# Thread: Antimatter is not antimatter

1. ## Antimatter is not antimatter

Science needs a few edits in Wikipedia if it is talking about antimatter. I read some parts that were antimatter, and about 80% of it was talking about normal particles. For example it says....

Karl Pearson proposed the existence of "squirts" (sources) and sinks of the flow of aether. The squirts represented normal matter and the sinks represented negative matter, a term which Pearson is credited with coining. Pearson's theory required a fourth dimension for the aether to flow from and into,
Which is 100% factual to me (not sure about the number of dimensions, X/Y/Z is 6 if you use negatives), and exists right here around us. There is nothing dangerous about that description, it creates standard particles. For example some sinks are in water, and glass. This transparency is totally because they are sinks, because photons travel through sink holes, so obviously don't make them very visible.

A lot of the time science will find a particle with an opposing spin. This is a second form of physics separate to squirts and sinks. Newtons Law that every action has an equal and opposite reaction works at many levels...

X/Y/Z
-X/-Y/-Z
Sink
Squirt
spin left
spin right
scale up
Scale down

And I find that antimatter is being mixed up with different physics. I personally think that the most explosive would be the opposite spins, as that would trap the most energy. So I would call that one antimatter. But Wikipedia needs rewriting.

2. Which is 100% factual to me
Means it's wrong.

3. Originally Posted by AlexG
Means it's wrong.
Which completes Newton's Law of post intelligence negative energy.

4. Originally Posted by Pincho Paxton
Science needs a few edits in Wikipedia if it is talking about antimatter. I read some parts that were antimatter, and about 80% of it was talking about normal particles. For example it says....

Which is 100% factual to me (not sure about the number of dimensions, X/Y/Z is 6 if you use negatives), and exists right here around us. There is nothing dangerous about that description, it creates standard particles. For example some sinks are in water, and glass. This transparency is totally because they are sinks, because photons travel through sink holes, so obviously don't make them very visible.

A lot of the time science will find a particle with an opposing spin. This is a second form of physics separate to squirts and sinks. Newtons Law that every action has an equal and opposite reaction works at many levels...

X/Y/Z
-X/-Y/-Z
Sink
Squirt
spin left
spin right
scale up
Scale down

And I find that antimatter is being mixed up with different physics. I personally think that the most explosive would be the opposite spins, as that would trap the most energy. So I would call that one antimatter. But Wikipedia needs rewriting.
I look at matter as a consequence - like music is a consequence from an instrument- where energy is passed through to produce an effect. For eg, when a piano accordian stretches out, it is gathering energy, when compressed it looses it. Except with matter it is a simultaneous flow, with sinking and rising, and there are areas that are either lacking in energy that produce gravity and areas producing energy like light.
I do not reckon that there is matter and anti matter, but that matter is made of both states, and they do not annihilate each other as they do in fantasy.

5. Originally Posted by Gerhard Kemmerer
I do not reckon that there is matter and anti matter, but that matter is made of both states, and they do not annihilate each other as they do in fantasy.
Reality disagrees with you. We can make antimatter, we've even made anti-Hydrogen. It's been used in various accelerators for decades.

6. What I am saying, is that "anti matter" is part of matter, and therefor just matter, and if there were any real anti matter by definition, it would not be just by opposite spin and charge etc, but not relating to matter at all.

I should have said that before, to make the difference between my opinion and scientific terms. Thanks Alph!

7. Originally Posted by Gerhard Kemmerer
What I am saying, is that "anti matter" is part of matter, and therefor just matter, and if there were any real anti matter by definition, it would not be just by opposite spin and charge etc, but not relating to matter at all.

I should have said that before, to make the difference between my opinion and scientific terms. Thanks Alph!
This is a pretty common problem with people that have no science education; you take a real scientific term and make up your own definition and then begin discussions without ever telling anyone that you have arbitrarily changed the definition.

I always find it interesting that these people somehow think it is ok to do this. Try it in your normal social arena. Redefine asshole as 'a really swell guy', and then tell one of your friends that everyone thinks that he is an asshole. It won't go over to well I guess, and it doesn't go over well in science either - it just makes you look ignorant.

8. Originally Posted by Gerhard Kemmerer
I should have said that before, to make the difference between my opinion and scientific terms. Thanks Alph!
Your opinion is irrelevant to definitons. You can't have opinions about definitions.

9. PP: Good to have you back!

10. Originally Posted by wlminex
PP: Good to have you back!
This whole new fangled internets and forums stuff is pretty confusing for you, huh?

#### Posting Permissions

• You may not post new threads
• You may not post replies
• You may not post attachments
• You may not edit your posts
•