Comments on: Antimatter and ‘Angels and Demons’: A fiction thought to be fact http://blog.oup.com/2009/05/angels-and-demons/ Academic insights for the thinking world. Thu, 09 Feb 2012 20:48:00 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.9.2 hourly 1 By: OUPblog » Blog Archive » Hunting the Neutrino http://blog.oup.com/2009/05/angels-and-demons/comment-page-1/#comment-193774 OUPblog » Blog Archive » Hunting the Neutrino Tue, 07 Dec 2010 21:00:20 +0000 http://blog.oup.com/?p=4534#comment-193774 [...] Science Writing in a Non-Scientific Context’. You can read more on OUPblog by Frank Close here, here, here, and here. This article is cross-posted with permission from the Oxford University [...] [...] Science Writing in a Non-Scientific Context’. You can read more on OUPblog by Frank Close here, here, here, and here. This article is cross-posted with permission from the Oxford University [...]

]]> By: Antimateria i verkligheten « Stjärnstoft och kugghjul http://blog.oup.com/2009/05/angels-and-demons/comment-page-1/#comment-153720 Antimateria i verkligheten « Stjärnstoft och kugghjul Wed, 30 Sep 2009 16:06:26 +0000 http://blog.oup.com/?p=4534#comment-153720 [...] A fiction thought to be fact, av en man som skrivit en bok om antimateria, och som tycker att det är dumt om folk tror att antimaterian i filmen är realistisk. Postat i Partikelfysik. Etiketter Angels and Demons, antimateria, Fysik. Lämna en kommentar » [...] [...] A fiction thought to be fact, av en man som skrivit en bok om antimateria, och som tycker att det är dumt om folk tror att antimaterian i filmen är realistisk. Postat i Partikelfysik. Etiketter Angels and Demons, antimateria, Fysik. Lämna en kommentar » [...]

]]> By: Hasanuddin http://blog.oup.com/2009/05/angels-and-demons/comment-page-1/#comment-151856 Hasanuddin Mon, 01 Jun 2009 12:38:08 +0000 http://blog.oup.com/?p=4534#comment-151856 This is a very good article. It seems so rare to find someone who reports scientific facts (esp those relating to a block-buster) without bias or slant towards one theoretical set of assumptions or another. To the author, and to readers who agree with my assessment of the rigor of this article, I present a challenge/invitation. A new model is being debated that is based on a new deductive view of consideration of the gravitational interaction between matter and antimatter. Levelheaded science-minded folk who understand these matters are needed. If correct, this could be the long-predicted lens change needed to tie-in and account for all the data (including that which is considered anomalous under current theory.) The debate is at: http://hypography.com/forums/alternative-theories/18910-the-dominium-model-by-hasanuddin.html This is a very good article. It seems so rare to find someone who reports scientific facts (esp those relating to a block-buster) without bias or slant towards one theoretical set of assumptions or another.

To the author, and to readers who agree with my assessment of the rigor of this article, I present a challenge/invitation. A new model is being debated that is based on a new deductive view of consideration of the gravitational interaction between matter and antimatter. Levelheaded science-minded folk who understand these matters are needed. If correct, this could be the long-predicted lens change needed to tie-in and account for all the data (including that which is considered anomalous under current theory.) The debate is at: http://hypography.com/forums/alternative-theories/18910-the-dominium-model-by-hasanuddin.html

]]>