On 2/1/2022 6:06 PM, thor stoneman wrote:
> If the current is 10A, then the average speed
>> will be 0.25 mm per second.
>
>> Paul
>
> The velocity of .25 mm/s is slower than the velocity of light by more than eight orders.

It's the speed of the electromagnetic field which matters, not the speed
of the electrons themselves. (it's an average speed anyway)

These fields typically propagate at between .5c and .95c in a "wire".

Is the RF cavity electric field oscillating and is the oscillation of the RF cavity electric field essential to the acceleration of the protons within the RF cavity?

Den 02.02.2022 00:06, skrev thor stoneman:
> If the current is 10A, then the average speed
>> will be 0.25 mm per second.
>
>> Paul
>
> The velocity of .25 mm/s is slower than the velocity of light by more than eight orders.

Indeed.
So won't you try to answer the question?

Let's consider a simpler case than a particle accelerator.

/
+10V _____/ __________________________________
|
/ O light bulb
0V _____/ __________________________________|

We have a 10 V DC supply which via a switch is connected
to a 100 W light bulb, which will draw 10A when lit.

The two wires from the switch to the light bulb are both 1 metre.
The square area of the wires is 3 square mm.

To your question:
The speeds of the electrons in the conduction band are
very high. The electrons are moving in all directions.
But if there is no current in the wire, then the AVERAGE
speed is zero. If the current is 10A, then the average speed
will be 0.25 mm per second.
===================

So the question:
When you close the switch, how long time will it be before
the current in the light bulb is 10A?

--
Paul

https://paulba.no/

On Wednesday, February 2, 2022 at 12:34:47 AM UTC-8, Paul B. Andersen wrote:
> Den 02.02.2022 00:06, skrev thor stoneman:
> > If the current is 10A, then the average speed
> >> will be 0.25 mm per second.
> >
> >> Paul
> >
> > The velocity of .25 mm/s is slower than the velocity of light by more than eight orders.
> Indeed.
> So won't you try to answer the question?
> Let's consider a simpler case than a particle accelerator.
>
> /
> +10V _____/ __________________________________
> |
> / O light bulb
> 0V _____/ __________________________________|
>
>
> We have a 10 V DC supply which via a switch is connected
> to a 100 W light bulb, which will draw 10A when lit.
>
> The two wires from the switch to the light bulb are both 1 metre.
> The square area of the wires is 3 square mm.
>
> To your question:
> The speeds of the electrons in the conduction band are
> very high. The electrons are moving in all directions.
> But if there is no current in the wire, then the AVERAGE
> speed is zero. If the current is 10A, then the average speed
> will be 0.25 mm per second.
> ===================
>
> So the question:
> When you close the switch, how long time will it be before
> the current in the light bulb is 10A?
>
>
>
> --
> Paul
>
> https://paulba.no/

The "electron holes", it's the "electron holes" that move near c,
electrons themselves move at "electron drift".

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electron_mobility

[I usually ignore idiots like Finlayson; but I happened to see this. As
his claim contradicted my understanding, I looked up his reference. As
usual, his claim is just plain wrong, and his own reference shows it.]

On 2/2/22 8:40 PM, Ross A. Finlayson wrote:
> it's the "electron holes" that move near c, electrons themselves
> move at "electron drift".
>
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electron_mobility

You should actually READ your reference. It says something completely
different from your claim above: Holes usually move slower than
electrons, but it's more complicated than a simple sound bite.

Tom Roberts

On Thursday, 3 February 2022 at 15:21:39 UTC+1, tjrob137 wrote:
> [I usually ignore idiots like Finlayson; but I happened to see this. As
> his claim contradicted my understanding, I looked up his reference. As
> usual, his claim is just plain wrong, and his own reference shows it.]
> On 2/2/22 8:40 PM, Ross A. Finlayson wrote:
> > it's the "electron holes" that move near c, electrons themselves
> > move at "electron drift".
> >
> > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electron_mobility
> You should actually READ your reference.

And you should know you're FORCED!!! Forced
to THE BEST WAY!!! Which is, of course, the way
of Giant Guru and his obedient minions.

Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
> [I usually ignore idiots like Finlayson; but I happened to see this. As
> his claim contradicted my understanding, I looked up his reference. As
> usual, his claim is just plain wrong, and his own reference shows it.]
>
> On 2/2/22 8:40 PM, Ross A. Finlayson wrote:
>> it's the "electron holes" that move near c, electrons themselves
>> move at "electron drift".
>>
>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electron_mobility
>
> You should actually READ your reference. It says something completely
> different from your claim above: Holes usually move slower than
> electrons, but it's more complicated than a simple sound bite.
>
> Tom Roberts
>

Ross doesn’t read the references he cites.

