On Thu, 30 Mar 2006 11:21:36 GMT, "Hexenmeister" <vanqu...@broom.Mickey> wrote:
>"Henri Wilson" <HW@..> wrote in message >news:f54n22dsp5p22udc2ffnmlccs3o5d0c90u@4ax.com... >| On Wed, 29 Mar 2006 21:44:58 GMT, "Hexenmeister" <vanqu...@broom.Mickey> >wrote: >| >| > >| >"Jerry" <Cephalobus_alie...@comcast.net> wrote in message >| >news:1143619231.190487.112500@z34g2000cwc.googlegroups.com... >| >| 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? >| >| >| >| Aether? Are you an aetherist? Sure sounds like it to me... >| >| >| >| Jerry >| > >| > >| >Wilson said >| >[quote] >| > Einstein said that if you synch clocks """"IN THE AETHER"""" so that tAB >= >| >tBA >| > then you can forget all about that aether and TWLS will always equal >OWLS >| >due to clock fiddling. >| > The silly fool was actually right all along but for the wrong reasons. >| >[end quote] >| >Wilson is a troll who will disagree with anyone for the sake of argument. >| > >| >Androcles. >| >| 29032240 = 1/Androcles IQ >| >Wilson is a typical relativist troll that resorts to insults when the wabo >is cornered by his own stupidity and ignorance.
>Jeery thinks he is an aetherialist, I say he a relativist and the >relativists >and aetherialists reckon he's an emissionist. The arsehole doesn't know >which side he's on, but it is in fact the rectum side where the shit is. >Androcles >30031221
>Henri Wilson skrev: >> 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.
>Oh, no, Henri. This will not do. >Have you forgotten your own explanation? >Remember that we know that the moving charge gains the same >amount of energy every time it passes through the accelerating field, >regardless what its speed is. >So we know that nothing cancels the accelerating field; it is not >balanced by anything. >To overcome this, you have previously claimed that the gained >energy is carried by your "reverse field bubble", which means >that any moving charged particle must be is surrounded by >a "reverse field bubble" also when it is not in the accelerating field. >Since we also know that the kinetic energy of the - according to you - >charged particle with its reverse field bubble approaches infinity >when the speed approaches c, it follows that according to Henri Wilson >the theoretical speed limit of a charged particle is c.
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. The reason: the charge's own movement creates a reverse field that subtracts from the applied field. The associated energy is contained in 'Wilson's reverse field bubble' that is carried along with the charge.
>Hilarious, no? :-)
Major scientific discoveries shouldn't be referred to as 'hilarious' but throughout history, that has frequently happened.
>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?
>So, freely moving electrons, even -outside- of an accelerator, must >be surrounded by reverse field bubbles.
It would be interesting to relate my theory to electrons that are accelerated with varying magnetic fields. I guess there would be an equivalent 'reverse magnetic bubble'.
>> >Aether? Are you an aetherist? Sure sounds like it to me...
>> Don 't even suggest it. >> I am a true relativist.
Henri Wilson wrote: > On 30 Mar 2006 04:09:27 -0800, "Jerry" <Cephalobus_alie...@comcast.net> wrote:
> >Henri Wilson wrote: > >> 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. You predict that free electron beams glow. You also can't decide which way you prefer to violate conservation of energy.
Come on, now, electron beams losing energy as their reverse bubbles dissipate and gaining velocity?
Numerous predictions contrary to fact here. How many of these false predictions do you need before giving up?
>Henri Wilson wrote: >> On 30 Mar 2006 04:09:27 -0800, "Jerry" <Cephalobus_alie...@comcast.net> wrote:
>> >Henri Wilson wrote:
>> >> 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. You predict that free electron beams glow.
Like lightning?
>You also can't decide >which way you prefer to violate conservation of energy.
>Come on, now, electron beams losing energy as their reverse bubbles >dissipate and gaining velocity?
Do you have anything positive to contribute?
How would you know if the bubble energy went into electron KE?
>Numerous predictions contrary to fact here. >How many of these false predictions do you need before giving up?
