Naked Science Forum
On the Lighter Side => New Theories => Topic started by: Mr. Scientist on 03/12/2009 19:10:35
-
The Repulsive(*) Principle
As a proposal in a thread i made previously http://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/index.php?topic=26884.msg284923#msg284923 - I can deduct that if there is an indestinguishability of some kind of gravitational force which is negative in interpretation when a proton and a positron come to meet, then it's also pointed out that there is a fundamental principle which takes this into aboard. I propose it, as the title says it, the Repulsive Principle, and it states:
''If you cannot decifer experimentally the difference of antigravitational forces from that which may be experienced and called and even wholey due to some existence of a charge, then the prediction is that there is no difference. It is an antigravitational force being observed, rather than one that is wholey-associated to some presence of a charge.''
Without us being sure that these effects are not antigravitational, we need to suspect them on a macroscopic scale would equal the same result. This is why the electric charge is not invariant on these levels because electromagnetism cancels out between to macroscopic bodies, or atleast, so theory seems to dictate. But could an entire star made from positrons still resist normal gravitational effects to that of a proton star? In General Relativity, they would fall towards each other because it essentially lies on charge (or lack thereof making gravity the overwhelming force) in the given example, but i question that they would given by the principle demonstrated.
*The name is a game on the words, as for my understanding of physics could be seen as completely repuslive to even think about (simply because it maybe interpreted that i am mistaking electric charge soley down as an antigravitational effect), though, it does itself argue the indestinguishability of an antigravitational effect on a microscopic scale that is similar to the experience between a proton and an antielectron (positron).
-
Is no one critical of the principle i've conjectured...?
-
I can't understand the principle. There are obvious ways, in principle, to detect the differences in forces when a proton and a positron approach each other.
-
The force is indestinguishable from antigravitational forces - as much, the scientist can say it being a by-product of charge.
-
What is an antigravitational force?
-
To me by definition, some kind of mass which repels the attractiveness of another mass.
-
That doesn't seem to be a very interesting definition. Two magnets are therefore antigravity devices. But that doesn't tell us anything at all, since we still have to explain the magnets in terms of electromagnetic theory.
-
No... two magnets are well known as an electrostatic repulsion without the immediate need for positrons.
-
Hence why i said ''the repulsive theory'' - it won't be liked for sure, but i can make the conjecture because we are yet to test macroscopic antimatter bodies interconnecting, or not, with ordinary matter at macroscopic levels.
-
But we know that a proton and a positron repel each other just like magnets do.
-
But can we destinghuish that effect from something we might attribute to antigravitational forces?
It's a rhetorical question. The principle above does have a solution, and that is that the actions between a proton and a positron may be the closest thing to an antigravitational force, meaning that antigravity may not even exist.
-
Electrostatic repulsion is easy to explain. It's the indestinguishability which counts only. To disprove the conjecture, you would need to experiment antimatter with matter on a macroscopic level.
-
But can we destinghuish that effect from something we might attribute to antigravitational forces?
I don't care whether or not we can destinguish the electromagnetic force between a proton and a positron from antigravity.
Given your definition, the electromagnetic force between a proton and a positron is an antigravitational force. But this is a useless definition, because, we can distinguish between the electromagnetic force and the gravitational force between them.
-
I don't care whether or not we can destinguish the electromagnetic force between a proton and a positron from antigravity.
Ahem, that's the whole point of the conjecture and if you ''dont care''then don't take part.
Given your definition, the electromagnetic force between a proton and a positron is an antigravitational force.
(Indestinguishable) - is the word you are looking for. On higher levels (macroscopic levels), the indesinguishability may quite indeed dissipate.
we can distinguish between the electromagnetic force and the gravitational force between them.
You're just not getting it are you? How can i put this another way...
...right... imagine we think we know nothing - we don't know what a macroscopic world is. In fact, we are pointlings... tiny creatures that exist. Being so tiny, it has taken many of the pointlings many years to understand that there maybe another force other than their little innate charges. They found out, that their mass also contains a gravitational charge, and they where overwhelmed by this, because they thought their mass was wholey down to ther charge.
