Discussion:
The Dingleberry Anti-Gravity, Perpetual Motion Machine.
(too old to reply)
HGW
2016-03-18 22:30:17 UTC
Permalink
According to several Einstein worshippers a force applied to an anti
particle will accelerate that particle in the direction opposite to that
of the applied force vector.
I propose that the following device be constructed in order to solve of
mankind's problems.
Fasten a concentrated mass of protons on one end of a compressed spring
and a similar mass of anti-protons on the other. Release the spring.

Since the accelerations of the two masses are in the same direction,
they and the spring will accelerate forever in that direction and at the
same rate, thus preventing the spring from expanding at all.

This dingleberry inspired device constitutes the ultimate proof that
free energy is definitely achievable.
JanPB
2016-03-18 23:09:23 UTC
Permalink
Post by HGW
According to several Einstein worshippers
There is no such thing. You seriously undermine your case by using
infantile language. It makes you look like a fool with an agenda.
Post by HGW
a force applied to an anti
particle will accelerate that particle in the direction opposite to that
of the applied force vector.
That's false. You probably meant the behaviour in an electric field.

[skipping the rest]

--
Jan
Maciej Woźniak
2016-03-18 23:23:34 UTC
Permalink
Użytkownik "JanPB" napisał w wiadomości grup
Post by HGW
According to several Einstein worshippers
|There is no such thing.

A lie, as expected from an Einstein worshipper.
JanPB
2016-03-18 23:40:51 UTC
Permalink
Post by Maciej Woźniak
Użytkownik "JanPB" napisał w wiadomości grup
Post by HGW
According to several Einstein worshippers
|There is no such thing.
A lie, as expected from an Einstein worshipper.
That's Maciej's magic incantation #7.

--
Jan
Maciej Woźniak
2016-03-19 07:51:31 UTC
Permalink
Użytkownik "JanPB" napisał w wiadomości grup
Post by Maciej Woźniak
Użytkownik "JanPB" napisał w wiadomości grup
Post by HGW
According to several Einstein worshippers
|There is no such thing.
A lie, as expected from an Einstein worshipper.
|That's Maciej's magic incantation #7.

In answer to Jan's magic incantation #3
p***@gmail.com
2016-03-19 00:23:08 UTC
Permalink
Post by HGW
According to several Einstein worshippers a force applied to an anti
particle will accelerate that particle in the direction opposite to that
of the applied force vector.
I propose that the following device be constructed in order to solve of
mankind's problems.
Fasten a concentrated mass of protons on one end of a compressed spring
and a similar mass of anti-protons on the other. Release the spring.
Since the accelerations of the two masses are in the same direction,
they and the spring will accelerate forever in that direction and at the
same rate, thus preventing the spring from expanding at all.
This dingleberry inspired device constitutes the ultimate proof that
free energy is definitely achievable.
Clearly, all you need to do is acquire a mass of anti-protons to either prove or disprove that theory... get busy!
HGW
2016-03-19 16:43:16 UTC
Permalink
Post by p***@gmail.com
Post by HGW
Since the accelerations of the two masses are in the same direction,
they and the spring will accelerate forever in that direction and at the
same rate, thus preventing the spring from expanding at all.
This dingleberry inspired device constitutes the ultimate proof that
free energy is definitely achievable.
Clearly, all you need to do is acquire a mass of anti-protons to either prove or disprove that theory... get busy!
No, my conscience would not allow me to plagiarize the great work of
Bodkin and Harnagel.
Tom Roberts
2016-03-20 17:11:50 UTC
Permalink
Post by p***@gmail.com
Post by HGW
According to several Einstein worshippers a force applied to an anti
particle will accelerate that particle in the direction opposite to that of
the applied force vector.[...]
As usual, HGW is just spouting nonsense.
Post by p***@gmail.com
Clearly, all you need to do is acquire a mass of anti-protons to either prove
or disprove that theory...
It's been done. The magnetic and/or electric force on both antiprotons and on
positrons accelerates them in the direction of the force. Many circular
accelerators have been built using these particles, and they simply would not
work if HGW's fantasy were true.


Tom Roberts
HGW
2016-03-20 19:46:34 UTC
Permalink
Post by Tom Roberts
Post by p***@gmail.com
Post by HGW
According to several Einstein worshippers a force applied to an anti
particle will accelerate that particle in the direction opposite to that of
the applied force vector.[...]
As usual, HGW is just spouting nonsense.
Post by p***@gmail.com
Clearly, all you need to do is acquire a mass of anti-protons to either prove
or disprove that theory...
It's been done. The magnetic and/or electric force on both antiprotons
and on positrons accelerates them in the direction of the force. Many
circular accelerators have been built using these particles, and they
simply would not work if HGW's fantasy were true.
Point of order! It is not my fantasy. It belongs to your colleague
Harnagel and seconded by Bodkin.
Post by Tom Roberts
Tom Roberts
p***@volcanomail.com
2016-03-19 14:26:13 UTC
Permalink
Post by HGW
According to several Einstein worshippers a force applied to an anti
particle will accelerate that particle in the direction opposite to that
of the applied force vector.
It's unlikely that ralf knows of any "Einstein worshippers", it's almost certainly something he made up.

No one knowledgeable of SR & GR would make such a statement as that would be saying that relativity requires negative mass (which it does not).

This is typical behavior for the ralf. He just makes up crap then spews it. He has no regard for truth.
HGW
2016-03-19 16:50:15 UTC
Permalink
Post by HGW
According to several Einstein worshippers a force applied to an
anti particle will accelerate that particle in the direction
opposite to that of the applied force vector.
It's unlikely that H knows of any "Einstein worshippers", it's almost
certainly something he made up.
No one knowledgeable of SR & GR would make such a statement as that
would be saying that relativity requires negative mass (which it does
not).
This is typical behavior for the Henry. He just makes up crap then
spews it. He has no regard for truth.
You close colleague and fellow idiot Harnagel said that the electric
force acting on a positron would drive it in the same direction as it
would an electron IF a positron had negative mass.

You should question who it really is that makes stuff up....
Gary Harnagel
2016-03-19 18:56:55 UTC
Permalink
Post by HGW
Post by HGW
According to several Einstein worshippers a force applied to an
anti particle will accelerate that particle in the direction
opposite to that of the applied force vector.
It's unlikely that H knows of any "Einstein worshippers", it's almost
certainly something he made up.
No one knowledgeable of SR & GR would make such a statement as that
would be saying that relativity requires negative mass (which it does
not).
This is typical behavior for the Henry. He just makes up crap then
spews it. He has no regard for truth.
You close colleague and fellow idiot Harnagel said that the electric
force acting on a positron would drive it in the same direction as it
would an electron IF a positron had negative mass.
You should question who it really is that makes stuff up....
"Henry" forgets real-world experiments that refute his horrid belief
system but remembers a phrase that follows an "IF" but forgets about the
IF. Has he had his brain checked for low fluid level lately?

"Don't think too much. You'll create a problem that wasn't even
there in the first place." - Anon.
cryptoclearance
2016-03-19 19:48:33 UTC
Permalink
Post by Gary Harnagel
Post by HGW
You close colleague and fellow idiot Harnagel said that the electric
force acting on a positron would drive it in the same direction as it
would an electron IF a positron had negative mass.
You should question who it really is that makes stuff up....
"Henry" forgets real-world experiments that refute his horrid belief
system but remembers a phrase that follows an "IF" but forgets about the
IF. Has he had his brain checked for low fluid level lately?
"Don't think too much. You'll create a problem that wasn't even there
in the first place." - Anon.
This is blatantly correct, the later, but the former is perplexing me,
seeing the relativists confusing electricity with mass and gravity. I have
no idea. Please help.
Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn
2016-03-19 21:42:15 UTC
Permalink
Post by cryptoclearance
seeing the relativists confusing electricity with mass and gravity.
What you are *claiming* to see is what you *want* to see, not what the two
theories of relativity are about.
Post by cryptoclearance
I have no idea.
As usual.
Post by cryptoclearance
Please help.
Pointless. You are beyond help, ’nym-shifting troll. *PLONK*


PointedEars
--
Q: What did the nuclear physicist post on the laboratory door
when he went camping?
A: 'Gone fission'.
(from: WolframAlpha)
cryptoclearance
2016-03-19 22:10:21 UTC
Permalink
Post by Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn
Post by cryptoclearance
seeing the relativists confusing electricity with mass and gravity.
What you are *claiming* to see is what you *want* to see, not what the
two theories of relativity are about.
Post by cryptoclearance
I have no idea.
As usual.
Post by cryptoclearance
Please help.
Pointless. You are beyond help, ’nym-shifting troll. *PLONK*
PointedEars
Let me guess, you are that famous half-engineer.
p***@volcanomail.com
2016-03-20 15:20:38 UTC
Permalink
Post by HGW
Post by HGW
According to several Einstein worshippers a force applied to an
anti particle will accelerate that particle in the direction
opposite to that of the applied force vector.
It's unlikely that H knows of any "Einstein worshippers", it's almost
certainly something he made up.
No one knowledgeable of SR & GR would make such a statement as that
would be saying that relativity requires negative mass (which it does
not).
This is typical behavior for the Henry. He just makes up crap then
spews it. He has no regard for truth.
You close colleague and fellow idiot Harnagel said that the electric
force acting on a positron would drive it in the same direction as it
would an electron IF a positron had negative mass.
You should question who it really is that makes stuff up....
You are. Harnagel said "IF", you lied & said "will".
HGW
2016-03-20 19:55:45 UTC
Permalink
Post by p***@volcanomail.com
Post by HGW
This is typical behavior for the Henry. He just makes up crap then
spews it. He has no regard for truth.
You close colleague and fellow idiot Harnagel said that the electric
force acting on a positron would drive it in the same direction as it
would an electron IF a positron had negative mass.
You should question who it really is that makes stuff up....
You are. Harnagel said "IF", you lied & said "will".
Harnagel's aim was to prove that a positron does not possess negative
mass such that an e+e- pair would have zero mass as I suggested.

In an attempt to prove his point, he claimed that a pair produced by a
gamma decay etc., would not be deflected in opposite directions by a
field because the direction contained the variable 'm' (mass).