You are a pathetic person with whom to argue. You don't appear to have any imagination at all.
Consider an electron accelerating between two plates and at the same time being deflected sideways by another two. The faster it moves the harder it is to deflect, due to what was often referred to as the relativistic mass increase.
Now maybe what is happening is that the bubble actually causes the electron's charge to diminish so that it becomes harder to accelerate in both directions. At v = c, charge = 0. I should imagine it would take a great deal of energy to neutralize a charge..
You want to know what happens to the bubble when a fast electron is for instance, fired through a hole in a plate into a vacuum? Like I said, bolometer experiments reportedly show that the total energy is present till the end..but that kind of experiment would have been carried out over very short distances, in which case the bubble energy would not have had time to dissipate through normal radiation as the electron decelerated.
My advice to you is that you try to think for yourself occasionally instead of clinging to an obviously flawed religious belief system.
Henri Wilson wrote: > On 30 Mar 2006 03:12:43 -0800, "Paul B. Andersen" <paul.b.ander...@hia.no> > wrote:
>>Henri Wilson skrev:
>>>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.
>>Oh, no, Henri. This will not do. >>Have you forgotten your own explanation? >>Remember that we know that the moving charge gains the same >>amount of energy every time it passes through the accelerating field, >>regardless what its speed is. >>So we know that nothing cancels the accelerating field; it is not >>balanced by anything. >>To overcome this, you have previously claimed that the gained >>energy is carried by your "reverse field bubble", which means >>that any moving charged particle must be is surrounded by >>a "reverse field bubble" also when it is not in the accelerating field. >>Since we also know that the kinetic energy of the - according to you - >>charged particle with its reverse field bubble approaches infinity >>when the speed approaches c, it follows that according to Henri Wilson >>the theoretical speed limit of a charged particle is c.
> 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.
> The reason: the charge's own movement creates a reverse field that subtracts > from the applied field.
No, Henri. Don't you see the giant self contradiction in this explanation?
What you are saying is that it takes infinite energy to accelerate the charged particle to c because the accelerating field is cancelled and thus doesn't transfer energy to the particle. So where does the infinite energy go?
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.
> 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. 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.
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.
>>Hilarious, no? :-)
> Major scientific discoveries shouldn't be referred to as 'hilarious' but > throughout history, that has frequently happened.
> Unfortunate, no? :-(
The idiot thinks he has made a "major scientific discovery". How pathetic. AND hilarious.
BTW, Henri. Can you name one major scientific discovery which has been referred to as 'hilarious'? Since it has happened frequently, it should be easy to name an example.
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.
"Paul B. Andersen" <paul.b.ander...@hiadeletethis.no> wrote in message news:e0k6hn$1ml$1@dolly.uninett.no... | Paul B. Andersen wrote: | > We know the kinetic energy of the particle + your bubble | > is m*gamma*v. | | That's the momentum, of course. | The energy is m*gamma*c^2. | | Paul
OK, Andersen, you have convinced me. Your stupidity IS so gigantic that you do not understand why your statement is nonsense. Please don't forgive me for not having doubted that. I'm sure it will happen again.
Hexenmeister wrote: > "Paul B. Andersen" <paul.b.ander...@hiadeletethis.no> wrote in message > news:e0k6hn$1ml$1@dolly.uninett.no... > | Paul B. Andersen wrote: > | > We know the kinetic energy of the particle + your bubble > | > is m*gamma*v. > | > | That's the momentum, of course. > | The energy is m*gamma*c^2. > | > | Paul
> OK, Andersen, you have convinced me. > Your stupidity IS so gigantic that you do not > understand why your statement is nonsense. > Please don't forgive me for not having doubted that. > I'm sure it will happen again.