But one day, one pointling decides to have a radical thought... what if there is an antigravitational force...? The rest of them laughed at him and said, ''don't be stupid... we are very small and such things do not matter.''
But he pondered this antiforce, and he could imagine massive objects which made his tiny world, al repelling each other in this antigravitational force, so he said the next day... there is one way to test it. Get my friend positron and the boy from down the road... what's his name... proton... that's it. Now... if they as we know, cannot come together, could someone who is much larger than us know?
So the story has a twist. One day, a man discovers the wierd repelling world of particles. He starts to write out mathematical formulea, decribing what he sees... gives them innate properties like charge - which covers also a gravitational charge. But the man realizes that he knows next to nothing about gravity unlike the other forces. The closest thing he could ever imagine being similar to an antigravitational force is something a bit like how a proton and a postron try to meet... they just don't.
So a conjecture was proposed... what if the world where positrons and protons repelling each other was not only like antigravitational forces, but is by definition the only kind o antigravitational forces there is?
The name antigravitational forces is misleading. It doesn't necesserily have to mean that charge is not involved. But if it was on the scale of planetery systems, then it must cancel out and gravity (a positive attractive gravity) is finally observed. But the ''Repulsive Principle'' states that antigravitational forces are indestinguishable between a proton and a positron (which both contain a mass) - so whether or not true antigravitational forces on the macroscopic level exist, is what i am hoping for the future to find out.
-
I don't care whether or not we can destinguish the electromagnetic force between a proton and a positron from antigravity.
Ahem, that's the whole point of the conjecture and if you ''dont care''then don't take part.
What I am trying to understand is if you even have a conjecture here. I'm not sure whether or not you are using technical terms you have invented or not, since if you are simply misspelling words then you aren't making any sense.
Given your definition, the electromagnetic force between a proton and a positron is an antigravitational force.
(Indestinguishable) - is the word you are looking for. On higher levels (macroscopic levels), the indesinguishability may quite indeed dissipate.
I don't know the word, you are going to have to define it. But given your definition of "antigravitational force", electromagnetic force is a kind of antigravitational force, but this is trivial.
we can distinguish between the electromagnetic force and the gravitational force between them.
You're just not getting it are you? How can i put this another way...
...right... imagine we think we know nothing - we don't know what a macroscopic world is. In fact, we are pointlings... tiny creatures that exist. Being so tiny, it has taken many of the pointlings many years to understand that there maybe another force other than their little innate charges. They found out, that their mass also contains a gravitational charge, and they where overwhelmed by this, because they thought their mass was wholey down to ther charge.
But one day, one pointling decides to have a radical thought... what if there is an antigravitational force...? The rest of them laughed at him and said, ''don't be stupid... we are very small and such things do not matter.''
But he pondered this antiforce, and he could imagine massive objects which made his tiny world, al repelling each other in this antigravitational force, so he said the next day... there is one way to test it. Get my friend positron and the boy from down the road... what's his name... proton... that's it. Now... if they as we know, cannot come together, could someone who is much larger than us know?
So the story has a twist. One day, a man discovers the wierd repelling world of particles. He starts to write out mathematical formulea, decribing what he sees... gives them innate properties like charge - which covers also a gravitational charge. But the man realizes that he knows next to nothing about gravity unlike the other forces. The closest thing he could ever imagine being similar to an antigravitational force is something a bit like how a proton and a postron try to meet... they just don't.
But your story doesn't even have the most basic internal logic. If we know the mass of these particles and we know their electric charge then in any interaction between them we can effectively account for both of these forces and look for anything left over. There is no room for any extra force, except for when we get to the level of the nuclear forces.
So a conjecture was proposed... what if the world where positrons and protons repelling each other was not only like antigravitational forces, but is by definition the only kind o antigravitational forces there is?
Are you saying that there is no force that repels mass except electromagnetism?
The name antigravitational forces is misleading. It doesn't necesserily have to mean that charge is not involved. But if it was on the scale of planetery systems, then it must cancel out and gravity (a positive attractive gravity) is finally observed. But the ''Repulsive Principle'' states that antigravitational forces are indestinguishable between a proton and a positron (which both contain a mass) - so whether or not true antigravitational forces on the macroscopic level exist, is what i am hoping for the future to find out.
