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

#613926

On 1/18/2017 4:23 PM, john wrote:
> Odd
> You don't know what I've read
> or experienced.

I know what you have read about relativity and quantum mechanics or 
physics. Which is to say, not a lot at all.

What you have read about herbal cures and about UFO conspiracies and 
about correcting posture gives you no expertise, no working knowledge, 
not even passing familiarity about relativity or quantum mechanics or 
physics.

> So far, you're just a guy who
> defends the Status Quo
> against any and all comers,
> no matter.
> You don't think.

The status quo does not need defense against new and original and 
hopelessly shallow ideas. Those are like shiny pennies, offered to 
engineer a manned visit to Mars. They are like fingerpaintings, 
submitted to a museum of fine art. They contribute no value.

What learning from books does is that it teaches you how to think 
VALUABLY. You don't want to do that. You want to just think your cute 
new thoughts without having to learn. And that is your laziness talking, 
and that is why you aren't producing anything of VALUE.

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

#613935

Odd
"
VALUABLY. You don't want to do that. You want to just think your cute 
new thoughts without having to learn. And that is your laziness talking, 
and that is why you aren't producing anything of VALUE. 
"
?
No value to a closed mind, yes.

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

#614073

On 1/18/2017 4:56 PM, john wrote:
> Odd
> "
> VALUABLY. You don't want to do that. You want to just think your cute
> new thoughts without having to learn. And that is your laziness talking,
> and that is why you aren't producing anything of VALUE.
> "
> ?
> No value to a closed mind, yes.
>

I have no problem having a closed mind to shiny pennies offered to 
engineer a manned mission to Mars. I have no problem having a closed 
mind to fingerpaintings submitted to a museum of fine art. I have no 
problem having a closed mind to cheap, lazy, useless ideas generated 
without any interest in learning.

As well as wanting the final answer to be easy, it's a hallmark of the 
intellectually lazy that they want people to be open-minded to cheap, 
lazy, useless ideas. That way, even the people who have done no work get 
some notice for just being there.

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

#614236

john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> writes:

>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.

Odd is correct. You are too lazy to read about what we know already and
how we know it, plus you are too lazy to see if your "ideas" pass the 
smell test with what we already know.  You just throw your kooky crap
out here without checking if it even makes sense.

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

#614016

On Wednesday, January 18, 2017 at 4:05:06 PM UTC-5, john wrote:
> 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.

Who said QM was the "final answer"?

If they did they were clearly wrong
because the final answer is 42.




We are here only to try to figure out the question.
  8^)

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

#614069

QM?
It's not an answer- it's BS

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

#614074

On 1/19/2017 7:55 AM, john wrote:
> QM?
> It's not an answer- it's BS
>

That's a remarkable position to hold, John, given that you don't even 
know what QM is.

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

#614077

Odd
"On 1/19/2017 7:55 AM, john wrote: 
> QM? 
> It's not an answer- it's BS 
> 

That's a remarkable position to hold, John, given that you don't even 
know what QM is. "

I know what it isn't- an answer to gravity.

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

#614087

On 1/19/2017 8:55 AM, john wrote:
> Odd
> "On 1/19/2017 7:55 AM, john wrote:
>> QM?
>> It's not an answer- it's BS
>>
>
> That's a remarkable position to hold, John, given that you don't even
> know what QM is. "
>
> I know what it isn't- an answer to gravity.
>

No, you don't know that EITHER, because you don't even know what QM is.

What you know is what you've read in comic books, that a working model 
of quantum gravity has not been developed. This does NOT mean QM is not 
an answer to gravity because it's not in hand TODAY.

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

#614112

On Thursday, January 19, 2017 at 8:55:20 AM UTC-5, john wrote:
> QM?
> It's not an answer- it's BS

Then you are hopeless. You clearly do not understand science.

There is a sphere of knowledge. It has a boundary beyond which
is all that we do not know. As the circle gets bigger we see
the boundary expand. The conclusion?
The more we know, leads us to realize
 how much more there is to learn.

So if you are looking for "THE ANSWER" all I can tell you is 42.

ed

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

#614015

On Wednesday, January 18, 2017 at 3:35:59 PM UTC-5, 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

Wrong or right is not the issue.
As I told you before: all theories are wrong, but some are useful.
Useful meaning it works and produces results that match what
mother nature throws back at us in the lab and the universe.

QM describes the behavior of materials based energy, momentum and other parameters that have discrete values (quanta). It successfully describes the behavior of subatomic particles such as electron orbitals within atoms and the corresponding atomic spectrum.

