Anti-particles annihilate particles resulting is purely positive energy.

Does that mean following convention that anti-energy annihilates energy leaving nothing?

That is true for potential energy. We can define zero potential energy at any point in space in a gravitational field, like the surface of the earth. Then massive objects above the level of the earth have positive potential energy and objects below the level of the earth have negative potential energy.

If we do work to bring an object with negative energy up to the level of the surface of the earth, then the potential energy of the object becomes zero.

In a sense we have annihilated its negative energy or anti-energy by supplying positive energy. Is this what you mean by anti-energy?

yanniru

• Anti-energy - mgutchess - January 9, 2003 - 22:48 UTC
  • elpotrin - yaniru - January 10, 2003 - 01:21 UTC
    • Pavlovic - mgutchess - January 10, 2003 - 03:29 UTC
      • It's the annihilation that is quackery - yaniru - January 10, 2003 - 12:13 UTC
        • I looked at the book - yaniru - January 10, 2003 - 13:53 UTC
          • Redshift - mgutchess - January 12, 2003 - 04:32 UTC
            • No - yaniru - January 12, 2003 - 12:24 UTC
              • Cosmic Rays? - mgutchess - January 13, 2003 - 14:12 UTC
                • Less than the speed of light - yaniru - January 13, 2003 - 17:18 UTC
                  • Redshift? - mgutchess - January 15, 2003 - 14:32 UTC
                    • Redshifts for other reasons - yaniru - January 15, 2003 - 17:09 UTC
                    • Speed of Gravity - joejm101 - March 22, 2004 - 10:31 UTC
• Answer - mgutchess - January 10, 2003 - 20:52 UTC
  • Sorry - yaniru - January 10, 2003 - 23:58 UTC
    • Sorry indeed - mgutchess - January 11, 2003 - 04:53 UTC
      • LOL - bruce - January 11, 2003 - 06:49 UTC
        • Bruce, - mgutchess - January 11, 2003 - 15:17 UTC
          • When you make a comment such as this.. - bruce - January 11, 2003 - 21:47 UTC
            • Time will tell - mgutchess - January 12, 2003 - 03:26 UTC
        • Thanks for making Bruce laugh - something - January 12, 2003 - 06:20 UTC
  • Critical impasse - m3pers2 - January 14, 2003 - 05:25 UTC
    • Impasse - mgutchess - January 14, 2003 - 15:12 UTC
      • 1. 2. 3. - yaniru - January 14, 2003 - 16:02 UTC
        • 1.2.3. reply - mgutchess - January 14, 2003 - 22:55 UTC
          • Electrons can create or absorb - yaniru - January 15, 2003 - 02:16 UTC
            • magnetic shielding - mgutchess - January 15, 2003 - 03:17 UTC
              • It's in your link - yaniru - January 15, 2003 - 17:14 UTC
                • I read that - mgutchess - January 15, 2003 - 18:42 UTC
                  • ***The graviton is the opposite of a photon. *** - yaniru - January 20, 2003 - 16:07 UTC
                    • OKAY - mgutchess - January 21, 2003 - 03:42 UTC
                      • good science (QED) - yaniru - January 21, 2003 - 04:03 UTC
                        • Math - mgutchess - January 22, 2003 - 04:16 UTC
                          • we can not observe how gravity works via relativity's warped spa - yaniru - January 22, 2003 - 12:36 UTC
                          • Apparently... - bruce - January 23, 2003 - 10:40 UTC
                          • Is math a region of logic? Perhaps you intend to say... - quiet - January 23, 2003 - 18:15 UTC
        • Your reply is inadequate - m3pers2 - January 15, 2003 - 05:46 UTC
          • Not making sense? - mgutchess - January 15, 2003 - 12:47 UTC
            • Sorry - m3pers2 - January 18, 2003 - 02:56 UTC
              • Please...you were right - carefuluniverse - January 18, 2003 - 23:07 UTC
              • Okay man, - mgutchess - January 19, 2003 - 14:58 UTC
                • Gravity Wave? - m3pers2 - January 19, 2003 - 21:47 UTC
                  • I cannot follow your physics - yaniru - January 20, 2003 - 16:23 UTC
                    • Physics: Reply - m3pers2 - January 21, 2003 - 01:54 UTC
                      • What is the acceleration of gravity ? - yaniru - January 21, 2003 - 04:07 UTC
                        • Acceleration of Gravity - m3pers2 - January 21, 2003 - 04:52 UTC
                          • Two different distances and masses - yaniru - January 21, 2003 - 12:26 UTC
                            • One Distance Cubed - m3pers2 - January 25, 2003 - 17:32 UTC
                              • Of course the distance that is changing is the distance between - yaniru - January 25, 2003 - 19:21 UTC
                                • I expect an apology - m3pers2 - January 25, 2003 - 22:03 UTC
                                  • You contradicted your self - yaniru - January 26, 2003 - 04:27 UTC
                                    • Yanniru should apologize - quiet - January 28, 2003 - 16:56 UTC
                                    • It does stand up. - m3pers2 - February 1, 2003 - 05:35 UTC
                                      • Greater detail - yaniru - February 2, 2003 - 00:23 UTC
                                        • Details - m3pers2 - February 11, 2003 - 05:54 UTC
                                          • That volume is not the volume of mass a or b. - yaniru - February 11, 2003 - 13:26 UTC
          • The universe is really not that complicated, and I resent you tr - yaniru - January 20, 2003 - 17:01 UTC
            • Simple Universe - m3pers2 - January 26, 2003 - 00:05 UTC
              • I believe I know exactly what caused this misunderstanding. - yaniru - January 26, 2003 - 04:14 UTC
      • without a 'huge scientific background, one wonders.. - quiet - January 14, 2003 - 21:56 UTC
        • I wonder - mgutchess - January 15, 2003 - 01:24 UTC
          • Wide Wonder - m3pers2 - January 15, 2003 - 06:25 UTC
  • Time Machines (Follow up to MOG) - jameslyonsweile - April 4, 2004 - 13:10 UTC