This still doesn't make sense. If this antigravitational force is simply electromagnetism, then obviously it's the same for both, because they have the same charge. If it is something else then it doesn't seem to exist at all. If it was going to be something that depended on mass then it should be measurable because the positron and the proton have a significant difference in mass.
-
I don't care whether or not we can destinguish the electromagnetic force between a proton and a positron from antigravity.
Ahem, that's the whole point of the conjecture and if you ''dont care''then don't take part.
What I am trying to understand is if you even have a conjecture here. I'm not sure whether or not you are using technical terms you have invented or not, since if you are simply misspelling words then you aren't making any sense. (1)
Given your definition, the electromagnetic force between a proton and a positron is an antigravitational force.
(Indestinguishable) - is the word you are looking for. On higher levels (macroscopic levels), the indesinguishability may quite indeed dissipate.
I don't know the word, you are going to have to define it. But given your definition of "antigravitational force", electromagnetic force is a kind of antigravitational force, but this is trivial.
we can distinguish between the electromagnetic force and the gravitational force between them.
You're just not getting it are you? How can i put this another way...
...right... imagine we think we know nothing - we don't know what a macroscopic world is. In fact, we are pointlings... tiny creatures that exist. Being so tiny, it has taken many of the pointlings many years to understand that there maybe another force other than their little innate charges. They found out, that their mass also contains a gravitational charge, and they where overwhelmed by this, because they thought their mass was wholey down to ther charge.
But one day, one pointling decides to have a radical thought... what if there is an antigravitational force...? The rest of them laughed at him and said, ''don't be stupid... we are very small and such things do not matter.''
But he pondered this antiforce, and he could imagine massive objects which made his tiny world, al repelling each other in this antigravitational force, so he said the next day... there is one way to test it. Get my friend positron and the boy from down the road... what's his name... proton... that's it. Now... if they as we know, cannot come together, could someone who is much larger than us know?
So the story has a twist. One day, a man discovers the wierd repelling world of particles. He starts to write out mathematical formulea, decribing what he sees... gives them innate properties like charge - which covers also a gravitational charge. But the man realizes that he knows next to nothing about gravity unlike the other forces. The closest thing he could ever imagine being similar to an antigravitational force is something a bit like how a proton and a postron try to meet... they just don't.
But your story doesn't even have the most basic internal logic. If we know the mass of these particles and we know their electric charge then in any interaction between them we can effectively account for both of these forces and look for anything left over. There is no room for any extra force, except for when we get to the level of the nuclear forces. (2)
So a conjecture was proposed... what if the world where positrons and protons repelling each other was not only like antigravitational forces, but is by definition the only kind o antigravitational forces there is?
Are you saying that there is no force that repels mass except electromagnetism? (3)
The name antigravitational forces is misleading. It doesn't necesserily have to mean that charge is not involved. But if it was on the scale of planetery systems, then it must cancel out and gravity (a positive attractive gravity) is finally observed. But the ''Repulsive Principle'' states that antigravitational forces are indestinguishable between a proton and a positron (which both contain a mass) - so whether or not true antigravitational forces on the macroscopic level exist, is what i am hoping for the future to find out.
This still doesn't make sense. If this antigravitational force is simply electromagnetism, then obviously it's the same for both, because they have the same charge. If it is something else then it doesn't seem to exist at all. If it was going to be something that depended on mass then it should be measurable because the positron and the proton have a significant difference in mass.
(1) - If there are any spelling mistakes, its probably because i a crap speller. But trust me, i hardly ever use terms which have not been used by the scientific community.
(2) - For once,i agree. But quite possibly not for the same reasons.
(3) - How did you deduct that?
-
''If this antigravitational force is simply electromagnetism, then obviously it's the same for both, because they have the same charge. If it is something else then it doesn't seem to exist at all.''
Yes, that is how the conjecture is solved, at least in my eyes. There is no such thing as an antigravitational force and the effect between a proton and a positron appears to be the closest thing we will ever come to it.
