Jump to content
Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -

Antimatter Future Documentary


mylesohowe

Recommended Posts

Antimatter spacecraft could be made possible before 2050, antimatter is the most efficient substance found in nature, meaning antimatter spacecraft can go faster and more efficient compared to the fastest other known methods of transportation, antimatter makes nuclear fusion look like a joke its that powerful, its the most expensive substance on the planet as well so some might doubt its possible to get antimatter spacecraft before 2050, it's still possible. The Sun creates antimatter in solar flares, antimatter is created on Earth but it would be easier and cheaper in space.

Space settlements can be made with todays technology and completely powered by biodegradable energy with less pollution from solar energy and batteries, if you look at the space settlement shown in the trailer, this design is one under construction but does not big have solar panels like you see in science fiction movies or from some NASA scientists. Space settlements can also be a spacecraft that can move from one location to another. What if a space settlement gets made with countries working together kind of like the International Space Station? some thought launching a spacecraft in space was impossible yet it has happened many times now.

Biodegradable energy can be cheap and abundant, we have solutions to get there from all the pollution from fossil fuels or other industries. Imagine the possibilities if energy was cheap and people could fly cheaper and safer, I think if space was cheaper for everyone that would be better than high prices and less efficient energy sources!

You can learn more and find sources on the official website http://www.antimatterfuture.com or find Antimatter Future on IMDB here: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt5693472/

http://www.nasa.gov/exploration/home/antimatter_spaceship.html

Below are pictures of a space settlement designed by scientists its from NASA

http://settlement.arc.nasa.gov/70sArt/art.html

space-settlement-cylinder-exterior.jpg

space-settlement-bernal-sphere.jpg

This is the other trailer.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

As I understand it, even with full matter/antimatter annihilation as an energy source, it would take fuel tanks approaching the earth in size to really get anywhere.  People have no sense of how empty space is.

 

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 minutes ago, Frank Merton said:

As I understand it, even with full matter/antimatter annihilation as an energy source, it would take fuel tanks approaching the earth in size to really get anywhere.  People have no sense of how empty space is.

Watch this older documentary part and you will see you don't need anything larger than a room. Real neat coming from the actress who played Captain Janeway in Star Trek: Voyager she narrates the part that is shown its old footage shown but still good :) backed up by science and experiments done over a decade ago!

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Insane YT channel/speaker/blog.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, toast said:

Insane YT channel/speaker/blog.

What's insane are corrupt people who suppress truth movement, I am not talking about you by the way I just think your rude. How not nice of you to label something crazy and not leave an explanation, why would people be counter productive to truth movement remember those Zeitgeist movies or other documentaries people share? What's with the unfairness? I have references with science from NASA, and even universities while bullies resort to cyber bullying and discourage posting in the forums. Wow yeah real uncool to treat someone with disrespect for working hard doing nice things that can help save lives. Millions of people are dying of cancers and health problems around the world so solving the energy crisis would save lives all in itself. Many people don't like all the fossil fuel pollution, the world needs solutions today not wait until after things still aren't better.

Edited by mylesohowe
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 2016-06-19 at 0:19 AM, mylesohowe said:

What's insane are corrupt people who suppress truth movement,

What is the "truth movement" about antimatter engines?

Using antimatter for space travel is a good idea, and I don't think anyone denies that. But antimatter is very expensive to produce, incredibly dangerous to store, and ultimately has very little reaction mass. Frank Merton is correct; if you want to get anywhere more distant than Mars or Venus in a reasonable amount of time you need enormous fuel tanks.

From the NASA site that you linked to, you see that their actual schematic design for an antimatter drive still uses hydrogen fuel as a reaction mass and produces the same ISP as one would obtain from a conventional nuclear reactor. The more speculative ``ablative antimatter drive'' cited therein produces much higher ISP, but that drive destroys itself during use - if you fly anywhere with it you need to be able to remake it once your reach your destination or you cannot return.

