti-gravity? ClutterFreak <ClutterFreak@FakeAddress.com> - 2016-05-30 20:40 -0500
                                      Re: Is antimatter anti-gravity? "hanson" <hanson@quick.net> - 2016-05-30 19:19 -0700
                                        Re: Is antimatter anti-gravity? ClutterFreak <ClutterFreak@FakeAddress.com> - 2016-05-31 12:25 -0500
                                          Re: Is antimatter anti-gravity? "hanson" <hanson@quick.net> - 2016-05-31 13:40 -0700
                          Re: Is antimatter anti-gravity? "hanson" <hanson@quick.net> - 2016-05-29 13:50 -0700
                      Re: Is antimatter anti-gravity? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-05-29 14:04 -0500
                Re: Is antimatter anti-gravity? moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2016-05-23 17:36 +0000
                  Re: Is antimatter anti-gravity? Double-A <double-a3@hush.com> - 2016-05-23 14:22 -0700
                    Re: Is antimatter anti-gravity? Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> - 2016-05-23 16:30 -0500
                      Re: Is antimatter anti-gravity? "reber g=emc^2" <herbertglazier0@gmail.com> - 2016-05-23 15:47 -0700
                      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
        Re: Is antimatter anti-gravity? "Ross A. Finlayson" <ross.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2016-05-22 19:15 -0700
    Re: Is antimatter anti-gravity? Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> - 2016-05-22 18:04 -0500
      Re: Is antimatter anti-gravity? Double-A <double-a3@hush.com> - 2016-05-23 14:26 -0700
        Re: Is antimatter anti-gravity? omnilobe@gmail.com - 2016-05-23 14:57 -0700
        Re: Is antimatter anti-gravity? HVAC <mr.hvac@gmail.com> - 2016-05-23 15:03 -0700
          Re: Is antimatter anti-gravity? benj <nobodyxx@gmail> - 2016-05-23 21:29 -0400
          Re: Is antimatter anti-gravity? Double-A <double-a3@hush.com> - 2016-05-24 13:40 -0700
            Re: Is antimatter anti-gravity? HVAC <mr.hvac@gmail.com> - 2016-05-24 16:51 -0700
              Re: Is antimatter anti-gravity? benj <nobodyxx@gmail> - 2016-05-24 23:41 -0400
                Re: Is antimatter anti-gravity? HVAC <mr.hvac@gmail.com> - 2016-05-25 03:09 -0700
                  Re: Is antimatter anti-gravity? benj <nobodyxx@gmail> - 2016-05-25 23:26 -0400
          Re: Is antimatter anti-gravity? noTthaTguY <abu.kuanysh05@gmail.com> - 2016-05-26 19:09 -0700
    Is antimatter anti-gravity? HVAC <mr.hvac@gmail.com> - 2016-05-22 16:09 -0700
      Is antimatter anti-gravity? john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2016-05-22 17:14 -0700
    Re: Is antimatter anti-gravity? Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> - 2016-05-22 19:41 -0500
    Is antimatter anti-gravity? john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2016-05-29 17:59 -0700
      Is antimatter anti-gravity? john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2016-05-29 18:16 -0700
        Is antimatter anti-gravity? john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2016-05-29 18:27 -0700
          Re: Is antimatter anti-gravity? moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2016-05-30 02:29 +0000
            Re: Is antimatter anti-gravity? john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2016-05-29 19:48 -0700
              Re: Is antimatter anti-gravity? moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2016-05-30 15:16 +0000
        Re: Is antimatter anti-gravity? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-05-31 09:27 -0500

Page 1 of 10  [1] 2 3 … 10  Next page →

#579588 — Is antimatter anti-gravity?

http://vcresearch.berkeley.edu/news/antimatter-anti-gravity

Up, up and away!

Double-A

[toc] | [next] | [standalone]

#579596

On Sunday, May 22, 2016 at 2:05:22 PM UTC-7, Double-A wrote:
> http://vcresearch.berkeley.edu/news/antimatter-anti-gravity
> 
> Up, up and away!
> 
> Double-A

Anti-matter has the same gravity as regular matter.  The 
usual idea is the only difference with regular matter is 
that the combination immediately converts to energy.

It would be interesting to discover otherwise, with 
exotic matter.

Gravity is always on, with the idea of the "relativistic 
nanogyroscope arrays" for the "short lever effect" or 
"anti-gravity" (that is a strong push when near and light 
pull when far).  Here and otherwise and usually momentum 
is conserved, but of course that's "in" the system or a 
closed system, with the shroud or sabot.