| > "Paul B. Andersen" <paul.b.ander...@hiadeletethis.no> wrote in message | > news:e0k6hn$1ml$1@dolly.uninett.no... | > | Paul B. Andersen wrote: | > | > We know the kinetic energy of the particle + your bubble | > | > is m*gamma*v. | > | | > | That's the momentum, of course. | > | The energy is m*gamma*c^2. | > | | > | Paul | > | > OK, Andersen, you have convinced me. | > Your stupidity IS so gigantic that you do not | > understand why your statement is nonsense. | > Please don't forgive me for not having doubted that. | > I'm sure it will happen again. | > | > http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/E^2/EnergySquare.htm | > | > Hilarious, yes? | | Thanks for making me aware of the paper by Fox. | Here it is - as he wrote it. | | http://scitation.aip.org/getpdf/servlet/GetPDFServlet?filetype=pdf&id... | | | (Fox didn't write a single word of what Androcles | "quoted" on his page above. Androcles is, as we know, | dishonest through and through.) | | Paul
The red text at the top of http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/E^2/EnergySquare.htm was hand copied verbatim with the one omission, reference to footnote 21. It is clear from the colour and text size where I quoted and where I included my own words.
The two paragraphs I quoted may be found on page 8 in section 7, PHOTON MODEL AND INERTIA OF ENERGY.
We are done with hilarious, this time you've gone too far.
I shall make an appointment on Monday to see a solicitor with the intent of suing you and Agder University College (whom you, "paul.b.ander...@hiadeletethis.no" represent ) for libel and seek damages and a public apology.
Henri Wilson wrote: > On 30 Mar 2006 17:54:32 -0800, "Jerry" <Cephalobus_alie...@comcast.net> wrote:
> >Henri Wilson wrote: > >> On 30 Mar 2006 04:09:27 -0800, "Jerry" <Cephalobus_alie...@comcast.net> wrote:
> >> >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. You predict that free electron beams glow.
> >You also can't decide > >which way you prefer to violate conservation of energy.
> >Come on, now, electron beams losing energy as their reverse bubbles > >dissipate and gaining velocity?
> Do you have anything positive to contribute?
> How would you know if the bubble energy went into electron KE?
> >Numerous predictions contrary to fact here. > >How many of these false predictions do you need before giving up?
> You are a pathetic person with whom to argue. You don't appear to have any > imagination at all.
> Consider an electron accelerating between two plates and at the same time being > deflected sideways by another two. > The faster it moves the harder it is to deflect, due to what was often referred > to as the relativistic mass increase.
> Now maybe what is happening is that the bubble actually causes the electron's > charge to diminish so that it becomes harder to accelerate in both directions. > At v = c, charge = 0. > I should imagine it would take a great deal of energy to neutralize a charge..
Therefore, charge is neither quantized nor conserved.
> You want to know what happens to the bubble when a fast electron is for > instance, fired through a hole in a plate into a vacuum? > Like I said, bolometer experiments reportedly show that the total energy is > present till the end..but that kind of experiment would have been carried out > over very short distances, in which case the bubble energy would not have had > time to dissipate through normal radiation as the electron decelerated.
> My advice to you is that you try to think for yourself occasionally instead of > clinging to an obviously flawed religious belief system.
Henri Wilson wrote: > On 28 Mar 2006 05:38:25 -0800, "Paul Cardinale" <pcardin...@volcanomail.com> > wrote:
> >There is no answer to the question "What is the speed of ______ [fill > >in the blank with anything] with respect to laser pulses?" because > >there is not a legitimate frame of reference for light.
> But there can be an FoR for an electron traveling at 0.9999999999999c ?
Sure.
> > It's possible > >that you knew this and posed the question anyway because you need to > >publicly demonstrate that you're a jackass. It's also possible that, > >despite being told many times, you still didn't didn't know it because > >you are extremely stupid and incapable of learning anything.
> Seto is often wrong
Wrong again ralph. Seto is always wrong. He's also a lying bastard.