-
''I don't know the word, you are going to have to define it. But given your definition of "antigravitational force", electromagnetic force is a kind of antigravitational force, but this is trivial.''
http://www.thefreedictionary.com/indistinguishability
And its hardly trivial now... i think the latter part here
But given your definition of "antigravitational force", electromagnetic force is a kind of antigravitational force, but this is trivial.
says it all. Afterall, this is what the conjecture is, no matter how trivial you may think it is.
-
Your principle is insanely trivial. You have defined any force that repels mass as being "antigravitational force". So what? Why do we need this piece of definition. Absolutely nothing in physics changes, nor will it ever change, based on this definition.
-
Let me propose a different twist. Einstein's General Theory of Relativity is simple concept. At a given point away from a mass there is a delta change in space and time. This is the essence of the force. Its a natural occurrence so we can cause "antigravitational force" once we understand the reason behind the change in space and time in the same way we could cause unnatural electrical discharges once we understood electromagnetic interactions.
My concept is throw away the concept of space and to explain everything in terms of subspaces. Two spinning subspaces, perpendicular to each other, creates space with the gravity between them. This gravity space adds with all of the other gravity spaces to create the universe. This is the question on how gravity adds to itself. The quark theory like my own has particles made from larger particle (Matter-Antimatter) both having positive gravity and yet the composite particle has only the gravity of the Matter-Antimatter difference. The energy that is given up matches the change in the gravity. How is the gravity changed and at what rate?
-
Your principle is insanely trivial. You have defined any force that repels mass as being "antigravitational force". So what? Why do we need this piece of definition. Absolutely nothing in physics changes, nor will it ever change, based on this definition.
So? Was not Einstiens elevator theory quite trivial?
-
Let me propose a different twist. Einstein's General Theory of Relativity is simple concept. At a given point away from a mass there is a delta change in space and time. This is the essence of the force. Its a natural occurrence so we can cause "antigravitational force" once we understand the reason behind the change in space and time in the same way we could cause unnatural electrical discharges once we understood electromagnetic interactions.
My concept is throw away the concept of space and to explain everything in terms of subspaces. Two spinning subspaces, perpendicular to each other, creates space with the gravity between them. This gravity space adds with all of the other gravity spaces to create the universe. This is the question on how gravity adds to itself. The quark theory like my own has particles made from larger particle (Matter-Antimatter) both having positive gravity and yet the composite particle has only the gravity of the Matter-Antimatter difference. The energy that is given up matches the change in the gravity. How is the gravity changed and at what rate?
Maybe gravity is the rate of change in field srength of the electromagnetic force? That would make some sense also, not only to your own twist on my most repulsive theory, but also that which means that there cannot be a fundamental mediator (graviton)?
-
Your principle is insanely trivial. You have defined any force that repels mass as being "antigravitational force". So what? Why do we need this piece of definition. Absolutely nothing in physics changes, nor will it ever change, based on this definition.
So? Was not Einstiens elevator theory quite trivial?
Einstein didn't have an elevator theory. He had a way of elucidating the general covariance of physical laws that enables one to dispense with certain differences between acceleration and gravity. This leads to different predictions that one can use to verify the theory.
As far as I can tell, you are simply calling every repulsive force, "antigravity." This does absolutely nothing.
-
WRONG
It was a gravitational distinguishabity - it was the corner stone of physics, or atleast his own theory which has worked remarkably well.
-
WRONG
It was a gravitational distinguishabity - it was the corner stone of physics, or atleast his own theory which has worked remarkably well.
Are you saying that Einstein didn't use the general covariance of physical laws in his theory? Don't you know that's the point of the evelvator example? The example you brought up that is supposed to be a basic way of expressing a small part of his theory?
Or are you saying that there is more content to your own claims. If so, what are they? What is "antigravitational force"?
-
First in response to the elevator theory. Lets reduce Acceleration to its simplest form; increasing space coverage for a unit of time. If we were sitting on a spinning merry-go-round and we let go, we would experience movement off the merry-go-round because of the centrifugal force. We are moving from the smaller space to the larger space. Same thing happens with the subspace, there's a centripetal force moving us from the smaller space to the larger space. With a mass the larger space is within it.
-
Nope - you said he did not use the elevator experiment to help or not help being the case, to dinstinguish gravitational forces with that of acceleration.
