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

Groups > sci.physics > #612684 > unrolled thread

Electron-positron annihilation

Back to article view | Back to sci.physics

Contents

  Electron-positron annihilation john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2017-01-12 04:21 -0800
    Re: Electron-positron annihilation moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2017-01-12 16:00 +0000
      Re: Electron-positron annihilation Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-01-12 10:03 -0600
        Re: Electron-positron annihilation john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2017-01-12 08:09 -0800
          Re: Electron-positron annihilation Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-01-12 10:15 -0600
            Re: Electron-positron annihilation john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2017-01-12 08:19 -0800
              Re: Electron-positron annihilation john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2017-01-12 08:58 -0800
                Re: Electron-positron annihilation HVAC <mr.hvac@gmail.com> - 2017-01-19 17:50 -0800
                  Re: Electron-positron annihilation benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2017-01-19 21:15 -0500
                    re: er noTthaTguY <abu.kuanysh05@gmail.com> - 2017-01-19 21:28 -0800
              Re: Electron-positron annihilation Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-01-13 14:06 -0600
                Re: Electron-positron annihilation benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2017-01-13 17:36 -0500
                re-diation has nothing to do with geometrical rays per se, but thugstyle103@gmail.com - 2017-01-13 17:46 -0800
            Re: Electron-positron annihilation benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2017-01-12 17:36 -0500
              bosons are bosonically thugstyle103@gmail.com - 2017-01-13 01:46 -0800
              Re: Electron-positron annihilation Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2017-01-13 12:33 +0100
                Re: Electron-positron annihilation john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2017-01-13 03:40 -0800
                  Re: Electron-positron annihilation edprochak@gmail.com - 2017-01-13 12:53 -0800
                    Re: Electron-positron annihilation john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2017-01-17 14:40 -0800
                      Re: Electron-positron annihilation john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2017-01-17 15:11 -0800
                      Re: Electron-positron annihilation moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2017-01-18 02:44 +0000
                        Re: Electron-positron annihilation john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2017-01-17 19:33 -0800
                          Re: Electron-positron annihilation john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2017-01-17 19:44 -0800
                            Re: Electron-positron annihilation moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2017-01-18 17:32 +0000
                              Re: Electron-positron annihilation john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2017-01-18 09:42 -0800
                                Re: Electron-positron annihilation Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-01-18 11:59 -0600
                                  Re: Electron-positron annihilation john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2017-01-18 10:19 -0800
                                    Re: Electron-positron annihilation Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-01-18 12:28 -0600
                                      Re: Electron-positron annihilation john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2017-01-18 10:48 -0800
                                        Re: Electron-positron annihilation Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-01-18 14:20 -0600
                                          Re: Electron-positron annihilation john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2017-01-18 12:35 -0800
                                            Re: Electron-positron annihilation Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-01-18 14:50 -0600
                                            Re: Electron-positron annihilation Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-01-18 14:54 -0600
                                              Re: Electron-positron annihilation john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2017-01-18 13:05 -0800
                                                Re: Electron-positron annihilation Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-01-18 15:22 -0600
                                                  Re: Electron-positron annihilation john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2017-01-18 13:33 -0800
                                                    Re: Electron-positron annihilation Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-01-18 15:47 -0600
                                                      Re: Electron-positron annihilation john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2017-01-18 13:50 -0800
                                                        Re: Electron-positron annihilation Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-01-18 16:14 -0600
                                                          Re: Electron-positron annihilation john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2017-01-18 14:23 -0800
                                                            Re: Electron-positron annihilation Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-01-18 16:35 -0600
                                                              Re: Electron-positron annihilation john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2017-01-18 14:56 -0800
                                                                Re: Electron-positron annihilation Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-01-19 08:28 -0600
                                                        Re: Electron-positron annihilation moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2017-01-20 04:37 +0000
                                                Re: Electron-positron annihilation edprochak@gmail.com - 2017-01-18 21:58 -0800
                                                  Re: Electron-positron annihilation john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2017-01-19 05:55 -0800
                                                    Re: Electron-positron annihilation Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-01-19 08:30 -0600
                                                      Re: Electron-positron annihilation john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2017-01-19 06:55 -0800
                                                        Re: Electron-positron annihilation Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-01-19 10:21 -0600
                                                    Re: Electron-positron annihilation edprochak@gmail.com - 2017-01-19 10:28 -0800
                                            Re: Electron-positron annihilation edprochak@gmail.com - 2017-01-18 21:56 -0800
                                    Re: Electron-positron annihilation edprochak@gmail.com - 2017-01-18 10:37 -0800
                                      Re: Electron-positron annihilation john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2017-01-18 10:41 -0800
                                        Re: Electron-positron annihilation Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-01-18 14:27 -0600
                                          Re: Electron-positron annihilation Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-01-18 14:30 -0600
                                          kappa = 1/diameter noTthaTguY <abu.kuanysh05@gmail.com> - 2017-01-18 13:35 -0800
                                Re: Electron-positron annihilation edprochak@gmail.com - 2017-01-18 10:34 -0800
                                Re: Electron-positron annihilation moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2017-01-18 18:43 +0000
                            Re: Electron-positron annihilation edprochak@gmail.com - 2017-01-18 10:27 -0800
                        Re: Electron-positron annihilation john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2017-01-17 19:36 -0800
                          Re: Electron-positron annihilation moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2017-01-18 17:16 +0000
                            Re: Electron-positron annihilation john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2017-01-18 09:31 -0800
                              Re: Electron-positron annihilation moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2017-01-18 18:36 +0000
                      Re: Electron-positron annihilation edprochak@gmail.com - 2017-01-18 10:13 -0800
              Re: Electron-positron annihilation Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-01-13 15:37 -0600
                Re: Electron-positron annihilation benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2017-01-13 17:35 -0500
          Re: Electron-positron annihilation moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2017-01-12 17:03 +0000
            1/3 = 1/pi noTthaTguY <abu.kuanysh05@gmail.com> - 2017-01-12 10:41 -0800
              pith is at most a third thugstyle103@gmail.com - 2017-01-13 01:50 -0800
                'rithmeticallyte noTthaTguY <abu.kuanysh05@gmail.com> - 2017-01-15 17:50 -0800
          Re: Electron-positron annihilation edprochak@gmail.com - 2017-01-12 09:57 -0800
            what ever (que sera noTthaTguY <abu.kuanysh05@gmail.com> - 2017-01-18 13:41 -0800
              sera que) ever what noTthaTguY <abu.kuanysh05@gmail.com> - 2017-01-19 09:52 -0800