Hexenmeister wrote: > "Paul B. Andersen" <paul.b.ander...@hiadeletethis.no> wrote in message > news:e0m1ek$68n$1@dolly.uninett.no... > | Hexenmeister wrote: > | > "Paul B. Andersen" <paul.b.ander...@hiadeletethis.no> wrote in message > | > news:e0k6hn$1ml$1@dolly.uninett.no... > | > | Paul B. Andersen wrote: > | > | > We know the kinetic energy of the particle + your bubble > | > | > is m*gamma*v. > | > | > | > | That's the momentum, of course. > | > | The energy is m*gamma*c^2. > | > | > | > | Paul > | > > | > OK, Andersen, you have convinced me. > | > Your stupidity IS so gigantic that you do not > | > understand why your statement is nonsense. > | > Please don't forgive me for not having doubted that. > | > I'm sure it will happen again. > | > > | > http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/E^2/EnergySquare.htm > | > > | > Hilarious, yes? > | > | Thanks for making me aware of the paper by Fox. > | Here it is - as he wrote it. > | > | > http://scitation.aip.org/getpdf/servlet/GetPDFServlet?filetype=pdf&id... > | > | > | (Fox didn't write a single word of what Androcles > | "quoted" on his page above. Androcles is, as we know, > | dishonest through and through.) > | > | Paul
> The red text at the top of > http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/E^2/EnergySquare.htm > was hand copied verbatim with the one omission, reference to footnote 21. > It is clear from the colour and text size where I quoted and where > I included my own words.
> The two paragraphs I quoted may be found on page 8 in section 7, > PHOTON MODEL AND INERTIA OF ENERGY.
OK. Fox has written a small part of it. But the point is that your whole page is written under the heading: Evidence Against Emission Theories J.G.Fox making it appear that the whole page is authored by J.G.Fox. There isn't even a quotation mark showing where the quotation ends, and no other name than J.K.Fox appear as the author of that page!
You have done this many times: Quoting somebody without making it clear where the quotation ends and your own words begin. You are effectually claiming that people have written something which they haven't.
That's a fallacy, Androcles.
You should be glad that nobody is taking you seriously enough to sue you, Androcles.
> We are done with hilarious, this time you've gone too far.
> I shall make an appointment on Monday to see a solicitor > with the intent of suing you and Agder University College > (whom you, "paul.b.ander...@hiadeletethis.no" represent ) > for libel and seek damages and a public apology.
Quite. Being sued by a Roman slave will amuse us a lot. :-)
> YOU are a LIAR, Andersen.
> Androcles.
Being threatened by lawsuit for pointing out that you have made a fallacy is rather amusing.
Paul B. Andersen wrote: > Hexenmeister wrote: > > "Paul B. Andersen" <paul.b.ander...@hiadeletethis.no> wrote in message > > news:e0m1ek$68n$1@dolly.uninett.no... > > | Hexenmeister wrote: > > | > "Paul B. Andersen" <paul.b.ander...@hiadeletethis.no> wrote in message > > | > news:e0k6hn$1ml$1@dolly.uninett.no... > > | > | Paul B. Andersen wrote: > > | > | > We know the kinetic energy of the particle + your bubble > > | > | > is m*gamma*v. > > | > | > > | > | That's the momentum, of course. > > | > | The energy is m*gamma*c^2. > > | > | > > | > | Paul > > | > > > | > OK, Andersen, you have convinced me. > > | > Your stupidity IS so gigantic that you do not > > | > understand why your statement is nonsense. > > | > Please don't forgive me for not having doubted that. > > | > I'm sure it will happen again. > > | > > > | > http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/E^2/EnergySquare.htm > > | > > > | > Hilarious, yes? > > | > > | Thanks for making me aware of the paper by Fox. > > | Here it is - as he wrote it. > > | > > | > > http://scitation.aip.org/getpdf/servlet/GetPDFServlet?filetype=pdf&id... > > | > > | > > | (Fox didn't write a single word of what Androcles > > | "quoted" on his page above. Androcles is, as we know, > > | dishonest through and through.) > > | > > | Paul
> > The red text at the top of > > http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/E^2/EnergySquare.htm > > was hand copied verbatim with the one omission, reference to footnote 21. > > It is clear from the colour and text size where I quoted and where > > I included my own words.
> > The two paragraphs I quoted may be found on page 8 in section 7, > > PHOTON MODEL AND INERTIA OF ENERGY.