-
But the rest is mostly true - sorry :()
-
There is a relationship between gravity and electromagnetic in my subspace theory. In my view light comes from a particle and goes to a particle. This is saying a) charge only exists on particles and b) space only exists through subspaces. When two subspaces (dark matter) reacts with each other they make space which is actually 2 two-dimensional planes interacting with each other. This interaction is described by Maxwell; it is Electromagnetic interaction. Now the question of charge is important since accelerating charge is the mechanics of electromagnetic interaction. That's means that all fundamental particles have charge since they react with light. Composite particles and atoms have no overall charge but the charges are still there or they could not react with light. You can not have gravity without light interaction. Now you are back to dark matter. [;D]
-
Nope - you said he did not use the elevator experiment to help or not help being the case, to dinstinguish gravitational forces with that of acceleration.
I have no idea what the whole sentence means, nor what the different identifiable parts of that sentence mean.
-
What do you need to understand what i said?
-
Could you please just tell us what you think the point of the elevator experiment was? In a little detail?
-
''us''? Are you trying to say i am not clear with anyone here? All i ever do is try and make things clear.
Einstein's thought experiment was one which argued you cannot tell the difference between accelerational forces to that of gravity - noting also the person cannot see from inside the elevator.
-
And how did Einstein enact this similarity between gravity and acceleration? Through the demand that physical laws be written in a generally covariant form.
Note too that the elevator example does not include rotation, which is still an absolute acceleration in general relativity.
So, what can we possibly do with your repulsive principle?
-
It's a thought-experiment. Generally, imagine you where in a spaceship which was stationary, and about 100 miles directly below your ship is a massive wire that can pull on your spaceship. To cut a long story short, the wire begins to pull, and you will feel the force of that pull and eventually whilst you may be remaining static in zero-gravity, your feet will eventually meet the ground of the spaceship. So the acceleration required to keep your feet safely on the spaceships floor is due to the similar charactericts of how a gravitational-acceleration is derived.
Rotation only really has great purposes in relativity when frame-dragging is considered.
-
And how did Einstein enact this similarity between gravity and acceleration? Through the demand that physical laws be written in a generally covariant form.
Note too that the elevator example does not include rotation, which is still an absolute acceleration in general relativity.
So, what can we possibly do with your repulsive principle?
Not sure i understand your question though..
-
All you seem to have done is define "antigravitational force" to be any force that is repulsive. That doesn't get us anywhere.
Is there supposed to be something more? If so, what?
-
Why not?
If there is somewhere in the fudamental universe we cannot destinguish the forces by my definition, then the definition itself could hold as true as saying that on a cosmological scale, there could be an antigravitational repulsion in the form of antimatter in the distant and yet not observable universe.
Is this a kind of prediction you wanted me to assert? Because it's only a postulation, but my principle holds true that is until we find an actual antigravitational mass.
-
I would eat my hat with humbleness though. Physics, and science in general never has cared to much for people to assert even the most exotic of theories. Nor has science got where it has without them.
-
Why not?
Well, because we can already imagine all kinds of things. Simply declaring that all repulsive forces are antigravitational forces adds nothing.
If there is somewhere in the fudamental universe we cannot destinguish the forces by my definition, then the definition itself could hold as true as saying that on a cosmological scale, there could be an antigravitational repulsion in the form of antimatter in the distant and yet not observable universe.
Antimatter is well understood and we know its gravitational properties and its electromagnetic properties quite well. We can indeed distinguish between them on the basis of behaviour and measurement.
Is this a kind of prediction you wanted me to assert? Because it's only a postulation, but my principle holds true that is until we find an actual antigravitational mass.
What principle? Could you please restate, clearly, what you imagine your principle to be?
-
Why not?
Well, because we can already imagine all kinds of things. Simply declaring that all repulsive forces are antigravitational forces adds nothing. (1)
If there is somewhere in the fudamental universe we cannot destinguish the forces by my definition, then the definition itself could hold as true as saying that on a cosmological scale, there could be an antigravitational repulsion in the form of antimatter in the distant and yet not observable universe.
