sci.physics.particle

Dear frankli...:

On Mar 25, 12:43=A0pm, frankli...@yahoo.com wrote:
> On Mar 25, 10:39=A0am,dlzc wrote:> Dear frankli...:
>
> > On Mar 25, 10:00=A0am, frankli...@yahoo.com wrote:
> > > Another thing you would have to accept is that a
> > > positron/electron aether exists.
>
> > Define this. =A0Please describe how free electrons can
> > survive in it for any finite distance.
>
> Thank you for your responses, I think your objections
> can be easily explained.
>
> You must understand that electrons can only react
> with free positrions. Once an electron/positron have
> collided and combined, they produce a neutrally
> charged particle very similar to a neutron.

No. Very briefly they form positronium, then they decay into gamma
photons. There has been no intermediate state detected.

> This neutron like particle does not strongly interact
> with free electrons. It would no more react with a
> free electron than a water molecule would react with
> a free hydrogen atom.

Please look up "hydronium". Then try not to ignore that the electron
is also charged.

> > > - And no Uncle Al, tests of Lorentz invariance,
> > > MMC and others do not disprove the existence of
> > > an aether. All of these experiments work by
> > > detecting a movement of the aether wind.
>
> > Stellar aberration disproves a "displaceable" aether.
> >=A0This only leaves the Lorentz aether.
>
> Stellar aberation is easily explained by an static
> unmoving aether that the Earth moves through. (How
> does relativity explain stellar aberation???)

There *is* no aberration. So the stars must also move trhough this
static aether... the Lorentz aether.

> Now, you assume that since the aether must be
> static in space, that it must also be the same on
> Earth, so we should feel the full force of the aether
> wind. Wrong - this is a completely wrong and
> unncessary assumption.

Your choice of strawman.

> The aether is entrained around the Earth, just
> like the atmosphere and we drag around our own
> little shell of aether around space.

First you say we move through it, then you say we drag it. Which is
it?

> As star light comes to the Earth, it is modified
> by the aether through stellar abberation, but when
> it hits the thin shell of entrained aether around the
> earth, it has no effect at all on abberation. So any
> Earth based experiments can measure a small
> amount of aether wind, while outside of Earth's
> gravitational field, light experiences the much
> greater aether wind of the universe.

Stars that we observe have fast motions, do not appear to displace the
image of other stars that they briefly pass in front of. No evidence
of a "dsiplaceable" aether.

> > > If the aether is restrained by gravity like the normal
> > > atomosphere, then there would be little to detect.
>
> > Obviated by observation. =A0The only aether that survives
> > experiment displaces *not at all* with the passage of
> > matter. =A0Matter must propagate through it just like light.
> >=A0Or there is no such unobservable aether.
>
> Sorry, I don't understand what you are trying to say here.
> Matter does propogate through aether

So dragging of the aehter is not required.

> and it is responsible for inertia. See my main TOE
> (towards the bottom where I explain the origin of
> mass) at:
http://www.geocities.com/franklinhu/theory.html

Pass. There has been so much you already did not know, I am not
interested in your inferences based on your personal errors /
ignorance. What would be the point?

> > > This is why I had earlier asked how you could
> > > directly detect a positron/electron aether.
>
> > All free electrons (such as used in a CRT) would be
> > scattered abnormally.
>
> Why would they be scattered? The neutron-like
> aether particles would not strongly interact with
> free electrons since we know that neutrons
> themselves do not interact strongly. All of space would
> be filled with these particles like a fluid, so there would
> be nothing like a billiard ball collision that could occur.

Disprove your aether. Tell us how to do that. Something like
accelerating an empty bucket, a bucket that contains neutrons that are
accelrerated, but not your imaginary particles.

> Electrons in a CRT would not be scattered anymore
> than air would scatter a bullet.

Air does scatter bullets.

=2E..
> > > I would predict you see the vast majority
> > > resulting in gamma rays, but a tiny amount of
> > > protons would be produced and an even tinier
> > > amount of anti-protons would be produced.
>
> > Right, except for the protons and anti-protons.
>
> Do you really know that somebody has tried looking
> for protons in this manner?

"Cloud chamber". Do not go out of your way to be ignorant.

=2E..
> Tell you what, answer me this question, in any
> accelerator experiments involving only
> positrion/electron collisions, has a proton never been
> observed in the results?

Under a few GeV, no such particles have been, or can be observed.

> I don't want you to guess or presume, please
> tell me if you know for a fact.

Fact.

> > > These should be easy enough to detect due to
> > > their mass.
>
> > And charge.
>
> Well, that might be a bit difficult since you have all
> those positrons with the exact same charge flying
> about in the environment.

You were talking about protons and anti-protons (of a sight fewer
count). They are charged. Do not confuse yourself further.

David A. Smith