I was merely pointing out his stupidity. If what he said was right, he
would certainly be able to achieve not only perpetual motion but also
spontaneous and eternal acceleration.
Gary Harnagel
2016-03-21 00:27:29 UTC
Permalink
Post by HGW
I was merely pointing out his stupidity.
No, you didn't. You only proved your dishonesty.
Post by HGW
If what he said was right,
Nope, you didn't understand what I said. I didn't say that positrons had
negative mass, that was solely an invention of your mind.
Post by HGW
he would certainly be able to achieve not only perpetual motion but also
spontaneous and eternal acceleration.
YOU are the one that brought up anti-gravity perpetual motion and then
tried to blame the concept on "dingleberries." I said IF positrons had
negative mass, positrons would chase electrons all over the universe.
That they don't do so demonstrates that positrons have the same kind of
mass as electrons do. they did have negative mass, by E = m*c^2 there
would be no energy at all in the combination. I hesitate to even say
that because you will probably scramble it up in your brain and come out
with another stupid personal attack. But what the hey, let the cards
fall where they may ....
HGW
2016-03-21 01:13:45 UTC
Permalink
Post by Gary Harnagel
Post by HGW
I was merely pointing out his stupidity.
No, you didn't. You only proved your dishonesty.
Post by HGW
If what he said was right,
Nope, you didn't understand what I said. I didn't say that positrons had
negative mass, that was solely an invention of your mind.
Post by HGW
he would certainly be able to achieve not only perpetual motion but also
spontaneous and eternal acceleration.
YOU are the one that brought up anti-gravity perpetual motion and then
tried to blame the concept on "dingleberries." I said IF positrons had
negative mass, positrons would chase electrons all over the universe.
That they don't do so demonstrates that positrons have the same kind of
mass as electrons do. they did have negative mass, by E = m*c^2 there
would be no energy at all in the combination. I hesitate to even say
that because you will probably scramble it up in your brain and come out
with another stupid personal attack. But what the hey, let the cards
fall where they may ....
You don't get it.
Your 'proof' that positrons DO NOT have negative mass fails because if
they did and your proof was valid, you would be able to make a perpetual
motion machine. In other words, the equation you provided to back up
your claim does not apply.

So the high probability that positrons have zero mass remains...and a
photon can be a massless e+e- combination.
Gary Harnagel
2016-03-21 03:48:02 UTC
Permalink
[Crazy nonsense]
Your 'proof' that positrons DO NOT have negative mass fails because if
they did and your proof was valid, you would be able to make a perpetual
motion machine. In other words, the equation you provided to back up
your claim does not apply.
Are you hallucinating? I didn't provide any equation, although I could.
So the high probability that positrons have zero mass remains...and a
photon can be a massless e+e- combination.
Still deluding yourself with this baloney? The equation that I didn't
provide has mass in it. If m = 0 then ask yourself what kind of
acceleration would the positron undergo.

I could speculate now that both electrons and positrons have zero rest
mass, but they are always moving at the speed of light (as implied by
Dirac's equation with the motion being "zitterbewegung") so all of
their apparent mass is "relativistic mass." The problem with this is
that the proper equation for this is E = p*c, and there is no mass term.

So can you have p negative when c is positive? And if it can, then a
positron-electron pair would have zero energy and could not possibly be
a photon because photons have energy.

So much for ridiculous speculations.
Paul B. Andersen
2016-03-22 20:09:12 UTC
Permalink
Post by HGW
Post by Gary Harnagel
Post by HGW
I was merely pointing out his stupidity.
No, you didn't. You only proved your dishonesty.
Post by HGW
If what he said was right,
Nope, you didn't understand what I said. I didn't say that positrons had
negative mass, that was solely an invention of your mind.
Post by HGW
he would certainly be able to achieve not only perpetual motion but also
spontaneous and eternal acceleration.
YOU are the one that brought up anti-gravity perpetual motion and then
tried to blame the concept on "dingleberries." I said IF positrons had
negative mass, positrons would chase electrons all over the universe.
That they don't do so demonstrates that positrons have the same kind of
mass as electrons do. they did have negative mass, by E = m*c^2 there
would be no energy at all in the combination. I hesitate to even say
that because you will probably scramble it up in your brain and come out
with another stupid personal attack. But what the hey, let the cards
fall where they may ....
You don't get it.
Your 'proof' that positrons DO NOT have negative mass fails because if
they did and your proof was valid, you would be able to make a perpetual
motion machine. In other words, the equation you provided to back up
your claim does not apply.
So the high probability that positrons have zero mass remains...and a
photon can be a massless e+e- combination.
Good grief!
The stupidity of this thread is simply unbelievable!

Ralph, you are claiming that 1+1 = 0.
And when somebody tries to explain the obvious to you,
you pretend to have misinterpreted what they are saying,
and claim that they said what you know they never did,
probably to divert the attention from the stupid blunder
you have realized you made.

Give it up, Ralph.
There is no way you can save this one.
--
Paul

https://paulba.no/
Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn
2016-03-22 22:19:01 UTC
Permalink
Post by HGW
Your 'proof' that positrons DO NOT have negative mass fails because if
they did and your proof was valid, you would be able to make a perpetual
motion machine.
In other words, the equation you provided to back up
your claim does not apply.
So the high probability that positrons have zero mass remains...
and a photon can be a massless e+e- combination.
OK then, let us take this one step at a time.

Do you agree that the positron is the anti-particle of the electron?
(A simple “Yes” or “No” will suffice.)


PointedEars
--
A neutron walks into a bar and inquires how much a drink costs.
The bartender replies, "For you? No charge."

(from: WolframAlpha)
HGW
2016-03-22 22:46:17 UTC
Permalink
Post by Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn
Post by HGW
Your 'proof' that positrons DO NOT have negative mass fails because if
they did and your proof was valid, you would be able to make a perpetual
motion machine.
In other words, the equation you provided to back up
your claim does not apply.
So the high probability that positrons have zero mass remains...
and a photon can be a massless e+e- combination.
OK then, let us take this one step at a time.
Do you agree that the positron is the anti-particle of the electron?
(A simple “Yes” or “No” will suffice.)
PointedEars
I made a typo that should have been obvious to even a dingleberry...but
I apparently overestimated them all.

I obviously should have said, "So it is still possible for a positron to
have NEGATIVE mass. (in spite of Harnagel's bogus 'proof' that they do
not).

Note it is bogus because it leads to free energy and perpetual motion.

The question is, does anyone have a better proof that a positron's mass
is not negative such that when combined with an electron the into a
photon, the masses almost cancel. I say 'almost' because if they don't
exactly cancel, that would link electric forces with gravity and might
indeed explain the latter. It has previously been suggested that a +ve
charge might not exactly equal a -ve one in magnitude. I am proposing
that a +ve mass might not have exactly the same magnitude as a -ve mass
and so photons do possess only an extremely small inertial mass but a
gravitational mass of two.
Tom Roberts
2016-03-23 14:43:54 UTC
Permalink
does anyone have a better proof that a positron's mass is not
negative
OF COURSE! (Of course "proof" does not really apply, as this is SCIENCE.)

There are zillions of observations of positrons in particle-physics detectors.
They have positive charge within 40 parts per billion of a proton's charge, and
they bend in the same direction as protons. Thus their mass is positive.

There are also zillions of measurements of the mass of a positron, and it is
within 8 parts per billion of the electron's mass.


As I have said before, it is remarkable how ignorant and illiterate you are
about very basic concepts and ideas in physics.


Tom Roberts
Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn
2016-03-23 18:11:16 UTC
Permalink
Post by HGW
Post by Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn
Post by HGW
Your 'proof' that positrons DO NOT have negative mass fails because if
they did and your proof was valid, you would be able to make a perpetual
motion machine.
In other words, the equation you provided to back up
your claim does not apply.
So the high probability that positrons have zero mass remains...
and a photon can be a massless e+e- combination.
OK then, let us take this one step at a time.
Do you agree that the positron is the anti-particle of the electron?
(A simple “Yes” or “No” will suffice.)
[…]
I obviously should have said, "So it is still possible for a positron to
have NEGATIVE mass. […]
You have not answered the question. Here it is again, slightly simplified:

Is the positron the anti-particle of the electron?

(A simple “Yes” or “No” will suffice.)


PointedEars
--
Q: What happens when electrons lose their energy?
A: They get Bohr'ed.

(from: WolframAlpha)
Odd Bodkin
2016-03-23 18:15:24 UTC
Permalink
Post by Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn
Is the positron the anti-particle of the electron?
(A simple “Yes” or “No” will suffice.)
You are speaking with "Henry" Rope-A-Dope "Wilson".

The problem with wrestling with pigs is that you get covered in mud and
shit, and the pig likes it.
--
Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn
2016-03-23 19:08:56 UTC
Permalink
Post by Odd Bodkin
Post by Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn
Is the positron the anti-particle of the electron?
(A simple “Yes” or “No” will suffice.)
[…]
The problem with wrestling with pigs is that you get covered in mud and
shit, and the pig likes it.
Which is why *I* don’t. Please do not interfere and give him, whatever his
name is, the opportunity to answer the question.


PointedEars
--
A neutron walks into a bar and inquires how much a drink costs.
The bartender replies, "For you? No charge."

(from: WolframAlpha)
Odd Bodkin
2016-03-23 19:19:56 UTC
Permalink
Post by Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn
Post by Odd Bodkin
Post by Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn
Is the positron the anti-particle of the electron?
(A simple “Yes” or “No” will suffice.)
[…]
The problem with wrestling with pigs is that you get covered in mud and
shit, and the pig likes it.
Which is why *I* don’t. Please do not interfere and give him, whatever his
name is, the opportunity to answer the question.
Enjoy. I'll just put on a poncho and sit on the bleachers and watch.
Post by Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn
PointedEars
--
Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
HGW
2016-03-23 22:34:26 UTC
Permalink
Post by Odd Bodkin
Post by Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn
Post by Odd Bodkin
Post by Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn
Is the positron the anti-particle of the electron?
(A simple “Yes” or “No” will suffice.)
[…]
The problem with wrestling with pigs is that you get covered in mud and
shit, and the pig likes it.
Which is why *I* don’t. Please do not interfere and give him, whatever his
name is, the opportunity to answer the question.
Enjoy. I'll just put on a poncho and sit on the bleachers and watch.
Bodkin, I would say your main problem is that you have been sitting on
the bleachers all your life and missed a proper education.
It should be plainly obvious that if matter and anti matter combine,
their masses neutralize each other and EM radiation is produced instead.