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

#613734

john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> writes:

>This is how electrons move
>  http://users.accesscomm.ca/john/2electronorbital.GIF

Of course you have excellent scientific proof of that. You also have
excellent scientific explanations why an electron moving like that doesn't
radiate all its energy away as EM radiarion the way a charge moving like
that normally would.

What? It's just your usual babbling nonsense fed to a graphics program?  
And all it's good for is a proof of GIGO?  Never mind.

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

#613740

Here's a better look at that pathway
 http://users.accesscomm.ca/john/Onepathway.GIF

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

#613744

MikeHunt fluffed
"
Of course you have excellent scientific proof of that. You also have "

Read some science history.
When electrons were first found,
everyone had ideas on how they moved
and interacted. Most of these systems 
could MODEL simple molecules,
but the Holy Grail was Benzene-
and nobody could do it.
Of course, later on- in the days of
the (excellent scientific proof) DM et al,
'delocallization' was brought forward-
electrons didn't need pathways at all-
they simply go WHEREVER they're needed!!
Majik!!

'tards 

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

#613833

john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> writes:

>Read some science history.
>When electrons were first found,
>everyone had ideas on how they moved
>and interacted. Most of these systems 
>could MODEL simple molecules,
>but the Holy Grail was Benzene-
>and nobody could do it.

So you are saying that because in the early days many people had silly or
incorrect ideas, we should accept your silly, incorrect ideas?

>'tards 

Why are you speaking about yourself in the plural?