Even more speculative radiation drives may need less fuel mass, but will take decades or centuries to get up to any reasonable speed.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

There are several problems with anti-matter propulsion, as have allready been pointed out. 

1: It is insanely expensive to produce. 

2: You need to expend several thousand times the energy you get out of it in order to make it. (Its actually billions of times with todays technology, but I am being generous)

3: It is extremely dangerous to store. While there are ways to store it, they are all dependend on being 100% reliable, or you spacecraft simply turns into high energy particles in an instant.

Why do you think that fusion is a "joke" ?

I don't really know what you think that your video is supposed to show ? I felt it was a waste of time and gave very little information. It is considred very bad form to link to your own videos, especially if you don't tell that it is yours.

In addition I have no idea what space settlements have to do with anti-matter ?

Edited by Noteverythingisaconspiracy
  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 hours ago, Noteverythingisaconspiracy said:

There are several problems with anti-matter propulsion, as have allready been pointed out. 

1: It is insanely expensive to produce. 

2: You need to expend several thousand times the energy you get out of it in order to make it. (Its actually billions of times with todays technology, but I am being generous)

3: It is extremely dangerous to store. While there are ways to store it, they are all dependend on being 100% reliable, or you spacecraft simply turns into high energy particles in an instant.

Why do you think that fusion is a "joke" ?

I don't really know what you think that your video is supposed to show ? I felt it was a waste of time and gave very little information. It is considred very bad form to link to your own videos, especially if you don't tell that it is yours.

In addition I have no idea what space settlements have to do with anti-matter ?

1. Problems of antimatter production and how it can be cheaper are dealt with in the Film and on the official website, the cost to produce antimatter could be cheaper

2. Antimatter is not cost effective with current production rates and even if production was increased with the methods it would not be feasible for creating energy to power electricity, but it would be efficient for space travel. antimatter production can be cheaper to be cost effective for space travel, im not claiming antimatter can be cost effective for powering an electric grid to power homes and industry, nobody knows if costs can be reduced using less energy to create antimatter than the energy you get, but antimatter can be made cost effective for space travel, possibly even for aircraft.

3. I already have ideas to make antimatter safer to store, if I can figure out ideas, surely the brightest minds in the world can come up with ideas?

Space settlements are a place for humans to live, industry, and a lot more. The international space station benefits life on Earth, place for scientific research, clearly a much more massive space settlement would benefit life on earth even more, more places to travel and not worry about being in space too long to worry about bone loss. :)

The video is a trailer to show some of the information that is in the film, people who know about space travel might like it more and know what im talking about, so I maybe I will make another one to give people an idea what antimatter is and how it relates to society. I think many people know about asteroids, killed the dinosaurs.

Nobody knows if its possible in the future if somebody will invent something so antimatter can be produced with less energy than what you get from it

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 hours ago, mylesohowe said:

3. I already have ideas to make antimatter safer to store, if I can figure out ideas, surely the brightest minds in the world can come up with ideas?

Such as?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have a new trailer out after filming a thunderstorm on the first day of summer and it is in the Top 100 Trailers on IMDB http://www.imdb.com/trailers Currently Antimatter Future is #78

Antimatter is naturally stored orbiting many planets including some around Earth was detected. The Astrophysical Journal Letters: THE DISCOVERY OF GEOMAGNETICALLY TRAPPED COSMIC-RAY ANTIPROTONS http://iopscience.iop.org/2041-8205/737/2/L29/

Some feared chemical rockets would blow everyone up because if it hits the ship then the crew are toast. There are safety mechanisms that can put in place for other propulsion, so there is no reason to think it can't be applied to antimatter rockets, clearly there is science. Plus if ships don't require a lot of antimatter to go to Mars or whatever planet in our solar system, then the risk is even lower.

