| > >>>>> | > >>>>>>>Oh, yeah, you postulate the existence of some sort of retrograde | > >>>>>>>force operating on charged particles, forget what you call it... | > >>>>>> | > >>>>>>Are you refering to Wilson's 'reverse field bubble'? | > >>>>> | > >>>>>Oh yeah, that's what you call it... | > >>>>>Tell me, Henri, what does an electron pass through that pushes back | > >>>>>and keeps the electron from going any faster than c? | > >>>> | > >>>>There is no theoretical limit to relative speed. | > >>>> | > >>>>In an accelerator that uses an electric field, the moving charge builds up a | > >>>>reverse field around itself. The faster it goes the bigger the reverse field. | > >>>>At speed c wrt the plates, the local reverse field balances the applied field. | > >>> | > >>>What happens when the electron exits the accelerator? Where does | > >>>the reverse field bubble go? I presume that it must stay with the | > >>>electron, otherwise you have some major conservation of energy | > >>>violations to contend with. | > >> | > >> | > >> Bolometer experiments show that it remains with the electron, at least for a | > >> short period. | > >> However there is another possibility. | > >> The 'bubble' might only exists while the charge, along with its existing | > >> bubble, is being accelerated between the electrodes. | > >> When the change leaves the plates, the bubble might dissipate in time. If that | > >> is true then the bubble energy would go into further accelerating the charge to | > >> a much higher speed and KE. | > >> | > >> Get it? | > > | > >Yes, I get it. | > >You are saying that a charged particle will keep accelerating | > >after it has left the RF-cavity. Since the energy of a charged | > >particle+bubble going close to c can be thousands of times | > >the Newtonian kinetic energy, it will accelerate to tens or hundreds | > >times the speed of light as the bubble dissipates. | > > | > >Hilarious or a major scientific discovery? :-) | > | > How does one measure the speed of a free electron beam? | | One puts the beam in spatially separated bunches and times their travel | between two points that are reasonably distant apart. | This is what is done routinely at both linear and circular beamlines. | | Are you *completely* unaware of all the rather commonplace | verifications of SR?
Yes. What are they? Androcles.
| | PD | | > I suppose one could put it through a magnetic field but that would still give | > an ambiguous answer. If it was going >>c due to the collapse of the bubble it | > wouldn't bend as much....but the same would apply if one accepted SR's mass | > increase. | > | > So I would say the odds on a major scientific discovery are at worst evens at | > best about 1000 to one on. | > | > | > > | > >Paul | > | > | > HW. | > www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/index.htm |
Hexenmeister wrote: > "PD" <TheDraperFam...@gmail.com> wrote in message > news:1144071472.697324.111280@i40g2000cwc.googlegroups.com... > | > | Henri Wilson wrote: > | > On Fri, 31 Mar 2006 23:29:21 +0200, "Paul B. Andersen" > | > <paul.b.ander...@hiadeletethis.no> wrote: > | > > | > >Henri Wilson wrote: > | > >> On 30 Mar 2006 04:09:27 -0800, "Jerry" > <Cephalobus_alie...@comcast.net> wrote: > | > >> > | > >> > | > >>>Henri Wilson wrote: > | > >>> > | > >>>>On 29 Mar 2006 00:00:31 -0800, "Jerry" > <Cephalobus_alie...@comcast.net> wrote: > | > >>>> > | > >>>> > | > >>>>>Henri Wilson wrote: > | > >>>>> > | > >>>>>>On 27 Mar 2006 23:54:04 -0800, "Jerry" > <Cephalobus_alie...@comcast.net> wrote: > | > >>>>> > | > >>>>>>>Oh, yeah, you postulate the existence of some sort of retrograde > | > >>>>>>>force operating on charged particles, forget what you call it... > | > >>>>>> > | > >>>>>>Are you refering to Wilson's 'reverse field bubble'? > | > >>>>> > | > >>>>>Oh yeah, that's what you call it... > | > >>>>>Tell me, Henri, what does an electron pass through that pushes back > | > >>>>>and keeps the electron from going any faster than c? > | > >>>> > | > >>>>There is no theoretical limit to relative speed. > | > >>>> > | > >>>>In an accelerator that uses an electric field, the moving charge > builds up a > | > >>>>reverse field around itself. The faster it goes the bigger the > reverse field. > | > >>>>At speed c wrt the plates, the local reverse field balances the > applied field. > | > >>> > | > >>>What happens when the electron exits the accelerator? Where does > | > >>>the reverse field bubble go? I presume that it must stay with the > | > >>>electron, otherwise you have some major conservation of energy > | > >>>violations to contend with. > | > >> > | > >> > | > >> Bolometer experiments show that it remains with the electron, at > least for a > | > >> short period. > | > >> However there is another possibility. > | > >> The 'bubble' might only exists while the charge, along with its > existing > | > >> bubble, is being accelerated between the electrodes. > | > >> When the change leaves the plates, the bubble might dissipate in > time. If that > | > >> is true then the bubble energy would go into further accelerating the > charge to > | > >> a much higher speed and KE. > | > >> > | > >> Get it? > | > > > | > >Yes, I get it. > | > >You are saying that a charged particle will keep accelerating > | > >after it has left the RF-cavity. Since the energy of a charged > | > >particle+bubble going close to c can be thousands of times > | > >the Newtonian kinetic energy, it will accelerate to tens or hundreds > | > >times the speed of light as the bubble dissipates. > | > > > | > >Hilarious or a major scientific discovery? :-) > | > > | > How does one measure the speed of a free electron beam? > | > | One puts the beam in spatially separated bunches and times their travel > | between two points that are reasonably distant apart. > | This is what is done routinely at both linear and circular beamlines. > | > | Are you *completely* unaware of all the rather commonplace > | verifications of SR?
> Yes. What are they? > Androcles.
I just gave you a good example. Did you lose track the train of thought from one sentence to the next?
> | > | PD > | > | > I suppose one could put it through a magnetic field but that would still > give > | > an ambiguous answer. If it was going >>c due to the collapse of the > bubble it > | > wouldn't bend as much....but the same would apply if one accepted SR's > mass > | > increase. > | > > | > So I would say the odds on a major scientific discovery are at worst > evens at > | > best about 1000 to one on. > | > > | > > | > > > | > >Paul > | > > | > > | > HW. > | > www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/index.htm > |
| > | > >>>>> | > | > >>>>>>>Oh, yeah, you postulate the existence of some sort of retrograde | > | > >>>>>>>force operating on charged particles, forget what you call it... | > | > >>>>>> | > | > >>>>>>Are you refering to Wilson's 'reverse field bubble'? | > | > >>>>> | > | > >>>>>Oh yeah, that's what you call it... | > | > >>>>>Tell me, Henri, what does an electron pass through that pushes back | > | > >>>>>and keeps the electron from going any faster than c? | > | > >>>> | > | > >>>>There is no theoretical limit to relative speed. | > | > >>>> | > | > >>>>In an accelerator that uses an electric field, the moving charge | > builds up a | > | > >>>>reverse field around itself. The faster it goes the bigger the | > reverse field. | > | > >>>>At speed c wrt the plates, the local reverse field balances the | > applied field. | > | > >>> | > | > >>>What happens when the electron exits the accelerator? Where does | > | > >>>the reverse field bubble go? I presume that it must stay with the | > | > >>>electron, otherwise you have some major conservation of energy | > | > >>>violations to contend with. | > | > >> | > | > >> | > | > >> Bolometer experiments show that it remains with the electron, at | > least for a | > | > >> short period. | > | > >> However there is another possibility. | > | > >> The 'bubble' might only exists while the charge, along with its | > existing | > | > >> bubble, is being accelerated between the electrodes. | > | > >> When the change leaves the plates, the bubble might dissipate in | > time. If that | > | > >> is true then the bubble energy would go into further accelerating the | > charge to | > | > >> a much higher speed and KE. | > | > >> | > | > >> Get it? | > | > > | > | > >Yes, I get it. | > | > >You are saying that a charged particle will keep accelerating | > | > >after it has left the RF-cavity. Since the energy of a charged | > | > >particle+bubble going close to c can be thousands of times | > | > >the Newtonian kinetic energy, it will accelerate to tens or hundreds | > | > >times the speed of light as the bubble dissipates. | > | > > | > | > >Hilarious or a major scientific discovery? :-) | > | > | > | > How does one measure the speed of a free electron beam? | > | | > | One puts the beam in spatially separated bunches and times their travel | > | between two points that are reasonably distant apart. | > | This is what is done routinely at both linear and circular beamlines. | > | | > | Are you *completely* unaware of all the rather commonplace | > | verifications of SR? | > | > Yes. What are they? | > Androcles. | | I just gave you a good example. Did you lose track the train of thought | from one sentence to the next?
