 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
| HomeDiscussion GroupsSpace ScienceAstronomyAmateur AstronomySpace FlightSpace StationShuttleSpace HistorySpace PolicySETI SpaceKB.com Contact UsLink To UsSearch & Site Map |
Space Forum / Astronomy / July 2008Does an antimatter apple fall up?
http://space.newscientist.com/article/dn14120-would-an-antimatter-apple-fall-up. html?DCMP=ILC-hmts&nsref=news1_head_dn14120 Finally! Someone is at least thinking about running an experiment that will test the gravitational polarity of antimatter. It's about time! I have predicted since at least the 1980's that researchers will get some truly surprising results when they finally do see how antimater behaves. According to my theroy, "Analysis of Gravity in Mass-Energy Systems", there is at least one form of 'antimatter' that does indeed have a positive inertial mass and a negative gravitational mass. Remember folks, you heard it here first. Once modern science finally pulls its head out of its collective a.s concerning gravity, many of our currently popular ideas will be quickly rewritten. Even 25 years ago, my theory correctly predicted baryon conservation - and gave the reason why. I also was amongst the first to describe the swiss-cheese structure of matter distribution in the universe, and give a reason why. I also found out why there appears to be a matter - antimatter assymmetry in the universe, and show how it is just an illusion brought about by the way the two forms of mass self interact. Yes indeed, ranging from quantum mechanics, to cosmogony, the truths about antimatter are truly enlightening! Of course, I probably wont get the Nobel for being first.... oh well. I got out of the field in the 1990's to begin my work on Superluminal Communications Systems, and have had spectacular success going where no human truly has gone before! Greysky www.allocations.cc Learn how to build a FTL radio. > http://space.newscientist.com/article/dn14120-would-an-antimatter-apple-fall-up. html?DCMP=ILC-hmts&nsref=news1_head_dn14120 > > Finally! Someone is at least thinking about running an experiment that will > test the gravitational polarity of antimatter. It's about time! There have been ideas and dreams of doing this for many years. But as the article says, there are now two credible proposals being prepared. I am a member of the team preparing a proposal at Fermilab. BTW nobody who understands modern physics expects an antimatter apple to "fall up". This is so because for ordinary matter >95% of the mass is due to binding energy, kinetic energy of constituents, and the gluon field -- all of these things are exactly the same for matter and antimatter, and there's no plausible mechanism to cause them to behave differently with respect to gravity. So if gravity couples differently to quarks and leptons than to antiquarks and antileptons, we expect a difference on the order of 1%. There ARE several plausible extensions to the standard model and GR that predict such a difference. This gives a rather strong requirement on the resolution of any viable experiment. Tom Roberts >> http://space.newscientist.com/article/dn14120-would-an-antimatter-apple-fall-up. html?DCMP=ILC-hmts&nsref=news1_head_dn14120 >> [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > > Tom Roberts Thanks Tom. Sam There is no reason gravity would repel anti-particles I have to go with gravity being an attractive force and its never gravity all the way up. That is thinking in the wrong direction Oh ya Bert >> http://space.newscientist.com/article/dn14120-would-an-antimatter-apple-fall-up. html?DCMP=ILC-hmts&nsref=news1_head_dn14120 >> [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > article says, there are now two credible proposals being prepared. I am a > member of the team preparing a proposal at Fermilab. I don't envy you - limiting EM effects even for a net neutral anti atom is not going to be easy. But the experiment needs to be done. > BTW nobody who understands modern physics expects an antimatter apple to > "fall up". Good. Then when your bit of antimatter is repelled by the earth's gravity field the way I say it will be, there will be no confusion as to who was saying what for the past 25 years. If I'm wrong, I am positive there will be many here who will mash my face in my failed predicition, so if there is even an ounce of integrity in those that call themselves scientists, then I expect my theory to be taken more seriously as well. >This is so because for ordinary matter >95% of the mass is due to binding >energy, kinetic energy of constituents, and the gluon field -- all of these >things are exactly the same for matter and antimatter, and there's no >plausible mechanism to cause them to behave differently with respect to >gravity. So if gravity couples differently to quarks and leptons than to >antiquarks and antileptons, we expect a difference on the order of 1%. Gravity has absolutly nothing to do with the 'energy ' of a particle. This is the fallicy in your assumption that there can be at best a small percentage difference between matter and antimatter. Gravity is a purely quantum guage field to the probability distribution psi. This idea has been unpopular since I proposed it in the 1980's , but the evidence keeps piling up that it's right. The latest is the work of Ben Wandelt at the UIUC concerning the promordial non-gaussianity in the WMAP 3 year data to practically hand over the proof needed, if it's correct. Fact is my model predicts an equal amount of matter and antimatter created, with a resulting net gravitational wave variability of zero. The net gravitational charge of the universe is exactly zero, so looking for evidence of gravity waves in the early universe will be fruitless. There is no other theory I am aware of that makes this prediciton , with the potential to be tested. From the emergence of structure in the universe, to baryon conservation, to a mechanism that describes how we find ourselves living in a universe made mostly of matter, my theory has so far not failed. And it's even straight forward enough to be understood by a (smart) high-school student... Greysky www.allocations.cc Learn how to build a FTL radio. >>> http://space.newscientist.com/article/dn14120-would-an-antimatter-apple-fall-up. html?DCMP=ILC-hmts&nsref=news1_head_dn14120 >>> [quoted text clipped - 48 lines] > www.allocations.cc > Learn how to build a FTL radio. It is quite obvious there are many things we don't understand about our Universe, like: - Galaxy flat rotation curves, - Spiral galaxy central bar (rigid like), - Why all celestial bodies are themselves rotating and also around something else, - The actual theory (of Relativity) is based on the Equivalence Principle that avoids any inertia understanding and, therefore, doesn't consider rotating bodies as gyroscopes. Because of that always fails when rotation are involved. - Black holes with jets, - and so on. Does your theory solve any of the above issues? From what I've read so far, the experiment can once and for all tell if there is an Aether, or not, and if Relativity is right or wrong (plus many bullshit). Therefore, the experiment is very important. Much more important then Higgs particle. The experiment looks very easy. Gravity and Electromagnetism don't mix and the excuses given are nonsense. All we need to do is to see where the antimatter wants to go, up or down. Looks like scientific community is afraid. > The experiment looks very easy. Only to a naive person who does not understand the issues. > Gravity and Electromagnetism don't mix and the excuses > given are nonsense. All we need to do is to see where > the antimatter wants to go, up or down. How do you expect to identify the force of gravity in the presence of EM forces some 10^20 times larger? > Looks like scientific community is afraid. You clearly do not understand the scientific community. This experiment has not been done not because anybody is "afraid", but rather because the experiment is DIFFICULT. Tom Roberts >> The experiment looks very easy. > [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] >has not been done not because anybody is "afraid", but rather because >the experiment is DIFFICULT. Welcome to alt.astronomy. Please check your brain at the door.  