Hybrid engines can be designed without nuclear, there is one hybrid antimatter-engine some scientist designed with nuclear, almost looks like the one from the ship in Avatar but we don't need nuclear. the idea is hybrid engines use less antimatter than core antimatter engines which would require lots of antimatter.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3262699-50828972_zpsd1c4c496.png

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think it likely mankind will someday physically visit the stars and colonize the galaxy if not even beyond, and assuming we find it empty (which seems to be the case), we will settle it.  It will not however be as proposed above -- it doesn't work for good physical reasons that technology cannot get around -- natural limits.  The process will take millions of years, but the galaxy has billions.

Instead, we will visit the stars via generational ships -- ships where the trip takes many generations and people live their lives (populations in the thousands) on board.  Either that or through much longer if not indefinite lifespans.  I have my doubts about hibernation.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 
On 21/6/2016 at 1:44 AM, mylesohowe said:

3. I already have ideas to make antimatter safer to store, if I can figure out ideas, surely the brightest minds in the world can come up with ideas?

 

On 21/6/2016 at 3:20 PM, sepulchrave said:

Such as?

Why haven't you answered sepulchraves question ?

What is this method that you have come up with ?

2 hours ago, mylesohowe said:

Antimatter is naturally stored orbiting many planets including some around Earth was detected. The Astrophysical Journal Letters: THE DISCOVERY OF GEOMAGNETICALLY TRAPPED COSMIC-RAY ANTIPROTONS http://iopscience.iop.org/2041-8205/737/2/L29/

How does that help in designing a spacecraft ? 

I don't think anyone is disputing that you can store anti-matter in a magnetic field (it's been done), but how do you ensure that it doesn't fail and destroy the spacecraft ?

Quote

Some feared chemical rockets would blow everyone up because if it hits the ship then the crew are toast. There are safety mechanisms that can put in place for other propulsion, so there is no reason to think it can't be applied to antimatter rockets, clearly there is science. Plus if ships don't require a lot of antimatter to go to Mars or whatever planet in our solar system, then the risk is even lower.

How does safety mechanisms for a conventionel rocket help with designing an anti-matter engine ? 

The risk of catastrophic containment failure have nothing to do with the amount of anti-matter. Its to do with the containment method. 

If you can only use microscopic amounts of anti-matter, why bother with it in the first place ?

Quote

Hybrid engines can be designed without nuclear, there is one hybrid antimatter-engine some scientist designed with nuclear, almost looks like the one from the ship in Avatar but we don't need nuclear. the idea is hybrid engines use less antimatter than core antimatter engines which would require lots of antimatter.

Anti-matter engines are nuclear. They work by converting mass into energy. It doesn't get anymore nuclear than that. Oxford English dictionary's definition of nuclear: - 1Relating to the nucleus of an atom:

Sure you can use anti-matter in a hybrid design, but then you lose all of the supposed advantages of anti-matter, so as I said earlier, why bother with it then ?

If you are going to use something else as reaction mass for an anti-matter engine, you run into that pesky old problem of Tsiolkovskis rocket equation. I thrust you are familiar with that ?

If not, here is a summary: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tsiolkovsky_rocket_equation

Edited by Noteverythingisaconspiracy
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 6/21/2016 at 9:44 AM, mylesohowe said:

1. Problems of antimatter production and how it can be cheaper are dealt with in the Film and on the official website, the cost to produce antimatter could be cheaper

Please outline those 'solutions' here, for those of us who don't like watching videos...

On 6/21/2016 at 9:44 AM, mylesohowe said:

2. Antimatter is not cost effective with current production rates and even if production was increased with the methods it would not be feasible for creating energy to power electricity, but it would be efficient for space travel. antimatter production can be cheaper to be cost effective for space travel, im not claiming antimatter can be cost effective for powering an electric grid to power homes and industry, nobody knows if costs can be reduced using less energy to create antimatter than the energy you get, but antimatter can be made cost effective for space travel, possibly even for aircraft.