> OK. Fox has written a small part of it. > But the point is that your whole page is written > under the heading: > Evidence Against Emission Theories > J.G.Fox > making it appear that the whole page is authored by J.G.Fox. > There isn't even a quotation mark showing where the quotation ends, > and no other name than J.K.Fox appear as the author of that page!
What I always find comical is that awhile back either Henri or Androcles got me to dig up that reference just to find the "classical" derivation of E=mc^2. Obviously it was not there, but what was there was a complete smashing of Henri's BaTh theory *and* it bases all of that on experiments that not only disprove the BaTh but *supports* special relativity.
He says that at the end of the paper, in fact.
So Androcles is citing a paper that explicitly supports special relativity. Whoops. Logic was never his strong suite anyway.
> You have done this many times: > Quoting somebody without making it clear where the quotation > ends and your own words begin. You are effectually claiming > that people have written something which they haven't.
> That's a fallacy, Androcles.
> You should be glad that nobody is taking you seriously > enough to sue you, Androcles.
> > We are done with hilarious, this time you've gone too far.
> > I shall make an appointment on Monday to see a solicitor > > with the intent of suing you and Agder University College > > (whom you, "paul.b.ander...@hiadeletethis.no" represent ) > > for libel and seek damages and a public apology.
> Quite. > Being sued by a Roman slave will amuse us a lot. :-)
He cannot be serious. That is stupid, even for him.
| > "Paul B. Andersen" <paul.b.ander...@hiadeletethis.no> wrote in message | > news:e0m1ek$68n$1@dolly.uninett.no... | > | Hexenmeister wrote: | > | > "Paul B. Andersen" <paul.b.ander...@hiadeletethis.no> wrote in message | > | > news:e0k6hn$1ml$1@dolly.uninett.no... | > | > | Paul B. Andersen wrote: | > | > | > We know the kinetic energy of the particle + your bubble | > | > | > is m*gamma*v. | > | > | | > | > | That's the momentum, of course. | > | > | The energy is m*gamma*c^2. | > | > | | > | > | Paul | > | > | > | > OK, Andersen, you have convinced me. | > | > Your stupidity IS so gigantic that you do not | > | > understand why your statement is nonsense. | > | > Please don't forgive me for not having doubted that. | > | > I'm sure it will happen again. | > | > | > | > http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/E^2/EnergySquare.htm | > | > | > | > Hilarious, yes? | > | | > | Thanks for making me aware of the paper by Fox. | > | Here it is - as he wrote it. | > | | > | | > http://scitation.aip.org/getpdf/servlet/GetPDFServlet?filetype=pdf&id... | > | | > | | > | (Fox didn't write a single word of what Androcles | > | "quoted" on his page above. Androcles is, as we know, | > | dishonest through and through.) | > | | > | Paul | > | > The red text at the top of | > http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/E^2/EnergySquare.htm | > was hand copied verbatim with the one omission, reference to footnote 21. | > It is clear from the colour and text size where I quoted and where | > I included my own words. | > | > The two paragraphs I quoted may be found on page 8 in section 7, | > PHOTON MODEL AND INERTIA OF ENERGY. | | OK. Fox has written a small part of it. | But the point is that your whole page is written | under the heading: | Evidence Against Emission Theories | J.G.Fox | making it appear that the whole page is authored by J.G.Fox. | There isn't even a quotation mark showing where the quotation ends, | and no other name than J.K.Fox appear as the author of that page!
Bullshit, there is a clear change of text size and colour. Only a fucking moron like you would squirm as you are doing.
I've written to mette.h.peder...@hia.no ; kari.s.me...@hia.no ; eli.skaran...@hia.no ; Svein.a.Peder...@hia.no
stating what a libellous jerk you are, and the web pages stay up.
| You have done this many times: | Quoting somebody without making it clear where the quotation | ends and your own words begin. You are effectually claiming | that people have written something which they haven't. | | That's a fallacy, Androcles. | | You should be glad that nobody is taking you seriously | enough to sue you, Androcles.