Signature"Substantiation that you regard yourself as a God to be worhsipped [sic] should be your concern, Deco." -- David Tholen >>> The experiment looks very easy. >> [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > > Welcome to alt.astronomy. Please check your brain at the door. And watch yo a.s as Art Deco is an a.s f.cker! HJ >> The experiment looks very easy. > [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > > Tom Roberts If it is difficult all you need is an imaginative engineer. Build a linear exit section on the particle accelerator to perform the experiment. Divide the linear section into two. First section is a de-accelerator to lower antimatter speed. This first section have large braking EM forces. Second section is free of EM forces and made of a set of detectors (gratings) where the antimatter must fall at different rates according to its linear speed. All this in vacuum as usual. > >> The experiment looks very easy. > [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > > If it is difficult all you need is an imaginative engineer. Tom Roberts did particle physics, chuckles. > Build a linear exit section on the particle accelerator > to perform the experiment. [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > different rates according to its linear speed. > All this in vacuum as usual. Let's ask the simple question: How do you intend to slow down a neutral atom? >>>> The experiment looks very easy. >>> Only to a naive person who does not understand the issues. [quoted text clipped - 25 lines] > > How do you intend to slow down a neutral atom? The same way they do it for neutrons? I have read at least 3 articles talking about gravitational selection of slow neutrons. There you can see them dropping in a parabola curve, just like any other matter. Expecting an antimatter atom to behave in any other way is just wishful thinking. Also, what adds electric charge to something falling? It certainly wont slow down something dropping, the influence of a mirror charge developing in a ground plane would just pull the atom down faster. The whole difficulty in testing an antimatter atom falling, is the difficulty of tracking a single atom. It is possible to trap and slow down a single atom , using laser light etc., and maybe you can time the destruction explosion after you release the trapped antimatter atom, when it drops in a highly vacuumed column. >>> "Tom Roberts" <tjroberts...@sbcglobal.net> >>>> This experiment >>>> has not been done not because anybody is "afraid", but rather >>>> because the experiment is DIFFICULT. >> How do you intend to slow down a neutral atom? That's quite difficult (though it can be done). But it is not feasible for our situation at Fermilab. We decelerate the antiprotons into a Penning trap designed to hold charged particles. We then put positrons into a different region of the same trap. We then lower the potential barrier for the antiprotons and make them travel through the positron cloud. As the antiproton has a much larger mass than the positron, whenever the two come together the resulting antihydrogen atom has essentially the same momentum as the antiproton; as it is neutral it is not trapped and easily exits the trap. This is all done at a temperature of a few milli-Kelvin so the speeds are on the order of km/s. > The whole difficulty in testing an antimatter atom falling, > is the difficulty of tracking a single atom. No, that's the easy part, as the antihydrogen annihilates whenever it hits normal matter: the resulting particles have energies of hundreds of MeV and are easily detectable. Of course you only get one such observation per atom, so it is necessary to provide a pulsed beam of antihydrogen with known position and time. For our experiment the timing comes from manipulating the electrostatic potentials of the trap, and the position information comes from transmission gratings with line size of 1 micron (anti-H atoms either get through or annihilate in the first grating, the second grating makes an interference pattern, and a third grating is used as a detector of that interference pattern). While much of that is technically challenging, the hard part is trapping the antiprotons and cooling them so they remain in the trap with acceptable transverse and longitudinal emittances. > It is possible to trap and slow down a single atom , > using laser light etc., [...] "possible" does not mean "feasible". This isn't feasible. Tom Roberts >>>> "Tom Roberts" <tjroberts...@sbcglobal.net> >>>>> This experiment [quoted text clipped - 37 lines] > > "possible" does not mean "feasible". This isn't feasible. Tom, Is it feasable to change the spin axis of a single particle, or will it sorta keep one spin axis only? In other words, could you make a particle spin horizontally like a golfball would and then send it off to collide? :) SignatureJames M Driscoll Jr Spaceman > Tom, > Is it feasable to change the spin axis of a single particle, or > will it sorta keep one spin axis only? > > In other words, could you make a particle spin horizontally > like a golfball would and then send it off to collide? Particles with a magnetic moment can be oriented as desired by applying a suitable field. >> Tom, >> Is it feasable to change the spin axis of a single particle, or [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > Particles with a magnetic moment can be oriented > as desired by applying a suitable field. And when you stop such a field, it pops back to align with the universe. hmm? even in vacuum I wonder what causes that. :) >>> Tom, >>> Is it feasable to change the spin axis of a single particle, or [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > even in vacuum > I wonder what causes that. The orientations tend to randomize by thermal excitation (jostling, vibrating, rotating). While they are still influenced by whatever local fields obtain, kinetic randomization tends to swamp the effects of any but strong fields. This is why so many of the physical experiments done in this area are performed at very cold temperatures (millikelvins). >>>> Tom, >>>> Is it feasable to change the spin axis of a single particle, or [quoted text clipped - 21 lines] > done in this area are performed at very cold > temperatures (millikelvins). Yes, but like I said, What silly thing would cause such "re-orientation" in a "perfect vacuum" like space. :) SignatureJames M Driscoll Jr Spaceman >>>>> Tom, >>>>> Is it feasable to change the spin axis of a single particle, or [quoted text clipped - 25 lines] > What silly thing would cause such "re-orientation" > in a "perfect vacuum" like space. In the end you'll have to deal with quantum effects and mesurements. But that's a whole 'nother kettle of fish that I don't relish getting into with you! > In the end you'll have to deal with quantum effects > and mesurements. But that's a whole 'nother kettle > of fish that I don't relish getting into with you! So you don't like Quantum mechanics? It is really simple stuff Greg, It finds "physical causes for mechnical effects" :) SignatureJames M Driscoll Jr Spaceman >> In the end you'll have to deal with quantum effects >> and mesurements. But that's a whole 'nother kettle [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > It finds "physical causes for mechnical effects" > :) I've really enjoyed this conversation -- until now. Sorry, SM, but anybody who says QM is "really simple stuff Greg" is waay tooo arrrogant to be scientific! You'd make a great astronaut, though! <g> happy days and... starry starry nights! SignatureIndelibly yours, Paine Ellsworth P.S.: Thank YOU for reading! P.P.S.: http://painellsworth.net >>> In the end you'll have to deal with quantum effects >>> and mesurements. But that's a whole 'nother kettle [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > > You'd make a great astronaut, though! <g> Actually the real meaning of it being simple stuff is true, It is