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

#613835

Mike 
"So you are saying that because in the early days many people had silly or 
incorrect ideas, we should accept your silly, incorrect ideas? "

I'm saying- they gave up finding
a classical (read 'logical') model
and started the
bullshit: delocalization, Uncertainty Principal,
RANDOM electron movement.
Bullshit which you can't even vocalize,
because it can't be explained simply
without sounding stupid-
which is why you and Odd defer all
"how does it work?' questions to
books.

If you can't explain it simply,
you don't understand it.

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

#613839

On 1/18/2017 11:42 AM, john wrote:
> I'm saying- they gave up finding
> a classical (read 'logical') model
> and started the
> bullshit: delocalization, Uncertainty Principal,
> RANDOM electron movement.
> Bullshit which you can't even vocalize,
> because it can't be explained simply
> without sounding stupid-
> which is why you and Odd defer all
> "how does it work?' questions to
> books.

John, you are under some massive delusion that everything that is 
correct can be explained simply, using ordinary commonplace language.

This is a denouncement of expertise, declaring that any truth that 
exists should be perceivable and understandable by ANYONE without the 
least bit of training or prep work.

It is the declaration that an architect should not need a license, 
because enough of the principles of architecture to actually do 
architecture should be understandable by anyone with a pamphlet.

Same with medicine. Same with law. Same with aerospace engineering.

Pamphlets for everyone! No veiling of truth behind a wall of schooling! 
Boo to schools! Boo to licenses!

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

#613842

Odd
"
Pamphlets for everyone! No veiling of truth behind a wall of schooling! 
Boo to schools! Boo to licenses! "

No, Odd.
I am saying that
IF YOU UNDERSTAND SOMETHING,
you will be able to explain it simply.

For instance: Gravity/Inertia is caused
by the vibrations of matter being
absorbed by other matter. Full stop.

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

#613847

On 1/18/2017 12:19 PM, john wrote:
> Odd
> "
> Pamphlets for everyone! No veiling of truth behind a wall of schooling!
> Boo to schools! Boo to licenses! "
>
> No, Odd.
> I am saying that
> IF YOU UNDERSTAND SOMETHING,
> you will be able to explain it simply.

John, then it would be available on a pamphlet, and everyone could do 
architecture or law or surgery or aerospace engineering or physics, just 
by reading the simple explanation on a pamphlet.

Sorry, John, life just does not work that way.

It is NOT TRUE that if you understand something, you will be able to 
explain it simply. What you WANT to be true just is not true. Fantasy land.


>
> For instance: Gravity/Inertia is caused
> by the vibrations of matter being
> absorbed by other matter. Full stop.
>

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

#613863

Odd
"
John, then it would be available on a pamphlet, and everyone could do 
architecture or law or surgery or aerospace engineering or physics, just 
by reading the simple explanation on a pamphlet. 

Sorry, John, life just does not work that way"

No. It certainly does not.
A simple explanation does not confer
a complete knowledge of a subject.
I have no idea how you jump to
such crazy conclusions.
Little Johnny:"Daddy Odd- how does a car work?"
Daddy Odd: "Well, Johnny, a motor transfers
power to an axle."
Little Johnny (the next day): I got a job as a
mechanic!!

Your brain, Odd!!!
I really can't imagine how you think!!!
You are SO black or white!!!!!!

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

#613882

On 1/18/2017 12:48 PM, john wrote:
> Odd
> "
> John, then it would be available on a pamphlet, and everyone could do
> architecture or law or surgery or aerospace engineering or physics, just
> by reading the simple explanation on a pamphlet.
>
> Sorry, John, life just does not work that way"
>
> No. It certainly does not.
> A simple explanation does not confer
> a complete knowledge of a subject.

Or even BASIC knowledge of a subject in many cases. Quantum mechanics is 
a great example.

That's where you miss the point.

> I have no idea how you jump to
> such crazy conclusions.
> Little Johnny:"Daddy Odd- how does a car work?"
> Daddy Odd: "Well, Johnny, a motor transfers
> power to an axle."
> Little Johnny (the next day): I got a job as a
> mechanic!!
>
> Your brain, Odd!!!
> I really can't imagine how you think!!!
> You are SO black or white!!!!!!
>

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

#613889

Odd
"> A simple explanation does not confer 
> a complete knowledge of a subject. 