The fact that force accelerates the two in the same direction does not
prove anything.

What constitutes mass anyway?
Post by Odd Bodkin
Post by Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn
PointedEars
Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn
2016-03-24 01:05:29 UTC
Permalink
Post by HGW
It should be plainly obvious that if matter and anti matter combine,
their masses neutralize each other and EM radiation is produced instead.
It is anything but obvious to those who know what they are talking about.
Post by HGW
What constitutes mass anyway?
Einstein found out that it is a measure of the inner energy of a body;
a measure of its energy content in the center-of-momentum frame. Thus,
a body loses mass as it emits radiation. This has been experimentally
confirmed.

Now it is your turn:

Is the positron the antiparticle of the electron?


PointedEars
--
A neutron walks into a bar and inquires how much a drink costs.
The bartender replies, "For you? No charge."

(from: WolframAlpha)
HGW
2016-03-24 02:11:12 UTC
Permalink
Post by Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn
Post by HGW
It should be plainly obvious that if matter and anti matter
combine, their masses neutralize each other and EM radiation is
produced instead.
It is anything but obvious to those who know what they are talking about.
So you are saying that a photon has twice the mass of an electron? Is
that what you think?
Post by Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn
Post by HGW
What constitutes mass anyway?
Einstein found out that it is a measure of the inner energy of a
body; a measure of its energy content in the center-of-momentum
frame. Thus, a body loses mass as it emits radiation. This has been
experimentally confirmed.
HAHAHHAHHAHHHAHA! Bloody moron! Einstein did nothing. He simply
plagiarized an equation that was around long before him.
Post by Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn
Is the positron the antiparticle of the electron?
Well one would think so.
That's why their masses annihilate when they unite.
Post by Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn
PointedEars
Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn
2016-03-24 19:54:23 UTC
Permalink
Post by HGW
Post by Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn
Post by HGW
It should be plainly obvious that if matter and anti matter
combine, their masses neutralize each other and EM radiation is
produced instead.
It is anything but obvious to those who know what they are talking about.
So you are saying that a photon has twice the mass of an electron? Is
that what you think?
No and no.
Post by HGW
Post by Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn
Post by HGW
What constitutes mass anyway?
Einstein found out that it is a measure of the inner energy of a
body; a measure of its energy content in the center-of-momentum
frame. Thus, a body loses mass as it emits radiation. This has been
experimentally confirmed.
HAHAHHAHHAHHHAHA! Bloody moron! Einstein did nothing. He simply
plagiarized an equation that was around long before him.
Cite evidence.
Post by HGW
Post by Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn
Is the positron the antiparticle of the electron?
Well one would think so.
OK then, what is the characteristic property of an antiparticle
compared to the particle it is the antiparticle of?
Post by HGW
That's why their masses annihilate when they unite.
You have a misconception there.


PointedEars
--
Heisenberg is out for a drive when he's stopped by a traffic cop.
The officer asks him "Do you know how fast you were going?"
Heisenberg replies "No, but I know where I am."
(from: WolframAlpha)
HGW
2016-03-24 22:09:47 UTC
Permalink
Post by Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn
Post by HGW
So you are saying that a photon has twice the mass of an electron? Is
that what you think?
No and no.
Post by HGW
Post by Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn
Post by HGW
What constitutes mass anyway?
Einstein found out that it is a measure of the inner energy of a
body; a measure of its energy content in the center-of-momentum
frame. Thus, a body loses mass as it emits radiation. This has been
experimentally confirmed.
HAHAHHAHHAHHHAHA! Bloody moron! Einstein did nothing. He simply
plagiarized an equation that was around long before him.
Cite evidence.
There was much speculation at the time about what happened when a
particle mass transformed into radiation moving at c. The idea of
1/2mc^2 received a lot of attention....as though the mass still existed
but in a different state.
Post by Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn
Post by HGW
Post by Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn
Is the positron the antiparticle of the electron?
Well one would think so.
OK then, what is the characteristic property of an antiparticle
compared to the particle it is the antiparticle of?
Well, in the case of a charged particle that is pretty obvious but what
is an anti-neutron? I dunno. I suppose I could look it up if I wanted
to. That wont change the fact that nobody really knows how mass can
change into energy.
Post by Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn
Post by HGW
That's why their masses annihilate when they unite.
You have a misconception there.
Maybe...I actually have an open mind about all of this.
Post by Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn
PointedEars
Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn
2016-03-24 22:54:31 UTC
Permalink
Post by HGW
Post by Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn
Post by HGW
Post by Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn
Post by HGW
What constitutes mass anyway?
Einstein found out that it is a measure of the inner energy of a
body; a measure of its energy content in the center-of-momentum
frame. Thus, a body loses mass as it emits radiation. This has been
experimentally confirmed.
HAHAHHAHHAHHHAHA! Bloody moron! Einstein did nothing. He simply
plagiarized an equation that was around long before him.
Cite evidence.
There was much speculation at the time about what happened when a
particle mass transformed into radiation moving at c. The idea of
1/2mc^2 received a lot of attention....as though the mass still existed
but in a different state.
You have made another claim now; you have not cited evidence to support your
previous claim.

I take it then that you cannot or do not want to support your previous
claim. That would be OK for me this time; let us not be distracted by your
Post by HGW
Post by Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn
Post by HGW
Post by Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn
Is the positron the antiparticle of the electron?
Well one would think so.
OK then, what is the characteristic property of an antiparticle
compared to the particle it is the antiparticle of?
Well, in the case of a charged particle that is pretty obvious
So, what is the characteristic property of an antiparticle compared to the
particle it is the antiparticle of?
Post by HGW
but what is an anti-neutron? I dunno. I suppose I could look it up if I
wanted to.
An antineutron consists of three antiquarks (among a “sea” of anti-gluons
where 99 % of its mass comes from): an up-antiquark (q_u̅ = −⅔e), and two
down-antiquarks (q_d̅ = +⅓e). As a result, its electric charge is zero, too
(q_n = q_n̅ = 0), but a neutron and an antineutron are still not the same
kind of particle, and they annihilate each other when interacting, as their
constituents annihilate.
Post by HGW
That wont change the fact that nobody really knows how mass can
change into energy.
But mass does not change into energy; instead, mass and energy are
equivalent. A body at relative rest (IOW: in the center-of-momentum frame)
that has the mass m carries the energy E₀ = m c²; a body at relative rest
that carries the energy E₀ has the mass m = E₀∕c². And the mass m of a body
that emits radiation transporting an energy difference ∆E elsewhere, is
reduced by ∆m = ∆E∕c² (see the last paragraphs in Einstein’s first paper on
special relativity).

For example, Einstein knew this. The people who designed the atomic bomb
knew this. Hawking knew this (see Hawking radiation). Scientists
researching stellar dynamics know this. Particle physicists, including
those working with particle accelerators, like those working at CERN and
SLAC, to name just two, do know this.
Post by HGW
Post by Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn
Post by HGW
That's why their masses annihilate when they unite.
You have a misconception there.
Maybe...I actually have an open mind about all of this.
That is really good to hear.


PointedEars
--
Q: What did the female magnet say to the male magnet?
A: From the back, I found you repulsive, but from the front
I find myself very attracted to you.
(from: WolframAlpha)
HGW
2016-03-25 11:38:25 UTC
Permalink
Post by Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn
Post by HGW
That wont change the fact that nobody really knows how mass can
change into energy.
But mass does not change into energy; instead, mass and energy are
equivalent. A body at relative rest (IOW: in the center-of-momentum frame)
that has the mass m carries the energy E₀ = m c²; a body at relative rest
that carries the energy E₀ has the mass m = E₀∕c². And the mass m of a body
that emits radiation transporting an energy difference ∆E elsewhere, is
reduced by ∆m = ∆E∕c² (see the last paragraphs in Einstein’s first paper on
special relativity).
yes he got the idea from someone else.
Post by Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn
Post by HGW
Post by Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn
Post by HGW
That's why their masses annihilate when they unite.
You have a misconception there.
Maybe...I actually have an open mind about all of this.
That is really good to hear.
You see, I am way ahead of you. You people just accept the maths without
thinking of the physics. I want to know more about how mass can turn
into energy. You're aall so hypnotized by the name Einstein that you
have lost the ability to think.
One minute mass constitutes a solid object that is acted on by gravity
and is hard to stop if moving. Next minute it changes into pure
radiation that will pass through most massive objects. What is the
physical explanation?
Post by Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn
PointedEars
Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn
2016-03-25 12:59:03 UTC
Permalink
Post by HGW
Post by Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn
Post by HGW
That wont change the fact that nobody really knows how mass can
change into energy.
But mass does not change into energy; instead, mass and energy are
equivalent. A body at relative rest (IOW: in the center-of-momentum
frame) that has the mass m carries the energy E₀ = m c²; a body at
relative rest that carries the energy E₀ has the mass m = E₀∕c². And
the mass m of a body that emits radiation transporting an energy
difference ∆E elsewhere, is reduced by ∆m = ∆E∕c² (see the last
paragraphs in Einstein’s first paper on special relativity).
yes he got the idea from someone else.
So you claim again. Where is the evidence? If what you are saying is true,
it should not be that hard for you to find. And if you have the evidence
supporting your claim already, it is illogical of you to withhold it.
Post by HGW
Post by Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn
Post by HGW
Post by Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn
Post by HGW
That's why their masses annihilate when they unite.
You have a misconception there.
Maybe...I actually have an open mind about all of this.
That is really good to hear.
You see, I am way ahead of you.
I do not think so.
Post by HGW
You people just accept the maths without thinking of the physics.
Incorrect.
Post by HGW
I want to know more about how mass can turn into energy.
Once again, it has been *experimentally* confirmed numerous times that mass
and energy are equivalent quantities. They do not change or turn into one
another, but are different aspects of the same thing. IOW, they are there
*at the same time*.

Let us return to our discussion:

You have agreed that the positron is the antiparticle of the electron.

You have still not answered the question:

What is the characteristic property of an antiparticle compared to the
particle it is the antiparticle of?

If you find that question too difficult to understand, you can also answer
this more simple version:

What makes an antiparticle different from the particle it is
the antiparticle of?


PointedEars
--
I heard that entropy isn't what it used to be.