I'm taking you seriously enough to sue you and Agder University College, Andersen, you maliciously impugned my integrity. We'll let a court decide whether I deliberately implied Fox wrote my words or not.
| > We are done with hilarious, this time you've gone too far. | > | > I shall make an appointment on Monday to see a solicitor | > with the intent of suing you and Agder University College | > (whom you, "paul.b.ander...@hiadeletethis.no" represent ) | > for libel and seek damages and a public apology. | | Quite. | Being sued by a Roman slave will amuse us a lot. :-)
I hope you enjoy paying, squirming arsehole.
| | > YOU are a LIAR, Andersen. | > | > Androcles. | | Being threatened by lawsuit for pointing out that | you have made a fallacy is rather amusing.
You did more than that, libellous arsehole, you said I was dishonest.
| Or should we say hilarious? :-)
It may well be, liar. I hope your bank account and tenure can stand the humour.
Hexenmeister wrote: > "Paul B. Andersen" <paul.b.ander...@hiadeletethis.no> wrote in message > news:e0p93t$720$1@dolly.uninett.no... > | Hexenmeister wrote: > | > "Paul B. Andersen" <paul.b.ander...@hiadeletethis.no> wrote in message > | > news:e0m1ek$68n$1@dolly.uninett.no... > | > | Hexenmeister wrote: > | > | > "Paul B. Andersen" <paul.b.ander...@hiadeletethis.no> wrote in > message > | > | > news:e0k6hn$1ml$1@dolly.uninett.no... > | > | > | Paul B. Andersen wrote: > | > | > | > We know the kinetic energy of the particle + your bubble > | > | > | > is m*gamma*v. > | > | > | > | > | > | That's the momentum, of course. > | > | > | The energy is m*gamma*c^2. > | > | > | > | > | > | Paul > | > | > > | > | > OK, Andersen, you have convinced me. > | > | > Your stupidity IS so gigantic that you do not > | > | > understand why your statement is nonsense. > | > | > Please don't forgive me for not having doubted that. > | > | > I'm sure it will happen again. > | > | > > | > | > http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/E^2/EnergySquare.htm > | > | > > | > | > Hilarious, yes? > | > | > | > | Thanks for making me aware of the paper by Fox. > | > | Here it is - as he wrote it. > | > | > | > | > | > > http://scitation.aip.org/getpdf/servlet/GetPDFServlet?filetype=pdf&id... > | > | > | > | > | > | (Fox didn't write a single word of what Androcles > | > | "quoted" on his page above. Androcles is, as we know, > | > | dishonest through and through.) > | > | > | > | Paul > | > > | > The red text at the top of > | > http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/E^2/EnergySquare.htm > | > was hand copied verbatim with the one omission, reference to footnote > 21. > | > It is clear from the colour and text size where I quoted and where > | > I included my own words. > | > > | > The two paragraphs I quoted may be found on page 8 in section 7, > | > PHOTON MODEL AND INERTIA OF ENERGY. > | > | OK. Fox has written a small part of it. > | But the point is that your whole page is written > | under the heading: > | Evidence Against Emission Theories > | J.G.Fox > | making it appear that the whole page is authored by J.G.Fox. > | There isn't even a quotation mark showing where the quotation ends, > | and no other name than J.K.Fox appear as the author of that page!
> Bullshit, there is a clear change of text size and colour. Only > a fucking moron like you would squirm as you are doing.
> I've written to mette.h.peder...@hia.no ; > kari.s.me...@hia.no ; > eli.skaran...@hia.no ; > Svein.a.Peder...@hia.no
> stating what a libellous jerk you are, and the web pages stay up.
I've been through this kind of thing with Androcles before. Eventually, the embarassment overcomes him and he takes the pages down, but only when he thinks no one is watching.
> | You have done this many times: > | Quoting somebody without making it clear where the quotation > | ends and your own words begin. You are effectually claiming > | that people have written something which they haven't. > | > | That's a fallacy, Androcles. > | > | You should be glad that nobody is taking you seriously > | enough to sue you, Androcles.