Yes. What are the rather commonplace verifications of SR? Provide data instead of handwaving, dumbest idiot after Van de moortel.
Androcles.
| PD | | > | > | > | | > | PD | > | | > | > I suppose one could put it through a magnetic field but that would still | > give | > | > an ambiguous answer. If it was going >>c due to the collapse of the | > bubble it | > | > wouldn't bend as much....but the same would apply if one accepted SR's | > mass | > | > increase. | > | > | > | > So I would say the odds on a major scientific discovery are at worst | > evens at | > | > best about 1000 to one on. | > | > | > | > | > | > > | > | > >Paul | > | > | > | > | > | > HW. | > | > www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/index.htm | > | |
<paul.b.ander...@hiadeletethis.no> wrote: >Henri Wilson wrote: >Henri Wilson skrev: > > On Fri, 31 Mar 2006 23:12:25 +0200, "Paul B. Andersen" > > <paul.b.ander...@hiadeletethis.no> wrote: > > >> It is true. > > >> A charge cannot be made to move at >c between the plates of a condensor (which > > >> is effectively what an accelerator is). > > >> It requires infinfite energy to raise its speed to c wrt those plates.
> > >Quite. It requires infinite energy to raise its speed to c > > >even when there is no field.
> > Ah! -:) > > What is the reference you are using for speed here?
>Obviously the same frame of reference that is used as reference >for the kinetic energy. >You can pick any inertial frame you wish.
Oh how ridiculous this sounds...but, then, all religions appear moronical in the eyes of a non-believer.
> > It might already be traveling at >c wrt many things in the universe.
no answer?
> > >We KNOW that the field transfers the same amount of energy > > >to the particle every time the particle passes through it, > > >so the field cannot be cancelled by anything.
> > It requires a lot of energy to cancel the applied field, even locally.
>You are evading the point. >Whatever your "field bubble" does, it cannot cancel the accelerating field.
Why not. It is a 'reverse' field. It MUST partly neutralize it.
> > >> The associated energy is contained in 'Wilson's reverse > > >> field bubble' that is carried along with the charge.
> > >Exactly. > > >You claim that the kinetic energy of a charged particle moving > > >in space free of field is contained in a "reverse field bubble". > > >We know the kinetic energy of the particle + your bubble > > >is m*gamma*v. So any moving charged particle must carry > > >a "field bubble" along with it, and this field bubble > > >has the remarkable property that its kinetic energy is > > >independent of the particle's charge, it depends only on > > >its mass and speed.
> > I know that electrons behave as though their masses increase according to > > something like gamma....but has this been proven correct for, say, protons? I > > doubt it.
>All charged particles behave in such a way that > p = m*gamma*v and E = m*gamma*c^2. >Both protons and ions are routinely accelerated in accelerators.
> > >And of course the reason why you cannot make the particle + bubble > > >move faster than c is that its kinetic energy approaches > > >infinity when its speed approaches c.
> > If you want to include the bubble energy in with the mechanical KE, that is > > true...but I would consider the bubble energy potential rather than kinetic.
>It is YOU that include the "bubble energy" in the KE of of the particle. >The particle is KNOWN to have the KE = m*(gamma-1)*c^2. >YOU claim that the part of this energy tha exceeds mv^2/2 is >contained in the "field bubble". >KE is by definition the energy that depend on the speed. >So the "bubble energy" MUST be KE.
> > >So why are you saying that the reason is that the accelerating > > >field is cancelled by your field bubble? > > >If it were, how could it then transfer energy to the particle > > >+ your bubble?
> > >You must be a moron not to see the giant stupidity in this.
> > The bubble's existence is related to the travel time of electric fields.
>There is no "travel time of electric fields" in an accelerator. >The electric field is established _before_ the charged particle >enters it, and it can be considered a static field during the very >short time the particle is in it. >You KNOW this because you have been told many times, >so why do you keep repeating this stupidity?
> > The faster the electron, the bigger the bubble and the smaller the effect of > > the applied field. One could speculate that the bubble field was always less > > than the applied field gradient.
>You are repeating your giant self contradiction. >Read again what I have told you over and over, >and think just a little bit, for once. >1. We KNOW that the particle gains the same amount of > KE every time it passes through the accelerating field (RF-cavity), > regardless of what the speed is. The gained energy is simply q*V, > where q is the charge and V is the potential drop in the accelerating > field (integral E ds). We know this because when the accelerator is > in steady state (at the top of its performance), the KE gained in > the RF-cavities is lost as synchrotron radiation in the bends. > This energy is easily measured, and MUST be carried from the RF-cavity > to the bends as KE in the particles. That's why high performance > accelerators have to be big, the bends must be gentle to loose less > energy per revolution. > Electrons are accelerated to 100 GeV, that is gamma = 200000, > v = 0.999999999987c, or v = (c - 3.8 mm/sec). > Even at this speed, the electric field transfers as much energy > to the particle as at any other speed. >2. This proves that nothing cancels the electric field at any speed, > the effect of the electric field is the same at any speed. >3. Since we know that the KE = m*gamma*c^2 (gamma-1 ~= gamma) > even when the particle is NOT in the electric field, and you > claim that the vast majority of this KE is contained in > the "field bubble", it follows that this "field bubble" > has nothing with the accelerating field to do, but is only > determined by the mass and the speed of the particle.
The bubble has to move with the charge. This is where the field reaction time enters the picture.
>4. The fact that the KE of your "field bubble" is independent > of the charge of the particle shows that it is not of > electromagnetic nature.
I said the bubble has PE not KE.
> (How could it be? If an electron and a proton are moving > with the same speed, we have - according to you - two > unity charges moving with the same speed, but the "field bubble" > of one of them contains much more energy than the other.)
I have several views on this. One goes along the lines of Len Gassenbeek's spinning particle idea. (the 'bubble' involves the spinning of the particle)
Another says the 'gamma' increase has only been accurately verified with electrons.
>So what is the nature of you bubble? What kind of field is it? >Could I suggest WUBEBW field? >(Wilsonian Unknown By Everybody But Wilson - field.) >Another world shattering discovery by Henri Wilson.
It stands to reason that it must be true. It is simple stuff really.
A moving charge constitutes a current that creates a 'back emf' in a closed circuit (or between two plates). The field created by an accelerating charge must therefore have the effect of reducing the applied field. Its effect will be local to the charge. It must require considerable energy to maintain a field gradient in space.
> > Your use of the word 'hilarious' does not imply amusement and was > > unquestionably uttered with sarcasm and malice. > > Its context was: 'fantastic beyond belief and unquestionably wrong'.
>Quite. >I find YOUR ideas hilarious and 'fantastic beyond belief and unquestionably wrong', >which I utter with sarcasm, malice AND amusement.
>But YOU were the one who claimed that major scientific discoveries >were frequently referred to as hilarious throughout history.
> > The early astronomers were faced with this kind of reaction from the religious > > establishment just as we thinkers are now.
>I knew it! >You would compare yourself to the early astronomers >who were suppressed by the Church. >(I don't think they found him hilarious, though.)
> > Even Einstein himself was initially mocked ...and still is, by the world's > > genuine scientists.
>Quite. >In a hundred years from now Henri Wilson will be known as >the great scientist whose major scientific discoveries >were not recognized by the scientific establishment of his time. >He was mocked and ridiculed but was victorious in the end.
I usually am.
>How fun this is! >But my stomach hurts and my eyes are watering. >One of these days you will kill me!