(from: WolframAlpha)
Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn
2016-03-25 20:45:45 UTC
Permalink
Post by HGW
One minute mass constitutes a solid object that is acted on by gravity
and is hard to stop if moving. Next minute it changes into pure
radiation that will pass through most massive objects. What is the
physical explanation?
The explanation is that you have the misconception that “mass constitutes a
solid object”. Instead, mass is *a* property of an object, solid or not.
Energy is another. So is momentum. For example, in quantum mechanics,
virtual bosons have mass – they are anything but solid objects, they are not
even observables.

What the layman (and sometimes even the expert) calls a “massive object” is,
as experimentor during the last two centuries have discovered, actually made
up of constituents held together by fundamental interactions (also,
“forces”):

“Solid objects” usually are built from molecules or crystals; molecules and
crystals consist of atoms that are held together by electron pair-binding,
for example; an atom consists of electrons and a nucleus that are held
together by the electromagnetic interaction; a nucleus consists of protons
and neutrons that are held together by the residual strong interaction; a
proton and a neutron, respectively, consist of three quarks that are held
together by the strong interaction. Whether quarks and other *now* point-
like particles have constituents or are merely results of vibrating, multi-
dimensional strings is still being discussed.

In any case, when you consider that we now know that 98.7 % to 99 % of the
mass of protons and neutrons, which make up most of the mass of baryonic
matter in this universe (you, me, everything that you can see), does _not_
come from their constituent quarks [1], but from the space between the
quarks, from the *energy* of *empty space* [2], and that atoms are mostly
empty as well¹, it should not be at all surprising that matter “can change
into pure radiation”. And it should not be surprising that where there is
so much empty space, radiation can “pass through most massive objects”.

[1]
<http://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?dataset=&i=1+-+(down+quark+mass+%2B+2+*+up+quark+mass)%2F(proton+mass)>

[2]



PointedEars
___________
¹ A common description is that if a (European) football stadium had the
size of an atom, then a cherry stone at the center point had the size
and location of that atom’s nucleus.
--
Q: What did the nuclear physicist order for lunch?
A: Fission chips.

(from: WolframAlpha)
HGW
2016-03-26 03:33:01 UTC
Permalink
Post by Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn
Post by HGW
One minute mass constitutes a solid object that is acted on by gravity
and is hard to stop if moving. Next minute it changes into pure
radiation that will pass through most massive objects. What is the
physical explanation?
The explanation is that you have the misconception that “mass constitutes a
solid object”. Instead, mass is *a* property of an object, solid or not.
Energy is another. So is momentum. For example, in quantum mechanics,
virtual bosons have mass – they are anything but solid objects, they are not
even observables.
What the layman (and sometimes even the expert) calls a “massive object” is,
as experimentor during the last two centuries have discovered, actually made
up of constituents held together by fundamental interactions (also,
“Solid objects” usually are built from molecules or crystals; molecules and
crystals consist of atoms that are held together by electron pair-binding,
for example; an atom consists of electrons and a nucleus that are held
together by the electromagnetic interaction; a nucleus consists of protons
and neutrons that are held together by the residual strong interaction; a
proton and a neutron, respectively, consist of three quarks that are held
together by the strong interaction. Whether quarks and other *now* point-
like particles have constituents or are merely results of vibrating, multi-
dimensional strings is still being discussed.
Yes we know all that. Matter is made of smaller bits of matter, all of
which have mass. ..and part of the mass is associated with binding
energy. That doesn't tell us anything.
Post by Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn
In any case, when you consider that we now know that 98.7 % to 99 % of the
mass of protons and neutrons, which make up most of the mass of baryonic
matter in this universe (you, me, everything that you can see), does _not_
come from their constituent quarks [1], but from the space between the
quarks, from the *energy* of *empty space* [2], and that atoms are mostly
empty as well¹, it should not be at all surprising that matter “can change
into pure radiation”. And it should not be surprising that where there is
so much empty space, radiation can “pass through most massive objects”.
Yes we know all that. It does not tell us anything about the
transformation from mas to energy. What we really need to know is more
information about the physical nature of fields.
Post by Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn
[1]
<http://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?dataset=&i=1+-+(down+quark+mass+%2B+2+*+up+quark+mass)%2F(proton+mass)>
[2] http://youtu.be/sbsGYRArH_w
PointedEars
___________
¹ A common description is that if a (European) football stadium had the
size of an atom, then a cherry stone at the center point had the size
and location of that atom’s nucleus.
Yes we know all that..
Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn
2016-03-26 04:00:36 UTC
Permalink
Post by HGW
Post by Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn
The explanation is that you have the misconception that “mass
constitutes a solid object”. […]
What the layman […] calls a “massive object” is […] actually made up of
constituents held together by fundamental interactions (also,
“forces”): […]
Yes we know all that. Matter is made of smaller bits of matter, all of
which have mass. ..and part of the mass is associated with binding
energy. That doesn't tell us anything.
It does not tell *you* anything. It tells *me* that there is more to matter
than mass, and that assuming otherwise is the cause of your misconception
about how electron–positron annihilation works.
Post by HGW
Post by Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn
[…] when you consider that we now know that 98.7 % to 99 % of the mass
of protons and neutrons […] does _not_ come from their constituent
quarks [1], but from the space between the quarks, from the *energy*
of *empty space* [2], and that atoms are mostly empty as well¹, it
should not be at all surprising that matter “can change into pure
radiation”. And it should not be surprising that where there is so much
empty space, radiation can “pass through most massive objects”.
Yes we know all that.
The truth is: Now that I have told *you*, *you* know it. Because people who
know this would not claim that the positron could have negative mass.
Post by HGW
It does not tell us anything about the transformation from mas to
energy.
Mass is not transformed to energy. *Only* *you* have the misconception that
it would be, that those two would be independent properties and quantities.
Post by HGW
What we really need to know is more information about the physical
nature of fields.
What *you* really need to know is how to consult introductory resources on
physics.

What you still have to do is to answer the question in the other subthread.


PointedEars
--
“Science is empirical: knowing the answer means nothing;
testing your knowledge means everything.”
—Dr. Lawrence M. Krauss, theoretical physicist,
in “A Universe from Nothing” (2009)
HGW
2016-03-26 04:18:47 UTC
Permalink
On Sat, 26 Mar 2016 05:00:36 +0100, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn
Post by Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn
Post by HGW
The explanation is that you have the misconception that “mass
constitutes a solid object”. […]
What the layman […] calls a “massive object” is […] actually made up of
constituents held together by fundamental interactions (also,
“forces”): […]
Yes we know all that. Matter is made of smaller bits of matter, all of
which have mass. ..and part of the mass is associated with binding
energy. That doesn't tell us anything.
It does not tell *you* anything. It tells *me* that there is more to matter
than mass, and that assuming otherwise is the cause of your misconception
about how electron–positron annihilation works.
It tells you nothing other than the fact that it does happen.
Post by Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn
Post by HGW
[…] when you consider that we now know that 98.7 % to 99 % of the mass
of protons and neutrons […] does _not_ come from their constituent
quarks [1], but from the space between the quarks, from the *energy*
of *empty space* [2], and that atoms are mostly empty as well¹, it
should not be at all surprising that matter “can change into pure
radiation”. And it should not be surprising that where there is so much
empty space, radiation can “pass through most massive objects”.
Yes we know all that.
The truth is: Now that I have told *you*, *you* know it. Because people who
know this would not claim that the positron could have negative mass.
Well since no definition exists for either positive or negative mass you seem
mumbling nonsense.
Post by Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn
Post by HGW
It does not tell us anything about the transformation from mas to
energy.
Mass is not transformed to energy. *Only* *you* have the misconception that
it would be, that those two would be independent properties and quantities.
You have no asnwer. I dout if you have ever even considered the that the
question exists.
Post by Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn
Post by HGW
What we really need to know is more information about the physical
nature of fields.
What *you* really need to know is how to consult introductory resources on
physics.
You don't understand the question so you can hardly mark comments about its
answer.
Post by Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn
What you still have to do is to answer the question in the other subthread.
PointedEars
Bojana Kudryavtseva
2016-03-26 10:18:35 UTC
Permalink
Post by HGW
Post by Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn
What *you* really need to know is how to consult introductory resources
on physics.
You don't understand the question so you can hardly mark comments about
its answer.
"I was a late developer, so I thought with an adult's mind, but with the
knowledge of a child"

- Einstein
Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn
2016-03-26 13:30:15 UTC
Permalink
Post by HGW
On Sat, 26 Mar 2016 05:00:36 +0100, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn
Post by Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn
Post by HGW
The explanation is that you have the misconception that “mass
constitutes a solid object”. […] What the layman […] calls a
“massive object” is […] actually made up of constituents held
together by fundamental interactions (also, “forces”): […]
Yes we know all that. Matter is made of smaller bits of matter, all
of which have mass. ..and part of the mass is associated with
binding energy. That doesn't tell us anything.
It does not tell *you* anything. It tells *me* that there is more to
matter than mass, and that assuming otherwise is the cause of your
misconception about how electron–positron annihilation works.
It tells you nothing other than the fact that it does happen.
Incorrect.

It tells me that because both mass and energy are properties of an object,
and theory predicts, as experiment confirms, that they are equivalent, the
interacting particles have both mass and energy, that the total energy of
the particle comes from its mass m *and* its momentum p, and that this
energy can be converted into other forms of energy upon interaction in such
a way that the quantity of total *energy* of this system is *conserved*.

So that if the produced photons are moving relative to the center-of-
momentum frame of the interaction – and they *are* *both* moving relative to
it *at the speed of light* –, each of them must have momentum, therefore can
have zero mass but not zero total energy, which is why the positron *cannot*
have negative mass.