For his masquerading outfit, it’s just important that he sprinkles his
posts with jargon words, with the names of notable physicists, and
occasionally a journal article title or link. Gives the *impression*, you
see, that he knows what he’s doing. Like a TV doctor with a white lab coat,
stethoscope, muttering “Menier’s Syndrome, anterior sclerosis,
defibrillator.”

--
Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables

Op 03-feb.-2022 om 16:27 schreef Odd Bodkin:
> Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>> [I usually ignore idiots like Finlayson; but I happened to see this. As
>> his claim contradicted my understanding, I looked up his reference. As
>> usual, his claim is just plain wrong, and his own reference shows it.]
>>
>> On 2/2/22 8:40 PM, Ross A. Finlayson wrote:
>>> it's the "electron holes" that move near c, electrons themselves
>>> move at "electron drift".
>>>
>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electron_mobility
>>
>> You should actually READ your reference. It says something completely
>> different from your claim above: Holes usually move slower than
>> electrons, but it's more complicated than a simple sound bite.
>>
>> Tom Roberts
>>
>
> Ross doesn’t read the references he cites.
>
> For his masquerading outfit, it’s just important that he sprinkles his
> posts with jargon words, with the names of notable physicists, and
> occasionally a journal article title or link. Gives the *impression*, you
> see, that he knows what he’s doing. Like a TV doctor with a white lab coat,
> stethoscope, muttering “Menier’s Syndrome, anterior sclerosis,
> defibrillator.”
>

"Basically."

Dirk Vdm

The Fermilab (1967) particle physics experiment describes an accelerated proton beam collision with a beryllium target that collision forms subatomic particles which then propagate through the steel structure of the bubble chamber that contain presurized liquid hydrogen. The subatomic particle propagate through the liquid hydrogen producing spiral shape liquid hydrogen bubble tracks that are used to determine the mass and energy of the subatomic particles. The Fermilab proton beam is formed by a duoplasmatron but positively charged protons attracted to the negatively charged duoplasmatron grid would collide with the 22 kV grid surfaces preventing the formation of a proton beam. Plus, the Fermilab RF cavity accelerates the ostensible protons, formed by the duoplasmatron, by oscillating the polarity of the metal surfaces of the RF cavity using an oscillating LRC circuit where the protons propagate through a 6 km circular beam pipe surrounded by magnets that guides the 20,000 passes of the proton beam through the circular beam pipe and RF cavity resulting in the acceleration of the proton beam to the velocity of .7c. Initially, as the protons enter the first segment of the RF cavity, the positively charged protons are attracted to the far negatively charged cathode surface that surrounds the far hole of the first segment of the RF cavity. As the protons approach the far hole, of the first segment of the RF cavity, the negatively charged metal surface that surrounds the far hole switches polarity and becomes positively charged to prevent the positively charged protons from colliding with the sides of the far hole that allows the protons to propagate through the far hole which represents the acceleration of the protons by the first segment of the RF cavity. This mechanism is repeated for each segment of the RF cavity and represents the acceleration of the proton beams. The protons make more than 20,000 passes through the RF cavity and circular beam pipe where the proton beam is said to be accelerated to the velocity of .7c at the end of the acceleration process yet the electrons of a copper wire are propagating at a velocity of 106 m/s. Electrons of a LRC circuit that is forming the oscillating polarity (+/-) of each segment of the RF cavity cannot propagate fast enough to fill the negative surface of the far hole of the first segment of the RF cavity in the formation of the polarity oscillation used to accelerate the protons to the speed of .7c since the electrons must fill the outer metallic surface of the far hole of the first segment of the RF cavity by propagating along the metallic surface to form the negative charged RF cavity surface and electric field of the first segment that is used to accelerate the protons then the electrons must leave the negative charged RF cavity surface, of the far hole, to form the positive charged surface surrounding the far hole to allow the protons to enter the next segment of the RF cavity. This mechanism repeats for every segment of the RF cavity where the electric field of each segment incrimentally increases as the protons enter the next segment fo the RF cavity yet electrons, of the LRC circuit, that are propagating at the velocity of 106 m/s cannot form the RF cavity polarity oscillation fast enough to accelerate the protons to the velocity of .7c; consequently, the maximum proton beam velocity that can be achieved using the RF cavity is 106 m/s.

On Thursday, February 3, 2022 at 6:21:39 AM UTC-8, tjrob137 wrote:
> [I usually ignore idiots like Finlayson; but I happened to see this. As
> his claim contradicted my understanding, I looked up his reference. As
> usual, his claim is just plain wrong, and his own reference shows it.]
> On 2/2/22 8:40 PM, Ross A. Finlayson wrote:
> > it's the "electron holes" that move near c, electrons themselves
> > move at "electron drift".
> >
> > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electron_mobility
> You should actually READ your reference. It says something completely
> different from your claim above: Holes usually move slower than
> electrons, but it's more complicated than a simple sound bite.
>
> Tom Roberts

Nah, we learned our Lienard-Wiechert with "electron holes".

