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

Groups > sci.physics > #610157 > unrolled thread

Re: Spectrum Of Antimatter Observed For First Time

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: Spectrum Of Antimatter Observed For First Time Wally W. <ww84wa@aim.com> - 2016-12-23 12:42 -0500
    Re: Spectrum Of Antimatter Observed For First Time "reber g=emc^2" <herbertglazier0@gmail.com> - 2016-12-23 10:21 -0800
      Re: Spectrum Of Antimatter Observed For First Time "hanson" <hanson@quick.net> - 2016-12-23 11:19 -0800
    Re: Spectrum Of Antimatter Observed For First Time moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2016-12-23 18:59 +0000
      Re: Spectrum Of Antimatter Observed For First Time john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2016-12-23 11:05 -0800
        Re: Spectrum Of Antimatter Observed For First Time benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2016-12-23 18:30 -0500
          Re: Spectrum Of Antimatter Observed For First Time "reber g=emc^2" <herbertglazier0@gmail.com> - 2016-12-27 09:49 -0800
            Re: Spectrum Of Antimatter Observed For First Time "reber g=emc^2" <herbertglazier0@gmail.com> - 2016-12-28 13:22 -0800
              Re: Spectrum Of Antimatter Observed For First Time "hanson" <hanson@quick.net> - 2016-12-28 16:04 -0800
        Re: Spectrum Of Antimatter Observed For First Time moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2016-12-24 16:22 +0000
          Re: Spectrum Of Antimatter Observed For First Time john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2016-12-24 16:24 -0800
            Re: Spectrum Of Antimatter Observed For First Time moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2016-12-25 15:26 +0000
              Re: Spectrum Of Antimatter Observed For First Time john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2016-12-25 11:13 -0800
                Re: Spectrum Of Antimatter Observed For First Time moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2016-12-26 02:17 +0000
                  Re: Spectrum Of Antimatter Observed For First Time john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2016-12-25 19:45 -0800
                    Re: Spectrum Of Antimatter Observed For First Time moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2016-12-26 05:31 +0000
                    Re: Spectrum Of Antimatter Observed For First Time Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-12-27 10:40 -0600
                      Re: Spectrum Of Antimatter Observed For First Time john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2016-12-27 09:12 -0800
                        Re: Spectrum Of Antimatter Observed For First Time Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-12-27 13:04 -0600
                      Re: Spectrum Of Antimatter Observed For First Time john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2016-12-27 09:26 -0800
                        Re: Spectrum Of Antimatter Observed For First Time Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-12-27 13:07 -0600
                          Re: Spectrum Of Antimatter Observed For First Time john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2016-12-27 12:33 -0800
                            Re: Spectrum Of Antimatter Observed For First Time john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2016-12-27 13:19 -0800
                              Re: Spectrum Of Antimatter Observed For First Time Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-12-28 22:28 -0600
                                Re: Spectrum Of Antimatter Observed For First Time john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2016-12-28 20:44 -0800
                                  Re: Spectrum Of Antimatter Observed For First Time moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2016-12-29 05:50 +0000
                                    Re: Spectrum Of Antimatter Observed For First Time john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2016-12-29 07:47 -0800
                                      Re: Spectrum Of Antimatter Observed For First Time moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2016-12-29 17:33 +0000
                                        Re: Spectrum Of Antimatter Observed For First Time john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2016-12-29 10:08 -0800
                                          Re: Spectrum Of Antimatter Observed For First Time moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2016-12-29 22:10 +0000
                                            spectra from waves of emmission & absorption noTthaTguY <abu.kuanysh05@gmail.com> - 2016-12-29 15:31 -0800
                                            Re: Spectrum Of Antimatter Observed For First Time Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-01-03 12:14 -0600
                                              Re: Spectrum Of Antimatter Observed For First Time john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2017-01-03 11:09 -0800
                                  Re: Spectrum Of Antimatter Observed For First Time Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-01-02 13:36 -0600
                                    Re: Spectrum Of Antimatter Observed For First Time john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2017-01-02 16:52 -0800
                                      Re: Spectrum Of Antimatter Observed For First Time benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2017-01-02 20:10 -0500
                                      Re: Spectrum Of Antimatter Observed For First Time moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2017-01-03 15:30 +0000
                                      Re: Spectrum Of Antimatter Observed For First Time Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-01-03 15:00 -0600
                                        Re: Spectrum Of Antimatter Observed For First Time noTthaTguY <abu.kuanysh05@gmail.com> - 2017-01-03 17:02 -0800
                                          Re: Spectrum Of Antimatter Observed For First Time john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2017-01-03 18:59 -0800
                                            Re: Spectrum Of Antimatter Observed For First Time edprochak@gmail.com - 2017-01-04 08:02 -0800
