Robert Seeberger wrote:
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Richard Baker" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
...
>> David said:
>>
>>> What? They can't even call them "anti-matter"?
>>> Now they're "mirror particles"? The level of
>>> science writing seems to be constantly sinking. : (
>> When I read the headline I got quite excited as "mirror matter"
>> means
>> something quite different to "antimatter":
>>
>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mirror_matter
>>
>
> OK, so I did a minimal search on "mirror matter" and there are lots of
> links, mostly for academic papers and news articles that explain very
> little.
...
> rob
Rob--
Actually, I think the wikipedia article is excellent.
It doesn't go that far, but how much did you want to
know about something that may or may not even exist?
By the way, I think this is a very important role for
Wikipedia. It acts as a central place for people to
argue about what various terms mean. If one reads further
down, the article mentions that some people use
"mirror matter" to mean antimatter. But then it makes
clear that they are definitely in the minority.
And I argue that they ARE, since otherwise they would
have "edited back" at the Wikipedia article.
---David
Hey, wasn't there some book where "gaser" meant "graviton
laser"?
_______________________________________________
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