On Thursday, February 3, 2022 at 7:54:07 AM UTC-8, Dirk Van de moortel wrote:
> Op 03-feb.-2022 om 16:27 schreef Odd Bodkin:
> > Tom Roberts <tjrobe...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
> >> [I usually ignore idiots like Finlayson; but I happened to see this. As
> >> his claim contradicted my understanding, I looked up his reference. As
> >> usual, his claim is just plain wrong, and his own reference shows it.]
> >>
> >> On 2/2/22 8:40 PM, Ross A. Finlayson wrote:
> >>> it's the "electron holes" that move near c, electrons themselves
> >>> move at "electron drift".
> >>>
> >>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electron_mobility
> >>
> >> You should actually READ your reference. It says something completely
> >> different from your claim above: Holes usually move slower than
> >> electrons, but it's more complicated than a simple sound bite.
> >>
> >> Tom Roberts
> >>
> >
> > Ross doesn’t read the references he cites.
> >
> > For his masquerading outfit, it’s just important that he sprinkles his
> > posts with jargon words, with the names of notable physicists, and
> > occasionally a journal article title or link. Gives the *impression*, you
> > see, that he knows what he’s doing. Like a TV doctor with a white lab coat,
> > stethoscope, muttering “Menier’s Syndrome, anterior sclerosis,
> > defibrillator.”
> >
> "Basically."
>
> Dirk Vdm

If you learn about proton and electron lifetime with respect to Planck,
it helps explain why current is described in terms of electron holes.

On Thursday, February 3, 2022 at 6:21:39 AM UTC-8, tjrob137 wrote:
> [I usually ignore idiots like Finlayson; but I happened to see this. As
> his claim contradicted my understanding, I looked up his reference. As
> usual, his claim is just plain wrong, and his own reference shows it.]
> On 2/2/22 8:40 PM, Ross A. Finlayson wrote:
> > it's the "electron holes" that move near c, electrons themselves
> > move at "electron drift".
> >
> > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electron_mobility
> You should actually READ your reference. It says something completely
> different from your claim above: Holes usually move slower than
> electrons, but it's more complicated than a simple sound bite.
>
> Tom Roberts

Quadrupole moment?

On Thursday, February 3, 2022 at 9:06:02 AM UTC-8, Ross A. Finlayson wrote:
> On Thursday, February 3, 2022 at 6:21:39 AM UTC-8, tjrob137 wrote:
> > [I usually ignore idiots like Finlayson; but I happened to see this. As
> > his claim contradicted my understanding, I looked up his reference. As
> > usual, his claim is just plain wrong, and his own reference shows it.]
> > On 2/2/22 8:40 PM, Ross A. Finlayson wrote:
> > > it's the "electron holes" that move near c, electrons themselves
> > > move at "electron drift".
> > >
> > > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electron_mobility
> > You should actually READ your reference. It says something completely
> > different from your claim above: Holes usually move slower than
> > electrons, but it's more complicated than a simple sound bite.
> >
> > Tom Roberts
> Nah, we learned our Lienard-Wiechert with "electron holes".

There are other derivations than Lienard-Wiechert,
for deriving these things.

"Idiots like Finlayson"

Op 03-feb.-2022 om 18:07 schreef Ross A. Finlayson:
> On Thursday, February 3, 2022 at 7:54:07 AM UTC-8, Dirk Van de moortel wrote:
>> Op 03-feb.-2022 om 16:27 schreef Odd Bodkin:
>>> Tom Roberts <tjrobe...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>>>> [I usually ignore idiots like Finlayson; but I happened to see this. As
>>>> his claim contradicted my understanding, I looked up his reference. As
>>>> usual, his claim is just plain wrong, and his own reference shows it.]
>>>>
>>>> On 2/2/22 8:40 PM, Ross A. Finlayson wrote:
>>>>> it's the "electron holes" that move near c, electrons themselves
>>>>> move at "electron drift".
>>>>>
>>>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electron_mobility
>>>>
>>>> You should actually READ your reference. It says something completely
>>>> different from your claim above: Holes usually move slower than
>>>> electrons, but it's more complicated than a simple sound bite.
>>>>
>>>> Tom Roberts
>>>>
>>>
>>> Ross doesn’t read the references he cites.
>>>
>>> For his masquerading outfit, it’s just important that he sprinkles his
>>> posts with jargon words, with the names of notable physicists, and
>>> occasionally a journal article title or link. Gives the *impression*, you
>>> see, that he knows what he’s doing. Like a TV doctor with a white lab coat,
>>> stethoscope, muttering “Menier’s Syndrome, anterior sclerosis,
>>> defibrillator.”
>>>
>> "Basically."
>>
>> Dirk Vdm
>
> If you learn about proton and electron lifetime with respect to Planck,
> it helps explain why current is described in terms of electron holes.
>

Surely you wanted to say
"explain why current is basically described in terms of electron holes",
or
"explain why current basically is described in terms of electron holes",
or
"explain why basically current is described in terms of electron holes".