just a ton of simple stuff, and because there is so much simple stuff, it makes it complicated. :) Everything is simple stuff, it is just a matter of how much simple stuff it has in it. :) SignatureJames M Driscoll Jr Spaceman >>>> In the end you'll have to deal with quantum effects >>>> and mesurements. But that's a whole 'nother kettle [quoted text clipped - 23 lines] > it has in it. > :) A huge 1-ton box of cotton weighs just as much as a small 1-ton box of lead. You gotta trust me on this SM... there is nothing simple about QM--nothing. Those who think so just don't get it. happy days and... starry starry nights! SignatureIndelibly yours, Paine Ellsworth P.S.: Thank YOU for reading! P.P.S.: http://painellsworth.net > A huge 1-ton box of cotton weighs just as much > as a small 1-ton box of lead. Yes compression,friction,force, etc in all sorts of manners measuring bit by bit by bit etc.. It is mechanics at the most basic still and the very most you can find about how it works" If you take it apart carefully, you know how it works. You don't go "smashin it up" to see how it works.. > You gotta trust me on this SM... there is nothing > simple about QM--nothing. Those who think so > just don't get it. No, I don't think "IT" is simple, I think each small part of it is basically simple It is "ALL" basic mechanics if you are doing it correctly. but just "TONS of basic already known equations worth" of it Hence the term "quantum - mechanics" :) SignatureJames M Driscoll Jr Spaceman >>>>> In the end you'll have to deal with quantum effects >>>>> and mesurements. But that's a whole 'nother kettle [quoted text clipped - 30 lines] > simple about QM--nothing. Those who think so > just don't get it. Simple, no. But it *is* understandable. If you go back to the first puzzle in quantum mechanics, which is the double slit experiment, you have a perfect example of what I mean. Even Feynman has said that this is the only puzzle in QM, by which he meant that if you could conceptually understand what was going on you would have solved QM. He was wrong, but not for the reasons he thought. On my web site, I give a 'simple' explanation for the n-slit experiment which shows how conceptual a theory it can be once you know all the pieces - it only seems beyond human ken because they only teach essentially half the theory in school. How understandable it is depends on how open you are to understanding..... it's kind of a Zen thing :-) Once you 'understand', and can see how childishly simple building even a superluminal communicator is, let alone fully understanding the double slit experiment... even then, you can see the next level of questions that need to be asked, and realize just how much you don't know in the grand scheme of things... Greysky www.allocations.cc Learn how to build a FTL radio. [...] > Once you 'understand', and can see how childishly simple building even a > superluminal communicator is Yet here we are and you still haven't built one. [...] On Jun 15, 10:26 pm, "greysky" <grey...@sbcglobal.net> wrote: [...] > Once you 'understand', and can see how childishly simple building even a > superluminal communicator is Yet here we are and you still haven't built one. [...] No...you haven't built one. If you did I'd have heard it. >>[...] >> [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > >No...you haven't built one. If you did I'd have heard it. Wow, aren't you the all-powerful one. BTW, someone as smart as you claim to be should be able to quote a usenet post correctly [fi><ored]. Signature"Substantiation that you regard yourself as a God to be worhsipped [sic] should be your concern, Deco." -- David Tholen > No...you haven't built one. If you did I'd have heard it. :) On Jun 16, 8:17 am, "Spaceman" <space...@yourclockmalfunctioned.duh> wrote: > > No...you haven't built one. If you did I'd have heard it. > > :) Antimatter is energy rotating/precessing at 1:2 just like matter, but it precesses the opposite way. Since our galaxy precesses only one way, most of the matter making it up also precesses only one way. (But is it the same as or the opposite of the galaxy?) >>>>>> In the end you'll have to deal with quantum effects >>>>>> and mesurements. But that's a whole 'nother kettle [quoted text clipped - 47 lines] >to be asked, and realize just how much you don't know in the grand scheme of >things... Metaphysics and warm fuzzy feelings are not physics, much less scientific. >Greysky > >www.allocations.cc >Learn how to build a FTL radio. And the only verification of this device is the words you write. You might as well be claiming to have a water engine. Signature"Substantiation that you regard yourself as a God to be worhsipped [sic] should be your concern, Deco." -- David Tholen >>>>>>> In the end you'll have to deal with quantum effects >>>>>>> and mesurements. But that's a whole 'nother kettle [quoted text clipped - 63 lines] > And the only verification of this device is the words you write. You > might as well be claiming to have a water engine. If I had one of those, I'd *never* tell you about it - the oil cartel is too strong. But, the radio engineers cartel is not much of a threat, hence my quantum communications device. >>>>>>>> In the end you'll have to deal with quantum effects >>>>>>>> and mesurements. But that's a whole 'nother kettle [quoted text clipped - 67 lines] >too strong. But, the radio engineers cartel is not much of a threat, hence >my quantum communications device. Yet there is still no independent verification of this "quantum communications device." Signature"Substantiation that you regard yourself as a God to be worhsipped [sic] should be your concern, Deco." -- David Tholen >>>>>>>>> In the end you'll have to deal with quantum effects >>>>>>>>> and mesurements. But that's a whole 'nother kettle [quoted text clipped - 77 lines] > Yet there is still no independent verification of this "quantum > communications device." Correct. Verifying a technology ready for economic development is not the same thing as verifying a theory. It is much more complicated than many would believe - unless I don't care who makes money off my machine and I do. >>>>>>>>>> In the end you'll have to deal with quantum effects >>>>>>>>>> and mesurements. But that's a whole 'nother kettle [quoted text clipped - 81 lines] >same thing as verifying a theory. It is much more complicated than many >would believe - unless I don't care who makes money off my machine and I do. Application of Occam would point toward the "doesn't exist" zone. Signature"Substantiation that you regard yourself as a God to be worhsipped [sic] should be your concern, Deco." -- David Tholen >>>>>>>>>>> In the end you'll have to deal with quantum effects >>>>>>>>>>> and mesurements. But that's a whole 'nother kettle [quoted text clipped - 83 lines] > > Application of Occam would point toward the "doesn't exist" zone. Indeed. If Mister Grey Sky's 'radio' were livin' here today, he would be dragging in grant money so fast he wouldn't have time to poast. Since he appears to have plenty of time to do just that, it follows that he doesn't have a working pair (pun intentional) to be to demonstate is so-called 'theory'. ESL! (With a nod to ELO) SignatureBookman -The Official Overseer of Kooks and Trolls in AFA-B Kazoo Konspirator #668 (The Neighbor of the Beast) Clue-Bat Wrangler Keeper of the Nickname Lists Despotic Kookologist of the New World Order Hammer of Thor award, October 2005 BARBARA WOODHOUSE MEMORIAL DOG-WHISTLE AWARD MIKE "MIGUEL" CRANSTON, TRAINED BY BOOKMAN COOSN-266-06-89425 #14 People ruining UseNet lits #9 Top a.sholes on the Net lits #11 Most hated Usenetizens of all time lits #11 Cog in the AUK Hate Machine "I'd love to kill you in a ring" - Bartmo gets all touchy-feely "****SPV....... So yes I am an idiot." "ASK THE NWS, YOUR TAX DOLLAR GOES TO THEM NOT TO DR.TURI." - Mr. Turi explains how to accurately predict hurricanes Bookman is yet another Usenet fignuten, meaning naysayer and/or rusemaster of their incest cloned Third Reich. In other words, you're communicating with an intellectual if not a biological clone of