> I'm taking you seriously enough to sue you and Agder > University College, Andersen, you maliciously impugned > my integrity. We'll let a court decide whether I deliberately > implied Fox wrote my words or not.
> | > We are done with hilarious, this time you've gone too far. > | > > | > I shall make an appointment on Monday to see a solicitor > | > with the intent of suing you and Agder University College > | > (whom you, "paul.b.ander...@hiadeletethis.no" represent ) > | > for libel and seek damages and a public apology. > | > | Quite. > | Being sued by a Roman slave will amuse us a lot. :-)
> I hope you enjoy paying, squirming arsehole.
> | > | > YOU are a LIAR, Andersen. > | > > | > Androcles. > | > | Being threatened by lawsuit for pointing out that > | you have made a fallacy is rather amusing.
> You did more than that, libellous arsehole, you said I was > dishonest.
> | Or should we say hilarious? :-)
> It may well be, liar. I hope your bank account and tenure > can stand the humour.
On Fri, 31 Mar 2006 23:12:25 +0200, "Paul B. Andersen"
<paul.b.ander...@hiadeletethis.no> wrote: >Henri Wilson wrote: >> On 30 Mar 2006 03:12:43 -0800, "Paul B. Andersen" <paul.b.ander...@hia.no> >> wrote:
>>>Henri Wilson skrev:
>> 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?
It might already be traveling at >c wrt many things in the universe.
>> The reason: the charge's own movement creates a reverse field that subtracts >> from the applied field.
>No, Henri. >Don't you see the giant self contradiction in this explanation?
>What you are saying is that it takes infinite energy to >accelerate the charged particle to c because the accelerating field >is cancelled and thus doesn't transfer energy to the particle. >So where does the infinite energy go?
>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.
>> 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.
>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.
>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. 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.
>> Major scientific discoveries shouldn't be referred to as 'hilarious' but >> throughout history, that has frequently happened.
>> Unfortunate, no? :-(
>The idiot thinks he has made a "major scientific discovery". >How pathetic. >AND hilarious.
>BTW, Henri. >Can you name one major scientific discovery >which has been referred to as 'hilarious'? >Since it has happened frequently, it should be >easy to name an example.
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'.
The early astronomers were faced with this kind of reaction from the religious establishment just as we thinkers are now.
Even Einstein himself was initially mocked ...and still is, by the world's genuine scientists.
<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? 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 30 Mar 2006 03:12:43 -0800, "Paul B. Andersen" <paul.b.ander...@hia.no>
> >> wrote:
> >> > >> > >>>Henri Wilson skrev: > > >> > >> 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.
> It might already be traveling at >c wrt many things in the universe. > > > > >> The reason: the charge's own movement creates a reverse field that subtracts > >> from the applied field. > > > >No, Henri. > >Don't you see the giant self contradiction in this explanation? > > > >What you are saying is that it takes infinite energy to > >accelerate the charged particle to c because the accelerating field > >is cancelled and thus doesn't transfer energy to the particle. > >So where does the infinite energy go? > > > >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.
> >> 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. 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. (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.)
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.
> > > >>>Hilarious, no? :-) > >> > >> > >> Major scientific discoveries shouldn't be referred to as 'hilarious' but > >> throughout history, that has frequently happened. > >> > >> Unfortunate, no? :-( > > > >The idiot thinks he has made a "major scientific discovery". > >How pathetic. > >AND hilarious. > > > >BTW, Henri. > >Can you name one major scientific discovery > >which has been referred to as 'hilarious'? > >Since it has happened frequently, it should be > >easy to name an example. > > 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.
How fun this is! But my stomach hurts and my eyes are watering. One of these days you will kill me!
"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
> I've written to mette.h.peder...@hia.no ; > kari.s.me...@hia.no ; > eli.skaran...@hia.no ; > Svein.a.Peder...@hia.no
> stating what a libellous jerk you are, and the web pages stay up.
Thanks. We will finally know your identity, then.