Precision of thought is expressed trough precision of expression. Basically.

Dirk Vdm

On Thursday, February 3, 2022 at 9:10:50 AM UTC-8, Ross A. Finlayson wrote:
> On Thursday, February 3, 2022 at 9:06:02 AM UTC-8, Ross A. Finlayson wrote:
> > On Thursday, February 3, 2022 at 6:21:39 AM UTC-8, tjrob137 wrote:
> > > [I usually ignore idiots like Finlayson; but I happened to see this. As
> > > his claim contradicted my understanding, I looked up his reference. As
> > > usual, his claim is just plain wrong, and his own reference shows it.]
> > > On 2/2/22 8:40 PM, Ross A. Finlayson wrote:
> > > > it's the "electron holes" that move near c, electrons themselves
> > > > move at "electron drift".
> > > >
> > > > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electron_mobility
> > > You should actually READ your reference. It says something completely
> > > different from your claim above: Holes usually move slower than
> > > electrons, but it's more complicated than a simple sound bite.
> > >
> > > Tom Roberts
> > Nah, we learned our Lienard-Wiechert with "electron holes".
> There are other derivations than Lienard-Wiechert,
> for deriving these things.
>
> "Idiots like Finlayson"

Of course most people learn about the B field not the A field.

Because calculating the actual potential is less tractable.

If you'd care to read off all the lettered fields of electromagnetism,
for each classical field there's a potential field, and,
the definition really _is_ in terms of the potential field.

I like you guys and can tolerate a ribbing,
then though I'm interested in foundations, mostly.

Which interest I hope you share.

It's like Feynman said one time, "yeah I wish I learned
electromagnetism about the potential fields".

Ross A. Finlayson <ross.finlayson@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Thursday, February 3, 2022 at 6:21:39 AM UTC-8, tjrob137 wrote:
>> [I usually ignore idiots like Finlayson; but I happened to see this. As
>> his claim contradicted my understanding, I looked up his reference. As
>> usual, his claim is just plain wrong, and his own reference shows it.]
>> On 2/2/22 8:40 PM, Ross A. Finlayson wrote:
>>> it's the "electron holes" that move near c, electrons themselves
>>> move at "electron drift".
>>>
>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electron_mobility
>> You should actually READ your reference. It says something completely
>> different from your claim above: Holes usually move slower than
>> electrons, but it's more complicated than a simple sound bite.
>>
>> Tom Roberts
>
> Nah, we learned our Lienard-Wiechert with "electron holes".
>

Well, actually, stochastic coupling-constant running is not compatible with
retarded potentials.

--
Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables

In the LIGO experiment, gravitational waves are formed by the merging of two black holes producing a strain on the LIGO armature resulting in a 10-18 m armature displacement but the 10-18 m armature displacement is preposterous since the diameter of an electron is 10-15 m and the minimum length that can be resolved using an electron microscope is approximately 10-8 m which proves the LIGO experiment is fictional. It is argued that an electron microscope can be used to view an atom which is ludicrous since an electron microscope is used to view small insects. To state that an electron microscope can view an atom is beyond belief. Also, gravitational waves are electromagnetic waves since Weber's 750 lb aluminum bar radio antenna is used to detect gravitational waves and since a radio antenna is used to detect electromagnetic waves; consequently, Weber's gravitational waves are electromagnetic waves. In Einstein's (1916) general relativity, Einstein mathematically creates electromagnetic gravitational waves using Maxwell's equations; consequently, general relativity is based on electromagnetic gravitational wave formed by the motion of an ether, composed of matter, yet Maxwell's equations are derived using Faraday's induction effect that is not gravitational nor does the ether that motion forms Einstein's electromagnetic general relativity gravity wave physically exist (vacuum). Plus, Wheeler uses the gauge to mathematically create gravitational particle electromagnetic geons but the gauge is based on Maxwell's equations that are not gravitational. As a result, the detection of electromagnetic gravitational waves requires a radio antenna yet the LIGO interferometer is not a radio antenna. It is absolutely absurd to use the LIGO interferometer to detect radio waves (gravitational waves) since Michelson's interferometer is used to test for the existence of the ether! The illustration of the motion of a three-dimensional grid, in the formation of gravitational waves formed by the merging of two black holes, is representing the oscillation with time-space but the three-dimensional grid pattern is depicting the oscillation of the ether, composed of matter, that does not physically exist.

