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. This
conclusively disproves anti matter theory.

Mitch Raemsch Twice Nobel Laurate 2008

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. The charges are labeled red, green, blue, anti-red,
anti-green, anti-blue. Anti-red and red are exact analogs to positive
and negative charges.

Please refrain from just-plain-crazy statements as an attempt to learn
something.

This
conclusively disproves anti matter theory.

Mitch Raemsch Twice Nobel Laurate 2008

wrote:
Mesons are quark anti quark pairs. This makes them a matter anti
matter mixture.

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.

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.

Positronium has a positron that has atomic shells around it. This is
poppycock.

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.

We are colliding protons with high energy protons. That is all.

Mitch Raemsch Twice Nobel Laureate 2008

Wont it be interesting when the creatures from Beta Lyrae 7 land in
2089 and try to make sense out of our "civilization" by combing
through the rubble and they come across statements such as "Anti
matter disproven conclusively" and they teleport back to their home to
write their reports and they say to each other "Those guys sure
believed in a bunch of false stuff in Usenet, but out in the real
world where people had to grow food to support such posters they had
to keep it real or else the Flargonian Burlon Thelmer (FBT) would
destroy the crop."

"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.
Naturally Phuckwit Duck says there is.

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.

PD

"PD" wrote in message
...
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.

He's not wrong. You are wrong.

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

- Randy

On Mar 28, 8:29*am, "Androcles" wrote:
"PD" wrote in message

...
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.

He's not wrong. You are wrong.

Let's see if I have your motive tracked here.

The objective is: whatever physicists say, say the opposite. That way,
at least on this newsgroup, there will be as much noise in one
direction as there is signal in the other direction, thereby making it
harder for readers to discern which is correct. There is no value
other than vandalism and noise generation, but given your current
level of self-respect, penny-ante vandalism seems like as good a
pursuit for you as any.

Think you're being effective? Do you care? Got anything better to do?

PD

"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.

"PD" wrote in message
...
On Mar 28, 8:29 am, "Androcles" wrote:
"PD" wrote in message

...
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.

He's not wrong. You are wrong.

| Let's see if I have your motive tracked here.

Ok, let's see.


| The objective is: whatever physicists say, say the opposite.

That is your motive, I was merely demonstrating it.

We establish by definition that p = mv.
PD: No it isn't!

I have your motive tracked here, bigot.