One of the mysteries of current physics.

How come an electron can still be an electron if radiates endlessly energy
(photons or waves) while being accelerated, like Larmor discovered?

The radiated energy is real, and is perfectly mensurable when a bunch of
electrons are continuously accelerated in a synchrotron.

This reality is beyond relativity, and is a proof that E=mc2 is a hoax.

The mystery is: how come the electron conserve its charge e?

Is that it only can emit a limited amount of energy and then is RECHARGED
by the accelerating field?

In this case, the amount of energy supplied for its acceleration is
re-irradiated above a certain value, and is the real cause by which the
electron can't reach the speed c.

Only slight increments of its speed occur at supply of energy at
extremely high values (GeV, TeV).

Meanwhile, the physics community keep talking about relativity and
Lorentz and ...., while the reality can be much simpler.

I always have this credence. Particle physics is based on deceptive
understanding of the quantum world, tied to relativity.

A waste of time, money and brainpower.

On 01-May-23 1:58 pm, Richard Hertz wrote:
> One of the mysteries of current physics.
>
> How come an electron can still be an electron if radiates endlessly energy
> (photons or waves) while being accelerated, like Larmor discovered?
>
> The radiated energy is real, and is perfectly mensurable when a bunch of
> electrons are continuously accelerated in a synchrotron.
>
> This reality is beyond relativity, and is a proof that E=mc2 is a hoax.
>
> The mystery is: how come the electron conserve its charge e?
>
> Is that it only can emit a limited amount of energy and then is RECHARGED
> by the accelerating field?
>
> In this case, the amount of energy supplied for its acceleration is
> re-irradiated above a certain value, and is the real cause by which the
> electron can't reach the speed c.
>
> Only slight increments of its speed occur at supply of energy at
> extremely high values (GeV, TeV).
>
> Meanwhile, the physics community keep talking about relativity and
> Lorentz and ...., while the reality can be much simpler.
>
> I always have this credence. Particle physics is based on deceptive
> understanding of the quantum world, tied to relativity.
>
> A waste of time, money and brainpower.
>
>
>

How come a cart with a fan geared to its wheels can emit energy in the
form of wind while being accelerated? Does its fan eventually use up all
its energy and need to be recharged in some way before it can create
more wind?

Sylvia.

On Sunday, April 30, 2023 at 8:58:38 PM UTC-7, Richard Hertz wrote:
> One of the mysteries of current physics.
>
> How come an electron can still be an electron if radiates endlessly energy
> (photons or waves) while being accelerated, like Larmor discovered?
>
> The radiated energy is real, and is perfectly mensurable when a bunch of
> electrons are continuously accelerated in a synchrotron.
Dumbestfuck,

In order to accelerate the electron one needs to impart ....energy to it.

Den 01.05.2023 05:58, skrev Richard Hertz:
> One of the mysteries of current physics.
>
> How come an electron can still be an electron if radiates endlessly energy
> (photons or waves) while being accelerated, like Larmor discovered?
>

And since the energy that the electron radiates isn't supplied
from an external source, but comes from the electron's endless
supply of energy, the electron is a Perpetuum Mobile.

> The radiated energy is real, and is perfectly mensurable when a bunch of
> electrons are continuously accelerated in a synchrotron.

Seriously:
The energy of an electron is:
γmc² = mc² + (γ−1)mc², γ = 1/ √(1−v²/c²)
The term mc² is the invariant, 'intrinsic' energy,
the term (γ−1)mc² is the frame dependent kinetic energy.

A synchrotron consists of straight stretches with RF-cavities
which accelerates the electrons, and bends where the the electrons
are deflected by magnetic fields.

In the RF-cavities the electrons are accelerated (longitudinally)
by electric fields, and their kinetic energy increases by the same
amount every time they pass through the cavity. The gained energy
does not decrease when v approaches c. The gained kinetic energy
comes from the RF-power supplied to the RF-cavities.

In the bends the electrons are accelerated by a magnetic field
which is perpendicularly to their velocity. The acceleration
is a centripetal acceleration, perpendicular to their velocity.
This acceleration is very high and the electrons will radiate
synchrotron radiation (light with a special spectrum). The radiated
energy comes from the kinetic energy of the electrons, so they
will loose energy and speed in the bends. The lost energy will
increase with the speed of the electrons.

When the accelerator is going at the top of its performance,
the kinetic energy gained in the RF-cavities will be equal
to the kinetic energy lost as radiation in the bends.

Where is the mystery?

>
> This reality is beyond relativity, and is a proof that E=mc2 is a hoax.

Synchrotrons do work.
Which is as close to a proof of SR as you can get.

>
> The mystery is: how come the electron conserve its charge e?

What an idiotic question.
Do you imagine that charge is radiated when an electron is accelerated?

--
Paul

https://paulba.no

Le 01/05/2023 à 12:14, "Paul B. Andersen" a écrit :
> Den 01.05.2023 05:58, skrev Richard Hertz:

> Seriously:
> The energy of an electron is:
> γmc² = mc² + (γ−1)mc², γ = 1/ √(1−v²/c²)
> The term mc² is the invariant, 'intrinsic' energy,
> the term (γ−1)mc² is the frame dependent kinetic energy.