Don't make claims and handwave - put some figures on this. You even admit 'nobody knows', and then blithely claim it can be made cost effective? Do you not see the problems and contradictions in what you are posting?

On 6/21/2016 at 9:44 AM, mylesohowe said:

3. I already have ideas to make antimatter safer to store, if I can figure out ideas, surely the brightest minds in the world can come up with ideas?

I'm impressed!  No, wait, I *will* be impressed when you outline your cleverness.  You seem to be avoiding the obvious question - what are those ideas and in waht way do they affect the 'cost-effectiveness', safety, efficiency?  Numbers please, even if guesstimates.  (I'll give you a hint, say that you are afraid people will steal the ideas and you are awaiting patents.  Nobody will guess the real reason...)

As for those brightest minds, eg NASA scientists, they know the limitations and problems, which is why their 'ideas' don't quite back up what you are saying.  If you claim otherwise, how about a proper link and discussion *here*, not a link to another of your videos.

On 6/21/2016 at 9:44 AM, mylesohowe said:

Space settlements are a place for humans to live, industry, and a lot more. The international space station benefits life on Earth, place for scientific research, clearly a much more massive space settlement would benefit life on earth even more, more places to travel and not worry about being in space too long to worry about bone loss. :)

The video is a trailer to show some of the information that is in the film, people who know about space travel might like it more and know what im talking about, so I maybe I will make another one to give people an idea what antimatter is and how it relates to society. I think many people know about asteroids, killed the dinosaurs.

I know rather a lot about space travel (sepulchrave even much much more, from what I've seen..) and he and I seem in agreement that most of the claims you are making about antimatter are simply wrong or unsupported.  Instead of more videos, how about you properly answer the issues already raised?

On 6/21/2016 at 9:44 AM, mylesohowe said:

Nobody knows if its possible in the future if somebody will invent something so antimatter can be produced with less energy than what you get from it

Similarly nobody knows if we can, by making invisible pink unicorns all gallop in the same direction, channel their energy into an unlimited source.  So I'm going with the unicorns for the moment, over anti-matter.  Unicorns don't have anywhere near the containment problems, so they are clearly the better candidate, at least in the "Nobody Knows' stakes.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So I described ideas for making antimatter safe to store found in nature and people try and dodge the response and act like they are in agreement that antimatter is somehow wrong or unsupported. The findings are supported from science, found in nature and theory, backed up with science references from NASA.

Why dodge my answer acting like it doesn't exist and bring up pink unicorns? You quoted my older post, I'm not going to repeat myself while some people act like I never answered a question that I answered already. Care to open your eyes? I gave sufficient information, im not going to give you plans to patent something and make your own device. lol you can't even get the plans to make devices that are sold in the market today, takes many decades before many plans get public then other companies make knock offs. Some people reverse engineer but still companies aren't revealing their secrets.

Edited by mylesohowe
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I 'dodged' your answer because there was nothing of substance in it.  You c'mon back now when a practical application (or even a practical demonstration) happens.  Feel free to go with the copout that the ebil corporate multinationals will keep it secret, because ....., well, because.. umm because...

In the meantime, I'll open my eyes when i see genuine LOGIC explaining how this will work efficiently (including the power requirements for containment) - in other words, do what real engineers and scientists (rather than pretenders and handwavers) do - post a full explanation including the maths and dollar signs.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, mylesohowe said:

So I described ideas for making antimatter safe to store found in nature and people try and dodge the response and act like they are in agreement that antimatter is somehow wrong or unsupported. The findings are supported from science, found in nature and theory, backed up with science references from NASA.

No one have ever said that antimatter is wrong or unsupported. Why would you even make that claim ?

The most common way to store antimatter is something called a Penning trap and the record time for safely containing antimatter is a whopping 17 Minutes.

Even if the problem of containment is solved, and we have yet to see your solution to that, we still have the massive problem of cost. In the NASA article that you posted they think that antimatter can be made at a cost of 250 million $ per 10 milligrams. That is 25 billion $ per gram, or 25 trillion $ per kilo. Hardly very cost effective is it ?