On Mon, 03 Apr 2006 11:01:20 GMT, "Hexenmeister" <vanqu...@broom.Mickey_a> wrote:
>"Paul B. Andersen" <paul.b.ander...@hiadeletethis.no> wrote in message >news:e0qrk7$4ij$1@dolly.uninett.no... >| How fun this is! >| But my stomach hurts and my eyes are watering. >| One of these days you will kill me! >| >| Paul, quite exhausted
>Henri Wilson wrote: >> On Fri, 31 Mar 2006 23:29:21 +0200, "Paul B. Andersen" >> <paul.b.ander...@hiadeletethis.no> wrote:
>> >Henri Wilson wrote: >> >> On 30 Mar 2006 04:09:27 -0800, "Jerry" <Cephalobus_alie...@comcast.net> wrote:
>> >>>Henri Wilson wrote:
>> >>>>On 29 Mar 2006 00:00:31 -0800, "Jerry" <Cephalobus_alie...@comcast.net> wrote:
>> >>>>>Henri Wilson wrote:
>> >>>>>>On 27 Mar 2006 23:54:04 -0800, "Jerry" <Cephalobus_alie...@comcast.net> wrote:
>> >>>>>>>Oh, yeah, you postulate the existence of some sort of retrograde >> >>>>>>>force operating on charged particles, forget what you call it...
>> >>>>>>Are you refering to Wilson's 'reverse field bubble'?
>> >>>>>Oh yeah, that's what you call it... >> >>>>>Tell me, Henri, what does an electron pass through that pushes back >> >>>>>and keeps the electron from going any faster than c?
>> >>>>There is no theoretical limit to relative speed.
>> >>>>In an accelerator that uses an electric field, the moving charge builds up a >> >>>>reverse field around itself. The faster it goes the bigger the reverse field. >> >>>>At speed c wrt the plates, the local reverse field balances the applied field.
>> >>>What happens when the electron exits the accelerator? Where does >> >>>the reverse field bubble go? I presume that it must stay with the >> >>>electron, otherwise you have some major conservation of energy >> >>>violations to contend with.
>> >> Bolometer experiments show that it remains with the electron, at least for a >> >> short period. >> >> However there is another possibility. >> >> The 'bubble' might only exists while the charge, along with its existing >> >> bubble, is being accelerated between the electrodes. >> >> When the change leaves the plates, the bubble might dissipate in time. If that >> >> is true then the bubble energy would go into further accelerating the charge to >> >> a much higher speed and KE.
>> >> Get it?
>> >Yes, I get it. >> >You are saying that a charged particle will keep accelerating >> >after it has left the RF-cavity. Since the energy of a charged >> >particle+bubble going close to c can be thousands of times >> >the Newtonian kinetic energy, it will accelerate to tens or hundreds >> >times the speed of light as the bubble dissipates.
>> >Hilarious or a major scientific discovery? :-)
>> How does one measure the speed of a free electron beam?
>One puts the beam in spatially separated bunches and times their travel >between two points that are reasonably distant apart. >This is what is done routinely at both linear and circular beamlines.
>Are you *completely* unaware of all the rather commonplace >verifications of SR?
That's hardly a 'free beam'. It is confined by a strong magnetic field. It doesn't tell us what we want to know anyway. We want to see if there is an 'apparent mass increase'.
>> I suppose one could put it through a magnetic field but that would still give >> an ambiguous answer. If it was going >>c due to the collapse of the bubble it >> wouldn't bend as much....but the same would apply if one accepted SR's mass >> increase.
>> So I would say the odds on a major scientific discovery are at worst evens at >> best about 1000 to one on.
> >> >>>>>>>Oh, yeah, you postulate the existence of some sort of retrograde > >> >>>>>>>force operating on charged particles, forget what you call it...
> >> >>>>>>Are you refering to Wilson's 'reverse field bubble'?
> >> >>>>>Oh yeah, that's what you call it... > >> >>>>>Tell me, Henri, what does an electron pass through that pushes back > >> >>>>>and keeps the electron from going any faster than c?
> >> >>>>There is no theoretical limit to relative speed.
> >> >>>>In an accelerator that uses an electric field, the moving charge builds up a > >> >>>>reverse field around itself. The faster it goes the bigger the reverse field. > >> >>>>At speed c wrt the plates, the local reverse field balances the applied field.
> >> >>>What happens when the electron exits the accelerator? Where does > >> >>>the reverse field bubble go? I presume that it must stay with the > >> >>>electron, otherwise you have some major conservation of energy > >> >>>violations to contend with.
> >> >> Bolometer experiments show that it remains with the electron, at least for a > >> >> short period. > >> >> However there is another possibility. > >> >> The 'bubble' might only exists while the charge, along with its existing > >> >> bubble, is being accelerated between the electrodes. > >> >> When the change leaves the plates, the bubble might dissipate in time. If that > >> >> is true then the bubble energy would go into further accelerating the charge to > >> >> a much higher speed and KE.
> >> >> Get it?
> >> >Yes, I get it. > >> >You are saying that a charged particle will keep accelerating > >> >after it has left the RF-cavity. Since the energy of a charged > >> >particle+bubble going close to c can be thousands of times > >> >the Newtonian kinetic energy, it will accelerate to tens or hundreds > >> >times the speed of light as the bubble dissipates.
> >> >Hilarious or a major scientific discovery? :-)
> >> How does one measure the speed of a free electron beam?
> >One puts the beam in spatially separated bunches and times their travel > >between two points that are reasonably distant apart. > >This is what is done routinely at both linear and circular beamlines.
> >Are you *completely* unaware of all the rather commonplace > >verifications of SR?
> That's hardly a 'free beam'. It is confined by a strong magnetic field.
A linear beamline is hardly a strong magnetic field.
> It doesn't tell us what we want to know anyway. We want to see if there is an > 'apparent mass increase'.
Why do you want to know that? You wanted to know how to measure the *speed* of an electron beam. Why do you need to know an "apparent mass increase" to do that?
> >> I suppose one could put it through a magnetic field but that would still give > >> an ambiguous answer. If it was going >>c due to the collapse of the bubble it > >> wouldn't bend as much....but the same would apply if one accepted SR's mass > >> increase.
> >> So I would say the odds on a major scientific discovery are at worst evens at > >> best about 1000 to one on.
On 4 Apr 2006 01:50:07 -0700, "PD" <TheDraperFam...@gmail.com> wrote:
>Henri Wilson wrote: >> On 3 Apr 2006 06:37:52 -0700, "PD" <TheDraperFam...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >One puts the beam in spatially separated bunches and times their travel >> >between two points that are reasonably distant apart. >> >This is what is done routinely at both linear and circular beamlines.
>> >Are you *completely* unaware of all the rather commonplace >> >verifications of SR?
>> That's hardly a 'free beam'. It is confined by a strong magnetic field.
>A linear beamline is hardly a strong magnetic field
As usual, you're talking incomprehensible crap PD.
>> It doesn't tell us what we want to know anyway. We want to see if there is an >> 'apparent mass increase'.
>Why do you want to know that? You wanted to know how to measure the >*speed* of an electron beam. Why do you need to know an "apparent mass >increase" to do that?
>Attempt to change the subject noted.
As usual, you're talking incomprehensible crap PD.
>> >> I suppose one could put it through a magnetic field but that would still give >> >> an ambiguous answer. If it was going >>c due to the collapse of the bubble it >> >> wouldn't bend as much....but the same would apply if one accepted SR's mass >> >> increase.
>> >> So I would say the odds on a major scientific discovery are at worst evens at >> >> best about 1000 to one on.
| | > | >"Paul B. Andersen" <paul.b.ander...@hiadeletethis.no> wrote in message | >news:e0qrk7$4ij$1@dolly.uninett.no... | >| How fun this is! | >| But my stomach hurts and my eyes are watering. | >| One of these days you will kill me! | >| | >| Paul, quite exhausted | > | >How's your bank account? | > http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/LIAR/LIAR.htm | >Hilarious, yes? | >Androcles | > | | If you want to call me as a witness I'm willing...
Thanks H, that is appreciated. However, the Google records are the only witness I really need. I don't mind some teasing and name-calling, that's all part of the fun of these newsgroups, but accusations of dishonesty where no dishonesty existed will not be tolerated. Jeez, as if I'd wilfully credit Fox with my own work, when the argument is as powerful as Fox presented. How stupid would that be? Andersen is unquestionably an idiot, saying I wrote Fox's words. But then, what relativist isn't? I first read Fox's paper circa 1989, it was recommended to me by Professor Reinhardt of CMU (Pittsburgh) after I wrote to him concerning my DOS program where I discovered the light curve of a cepheid was explicable by light being ballistic. The dingbat wasn't interested, of course. All relativists have there head up their arse. The bottom line of Fox's paper, "Evidence Against Emission Theories" is : there isn't any. "Evidence Against Relativity Theories" -- stacks of it. Fox knew it but played the politically correct line. Thus we make no new discoveries of planets or the true nature of cepheids, "eclipsing" variables, flare stars or anything else, what we see is what is supposed to be and they come up with a different explanation for every phenomenon. That is NOT science. Ockham's Razor says ballistic light, that's the simplest.