Hitler. - Brad Guth tries to wax "scientific", but invokes Godwin, instead. WWFSMD? [...] > Indeed. If Mister Grey Sky's 'radio' were livin' here today, he would be > dragging in grant money so fast he wouldn't have time to poast. Since he [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > ESL! > (With a nod to ELO) Spoken like a person who hasn't a clue to what they're rattleing on about. If only it were as simple as you make it out to be... Like Tom Roberts reply as to how difficult it is to run an experiment showing the gravitational polarity of antimatter, it can't be done in the wrong way without negative consequences. As a tiny example, the oscillators I use for generating the P2 pipeline - the actual quantum link connecting the two devices in a superluminal mode- need to be so spectrally pure that as of 2002 the u.s. federal government considers them to be 'munitions' and subject to export restrictions. If I were to, say, post a schematic of an actual device, I could be breaking the law and get arrested. Before I could even do such a simple thing as post a design, I would need to get it cleared with a lawyer first, and that takes money I don't have. If I have to file forms with the Fed, then forget it - I can just imagine how long I'd be free to talk about my device if anyone in the government thought for even a millisecond that it was for real... even as it is, my small web site regularly gets harvested by several governmental sites. That's why I have not activated the last two links on my homepage. This tiny example is literally one of *thousands* which have occured over the past decade. But it does mean I have some time in my buisy day to post (what's 'poast'?) usenet pieces. It's nice to see that ELO has at least one fan left, btw. Greysky www.allocations.cc Learn how to build a FTL radio. > This tiny example is literally one of *thousands* which have occured over > the past decade. But it does mean I have some time in my buisy day to post > (what's 'poast'?) usenet pieces. Post and "poast" mean almost exactly the same thing, with just a very slight difference -- poasting is much more "leet". Signature________________________________________________________________________ Hail Eris! mhm 29x21; TM#5; Chung Convict #28; Usenet Ruiner #5 Demon Lord of Confusion; Official Chung Demon; Top a.shole #3 COOSN-029-06-71069; Most Hated Usenetizen of All Time #13; Lits Slut #16 Gutter Chix0r #17; BowTie's Spuriously Accused Pedo Photographer #4 AUK Psycho & Felon #21; Parrot & Zombie #2; AUK Hate Machine Cog #19 Anonymous Psycho Criminal #18 The posting nym is best removed from my posting address if your goal is to speak with me in private. Supreme High Overlord of rec.radio.* Chuck Lysaght: Tarred & Feathered! "Atheists are people who have no invisible means of support" Join my RuneScape clan! http://z11.invisionfree.com/Holy_Pretzel_Cabal/index.php Full name of clan: Cabal of the Holy International Discordian Internet And Usenet Terrorist Pretzel "I know how you special busboys are. You're crazy." -- John "special busboy" Wentzky, in Message-ID: <HMb3k.2413$bh5.2204@bignews4.bellsouth.net> "Roe V Wade has zero bearing on my existence other than it affects it adversely." -- Johnny Wentzky never had much truck with "logic". Message-ID: <V6xNe.27650$XM3.20042@bignews5.bellsouth.net> "Fredbot == SameAsB4 == TGOOS "You are stalking me, even after I thrashed ya." -- PorchMonkey4Life, a veritable combination of Sherlock Holmes and Doc Savage for the 21st Century. No, really. Would I lie? MID: <zaUqh.2972$E35.415@trnddc02> "He unleashes a fecal explosion he time he posts. He uses so many nyms because he gets beaten so easily and so convincingly in flame wars and tries to hide behind nyms in the hopes of getting a fresh start. To bad for him that his lameness keep shining through like a beacon for all tards (e.g., SameAs$B4, Demon Spawn, Barbara's Pus$y, FredBot, TGOOS, ......, etc)" -- Monkey-man identifies <jitter> as me, among others, in broken English, in MID: <Z_Xqh.3167$E35.215@trnddc02> Barbara Woodhouse Memorial Dog Whistle Trainer of the above k00k http://www.screedbomb.info/porchie/ "Q: What do you call someone in the White House who is honest, caring, and well-read? A: A tourist." -- Anonymous "It would be offly hard for any of you to abuse me on usenet. Really. I have the advantage. I could easily turn alt.usenet.kooks into a cesspool of encoded posts. Bringing the noise ratio up so high as to make the group worthless. Anybody who can code could do this, why nobody has bothered before now is beyond me. The ultimate spamming engine.. 'BAWAHAHA'" -- Dustbin "Outer Filth" K00k's delusions of grandeur reached new heights, in Message-ID: <Xns98355D29419B9HHI2948AJD832@69.28.186.121> "Immorality: The morality of those who are having a better time." -- H. L. Mencken "Consider that language a moment. 'Purposefully and materially supported hostilities against the United States' is in the eye of the beholder, and this administration has proven itself to be astonishingly impatient with criticism of any kind. The broad powers given to Bush by this legislation allow him to capture, indefinitely detain, and refuse a hearing to any American citizen who speaks out against Iraq or any other part of the so-called 'War on Terror.' "If you write a letter to the editor attacking Bush, you could be deemed as purposefully and materially supporting hostilities against the United States. If you organize or join a public demonstration against Iraq, or against the administration, the same designation could befall you. One dark-comedy aspect of the legislation is that senators or House members who publicly disagree with Bush, criticize him, or organize investigations into his dealings could be placed under the same designation. In effect, Congress just gave Bush the power to lock them up." -- William Rivers Pitt "It has become clear in recent months that a critical mass of the American people have seen through the lies of the Bush administration; with the president's polls at an historic low, growing resistance to the war Iraq, and the Democrats likely to take back the Congress in mid-term elections, the Bush administration is on the ropes. And so it is particularly worrying that President Bush has seen fit, at this juncture to, in effect, declare himself dictator." -- Frank Morales http://www.uruknet.biz/?p=m27769&hd=0&size=1&l=e&fark "Right you are correct. Someone hooked me. I do believe in building relationships. That is what Christians are required to do. I am amoral. I am sure you know what that means. So are Scorpios. I am being 'protected' by the Formosa Rule because of my 'mental illness'. I am not targeting 'teh Mop Jockey'. You are and you are using me as a bait. Please stop. I have my own fish to reel in. Leave me alone. It is my hope that I will be able to catch a fish and reel it in for you. Once my retired bishop thought I was fishing for him and he took the bait, alas it wasn't me and that spelled the demise of our relationship. Have a little bit more faith in me. An Eastern Orthodox bishop thought I was fishing for him and willingly, proudly and defiantly took the bait on public record, and it wasn't even me. Give me a break." -- Atlanta Olympiada "Erica" Kane yammered in Message-ID: <ochc3.ag0.17.1@news.alt.net> "It does to a certain extant physically and theoretically it holds even into the quantum but there observational confirmation is limited or non existent. That's the problem and the major stumbling block to field unification. For Dr. Einstein held out that a physical based field theory should be sought out and not left to quantum uncertainty of how the universe primly base works. Man made coordinate systems are fine without knowing from where or what is the base essence of what the space as deduced field is composed of, but not totally satisfactory. Anomalies keep space cropping up and scientists have to keep adjusting for these unexpected events. It's like a blind man that has memorized his physical surroundings to a point he feels very comfortable until that one new or unexpected event