                                              Re: Spectrum Of Antimatter Observed For First Time john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2017-01-04 08:20 -0800
                                                Re: Spectrum Of Antimatter Observed For First Time edprochak@gmail.com - 2017-01-04 08:47 -0800
                                                Re: Spectrum Of Antimatter Observed For First Time Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-01-04 10:50 -0600
                                                  Re: Spectrum Of Antimatter Observed For First Time john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2017-01-04 09:17 -0800
                                                    Re: Spectrum Of Antimatter Observed For First Time Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-01-04 11:30 -0600
                                                    Re: Spectrum Of Antimatter Observed For First Time edprochak@gmail.com - 2017-01-05 06:34 -0800
                                                      Re: Spectrum Of Antimatter Observed For First Time john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2017-01-05 07:16 -0800
                                                        Re: Spectrum Of Antimatter Observed For First Time Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-01-05 10:17 -0600
                                                          Re: Spectrum Of Antimatter Observed For First Time john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2017-01-05 08:40 -0800
                                                            Re: Spectrum Of Antimatter Observed For First Time Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-01-06 07:08 -0600
                                                              of Antimatter bserveD noTthaTguY <abu.kuanysh05@gmail.com> - 2017-01-06 14:24 -0800
                                                        sorry, Dad noTthaTguY <abu.kuanysh05@gmail.com> - 2017-01-05 12:29 -0800
                                                          sorry, Dad john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2017-01-05 14:15 -0800
                                                        Re: Spectrum Of Antimatter Observed For First Time edprochak@gmail.com - 2017-01-07 19:03 -0800
                                                          Re: Spectrum Of Antimatter Observed For First Time john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2017-01-07 19:14 -0800
                                                            Re: Spectrum Of Antimatter Observed For First Time moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2017-01-08 06:59 +0000
                                                            Re: Spectrum Of Antimatter Observed For First Time edprochak@gmail.com - 2017-01-09 10:19 -0800
                                                          Re: Spectrum Of Antimatter Observed For First Time john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2017-01-09 11:27 -0800
                                                            Re: Spectrum Of Antimatter Observed For First Time Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-01-09 13:50 -0600
                                                Re: Spectrum Of Antimatter Observed For First Time moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2017-01-04 18:45 +0000
                                                  timewise noTthaTguY <abu.kuanysh05@gmail.com> - 2017-01-04 11:48 -0800
                                                  Re: Spectrum Of Antimatter Observed For First Time john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2017-01-04 13:14 -0800
                                                    tock noTthaTguY <abu.kuanysh05@gmail.com> - 2017-01-04 16:32 -0800
                                                    Re: Spectrum Of Antimatter Observed For First Time moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2017-01-05 04:10 +0000
                                            Re: Spectrum Of Antimatter Observed For First Time Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-01-04 10:28 -0600
                            Re: Spectrum Of Antimatter Observed For First Time moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2016-12-28 03:39 +0000
                              Re: Spectrum Of Antimatter Observed For First Time john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2016-12-28 06:01 -0800
                                Re: Spectrum Of Antimatter Observed For First Time john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2016-12-28 08:04 -0800
                                  Re: Spectrum Of Antimatter Observed For First Time moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2016-12-28 20:33 +0000
                                  Re: Spectrum Of Antimatter Observed For First Time Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-01-02 13:35 -0600
                                    Re: Spectrum Of Antimatter Observed For First Time noTthaTguY <abu.kuanysh05@gmail.com> - 2017-01-03 12:32 -0800
                                Re: Spectrum Of Antimatter Observed For First Time moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2016-12-28 16:28 +0000
                            Re: Spectrum Of Antimatter Observed For First Time Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-12-28 22:28 -0600
                              Re: Spectrum Of Antimatter Observed For First Time Wally W. <ww84wa@aim.com> - 2016-12-29 00:36 -0500
                Re: Spectrum Of Antimatter Observed For First Time Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-12-27 10:39 -0600
          Re: Spectrum Of Antimatter Observed For First Time john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2016-12-24 18:51 -0800
            Re: Spectrum Of Antimatter Observed For First Time moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2016-12-25 15:23 +0000
        Re: Spectrum Of Antimatter Observed For First Time Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-12-27 10:34 -0600
      Re: Spectrum Of Antimatter Observed For First Time noTthaTguY <abu.kuanysh05@gmail.com> - 2016-12-23 12:43 -0800
        Re: Spectrum Of Antimatter Observed For First Time john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2016-12-23 14:04 -0800