Henri Wilson wrote: > Paul B. Andersen wrote: >>Henri Wilson wrote: >>>Paul B. Andersen wrote: >>>> Henri Wilson wrote: >>>>>It is true. >>>>>A charge cannot be made to move at >c between the plates of a condensor (which >>>>>is effectively what an accelerator is). >>>>>It requires infinfite energy to raise its speed to c wrt those plates.
[snip obfuscating quibble]
>>>>We KNOW that the field transfers the same amount of energy >>>>to the particle every time the particle passes through it, >>>>so the field cannot be cancelled by anything.
>>>It requires a lot of energy to cancel the applied field, even locally.
>>You are evading the point. >>Whatever your "field bubble" does, it cannot cancel the accelerating field.
> Why not. It is a 'reverse' field. It MUST partly neutralize it.
>>>>>The associated energy is contained in 'Wilson's reverse >>>>>field bubble' that is carried along with the charge.
>>>>Exactly. >>>>You claim that the kinetic energy of a charged particle moving >>>>in space free of field is contained in a "reverse field bubble". >>>>We know the kinetic energy of the particle + your bubble >>>>is m*gamma*v. So any moving charged particle must carry >>>>a "field bubble" along with it, and this field bubble >>>>has the remarkable property that its kinetic energy is >>>>independent of the particle's charge, it depends only on >>>>its mass and speed.
>>>I know that electrons behave as though their masses increase according to >>>something like gamma....but has this been proven correct for, say, protons? I >>>doubt it.
>>All charged particles behave in such a way that >> p = m*gamma*v and E = m*gamma*c^2. >>Both protons and ions are routinely accelerated in accelerators.
> As I have pointed out elsewharer
>>>>And of course the reason why you cannot make the particle + bubble >>>>move faster than c is that its kinetic energy approaches >>>>infinity when its speed approaches c.
>>>If you want to include the bubble energy in with the mechanical KE, that is >>>true...but I would consider the bubble energy potential rather than kinetic.
Here is why the "bubble energy" must be kinetic energy:
>>It is YOU that include the "bubble energy" in the KE of of the particle. >>The particle is KNOWN to have the KE = m*(gamma-1)*c^2. >>YOU claim that the part of this energy that exceeds mv^2/2 is >>contained in the "field bubble". >>KE is by definition the energy that depend on the speed. >>So the "bubble energy" MUST be KE. >>>>So why are you saying that the reason is that the accelerating >>>>field is cancelled by your field bubble? >>>>If it were, how could it then transfer energy to the particle >>>>+ your bubble?
>>>>You must be a moron not to see the giant stupidity in this.
>>>The bubble's existence is related to the travel time of electric fields.
>>There is no "travel time of electric fields" in an accelerator. >>The electric field is established _before_ the charged particle >>enters it, and it can be considered a static field during the very >>short time the particle is in it. >>You KNOW this because you have been told many times, >>so why do you keep repeating this stupidity?
>>>The faster the electron, the bigger the bubble and the smaller the effect of >>>the applied field. One could speculate that the bubble field was always less >>>than the applied field gradient.
>>You are repeating your giant self contradiction. >>Read again what I have told you over and over, >>and think just a little bit, for once. >>1. We KNOW that the particle gains the same amount of >> KE every time it passes through the accelerating field (RF-cavity), >> regardless of what the speed is. The gained energy is simply q*V, >> where q is the charge and V is the potential drop in the accelerating >> field (integral E ds). We know this because when the accelerator is >> in steady state (at the top of its performance), the KE gained in >> the RF-cavities is lost as synchrotron radiation in the bends. >> This energy is easily measured, and MUST be carried from the RF-cavity >> to the bends as KE in the particles. That's why high performance >> accelerators have to be big, the bends must be gentle to loose less >> energy per revolution. >> Electrons are accelerated to 100 GeV, that is gamma = 200000, >> v = 0.999999999987c, or v = (c - 3.8 mm/sec). >> Even at this speed, the electric field transfers as much energy >> to the particle as at any other speed. >>2. This proves that nothing cancels the electric field at any speed, >> the effect of the electric field is the same at any speed. >>3. Since we know that the KE = m*gamma*c^2 (gamma-1 ~= gamma) >> even when the particle is NOT in the electric field, and you >> claim that the vast majority of this KE is contained in >> the "field bubble", it follows that this "field bubble" >> has nothing with the accelerating field to do, but is only >> determined by the mass and the speed of the particle.
> The bubble has to move with the charge. This is where the field reaction time > enters the picture.
Oh? How? What is it?
>>4. The fact that the KE of your "field bubble" is independent >> of the charge of the particle shows that it is not of >> electromagnetic nature.
> I said the bubble has PE not KE.
And I showed above why your bubble energy is KE.
Henri, you haven't even tried to refute any of my arguments. Why is that? Didn't you read them? Didn't you understand them? Or do you agree with them?
>> (How could it be? If an electron and a proton are moving >> with the same speed, we have - according to you - two >> unity charges moving with the same speed, but the "field bubble" >> of one of them contains much more energy than the other.)
> I have several views on this. > One goes along the lines of Len Gassenbeek's spinning particle idea. > (the 'bubble' involves the spinning of the particle)
So the KE is now stored as spin? No bubble? :-) When you realize that one "explanation" is wrong, invent a new, entirely different, and even more idiotic explanation, eh? :-)
> Another says the 'gamma' increase has only been accurately verified with > electrons.
Which illustrates your desperate seach for explanations. :-)
>>So what is the nature of you bubble? What kind of field is it? >>Could I suggest WUBEBW field? >>(Wilsonian Unknown By Everybody But Wilson - field.) >>Another world shattering discovery by Henri Wilson.
> It stands to reason that it must be true. It is simple stuff really.
> A moving charge constitutes a current that creates a 'back emf' in a closed > circuit (or between two plates). The field created by an accelerating charge > must therefore have the effect of reducing the applied field. Its effect will > be local to the charge. It must require considerable energy to maintain a field > gradient in space.
Yes, it is indeed quite simple. If you have a static electric field with no energy supply, this field will obviously be diminished somewhat when a charge move along the field because the energy gained by the particle must be taken from PE of the field. The gained energy of the charge is qV, so the field must be diminished accordingly.
Look at this drawing: V E |+ --> -| |+ --> -| drift tube -----|+ --> -|---------- - q+ -----|+ --> -|----------- |+ --> -| |+ --> -|
It is basically a charged condenser with a tube through it. (No tube between the condenser plates, though). The tube on each side is at the same potential as the plates. The potential difference between the plates is V. In the tube a positive charge q is moving. There is no field inside the tube, but there will be a surface charge inside the tube with the opposite polarity, following the moving charge q. (It is a local field around the charge in the tube)
The field have diminished somewhat. The point is that the moving positive charge is a part of the whole condenser system, and when this charge has moved from the positive side of the system to the negative side, the net result must be a small discharge of the condenser. (In my drawings the condenser charge has diminished from 6q to 5q.)
The energy of the whole system is unchanged. The PE lost by the field must be equal to the gain of the KE of the moving charged particle.
There is no need to see what happens to the local field around the charge while the particle is in transit when we know the net result. And the net result is independent of the speed of the charge. That means that the electric field is diminished by the same amount regardless of what the speed of the particle is! It is no additional cancelling of the electric field due to the speed of the charge.
The "considerable energy to sustain the field" is qV per passing charge. This "considerable energy" do not change with the speed of the particle.
Of course the situation in an RF-cavity is much more complicated that this, an RF-cavity is not without power supply. There will be a current flowing into it, and the field will not be diminished in the same way as above.
The bottom line is still: Every time the particle passes through the RF-cavity, it gains the same amount of energy, regardless of the speed of the particle.
You can twist an turn as much as you want, experimental evidence show that the accelerating field is never cancelled by anything related to the speed of the particle.
The whole "reverse field bubble" idea is ridiculous. It simply does not add up.