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

#579613

On 5/22/2016 4:55 PM, Ross A. Finlayson wrote:
> On Sunday, May 22, 2016 at 2:05:22 PM UTC-7, Double-A wrote:
>> http://vcresearch.berkeley.edu/news/antimatter-anti-gravity
>>
>> Up, up and away!
>>
>> Double-A
>
> Anti-matter has the same gravity as regular matter.  The
> usual idea is the only difference with regular matter is
> that the combination immediately converts to energy.
>


but if time was negative, gravity would be negative...

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

#579645

On Sunday, May 22, 2016 at 4:02:16 PM UTC-7, Sergio wrote:
> On 5/22/2016 4:55 PM, Ross A. Finlayson wrote:
> > On Sunday, May 22, 2016 at 2:05:22 PM UTC-7, Double-A wrote:
> >> http://vcresearch.berkeley.edu/news/antimatter-anti-gravity
> >>
> >> Up, up and away!
> >>
> >> Double-A
> >
> > Anti-matter has the same gravity as regular matter.  The
> > usual idea is the only difference with regular matter is
> > that the combination immediately converts to energy.
> >
> 
> 
> but if time was negative, gravity would be negative...

Oh, then what if:  time is just a direction, not a quantity.

Durations are quantities, here the idea is that the origin 
is anywhere, with the 3+1 D space-time, but the +1 is just 
a ray, not an axis.

Sergio, I find your comments enlightened and have a high 
opinion of them.

Time isn't a dimension, just a direction.

Fundamentally it is the gradient.  There are usual local 
and global concerns of the isotropic and anisotropic, in 
parallel to the "Steady State" and the "Big Bang" with 
the need to re-establish the absolute as about the total.

If time was reversible, it is not.

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

#579655

Antimatter will be found to be repelled 
from matter.

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

#579657

john
Antimatter will be found to be repelled 
from matter. 
--------

Annihilate 

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

#579811

On 5/22/2016 9:06 PM, john wrote:
> Antimatter will be found to be repelled
> from matter.
>

And you can tell the results of experiments before they happen, how exactly?

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

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

#579813

Odd
The same way they replicate the
signal of a never-before-heard
anything- like a gravitational wave?
You pull it out of your ass

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

#579831

On 5/23/2016 11:38 AM, john wrote:
> Odd
> The same way they replicate the
> signal of a never-before-heard
> anything- like a gravitational wave?
> You pull it out of your ass
>

Gravitational waves were predicted in the late 1910s.
The fact that they were actually found to exist in experimental 
observation is remarkable, and would be extremely unlikely if the theory 
were "ridiculous" as Jay Moseley says.

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

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

#581094

Odd Bodkin wrote:

> Gravitational waves were predicted in the late 1910s.

For suitable values of “late”.  They were first predicted in 

Einstein, A (June _1916_). „Näherungsweise Integration der Feldgleichungen 
der Gravitation" (“Approximate integration of the field equations of 
gravitation”). Sitzungsberichte der Königlich-Preussischen Akademie der 
Wissenschaften Berlin (“Proceedings of the Royal Prussian Academy of 
Sciences, Berlin”). part 1: 688–696.

and elaborated on in 

Einstein, A (1918). „Über Gravitationswellen“ (“On gravitational waves”). 
Sitzungsberichte der Königlich-Preussischen Akademie der Wissenschaften 
Berlin. part 1: 154–167.

> The fact that they were actually found to exist in experimental
> observation is remarkable, and would be extremely unlikely if the theory
> were "ridiculous" as Jay Moseley says.

ACK
 
-- 
PointedEars

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

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

#581096

The fact that they did a "test"
and let it hang long enough for
papers to be written
screams HOAX

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

#581359

On Friday, May 27, 2016 at 3:15:38 PM UTC-7, john wrote:
> The fact that they did a "test"
> and let it hang long enough for
> papers to be written
> screams HOAX

  I have a question for you.

  Let's assume that the announce detection is a hoax, and that General relativity is completely false.

  How would that change the world for you?


