[Mr. Scientist (OP)]

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.

[PhysBang]

(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.

[Mr. Scientist (OP)]

''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.

[PhysBang]

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.

[Mr. Scientist (OP)]

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.

[Mr. Scientist (OP)]

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.

[Mr. Scientist (OP)]

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

[Mr. Scientist (OP)]

Physbang... did you even read these articles... I'm very tempted to know now.

[PhysBang]

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.

[Mr. Scientist (OP)]

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.

[PhysBang]

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?

[Mr. Scientist (OP)]

Point first?

[PhysBang]

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.

[Mr. Scientist (OP)]

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.

[Mr. Scientist (OP)]

In fact - i've been more compliant towards your questions. I think a little back is due, no?

[Mr. Scientist (OP)]

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?

[PhysBang]

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.

[Mr. Scientist (OP)]

Read the OP - If you want to know what the theory is. I cannot explain it any more simpler.

[Mr. Scientist (OP)]

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.

[PhysBang]

Dude, if you can't rewrite it to be clearer, the problem is not with me.