pops up and he's lost and fumbling." -- nightbat, in one of his more lucid moments. Message-ID: <b27b0$45ed14a7$46e3a646$6618@COMTECK.COM> To Whom It May Concern: Att'y Michael James Cranston stalker kook, Esq., is a dogfucker and Kook of the Month for March 2007 >[...] > [quoted text clipped - 24 lines] >several governmental sites. That's why I have not activated the last two >links on my homepage. Yet you have money to buy what you claim are "munitions grade" oscillators, which are so sooper sekret that even the mention of part numbers in a "schematic" would bring the NSA down on your poor head. >This tiny example is literally one of *thousands* which have occured over >the past decade. But it does mean I have some time in my buisy day to post [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] >www.allocations.cc >Learn how to build a FTL radio. Brad Guth can help you tilt at those pesky MI6/DARPA Zionist/Nazi government types out to suppress the truth and steal all the good ideas. Signature"Substantiation that you regard yourself as a God to be worhsipped [sic] should be your concern, Deco." -- David Tholen >>[...] >> [quoted text clipped - 52 lines] > government types out to suppress the truth and steal all the good > ideas. You can help with the teen boy Buggering, Pedo Deco! HJ > >>> "Tom Roberts" <tjroberts...@sbcglobal.net> > >>>> This experiment [quoted text clipped - 37 lines] > > Tom Roberts What sort of timetable would you estimate for proposal/approval/ funding/implementation/running/analysis/publication of this experiment? Jerry > What sort of timetable would you estimate for proposal/approval/ > funding/implementation/running/analysis/publication of this > experiment? We intend to submit a proposal by November 1, 2008. If we miss that date we will have to wait until the spring/summer meeting of the Program Advisory Committee. As the experiment is time limited by the impending shutdown of the Tevatron in 2010, such a delay could be a problem, so we will try hard to avoid it. We think we can beat that deadline by about a year, but will probably be hard-pressed to take data before late 2010 in even the best scenario. Unlike virtually every other experiment at Fermilab, this one will be limited by systematic errors, not statistics. Most of those we will work on BEFORE funding, as we can do that with normal hydrogen and already have most of the non-beamline equipment (the last piece arrived at Fermilab last month and two grad students are setting it up now in a different lab). Once we get it working at the accelerator and have tuned up the antiproton beam, our estimates are that one beam pulse will give sufficient statistics to be systematic limited (so think of several weeks :-)). Data analysis and publication should be only a few months. Tom Roberts >Gravity has absolutly nothing to do with the 'energy ' of a particle. Of course it does -- did you never learn of potential energy? Signature"Substantiation that you regard yourself as a God to be worhsipped [sic] should be your concern, Deco." -- David Tholen >>Gravity has absolutly nothing to do with the 'energy ' of a particle. > > Of course it does -- did you never learn of potential energy? I am talking about what causes it, not how it behaves. But still, the reason gravity can do real work is because of what causes it... probability conservation is a more fundamental quantity than 'energy' conservation, and is the reason why we have conservation laws to begin with. When you are talking about kinetic or potential energy, you are really taking a step away from the more fundamental reasons why things behave the way they do. It muddies the waters. Greysky www.allocations.cc Learn how to build a FTL radio. (snip) > BTW nobody who understands modern physics expects an antimatter apple to > "fall up". This is so because for ordinary matter >95% of the mass is due > to binding energy, kinetic energy of constituents, and the gluon field -- > all of these things are exactly the same for matter and antimatter, and > there's no plausible mechanism to cause them to behave differently with > respect to gravity. The truth is: - Modern physics don't understand inertia, because Einstein had no clue on what a gyroscope is. - The mechanism you fail to see is - INERTIA. When a particle and an antiparticle meet, no matter the speed then meet, they are annihilated - NO INERTIA involved in the process. Hence, if gravity and inertia are alike, then it follow that since anti-inertia looks to be the case chances are that antigravity exists too. JM There is no such force called "anti-gravity" nor "anti-inertia" Gravity and inertia are two sides to the same coin Best to keep in mind Space is not "flat" but "curved" Bert Greysky I'm sure antimatter has the same gravitational properties as ordinary matter. Antimatter has an opposite electrical charge,and opposite nuclear force charges Bert > (snip) > [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > alike, then it follow that since anti-inertia looks to be > the case chances are that antigravity exists too. Neeaaaatttt. Go read about Mach's principle - I've never seen someone crank out over inertia before, so I might as well help you to be a well-read idiot. > >http://space.newscientist.com/article/dn14120-would-an-antimatter-app... > [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > the standard model and GR that predict such a difference. This gives a > rather strong requirement on the resolution of any viable experiment. I had no idea this idea was seriously entertained. AFAIK, "anti- matter" is just ordinary matter with a reversed choice of quantum numbers, leading it to go "boom" when it meets equivalent matter. If anti-matter was not strictly gravitationally equivalent to equivalent matter, wouldn't this pose some problems for mass-energy conservation upon an annihilation reaction? Or would the adjustment go in up front, before annilhilation -- so that anti hydrogen would have a different mass energy than hydrogen, for example? I thought _negative_ mass energy was needed to mess with gravitational equivalence. Unlike anti-matter, when an equivalent quantity of negative mass energy met positive mass energy, it would not go "boom", but "poof". No? > > >http://space.newscientist.com/article/dn14120-would-an-antimatter-app... > [quoted text clipped - 19 lines] > matter" is just ordinary matter with a reversed choice of quantum > numbers, leading it to go "boom" when it meets equivalent matter. Antimatter is really only special because of star trek. There isn't even remotely a serious expectation that it falls upwards or any bullshit like that. Though it is still important to test, which makes me mad that NASA refuses to fly the experiment that would test just that to the ISS. God forbid it does some science that a 6 yearold couldn't think up. > If anti-matter was not strictly gravitationally equivalent to > equivalent matter, wouldn't this pose some problems for mass-energy > conservation upon an annihilation reaction? Or would the adjustment > go in up front, before annilhilation -- so that anti hydrogen would > have a different mass energy than hydrogen, for example? Anti-matter could fall upwards and the kinematics still wouldn't give a sh.t. There is still that factor of 10^38 or so separating E&M and gravitation. Though it would act as a huge violator of the EP since anti-matter and matter have the same sign on mass. A coupling between gravitation and some random quantum number would be pretty out there. > I thought _negative_ mass energy was needed to mess with gravitational > equivalence. Unlike anti-matter, when an equivalent quantity of > negative mass energy met positive mass energy, it would not go "boom", > but "poof". No? Its 511KeV gammas and up when anti-matter and matter hug. Get enough stuff and you get baryon production! Woo woo! Here comes the decay train! > > If anti-matter was not strictly gravitationally equivalent to > > equivalent matter, wouldn't this pose some problems for mass-energy [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > matter have the same