Henri Wilson wrote: > On Fri, 31 Mar 2006 23:29:21 +0200, "Paul B. Andersen" > <paul.b.ander...@hiadeletethis.no> wrote:
>>Henri Wilson wrote:
>>>On 30 Mar 2006 04:09:27 -0800, "Jerry" <Cephalobus_alie...@comcast.net> wrote:
>>>>Henri Wilson wrote:
>>>>>On 29 Mar 2006 00:00:31 -0800, "Jerry" <Cephalobus_alie...@comcast.net> wrote:
>>>>>>Henri Wilson wrote:
>>>>>>>On 27 Mar 2006 23:54:04 -0800, "Jerry" <Cephalobus_alie...@comcast.net> wrote:
>>>>>>>>Oh, yeah, you postulate the existence of some sort of retrograde >>>>>>>>force operating on charged particles, forget what you call it...
>>>>>>>Are you refering to Wilson's 'reverse field bubble'?
>>>>>>Oh yeah, that's what you call it... >>>>>>Tell me, Henri, what does an electron pass through that pushes back >>>>>>and keeps the electron from going any faster than c?
>>>>>There is no theoretical limit to relative speed.
>>>>>In an accelerator that uses an electric field, the moving charge builds up a >>>>>reverse field around itself. The faster it goes the bigger the reverse field. >>>>>At speed c wrt the plates, the local reverse field balances the applied field.
>>>>What happens when the electron exits the accelerator? Where does >>>>the reverse field bubble go? I presume that it must stay with the >>>>electron, otherwise you have some major conservation of energy >>>>violations to contend with.
>>>Bolometer experiments show that it remains with the electron, at least for a >>>short period. >>>However there is another possibility. >>>The 'bubble' might only exists while the charge, along with its existing >>>bubble, is being accelerated between the electrodes. >>>When the change leaves the plates, the bubble might dissipate in time. If that >>>is true then the bubble energy would go into further accelerating the charge to >>>a much higher speed and KE.
>>>Get it?
>>Yes, I get it. >>You are saying that a charged particle will keep accelerating >>after it has left the RF-cavity. Since the energy of a charged >>particle+bubble going close to c can be thousands of times >>the Newtonian kinetic energy, it will accelerate to tens or hundreds >>times the speed of light as the bubble dissipates.
>>Hilarious or a major scientific discovery? :-)
> How does one measure the speed of a free electron beam?
The frequency at which the particles pass is pretty obvious since the frequency of the RF-cavities must be exactly the same (or a multiple ). The circumference of the circuit is known.
> I suppose one could put it through a magnetic field but that would still give > an ambiguous answer. If it was going >>c due to the collapse of the bubble it > wouldn't bend as much....but the same would apply if one accepted SR's mass > increase.
> So I would say the odds on a major scientific discovery are at worst evens at > best about 1000 to one on.
And your latest major scientific discovery is that the particles in an accelerator go faster than c, but nobody notices it? :-)
Henri Wilson wrote: > On 4 Apr 2006 01:50:07 -0700, "PD" <TheDraperFam...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >Henri Wilson wrote: > >> On 3 Apr 2006 06:37:52 -0700, "PD" <TheDraperFam...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> >One puts the beam in spatially separated bunches and times their travel > >> >between two points that are reasonably distant apart. > >> >This is what is done routinely at both linear and circular beamlines.
> >> >Are you *completely* unaware of all the rather commonplace > >> >verifications of SR?
> >> That's hardly a 'free beam'. It is confined by a strong magnetic field.
> >A linear beamline is hardly a strong magnetic field
> As usual, you're talking incomprehensible crap PD.
Really? You asked how one measures the speed of a free electron beam. I told you it was routinely done in a linear beamline, and told you how. You said this is hardly a free electron beam, due to the presence of a strong magnetic field. I said a linear beamline does not have a strong magnetic field.
What's incomprensible about that, Henri? When you get to facts you don't like, you announce that they are incomprehensible?
Is this similar to your approach to the scientific method, wherein if experiment disagrees with your theory, then the experiment is obviously suspect?
> >> It doesn't tell us what we want to know anyway. We want to see if there is an > >> 'apparent mass increase'.
> >Why do you want to know that? You wanted to know how to measure the > >*speed* of an electron beam. Why do you need to know an "apparent mass > >increase" to do that?
> >Attempt to change the subject noted.
> As usual, you're talking incomprehensible crap PD.
> Do you have anything intelligent to contribute?
> >PD
> >> >PD
> >> >> I suppose one could put it through a magnetic field but that would still give > >> >> an ambiguous answer. If it was going >>c due to the collapse of the bubble it > >> >> wouldn't bend as much....but the same would apply if one accepted SR's mass > >> >> increase.
> >> >> So I would say the odds on a major scientific discovery are at worst evens at > >> >> best about 1000 to one on.
| > On 4 Apr 2006 01:50:07 -0700, "PD" <TheDraperFam...@gmail.com> wrote: | > | > > | > >Henri Wilson wrote: | > >> On 3 Apr 2006 06:37:52 -0700, "PD" <TheDraperFam...@gmail.com> wrote: | > >> | > >> > | > | > >> >One puts the beam in spatially separated bunches and times their travel | > >> >between two points that are reasonably distant apart. | > >> >This is what is done routinely at both linear and circular beamlines. | > >> > | > >> >Are you *completely* unaware of all the rather commonplace | > >> >verifications of SR? | > >> | > >> That's hardly a 'free beam'. It is confined by a strong magnetic field. | > > | > >A linear beamline is hardly a strong magnetic field | > | > As usual, you're talking incomprehensible crap PD. | | Really? | You asked how one measures the speed of a free electron beam. | I told you it was routinely done in a linear beamline, and told you | how. | You said this is hardly a free electron beam, due to the presence of a | strong magnetic field. | I said a linear beamline does not have a strong magnetic field. | | What's incomprensible about that, Henri? | When you get to facts you don't like, you announce that they are | incomprehensible? | | Is this similar to your approach to the scientific method, wherein if | experiment disagrees with your theory, then the experiment is obviously | suspect?
Yeah... Of course. Free cosmic muons travel 62 miles in 2.2 usec but cannot exceed the speed of light, which plays the part of an infinitely great velocity in our theory, so they must be time dilated and the distance length contracted.
What's stupid about that, Phuckwit Duck? When you get to facts you don't like, you announce that 62 miles/2.2usec is stupid? Is this similar to your approach to the scientific method, wherein if experiment disagrees with your theory, then the speed of cosmic muons is obviously suspect, you fucking moron?
Androcles.
| PD | | > | > > | > >> It doesn't tell us what we want to know anyway. We want to see if there is an | > >> 'apparent mass increase'. | > > | > >Why do you want to know that? You wanted to know how to measure the | > >*speed* of an electron beam. Why do you need to know an "apparent mass | > >increase" to do that? | > > | > >Attempt to change the subject noted. | > | > As usual, you're talking incomprehensible crap PD. | > | > Do you have anything intelligent to contribute? | > > | > >PD | > > | > >> | > >> > | > >> >PD | > >> > | > >> >> I suppose one could put it through a magnetic field but that would still give | > >> >> an ambiguous answer. If it was going >>c due to the collapse of the bubble it | > >> >> wouldn't bend as much....but the same would apply if one accepted SR's mass | > >> >> increase. | > >> >> | > >> >> So I would say the odds on a major scientific discovery are at worst evens at | > >> >> best about 1000 to one on. | > >> >> | > >> >> | > >> >> > | > >> >> >Paul | > >> >> | > >> >> | > >> >> HW. | > >> >> www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/index.htm | > >> | > >> | > >> HW. | > >> www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/index.htm | > | > | > HW. | > www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/index.htm |
Hexenmeister wrote: > "PD" <TheDraperFam...@gmail.com> wrote in message > news:1144192374.358197.50860@i39g2000cwa.googlegroups.com... > | > | Henri Wilson wrote: > | > On 4 Apr 2006 01:50:07 -0700, "PD" <TheDraperFam...@gmail.com> wrote: > | > > | > > > | > >Henri Wilson wrote: > | > >> On 3 Apr 2006 06:37:52 -0700, "PD" <TheDraperFam...@gmail.com> wrote: > | > >> > | > >> > > | > > | > >> >One puts the beam in spatially separated bunches and times their > travel > | > >> >between two points that are reasonably distant apart. > | > >> >This is what is done routinely at both linear and circular > beamlines. > | > >> > > | > >> >Are you *completely* unaware of all the rather commonplace > | > >> >verifications of SR? > | > >> > | > >> That's hardly a 'free beam'. It is confined by a strong magnetic > field. > | > > > | > >A linear beamline is hardly a strong magnetic field > | > > | > As usual, you're talking incomprehensible crap PD. > | > | Really? > | You asked how one measures the speed of a free electron beam. > | I told you it was routinely done in a linear beamline, and told you > | how. > | You said this is hardly a free electron beam, due to the presence of a > | strong magnetic field. > | I said a linear beamline does not have a strong magnetic field. > | > | What's incomprensible about that, Henri? > | When you get to facts you don't like, you announce that they are > | incomprehensible? > | > | Is this similar to your approach to the scientific method, wherein if > | experiment disagrees with your theory, then the experiment is obviously > | suspect?
