[Kartazion (OP)]

Why interaction? It's the same particle. The particle changes from electron to positron.

How is that possible?  Do you have any evidence such a thing could happen?

Absolute proof that hydrogen-antihydrogen oscillations occur in nature - arXiv https://arxiv.org/abs/physics/0508043

PS: There is an electron or positron in it. Even better the whole atom is oscillating.

Anything. We speak of an electron or a particle.

An electron is a particle.

That's what I'm saying. Electron or other particle such as quarks e.g.

Please don't be dishonest. 
My quote was "If I drop a bowling ball down a shaft through the center of the earth to the other side the bowling ball will oscillate through the earth.  No anti-matter needed."

Anything. We speak of an electron or a particle. We are talking about Dirac and antimatter. Your ball is a massive object made of atoms and particles. But yes, massive objects of classical physics do not need antimatter. Happy ?

We are talking about Dirac and antimatter.

No, we aren't.  You mention the word antimatter, but you have not discussed how it applies to your other thoughts in any meaningful way.

I do not see the link. You told me about a massive object and me about a quantum particle. But yes I mentioned the word antimatter, but you haven't discussed it. Yet AFAIK antimatter exists for quantum particles.

Your ball is a massive object made of atoms and particles. But yes, massive objects of classical physics do not need antimatter. Happy ?

Not really.  An electron dropped down the shaft would not involve antimatter either.

Nothing understood what you are saying there.

Ok. Why and by what physical constraint is it not possible to make the link between oscillator matter and antimatter?

You tell us how it is possible, it's your thread.  If it is possible what is the link?  You refuse to tell us this supposed link, why is that?

Absolute proof that hydrogen-antihydrogen oscillations occur in nature - arXiv https://arxiv.org/abs/physics/0508043

Meson–antimeson oscillations have also formed essential ingredients in the discovery of CP violation, a delicate, yet profound feature of our universe. These phenomena have been crucial for the evolution of the Standard Model of high energy physics and have more recently provided impressive validation for its CKM dynamics. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/230956960_Matter-antimatter_oscillations_and_CP_violation_as_manifested_through_quantum_mysteries

That's swell. 
Are you ever going to tell us how you think your gravitational oscillator relates to antimatter??

Gravity, antimatter and the Dirac-Milne universe https://www.researchgate.net/publication/328515703_Gravity_antimatter_and_the_Dirac-Milne_universe

You are going to say that the production of gamma photon is not with it?

Not with what?
Your question does not make sense

You are going to say that the production of gamma photon is not with CERN?

You, you still need a ,meaningful explanation of your nonsense.

I have only made two claims here
(1) your stories do not make sense
(2) you do not understand the burden of proof in science.

Which one do you want me to explain?

You forgot option (3) I'm right

With you whatever I say it's always, but always wrong.

You keep saying the same wrong thing over and over again.

The same wrong thing? Can you clarify which same wrong thing?

You are really not credible in my eyes.

I'm a professional scientist.
if I wasn't credible, I would have been sacked long ago.
You on the other hand,  are just "some guy on the internet" who posts nonsense.
So there's no reason why I should care what you think is "credible" is there?

You should. My oscillator is operational. Yes, the internet helps me understand that I can explain GR / MQ theory at level 101.

I have demonstrated to you every point that you have challenged by reason.

You have not demonstrated anything.
You just repeated your baseless claim.

My baseless claims are well demonstrated.

1 - Gravitational Oscillator KE PE
2 - Matter Antimatter e.g. Hydrogen-antihydrogen oscillations
3 - Gravity & Antimatter model

None of that answers the simple question. "how do you think your gravitational oscillator relates to antimatter?"

Hydrogen-antihydrogen oscillations + https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravitational_interaction_of_antimatter

[Bored chemist]

Absolute proof that hydrogen-antihydrogen oscillations occur in nature - arXiv https://arxiv.org/abs/physics/0508043

A 15 year old crank paper isn't proof of anything.
He presents no experimental evidence.

[Origin]

My baseless claims are well demonstrated.

1 - Gravitational Oscillator KE PE
2 - Matter Antimatter e.g. Hydrogen-antihydrogen oscillations
3 - Gravity & Antimatter model

Nothing you are saying is making much sense and you certainly continue to avoid answering how your oscillator is related to antimatter.  I will try the game of guessing at what you mean and you can tell me if I'm right.  This game helped you make some of your graphs more readable.

