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

Groups > sci.physics > #593758 > unrolled thread

Galaxies are half antimatter and half matter

Back to article view | Back to sci.physics

Contents

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

Page 1 of 4  [1] 2 3 4  Next page →

#593758 — Galaxies are half antimatter and half matter

For instance, in a perfectly-balanced,
10-arm structure, where opposites/ neighbors 
are always opposite, everything can
be continually made to cancel,
like so:
http://users.accesscomm.ca/john/NeonAnimation.GIF

[toc] | [next] | [standalone]

#593791

On 8/18/2016 7:19 PM, john wrote:
> For instance, in a perfectly-balanced,
> 10-arm structure, where opposites/ neighbors
> are always opposite, everything can
> be continually made to cancel,
> like so:
> http://users.accesscomm.ca/john/NeonAnimation.GIF
>

I don't think you've ever attempted to explain galaxies with an odd 
number of spiral arms, or for that matter elliptical galaxies that have 
no arms.

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

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

#593866

Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> writes:

>On 8/18/2016 7:19 PM, john wrote:
>> For instance, in a perfectly-balanced,
>> 10-arm structure, where opposites/ neighbors
>> are always opposite, everything can
>> be continually made to cancel,
>> like so:
>> http://users.accesscomm.ca/john/NeonAnimation.GIF
>>

>I don't think you've ever attempted to explain galaxies with an odd 
>number of spiral arms, or for that matter elliptical galaxies that have 
>no arms.

Nor how orbiting stars can move from an arm into inter-arm space and then
into another arm as they orbit around the center, without annihilating.

He'd rather just talk about precessing spinny things.

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

#594588

Odd said
>I don't think you've ever attempted to explain galaxies with an odd 
number of spiral arms, or for that matter elliptical galaxies that have 
no arms. <
This from Wiki:
"Three-armed spiral galaxies	
Usually, most spiral galaxies contain two clearly defined spiral arms, or they contain only fuzzy filamentary spiral structures. Galaxies with three well-defined spiral arms are rare."
The reason they are rare is because
this would result in a neighbour of each
kind in each side. So, similar arms combine
into one.

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

#594643

On 8/24/2016 6:48 PM, john wrote:
> Odd said
>> I don't think you've ever attempted to explain galaxies with an odd
> number of spiral arms, or for that matter elliptical galaxies that have
> no arms. <
> This from Wiki:
> "Three-armed spiral galaxies	
> Usually, most spiral galaxies contain two clearly defined spiral arms, or they contain
> only fuzzy filamentary spiral structures. Galaxies with three well-defined spiral arms are rare."
> The reason they are rare is because
> this would result in a neighbour of each
> kind in each side. So, similar arms combine
> into one.
>

And this fuzzy filamental spiral arm, where are the 1.022 MeV gamma rays 
spewing from it? After all, whatever it is, it has to be in contact with 
both matter and antimatter, according to you.

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

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

#593829

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


More likely matter galaxies balanced by antimatter galaxies.

Double-A

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

#593961

On Friday, August 19, 2016 at 12:25:10 PM UTC-7, Double-A wrote:
> On Thursday, August 18, 2016 at 5:19:45 PM UTC-7, john wrote:
> > For instance, in a perfectly-balanced,
> > 10-arm structure, where opposites/ neighbors 
> > are always opposite, everything can
> > be continually made to cancel,
> > like so:
> > http://users.accesscomm.ca/john/NeonAnimation.GIF
> 
> 
> More likely matter galaxies balanced by antimatter galaxies.
> 
> Double-A

Better yet Half of all universes are anti-mATER.Such as ours is negative.Trebs is positive,and thus its all photons if we ever meet.Could we call are meeting "BIG BANG" Bang sounds loud,but reality is it do't make a sound. TreBert

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

#593897

On Thu, 18 Aug 2016 17:19:41 -0700 (PDT), john
<johnsefton288@gmail.com> wrote:

>For instance, in a perfectly-balanced,
>10-arm structure, where opposites/ neighbors 
>are always opposite, everything can
>be continually made to cancel,
>like so:
>http://users.accesscomm.ca/john/NeonAnimation.GIF

I believe atoms are half matter and half antimatter.

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

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

#593934

Odd said
"I don't think you've ever attempted to explain galaxies with an odd 
number of spiral arms, or for that matter elliptical galaxies that have 
no arms. "

Obviously, this is important.
So, imagine a circle of girls and boys.
Every girl has a boy on each side
of her. Oh oh. There is one too many
girls.
What happens?
The girls stick together.

So- since when I talk about galaxies,
I also talk about atoms- 
SHOULD THERE BE DOUBLED ELECTRONS?
Should  there be up or down electrons
that have been paired in an atom
and have gotten stuck together?
And there should be galactic
arms in two-arm galaxies
that appear twice as large as their
partner.