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

#611648

On Tuesday, January 3, 2017 at 9:59:33 PM UTC-5, john wrote:
> "Antimatter gravity could explain Universe's expansion - Phys.org
> phys.org › Physics › General Physics
> AMP - Apr 13, 2011 - For this reason, most physicists think that the
> gravitational behavior of antimatter should always be attractive, as
> it is for matter. ... As Villata explains, the current formulation of
> general relativity predicts that matter and antimatter are both
> self-attractive, yet matter and antimatter mutually repel each other."
> Apparent,
> everyone doesn't believe like Odd

Interesting proposal by Villata. It seems to not require new physics,
just reformulating current General Relativity with CPT.

This is still not proven physics. Note the article is 5 years old,
with no new publication that I could find.


Within the article is one telling factor that destroys your theory:
" Villata suspects that antimatter could exist in the Universe in
 large-scale voids that have been observed in the distribution of
 galaxy clusters and superclusters. "

so NOT within galaxies. In fact if such repulsive forces existed
within galaxies, then the need for attractive forces due to potential
dark matter would be even larger.

The paragraph continues:
"           ...  Previous studies have found that these voids can
 originate from small negative fluctuations in the primordial density
 field, which repel surrounding matter – as if they have a negative
 gravitational mass. With diameters of tens of megaparsecs (about a
 hundred million light years), these voids are the largest structures
 in the Universe. The problem is that, so far, researchers have not
 observed antimatter in these locations."

If antimatter did exist there, then we would see things like
antimatter stars and galaxies. But the voids seem to be devoid
of any matter OR antimatter.

Read more at:
http://phys.org/news/2011-04-antimatter-gravity-universe-expansion.html#jCp

It will be interesting if Villata is right, but if he is, it shoots
your combined matter/antimatter galaxies right between the eyes.

Sorry John. At least you are thinking and maybe learning a bit.

It is good to be open to new ideas, but those ideas (galactic-electrons
for example) have to have some supporting evidence.
Supporting evidence can be one or more of these:
matches current theories - as Villata does in his proposal
matches experimental evidence - tests we can reproduce in the lab
matches observational evidence - such as cosmic observations of galaxies

So with a little less insults and more posts like this, we all
will be having a nice conversation on the frontiers of physics.

have a good day.
ed

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

#611651

ed 
Villata proposes voids.
I reject that because within the void,
the Universe is no longer half and half.

The antimatter is in the neighbouring
galactic arm, that is kept separate from
our arm BECAUSE it repels.

Or- why did you think galactic arms remain
separated?

And then, within our arm of matter-
the half-and-half resumes with the
up electron versus the down electron
(which is just an upside-down positron)

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

#611655

On Wednesday, January 4, 2017 at 11:20:36 AM UTC-5, john wrote:
> ed 
> Villata proposes voids.

NO. He proposed the antimatter is in the apparent voids.
Did you actually read the article past the headline and
first paragraph????

> I reject that because within the void,
> the Universe is no longer half and half.

I know. you keep saying that.
> 
> The antimatter is in the neighbouring
> galactic arm, that is kept separate from
> our arm BECAUSE it repels.

And a consequence of that would be that, the galaxy
will fly apart. You lost what holds it together.

> 
> Or- why did you think galactic arms remain
> separated?

It is a direct consequence of how a galaxy forms.
Nothing magical or special about it.
> 
> And then, within our arm of matter-
> the half-and-half resumes with the
> up electron versus the down electron
> (which is just an upside-down positron)

Like I said, if Villata is right, then antimatter and matter
repel, and your theory is left with nothing to hold to two
arms within the same galaxy.

Speculation is fine, but your have to live with the consequences
of your proposal. And you don't have a way to hold the antimatter
arm within the galaxy.

Sorry John, I'm just listing the logical result of your proposal.