The annihilation reaction is:

e⁻ + e⁺ → γ + γ

The total energies must be

for the electron: E_e⁻ = √((m_e⁻ c²)² + (p_e⁻ c)²)
for the positron: E_e⁺ = √((m_e⁺ c²)² + (p_e⁺ c)²)

for one photon: E_γ = E(m_γ = 0) = p_γ c = ℏ k × c = ℎ f∕c × c = ℎ f

Therefore:

E_e⁻ + E_e⁺ = 2 E_γ

√((m_e⁻ c²)² + (p_e⁻ c)²) + √((m_e⁺ c²)² + (p_e⁺ c)²) = 2 ℎ f

Why at least *two* photons? Because total momentum must *also* be a
conserved quantity, and as the electron and the positron interact (when they
collide, if you will) they have opposite velocities v⃗, therefore opposite
momentum p⃗, in the center-of-momentum frame (i.e., for an observer for
which we define that they are at rest in the collision point):

p⃗_e⁻ = m_e⁻ v⃗_e⁻∕√(1 − (|v⃗_e⁻|∕c)²) > 0 as v⃗_e⁺ > 0
p⃗_e⁺ = m_e⁺ v⃗_e⁺∕√(1 − (|v⃗_e⁺|∕c)²) < 0 as v⃗_e⁺ < 0

So if total momentum is to be conserved, at least two photons have to be
produced that have opposite momentum as well. And indeed, one observes that
at least two photons *are* produced; when exactly two, they are going off in
opposite directions from the collision point. (This is the *physical* basis
of the PET scan in medicine.)

p⃗_e⁻ + p⃗_e⁺ = 0⃗ = p⃗_γ₁ + p⃗_γ₂ ⇒ p⃗_γ₁ = −p⃗_γ₂ ⇒ v⃗_γ₁ = −v⃗_γ₂

<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Annihilation#Electron.E2.80.93positron_annihilation>

None of this works out if m_e⁺ < 0 as you claim. But it works out perfectly
if not only m_e⁺ > 0, but m_e⁺ = m_e⁻.

Which is – as *you are refusing to answer the question put to you* in the
other subthread –

What makes an antiparticle different from the particle it is
the antiparticle of?

– consistent with the *actual* definition for “antiparticle”:

<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antiparticle>

“Corresponding to most kinds of particles, there is an associated
antimatter antiparticle with the *same* mass and opposite *charge*
(including electric charge [‘q’]).”

(emphasis and [comment] mine).

So, as you agreed that “the positron is the antiparticle of the electron”,
the positron *cannot* have negative mass or any other mass than the mass of
the electron *for that reason, too*.

Because the electron does _not_ have negative, but *positive* mass, and
neither negative mass nor any other mass than the mass of the electron would
be “the same mass” as the mass of the electron.

So, *in fact*, contrary to your claim:

m_e⁺ = m_e⁻

q_e⁻ = −1 e
q_e⁺ = +1 e

q_e⁺ = −q_e⁻

See also: <http://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=electron+vs.+positron>
Post by HGW
Post by Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn
Post by HGW
[…] when you consider that we now know that 98.7 % to 99 % of the
mass of protons and neutrons […] does _not_ come from their
constituent quarks [1], but from the space between the quarks, from
the *energy* of *empty space* [2], and that atoms are mostly empty
as well¹, it should not be at all surprising that matter “can
change into pure radiation”. And it should not be surprising that
where there is so much empty space, radiation can “pass through
most massive objects”.
Yes we know all that.
The truth is: Now that I have told *you*, *you* know it. Because
people who know this would not claim that the positron could have
negative mass.
Well since no definition exists for either positive or negative mass you
seem mumbling nonsense.
Oh for crying out loud. *You* *were* *the* *only* *one* *here* claiming
that the positron could have “negative mass”, and now you are saying there
would be “no definition” for “negative mass” in the first place? What were
you blathering about, then?

Since a definition exists for (positive) mass, namely in classical mechanics
that it is “the quantity of matter” that is the cause of a force, gravity,
that attracts objects with (positive) masses m₁ and m₂ to one another [1] –
F⃗₁₂ = −G m₁ m₂ ^r⃗₁₂∕|r⃗₁₂|² –, what follows is that negative mass must
cause a force with opposite direction, antigravity (if you will), that
repels an object with negative mass m₁ from an object with positive mass m₂.

Since in relativity, mass is defined in terms of the energy E₀ that an
object has at relative rest – m = E₀∕c² –, it means that positive mass
follows from an object that has positive rest energy, while negative mass
follows from an object that has negative rest energy.

So, out of ignorance, *you* have been “mumbling nonsense” instead.

_____________
[1] Isaac NEWTON (1713/1726). “The Mathematical Principles of Natural
Philosophy”. Translation by Andrew MOTTE (1792). Book Ⅰ, Def. Ⅰ
and Ⅴ.

<https://books.google.com/books?id=Tm0FAAAAQAAJ&printsec=frontcover&dq=Newton+mathematical+principles+Motte&lr=&as_drrb_is=b&as_minm_is=12&as_miny_is=1720&as_maxm_is=12&as_maxy_is=1800&num=20&as_brr=3>
Post by HGW
Post by Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn
Post by HGW
It does not tell us anything about the transformation from mas to
energy.
Mass is not transformed to energy. *Only* *you* have the
misconception that it would be, that those two would be independent
properties and quantities.
You have no asnwer. I dout if you have ever even considered the that the
question exists.
The answer is, as is known to *us* – not you – since more than a century (1905),

E = √((m c²)² + (p c)²)

which reduces to

E = m c²

for objects at relative rest (p = 0).

<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mass%E2%80%93energy_equivalence#Applicability_of_the_strict_mass.E2.80.93energy_equivalence_formula.2C_E_.3D_mc2>
Post by HGW
Post by Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn
Post by HGW
What we really need to know is more information about the physical
nature of fields.
What *you* really need to know is how to consult introductory
resources on physics.
You don't understand the question so you can hardly mark comments about
its answer.
You wish. Your problem is that you are asking a nonsensical question (“How
can mass turn/change/be transformed into energy?”), and expect an answer to
*this* that makes sense. So it is *your* misconception, *your* mistake; it
is not one of the *few* people who are *still* replying to you.

EOD


PointedEars
--
A neutron walks into a bar and inquires how much a drink costs.
The bartender replies, "For you? No charge."

(from: WolframAlpha)
Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn
2016-03-26 14:53:39 UTC
Permalink
Post by Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn
Oh for crying out loud. *You* *were* *the* *only* *one* *here* claiming
that the positron could have “negative mass”, and now you are saying there
would be “no definition” for “negative mass” in the first place? What were
you blathering about, then?
Since a definition exists for (positive) mass, namely in classical mechanics
that it is “the quantity of matter” that is the cause of a force, gravity,
that attracts objects with (positive) masses m₁ and m₂ to one another [1] –
F⃗₁₂ = −G m₁ m₂ ^r⃗₁₂∕|r⃗₁₂|² –, what follows is that negative mass must
cause a force with opposite direction, antigravity (if you will), that
repels an object with negative mass m₁ from an object with positive mass m₂.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
(!)
Post by Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn
[…]
So, out of ignorance, *you* have been “mumbling nonsense” instead.
_____________
[1] Isaac NEWTON (1713/1726). “The Mathematical Principles of Natural
Philosophy”. Translation by Andrew MOTTE (1792). Book Ⅰ, Def. Ⅰ
^^^^
Post by Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn
and Ⅴ.
<https://books.google.com/books?id=Tm0FAAAAQAAJ&printsec=frontcover&dq=Newton+mathematical+principles+Motte&lr=&as_drrb_is=b&as_minm_is=12&as_miny_is=1720&as_maxm_is=12&as_maxy_is=1800&num=20&as_brr=3>
--
PointedEars

Twitter: @PointedEars2/es-matrix>
Please do not cc me. / Bitte keine Kopien per E-Mail.
HGW
2016-03-27 09:48:22 UTC
Permalink
Post by Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn
Post by Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn
Oh for crying out loud. *You* *were* *the* *only* *one* *here* claiming
that the positron could have “negative mass”, and now you are saying there
would be “no definition” for “negative mass” in the first place? What were
you blathering about, then?
Since a definition exists for (positive) mass, namely in classical mechanics
that it is “the quantity of matter” that is the cause of a force, gravity,
that attracts objects with (positive) masses m₁ and m₂ to one another [1] –
F⃗₁₂ = −G m₁ m₂ ^r⃗₁₂∕|r⃗₁₂|² –, what follows is that negative mass must
cause a force with opposite direction, antigravity (if you will), that
repels an object with negative mass m₁ from an object with positive mass m₂.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
(!)
The terms positive and negative have no mathematical significance. An
electron is not described as 'negative' because it has been removed.
You are obviously a raw beginner at not only physics but the art of
using your brain.
HGW
2016-03-26 23:08:12 UTC
Permalink
On Sat, 26 Mar 2016 14:30:15 +0100, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn
<***@web.de> wrote:

...a lot of standard college stuff about particle annihilation.
Post by Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn
Post by HGW
Well since no definition exists for either positive or negative mass you
seem mumbling nonsense.
Oh for crying out loud. *You* *were* *the* *only* *one* *here* claiming
that the positron could have “negative mass”, and now you are saying there
would be “no definition” for “negative mass” in the first place? What were
you blathering about, then?
You seem to be having trouble understanding what the word 'negative' implies.
Do you really believe that an electron has the word literally carved on
it?...and a positron is labeled in big print 'I'M POSITIVE'.

The terms are purely conventional. Neither you nor anyone else knows precisely
why a + particle is different from a - one except that it has + charge rather
than a -one. and those have different quarks or some other undefined property.

This discussion arose because Harnagel claimed that a negative mass, if such
existed, would accelerate in the opposite direction to the applied force
vector. I showed the obvious impossibility of that.

My point is, just because we use the terms positive an negative does not mean
that they should have an attached + or - sign in front of them when used in an
equation.