9 hours ago, mylesohowe said:

Why dodge my answer acting like it doesn't exist and bring up pink unicorns? You quoted my older post, I'm not going to repeat myself while some people act like I never answered a question that I answered already. Care to open your eyes? I gave sufficient information, im not going to give you plans to patent something and make your own device. lol you can't even get the plans to make devices that are sold in the market today, takes many decades before many plans get public then other companies make knock offs. Some people reverse engineer but still companies aren't revealing their secrets.

How do you propose to test your idea if you can't share it with others ?

Do you have your own source of antimatter to do tests with ? 

Or is this just an  attempt at getting hits on your website and youtube account ? :rolleyes:

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

21 hours ago, mylesohowe said:

So I described ideas for making antimatter safe to store (...)

No, you didnt.

Quote

The findings are supported from science, found in nature and theory, backed up with science references from NASA.

Of course there a lot of findings related to antimatter, also by NASA, but all these findings have nothing to do with your claim " ideas for making antimatter safe to store" but your moronic videos, all of them are moronic at the highest level possible, are giving the impression that you even didnt understood the physics of antimatter.

Quote

Some people reverse engineer but still companies aren't revealing their secrets.

Thats standard CT waffle without any content. And, if some companies aren't revealing their secrets, why should they if needed btw, how can you know that there are such secrets?

This thread goes nowhere because it has no real points to discuss and I`m in the opinion that you just use this board to advertise your site and the donation button on its first page.

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 2016-07-03 at 7:06 AM, Noteverythingisaconspiracy said:

No one have ever said that antimatter is wrong or unsupported. Why would you even make that claim ?

The most common way to store antimatter is something called a Penning trap and the record time for safely containing antimatter is a whopping 17 Minutes.

Even if the problem of containment is solved, and we have yet to see your solution to that, we still have the massive problem of cost. In the NASA article that you posted they think that antimatter can be made at a cost of 250 million $ per 10 milligrams. That is 25 billion $ per gram, or 25 trillion $ per kilo. Hardly very cost effective is it ?

How do you propose to test your idea if you can't share it with others ?

Do you have your own source of antimatter to do tests with ? 

Or is this just an  attempt at getting hits on your website and youtube account ? :rolleyes:

The documentary has information how the cost of antimatter production can be cheaper and includes a method I came up with to generate antimatter in space, your argument against this is not supported. On Earth already there is the LHC or Fermi particle accelerator which create antimatter, the cost is expensive...Your arguing the cost is a massive problem...The cost would be drastically cheaper in space making use of the natural particle accelerators in space and could easily be developed within the time-frame. How can anyone not be interested in this amazing information and hate on truth? Eventually NASA will be talking about more of this stuff.

On 2016-07-03 at 2:05 AM, ChrLzs said:

I 'dodged' your answer because there was nothing of substance in it.  You c'mon back now when a practical application (or even a practical demonstration) happens.  Feel free to go with the copout that the ebil corporate multinationals will keep it secret, because ....., well, because.. umm because...

In the meantime, I'll open my eyes when i see genuine LOGIC explaining how this will work efficiently (including the power requirements for containment) - in other words, do what real engineers and scientists (rather than pretenders and handwavers) do - post a full explanation including the maths and dollar signs.

Of course you can't see substance in something if you dodge it, in other words if you ignore the truth your not going to see substance. I am not saying anyone is keeping this secret I am saying this stuff can be developed, where do you come up with your theories? If most of the energy used in creating antimatter can not be used and instead utilize natural particle accelerators in space, then the cost will be drastically cheaper, like cut most of the costs off then its just storage...I'll be fine waiting until more scientists are talking about more of this but if you want to look silly not believing something, plenty of people used to think the earth was flat, and in fact many still do... Assuming technology can not be developed in the given timeframe is undermining what humans are capable of. JFK gave America a decade to get man on the moon. Are you saying its not possible?