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

#593941

On 8/20/2016 8:14 AM, john wrote:
> Odd said
> "I don't think you've ever attempted to explain galaxies with an odd
> number of spiral arms, or for that matter elliptical galaxies that have
> no arms. "
>
> Obviously, this is important.
> So, imagine a circle of girls and boys.
> Every girl has a boy on each side
> of her. Oh oh. There is one too many
> girls.
> What happens?
> The girls stick together.

In this circle of boys and girls, do their hands touch?
Because the arms of galaxies touch.
If boys were matter and girls were antimatter, when their hands touched, 
you'd see 1.022 MeV gamma rays. A lot of the.
So where the alternating galactic arms touch, where are those gamma rays?

>
> So- since when I talk about galaxies,
> I also talk about atoms-
> SHOULD THERE BE DOUBLED ELECTRONS?
> Should  there be up or down electrons
> that have been paired in an atom
> and have gotten stuck together?
> And there should be galactic
> arms in two-arm galaxies
> that appear twice as large as their
> partner.
>

And do you see that?


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

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

#594041

Michael J.  Strickland wrote:

> I believe atoms are half matter and half antimatter.

The record shows that you believe a lot of things that are nonsense, this 
one making no exception.

It is nonsense because if it were true, atoms would not exist, and you, 
being built from atoms, would not exist.  For it is well-known (i.e. 
experimentally confirmed countless times) that matter and anti-matter 
annihilate each other.

A common application of that knowledge is Positron Emission Tomography in 
medicine, where the positrons (anti-electrons) emitted by atomic nuclei of a 
radioactive isotope (like fluorine-18) brought into the patient’s body 
annihilate (by swallowing it or by injection) with the electrons of the 
atoms of the patient’s body, producing (at least) pairs of photons which can 
be detected:

  e⁻ + e⁺ → γ + γ (+ …)

So you should sincerely hope that the atoms of your body are not “half 
matter and half antimatter” the next time you need a PET scan.

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

-- 
PointedEars

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

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

#594388

Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:

> A common application of that knowledge is Positron Emission Tomography in
> medicine, where the positrons (anti-electrons) emitted by atomic nuclei of
> a radioactive isotope (like fluorine-18) brought into the patient’s body
> annihilate (by swallowing it or by injection) with the electrons of the
  ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> atoms of the patient’s body, producing (at least) pairs of photons which
> can be detected: […]

In order not to be misunderstood: Should have been

“[…] the positrons emitted by […] a radioactive isotope brought into the 
patient’s body (by swallowing it or by injection) annihilate with the 
electrons […] of the patient’s body […]”

to mean

“[…] the positrons […] annihilate with the electrons […]”.

-- 
PointedEars

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

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

#594291

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

Then you are in the wrong group.
sci.physics is not about believing.
Try talk.religion

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

#594295

On Mon, 22 Aug 2016 23:36:39 -0700 (PDT), edprochak@gmail.com wrote:

>On Friday, August 19, 2016 at 11:11:49 PM UTC-4, Michael Strickland wrote:
>[]
>> 
>> I believe atoms are half matter and half antimatter.
>> 
>
>Then you are in the wrong group.
>sci.physics is not about believing.
>Try talk.religion

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

sci.physics is, in fact, all about "believing." What you claim to know
is merely what you "believe" based on what yo have heard. It is no
more reliable than the "flat earth" theory was back in antiquity. You
just "believe" you have reliable information when in fact you do not
know how reliable or unreliable it is.


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

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

#594308

On 8/23/2016 3:38 AM, Michael J. Strickland wrote:
> So do you believe in the "faster than light" inflationary era where
> anti-matter was "magically" left out of the distribution?
>
> sci.physics is, in fact, all about "believing." What you claim to know
> is merely what you "believe" based on what yo have heard. It is no
> more reliable than the "flat earth" theory was back in antiquity. You
> just "believe" you have reliable information when in fact you do not
> know how reliable or unreliable it is.
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------
> Michael J. Strickland			Reston, VA
> ---------------------------------------------------

First of all, the matter-antimatter balance seems to be accounted for by 
observed CP-violation. So there is no "magic" involved.

Secondly, while you may be relying on trust to determine what or whom to 
believe, I don't think that is by any stretch universal in sci.physics. 
What drives what physicists believe is experimental data, under the 
presumption that nature does not lie about itself. Those who want more 
substance to decide what to believe only have to look up the papers 
where there is ample documentation of the experimental data actually 
obtained and the methods used to analyze it to come to the conclusions 
that they did. This is precisely how you SHOULD determine whether a 
conclusion is reliable or not.