  Mark L. Fergerson

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

#581511

On Sat, 28 May 2016 17:27:19 -0700 (PDT), nuny@bid.nes
wrote:

> On Friday, May 27, 2016 at 3:15:38 PM UTC-7, john wrote:
>> The fact that they did a "test"
>> and let it hang long enough for
>> papers to be written
>> screams HOAX
> 
>   I have a question for you.
> 
>   Let's assume that the announce detection is a hoax, and that General relativity is completely false.
> 
>   How would that change the world for you?
> 
> 
>   Mark L. Fergerson

Huh. This message made it thru. What did you change
about your post? Is it another device you're using?
-- 
    "Hanson, I will piss on your grave. And 
     have a good laugh when it seeps down on 
     your face."
                            - Bert

---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus

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

#581534

On Sunday, May 29, 2016 at 10:30:32 AM UTC-7, ClutterFreak wrote:
> On Sat, 28 May 2016 17:27:19 -0700 (PDT), nuny@bid.nes
> wrote:
> 
> > On Friday, May 27, 2016 at 3:15:38 PM UTC-7, john wrote:
> >> The fact that they did a "test"
> >> and let it hang long enough for
> >> papers to be written
> >> screams HOAX
> > 
> >   I have a question for you.
> > 
> >   Let's assume that the announce detection is a hoax, and that General
> > relativity is completely false.
> > 
> >   How would that change the world for you?
> 
> Huh. This message made it thru. What did you change
> about your post? Is it another device you're using?

  Nothing. Same laptop, same ISP, same Google Groups webpage.

  Unless my ISP (Comcast) or Google itself is/are doing something different (and they never say so until it's way too late to do anything about it) it has to be something between Google Groups and you; your ISP/news provider or something like that. The intermediate layers of the internet live on servers that occasionally change hands, and those new hands may do things a bit differently from the way the old hands did.

  Hell, maybe it's the CIA/Homeland Security/HVAC dithering on whether to allow my posts to get from my little twig of the web onto whatever branch you're on.

  Are you having trouble with anybody else's posts? Okay, that was a silly question, I guess. If you can't see them you won't know, will you?

  If it were me I'd look at one of their older posts )via Google Groups) and look up their recent history- Google Groups still has at least that much easily available. That way I would know they were still posting, and be able to access their posts via Google's archive, and even reply if I felt like it.


  Mark L. Fergerson

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

#581588

On Sun, 29 May 2016 11:56:57 -0700 (PDT), nuny@bid.nes 
wrote:

> On Sunday, May 29, 2016 at 10:30:32 AM UTC-7, ClutterFreak wrote:
>> On Sat, 28 May 2016 17:27:19 -0700 (PDT), nuny@bid.nes
>> wrote:
>> 
>>> On Friday, May 27, 2016 at 3:15:38 PM UTC-7, john wrote:
>>>> The fact that they did a "test"
>>>> and let it hang long enough for
>>>> papers to be written
>>>> screams HOAX
>>> 
>>>   I have a question for you.
>>> 
>>>   Let's assume that the announce detection is a hoax, and that General
>>> relativity is completely false.
>>> 
>>>   How would that change the world for you?
>> 
>> Huh. This message made it thru. What did you change
>> about your post? Is it another device you're using?
> 
>   Nothing. Same laptop, same ISP, same Google Groups webpage.
> 

I changed nothing either. All my usenet activity is on 
this device (a desktop). 


> Unless my ISP (Comcast) or Google itself is/are doing 
> something different (and they never say so until it's way 
> too late to do anything about it) it has to be something 
> between Google Groups and you; your ISP/news provider or 
> something like that. The intermediate layers of the internet 
> live on servers that occasionally change hands, and those 
> new hands may do things a bit differently from the way the 
> old hands did.
> 

Kill files that target a specific part of headers 
sometimes work inadvertently on more than one target. 
But I don't use them. I haven't used them since under 
my other past aliases. 

> Hell, maybe it's the CIA/Homeland Security/HVAC 
> dithering on whether to allow my posts to get from my 
> little twig of the web onto whatever branch you're on.
> 

Hahahah :-)) I doubt it but, oh boy that'd be real 
sick of some sorry ass among them. Homeland security 
should have better things to do. Hvac is hanson (I 
have proof- easily obtained from old headers) or are 
each others' significant other, and unless he's 
recently taken another leap downward he'd go to no 
such length as to spend money for it too. 

I understand this lounge sometimes suffers from being 
unmoderated but those too serious about what they do 
here can easily use kill files. 

> Are you having trouble with anybody else's posts? 
> Okay, that was a silly question, I guess. If you 
> can't see them you won't know, will you?
> 

No this is the first time ever. 