I suggest you go think about it some more while I go back to work.
Ed

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

#611656

On 1/4/2017 10:20 AM, john wrote:
> ed
> Villata proposes voids.
> I reject that because within the void,
> the Universe is no longer half and half.

No physicist believes the universe is half and half.

>
> The antimatter is in the neighbouring
> galactic arm, that is kept separate from
> our arm BECAUSE it repels.

And what keeps the arm separate from the galactic nucleus?
Oh that's right, nothing does.
But let's just IGNORE the galactic nucleus, shall we, because we just 
don't like problematic things that toss our ideas in the dustbin, do we?

>
> Or- why did you think galactic arms remain
> separated?
>
> And then, within our arm of matter-
> the half-and-half resumes with the
> up electron versus the down electron
> (which is just an upside-down positron)
>


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

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

#611660

Odd
For someone whose theory needs
DM, DE, volumeless entities, and
reverse-effect radiation, you sure are
picky.
Arms repel each other with every part-
including near the BH. Both forms of
matter repel from the BH.

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

#611663

On 1/4/2017 11:17 AM, john wrote:
> Odd
> For someone whose theory needs
> DM, DE, volumeless entities, and
> reverse-effect radiation, you sure are
> picky.

John, DM, DE, and volumeless particles are not cases where there are 
observations in direct contradiction with any theory. Galactic arms in 
direct contact with a galactic nucleus is an observation in direct 
conflict with your idea. See the difference?

> Arms repel each other with every part-
> including near the BH. Both forms of
> matter repel from the BH.
>

Now, now, John, this is new. Why would BOTH matter and antimatter be 
repelled from a BH?

Plus you make it sound like the only matter in a galaxy that isn't a 
black hole is in the arms, which isn't true.

Third, what about nonspiral galaxies, galaxies with no arms whatsoever? 
How are those half and half?


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

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

#611739

On Wednesday, January 4, 2017 at 12:17:43 PM UTC-5, john wrote:
> Odd
> For someone whose theory needs
> DM, DE, volumeless entities, and
> reverse-effect radiation, you sure are
> picky.
> Arms repel each other with every part-
> including near the BH. Both forms of
> matter repel from the BH.

and how does your theory fit galaxies with NO arms?
http://phys.org/news/2017-01-extremely-rare-galaxy.html

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

#611744

Ed
"text -
and how does your theory fit galaxies with NO arms? 
http://phys.org/news/2017-01-extremely-rare-galaxy.html "

My theory says that galaxies
take the same shapes as atoms.

Are there any Elements that have
NO electrons available ?
(Hint- Helium, Argon etc)

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

#611754

On 1/5/2017 9:16 AM, john wrote:
> Ed
> "text -
> and how does your theory fit galaxies with NO arms?
> http://phys.org/news/2017-01-extremely-rare-galaxy.html "
>
> My theory says that galaxies
> take the same shapes as atoms.
>
> Are there any Elements that have
> NO electrons available ?
> (Hint- Helium, Argon etc)
>

Well, helium and argon certainly have electrons, but you use this new 
term "available" electrons. By this I assume you mean valence electrons.

It's worth noting that you've also said two things: galaxies with odd 
number of arms are rarer than galaxies with even number of arms, and 
galaxies have the same shape as atoms. Therefore, by your own ideas, the 
number of atoms with an odd number of valence electrons should be rarer 
than the number of atoms with an even number of valence electrons. This 
is a firm prediction of your "theory", correct? By this prediction we 
should be able to test your "theory" against observation, like any other 
physical theory, correct?

So what do you think the answer is, John? Is the number of atoms with 
odd number of valence electrons rarer than the number of atoms with an 
even number of valence electrons?

More importantly, John, and this is where you are asked to think like a 
scientist: If the prediction of your theory does not match observations, 
what should you do with your theory?


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

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

#611755

Odd
"is a firm prediction of your "theory", correct? By this prediction we "
No- not correct.
I love the pic of the Huygen's galaxy, btw- thanks.

Let's say three galaxies are in the same
neighbourhood, and sharing arms-
do you think -at some point- that one of
the galaxies might have NO arms,
while the other two have extra?

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

#611914

On 1/5/2017 10:40 AM, john wrote:
> Odd
> "is a firm prediction of your "theory", correct? By this prediction we "
> No- not correct.

Why is it not correct?
You have said:
- Galaxies with odd number of arms are rare.
- Galaxies are structured like atoms.
- The number of arms in a galaxy is like the number of valence electrons 
in an atom.

