Talk:Anti-electron
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Merge with Positron
[edit]I know the note gives a reason for anti-electrons being apparently distinct from antimatter in the G1 cartoon, but anti-electrons are another name for positrons in real life, and the anti-electrons from Unicron are used to grant life (and, as confirmed by AVP, sparks) to the Technobots, while the mention of positrons in Transformers is that normal sparks contain them (and that Shattered Glass embers have electrons instead, meaning there's an in-universe confirmation that positrons and electrons are "opposites"). NovaSaber (talk) 15:46, 11 September 2016 (EDT)
- I am 100% against a merge, this article should stay where it is. Also, can you give a citation on the AVP stuff? I don't recall any mention of anti-electrons in regards to the Technobots' origin. --KilMichaelMcC (talk) 18:18, 11 September 2016 (EDT)
- Just checked it myself [[1]] and I recalled correctly, there is no mention of anti-electrons anywhere. It says Grimlock used Dark Energon within Unicron's head, which is not the same thing at all. --KilMichaelMcC (talk) 18:30, 11 September 2016 (EDT)
- All right then. But "particles that are in sparks" and "probably-particles that can be found in the same place as a potential source of sparks" being the same thing still isn't much of a stretch when their names are synonyms. (Anti-electrons look like a liquid because AKOM is AKOM, but the fact that they are referred to in the plural means "anti-electron" is quantifiable.) NovaSaber (talk) 19:38, 11 September 2016 (EDT)
- Their names aren't synonymous within Transformers: positrons are positrons and "anti-electrons" are something you can collect as a pink liquid in a glass jar. Blame it on AKOM, the episode's writers, whoever, doesn't matter. This is the universe where dinosaur electrons are a thing. Merging the two articles would not accurately reflect the fiction. --KilMichaelMcC (talk) 21:42, 11 September 2016 (EDT)
- All that liquid and single vs plural stuff doesn't need to be in the article. --Giggidy (talk) 22:47, 11 September 2016 (EDT)
- No position on this question, but the previously existing note seems rather odd to me. Why should the fact that Megatron used antimatter in a weapon presumably designed or modified for that purpose have any bearing on how they would affect a power generator when poured into it? It seems rather like saying a person shouldn't have problems after being shot just because they had previously fired a gun. --Khajidha (talk) 00:00, 12 September 2016 (EDT)
- All that liquid and single vs plural stuff doesn't need to be in the article. --Giggidy (talk) 22:47, 11 September 2016 (EDT)
- Their names aren't synonymous within Transformers: positrons are positrons and "anti-electrons" are something you can collect as a pink liquid in a glass jar. Blame it on AKOM, the episode's writers, whoever, doesn't matter. This is the universe where dinosaur electrons are a thing. Merging the two articles would not accurately reflect the fiction. --KilMichaelMcC (talk) 21:42, 11 September 2016 (EDT)
- All right then. But "particles that are in sparks" and "probably-particles that can be found in the same place as a potential source of sparks" being the same thing still isn't much of a stretch when their names are synonyms. (Anti-electrons look like a liquid because AKOM is AKOM, but the fact that they are referred to in the plural means "anti-electron" is quantifiable.) NovaSaber (talk) 19:38, 11 September 2016 (EDT)