On Thursday, February 3, 2022 at 10:05:50 AM UTC-8, carl eto wrote:

Sorry about that made a mistake.

On Thursday, February 3, 2022 at 9:59:45 AM UTC-8, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
> Ross A. Finlayson <ross.fi...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > On Thursday, February 3, 2022 at 6:21:39 AM UTC-8, tjrob137 wrote:
> >> [I usually ignore idiots like Finlayson; but I happened to see this. As
> >> his claim contradicted my understanding, I looked up his reference. As
> >> usual, his claim is just plain wrong, and his own reference shows it.]
> >> On 2/2/22 8:40 PM, Ross A. Finlayson wrote:
> >>> it's the "electron holes" that move near c, electrons themselves
> >>> move at "electron drift".
> >>>
> >>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electron_mobility
> >> You should actually READ your reference. It says something completely
> >> different from your claim above: Holes usually move slower than
> >> electrons, but it's more complicated than a simple sound bite.
> >>
> >> Tom Roberts
> >
> > Nah, we learned our Lienard-Wiechert with "electron holes".
> >
> Well, actually, stochastic coupling-constant running is not compatible with
> retarded potentials.
> --
> Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables

Try enunciating and articulating more from the diaphragm,
"euh...", "euh...".

Stochastic basically reflects the probabilistic, the ergodic, while,
stoichiometric basically reflects ratio, the exact.

(Avogadro's number is among running constants. It's a large number,
and reflects a most usual "law of large numbers".)

Here, English usage as about "basically", is that it's reflected _in_
the context, as about expressing "though it deserves tons more detail
as a critical analysis, here 'basically' means it's a suitably conscentious
reflection, in terms".

I recall a professor, English wasn't his first language, but 'basically' was
one of his favorite words, it's really a matter of rolling and 'em-baes-ikallee'.
It's in the same sense .

Whereas for example when herding cows a usual name they identify with
is "m'boss". ("Cows speak moo.")

Ross A. Finlayson <ross.finlayson@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Thursday, February 3, 2022 at 9:59:45 AM UTC-8, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
>> Ross A. Finlayson <ross.fi...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> On Thursday, February 3, 2022 at 6:21:39 AM UTC-8, tjrob137 wrote:
>>>> [I usually ignore idiots like Finlayson; but I happened to see this. As
>>>> his claim contradicted my understanding, I looked up his reference. As
>>>> usual, his claim is just plain wrong, and his own reference shows it.]
>>>> On 2/2/22 8:40 PM, Ross A. Finlayson wrote:
>>>>> it's the "electron holes" that move near c, electrons themselves
>>>>> move at "electron drift".
>>>>>
>>>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electron_mobility
>>>> You should actually READ your reference. It says something completely
>>>> different from your claim above: Holes usually move slower than
>>>> electrons, but it's more complicated than a simple sound bite.
>>>>
>>>> Tom Roberts
>>>
>>> Nah, we learned our Lienard-Wiechert with "electron holes".
>>>
>> Well, actually, stochastic coupling-constant running is not compatible with
>> retarded potentials.
>> --
>> Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
>
> Try enunciating and articulating more from the diaphragm,
> "euh...", "euh...".
>
> Stochastic basically reflects the probabilistic, the ergodic, while,
> stoichiometric basically reflects ratio, the exact.
>
> (Avogadro's number is among running constants. It's a large number,
> and reflects a most usual "law of large numbers".)
>
Basically, renormalizable anti-screening exhibits Bjorken scaling, of
course, as exhibited in collider high-missing-transverse-energy events.

>
> Here, English usage as about "basically", is that it's reflected _in_
> the context, as about expressing "though it deserves tons more detail
> as a critical analysis, here 'basically' means it's a suitably conscentious
> reflection, in terms".
>
> I recall a professor, English wasn't his first language, but 'basically' was
> one of his favorite words, it's really a matter of rolling and 'em-baes-ikallee'.
> It's in the same sense .
>
> Whereas for example when herding cows a usual name they identify with
> is "m'boss". ("Cows speak moo.")
>
>
>