BTW, have you read this? http://www.blueyonder.co.uk/blueyonder/getContent.jspx?page=h_service... << BEGIN QUOTE: 1. You are prohibited from storing, distributing, transmitting or causing to be published any Prohibited Material through your use of the Services. Examples of "Prohibited Material" shall be determined by Telewest (acting in its sole discretion) and shall include (but are not limited to) material that:
i. contains direct threats of physical harm, harassment, or invades the privacy of any person, or is defamatory of any person;
ii. is racist, threatening, obscene, indecent (including but not limited to child pornography) or blasphemous;
iii. infringes or breaches any third party's intellectual property rights (which shall include, but not be limited to copyright, trade mark, design rights, trade secrets, patents, moral rights, paternity rights and performance rights) - this includes the use, distribution and/or copying of any material without the express consent of the owner;
iv. is in violation of any law or regulation that is enforceable in the United Kingdom; END QUOTE >>
Does Blueyonder know what you have your web-pages? Maybe nobody has told them?
| > | > I've written to mette.h.peder...@hia.no ; | > kari.s.me...@hia.no ; | > eli.skaran...@hia.no ; | > Svein.a.Peder...@hia.no | > | > stating what a libellous jerk you are, and the web pages stay up. | | Thanks. | We will finally know your identity, then. | | BTW, have you read this? | http://www.blueyonder.co.uk/blueyonder/getContent.jspx?page=h_service... | << BEGIN QUOTE: | 1. You are prohibited from storing, distributing, transmitting or causing | to be published any Prohibited Material through your use of the Services. | Examples of "Prohibited Material" shall be determined by Telewest | (acting in its sole discretion) and shall include (but are not limited to) | material that: | | i. contains direct threats of physical harm, harassment, or invades | the privacy of any person, or is defamatory of any person; | | ii. is racist, threatening, obscene, indecent (including but not limited | to child pornography) or blasphemous; | | iii. infringes or breaches any third party's intellectual property rights | (which shall include, but not be limited to copyright, trade mark, | design rights, trade secrets, patents, moral rights, paternity rights | and performance rights) - this includes the use, distribution and/or | copying of any material without the express consent of the owner; | | iv. is in violation of any law or regulation that is enforceable | in the United Kingdom; | END QUOTE >> | | Does Blueyonder know what you have your web-pages? | Maybe nobody has told them?
Go ahead, tell them.
If you are referring to Fox / AJP copyright, "Broadcasts are protected for 50 years and published editions are protected for 25 years. For copyright works created outside the UK or another country of the European Economic Area, the term of protection may be shorter. "
"Do I always need permission to copy or use copyright material? No, there are certain exceptions to the rights given to the copyright owner. For example, limited use of works may be possible for non-commercial research and private study, criticism or review, reporting current events, judicial proceedings and teaching in schools. But if you are copying large amounts of material and/or making multiple copies then you may still need permission. Also it is generally necessary to include an acknowledgement of the name of the copyright work and its author.
This document is based on Crown Copyright (c) 2004"
Google for it if you want to know where I found that, two paragraphs is small and I named the author.
If you are referring to
direct threats of physical harm, harassment, or invades the privacy of any person, obscenity, is racist, threatening, obscene,
indecent (including but not limited to child pornography) or blasphemous; show where on my web pages.
Let's get it on, jerk, I always wanted a real legal war with a shithead relativist liar, and in case you don't know it, telling the truth about you is not defamatory, what you said about me
"(Fox didn't write a single word of what Androcles "quoted" on his page above. Androcles is, as we know, dishonest through and through.)" --Paul .B. Andersen
Androcles is the author of "Relativity Revealed", copyright Androcles 2006. (you'll find Chapter 7 at http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/RR_C7/RelativityRevealed.htm The rest must be paid for, including loss of sales caused by your impugning of my integrity. Doubtless you think Samuel Clemens is a riverboat cry from a depth sounder swinging the lead; "By the mark, twain" (two fathoms by a knotted rope). I am far from the first to be published under a pseudonym. Squirm all you want to, I'll see you in court. I hope your bank balance is healthy. Hilarious, yes?
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?
> 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.
|