There is no reason to assume that the a's in a = F/m and a = F/(-m) are not
identical in all respects.
Post by Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn
Since a definition exists for (positive) mass, namely in classical mechanics
that it is “the quantity of matter” that is the cause of a force, gravity,
that attracts objects with (positive) masses m? and m? to one another [1] –
F??? = ?G m? m? ^r????|r???|² –, what follows is that negative mass must
cause a force with opposite direction, antigravity (if you will), that
repels an object with negative mass m? from an object with positive mass m?.
Since in relativity, mass is defined in terms of the energy E? that an
object has at relative rest – m = E??c² –, it means that positive mass
follows from an object that has positive rest energy, while negative mass
follows from an object that has negative rest energy.
No that does not follow. The positive and negative labels are purely
conventional and are not neccessarily mathematical.
Post by Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn
So, out of ignorance, *you* have been “mumbling nonsense” instead.
You are still wallowing in scholboy stuff. Try to think, man!
Odd Bodkin
2016-03-28 14:48:27 UTC
Permalink
Post by HGW
On Sat, 26 Mar 2016 14:30:15 +0100, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn
Post by Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn
So, out of ignorance, *you* have been “mumbling nonsense” instead.
You are still wallowing in scholboy stuff. Try to think, man!
You're the pig I was telling Thomas "PointedEars" Lahn about. But I
think you know that.
--
Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
Bojana Kudryavtseva
2016-03-26 10:17:13 UTC
Permalink
Post by Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn
Post by HGW
Yes we know all that. Matter is made of smaller bits of matter, all of
which have mass. ..and part of the mass is associated with binding
energy. That doesn't tell us anything.
It does not tell *you* anything. It tells *me* that there is more to
matter than mass, and that assuming otherwise is the cause of your
misconception about how electron–positron annihilation works.
Aulta mie face, aulta mie face, beetch
Sylvia Else
2016-03-22 01:35:12 UTC
Permalink
Post by HGW
Post by HGW
According to several Einstein worshippers a force applied to an
anti particle will accelerate that particle in the direction
opposite to that of the applied force vector.
It's unlikely that H knows of any "Einstein worshippers", it's almost
certainly something he made up.
No one knowledgeable of SR & GR would make such a statement as that
would be saying that relativity requires negative mass (which it does
not).
This is typical behavior for the Henry. He just makes up crap then
spews it. He has no regard for truth.
You close colleague and fellow idiot Harnagel said that the electric
force acting on a positron would drive it in the same direction as it
would an electron IF a positron had negative mass.
But that's not equivalent to your original claim.

Sylvia.
Odd Bodkin
2016-03-22 12:22:05 UTC
Permalink
Post by Sylvia Else
Post by HGW
Post by HGW
According to several Einstein worshippers a force applied to an
anti particle will accelerate that particle in the direction
opposite to that of the applied force vector.
It's unlikely that H knows of any "Einstein worshippers", it's almost
certainly something he made up.
No one knowledgeable of SR & GR would make such a statement as that
would be saying that relativity requires negative mass (which it does
not).
This is typical behavior for the Henry. He just makes up crap then
spews it. He has no regard for truth.
You close colleague and fellow idiot Harnagel said that the electric
force acting on a positron would drive it in the same direction as it
would an electron IF a positron had negative mass.
Yes, it would IF a positron had negative mass. But since it is observed
not to do that, then we have evidence that it has positive mass. As well
as the mass of positronium. As well as the mass of antihydrogen.
Post by Sylvia Else
But that's not equivalent to your original claim.
That's true too.
Post by Sylvia Else
Sylvia.
--
Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
HGW
2016-03-25 11:23:12 UTC
Permalink
Post by Sylvia Else
Post by HGW
This is typical behavior for the Henry. He just makes up crap then
spews it. He has no regard for truth.
You close colleague and fellow idiot Harnagel said that the electric
force acting on a positron would drive it in the same direction as it
would an electron IF a positron had negative mass.
But that's not equivalent to your original claim.
what claim?
Post by Sylvia Else
Sylvia.
Sylvia Else
2016-03-26 04:48:31 UTC
Permalink
Post by HGW
Post by Sylvia Else
Post by HGW
This is typical behavior for the Henry. He just makes up crap
then spews it. He has no regard for truth.
You close colleague and fellow idiot Harnagel said that the
electric force acting on a positron would drive it in the same
direction as it would an electron IF a positron had negative
mass.
But that's not equivalent to your original claim.
what claim?
The claim that "According to several Einstein worshippers a force
applied to an antiparticle will accelerate that particle in the
direction opposite to that of the applied force vector."

Sylvia.
HGW
2016-03-26 23:11:50 UTC
Permalink
Post by Sylvia Else
Post by HGW
Post by Sylvia Else
Post by HGW
This is typical behavior for the Henry. He just makes up crap
then spews it. He has no regard for truth.
You close colleague and fellow idiot Harnagel said that the
electric force acting on a positron would drive it in the same
direction as it would an electron IF a positron had negative
mass.
But that's not equivalent to your original claim.
what claim?
The claim that "According to several Einstein worshippers a force
applied to an antiparticle will accelerate that particle in the
direction opposite to that of the applied force vector."
That is true. It happened. Harnagel, supported by Draper assumed that if a
positron had negative mass it would be deflected by a field in the same
direction as would an electron.
Post by Sylvia Else
Sylvia.
Sylvia Else
2016-03-27 02:11:19 UTC
Permalink
Post by HGW
Post by Sylvia Else
Post by HGW
Post by Sylvia Else
Post by HGW
This is typical behavior for the Henry. He just makes up crap
then spews it. He has no regard for truth.
You close colleague and fellow idiot Harnagel said that the
electric force acting on a positron would drive it in the same
direction as it would an electron IF a positron had negative
mass.
But that's not equivalent to your original claim.
what claim?
The claim that "According to several Einstein worshippers a force
applied to an antiparticle will accelerate that particle in the
direction opposite to that of the applied force vector."
That is true. It happened. Harnagel, supported by Draper assumed that if a
positron had negative mass it would be deflected by a field in the same
direction as would an electron.
Can you really not see that they're not the same thing at all?

Sylvia.
HGW
2016-03-27 09:40:40 UTC
Permalink
Post by Sylvia Else
Post by HGW
Post by Sylvia Else
Post by HGW
Post by Sylvia Else
But that's not equivalent to your original claim.
what claim?
The claim that "According to several Einstein worshippers a force
applied to an antiparticle will accelerate that particle in the
direction opposite to that of the applied force vector."
That is true. It happened. Harnagel, supported by Draper assumed that if a
positron had negative mass it would be deflected by a field in the same
direction as would an electron.
Can you really not see that they're not the same thing at all?
I can. He apparently cannot. And you are apparently incapable of
understanding that the stupidity is all his.
Post by Sylvia Else
Sylvia.
Odd Bodkin
2016-03-28 14:49:30 UTC
Permalink
Post by HGW
Post by Sylvia Else
Post by HGW
Post by Sylvia Else
Post by HGW
This is typical behavior for the Henry. He just makes up crap
then spews it. He has no regard for truth.
You close colleague and fellow idiot Harnagel said that the
electric force acting on a positron would drive it in the same
direction as it would an electron IF a positron had negative
mass.
But that's not equivalent to your original claim.
what claim?
The claim that "According to several Einstein worshippers a force
applied to an antiparticle will accelerate that particle in the
direction opposite to that of the applied force vector."
That claim is not true.
Post by HGW
That is true. It happened. Harnagel, supported by Draper assumed that if a
positron had negative mass it would be deflected by a field in the same
direction as would an electron.
And supported by me as well. This claim is true.

You see the difference between the two claims?
Post by HGW
Post by Sylvia Else
Sylvia.
--
Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn
2016-03-28 19:53:03 UTC
Permalink
Post by Odd Bodkin
Post by HGW
That is true. It happened. Harnagel, supported by Draper assumed that if
a positron had negative mass it would be deflected by a field in the same
direction as would an electron.
And supported by me as well. This claim is true.
ISTM that whether it is true depends on the kind of field.


PointedEars
--
Q: How many theoretical physicists specializing in general relativity
does it take to change a light bulb?
A: Two: one to hold the bulb and one to rotate the universe.
(from: WolframAlpha)
HGW
2016-03-28 22:54:20 UTC
Permalink
On Mon, 28 Mar 2016 21:53:03 +0200, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn
Post by Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn
Post by Odd Bodkin
Post by HGW
That is true. It happened. Harnagel, supported by Draper assumed that if
a positron had negative mass it would be deflected by a field in the same
direction as would an electron.
And supported by me as well. This claim is true.
ISTM that whether it is true depends on the kind of field.
Bodkin is so stupid he did not understand that.
But you are also wrong.

If it was a gravity field alone, then -ve mass would imply that they moved in
opposite directions but only IF the negative sign was really of mathematical
significance. If gravity and electric fields were applied, we can be sure that
the latter would cause aceleration in opposite directions but again we cannot
be sure about the affect of a gravity field.

However, he idea of anything accelerating in oposite direction to an applied
force would appear to be impossible because it would manufacture energy.
Post by Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn
PointedEars
HGW
2016-03-28 22:58:47 UTC
Permalink
Post by Odd Bodkin
Post by HGW
Post by Sylvia Else
Post by HGW
Post by Sylvia Else
But that's not equivalent to your original claim.
what claim?
The claim that "According to several Einstein worshippers a force
applied to an antiparticle will accelerate that particle in the
direction opposite to that of the applied force vector."
That claim is not true.
That is what Harnagel claimed...and you agreed with him.
Post by Odd Bodkin
Post by HGW
That is true. It happened. Harnagel, supported by Draper assumed that if a
positron had negative mass it would be deflected by a field in the same
direction as would an electron.
And supported by me as well. This claim is true.
You see the difference between the two claims?
There is no difference. The only force is the electrical one. You are claiming
that the applied electrical force would cause an acceleration towards the force
if the mass was negative.
Post by Odd Bodkin
Post by HGW
Post by Sylvia Else
Sylvia.
Odd Bodkin
2016-04-07 13:24:46 UTC
Permalink
Post by HGW
Post by Odd Bodkin
Post by HGW
Post by Sylvia Else
Post by HGW
Post by Sylvia Else
But that's not equivalent to your original claim.
what claim?
The claim that "According to several Einstein worshippers a force
applied to an antiparticle will accelerate that particle in the
direction opposite to that of the applied force vector."
That claim is not true.
That is what Harnagel claimed...and you agreed with him.
I don't think so. Note the confusion below.
Post by HGW
Post by Odd Bodkin
Post by HGW
That is true. It happened. Harnagel, supported by Draper assumed that if a
positron had negative mass it would be deflected by a field in the same
direction as would an electron.
And supported by me as well. This claim is true.
You see the difference between the two claims?
There is no difference.
Of course there is.
Post by HGW
The only force is the electrical one. You are claiming
that the applied electrical force would cause an acceleration towards the force
if the mass was negative.
Heck no.
Post by HGW
Post by Odd Bodkin
Post by HGW
Post by Sylvia Else
Sylvia.
--
Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
HGW
2016-04-08 07:18:04 UTC
Permalink
Post by Odd Bodkin
Post by HGW
Post by Odd Bodkin
Post by Sylvia Else
The claim that "According to several Einstein worshippers a force
applied to an antiparticle will accelerate that particle in the
direction opposite to that of the applied force vector."
That claim is not true.
Harnagel definitely said that if a positron had negative mass, it would
be deflected in the same direction as an electron by an electric field.

