Should science review the description of Antimatter?

Question

At present antimatter only exist in the super colliders of Universities. I believe antimatter is the energy between the Negative and Positive of any magnetic field. As per example: hold a bar magnet or for that matter a ring magnet in hand and try to hold a steel blade in the area between the two edges. The blade will go to Negative or Positive. Try as you may, there is no nuetral. Conclusion is that there is an energy that is invisible and without matter. Dark-matter perhaps, or all the missing matter of the Universe that Science can not explain. Devices have been built that "run" as a matter to sugest, Mobility based upon this un recognized phenomina of nature. This energy has no need for thermodynamics or gravity as a means of perpetuating a working machine. It surely answers a few questions that have been in the minds of many learned people. The Trinity of Negative & Positive is to know the power of '&' the Helix. Simple science reminds us that all matter is of solid, liquid or gas

Answer 1

I think the implications of dark matter are not developed enough yet. Dark matter is simply non baryonic matter that we cant see. But your right there is no neutral.There is just energy.

Answer 2

To put it succinctly: Huh?

Antimatter is not an issue of magnetic field, there is not positive and negative magnetic field, actually, all there is are "north" and "south" poles. Antimatter is a case of matter having opposite ELECTRICAL charges. Magnetism is the result of an electrical charge moving. One can have an isolated positive or negative charge, but the search for the magnetic monopole has been rather elusive.

You seem to be confusing several concepts, and I am under the impression you are pushing for some sort of "new age" explanation of things. "Trinity of Negative & Positive", I mean, come on!

There is no need to change the description of anti matter, and your argument do not bring any solid evidence or concept that would justify doing so.

Answer 3

Politics and styles of government are actually not technological expertise (of course) and chinese language scientists get their artwork peer overview. the subject with creation "technological expertise" is that it is not technological expertise. Take this project, objectively inspect the creationist's claims for surely foundation in technological expertise. First, low-priced any argument from incredulity i.e. "Does it make experience that ....", those arguments are actually not technological expertise. Then initiate finding up the surely technological expertise in the back of the extremely some claims. I did this and it became an extreme eye opener. Edit: And sure, any "technological expertise" paper needs to be subjected to look overview.

Answer 4

Hi. "Simple science reminds us that all matter is of solid, liquid or gas". You left out plasma. Different energies result in different stable forms of matter. The forces are well observed but poorly understood at present.