"Randy Poe" wrote in message
...
| On Mar 28, 9:11 am, PD wrote:
| On Mar 28, 7:39 am, "Androcles" wrote:
|
|
|
| "PD" wrote in message
|
|
...
| On Mar 27, 11:36 pm, wrote:
|
| On Mar 27, 2:17 pm, " wrote:
|
| On Mar 25, 7:24 pm, wrote:
|
| Mesons are quark anti quark pairs. This makes them a matter anti
| matter mixture.
|
| Hard to call quarks or antiquarks "matter" since they can't exist
| alone. Other than that quibble...okay...
|
| The anti neutron would be 3 anti quarks with NEGATIVE strong
force.
| Since there is NO ANTI strong force their can be no anti neutron
or
| anti quarks.
|
| That's like saying there's no such thing as "anti-electricity" so
| there can't be such a thing as a battery with two oppositely
charged
| poles.
|
| Quite silly. There's no need to assume antiquarks would produce an
| "antistrong" force.
|
| In proton anti proton colliders strong matter comes out when
there
| should be some radiation from ANIHALATION from the matter anti
matter
| (even if it is risidual.) This is what anti matter theory
predicts:
| Radiation. This is not what is seen to happen. Anti matter
theory was
| originally a hole in Dirac's electron equation. Anti matter is
not
| real.
|
| What's "strong matter" supposed to be?
|
| Oh, and where did you get the notion that colliding protons and
| antiprotons doesn't generate annihilation radiation?
|
| Positronium has a positron that has atomic shells around it.
This is
| poppycock.
|
| No, it has "orbitals" around it which an electron can occupy.
| Similarly, an electron has orbitals a positron can occupy. If you
look
| at both of them as deBroglie wave phenomena it's fairly obvious
that
| it has to be that way.
|
| The way anrti matter is considered to be captured also shows of
its
| impossibility. Cosmic rays of anti protons and anti electrons
will
| interact strongly with the protons and electrons in the
atmposphere. I
| have calculated there would be 400 quadrillion points of
possible
| anihalation for the proton and electron passing through the
atmosphere
| to be captured by the collider.
|
| Well, you're obviously wrong.
|
| Mark L. Fergerson
|
| There is opposite electric charge. Not so for the strong force.
|
| | Sure there is.
|
| He said there is NOT.
|
| He did indeed. And it's wrong.
|
| Naturally Phuckwit Duck says there is.
|
| And naturally, reflexively, helplessly, you jerk your knee when I say
| when something IS (and condemn the statement for using "is"), and you
| jerk your knee when I say when something IS NOT (and condemn the
| statement for using "is not").
|
| I notice that among your posts, the number that have any physics
| content in them whatsoever is reduced to about 1 in 50, the remainder
| being solely focused on condemning your targets for saying what is or
| for what is not, whichever. You may find more fun at alt.debate, where
| no matter what somebody says there, you'll get points for simply
| saying, "I disagree." As it is, I don't know what your point is
| anymore. If you ever had one other than passing long, slow hours.
|
| Monty Python
| Man:
| I came here for a good argument!
|
| Other Man:
| AH, no you didn't, you came here for an argument!
|
| Man:
| An argument isn't just contradiction.
|
| Other Man:
| Well! it CAN be!
|
| Man:
| No it can't!
|
| Man:
| An argument is a connected series of statements intended to establish
| a proposition.
|
| Other Man:
| No it isn't!
| /MP
|
That's Phuckwit Duck alright.

Scientist/Engineer/Rest of world/Newton:
p = mv is a definition of momentum/motion.

PD: "No it isn't!"

Einstein:
'we establish by definition that the "time" required by
light to travel from A to B equals the "time" it requires
to travel from B to A' .

PD:
Yes, yes, Einstein said it so it must be so.

What a ****in' BIGOT.