I pointed out the impossibility of that.
Post by Odd Bodkin
Post by HGW
Post by Odd Bodkin
And supported by me as well. This claim is true.
You see the difference between the two claims?
There is no difference.
Of course there is.
Post by HGW
The only force is the electrical one. You are claiming
that the applied electrical force would cause an acceleration towards the force
if the mass was negative.
Heck no.
Then what properties might 'negative' mass possess? The word negative'
itself gives the wrong impression.
A positive and a negative mass could conceivably unite to form zero mass
yet still be affected by gravity or any other applied force in the same
way as would two identical masses.
....OR, maybe inertial mass can be different from gravitational mass
under certain circumstances. I already suggested that possibility as an
option IF the gravitational bending of light DID actually turn out to be
double that predicted by Newton...(which is extremely unlikely).
Gary Harnagel
2016-04-08 15:40:15 UTC
Permalink
Post by HGW
Harnagel definitely said that if a positron had negative mass, it would
be deflected in the same direction as an electron by an electric field.
I pointed out the impossibility of that.
This, of course, depends upon your definition of "negative" mass. Being
opaque in your claims is one of your hallmarks.
Post by HGW
Then what properties might 'negative' mass possess? The word negative'
itself gives the wrong impression.
Nope. You just have to be specific in your definition.
Post by HGW
A positive and a negative mass could conceivably unite to form zero mass
yet still be affected by gravity or any other applied force in the same
way as would two identical masses.
There are TWO kinds of mass: inertial and gravitational. If both masses
were positive gravitationally, but one was inertially negative, you would
be correct. But again you aren't specific about what you mean by "unite."
COULD you unite them? Being strictly Newtonian in the analysis and taking
the case where gravitational force is insignificant,

F = mi*a = q*E

where mi = inertial mass, q = charge on the mass and E = electric field,

a = q*E/mi

So an electron (with negative q) would be accelerated in a negative
direction by a positive E-field. A positron has positive charge, so it
would move in the positive direction of the electron IF it had positive
inertial mass. IF it had negative inertial mass, it would move in the
SAME direction as the electron. Surely you understand this.
Post by HGW
....OR, maybe inertial mass can be different from gravitational mass
under certain circumstances. I already suggested that possibility as an
option IF the gravitational bending of light DID actually turn out to be
double that predicted by Newton...(which is extremely unlikely).
Irrelevant and wrong: there is no question that it does bend twice as much.
The experiment has been repeated with better equipment than Eddington had
and the GR prediction was confirmed. But that is irrelevant because the
argument ignores the effect of gravity.

So let's consider gravity. We have two masses, m1 and m2 which have positive gravitational mass. The gravitational force is

Fg = -G*m1*m2/r^2

which means the force is attractive if both masses are positive. Let each
mass have the same electrical charge such that

Ftotal = Fq - Fg = k*q1*q1/r^2 - G*m1*m2/r^2

When k*q1*q1 = G*m1*m2, the masses will be stationary wrt each other IF
the inertial masses of m1 and m2 are positive. Note that the acceleration
of mass m2 is

a = Ftotal/mi

so you should be able to figure out the consequences for all possibilities.
Note that negative mass of ANY kind violates the equivalence principle as
it is presently constituted.
HGW
2016-04-08 22:36:44 UTC
Permalink
Post by Gary Harnagel
Nope. You just have to be specific in your definition.
Post by HGW
A positive and a negative mass could conceivably unite to form zero mass
yet still be affected by gravity or any other applied force in the same
way as would two identical masses.
There are TWO kinds of mass: inertial and gravitational. If both masses
were positive gravitationally, but one was inertially negative, you would
be correct. But again you aren't specific about what you mean by "unite."
COULD you unite them? Being strictly Newtonian in the analysis and taking
the case where gravitational force is insignificant,
F = mi*a = q*E
where mi = inertial mass, q = charge on the mass and E = electric field,
a = q*E/mi
So an electron (with negative q) would be accelerated in a negative
direction by a positive E-field. A positron has positive charge, so it
would move in the positive direction of the electron IF it had positive
inertial mass. IF it had negative inertial mass, it would move in the
SAME direction as the electron. Surely you understand this.
You just don't get it, do you... The word 'negative' is purely
conventional and does not have mathematical significance. It means the
mass is somehow 'different'. Maybe there are two mass dimensions. If you
add x to y in space you don't get zero length.
Post by Gary Harnagel
Post by HGW
....OR, maybe inertial mass can be different from gravitational mass
under certain circumstances. I already suggested that possibility as an
option IF the gravitational bending of light DID actually turn out to be
double that predicted by Newton...(which is extremely unlikely).
Irrelevant and wrong: there is no question that it does bend twice as much.
The experiment has been repeated with better equipment than Eddington had
and the GR prediction was confirmed. But that is irrelevant because the
argument ignores the effect of gravity.
It has never been done accurately and without numerous assumptions and
guesses.
Post by Gary Harnagel
So let's consider gravity. We have two masses, m1 and m2 which have positive gravitational mass. The gravitational force is
Fg = -G*m1*m2/r^2
which means the force is attractive if both masses are positive. Let each
mass have the same electrical charge such that
Ftotal = Fq - Fg = k*q1*q1/r^2 - G*m1*m2/r^2
When k*q1*q1 = G*m1*m2, the masses will be stationary wrt each other IF
the inertial masses of m1 and m2 are positive. Note that the acceleration
of mass m2 is
a = Ftotal/mi
so you should be able to figure out the consequences for all possibilities.
Note that negative mass of ANY kind violates the equivalence principle as
it is presently constituted.
Well I don't believe Eddington's figure. It was obviously faked. He
hardly even saw the star through the rain and clouds.
He knew he answer that would make him famous and produced it. Who could
prove it wasn't right?
Gary Harnagel
2016-04-09 03:38:05 UTC
Permalink
Post by HGW
Post by Gary Harnagel
There are TWO kinds of mass: inertial and gravitational. If both masses
were positive gravitationally, but one was inertially negative, you would
be correct. But again you aren't specific about what you mean by "unite."
COULD you unite them? Being strictly Newtonian in the analysis and taking
the case where gravitational force is insignificant,
F = mi*a = q*E
where mi = inertial mass, q = charge on the mass and E = electric field,
a = q*E/mi
So an electron (with negative q) would be accelerated in a negative
direction by a positive E-field. A positron has positive charge, so it
would move in the positive direction of the electron IF it had positive
inertial mass. IF it had negative inertial mass, it would move in the
SAME direction as the electron. Surely you understand this.
You just don't get it, do you... The word 'negative' is purely
conventional and does not have mathematical significance.
So "henry" has never heard of "the right hand rule" ... how ignorant of him.
Post by HGW
It means the mass is somehow 'different'.
It means that either inertial matter or gravitational matter, or both,
have a negative sign. You are even more vacuous than I thought.
Post by HGW
Maybe there are two mass dimensions. If you
add x to y in space you don't get zero length.
And maybe you're just a bloviating fool.
Post by HGW
Post by Gary Harnagel
Post by HGW
....OR, maybe inertial mass can be different from gravitational mass
under certain circumstances. I already suggested that possibility as an
option IF the gravitational bending of light DID actually turn out to be
double that predicted by Newton...(which is extremely unlikely).
Irrelevant and wrong: there is no question that it does bend twice as much.
The experiment has been repeated with better equipment than Eddington had
and the GR prediction was confirmed. But that is irrelevant because the
argument ignores the effect of gravity.
It has never been done accurately and without numerous assumptions and
guesses.
More bloviating lies from the king of same.
Post by HGW
Post by Gary Harnagel
So let's consider gravity. We have two masses, m1 and m2 which have
positive gravitational mass. The gravitational force is
Fg = -G*m1*m2/r^2
which means the force is attractive if both masses are positive. Let each
mass have the same electrical charge such that
Ftotal = Fq - Fg = k*q1*q1/r^2 - G*m1*m2/r^2
When k*q1*q1 = G*m1*m2, the masses will be stationary wrt each other IF
the inertial masses of m1 and m2 are positive. Note that the acceleration
of mass m2 is
a = Ftotal/mi
so you should be able to figure out the consequences for all possibilities.
Note that negative mass of ANY kind violates the equivalence principle as
it is presently constituted.
Well I don't believe Eddington's figure.
Nobody cares what you believe because you lie like a rug all the time.
Post by HGW
It was obviously faked. He hardly even saw the star through the rain and
clouds. He knew he answer that would make him famous and produced it.
Who could prove it wasn't right?
What a cynical lying weasel you are! There is incontrovertible evidence
that the amount of bending is twice what NG predicts. Incontrovertible,
that is, except to dunces and liars.

http://www.nature.com/news/2007/070903/full/news070903-20.html

"According to a study by Daniel Kennefick, a physicist at the University
of Arkansas in Fayetteville, Eddington was in fact completely justified
in asserting that his measurements matched the prediction of general
relativity. Kennefick thinks that anyone now presented with the same data
would have to share Eddington's conclusion."

http://w.astro.berkeley.edu/~kalas/labs/documents/kennefick_phystoday_09.pdf

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tests_of_general_relativity#Deflection_of_light_by_the_Sun

"The measurement was repeated by a team from the Lick Observatory in the
1922 eclipse, with results that agreed with the 1919 results and has been
repeated several times since, most notably in 1953 by Yerkes Observatory
astronomers and in 1973 by a team from the University of Texas."