> Yeah... Of course. Free cosmic muons travel 62 miles in 2.2 usec > but cannot exceed the speed of light, which plays the part of an infinitely > great velocity in our theory, so they must be time dilated and the distance > length contracted.
> What's stupid about that, Phuckwit Duck? > When you get to facts you don't like, you announce that 62 miles/2.2usec > is stupid?
Except it doesn't go for 2.2 usec in a muon beam. It goes longer than that, according to *timers*. This, of course, is counter to Androcles's mythology, so it must have only gone 2.2 usec anyway, or so he would have us believe.
> Is this similar to your approach to the scientific method, wherein if > experiment disagrees with your theory, then the speed of cosmic muons > is obviously suspect, you fucking moron?
> Androcles.
> | PD > | > | > > | > > > | > >> It doesn't tell us what we want to know anyway. We want to see if > there is an > | > >> 'apparent mass increase'. > | > > > | > >Why do you want to know that? You wanted to know how to measure the > | > >*speed* of an electron beam. Why do you need to know an "apparent mass > | > >increase" to do that? > | > > > | > >Attempt to change the subject noted. > | > > | > As usual, you're talking incomprehensible crap PD. > | > > | > Do you have anything intelligent to contribute? > | > > > | > >PD > | > > > | > >> > | > >> > > | > >> >PD > | > >> > > | > >> >> I suppose one could put it through a magnetic field but that would > still give > | > >> >> an ambiguous answer. If it was going >>c due to the collapse of > the bubble it > | > >> >> wouldn't bend as much....but the same would apply if one accepted > SR's mass > | > >> >> increase. > | > >> >> > | > >> >> So I would say the odds on a major scientific discovery are at > worst evens at > | > >> >> best about 1000 to one on. > | > >> >> > | > >> >> > | > >> >> > > | > >> >> >Paul > | > >> >> > | > >> >> > | > >> >> HW. > | > >> >> www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/index.htm > | > >> > | > >> > | > >> HW. > | > >> www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/index.htm > | > > | > > | > HW. > | > www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/index.htm > |
<paul.b.ander...@hiadeletethis.no> wrote: >Henri Wilson wrote: >> Paul B. Andersen wrote: >>>Henri Wilson wrote: >>>>Paul B. Andersen wrote: >>>>> Henri Wilson wrote: >>>>>>It is true. >>>>>>A charge cannot be made to move at >c between the plates of a condensor (which >>>>>>is effectively what an accelerator is). >>>>>>It requires infinfite energy to raise its speed to c wrt those plates.
>[snip obfuscating quibble]
>>>>>We KNOW that the field transfers the same amount of energy >>>>>to the particle every time the particle passes through it, >>>>>so the field cannot be cancelled by anything.
>>>>It requires a lot of energy to cancel the applied field, even locally.
>>>You are evading the point. >>>Whatever your "field bubble" does, it cannot cancel the accelerating field.
>> Why not. It is a 'reverse' field. It MUST partly neutralize it.
>Refuted below.
>>>>>>The associated energy is contained in 'Wilson's reverse >>>>>>field bubble' that is carried along with the charge.
>>>>>Exactly. >>>>>You claim that the kinetic energy of a charged particle moving >>>>>in space free of field is contained in a "reverse field bubble". >>>>>We know the kinetic energy of the particle + your bubble >>>>>is m*gamma*v. So any moving charged particle must carry >>>>>a "field bubble" along with it, and this field bubble >>>>>has the remarkable property that its kinetic energy is >>>>>independent of the particle's charge, it depends only on >>>>>its mass and speed.
>>>>I know that electrons behave as though their masses increase according to >>>>something like gamma....but has this been proven correct for, say, protons? I >>>>doubt it.
>>>All charged particles behave in such a way that >>> p = m*gamma*v and E = m*gamma*c^2. >>>Both protons and ions are routinely accelerated in accelerators.
>> As I have pointed out elsewharer
>>>>>And of course the reason why you cannot make the particle + bubble >>>>>move faster than c is that its kinetic energy approaches >>>>>infinity when its speed approaches c.
>>>>If you want to include the bubble energy in with the mechanical KE, that is >>>>true...but I would consider the bubble energy potential rather than kinetic.
>Here is why the "bubble energy" must be kinetic energy: >>>It is YOU that include the "bubble energy" in the KE of of the particle. >>>The particle is KNOWN to have the KE = m*(gamma-1)*c^2. >>>YOU claim that the part of this energy that exceeds mv^2/2 is >>>contained in the "field bubble". >>>KE is by definition the energy that depend on the speed. >>>So the "bubble energy" MUST be KE.
>>>>>So why are you saying that the reason is that the accelerating >>>>>field is cancelled by your field bubble? >>>>>If it were, how could it then transfer energy to the particle >>>>>+ your bubble?
>>>>>You must be a moron not to see the giant stupidity in this.
>>>>The bubble's existence is related to the travel time of electric fields.
>>>There is no "travel time of electric fields" in an accelerator. >>>The electric field is established _before_ the charged particle >>>enters it, and it can be considered a static field during the very >>>short time the particle is in it. >>>You KNOW this because you have been told many times, >>>so why do you keep repeating this stupidity?
>>>>The faster the electron, the bigger the bubble and the smaller the effect of >>>>the applied field. One could speculate that the bubble field was always less >>>>than the applied field gradient.
>>>You are repeating your giant self contradiction. >>>Read again what I have told you over and over, >>>and think just a little bit, for once. >>>1. We KNOW that the particle gains the same amount of >>> KE every time it passes through the accelerating field (RF-cavity), >>> regardless of what the speed is. The gained energy is simply q*V, >>> where q is the charge and V is the potential drop in the accelerating >>> field (integral E ds). We know this because when the accelerator is >>> in steady state (at the top of its performance), the KE gained in >>> the RF-cavities is lost as synchrotron radiation in the bends. >>> This energy is easily measured, and MUST be carried from the RF-cavity >>> to the bends as KE in the particles. That's why high performance >>> accelerators have to be big, the bends must be gentle to loose less >>> energy per revolution.
That is not a proof that the gained energy goes entirely into particle KE.
I'm saying the bubble builds up during acceleration and dissipates (in time) in steady state. That is in conformity with what you are saying here.
>>> Electrons are accelerated to 100 GeV, that is gamma = 200000, >>> v = 0.999999999987c, or v = (c - 3.8 mm/sec). >>> Even at this speed, the electric field transfers as much energy >>> to the particle as at any other speed.
That's quite OK by me. As the speed approaches c, more and more of that energy goes into maintaining the bubble.
>>>2. This proves that nothing cancels the electric field at any speed, >>> the effect of the electric field is the same at any speed.
Both the applied field and the reverse field add. The sum approaches zero as the speed ->c. The sum acts on the particle. Where the hell is your problem?
>>>3. Since we know that the KE = m*gamma*c^2 (gamma-1 ~= gamma) >>> even when the particle is NOT in the electric field, and you >>> claim that the vast majority of this KE is contained in >>> the "field bubble", it follows that this "field bubble" >>> has nothing with the accelerating field to do, but is only >>> determined by the mass and the speed of the particle.
>> The bubble has to move with the charge. This is where the field reaction time >> enters the picture.
>Oh? How? What is it?
It determines the size and strength of the bubble.
>>>4. The fact that the KE of your "field bubble" is independent >>> of the charge of the particle shows that it is not of >>> electromagnetic nature.
Since this is a totally new concept, I don't see how you can make any such claims.
>> I said the bubble has PE not KE.