Antimatter is well understood and we know its gravitational properties and its electromagnetic properties quite well. We can indeed distinguish between them on the basis of behaviour and measurement. (2)
Is this a kind of prediction you wanted me to assert? Because it's only a postulation, but my principle holds true that is until we find an actual antigravitational mass.
What principle? Could you please restate, clearly, what you imagine your principle to be?
(1) - That's your opinion. But one which is quite cloudy, because if you follow your own logic, you would not be asking the questions you are unless it were so easy.
(2) - On the microscopic scale, we believe we do understand. But as i have made more than clear, we have not tested any of the antimatter properties (incuding) their effects on macroscopic scales, and thus your own postulations against the principle does not hold.
(3) - I hate repeating myself more than three times. Please read the OP again.
-
(1) - That's your opinion. But one which is quite cloudy, because if you follow your own logic, you would not be asking the questions you are unless it were so easy.
Indeed, it is not my opinion, it is simply the fact of the matter. I keep asking questions because you keep going on as if you have said something profound. I am trying to find out if you are simply misguided or if there is something that you simply have trouble communicating.
(2) - On the microscopic scale, we believe we do understand. But as i have made more than clear, we have not tested any of the antimatter properties (incuding) their effects on macroscopic scales, and thus your own postulations against the principle does not hold.
You are simply mistaken. We have lots and lots of tests about the nature of antimatter. Why should we imagine that there is some sort of special behaviour for antimatter at large scales? How would we test it? Until there is some test, why should we take seriously claims that it does behave differently?
(3) - I hate repeating myself more than three times. Please read the OP again.
Frankly, everything you have written so far is incomprehensible. I've had to read a lot of physics, and what you have written simply does not make sense and where it does make sense it is trivial. So, please, try one more time to give me your principle.
-
''You are simply mistaken. We have lots and lots of tests about the nature of antimatter.'' -
ok... I'm sorry. I cant continue this discussion with you. You have very little intentions for being serious.
-
Your problem is that I am taking what you write as seriously as it should be taken. I am apparently taking your proposal more seriously than you take it, since you are apparently ignorant of the very basics of antimatter.
You may find the following informative, for your shame:
http://physicsworld.com/cws/article/news/2797
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/11/081117193019.htm
http://www.nytimes.com/1981/04/11/us/europeans-report-advance-in-antimatter-experiments.html
http://www.mpi-hd.mpg.de/kellerbauer/en/
Now, I don't really care about your poor grammar, spelling, and concepts. You have shown yourself to be a buffoon, at least in this area.
-
We have never observed large lumps of antimatter. My proposal if it weren't so bold would never have been posted in the new theories - so whether you regard me as a ''buffoon'' is completely irrelevent.
But if you want to take this attitude with me, we can go right into mathematical details. Or if you like, we can have a serious discussion on something else - but my principle, for it's not that i don't understand current theory, it's about seeing a new side to that current theory. Why the heck did you think i called it the repulsive principle? I already explained it would have been mostly disliked - i never promoted it from the beginning that it had charasmatic details.
It's a principle of indestinguishability - get over it. Move on.
-
But - as i read through these... very basic articles..
http://physicsworld.com/cws/article/news/2797
Good - if they can do this on a macroscopic scale, i would be most pleased. It would either prove or disprove the repulsive principle on the basis antimatter contains an antigravitational force that is indestinguishable from what is believed to be soley down to charge.
What next..
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/11/081117193019.htm
I can see where you're going with this, and no... this does not disprove the conjecture one bit. It just means we've been able to make more antimatter than previously and still not on the type of conditions to test in the conjecture of the OP.
''The first collisions between beams of normal protons and their antimatter twins''
from : http://www.nytimes.com/1981/04/11/us/europeans-report-advance-in-antimatter-experiments.html
And? It's not impossible to make matter and postulations of antimatter collide. Gravity is very very weak at these levels they speak of... i'm not impressed at all by your defences so far.
http://www.mpi-hd.mpg.de/kellerbauer/en/projects/antimatter.htm
Oh... you're the baffoon afterall. Did you see the bottom of the page...? They hope to check and see if antimatter on a macroscopic level has a negative repulsion of -g.