So any stupid attack on Eddington's results or integrity is just ignorant
fools bleating like baffoons.
HGW
2016-04-09 09:54:28 UTC
Permalink
Post by Gary Harnagel
Post by HGW
You just don't get it, do you... The word 'negative' is purely
conventional and does not have mathematical significance.
So "henry" has never heard of "the right hand rule" ... how ignorant of him.
The only right hand rule you know is how to pull you pud.....
Post by Gary Harnagel
Post by HGW
It means the mass is somehow 'different'.
It means that either inertial matter or gravitational matter, or both,
have a negative sign. You are even more vacuous than I thought.
Post by HGW
Maybe there are two mass dimensions. If you
add x to y in space you don't get zero length.
And maybe you're just a bloviating fool.
idiot! A positron is called a negative particle because it has negative
charge. That doesn't say anything else about it. Negative mass doesn 't
necessarily behave in the opposite way to ordinary mass. You don' call
The poles of a magnet positive and negative...have you ever wondered why
the hell not?
Post by Gary Harnagel
Post by HGW
Post by Gary Harnagel
so you should be able to figure out the consequences for all possibilities.
Note that negative mass of ANY kind violates the equivalence principle as
it is presently constituted.
Well I don't believe Eddington's figure.
Nobody cares what you believe because you lie like a rug all the time.
Post by HGW
It was obviously faked. He hardly even saw the star through the rain and
clouds. He knew he answer that would make him famous and produced it.
Who could prove it wasn't right?
What a cynical lying weasel you are! There is incontrovertible evidence
that the amount of bending is twice what NG predicts. Incontrovertible,
that is, except to dunces and liars.
Idiot! Have you ever read about Eddington's botched expedition. It was
just an expensive joke.
Post by Gary Harnagel
http://www.nature.com/news/2007/070903/full/news070903-20.html
"According to a study by Daniel Kennefick, a physicist at the University
of Arkansas in Fayetteville, Eddington was in fact completely justified
in asserting that his measurements matched the prediction of general
relativity. Kennefick thinks that anyone now presented with the same data
would have to share Eddington's conclusion."
The Kennefuck was just another stupid dingleberry
Post by Gary Harnagel
http://w.astro.berkeley.edu/~kalas/labs/documents/kennefick_phystoday_09.pdf
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tests_of_general_relativity#Deflection_of_light_by_the_Sun
"The measurement was repeated by a team from the Lick Observatory in the
1922 eclipse, with results that agreed with the 1919 results and has been
repeated several times since, most notably in 1953 by Yerkes Observatory
astronomers and in 1973 by a team from the University of Texas."
What crap! There are too many other factors ionvolved.
Gary Harnagel
2016-04-09 12:29:59 UTC
Permalink
Post by HGW
Post by Gary Harnagel
Post by HGW
You just don't get it, do you... The word 'negative' is purely
conventional and does not have mathematical significance.
So "henry" has never heard of "the right hand rule" ... how ignorant of him.
The only right hand rule you know is how to pull you pud.....
True to form, adolescent Ralphie-boy resorts to ad homs when his vacuous
assertions are proven false. :-))
Post by HGW
Post by Gary Harnagel
Post by HGW
It means the mass is somehow 'different'.
It means that either inertial matter or gravitational matter, or both,
have a negative sign. You are even more vacuous than I thought.
Post by HGW
Maybe there are two mass dimensions. If you
add x to y in space you don't get zero length.
And maybe you're just a bloviating fool.
idiot!
You define yourself very well :-)
Post by HGW
A positron is called a negative particle because it has negative charge.
No one but YOU calls a positron a negative particle. The electron has
a negative charge by convention. So live in the real world or STFU.
Post by HGW
That doesn't say anything else about it. Negative mass doesn 't
necessarily behave in the opposite way to ordinary mass.
Once again you are trying to apply your own stupid definitions to your
dysfunctional beliefs. The world of science doesn't agree with your
baloney-talk.
Post by HGW
You don' call The poles of a magnet positive and negative...have you
ever wondered why the hell not?
Convention again. They're called north pole and south pole. Do you even
have a clue why that is?
Post by HGW
Post by Gary Harnagel
Post by HGW
Post by Gary Harnagel
so you should be able to figure out the consequences for all
possibilities. Note that negative mass of ANY kind violates the
equivalence principle as it is presently constituted.
Well I don't believe Eddington's figure.
Nobody cares what you believe because you lie like a rug all the time.
Post by HGW
It was obviously faked. He hardly even saw the star through the rain
and clouds. He knew he answer that would make him famous and produced
it. Who could prove it wasn't right?
What a cynical lying weasel you are! There is incontrovertible evidence
that the amount of bending is twice what NG predicts. Incontrovertible,
that is, except to dunces and liars.
Idiot!
You certainly are.
Post by HGW
Have you ever read about Eddington's botched expedition. It was just an
expensive joke.
As opposed to yourself being an inexpensive joke :-))
Post by HGW
Post by Gary Harnagel
http://www.nature.com/news/2007/070903/full/news070903-20.html
"According to a study by Daniel Kennefick, a physicist at the University
of Arkansas in Fayetteville, Eddington was in fact completely justified
in asserting that his measurements matched the prediction of general
relativity. Kennefick thinks that anyone now presented with the same data
would have to share Eddington's conclusion."
The Kennefuck was just another stupid dingleberry
Another typical ad hom from the dishonest non-scientist.

"1. ad hominem -- Latin for "to the man," attacking the arguer and not the
argument"

https://www.brainpickings.org/2014/01/03/baloney-detection-kit-carl-sagan/
Post by HGW
Post by Gary Harnagel
http://w.astro.berkeley.edu/~kalas/labs/documents/kennefick_phystoday_09.pdf
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tests_of_general_relativity#Deflection_of_light_by_the_Sun
"The measurement was repeated by a team from the Lick Observatory in the
1922 eclipse, with results that agreed with the 1919 results and has been
repeated several times since, most notably in 1953 by Yerkes Observatory
astronomers and in 1973 by a team from the University of Texas."
What crap!
Yes, you are.
Post by HGW
There are too many other factors ionvolved.
And just what would those be, dishonest weasel? You have NO valid arguments,
you sound just like a scruffy, spoiled, pimple-faced adolescent retard.
HGW
2016-04-10 08:07:19 UTC
Permalink
On 09/04/16 22:29, Gary Harnagel wrote:
...enough low class crap to justify plonking...
Gary Harnagel
2016-04-10 13:04:09 UTC
Permalink
Post by HGW
...enough low class crap to justify plonking...
Post by Gary Harnagel
Post by HGW
A positron is called a negative particle because it has negative charge.
No one but YOU calls a positron a negative particle. The electron has
a negative charge by convention. So live in the real world or STFU.
I'm glad to hear that you have decided to STFU :-)
Post by HGW
Post by Gary Harnagel
Post by HGW
That doesn't say anything else about it. Negative mass doesn 't
necessarily behave in the opposite way to ordinary mass.
Once again you are trying to apply your own stupid definitions to your
dysfunctional beliefs. The world of science doesn't agree with your
baloney-talk.
Post by HGW
You don' call The poles of a magnet positive and negative...have you
ever wondered why the hell not?
Convention again. They're called north pole and south pole. Do you
even have a clue why that is?
Apparently, Ralphie-boy doesn't.
p***@gmail.com
2016-04-11 02:46:16 UTC
Permalink
Post by HGW
...enough low class crap to justify plonking...
The problem here, Ralph, is that you keep plonking him, but then keep responding to him... a bit disingenuous of you, isn't it? Making a mockery of the 'plonk' function, are we?
Gary Harnagel
2016-04-11 12:14:47 UTC
Permalink
Post by p***@gmail.com
Post by HGW
...enough low class crap to justify plonking...
The problem here, Ralph, is that you keep plonking him, but then keep
responding to him... a bit disingenuous of you, isn't it? Making a
mockery of the 'plonk' function, are we?
:-)
HGW
2016-04-11 22:03:24 UTC
Permalink
Post by p***@gmail.com
On 09/04/16 22:29, Gary Harnagel wrote: ...enough low class crap to
justify plonking...
The problem here, Ralph, is that you keep plonking him, but then keep
responding to
him... a bit disingenuous of you, isn't it? Making a mockery of the
'plonk' function, are we?

An occasional read of the idiot's messages gives my ego quite a boost.
He is living proof that only the world's most ignorant of morons
supports Einstein's silly theory. I do it for the fun and the
reinforcement that I'm correct..

The idiot does not even understand that north and south are just
conventions, as are +ve and -ve in relation to charge. Negative mass
does not mean mass that has been removed from a basketful, as it might
do in the case of apples.
Gary Harnagel
2016-04-11 22:56:26 UTC
Permalink
Post by HGW
Post by p***@gmail.com
On 09/04/16 22:29, Gary Harnagel wrote: ...enough low class crap to
justify plonking...
The problem here, Ralph, is that you keep plonking him, but then keep
responding to him... a bit disingenuous of you, isn't it? Making a
mockery of the 'plonk' function, are we?
An occasional read of the idiot's messages gives my ego quite a boost.
Occasional? Not! :-)))
Post by HGW
He is living proof that only the world's most ignorant of morons
supports Einstein's silly theory. I do it for the fun and the
reinforcement that I'm correct..
You are a delusional, squawking fool.
Post by HGW
The idiot does not even understand that north and south are just
conventions,
I said exactly that, foolish liar. Google has the record. Be sure of the
facts before you lie.
Post by HGW
as are +ve and -ve in relation to charge.
And I said that, too, baloney-spewer.
Post by HGW
Negative mass does not mean mass that has been removed from a basketful,
as it might do in the case of apples.
Nobody said it did, unconscious one. It DOES, however, mean (1) antimatter,
(2) inertial matter with a minus sign, (3) gravitational matter with a minus sign, or (4) both (2) and (3), depending on the context of the discussion.

Ralphie-boy has no integrity; rather, he is a dishonest baloney-spewer.
HGW
2016-04-12 09:48:31 UTC
Permalink
On 12/04/16 08:56, Gary Harnagel wrote:

"god must have created me so she could win the idiot of the year prize."
Gary Harnagel
2016-04-12 12:29:51 UTC
Permalink
Post by HGW
"god must have created me so she could win the idiot of the year prize."
No, he didn't. When Ralphie-boy begins to lose his obviously false
assertions, he changes the subject and mounts personal attacks, as
evidenced by his latest infantile outburst.

"We are what we repeatedly do. Excellence, then, is not an act, but a habit."
-- Aristotle

So is dishonesty.

Odd Bodkin
2016-03-19 14:38:25 UTC
Permalink
Post by HGW
According to several Einstein worshippers a force applied to an anti
particle will accelerate that particle in the direction opposite to that
of the applied force vector.
That simply isn't true. Can you be specific about who has said that?
--
Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
HGW
2016-03-19 16:44:44 UTC
Permalink
Post by Odd Bodkin
Post by HGW
According to several Einstein worshippers a force applied to an anti
particle will accelerate that particle in the direction opposite to that
of the applied force vector.
That simply isn't true. Can you be specific about who has said that?
The village idiot...and you supported him.
Loading...