>And I showed above why your bubble energy is KE.
>Henri, you haven't even tried to refute any of my arguments. >Why is that? >Didn't you read them? >Didn't you understand them? >Or do you agree with them?
None of these. I'm quite happy with my theory as is. It provides a physical model for the approximate maths treatment, fluked by SR.
>>> (How could it be? If an electron and a proton are moving >>> with the same speed, we have - according to you - two >>> unity charges moving with the same speed, but the "field bubble" >>> of one of them contains much more energy than the other.)
>> I have several views on this. >> One goes along the lines of Len Gassenbeek's spinning particle idea. >> (the 'bubble' involves the spinning of the particle)
>So the KE is now stored as spin? No bubble? :-) >When you realize that one "explanation" is wrong, invent a new, >entirely different, and even more idiotic explanation, eh? :-)
It is quite feasible...not at all idiotic. You are under some kind of delusion that SR provides all the answers to every problem. In actual fact, relativity hasn't achieved or solved anything.
>> Another says the 'gamma' increase has only been accurately verified with >> electrons.
>Which illustrates your desperate seach for explanations. :-)
>>>So what is the nature of you bubble? What kind of field is it? >>>Could I suggest WUBEBW field? >>>(Wilsonian Unknown By Everybody But Wilson - field.) >>>Another world shattering discovery by Henri Wilson.
>> It stands to reason that it must be true. It is simple stuff really.
>> A moving charge constitutes a current that creates a 'back emf' in a closed >> circuit (or between two plates). The field created by an accelerating charge >> must therefore have the effect of reducing the applied field. Its effect will >> be local to the charge. It must require considerable energy to maintain a field >> gradient in space.
>Yes, it is indeed quite simple. >If you have a static electric field with no energy supply, >this field will obviously be diminished somewhat when a charge >move along the field because the energy gained by the particle >must be taken from PE of the field. The gained energy of the charge >is qV, so the field must be diminished accordingly.
that's correct. The 'reverse field' causes it to diminish.
>Look at this drawing: > V > E > |+ --> -| > |+ --> -| drift tube > -----|+ --> -|---------- > - > q+ > -----|+ --> -|----------- > |+ --> -| > |+ --> -|
>It is basically a charged condenser with a tube through it. >(No tube between the condenser plates, though). >The tube on each side is at the same potential as the plates. >The potential difference between the plates is V. >In the tube a positive charge q is moving. There is >no field inside the tube, but there will be a surface >charge inside the tube with the opposite polarity, >following the moving charge q. (It is a local field >around the charge in the tube)
(That field will become distorted into the 'reverse field bubble')
>The field have diminished somewhat. >The point is that the moving positive charge is >a part of the whole condenser system, and when >this charge has moved from the positive side of >the system to the negative side, the net result must >be a small discharge of the condenser. >(In my drawings the condenser charge has diminished >from 6q to 5q.)
I would dispute that. I would say that V momentarily drops as q
...
Actually he is being quite useful here. Even conversing with an idiot occasionally produces a worthwhile thought. (with the exception of geesey, of course)
>Henri Wilson wrote: >> On 4 Apr 2006 01:50:07 -0700, "PD" <TheDraperFam...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >Henri Wilson wrote: >> >> On 3 Apr 2006 06:37:52 -0700, "PD" <TheDraperFam...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >> >One puts the beam in spatially separated bunches and times their travel >> >> >between two points that are reasonably distant apart. >> >> >This is what is done routinely at both linear and circular beamlines.
>> >> >Are you *completely* unaware of all the rather commonplace >> >> >verifications of SR?
>> >> That's hardly a 'free beam'. It is confined by a strong magnetic field.
>> >A linear beamline is hardly a strong magnetic field
>> As usual, you're talking incomprehensible crap PD.
>Really? >You asked how one measures the speed of a free electron beam. >I told you it was routinely done in a linear beamline, and told you >how. >You said this is hardly a free electron beam, due to the presence of a >strong magnetic field. >I said a linear beamline does not have a strong magnetic field.
>What's incomprensible about that, Henri? >When you get to facts you don't like, you announce that they are >incomprehensible?
>Is this similar to your approach to the scientific method, wherein if >experiment disagrees with your theory, then the experiment is obviously >suspect?
You didn't describe your method.
Are you saying that the electrons are pulsed and you measure the time for consecutive pulses to pass a detector?
>> >> It doesn't tell us what we want to know anyway. We want to see if there is an >> >> 'apparent mass increase'.
>> >Why do you want to know that? You wanted to know how to measure the >> >*speed* of an electron beam. Why do you need to know an "apparent mass >> >increase" to do that?
>> >Attempt to change the subject noted.
>> As usual, you're talking incomprehensible crap PD.
>> Do you have anything intelligent to contribute?
>> >PD
>> >> >PD
>> >> >> I suppose one could put it through a magnetic field but that would still give >> >> >> an ambiguous answer. If it was going >>c due to the collapse of the bubble it >> >> >> wouldn't bend as much....but the same would apply if one accepted SR's mass >> >> >> increase.
>> >> >> So I would say the odds on a major scientific discovery are at worst evens at >> >> >> best about 1000 to one on.
Henri Wilson wrote: > On 4 Apr 2006 16:12:54 -0700, "PD" <TheDraperFam...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >Henri Wilson wrote: > >> On 4 Apr 2006 01:50:07 -0700, "PD" <TheDraperFam...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> >Henri Wilson wrote: > >> >> On 3 Apr 2006 06:37:52 -0700, "PD" <TheDraperFam...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> >> >One puts the beam in spatially separated bunches and times their travel > >> >> >between two points that are reasonably distant apart. > >> >> >This is what is done routinely at both linear and circular beamlines.
> >> >> >Are you *completely* unaware of all the rather commonplace > >> >> >verifications of SR?
> >> >> That's hardly a 'free beam'. It is confined by a strong magnetic field.
> >> >A linear beamline is hardly a strong magnetic field
> >> As usual, you're talking incomprehensible crap PD.
> >Really? > >You asked how one measures the speed of a free electron beam. > >I told you it was routinely done in a linear beamline, and told you > >how. > >You said this is hardly a free electron beam, due to the presence of a > >strong magnetic field. > >I said a linear beamline does not have a strong magnetic field.
> >What's incomprensible about that, Henri? > >When you get to facts you don't like, you announce that they are > >incomprehensible?
> >Is this similar to your approach to the scientific method, wherein if > >experiment disagrees with your theory, then the experiment is obviously > >suspect?
> You didn't describe your method.
> Are you saying that the electrons are pulsed and you measure the time for > consecutive pulses to pass a detector?
No. That would be measuring the time between pulses. What is done is to time the flight of a single pulse between two distant locations. One can do this if the time of flight is short compared with the time between bunches, or if there are distinguishing characteristics between one pulse and the next.
Did you not know that it is fairly straightforward to measure the time of flight of a single pulse through two widely separated detectors? (It is not my method, note. It is so mundane that it is commonly given as a basic exercise to young HEP students to set up the equipment and the electronics to measure that time of flight. I see that you have never been give that opportunity, which is perhaps why you are so prone to saying ridiculous things about how nature behaves in real life.)
| > "PD" <TheDraperFam...@gmail.com> wrote in message | > news:1144192374.358197.50860@i39g2000cwa.googlegroups.com... | > | | > | Henri Wilson wrote: | > | > On 4 Apr 2006 01:50:07 -0700, "PD" <TheDraperFam...@gmail.com> wrote: | > | > | > | > > | > | > >Henri Wilson wrote: | > | > >> On 3 Apr 2006 06:37:52 -0700, "PD" <TheDraperFam...@gmail.com> wrote: | > | > >> | > | > >> > | > | > | > | > >> >One puts the beam in spatially separated bunches and times their | > travel | > | > >> >between two points that are reasonably distant apart. | > | > >> >This is what is done routinely at both linear and circular | > beamlines. | > | > >> > | > | > >> >Are you *completely* unaware of all the rather commonplace | > | > >> >verifications of SR? | > | > >> | > | > >> That's hardly a 'free beam'. It is confined by a strong magnetic | > field. | > | > > | > | > >A linear beamline is hardly a strong magnetic field | > | > | > | > As usual, you're talking incomprehensible crap PD. | > | | > | Really? | > | You asked how one measures the speed of a free electron beam. | > | I told you it was routinely done in a linear beamline, and told you | > | how. | > | You said this is hardly a free electron beam, due to the presence of a | > | strong magnetic field. | > | I said a linear beamline does not have a strong magnetic field. | > | | > | What's incomprensible about that, Henri? | > | When you get to facts you don't like, you announce that they are | > | incomprehensible? | > | | > | Is this similar to your approach to the scientific method, wherein if | > | experiment disagrees with your theory, then the experiment is obviously | > | suspect? | > | > Yeah... Of course. Free cosmic muons travel 62 miles in 2.2 usec | > but cannot exceed the speed of light, which plays the part of an infinitely | > great velocity in our theory, so they must be time dilated and the distance | > length contracted. | > | > What's stupid about that, Phuckwit Duck? | > When you get to facts you don't like, you announce that 62 miles/2.2usec | > is stupid? | | Except it doesn't go for 2.2 usec in a muon beam. It goes longer than | that, according to *timers*.