My guess:
Your gravitational oscillator is like a pendulum in that they both can represent simple harmonic motion.  You say electrons oscillate between matter and antimatter (electron - positron) and these oscillation can be represented by simple harmonic motion.  Is that a correct assessment of your position?

[Kartazion (OP)]

A 15 year old crank paper isn't proof of anything.
He presents no experimental evidence.

Ok. Yes. But do you refuted the antihydrogen hydrogen oscillation theory?

Nothing you are saying is making much sense and you certainly continue to avoid answering how your oscillator is related to antimatter.  I will try the game of guessing at what you mean and you can tell me if I'm right.  This game helped you make some of your graphs more readable.

I have no more answer than the one I gave. Indeed I am here in new theory. The new theories are not published on the net. So my theory is new.

My guess:
Your gravitational oscillator is like a pendulum in that they both can represent simple harmonic motion.  You say electrons oscillate between matter and antimatter (electron - positron) and these oscillation can be represented by simple harmonic motion.  Is that a correct assessment of your position?

Yes exactly. But down to one detail. This is because the oscillator is anharmonic rather than harmonic. In fact, the speed of the particle varies according to the oscillation cycle. Another point. It is the pendulum. It does not oscillate in the direction of the gravity vector. Either vertically.

[Origin]

I have no more answer than the one I gave.

Maybe I missed it, what is the connection between antimatter and your gravitational oscillator?

Indeed I am here in new theory. The new theories are not published on the net. So my theory is new.

What theory?  I cannot see how all this fits together.  Could you write what your theory is in a couple of sentences.  Something like:  My theory is....

Yes exactly. But down to one detail. This is because the oscillator is anharmonic rather than harmonic.

You did not specify which oscillator is anharmonic.  Are you talking about the pendulum, the gravitational oscillator or the oscillation of an electron/positron.

[Kartazion (OP)]

Maybe I missed it, what is the connection between antimatter and your gravitational oscillator?

It is to first make the link between antimatter and gravitational oscillator.

None of that answers the simple question. "how do you think your gravitational oscillator relates to antimatter?"

Hydrogen-antihydrogen oscillations + https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravitational_interaction_of_antimatter

What theory?  I cannot see how all this fits together.  Could you write what your theory is in a couple of sentences.  Something like:  My theory is....

My theory is just everything you are refuting here from my part. My theory is the connection between matter / antimatter and my gravitational oscillator.

You did not specify which oscillator is anharmonic. 

You missed it.

If you drilled a hole through the axis of the Earth from pole to pole, and put a long thin vacuum chamber in it then dropped an object into one end of that chamber , it would fall down the hole, picking up speed.
And it would be moving very fast when it reached the centre of the Earth so it would carry on going until it reached the other pole where it would stop, and then fall back down again
It would "bounce" back and to .
If the density of the Earth was constant (rather than increasing as you go down). the body would exhibit  simple harmonic motion.
...

Hello.

The oscillation is indeed harmonic insofar as it is identical by symmetry of its movement. But in our case the particle experiences an acceleration as well as a reduction in its speed during its oscillation. In other words to be able to draw a sinusoid with x(t) the speed of the latter must be constant. This is not the case with the oscillator that I presented, because it implies a variation of its speed.

My question is isn't it more an anharmonic rather than a harmonic oscillation? We assume In your example of the earth that the density is constant.

Thanks.

Are you talking about the pendulum, the gravitational oscillator or the oscillation of an electron/positron.

My oscillator is not a pendulum. My oscillator oscillates vertically according to the acceleration of gravity g for a particle of mass m. My theory is to make the link between the gravitational oscillator and the oscillation of an electron / positron.

[Bored chemist]

My oscillator oscillates vertically according to the acceleration of gravity g for a particle of mass m.

So does a pendulum .


You should try learning science, it can be very rewarding.

[Bored chemist]

. But do you refuted the antihydrogen hydrogen oscillation theory?

I don't need to.
There is no evidence to refute.

When someone says they have "Absolute proof" you shouldn't just take their word for it.

If it was true then when the hydrogen turned into antihydrogen in, for example, the ocean, that antihydrogen would react with the normal hydrogen and produce initiation radiation.
The seas (and our bodies) would glow with the gamma rays produced.

But they don't.
So the idea is wrong.

[Kartazion (OP)]

My oscillator oscillates vertically according to the acceleration of gravity g for a particle of mass m.

So does a pendulum .

A pendulum swings from left to right. My oscillator oscillates from top to bottom. Next time pay more attention to the words you read.

You should try learning science, it can be very rewarding.