Why isn't some of the most important information not being talked about by every media outlet? Here we have a documentary how the cost of living can be cheaper, develop biodegradable energy, cheaper antimatter production is possible. Here are some official references to prove antimatter storage is no joke, it's already developed and the company is developing even larger antimatter storage!

https://www.sbir.gov/node/278768

Quote

The objective of this proposal is to store large numbers of positrons, also called antielectrons, for long periods of time. Antimatter has the largest specific energy known to humankind, i.e. 180 MJ/microgram. An ordnance package containing micrograms ofpositrons stored for days would comprise an extremely powerful, lethal and revolutionary weapon. We will assemble, test, and operate a positron storage system that will integrate several electromagnetic confinement techniques, including Penning traps,linear magnetic mirrors, and Field Reversed Configurations (FRC). These storage techniques are validated by computer codes. The deliverables will be the hardware associated with the storage system and a Final Report describing operation of the system,diagnostics, and experimental data.

Thats quoted from a Government website Long-term Confinement of Dense Positron Plasmas

Get this: https://www.sbir.gov/sbirsearch/detail/278787

Quote

Since nuclear isomers comprise long-lived radioactive materials, they also present the threat of collateral damage to humans and the environment. Only positrons are deployable in both remote and confined areas, can be turned on and off at will and can be used without threat of contamination of humans or the environment (no collateral casualties). New technology capable of destroying, disabling or denying use of chemical and biological (CB) agent attacks, as well as neutralizing stockpiles, must be explored. Positron Annihilation Energy (PAE) holds great promise as a novel agent defeat system.

 

https://www.sbir.gov/sbirsearch/detail/278781

Quote

Positronics Research LLC (PRLLC) has developed a novel device capable of high-density (> 10^12/cc) storage of positrons in the form of stable neutral Positronium (Ps) atoms. Research completed to date at PRLLC on the Positronium Storage Ring (PSR) shows that long-term positron storage of ~ 10^15-18 may be possible in the future. A positron (anti-electron) is the antimatter equivalent of an electron. Antimatter has the highest specific energy of any material in existence. It is 180 MJ/mg, which places it ten orders of magnitude larger than chemical propellants (0.013 J/mg) and three orders of magnitude larger than nuclear fission or fusion. Positrons annihilate into gamma rays when they collide with electrons, with a total released energy of 1.02 MeV. These low energy gamma rays cannot remove a neutron or proton from a bound nucleus in surrounding media. Hence, positron annihilation cannot create radioactive by-products, yet their energy can be harnessed for many practical applications. One of the main reasons positrons have not been exploited to date is the lack of cost effective and practical size confinement methods to store large amounts of positrons. PRLLC is on its way to accomplishing this goal thus allowing for a whole new realm of high-density energy applications including novel ordnance, materials science and propulsion concepts.

And there you have it, That's one method a company developed. Not a lot of people know about this, which is why I am making the documentary because its possible. Hybrid antimatter engines can also be designed without nuclear and still use less antimatter, it just won't go as fast but still significant speed increases, we don't need pure antimatter drives which would require cheap antimatter to be practical. And if you read, you don't have to believe me, a government website has information for you to read that antimatter can be cost effective

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

myles...

May I suggest that before you try to read these sciency articles, you look up the meanings of some pretty basic words...

For example in the first link you provided, do you know what "this proposal" means?  I'll give you a hint, it does not mean "already developed" as you claimed.  In the second, what does "may be possible in the future" mean, do you think?

