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

#582665

On 06/03/2016 11:50 AM, HVAC wrote:
> john
> BoyHVAC,
> DDT was sold by Monsanto - fucked up lots of stuff.
> Was in some war or other.
> Everything Science makes says on the bottom
> "May Cause Death"
> ------------
>
> John. You are arguing against BJ. He is the one that thinks humans aren't fucking up the planet. Don't you read his posts? Actually his position is that since the apocalypse is coming anyway, it doesn't matter what we do to our planet. You don't agree with him on this, do you?
>

Why do you find it necessary to lie about what I believe?

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

#582621

On Friday, June 3, 2016 at 8:24:35 AM UTC-7, john wrote:
> BoyHVAC,
> DDT was sold by Monsanto - fucked up lots of stuff.
> Was in some war or other.
> Everything Science makes says on the bottom 
> "May Cause Death"
> 
> WiddoHVAC wuvs his "Death" (until)

There is no anti-gravity.There are no waves to go with gravity.Gravity can be the strongest force.Gravity can be the weakest force.Gravity can never be blocked.All there is adds to the force of gravity.If all there is was the size of a singularity and made a black hole and this exploded it would create time,space,energy,matter,and create what we see as of "NOW"  Trebert

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

#582661

On 06/03/2016 11:12 AM, HVAC wrote:
> BJ quacked
> Right John. You just don't get that once stuff is "established" like the
> standard model or global warming, it can no longer be questioned.
> Unapproved topics can still be questioned but once scientists take a
> democratic vote and an idea gets a majority it is called "settled
> science" and may no longer be questioned or discussed except to endorse
> and promote it.
>
> This is how science works, John. Do you have a problem with this?
> -----------
>
> BJ you need to let it go. Carrying around the burden of hate you feel for science since being fired from your job as lab assistant is not healthy.
>
> I'm here for ya if you need some share time bro
>

Why do you find it necessary to lie about what I believe?

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

#582605

On 6/3/2016 9:42 AM, benj wrote:
> Right John. You just don't get that once stuff is "established" like the
> standard model or global warming, it can no longer be questioned.
> Unapproved topics can still be questioned but once scientists take a
> democratic vote and an idea gets a majority it is called "settled
> science" and may no longer be questioned or discussed except to endorse
> and promote it.

Sure you can question it. But questioning it without having studied it 
is an act of stupidity. Questioning it without any knowledge of the data 
that supports it is an act of stupidity. Questioning the data as well as 
the theory as a giant conspiracy is an act of lunacy.

Nobody is going to suppress acts of stupidity or lunacy, but nobody is 
also going to suppress the assessment that those acts are stupid and crazy.

So go ahead, feel free to do something stupid. Feel free to say 
something that's lunacy.

>
> This is how science works, John. Do you have a problem with this?


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

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

#582640

it went off of the track,
when Newton's corpuscle was taken as the elementary nature
of a photon, which is a wave in the atoms of "free space,
electromagnetically induced

> There have been no new forces introduced since the 1930s.
> There are four: gravity (time immemorial), electromagnetic (1700s), 
> strong nuclear (1910s), weak nuclear (1930s).
> The last time there was a new field introduced was in the 1970s -- the 
> Higgs field.
> 
> > DM, DE, BH, wormholes, exotic matter,
> > other dimensions?????????!!
> 
> None of those are part of the Standard Model. They are hypotheses BEYOND 
> the Standard Model.
> 
> I think you confuse the Standard Model with "everything that's being 
> thought of and tested these days".
> 
> Of course, that confusion would be easily fixed if you just picked up a 
> fucking book, John.
> 
> >
> > Shut the fuck up!!!!!!!!'
> >
> 
> Now, just in summary, John, there is established physics, and there is 
> physics that actively being worked and is not established. This is a 
> healthy state.
> 
> For the stuff that is established, like the Standard Model, then there 
> is plenty available in terms of explanatory material, including books 
> aimed at laypeople.
> 
> For the stuff that is still being worked, then there are going to be 
> iterations, variations, experimental tests, and now the explanations 
> carry a bit more of a load where you have to follow scientific papers 
> and be able to read them and understand them. That is also healthy.
> 
> If you have a problem with any of this, maybe you can explain what that 
> problem is.
> 
> 
> -- 
> Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables

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

#582642

Odd's Science
Selling poisons to brainwashed TVholics
and blames the poor mark

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

#582647

On 6/3/2016 12:25 PM, john wrote:
> Odd's Science
> Selling poisons to brainwashed TVholics
> and blames the poor mark
>

If the consumer didn't buy the product, John, there would be no 
companies producing the product. You blame the company for creating the 
demand??
Are you one of the brainwashed TVholics, John, who buys power from 
polluting, oil-hungry power companies? Are you one of the brainwashed 
TVholics who paints his living room with a product shoved down your 
throat by a poison-making chemical company? Are you one of the 
brainwashed TVholics who only buys crisp vegetables at the store, but 
only because the providers who load them up with herbicides, pesticides
and chemical preservatives have force you to?

You are so full of shit, you should comb your hair with muck-rake.

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

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

#582649

john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> writes:

>Odd's Science
>Selling poisons to brainwashed TVholics
>and blames the poor mark

There is a HUGE difference between a technology and how it can be used or
misused.

A hammer can be used to build housing for the poor.
A hammer can be used to smash someone's head in.

Is a hammer good or evil?