--
Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables

On Thursday, February 3, 2022 at 12:20:56 PM UTC-8, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
> Ross A. Finlayson <ross.fi...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > On Thursday, February 3, 2022 at 9:59:45 AM UTC-8, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
> >> Ross A. Finlayson <ross.fi...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>> On Thursday, February 3, 2022 at 6:21:39 AM UTC-8, tjrob137 wrote:
> >>>> [I usually ignore idiots like Finlayson; but I happened to see this. As
> >>>> his claim contradicted my understanding, I looked up his reference. As
> >>>> usual, his claim is just plain wrong, and his own reference shows it.]
> >>>> On 2/2/22 8:40 PM, Ross A. Finlayson wrote:
> >>>>> it's the "electron holes" that move near c, electrons themselves
> >>>>> move at "electron drift".
> >>>>>
> >>>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electron_mobility
> >>>> You should actually READ your reference. It says something completely
> >>>> different from your claim above: Holes usually move slower than
> >>>> electrons, but it's more complicated than a simple sound bite.
> >>>>
> >>>> Tom Roberts
> >>>
> >>> Nah, we learned our Lienard-Wiechert with "electron holes".
> >>>
> >> Well, actually, stochastic coupling-constant running is not compatible with
> >> retarded potentials.
> >> --
> >> Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
> >
> > Try enunciating and articulating more from the diaphragm,
> > "euh...", "euh...".
> >
> > Stochastic basically reflects the probabilistic, the ergodic, while,
> > stoichiometric basically reflects ratio, the exact.
> >
> > (Avogadro's number is among running constants. It's a large number,
> > and reflects a most usual "law of large numbers".)
> >
> Basically, renormalizable anti-screening exhibits Bjorken scaling, of
> course, as exhibited in collider high-missing-transverse-energy events.
> >
> > Here, English usage as about "basically", is that it's reflected _in_
> > the context, as about expressing "though it deserves tons more detail
> > as a critical analysis, here 'basically' means it's a suitably conscentious
> > reflection, in terms".
> >
> > I recall a professor, English wasn't his first language, but 'basically' was
> > one of his favorite words, it's really a matter of rolling and 'em-baes-ikallee'.
> > It's in the same sense .
> >
> > Whereas for example when herding cows a usual name they identify with
> > is "m'boss". ("Cows speak moo.")
> >
> >
> >
> --
> Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables

Thanks, I'll try to read that generously.

(Scattering and tunneling are fundamental QED concepts.)

When two bulls fight, one loses and shits, it's called bullshit.

Ross A. Finlayson <ross.finlayson@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Thursday, February 3, 2022 at 12:20:56 PM UTC-8, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
>> Ross A. Finlayson <ross.fi...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> On Thursday, February 3, 2022 at 9:59:45 AM UTC-8, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>> Ross A. Finlayson <ross.fi...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>> On Thursday, February 3, 2022 at 6:21:39 AM UTC-8, tjrob137 wrote:
>>>>>> [I usually ignore idiots like Finlayson; but I happened to see this. As
>>>>>> his claim contradicted my understanding, I looked up his reference. As
>>>>>> usual, his claim is just plain wrong, and his own reference shows it.]
>>>>>> On 2/2/22 8:40 PM, Ross A. Finlayson wrote:
>>>>>>> it's the "electron holes" that move near c, electrons themselves
>>>>>>> move at "electron drift".
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electron_mobility
>>>>>> You should actually READ your reference. It says something completely
>>>>>> different from your claim above: Holes usually move slower than
>>>>>> electrons, but it's more complicated than a simple sound bite.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Tom Roberts
>>>>>
>>>>> Nah, we learned our Lienard-Wiechert with "electron holes".
>>>>>
>>>> Well, actually, stochastic coupling-constant running is not compatible with
>>>> retarded potentials.
>>>> --
>>>> Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
>>>
>>> Try enunciating and articulating more from the diaphragm,
>>> "euh...", "euh...".
>>>
>>> Stochastic basically reflects the probabilistic, the ergodic, while,
>>> stoichiometric basically reflects ratio, the exact.
>>>
>>> (Avogadro's number is among running constants. It's a large number,
>>> and reflects a most usual "law of large numbers".)
>>>
>> Basically, renormalizable anti-screening exhibits Bjorken scaling, of
>> course, as exhibited in collider high-missing-transverse-energy events.
>>>
>>> Here, English usage as about "basically", is that it's reflected _in_
>>> the context, as about expressing "though it deserves tons more detail
>>> as a critical analysis, here 'basically' means it's a suitably conscentious
>>> reflection, in terms".
>>>
>>> I recall a professor, English wasn't his first language, but 'basically' was
>>> one of his favorite words, it's really a matter of rolling and 'em-baes-ikallee'.
>>> It's in the same sense .
>>>
>>> Whereas for example when herding cows a usual name they identify with
>>> is "m'boss". ("Cows speak moo.")
>>>
>>>
>>>
>> --
>> Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
>
> Thanks, I'll try to read that generously.

Thank you for illustrating the point so abundantly.