Stop misrepresenting the content of your links - it's beginning to look like you are deliberately trying to mislead the forum.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 hours ago, mylesohowe said:

The documentary has information how the cost of antimatter production can be cheaper and includes a method I came up with to generate antimatter in space,   

That is just not true. The parts I have seen of this "documentary" mostly consists of someone (you ?) who seems to have enjoyed a little too much of the stuff he advocates as a biofuel. :rolleyes:

11 hours ago, mylesohowe said:

 your argument against this is not supported. On Earth already there is the LHC or Fermi particle accelerator which create antimatter, the cost is expensive...Your arguing the cost is a massive problem...The cost would be drastically cheaper in space making use of the natural particle accelerators in space and could easily be developed within the time-frame. How can anyone not be interested in this amazing information and hate on truth? Eventually NASA will be talking about more of this stuff.

The thing is that you have yet to show us any way in which you can make anti matter cost effective. The cost I cited in my post comes from NASA and they were in the link that you gave yourself. Do you actually read the links you provide ?

In any event no one is disputing that you can make anti matter and no one is diputing that you can store it. What we are disputing is that it is somehow a new and miraculous energy source.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 7/3/2016 at 2:17 AM, mylesohowe said:

So I described ideas for making antimatter safe to store found in nature and people try and dodge the response and act like they are in agreement that antimatter is somehow wrong or unsupported. The findings are supported from science, found in nature and theory, backed up with science references from NASA.

Nm.

Edited by JesseCuster
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 2016-07-05 at 7:43 PM, ChrLzs said:

myles...

May I suggest that before you try to read these sciency articles, you look up the meanings of some pretty basic words...

For example in the first link you provided, do you know what "this proposal" means?  I'll give you a hint, it does not mean "already developed" as you claimed.  In the second, what does "may be possible in the future" mean, do you think?

Stop misrepresenting the content of your links - it's beginning to look like you are deliberately trying to mislead the forum.

I am not misrepresenting, That company made proposals and then further proposals were made after others were confirmed, did you not read? or why are  you misrepresenting the content? I presented it as it was. Looks like you are taking part in character assassination and failing. " Positronics Research LLC (PRLLC) has developed a novel device capable of high-density (> 10^12/cc) storage of positrons in the form of stable neutral Positronium (Ps) atoms. " Developed, as in past-tense, already occurred...Can you read? some proposals are Phase 2, meaning phase 1 was success. Phase 2 asked for more money and got it. The goal of the later proposal is to develop LONG TERM antimatter storage, previous experiments stored antimatter successfully, at least you admit nobody is disputing antimatter can be created or stored, yet people were skeptical...

I described how to make antimatter production cheaper and you ignored the truth saying " The thing is that you have yet to show us any way in which you can make anti matter cost effective. " yet I said " The cost would be drastically cheaper in space making use of the natural particle accelerators in space and could easily be developed within the time-frame. "

You fail to read, particle accelerators cost so much to create antimatter because they use the energy to speed particles near light speed.

Quote

http://www.nasa.gov/centers/goddard/solarsystem/2006_mag_recon.html

A fleet of NASA and European Space Agency space-weather probes observed an immense jet of electrically charged particles in the solar wind between the Sun and Earth. The jet, at least 200 times as wide as the Earth, was powered by clashing magnetic fields in a process called "magnetic reconnection".

These jets are the result of natural particle accelerators dwarfing anything built on Earth. Scientists build miles-long particle accelerators on Earth to smash atoms together in an effort to understand the fundamental laws of physics.

I could pretend your replies don't exist too but I don't do that, thats silly.

Edited by mylesohowe
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Like we said, nothing but claims and hit-hunting.  Waste of time continuing.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 
10 minutes ago, ChrLzs said:

Like we said, nothing but claims and hit-hunting.  Waste of time continuing.

Do you also believe 2+2 is not 4? I showed science from NASA and you act like its just hit-hunting...mainstream media is hit hunting but who cares about that right just pick on me? I'm trying to get people to look at science and your trying to get people to not be interested in researching science...cyber Bullies do that. Your just ignoring the truth and acting like 2+2 is not 4. lol if its a waste of time why you keep trying to act like science does not exist?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.