sign on mass. A coupling between gravitation and > some random quantum number would be pretty out there. That's something like I was getting at. If anti-matter fell differently, then the EP is either broken, or else the mass-energy of anti-hydrogen is different from that of hydrogen. > > I thought _negative_ mass energy was needed to mess with gravitational > > equivalence. Unlike anti-matter, when an equivalent quantity of [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > stuff and you get baryon production! Woo woo! Here comes the decay > train! So what would we expect if negative (exotic?) mass (not positive mass anti-matter) met ordinary mass? Perhaps not a bang, but a whimper. > > There have been ideas and dreams of doing this for many years. But as > > the article says, there are now two credible proposals being prepared. I [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > matter" is just ordinary matter with a reversed choice of quantum > numbers, leading it to go "boom" when it meets equivalent matter. No, anti-matter is exactly why Professor Roberts said where all the constituent electric charges have the exact opposite polarities as ordinary matter. > If anti-matter was not strictly gravitationally equivalent to > equivalent matter, wouldn't this pose some problems for mass-energy > conservation upon an annihilation reaction? The mass of anti-matter is still positive. > Or would the adjustment > go in up front, before annilhilation -- so that anti hydrogen would > have a different mass energy than hydrogen, for example? The physicists have claimed to have produced positrons (anti- electrons) and anti-protons but, as far as I know, have not the anti- atom. > I thought _negative_ mass energy was needed to mess with gravitational > equivalence. Unlike anti-matter, when an equivalent quantity of > negative mass energy met positive mass energy, it would not go "boom", > but "poof". No? Anti-matter is no the negative mass density that Einstein the nitwit, the plagiarist, and the liar pulled out of his *ss from where Poisson early resisted in doing so. So far, there is not even any serious conjecture of what an object with a negative mass look like, behave like, or even feel like. Let alone observed one. <shrug> > The physicists have claimed to have produced positrons (anti- > electrons) and anti-protons but, as far as I know, have not the anti- > atom. Ignorant poseur. They've been produced for several years now. Trapping them when they are still relatively high kinetic energy is the problem. http://hussle.harvard.edu/~gabrielse/gabrielse/papers/2008/AtrapHbarProducedInPe nningIoffe.pdf Jerry > > > There have been ideas and dreams of doing this for many years. But as > > > the article says, there are now two credible proposals being prepared. I [quoted text clipped - 32 lines] > electrons) and anti-protons but, as far as I know, have not the anti- > atom. You saying "as far as I know" has the same weight in conversation as "as far as I can throw the space shuttle". > > I thought _negative_ mass energy was needed to mess with gravitational > > equivalence. Unlike anti-matter, when an equivalent quantity of [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > with a negative mass look like, behave like, or even feel like. Let > alone observed one. <shrug> > If anti-matter was not strictly gravitationally equivalent to > equivalent matter, wouldn't this pose some problems for mass-energy > conservation upon an annihilation reaction? That is one of the constraints on a SENSIBLE model in which matter and antimatter behave differently. For instance, the usual tensor gravity of GR cannot possibly do this, nor does the standard model, so any model in which they behave differently under gravity must necessarily go beyond GR and the standard model. The most plausible extensions involve scalar and vector Bosons such that the latter couple differently to quarks and antiquarks (just as the [vector] photon couples differently to them). The scalar Boson is needed to regularize the vector theory and to prevent the model from being trivially refuted by ordinary observations of gravity (such as you mention). So the sum of all 3 (scalar, vector, and tensor) Bosons give the gravity we all know for matter, but the vector portion changes sign for antimatter; thus an antihydrogen atom could in principle fall differently from its normal counterpart. > Or would the adjustment > go in up front, before annilhilation -- so that anti hydrogen would > have a different mass energy than hydrogen, for example? In the type of model discussed above, the mass of antihydrogen is unaffected. In this type of extension to the standard model + tensor gravity, Mach's principle does NOT determine masses (bare masses are intrinsic free parameters of the theory, and the dynamics gives masses for bound states of bare particles). > I thought _negative_ mass energy was needed to mess with gravitational > equivalence. In GR, there is no way to "mess with gravitational equivalence". In the above models, such equivalence is only approximate. > Unlike anti-matter, when an equivalent quantity of > negative mass energy met positive mass energy, it would not go "boom", > but "poof". No? It depends on more than just "negative energy".... Jerry wrote: > Consider that photons, which are their own antiparticle, fall > "down" in a gravitational field. This has been known for nearly > a century. > If matter falls down in a gravitational field, and antimatter > falls up in a gravitational field, shouldn't photons go right > through a gravitational field with no deviation? This depends on the model. In the above model, no, because the coupling to photons is unchanged -- the new vector and scalar bosons do not couple to photons at all. > The hope is that antimatter may fall "differently" in a > gravitational field. Nobody except a crackpot thinks that > antimatter will fall up. Yes. Actually not many physicists think there will be any measurable difference, even for much better resolutions than our expected 1% (in g_bar - g). But this is the sort of thing that should be checked -- after all, that's what science is. Tom Roberts > Jerry wrote: > > Consider that photons, which are their own antiparticle, fall [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > to photons is unchanged -- the new vector and scalar bosons do not > couple to photons at all. Except that the above model that you described was a SENSIBLE theory. I was specifically asking about the consequences of a NON-sensible theory. ;-) Not that it really matters, though. If you start from nonsense assumptions, there's nothing that you can't derive. After all, "false implies true". Thanks, Jerry > > Jerry wrote: > > > Consider that photons, which are their own antiparticle, fall [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] > Thanks, > Jerry Mesons fall up and down at the same. The matter quark falls down while the anti matter quark falls up. Mitch Raemsch > >http://space.newscientist.com/article/dn14120-would-an-antimatter-app... > [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > to quarks and leptons than to antiquarks and antileptons, we expect a > difference on the order of 1%. Dale finally found some time for a reply. Actually you might have seen one of my postings on another idea but since no one brought it up again here goes. Remember that for example 1 pound of anything dose not have much gravity so if its gravity was repulsive it might just be swamped out by all its mass.After all if its tiny gravity were repulsive against earths gravity then you would notice that 1 pound of antimatter still weight 1 pound but because its tiny gravity is repulsive you end up requiring a few more atoms more to make up the same pound meaning its inertia would be more than a regular pound of normal mass.You get some really interesting predictions when we change the mass amounts because if you were to have an entire planet the same size as ours approach our planet it would become gravitationally invisible and would only gravitate by whatever the differences are.If for example the alternative planet were to have an extra pound of weight then the two planets would gravitate towards each other by only that 1 extra pound. Its an interesting hypothesis because of the way you end up with at least one way of being able to explain why our universe is predominantly matter and yet you also need the 2 types of matter to be in exactly equal amounts before it will work. After that the hypothesis get to go into even wilder speculations. Hypothetical test for this hypothesis. 