>
> (Scattering and tunneling are fundamental QED concepts.)
>
>
> When two bulls fight, one loses and shits, it's called bullshit.
>
>

--
Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables

On Thursday, February 3, 2022 at 1:49:33 PM UTC-8, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
> Ross A. Finlayson <ross.fi...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > On Thursday, February 3, 2022 at 12:20:56 PM UTC-8, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
> >> Ross A. Finlayson <ross.fi...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>> On Thursday, February 3, 2022 at 9:59:45 AM UTC-8, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
> >>>> Ross A. Finlayson <ross.fi...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>>>> On Thursday, February 3, 2022 at 6:21:39 AM UTC-8, tjrob137 wrote:
> >>>>>> [I usually ignore idiots like Finlayson; but I happened to see this. As
> >>>>>> his claim contradicted my understanding, I looked up his reference. As
> >>>>>> usual, his claim is just plain wrong, and his own reference shows it.]
> >>>>>> On 2/2/22 8:40 PM, Ross A. Finlayson wrote:
> >>>>>>> it's the "electron holes" that move near c, electrons themselves
> >>>>>>> move at "electron drift".
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electron_mobility
> >>>>>> You should actually READ your reference. It says something completely
> >>>>>> different from your claim above: Holes usually move slower than
> >>>>>> electrons, but it's more complicated than a simple sound bite.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Tom Roberts
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Nah, we learned our Lienard-Wiechert with "electron holes".
> >>>>>
> >>>> Well, actually, stochastic coupling-constant running is not compatible with
> >>>> retarded potentials.
> >>>> --
> >>>> Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
> >>>
> >>> Try enunciating and articulating more from the diaphragm,
> >>> "euh...", "euh...".
> >>>
> >>> Stochastic basically reflects the probabilistic, the ergodic, while,
> >>> stoichiometric basically reflects ratio, the exact.
> >>>
> >>> (Avogadro's number is among running constants. It's a large number,
> >>> and reflects a most usual "law of large numbers".)
> >>>
> >> Basically, renormalizable anti-screening exhibits Bjorken scaling, of
> >> course, as exhibited in collider high-missing-transverse-energy events.
> >>>
> >>> Here, English usage as about "basically", is that it's reflected _in_
> >>> the context, as about expressing "though it deserves tons more detail
> >>> as a critical analysis, here 'basically' means it's a suitably conscentious
> >>> reflection, in terms".
> >>>
> >>> I recall a professor, English wasn't his first language, but 'basically' was
> >>> one of his favorite words, it's really a matter of rolling and 'em-baes-ikallee'.
> >>> It's in the same sense .
> >>>
> >>> Whereas for example when herding cows a usual name they identify with
> >>> is "m'boss". ("Cows speak moo.")
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >> --
> >> Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
> >
> > Thanks, I'll try to read that generously.
> Thank you for illustrating the point so abundantly.
> >
> > (Scattering and tunneling are fundamental QED concepts.)
> >
> >
> > When two bulls fight, one loses and shits, it's called bullshit.
> >
> >
> --
> Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables

I learned a lot of numerical methods from instructor Bialostocki.

On Thursday, February 3, 2022 at 3:26:18 PM UTC-8, Ross A. Finlayson wrote:
> On Thursday, February 3, 2022 at 1:49:33 PM UTC-8, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
> > Ross A. Finlayson <ross.fi...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > On Thursday, February 3, 2022 at 12:20:56 PM UTC-8, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
> > >> Ross A. Finlayson <ross.fi...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > >>> On Thursday, February 3, 2022 at 9:59:45 AM UTC-8, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
> > >>>> Ross A. Finlayson <ross.fi...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > >>>>> On Thursday, February 3, 2022 at 6:21:39 AM UTC-8, tjrob137 wrote:
> > >>>>>> [I usually ignore idiots like Finlayson; but I happened to see this. As
> > >>>>>> his claim contradicted my understanding, I looked up his reference. As
> > >>>>>> usual, his claim is just plain wrong, and his own reference shows it.]
> > >>>>>> On 2/2/22 8:40 PM, Ross A. Finlayson wrote:
> > >>>>>>> it's the "electron holes" that move near c, electrons themselves
> > >>>>>>> move at "electron drift".
> > >>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electron_mobility
> > >>>>>> You should actually READ your reference. It says something completely
> > >>>>>> different from your claim above: Holes usually move slower than
> > >>>>>> electrons, but it's more complicated than a simple sound bite.
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>> Tom Roberts
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>> Nah, we learned our Lienard-Wiechert with "electron holes".
> > >>>>>
> > >>>> Well, actually, stochastic coupling-constant running is not compatible with
> > >>>> retarded potentials.
> > >>>> --
> > >>>> Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
> > >>>
> > >>> Try enunciating and articulating more from the diaphragm,
> > >>> "euh...", "euh...".
> > >>>
> > >>> Stochastic basically reflects the probabilistic, the ergodic, while,
> > >>> stoichiometric basically reflects ratio, the exact.
> > >>>
> > >>> (Avogadro's number is among running constants. It's a large number,
> > >>> and reflects a most usual "law of large numbers".)
> > >>>
> > >> Basically, renormalizable anti-screening exhibits Bjorken scaling, of
> > >> course, as exhibited in collider high-missing-transverse-energy events.
> > >>>
> > >>> Here, English usage as about "basically", is that it's reflected _in_
> > >>> the context, as about expressing "though it deserves tons more detail
> > >>> as a critical analysis, here 'basically' means it's a suitably conscentious
> > >>> reflection, in terms".
> > >>>
> > >>> I recall a professor, English wasn't his first language, but 'basically' was
> > >>> one of his favorite words, it's really a matter of rolling and 'em-baes-ikallee'.
> > >>> It's in the same sense .
> > >>>
> > >>> Whereas for example when herding cows a usual name they identify with
> > >>> is "m'boss". ("Cows speak moo.")
> > >>>
> > >>>
> > >>>
> > >> --
> > >> Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
> > >
> > > Thanks, I'll try to read that generously.
> > Thank you for illustrating the point so abundantly.
> > >
> > > (Scattering and tunneling are fundamental QED concepts.)
> > >
> > >
> > > When two bulls fight, one loses and shits, it's called bullshit.
> > >
> > >
> > --
> > Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
> I learned a lot of numerical methods from instructor Bialostocki.

