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

wrote:
[snip utter bull****]

Potassium-40 decays with positron emission, ****wad. Go to your
supermarket, get a bottle of KCl salt substitute, shove it up your
ass. Look at the antimatter flash in the dark,

http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/sunshine.htm

Mitch Raemsch Twice Nobel Laureate 2008

Peace and Literature. Ha Ha Ha.

--
Uncle Al
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/
(Toxic URL! Unsafe for children and most mammals)
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/lajos.htm#a2

wrote:
[...]

You repeatedly make authoritative-sounding pronouncements that are
completely wrong. You are clearly just repeating words you have heard,
without understanding.

Please grow up. The only way to say something sensible is to STUDY the
subject. Or pick s subject you do understand. Your posts around here are
just downright silly (which is why I usually ignore them).


Tom Roberts

On Mar 25, 9:24*pm, 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.

Um, no. I don't know why you would think so.
[Rest, based on erroneous premise, snipped.]

On Mar 26, 8:11*am, PD wrote:
On Mar 25, 9:24*pm, 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.

Um, no. I don't know why you would think so.
[Rest, based on erroneous premise, snipped.]

Back yourself up. What is opposite about the 3 neutron quarks?
The strong force?

Mitch Raemsch Twice Nobel Laureate 2008

On Mar 26, 5:09*pm, wrote:
On Mar 26, 8:11*am, PD wrote:

On Mar 25, 9:24*pm, 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.

Um, no. I don't know why you would think so.
[Rest, based on erroneous premise, snipped.]

Back yourself up. What is opposite about the 3 neutron quarks?
The strong force?

Nope. Some of the quantum numbers. Not the force.

Please don't guess wildly. It just looks bad.


Mitch Raemsch Twice Nobel Laureate 2008

On Mar 26, 2:12*pm, PD wrote:
On Mar 26, 5:09*pm, wrote:

On Mar 26, 8:11*am, PD wrote:

On Mar 25, 9:24*pm, 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.

Um, no. I don't know why you would think so.
[Rest, based on erroneous premise, snipped.]

Back yourself up. What is opposite about the 3 neutron quarks?
The strong force?

Nope. Some of the quantum numbers. Not the force.

It has to be the force. Otherwise shoiw how the numbers qualify it as
anitmatter.


Mitch Raemsch Twice Nobel Laureate 2008

On Mar 26, 7:02 pm, wrote:
On Mar 26, 2:12 pm, PD wrote:



On Mar 26, 5:09 pm, wrote:

On Mar 26, 8:11 am, PD wrote:

On Mar 25, 9:24 pm, 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.

Um, no. I don't know why you would think so.
[Rest, based on erroneous premise, snipped.]

Back yourself up. What is opposite about the 3 neutron quarks?
The strong force?

Nope. Some of the quantum numbers. Not the force.

It has to be the force. Otherwise shoiw how the numbers qualify it as
anitmatter.

Mitch Raemsch Twice Nobel Laureate 2008

http://pdg.lbl.gov

All the quantum numbers are in the listings. It's pretty obvious.

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

On Mar 27, 11:17 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

occupy is a forbidden word in physics

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