Please, give me your source on the definition of what your pendulum is. And then look and tell me if it's the same as a vertical oscillaton?

If it was true then when the hydrogen turned into antihydrogen in, for example, the ocean, that antihydrogen would react with the normal hydrogen and produce initiation radiation.
The seas (and our bodies) would glow with the gamma rays produced.

But they don't.
So the idea is wrong.

The sea and the body do not produce nuclear disintegration. The annihilation and production of gamma ray occurs at high energy. In other words, matter oscillates without annihilating itself other than a nuclear reaction.

[Origin]

It is to first make the link between antimatter and gravitational oscillator.

So you don't know what the link is between antimatter and your gravitational oscillator.

My theory is just everything you are refuting here from my part. My theory is the connection between matter / antimatter and my gravitational oscillator.

So you can't state what your theory is.

You missed it.

Your an idiot. 

A pendulum swings from left to right. My oscillator oscillates from top to bottom. Next time pay more attention to the words you read.

So you don't know gravity is the driver of a pendulum.

[Bored chemist]

My theory is just everything you are refuting here from my part. My theory is the connection between matter / antimatter and my gravitational oscillator.

But there is no connection.
All we have is you insisting that a connection exists.
But you can't tell us what connects them, or why they are connected.

[Kartazion (OP)]

1 - Matter and antimatter are subject to gravity.

2 - UK physicists have demonstrated an evidence of particles oscillating between matter and antimatter.

3 - Click the following link to see what it gives:

[Kartazion (OP)]

@Origin, @Bored chemist, I now understand why you are so suck when it comes to understanding the workings of the universe, when you really have a hard time understanding an elementary school level to do simple junction of children. In fact the reason is quite different. You have seen that I can explain simple things and combine them with quantum mechanics because it's my job to do that. And you wanna stop me for these reasons.

[Origin]

Well sir, I happen to think you so suck at simple junction of children.  Ha, now what do you say to that!!

[Bored chemist]

You have seen that I can explain simple things

No.
We have seen you claim things, but you steadfastly refuse to explain anything.

it's my job to do that

Nope.
It's not your job to be loud and wrong.

And you wanna stop me for these reasons.

I want to stop you cluttering the forum with nonsense.

[Bored chemist]

Click the following link to see what it gives:

It gives a bad animation of something we already know about.
But it doesn't say anything about antimatter or QM.

[Kartazion (OP)]

Click the following link to see what it gives:

It gives a bad animation of something we already know about.
But it doesn't say anything about antimatter or QM.

It is easy to get back an answer to you. Between Origin repeating what I say like a child, and you who say 'Something we already know about' for my animation. Once again and as usual. You will be able to provide a link of what you say. I give you a possibility to provide me with a diagram similar to mine in force as you claim.

[Origin]

You will be able to provide a link of what you say.

All you are showing is simple harmonic motion and then you say something like antimatter exists.  In this entire thread you have never explained why you think there is a connection between these two things.  You can't even state your alleged theory.  This is absurd.

[Kartazion (OP)]

I want to answer you. So I take your graph again and ask you a simple thing. OK ?

A simple way of showing what I think you are trying to say is to have Y axes, one Y axis is PE and the other Y axis is KE is shown below:


You additionally have the words particle and antiparticle without explanation.  What is the significance of the particle and antiparticle terms being there?

How do you interpret the potential or kinetic energy for the values ​​of -x? I'm asking you. Is it negative energy or some antigravity?

[Origin]

How do you interpret the potential or kinetic energy for the values ​​of -x? I'm asking you. Is it negative energy or some antigravity?

If you will notice the KE and the PE are measured on the Y-axis.  So in reality there are 2 Y-axes, one is PE and the other Y-axis KE.  The displacement is on the X-axis and we have arbitrarily picked 0 to be the point where KE is at the maximum and PE is at the minimum.
As you move to the right (in the +X direction) the PE increases to a maximum and then decreases to a minimum in a cyclic manner.   As you move to the left (in the -X direction) the PE increases to a maximum and then decreases to a minimum in a cyclic manner. The cycling PE is the same in both directions.
As you move to the right (in the +X direction) the KE decreases to a minimum and then increases to a maximum in a cyclic manner.   As you move to the left (in the -X direction) the KE decreases to a minimum and then increases to a maximum in a cyclic manner. The cycling KE is the same in both directions.
The PE and the KE are 180 degrees out of phase, because the KE is converted to PE and then the PE is converted to KE.
That is simple harmonic motion no negative energy or antigravity is ever implied in this graph.