London-Fitzgerald-Einsteins?

On Saturday, February 5, 2022 at 9:34:43 AM UTC-8, Ross A. Finlayson wrote:
> On Thursday, February 3, 2022 at 3:26:18 PM UTC-8, Ross A. Finlayson wrote:
> > On Thursday, February 3, 2022 at 1:49:33 PM UTC-8, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > Ross A. Finlayson <ross.fi...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > On Thursday, February 3, 2022 at 12:20:56 PM UTC-8, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > >> Ross A. Finlayson <ross.fi...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > >>> On Thursday, February 3, 2022 at 9:59:45 AM UTC-8, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > >>>> Ross A. Finlayson <ross.fi...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > >>>>> On Thursday, February 3, 2022 at 6:21:39 AM UTC-8, tjrob137 wrote:
> > > >>>>>> [I usually ignore idiots like Finlayson; but I happened to see this. As
> > > >>>>>> his claim contradicted my understanding, I looked up his reference. As
> > > >>>>>> usual, his claim is just plain wrong, and his own reference shows it.]
> > > >>>>>> On 2/2/22 8:40 PM, Ross A. Finlayson wrote:
> > > >>>>>>> it's the "electron holes" that move near c, electrons themselves
> > > >>>>>>> move at "electron drift".
> > > >>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electron_mobility
> > > >>>>>> You should actually READ your reference. It says something completely
> > > >>>>>> different from your claim above: Holes usually move slower than
> > > >>>>>> electrons, but it's more complicated than a simple sound bite.
> > > >>>>>>
> > > >>>>>> Tom Roberts
> > > >>>>>
> > > >>>>> Nah, we learned our Lienard-Wiechert with "electron holes".
> > > >>>>>
> > > >>>> Well, actually, stochastic coupling-constant running is not compatible with
> > > >>>> retarded potentials.
> > > >>>> --
> > > >>>> Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
> > > >>>
> > > >>> Try enunciating and articulating more from the diaphragm,
> > > >>> "euh...", "euh...".
> > > >>>
> > > >>> Stochastic basically reflects the probabilistic, the ergodic, while,
> > > >>> stoichiometric basically reflects ratio, the exact.
> > > >>>
> > > >>> (Avogadro's number is among running constants. It's a large number,
> > > >>> and reflects a most usual "law of large numbers".)
> > > >>>
> > > >> Basically, renormalizable anti-screening exhibits Bjorken scaling, of
> > > >> course, as exhibited in collider high-missing-transverse-energy events.
> > > >>>
> > > >>> Here, English usage as about "basically", is that it's reflected _in_
> > > >>> the context, as about expressing "though it deserves tons more detail
> > > >>> as a critical analysis, here 'basically' means it's a suitably conscentious
> > > >>> reflection, in terms".
> > > >>>
> > > >>> I recall a professor, English wasn't his first language, but 'basically' was
> > > >>> one of his favorite words, it's really a matter of rolling and 'em-baes-ikallee'.
> > > >>> It's in the same sense .
> > > >>>
> > > >>> Whereas for example when herding cows a usual name they identify with
> > > >>> is "m'boss". ("Cows speak moo.")
> > > >>>
> > > >>>
> > > >>>
> > > >> --
> > > >> Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
> > > >
> > > > Thanks, I'll try to read that generously.
> > > Thank you for illustrating the point so abundantly.
> > > >
> > > > (Scattering and tunneling are fundamental QED concepts.)
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > When two bulls fight, one loses and shits, it's called bullshit.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > --
> > > Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
> > I learned a lot of numerical methods from instructor Bialostocki.
> London-Fitzgerald-Einsteins?

= Lorentz ?