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

#582654

On 6/3/2016 12:55 PM, Michael Moroney wrote:
> john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> writes:
>
>> Odd's Science
>> Selling poisons to brainwashed TVholics
>> and blames the poor mark
>
> There is a HUGE difference between a technology and how it can be used or
> misused.
>
> A hammer can be used to build housing for the poor.
> A hammer can be used to smash someone's head in.
>
> Is a hammer good or evil?
>

No, Michael, John says the MAKER of the hammer is evil because it was 
used to kill. Likewise the MAKER of the car is evil because it pollutes, 
and because they force-sell to people who have chosen to live 25 miles 
away from their workplace and commute 2 hours between work and home in 
stop-and-go traffic. Likewise the MAKER of the aspirin is evil for 
shoving toxins down the throats of people who have a headache. The MAKER 
of corn feed is responsible for water shortages, because they force 
livestock growers to shove meat onto the dinner plates of you and me.

I mean, SOMEBODY's got to be blamed for all that, and it sure as hell 
isn't going to be the poor consumer, is it?

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

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

#582655

I'm saying that atoms are being 
manipulated wrongly,
which unfailingly creates poisons.
Whose fault is that?

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

#582672

On 6/3/2016 1:17 PM, john wrote:
> I'm saying that atoms are being
> manipulated wrongly,
> which unfailingly creates poisons.
> Whose fault is that?
>

I'm happy for you to suggest a way to manipulate atoms to produce a 
housepaint that costs less than $50 a gallon, covers well in one or two 
coats, and can be drunk like tap water without ill effects.

I'm happy for you to suggest a way to manipulate atoms to produce 
electricity for my computer that still costs a dime a kilowatt hour and 
produces no pollution, no thermal waste, and doesn't require power lines 
strung across the country.

I'm happy for you to suggest a way to manipulate atoms to put a fish 
dinner on my table without depleting fish populations.

So far, your only answer to this is: Welp, we don't know how to do it, 
so let's ask aliens how to do it.


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

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

#582710

Oddball, if what you're doing is turning
the planet to shit- what then?
You say keep doing it.
That doesn't sound like a good time 

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

#582711

On 6/3/2016 4:45 PM, john wrote:
> Oddball, if what you're doing is turning
> the planet to shit- what then?
> You say keep doing it.
> That doesn't sound like a good time
>

No, I'm not saying keep doing it. What I'm telling you is that you're 
telling the wrong people to stop it. You keep pointing the finger at 
scientists, when it is not them. It is TECHNOLOGY COMPANIES (not 
science) that produce products that CONSUMERS are demanding. Who has to 
stop it are the CONSUMERS and the TECHNOLOGY COMPANIES.

The way for us to halt all combustion engine pollution is not to wait 
for aliens to provide us a new transportation vehicle that runs on free 
energy. The way to do it is to
- Require people to live within public mass transit access of their jobs.
- Penalize people for using cars rather than mass transit to get to work.
- Limit access to personal vehicles on interstate highways unless they 
are electric vehicles.
- Require people to spend more on electric vehicles by banning most 
personal commercial cars running on combustion engines; this will of 
course mean that fewer people will be able to buy cars.
- Require cities to build noncombustion engine mass transit systems; 
this will result in fewer people living in the country and more in the 
cities.

You see? What's needed is a change in consumer habits and what 
technology companies provide. That can be a bitter pill to swallow, but 
it's more on point than wagging fingers at scientists that they're 
somehow to blame for combustion engine pollution.

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

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

#582719 — que

what is a\the sustainable rate of extraction
of hydrocarbons from the annual production
of carbohydrates

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

#582594

On Friday, June 3, 2016 at 5:49:37 AM UTC-7, Odd Bodkin wrote:
> On 6/3/2016 7:47 AM, john wrote:
> > The Standard Model-
> > as Odd says, "rambling, incoherent gibberish "
> >
> 
> John, here's the difference.
> If you want to know about the Standard Model, all you have to do is get 
> out of this newsgroup and into books, where the Standard Model is 
> completely and well explained.
> 
> For Ross's comments, though, there is no alternate resource other than 
> what spouts out of his mouth. So if he can't explain it well, there is 
> no way to make sense of it.
> 
> -- 
> Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables

It's pretty readable.  That's what I have written there.  

Yes, it is so that in terms of communication, someone 
expecting to derive all their information from the 
explanation needs to have sufficient background to 
establish the verity of sufficiently the terms and 
contexts.

That's not gibberish, it's "English".

Here's a usual enough quote of it: "if you can't 
make sense of it, don't go making nonsense of it."

That said then that's even a bit interesting, the 
notion of the clarification of what the particle 
collision (or, "Higgs boson") is, then about what 
they mean, those terms ("particle", "field") in 
terms of the context of Higgs and the context of 
the Standard Model (particle, field).  The note 
about the data is from sources and also the extended 
context of my opinion, I agree.  The note about the 
in-necessity, as it were, of Higgs, I maintain.

O.B., I'm pro-unification.

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

#580720

On Wednesday, May 25, 2016 at 2:10:46 PM UTC-7, 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.
> 
> -- 
> 
> sci.physics is an unmoderated newsgroup dedicated
> to the discussion of physics, news from the physics
> community, and physics-related social issues.

I say no 100% fixing on spinning.

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

#580726

On 5/26/16 12:42 PM, reber g=emc^2 wrote:
> I say no 100% fixing on spinning.

   The spin of a particle is a fixed property and not up for change.
   No exceptions (unless you can change a fermion into a boson).

-- 

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]

#580730

On 05/26/2016 01:42 PM, reber g=emc^2 wrote:
> On Wednesday, May 25, 2016 at 2:10:46 PM UTC-7, 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.
>>
>> --
>>
>> sci.physics is an unmoderated newsgroup dedicated
>> to the discussion of physics, news from the physics
>> community, and physics-related social issues.
>
> I say no 100% fixing on spinning.
>
Sam, don't you know "Spin is In"?

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

#581106

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.

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

#581130

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

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

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

Back to top | Article view | sci.physics

csiph-web