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

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

#594446

On Tue, 23 Aug 2016 07:06:19 -0500, Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com>
wrote:

>On 8/23/2016 3:38 AM, Michael J. Strickland wrote:
>> So do you believe in the "faster than light" inflationary era where
>> anti-matter was "magically" left out of the distribution?
>>
>> sci.physics is, in fact, all about "believing." What you claim to know
>> is merely what you "believe" based on what yo have heard. It is no
>> more reliable than the "flat earth" theory was back in antiquity. You
>> just "believe" you have reliable information when in fact you do not
>> know how reliable or unreliable it is.
>>
>>
>> ---------------------------------------------------
>> Michael J. Strickland			Reston, VA
>> ---------------------------------------------------
>
>First of all, the matter-antimatter balance seems to be accounted for by 
>observed CP-violation. So there is no "magic" involved.
>
>Secondly, while you may be relying on trust to determine what or whom to 
>believe, I don't think that is by any stretch universal in sci.physics. 
>What drives what physicists believe is experimental data, under the 
>presumption that nature does not lie about itself. Those who want more 
>substance to decide what to believe only have to look up the papers 
>where there is ample documentation of the experimental data actually 
>obtained and the methods used to analyze it to come to the conclusions 
>that they did. This is precisely how you SHOULD determine whether a 
>conclusion is reliable or not.

Or maybe you could just think for yourself instead of regurgitating
what you have been told by the "party line" physics community. That's
another tried and true method of determining what to believe.

After all, I'm sure there were plenty of data, "papers", and theories
claiming the earth was flat back when that was the "consensus."

The original definition of anti-matter was same mass, opposite charge
(Dirac's prediction and Anderson's discovery) before "parity" was
added to the "zoo" of particle characteristics to account for
experimental results that conflicted with predicted ones.

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

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

#594478

On 8/24/2016 1:15 AM, Michael J. Strickland wrote:
> On Tue, 23 Aug 2016 07:06:19 -0500, Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>> On 8/23/2016 3:38 AM, Michael J. Strickland wrote:
>>> So do you believe in the "faster than light" inflationary era where
>>> anti-matter was "magically" left out of the distribution?
>>>
>>> sci.physics is, in fact, all about "believing." What you claim to know
>>> is merely what you "believe" based on what yo have heard. It is no
>>> more reliable than the "flat earth" theory was back in antiquity. You
>>> just "believe" you have reliable information when in fact you do not
>>> know how reliable or unreliable it is.
>>>
>>>
>>> ---------------------------------------------------
>>> Michael J. Strickland			Reston, VA
>>> ---------------------------------------------------
>>
>> First of all, the matter-antimatter balance seems to be accounted for by
>> observed CP-violation. So there is no "magic" involved.
>>
>> Secondly, while you may be relying on trust to determine what or whom to
>> believe, I don't think that is by any stretch universal in sci.physics.
>> What drives what physicists believe is experimental data, under the
>> presumption that nature does not lie about itself. Those who want more
>> substance to decide what to believe only have to look up the papers
>> where there is ample documentation of the experimental data actually
>> obtained and the methods used to analyze it to come to the conclusions
>> that they did. This is precisely how you SHOULD determine whether a
>> conclusion is reliable or not.
>
> Or maybe you could just think for yourself instead of regurgitating
> what you have been told by the "party line" physics community. That's
> another tried and true method of determining what to believe.
>
> After all, I'm sure there were plenty of data, "papers", and theories
> claiming the earth was flat back when that was the "consensus."
>
> The original definition of anti-matter was same mass, opposite charge
> (Dirac's prediction and Anderson's discovery) before "parity" was
> added to the "zoo" of particle characteristics to account for
> experimental results that conflicted with predicted ones.
>
> ---------------------------------------------------
> Michael J. Strickland			Reston, VA
> ---------------------------------------------------
>

Just a small handful of comments here.

So you don't buy the "party line" about CP-violation and its role in the 
balance of matter and antimatter. And as a result, you then say (as a 
result of "thinking for yourself") that the only available explanation 
is magic?

Secondly, experimental data is not "consensus". It is nature telling us 
how she behaves when we measure it. If you think that measurement is a 
political move in the scientific community, then I'm guessing you just 
don't buy the scientific method in the first place. In which case, why 
are you here?

Third, it is completely true that the original meaning of antimatter was 
oversimplified. So what's your point?

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

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

#594479

Odd
Really?
Observation equals understanding?
You and pointy head
are SO FULL of yourselves

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

#594481

On 8/24/2016 7:57 AM, john wrote:
> Odd
> Really?
> Observation equals understanding?

I didn't say that.
John, do you know what role observation plays in the scientific method?
Hint: Observation does not equal the scientific method.
Hint: Science without observation as a critical ingredient is not science.
Do you even KNOW what the scientific method is? Can you look it up in 
wikipedia maybe?

> You and pointy head
> are SO FULL of yourselves
>


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

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

#594484

Odd said
"Hint: Science without observation as a critical ingredient is not science. 
Do you even KNOW what the scientific method is? Can you look it up in 
wikipedia maybe? "
No.
You tell me why it's infallible, again.
Hint:  fundamental

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

Page 1 of 4  [1] 2 3 4  Next page →

Back to top | Article view | sci.physics

csiph-web