1 Equal amounts of matter and antimatter will not gravitate towards each other such as if you had two 1 mg samples in space they would not gravitate towards each other no mater how much time. 2 Samples of antimatter and matter on a space station in orbit would allow the two samples to drift into different orbits with the antimatter sample going into the higher orbit.Larger samples giving larger differences. Good luck trying to do a reduction to practice on this one. Dale > >http://space.newscientist.com/article/dn14120-would-an-antimatter-app... > [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > to quarks and leptons than to antiquarks and antileptons, we expect a > difference on the order of 1%. Dale finally found some time for a reply.When looking for percentages of differences there is one more possibility. Actually you might have seen one of my postings on this some time ago but since no one brought it up again here goes. A big possibility not mentioned here is based on the idea that because mass doesn't actually have a lot of gravity associated with it then even if repulsive it might not be that easily noticed. For example 1 Kg of anything dose not have much gravity so any hypothetical repulsion from that much mass could be much less than the earths gravity on the positive energy that makes up the antimatter sample.1 Kg of antimatter would still weigh 1 Kg on a spring scale so should appear to weight the same but if this hypothesis were right it would still actually require more mass to balance out the tiny repulsion of the antimatters repulsive gravity. So its actual inertial mass could be slightly more than a regular Kg if this hypothesis were right and leading to some equivalence principle violations. You get some really interesting predictions when we change the mass amounts because if you were to instead have an entire planet the same size and mass as ours approach our planet it would become gravitationally invisible and would only gravitate by whatever the mass differences actually are.If for example the alternative planet were to have an extra pound of weight then the two planets would gravitate towards each other by only that 1 extra pound. Its an interesting hypothesis because of the way you end up with at least one hypothesis to explain why our universe is predominantly matter and because you need the 2 types of matter to be in exactly equal amounts before it will work it fits with how antimatter was required to be in equal amounts in the big bang. After that the hypothesis gets to go into even wilder speculations. Hypothetical test for this hypothesis. 1 Equal amounts of matter and antimatter will not gravitate towards each other such as if you had two 1 mg samples in space they would not gravitate towards each other no mater how much time. 2 Samples of antimatter and matter on a space station in orbit would allow the two samples to drift into different orbits with the antimatter sample going into the higher orbit.Larger samples giving larger differences. Good luck trying to do a reduction to practice on this one. I do have a web site but its still an incomplete total mess and I just don't have much time for it now but it has some random related info on it www.alttheories.com. Dale There ARE several plausible extensions to > the standard model and GR that predict such a difference. This gives a > rather strong requirement on the resolution of any viable experiment. > > Tom Roberts To Ya All (Florida talk) If the apple was compressed to the size of a proton it would be a black hole,and the Earth would come "UP" to it. That is reality Bert PS This fits when we see a large object orbiting a point in space. > http://space.newscientist.com/article/dn14120-would-an-antimatter-apple-fall-up. html?DCMP=ILC-hmts&nsref=news1_head_dn14120 > > Finally! Someone is at least thinking about running an experiment that will > test the gravitational polarity of antimatter. It's about time! [snip crap] You are an idiot. Antimatter obeys the Equivalence Principle by direct observation: trapped positrons. > Learn how to build a FTL radio. Idiot. SignatureUncle Al http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/ (Toxic URL! Unsafe for children and most mammals) http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/lajos.htm#a2 >> http://space.newscientist.com/article/dn14120-would-an-antimatter-apple-fall-up. html?DCMP=ILC-hmts&nsref=news1_head_dn14120 >> [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > Antimatter obeys the Equivalence Principle by > direct observation: trapped positrons. The electromagnetic forces on those trapped positrons exceed the gravitational force on them by a truly enormous factor. This is no test of the equivalence principle at all. Neither are the antiprotons circulating around the Tevatron for ~24 hours. Your claim is essentially equivalent to claiming that chairs do not fall under gravity, because when placed on the floor they don't fall. That, too, is because the electromagnetic forces on the chair exceed the gravitational forces by many orders of magnitude. When those EM forces are removed or canceled, chairs quite clearly do fall; but nobody knows what actually happens for antimatter, because to date nobody has been able to remove or cancel those comparatively enormous EM forces. To have any hope of measuring the force of gravity on antimatter, or of testing the equivalence principle for antimatter, one must cancel the electromagnetic forces to extremely high accuracy. The best way of doing that reliably is to form a neutral anti-atom. For antiprotons and positrons that is quite difficult.... Tom Roberts Tom R Its electrons that keep the chair from falling. We must also keep in mind what Pauli told us Bert > According >to my theroy, "Analysis of Gravity in Mass-Energy Systems", there is at [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] >concerning gravity, many of our currently popular ideas will be quickly >rewritten. Ok, I can testify (even though I 've not been around for 25 years :-) >Even 25 years ago, my theory correctly predicted baryon >conservation - and gave the reason why. I also was amongst the first to [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] >Superluminal Communications Systems, and have had spectacular success going >where no human truly has gone before! Why not get the Nobel prize for your work on S.C.S. ? C. > http://space.newscientist.com/article/dn14120-would-an-antimatter-app... > [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > least one form of 'antimatter' that does indeed have a positive inertial > mass and a negative gravitational mass. Thanks for posting the link to this article. The Aether Physics Model predicts all antimatter is gravitationally repulsive to normal matter. Can you post a link to your paper? I would like to read it. It is easy to induce that antimatter and matter are gravitationally repulsive. Two photons can combine to produce a positron-electron pair. The positron and electron are massive particles, having the same mass but opposite spin. The positron and electron must have transformed from the two photons. This means the photon contains both left and right spin mass, but only half of an electron mass worth of each. The photon has zero net mass, which means that the two masses must cancel each other out, which means they must be gravitationally repulsive. Modern theory cannot accept a photon being composed of two opposite spinning masses because they don't have the structure necessary for the two spins to coexist. To quantify such a structure requires an Aether. Since GR