Einstein is Right About How Anti-Matter Responds to Gravity

Post Reply New Topic

https://www.nbcnews.com/science/science-news/right-einstein-study-shows-antimatter-responds-gravity-rcna117866

They managed to gather enough of the stuff to...drop it from a height. And guess what! It falls down. Not up! Just regular matter. And at about the same speed as regular matter falls.

I am not surprised that antimatter acted this way. The real difference between matter and antimatter is in the direction that the electromagnetic energy is moving (i.e. flowing) within the particles. You could think "clockwise for matter, anti-clockwise for anti-matter", but it is a bit more complicated with higher substructures. You do have to take into consider the rotation of the parent light energy spiral that becomes the particle. If you do not believe me, why would Richard Feynmann have defined anti-matter particles as "matter going back in time" in his energy equations? It does make sense to me that the directionality (of the energy involved) plays a major role in the formation of the types of each particle.

That leads into something else: What we understand as gravity can be a bit challenging to define. Sure, you can measure gravity on Earth and in outer space, but what is it really? Here is my hypothesis on it. Gravity is the force of attraction between electromagnetic energy "closed" loops that make up particles, both matter and anti-matter. Once a spiral of electromagnetic energy is bent into a particle shape (and becomes a closed system), part of the contained energy is distributed into forces that become properties of said particle. If the particle undergoes transformation back into the electromagnetic energy that it came from (such as in an annihilation event), the properties of the particle disappear back into the energy they were formed with.

Another thought: Was the experiment done with just anti-H atoms or was it actually anti-H2 molecules? They should act much like regular H2 molecules if they do form in the experiment.

So... it was the antimatter of the cosmic rays that made the Fantastic Four superheroes?

Well that demonstrates the attraction between anti-matter and matter (the earth). But what about the attraction between a body composed of anti-matter and another body composed of anti-matter? What if the experiment was repeated on an anti-matter planet?

According to Einstein there is no such thing as "gravity". What exists is matter warping space.

Since matter and anti matter have the same mass they therefore warp space by the same amount. So the illusion of "gravity" would be the same for both. And both interacting with either thing (matter would attract anti, as well as matter, and anti other anti as well as matter).

Does it "Matter"?

(See my funny use of the word! ).

Matter is not supposed to act like electricity.

Negative charges are attracted to positive charges. So electrons are attracted to protons...and stay in orbit around protons to form atoms.

but together the intact atoms have no charge (the charges of the protons and electrons cancel out). So they dont attract or repel other atoms.

Except that they DO attract other atoms by way of the other force:gravity. Which is much weaker than the electrical force. Your body (a mass of atoms) is attracted to the earth ( a bigger mass of atoms) and vice versa by gravity.

So MAYBE antimatter is so weird that it repels other antimatter but attracts matter (in contrast to matter that attracts to both). But thats unlikely in my humble opinion. As I said above "gravity" isnt really a force. Its space warped by matter. Which would apply to both matter and antimatter.

I'm no physicist, but my inclination is to not think of gravity as some sort of radiation, but rather as a consequence of the geometry of the universe. We can easily observe that a less massive body will accelerate towards a more massive body. We can't explain the mechanism, but it's repeatably true every time. Given that definition, it would naturally follow that matter and antimatter would behave the same way with respect to gravity, as does anything that has mass.

I believe there are external forces pushing down on the earth rather than forces from within the earth pulling in.

I think it debatable that there's anything actually "pushing" in either direction, but ironically I have no desire to debate that.

The thing is, the theory explains the tides and the moon well as the passing of the moon interupts the pushing of the force on the sea which created the highest of the two tides. The lower of the two tides is simply the rhythmic movement of water as the result of the first tide which is why the height is not so high.

Well the math works out regardless of how you think of the mechanism.

So...are you saying that the "Earth sucks"?

It is just an interesting thought I came up with after watching a youtube film of someones other thoughts that the earth is still and everything moves around the earth. I talked about this theory in the past, and I was called a flat earther... Never ever said the earth was flat. My theory is the earth is not 100% still, but that the solar system around the earth is moving at high speed and pushing down on the earth. The theory does not quite fit, but it fits a lot better in my mind then the theory that the earth spins which "Causes" gravity... Because I honestly don't think things work like that due to the addition of central fugal forces along with the speed difference at the surface of the earth which is said to be 1000mph.
I do see the very likely speed difference to be near the point where our earths atmosphere meets space, which is why space rockets and similar craft need to be protected due to the heat created due to the differences of speed at that point.

I am not saying I have it right at all. I am just offering a plausable alternative as the common scientific theories don't in my mind seem to fit what I see and know. (Not claiming they are wrong. Just saying they don't fit ad sit right with what I see which is why I started looking for plausable ideas of what I believe might be happening).

Anyway... Enjoy I thinking about it! I actually enjoy exploring the thought! (If that makes sense?)

Was that said in humour?

Could the movement of the weather do that? Something to actually think about...