There are no anti forces to build anti matter
in [Physics]
|
Prev: The lying NCDC
Next: Quantum Gravity 359.9: Laurent Series versus Causal Probability Series k1 P ' (A-->B) + k2 P ' (B-->A) + ...
From: BURT on 2 Mar 2010 23:19 On Mar 2, 7:30 pm, moro...(a)world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) wrote: > BURT <macromi...(a)yahoo.com> writes: > >On Mar 2, 4:30 pm, Darwin123 <drosen0...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > >> On Feb 27, 1:06 am, BURT <macromi...(a)yahoo.com> wrote:> There was just > >a mathematical hole in Dirac's equation for an > >> > electron. > > >> If you get cancer, your only hope is that your doctor believes > >> in antimatter. That is the only way he can prescribe a PET scan. > >> PET=Positron Emission Tomography > >> In other words, PET scans use positrongs. Positrons are > >> antielectrons, by the way. > >There is no emission source for positrons. They are mistaken. > > I'll respond one more time on this on the off-chance that you are > ignorant (1%), and not just stoopid (99% chance). Do you know why I was > talking about bananas? It's because bananas contain lots of potassium, > and natural potassium contains a small amount of a radioactive isotope > (K-40). K-40 sometimes decays by emitting a positron (and a neutrino) > becoming Ar-40, completely naturally. Google "positron decay" or "beta > plus decay" for details. So, positrons may be as close as the nearest > banana. Actually, potassium is in your body, so you may be spewing > positrons now, no need for bananas. > > There are quite a few other isotopes that decay by positron emission, > including whichever one(s) they use for PET machines (I don't know what > they use). I think K-40 is the only natural one, however. > > Super-energetic X or gamma rays (more than 1.022 MeV) can also produce > positrons via pair production. > > So, are you ignorant or just plain stoopid? Your response to this will > let us know. Isotopes are radioactive and are not anti matter. Pair production doesn't exist. Light does not degrade to matter and there are no opposites of any of the forces. The anti or opposite force matter doesn't exist. Mitch Raemsch
From: waldofj on 3 Mar 2010 04:23 On Mar 2, 11:19 pm, BURT <macromi...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > On Mar 2, 7:30 pm, moro...(a)world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) > wrote: > > > > > BURT <macromi...(a)yahoo.com> writes: > > >On Mar 2, 4:30 pm, Darwin123 <drosen0...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > > >> On Feb 27, 1:06 am, BURT <macromi...(a)yahoo.com> wrote:> There was just > > >a mathematical hole in Dirac's equation for an > > >> > electron. > > > >> If you get cancer, your only hope is that your doctor believes > > >> in antimatter. That is the only way he can prescribe a PET scan. > > >> PET=Positron Emission Tomography > > >> In other words, PET scans use positrongs. Positrons are > > >> antielectrons, by the way. > > >There is no emission source for positrons. They are mistaken. > > > I'll respond one more time on this on the off-chance that you are > > ignorant (1%), and not just stoopid (99% chance). Do you know why I was > > talking about bananas? It's because bananas contain lots of potassium, > > and natural potassium contains a small amount of a radioactive isotope > > (K-40). K-40 sometimes decays by emitting a positron (and a neutrino) > > becoming Ar-40, completely naturally. Google "positron decay" or "beta > > plus decay" for details. So, positrons may be as close as the nearest > > banana. Actually, potassium is in your body, so you may be spewing > > positrons now, no need for bananas. > > > There are quite a few other isotopes that decay by positron emission, > > including whichever one(s) they use for PET machines (I don't know what > > they use). I think K-40 is the only natural one, however. > > > Super-energetic X or gamma rays (more than 1.022 MeV) can also produce > > positrons via pair production. > > > So, are you ignorant or just plain stoopid? Your response to this will > > let us know. > > Isotopes are radioactive and are not anti matter. > > Pair production doesn't exist. Light does not degrade to matter and > there are no opposites of any of the forces. The anti or opposite > force matter doesn't exist. > > Mitch Raemsch so now we know. btw PET uses a form of glucose tagged with F-18, or O-15, or C-11, or N-13. None of them occur naturally.
From: Michael Moroney on 3 Mar 2010 12:11 BURT <macromitch(a)yahoo.com> writes: >On Mar 2, 7:30 pm, moro...(a)world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) >wrote: >> I'll respond one more time on this on the off-chance that you are >> ignorant (1%), and not just stoopid (99% chance). Do you know why I was >> talking about bananas? It's because bananas contain lots of potassium, >> and natural potassium contains a small amount of a radioactive isotope >> (K-40). K-40 sometimes decays by emitting a positron (and a neutrino) >> becoming Ar-40, completely naturally. Google "positron decay" or "beta >> plus decay" for details. So, positrons may be as close as the nearest >> banana. Actually, potassium is in your body, so you may be spewing >> positrons now, no need for bananas. >> >> There are quite a few other isotopes that decay by positron emission, >> including whichever one(s) they use for PET machines (I don't know what >> they use). I think K-40 is the only natural one, however. >> >> Super-energetic X or gamma rays (more than 1.022 MeV) can also produce >> positrons via pair production. >> >> So, are you ignorant or just plain stoopid? Your response to this will >> let us know. >Isotopes are radioactive and are not anti matter. >Pair production doesn't exist. Light does not degrade to matter and >there are no opposites of any of the forces. The anti or opposite >force matter doesn't exist. Congratulations. You showed me that you are, in fact, stooopid and incapable of learning anything. Incapable of typing something like "positron decay" into Google and actually learning something. Too stooopid to even realize I never claimed isotopes were antimatter. We know the difference between ignorance and stupidity is.
From: Urion on 3 Mar 2010 12:53 Maybe what Burt is asking is why there really are more baryons than anti-baryons in the visible universe? Well there is no simple answer to that question and in fact we don't really know but here's a good place to start: http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/ParticleAndNuclear/baryogenesis.html http://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=341918
From: BURT on 3 Mar 2010 13:17
On Mar 3, 9:53 am, Urion <blackman_...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > Maybe what Burt is asking is why there really are more baryons than > anti-baryons in the visible universe? Well there is no simple answer > to that question and in fact we don't really know but here's a good > place to start: > > http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/ParticleAndNuclear/baryogenesis...http://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=341918 There is no process in which anti matter is created. Mitch Raemsch |