Or even BASIC knowledge of a subject in many cases. Quantum mechanics is 
a great example. 

That's where you miss the point. 
- show quoted text -"

So QM can't be explained simply?
Superposition of states.
But- like you say- it's wrong 

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

#613890

On 1/18/2017 2:35 PM, john wrote:
> Odd
> "> A simple explanation does not confer
>> a complete knowledge of a subject.
>
> Or even BASIC knowledge of a subject in many cases. Quantum mechanics is
> a great example.
>
> That's where you miss the point.
> - show quoted text -"
>
> So QM can't be explained simply?
> Superposition of states.

That, brother, is not even close to a description of quantum mechanics. 
It is a sound bite from one, tiny aspect of quantum mechanics.

That's like saying a description of vascular medicine is: "Scalpel. 
Hemostat. Sutures."

> But- like you say- it's wrong

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

#613891

On 1/18/2017 2:35 PM, john wrote:
> Odd
> "> A simple explanation does not confer
>> a complete knowledge of a subject.
>
> Or even BASIC knowledge of a subject in many cases. Quantum mechanics is
> a great example.
>
> That's where you miss the point.
> - show quoted text -"
>
> So QM can't be explained simply?
> Superposition of states.
> But- like you say- it's wrong
>

Get it through your head, John, that expertise takes 10,000 hours of 
dedicated work. Working knowledge takes 2,000 hours of dedicated work. 
Passing familiarity takes 500 hours of dedicated work. Two hours of 
dedicated work gets you a couple of YouTube links in your browser history.

Reading two sentences of a simple explanation gets you blink-whoosh peek.

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

#613896

Odd
I know you love QM.
But it really doesn't provide any
easy answers- like you say.
That's why it will never be 
and never can be the
final answer.

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

#613899

On 1/18/2017 3:05 PM, john wrote:
> Odd
> I know you love QM.
> But it really doesn't provide any
> easy answers- like you say.

Right. Easy answers aren't the key.

> That's why it will never be
> and never can be the
> final answer.

Oh, John, John, John. Ever hopeful that the final answers will all be 
EASY answers, that everyone will understand. No work needed.

Who raised you?

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

#613903

Odd Odd Odd
The answer is what I've been telling you:
the Universe is a Fractal
based on Atom-Galaxy.
Simple.

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

#613911

On 1/18/2017 3:33 PM, john wrote:
> Odd Odd Odd
> The answer is what I've been telling you:
> the Universe is a Fractal
> based on Atom-Galaxy.
> Simple.
>

Sorry, John, but coughing up an answer that you like because it is an 
easy answer is worthless.

The final answer, likely not to be easy, will be validated by something 
other than being expressible in two sentences. Any idea what that 
validation method is?

Your philosophy ("The final answer will be easy, and therefore writing 
down an answer that is easy is likely to be the right and final one") is 
a fantasy that caters to your intellectual laziness.

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

#613913

Odd
"
a fantasy that caters to your intellectual laziness. "

Who is the one here with ideas
and who is thumping books?
You are the non-thinker.

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

#613922

On 1/18/2017 3:50 PM, john wrote:
> Odd
> "
> a fantasy that caters to your intellectual laziness. "
>
> Who is the one here with ideas
> and who is thumping books?
> You are the non-thinker.
>

John, let me advise you on something else. Learning is work. Thinking 
without reading is cheap, easy, and lazy. It requires no investment.

A head full of ideas, plus $2, will buy you a coffee at Tim Hortons.

You think having ideas is more valuable than learning from books. I 
think this is a lazy-ass, concrete-headed, childish fantasy. It is the 
excuse of the incompetent and the lazy to defend why they do not try to 
learn.

You can spin this excuse all day long if you want to. It'll bring 
nothing but a stern look from grown-ups.

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

#613924

Odd
You don't know what I've read
or experienced.
So far, you're just a guy who
defends the Status Quo
against any and all comers,
no matter.
You don't think.

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

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

Back to top | Article view | sci.physics

csiph-web