-
Just in case you went on a random search and you're not sure were to look now
http://www.mpi-hd.mpg.de/kellerbauer/en/projects/antimatter.htm
-
Physbang... did you even read these articles... I'm very tempted to know now.
-
The purpose of posting the articles was to show that there is a great deal of experiments with actual antimatter, something you denied. They are popular articles because that is your speed, or perhaps these articles were a bit too heady for you.
Your reference to the "Proposed antimatter gravity measurement with an antihydrogen beam" project mis-characterizes the project. Given that, like any crank, want to simply make grand predictions about physics without actually learning any, this is no surprise. The proposed experiment is a test of the equivalence principle, not whether or not antimatter behaves in some opposite manner to gravity.
You really should take the time to learn what antimatter is and why scientists believe that it has the properties that it does. Once you actually understand that, then you can make reasonable claims about what we might find for larger collections of antimatter.
-
Please qoute me where i have ''supposidly'' have said this:
a great deal of experiments with actual antimatter, something you denied.
By the way... by your logic bold claims are only made by cranks it an utter nonesense. And since ALL or MOST of your arguements have challenged the main idea that antimatter WILL NOT have an antigravitational force makes your following sentance sound hypocritical:
''You really should take the time to learn what antimatter is and why scientists believe that it has the properties that it does.''
Afterall, it was quite obvious you never even read the articles yourself, because the last one you dealt proved to me that scientists are already thinking along this line - and you would never have posted it to suit my principle - if anything, you're attempting to wack it down by calling me names.
Quite pathetic really.
-
Do you know what the equivalence principle is? Do you know the history of testing this principle again and again and again since the 1700s?
-
Point first?
-
I guess the answer to those questions is an unsurprising, "No."
Despite making claims about the science of gravity, you haven't bothered to learn the basics of research in the field. This promotes your gross misunderstanding of papers in the field to the point where a standard route of investigation into gravitational properties is perceived by you as some novel experiment looking for antigravity.
-
Give me some credit. I write about relativity all the time. I know what the equivalence principle is, and in much respects, i won't continue these silly-debates until you explain your attitude with me. Until then, i will not understand the point of your question.
-
In fact - i've been more compliant towards your questions. I think a little back is due, no?
-
In fact - you never answered any of my questions concerning the posts before... I am beginning to see no reason in communicating with you in this thread at all... prove me wrong?
-
All I want to knwo is what your "repulsive principle" is. When I asked for details, you made the claim that any force that is repulsive is an antigravitational force. Given the recent evidence from cosmology, this not only includes electromagnetism, it includes gravity too!
But that can't be all that there is to your proposal, because now you seem to be claiming that antimatter, despite being seemingly no different from ordinary matter except for charge, actually acts against gravity. Or perhaps you are arguing that antimatter is not opposite charge, it is acually opposite gravity.
I simply do not know what your principle is and when I ask you to rephrase whatever your principle is, you refuse. Given your poor spelling and grammar, it is difficult for me to understand the meaning of your long oridinal post, so I would really like to see it in more direct language than already given.
-
Read the OP - If you want to know what the theory is. I cannot explain it any more simpler.
-
All I want to knwo is what your "repulsive principle" is. When I asked for details, you made the claim that any force that is repulsive is an antigravitational force. Given the recent evidence from cosmology, this not only includes electromagnetism, it includes gravity too!
But that can't be all that there is to your proposal, because now you seem to be claiming that antimatter, despite being seemingly no different from ordinary matter except for charge, actually acts against gravity. Or perhaps you are arguing that antimatter is not opposite charge, it is acually opposite gravity.
I simply do not know what your principle is and when I ask you to rephrase whatever your principle is, you refuse. Given your poor spelling and grammar, it is difficult for me to understand the meaning of your long oridinal post, so I would really like to see it in more direct language than already given.
The irony.
-
Dude, if you can't rewrite it to be clearer, the problem is not with me.
-
You're not good with the come-back retorts are you? - If you don't understand physics terminology, that is not my fault either.
-
Dude, I have successfully defended a doctoral dissertation on contemporary cosmology. If I can't understand your use of terms, it is not my fault. Its up to you to decide what you are trying to do with this repulsive principle. As far as I can tell, you really aren't trying to communicate anything.