> If it were me I'd look at one of their older posts )via 
> Google Groups) and look up their recent history- Google 
> Groups still has at least that much easily available. That 
> way I would know they were still posting, and be able to 
> access their posts via Google's archive, and even reply 
> if I felt like it.
> 

Yes. It's time consuming though. I spent about 45 
minutes to nail hvac-hanson connection and still 
regret the wasted time. Beats the purpose too. This 
group is a for-now activity and works great as such. A 
little hangout while you have a little time to kill. 

-- 
    "Hanson, I will piss on your grave. And 
     have a good laugh when it seeps down on 
     your face."
                            - Bert

---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus

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

#581654

.... ahahahahaha.. THIS is RICH!.... ROTFLMAO!
>
"<clutterfreakincarnate@gmail.com> "ClutterFreak",
aka Mehram Maleki the Iranian USA hater, wrote:
>
"nuny@bid.nes" <Alien8752@gmail.com> 
Mark L. Fergerson, the 70 year old Wal-Mart-Greeter
who still hates his father, wrote: <snip crap>
>
Sefton john wrote: <look up the posts of john's SR/GR critic >
>
Mehram Maleki wrote:
> Hvac is hanson. I have proof- easily obtained from old 
> headers, or are > each others' significant other, and 
> unless he's recently taken another leap downward 
> he'd go to no such length as to spend money for it too.
>
hanson wrote:
ahahahaha... AHAHAHA.. This is rich!... ROTFLMAO!
Mehram, change your meds. They are making you paranoid
delusional & forgetful. Can't you remember that a few days 
after you heroically started to use Jew Bert Glazier's 
<herbertglazier0@gmail.com> HATE speech, as your sig
you , Maleki, had a bout with
>
Harlow Campbell "HVAC" <Mr.HVAC@gmail.com> who wrote:
"I am hanson" 
>
That's all there is to it. If Harlow likes to be me, hanson,
Kudos to him, and if it confused and cranked you, Mehram,
all the better for that... Pity, ... but ahahahahaha... LOL
>
Mehram wrote:
> I spent about 45 minutes to nail hvac-hanson connection
> and still regret the wasted time. 
>
hanson wrote:
Now Mehram, which one cranked you the most, HVAC, 
hanson, or the Wal-Mart Greeter, who told you that you
are a paranoid moron? 
>
Mehram signed off with & wrote:
>    "Hanson, I will piss on your grave. And
>     have a good laugh when it seeps down on
>     your face."
>                            - Bert
>
hanson wrote:
Now Mehram, seriously, if you can't stand the heat
then do not use that sig.... which would be  a shame.
>
KEEP ON DOING IT. EXPOSE the JEWISH HATE speech 
from kike Bert Glazier <herbertglazier0@gmail.com>
>
Most of the Posters here are Jews or bible beating
goyim that belief Jews to be the Chosen People.
>
Nobody else here but you has the interest or the 
balls to call Full-Swine and criminal Graveyard vandal
Bert Glazier on it! ... Carry on! Good job! 
>
I will remind you of your heroism whenever I see it,
"and have a good laugh" doing it... ahahahahahanson

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

#581663

Custard 
Hahahah :-)) I doubt it but, oh boy that'd be real 
sick of some sorry ass among them. Homeland security 
should have better things to do. Hvac is hanson (I 
have proof- easily obtained from old headers) or are 
each others' significant other, and unless he's 
recently taken another leap downward he'd go to no 
such length as to spend money for it too. 
-------------

Damn! He's on to us. The jig is up.
That incredible deductive logic did me in

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

#581691

EVERYTHING is half and half
antimatter/matter!!

In matter, the antimatter components are
upside down (reversed).
In antimatter, the matter components are
upside down.

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

#581695

john
EVERYTHING is half and half 
antimatter/matter!! 

In matter, the antimatter components are 
upside down (reversed). 
In antimatter, the matter components are 
upside down. 
-----------

Damn it! John is having a better time this weekend that most Americans! 

That's OK John. We Americans are an inclusive bunch. And I actually DID invite you to share in our Memorial Day celebrations. And YES I did say celebrations. While we mourn the loss of those who gave their full measure in war, we also celebrate the freedoms they fought for. 

Always remember... Without the USA there would be no free world

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

#581698

Yes, HVAC,
Canada is safe sitting right on the USA
north border.
Plus, living in the cold is really enjoyable.
Really!

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

Page 1 of 10  [1] 2 3 … 10  Next page →

Back to top | Article view | sci.physics

csiph-web