*Timers*, Duck? I'm still waiting to see an inertial observer and a clock that moves at 0.9c. So far you've handwaved about muon beams. "One puts the beam in spatially separated bunches and times their travel between two points that are reasonably distant apart." 62 miles is "reasonably distant apart". Now you say a *timer* is used. Ok, what duration of time does it take a bunch of muons to travel 62 miles by your *timer*? I'll tell you one thing, Phuckwit Duck. You are a lying cunt. Androcles.
| This, of course, is counter to Androcles's mythology, so it must have | only gone 2.2 usec anyway, or so he would have us believe. | | > Is this similar to your approach to the scientific method, wherein if | > experiment disagrees with your theory, then the speed of cosmic muons | > is obviously suspect, you fucking moron? | > | > Androcles. | > | > | > | > | > | PD | > | | > | > | > | > > | > | > >> It doesn't tell us what we want to know anyway. We want to see if | > there is an | > | > >> 'apparent mass increase'. | > | > > | > | > >Why do you want to know that? You wanted to know how to measure the | > | > >*speed* of an electron beam. Why do you need to know an "apparent mass | > | > >increase" to do that? | > | > > | > | > >Attempt to change the subject noted. | > | > | > | > As usual, you're talking incomprehensible crap PD. | > | > | > | > Do you have anything intelligent to contribute? | > | > > | > | > >PD | > | > > | > | > >> | > | > >> > | > | > >> >PD | > | > >> > | > | > >> >> I suppose one could put it through a magnetic field but that would | > still give | > | > >> >> an ambiguous answer. If it was going >>c due to the collapse of | > the bubble it | > | > >> >> wouldn't bend as much....but the same would apply if one accepted | > SR's mass | > | > >> >> increase. | > | > >> >> | > | > >> >> So I would say the odds on a major scientific discovery are at | > worst evens at | > | > >> >> best about 1000 to one on. | > | > >> >> | > | > >> >> | > | > >> >> > | > | > >> >> >Paul | > | > >> >> | > | > >> >> | > | > >> >> HW. | > | > >> >> www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/index.htm | > | > >> | > | > >> | > | > >> HW. | > | > >> www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/index.htm | > | > | > | > | > | > HW. | > | > www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/index.htm | > | |
Hexenmeister wrote: > "PD" <TheDraperFam...@gmail.com> wrote in message > news:1144213450.248657.72390@z34g2000cwc.googlegroups.com... > | > | Hexenmeister wrote: > | > "PD" <TheDraperFam...@gmail.com> wrote in message > | > news:1144192374.358197.50860@i39g2000cwa.googlegroups.com... > | > | > | > | Henri Wilson wrote: > | > | > On 4 Apr 2006 01:50:07 -0700, "PD" <TheDraperFam...@gmail.com> > wrote: > | > | > > | > | > > > | > | > >Henri Wilson wrote: > | > | > >> On 3 Apr 2006 06:37:52 -0700, "PD" <TheDraperFam...@gmail.com> > wrote: > | > | > >> > | > | > >> > > | > | > > | > | > >> >One puts the beam in spatially separated bunches and times their > | > travel > | > | > >> >between two points that are reasonably distant apart. > | > | > >> >This is what is done routinely at both linear and circular > | > beamlines. > | > | > >> > > | > | > >> >Are you *completely* unaware of all the rather commonplace > | > | > >> >verifications of SR? > | > | > >> > | > | > >> That's hardly a 'free beam'. It is confined by a strong magnetic > | > field. > | > | > > > | > | > >A linear beamline is hardly a strong magnetic field > | > | > > | > | > As usual, you're talking incomprehensible crap PD. > | > | > | > | Really? > | > | You asked how one measures the speed of a free electron beam. > | > | I told you it was routinely done in a linear beamline, and told you > | > | how. > | > | You said this is hardly a free electron beam, due to the presence of a > | > | strong magnetic field. > | > | I said a linear beamline does not have a strong magnetic field. > | > | > | > | What's incomprensible about that, Henri? > | > | When you get to facts you don't like, you announce that they are > | > | incomprehensible? > | > | > | > | Is this similar to your approach to the scientific method, wherein if > | > | experiment disagrees with your theory, then the experiment is > obviously > | > | suspect? > | > > | > Yeah... Of course. Free cosmic muons travel 62 miles in 2.2 usec > | > but cannot exceed the speed of light, which plays the part of an > infinitely > | > great velocity in our theory, so they must be time dilated and the > distance > | > length contracted. > | > > | > What's stupid about that, Phuckwit Duck? > | > When you get to facts you don't like, you announce that 62 > miles/2.2usec > | > is stupid? > | > | Except it doesn't go for 2.2 usec in a muon beam. It goes longer than > | that, according to *timers*.
> *Timers*, Duck? > I'm still waiting to see an inertial observer and a clock that moves at > 0.9c. So far you've handwaved about muon beams. > "One puts the beam in spatially separated bunches and times their > travel between two points that are reasonably distant apart." > 62 miles is "reasonably distant apart".
So is 1725 m, ducky.
> Now you say a *timer* > is used.
Yup. Mind you, not a sundial.
> Ok, what duration of time does it take a bunch of muons to > travel 62 miles by your *timer*?
I don't use a timer for the ones in the atmosphere, ducky. I use a timer for the ones in the beamline. Or did you get lost in the discussion? Or are you still maintaining that "tame" muons in beamlines live longer than "feral" muons in cosmic rays?
> I'll tell you one thing, Phuckwit Duck. You are a lying cunt.
> | This, of course, is counter to Androcles's mythology, so it must have > | only gone 2.2 usec anyway, or so he would have us believe. > | > | > Is this similar to your approach to the scientific method, wherein if > | > experiment disagrees with your theory, then the speed of cosmic muons > | > is obviously suspect, you fucking moron? > | > > | > Androcles. > | > > | > > | > > | > > | > | PD > | > | > | > | > > | > | > > > | > | > >> It doesn't tell us what we want to know anyway. We want to see if > | > there is an > | > | > >> 'apparent mass increase'. > | > | > > > | > | > >Why do you want to know that? You wanted to know how to measure the > | > | > >*speed* of an electron beam. Why do you need to know an "apparent > mass > | > | > >increase" to do that? > | > | > > > | > | > >Attempt to change the subject noted. > | > | > > | > | > As usual, you're talking incomprehensible crap PD. > | > | > > | > | > Do you have anything intelligent to contribute? > | > | > > > | > | > >PD > | > | > > > | > | > >> > | > | > >> > > | > | > >> >PD > | > | > >> > > | > | > >> >> I suppose one could put it through a magnetic field but that > would > | > still give > | > | > >> >> an ambiguous answer. If it was going >>c due to the collapse > of > | > the bubble it > | > | > >> >> wouldn't bend as much....but the same would apply if one > accepted > | > SR's mass > | > | > >> >> increase. > | > | > >> >> > | > | > >> >> So I would say the odds on a major scientific discovery are at > | > worst evens at > | > | > >> >> best about 1000 to one on. > | > | > >> >> > | > | > >> >> > | > | > >> >> > > | > | > >> >> >Paul > | > | > >> >> > | > | > >> >> > | > | > >> >> HW. > | > | > >> >> www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/index.htm > | > | > >> > | > | > >> > | > | > >> HW. > | > | > >> www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/index.htm > | > | > > | > | > > | > | > HW. > | > | > www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/index.htm > | > | > |
|