predicts antimatter is gravitationally attracted to matter, this could be the physical experiment that changes everything. Let's hope they can get the funding. Dave David Thomson <aetherwizard@gmail.com> wrote in message e4cc4325-06d3-408b-b8a4-67948847ae9e@x41g2000hsb.googlegroups.com >> http://space.newscientist.com/article/dn14120-would-an-antimatter-app... >> [quoted text clipped - 24 lines] > the two spins to coexist. To quantify such a structure requires an > Aether. Here: http://www.phisick.com/a1om1.htm it looks like it's urgent. Hurry. Dirk Vdm Greysky If gravity is a "push" down force than up is the wrong direction. Reality is gravity is not used as a balancing force. It is only a compression inward force. As such it can create and evolve all that is. As such it is the time clock of the universe. If time was balanced there would be no time. etc Bert PS it is better thinking the Earth came up to the apple than the apple fell into space. Both are not reality but one is better than the other Go figure Bert > http://space.newscientist.com/article/dn14120-would-an-antimatter-app... > [quoted text clipped - 23 lines] > www.allocations.cc > Learn how to build a FTL radio. Yes, an antimatter apple falls up in a world made mainly of ordinary matter. An antimatter apple falls down in an anti-world, and an apple made of ordinary matter falls up in that anti-world. > http://space.newscientist.com/article/dn14120-would-an-antimatter-app... > [quoted text clipped - 23 lines] > www.allocations.cc > Learn how to build a FTL radio. Anti matter is a hoax. > http://space.newscientist.com/article/dn14120-would-an-antimatter-apple-fall-up. html?DCMP=ILC-hmts&nsref=news1_head_dn14120 The term "anti-matter" certainly does get its share of exposure, and in almost all cases the word "theory" can be found lurking in the neighborhood. It is an established fact that one thing matter and anti-matter excel at is mutual annihilation. Based on that astute observation, the Universe should be entirely composed of either one, or the other. One theory bandied about has it that, after the BB, matter and anti-matter were formed in almost equal amounts, with matter running a slight 1 in a million particle favorite. In other words, for every 1,000,000 particles of matter and anti-matter that met in a dance of cataclysmic death, one lonely particle of matter survived. When the orgy of destruction was over, matter had won out by the slimmest of margins and anti-matter was relegated to the bin of history. The surviving matter is the stuff we are made of. Scientists claim that anti-matter has been created in Super Colliders, but only lasted a fraction of a milli seconds before meeting the knell of death by the hand of its contemporary matter compatriots. So, the question is: does anti-matter exist in our present Universe ? Do we really have to worry about, or even consider the proverbial anti-matter apple hitting us in the butt on its way up ?? There are some cosmic events of such phenomenal force that perhaps matter / anti-matter interaction may be the only logical explanation. But if that is a consideration, where do the anti-matter particles come from, what process creates them. Could there be a third kind of "Neutral Matter" which can intermingle with the two arch enemies and allow the anti-matter particle to evolve to maturity before venturing into hostile territory. Could that "Neutral Matter" actually be the ashes of the original post Big Bang slugfest of destruction between matter and anti-matter and over the eons evolved into the scientific Holy Grail of "Dark Matter" ? > http://space.newscientist.com/article/dn14120-would-an-antimatter-app... > [quoted text clipped - 23 lines] > www.allocations.cc > Learn how to build a FTL radio. Mesons are a matter and anti matter quark mix. This is hybrid matter anti matter. Mitch Raemsch > http://space.newscientist.com/article/dn14120-would-an-antimatter-app... > [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > least one form of 'antimatter' that does indeed have a positive inertial > mass and a negative gravitational mass. Uh, Greysky... Consider that photons, which are their own antiparticle, fall "down" in a gravitational field. This has been known for nearly a century. If matter falls down in a gravitational field, and antimatter falls up in a gravitational field, shouldn't photons go right through a gravitational field with no deviation? The hope is that antimatter may fall "differently" in a gravitational field. Nobody except a crackpot thinks that antimatter will fall up. Jerry > http://space.newscientist.com/article/dn14120-would-an-antimatter-app... > > Finally! Someone is at least thinking about running an experiment that will > test the gravitational polarity of antimatter. It's about time! ...in 1932, by Carl Anderson. http://livefromcern.web.cern.ch/livefromcern/antimatter/history/AM-history01-a.html The cloud chamber used a magnetic field to separate particles by the charge-mass ratio. If both the charge and the mass of the positron were the exact opposite of that of the electron, then the charge-mass ratios would be the same, and the particles would be indistinguishable. The fact that the electron and the positron curve in opposite directions is proof that only one of the two parameters (mass or charge) is the opposite. Separate experiments with electric fields (which distinguish particles by charge alone) confirm that the mass of the positron is the same as that of the electron, while the charges are exactly the opposite of each other. Tom Davidson Richmond, VA > >http://space.newscientist.com/article/dn14120-would-an-antimatter-app... > [quoted text clipped - 19 lines] > that of the electron, while the charges are exactly the opposite of > each other. I thought of that, but the obvious response is that inertial mass is not necessarily the same as gravitational mass. The direction of turn in a bubble chamber depends on inertial mass. Jerry Oh man, C,mon everyone! Just make the dang particles spin backwards to direction of travel. They will curve up like a freaking golf ball even in vacuum, because the stuff you can't see nor detect in that vacuum is still effecting them :) SignatureJames M Driscoll Jr Spaceman Some more sillyness, Or some real fun for anyone ableto play in an accelerator... A 0 spin object pushed in a clockwise circular path motion will turn into counterclockwise spin. A 0 spin object pushed in counterclockwise circular path motion will turn into clockwise spin. Magnetic fields still have drag that can cause spin... It's all very simple mechanics. so backspin it and make it negate gravity until the magnetic field starts spinning it in the opposite motion of the circular path. :) wheels within wheels. gears all over the place, and yet nobody will play with them as such! :) Is mechanical motion that hard to understand? If you can't make it do such, there is something else physically and mechanically in the way. find it and report it.. Science will march on... The lever and fulcrum and gears etc always follow the law of mechanics. anything made of mass will do the same. :) SignatureJames M Driscoll Jr Spaceman Spacespit wrote: > A 0 spin object pushed in a clockwise circular path motion > will turn into counterclockwise spin. > A 0 spin object pushed in counterclockwise circular path motion > will turn into clockwise spin. Clockwise and Counter clockwise with respect to what, spacey? > Spacespit > wrote: [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > Clockwise and Counter clockwise with respect to what, spacey? Oops.. In reality, it does not matter as long as one is the opposite of the other for such, and the speed is great enough. In the example given I was thinking of an accelerator and that would mean WRT the ground of course. SignatureJames M Driscoll Jr Spaceman Spacespit wrote: >> Spacespit >> wrote: [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > In the example given I was thinking of an accelerator and that would > mean WRT the ground of course. Looking down? |
Enable EMail Alerts
Start New Thread
Reply to this Message