That's about as short and simple as I can make it using English.
To really get an understanding of any physics topic you really
need to understand the mathematics of it.

ed

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

#613857

On Wednesday, January 18, 2017 at 1:19:08 PM UTC-5, 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.

you have been given the simple explanations.
just because you don't accept them isn't our fault.

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

Going off the deep end with lead weights there John.
Climb back out and stay on track.

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

#613859

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

Going off the deep end with lead weights there John. 
Climb back out and stay on track. "

Put YOUR explanation forward. In two
simple sentences.

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

#613885

On 1/18/2017 12:41 PM, john wrote:
> Ed
> "> For instance: Gravity/Inertia is caused
>> by the vibrations of matter being
>> absorbed by other matter. Full stop.
>
> Going off the deep end with lead weights there John.
> Climb back out and stay on track. "
>
> Put YOUR explanation forward. In two
> simple sentences.
>

Gravity is the effect of freefall motion in curved spacetime, where the 
curvature at any location is determined by the proximity of mass and 
momentum/energy. The curvature in one location is constrained by the 
curvature in nearby locations by geometrical laws of continuity.

There, that's two, in language as plain as I can make it.

Now, you can say, "That's not enough for me to understand what's going 
on." And then we're back to the statement I made earlier, that there are 
some things that CANNOT BE EXPLAINED so that everyone will understand 
it, in two sentences.

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

#613886

On 1/18/2017 2:27 PM, Odd Bodkin wrote:
> On 1/18/2017 12:41 PM, john wrote:
>> Ed
>> "> For instance: Gravity/Inertia is caused
>>> by the vibrations of matter being
>>> absorbed by other matter. Full stop.
>>
>> Going off the deep end with lead weights there John.
>> Climb back out and stay on track. "
>>
>> Put YOUR explanation forward. In two
>> simple sentences.
>>
>
> Gravity is the effect of freefall motion in curved spacetime, where the
> curvature at any location is determined by the proximity of mass and
> momentum/energy. The curvature in one location is constrained by the
> curvature in nearby locations by geometrical laws of continuity.
>
> There, that's two, in language as plain as I can make it.
>
> Now, you can say, "That's not enough for me to understand what's going
> on." And then we're back to the statement I made earlier, that there are
> some things that CANNOT BE EXPLAINED so that everyone will understand
> it, in two sentences.

Or, as is your habit, you might respond, "OK I understood what you said, 
but it cannot be right because it is in conflict with these other things 
that I am sure are true, and therefore what you said is nonsense."

In which case, it's not a matter of explaining it, it's a matter of 
explaining it in a way that is consistent with your beliefs, whether 
your beliefs are true or not. And that NOBODY has any responsibility for.

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

#613904 — kappa = 1/diameter

that's only two thirds of three choices

if one takes only a static Euclidean framework,
if only merely a referent, the Gaussian definition is fine, and
one does not need to refer to timennspacenn,
the serious screw-up of Minkowski, that I know of

> >> by the vibrations of matter being
> >> absorbed by other matter. Full stop.
> Gravity is the effect of freefall motion in curved spacetime, where the 
> curvature at any location is determined by the proximity of mass and 
> momentum/energy. The curvature in one location is constrained by the 
> curvature in nearby locations by geometrical laws of continuity.

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

#613851

On Wednesday, January 18, 2017 at 12:42:04 PM UTC-5, john wrote:
> 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.


It is simply following the best models.
If classical models fail to produce correct results
and QM models successfully produces correct results,
then we choose the model (equations) that are successful.

> 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.

because you refuse to accept the simple descriptions.
The fact is, subatomic features ARE COMPLEX.

just remember Murphy's fifth law:
Mother nature is a bitch.

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

false premise, false conclusion.
Don't get mad at Odd and Michael.
They didn't make it complex, mother nature did.

ed

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

#613860

john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> writes:

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

Sorry, John, but science just doesn't work like that. Some things are
simply extremely complicated, even if it may seem simple at first glance.
A closed form solution for the three body problem, for example.

For many things, a simple explanation either means you don't understand
the problem, or you are trying to really dumb things down for someone
ignorant of the field.

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

#613846

On Tuesday, January 17, 2017 at 10:44:45 PM UTC-5, john wrote:
> 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

I assume you are talking about descriptions about
benzene like the one on this site:

http://chem.libretexts.org/Textbook_Maps/Organic_Chemistry_Textbook_Maps/Map%3A_Organic_Chemistry_With_a_Biological_Emphasis_(Soderberg)/Chapter_02%3A_Introduction_to_organic_structure_and_bonding_II/2.2%3A_Molecular_orbital_theory%3A_conjugation_and_aromaticity

Not magic. simple application of QM.

ed

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

#613741

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

Worked for Benzene 

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

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

Back to top | Article view | sci.physics

csiph-web