> I love the pic of the Huygen's galaxy, btw- thanks.
>
> Let's say three galaxies are in the same
> neighbourhood, and sharing arms-
> do you think -at some point- that one of
> the galaxies might have NO arms,
> while the other two have extra?
>


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

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

#612020 — of Antimatter bserveD

wOw, he'll ne'er catch up to that ... not in oUr h00d

> - The number of arms in a galaxy is like the number of valence electrons 
> in an atom.
> 
> > I love the pic of the Huygen's galaxy, btw- thanks.
> >
> > Let's say three galaxies are in the same
> > neighbourhood, and sharing arms-
> > do you think -at some point- that one of
> > the galaxies might have NO arms,
> > while the other two have extra?
> >
> 
> 
> -- 
> Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables

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

#611785 — sorry, Dad

yeah, like a.p-sim ... what a simplet-on;
perhaps. only the hydrogen atom is spherically symmetrical, or
at least circularly symmetrical in the plane of observation

> My theory says that galaxies
> take the same shapes as atoms.
> 
> Are there any Elements that have
> NO electrons available ?
> (Hint- Helium, Argon etc)

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

#611811 — sorry, Dad

Space
"yeah, like a.p-sim ... what a simplet-on; 
perhaps. only the hydrogen atom is spherically symmetrical, or 
at least circularly symmetrical in the plane of observation "

Spherical is done by precession of the disc.
Galaxies have spherical halos.

Attophysics is probing atomic discs as we peck

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

#612151

On Thursday, January 5, 2017 at 10:17:02 AM UTC-5, john wrote:
> Ed
> "text -
> and how does your theory fit galaxies with NO arms? 
> http://phys.org/news/2017-01-extremely-rare-galaxy.html "
> 
> My theory says that galaxies
> take the same shapes as atoms.
> 
> Are there any Elements that have
> NO electrons available ?
> (Hint- Helium, Argon etc)

And where is the antimatter in those galaxies?

Face it john, your theory doesn't fit facts.

hey don't feel bad. Einstein came up with some
theories (well versions of General Relativity) that
did not work either.

Many theories are tried and fond lacking. Consider
Newton was close, his theory lasted for about 200 years.
General Relativity will likely be replaced by something
else.

The point is scientists don't go whining about how their
theory is not accepted because others don't understand it
or there is a great conspiracy against it.

there is a saying: you learn more from your mistakes than
you do from your successes.

 So learn something John and move on to the next lesson.
ed

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

#612153

Ed
"blah blah"
In the inert gases, all electrons are matched with
partners (the backwards-precessing
positron sharing their spin axis).
The Huygens body might represent
a full-shell atom- Neon?

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

#612165

john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> writes:

>Ed
>"blah blah"

John
"drool drool"

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

#612231

On Saturday, January 7, 2017 at 10:14:59 PM UTC-5, john wrote:
> Ed
> "blah blah"
> In the inert gases, all electrons are matched with
> partners (the backwards-precessing
> positron sharing their spin axis).
> The Huygens body might represent
> a full-shell atom- Neon?

Still not answering direct questions I see.

Your "balanced Matter-antimatter" theory does not match
observational or experimental evidence.

If Galaxies are made of alternating arms of matter and antimatter,
And Antimatter repels matter,
Then what holds the galaxies together?
 What keeps the arms from contacting at the center?
 
What strange law of gravity are you proposing?

You have a choice, develop your concept further with evidence
that it works, or abandon it with the attitude of lesson learned.
Try another approach. Learn. Grow.

OR continue to deflect questions with "blah blah" and be seen as
yet another kook, an ideologue trying to defend an unproven,
unsupported theory.

Strange as you may think, I am trying to help you.
  ed

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

#612258

ed 
The antimatter in galaxies is always
opposite the matter, just like the
down electron is opposite the up
electron.

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

#612267

On 1/9/2017 1:27 PM, john wrote:
> ed
> The antimatter in galaxies is always
> opposite the matter, just like the
> down electron is opposite the up
> electron.
>

Spin down does not mean antimatter to spin up's matter, anymore than 
clockwise cyclones in the southern hemisphere means antimatter to the 
counterclockwise cyclones in the northern hemisphere.

Antimatter is related to matter in being opposite in a few selected 
properties but NOT opposite in the others.

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

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

Back to top | Article view | sci.physics

csiph-web