positrons are not real

[Webbman]

there is no such thing as a positive charge. Matter either has charge or it can accept charge. Thats why it flows toward and away from. This pair we inaccurately call negatively and positively charged as if positively charged was tangible. It is not because it is an absence of something. Charge

all a positron is as an electron that has its energy removed and, can accept a large amount of energy, and thus behaves like everything else that can accept energy.

everything in this universe either accepts energy or gives it away. The only antimatter is in star trek and that should be your first clue its bs.

[crawler]

I like J G Williamson's ideas. He has 3 or 4 similar papers. The positron iz a mirror image of an electron. Charge goes in or goes out. Magnetics are up-down. http://www.cybsoc.org/electron.pdf

But what i would like to do is to get rid of charge alltogether, leaving just magnetics, the charge being one manifestation of the magnetics. But i aint a scientist so its all very difficult to think about, what with not knowing many of the relevant laws & postulates & principles & experimental results. I must brush up on what Catt & Bishop say about charge.

[Webbman]

the title i gave is misleading, as they are positively charged electrons in terms of their energy deficiency status but they are not separate entities, mirror copies, or opposite spins which is what i was trying to get at.

[crawler]

But then we hav protons they say with positive charge they say.
And we hav matter & antimatter (briefly).
What Einsteinologists dont hav is a theory re what is charge.

Miles Mathis reckons that charge is due to photon pressure & photon spin i think. And electrons are photons with an extra mode of spin. And positrons hav reversed spins (of both kinds) i think compared to electrons.

I reckon charge is due to photaeno pressure & photaeno spin (or some kind of excitation or bulk moovment of the photaeno anyhow)(the photaeno itself being some kind of excitation of aether).

[crawler]

Hmmm, Wal Thornhill agrees with u....... https://www.thunderbolts.info/wp/2019/0 ... ghtning-2/
As physicist and Electric Universe advocate Wal Thornhill wrote:
“In the Electric Universe model, there is no antimatter forming antiparticles. An electron and a positron are composed of the same charged sub-particles in different conformations. They come together to form a stable neutrino, emitting most of their orbital energies in the process. They do not annihilate each other. In that sense a neutrino embodies both the electron and the positron. It can have no antiparticle. The bookmakers would be wise not to bet on the Standard Model of particle physics.”

Praps this all depends on what one means by annihilation.

[paladin17]

Does it change anything?

[Webbman]

i dont like the idea of people being conned into this antimatter/annihilation scheme. It gives substance and reality to something that, at least in my opinion, has no substance.