Absolutly.
>
> A synchrotron consists of straight stretches with RF-cavities
> which accelerates the electrons, and bends where the the electrons
> are deflected by magnetic fields.

Absolutly.

> In the RF-cavities the electrons are accelerated (longitudinally)
> by electric fields, and their kinetic energy increases by the same
> amount every time they pass through the cavity.

Electric fiels...

How are the accelerator plates charged?

And what accelerates the electron?

m=511keV/c²
e=-1,602.10^-19C

R.H.

On Monday, May 1, 2023 at 7:14:58 AM UTC-3, Paul B. Andersen wrote:

<snip>

The energy of an electron is:
γmc² = mc² + (γ−1)mc², γ = 1/ √(1−v²/c²)
The term mc² is the invariant, 'intrinsic' energy,
the term (γ−1)mc² is the frame dependent kinetic energy.

Stupid, you have to update your knowledge. It's lagging behind by about 40 years.

MASS DO NOT INCREASE WITH SPEED! MOMENTUM DOES.

<snip>

> When the accelerator is going at the top of its performance,
> the kinetic energy gained in the RF-cavities will be equal
> to the kinetic energy lost as radiation in the bends.
>
> Where is the mystery?

The first mystery is why do you persevere sustaining concepts from 1960. Your KE concept is way outdated,
as mass doesn't increase with speed.

The real mystery is that why the angular momentum of the electron fail to be increased beyond certain limit,
due that the increase in velocity reach a barrier no matter how much energy is supplied.

The radiation generated by the electron is caused by the increase of electric energy that's stored in its field.
So, what increases with speed is the density of electric energy per unit volume, and ONLY A PART OF IT is
radiated as EM energy.

The electron resist increases in speed because the VIRTUAL CHARGE that obtain and that generates its electric
field increases, and so does its radiated energy.

You are giving a fat electric pig energy, and the fat electric pig augment its weight. But there are UNKNOWN factors
that prevent the pig to GAIN EXTRA WEIGHT with extra external energy supplied.

Maybe, IT'S THE MECHANISM OF "FOOD" SUPPLY, in the form of electric fields. As speed increases, the formula
for ENERGY TRANSFER fails, as the electron fields is extremely deformed and huge.

As relativity rejected most of the aspects of electromagnetic energy, you are theoretically limited by Newton, Maxwell and Einstein.

So, due to this, you can't see any further.

The rate of "downloaded energy" to the electron become smaller and smaller with speed. When the electron is traveling near c,
the mechanism of energy transfer by acceleration using electric fields just become INEFFICIENT.

And this effect is not explained by your fucking relativity.

<snip>

On 5/1/2023 9:50 AM, Richard Hertz wrote:
> On Monday, May 1, 2023 at 7:14:58 AM UTC-3, Paul B. Andersen wrote:
>
> <snip>
>
> The energy of an electron is:
> γmc² = mc² + (γ−1)mc², γ = 1/ √(1−v²/c²)
> The term mc² is the invariant, 'intrinsic' energy,
> the term (γ−1)mc² is the frame dependent kinetic energy.
>
> Stupid, you have to update your knowledge. It's lagging behind by about 40 years.
>
> MASS DO NOT INCREASE WITH SPEED! MOMENTUM DOES.

Where did he say mass increases with speed? He wrote an equation for
energy increasing with speed:
>> the term (γ−1)mc² is the frame dependent kinetic energy.

>
> <snip>
>
>> When the accelerator is going at the top of its performance,
>> the kinetic energy gained in the RF-cavities will be equal
>> to the kinetic energy lost as radiation in the bends.
>>
>> Where is the mystery?
>
> The first mystery is why do you persevere sustaining concepts from 1960. Your KE concept is way outdated,
> as mass doesn't increase with speed.

He never said it did.
>
> The real mystery is that why the angular momentum of the electron fail to be increased beyond certain limit,
> due that the increase in velocity reach a barrier no matter how much energy is supplied.

Angular momentum?

He simply described the situation how the electron radiates energy away
as fast as it is added, so no net gain in energy.
>
> The radiation generated by the electron is caused by the increase of electric energy that's stored in its field.
> So, what increases with speed is the density of electric energy per unit volume, and ONLY A PART OF IT is
> radiated as EM energy.
>
> The electron resist increases in speed because the VIRTUAL CHARGE that obtain and that generates its electric
> field increases, and so does its radiated energy.

WTF is "VIRTUAL CHARGE"?

> Maybe, IT'S THE MECHANISM OF "FOOD" SUPPLY, in the form of electric fields. As speed increases, the formula
> for ENERGY TRANSFER fails, as the electron fields is extremely deformed and huge.

Or maybe you're simply insane for writing such crap.

Volney wrote:
> On 5/1/2023 9:50 AM, Richard Hertz wrote:
>> MASS DO NOT INCREASE WITH SPEED! MOMENTUM DOES.
> Where did he say mass increases with speed? He wrote an equation for
> energy increasing with speed:
>>> the term (γ−1)mc² is the frame dependent kinetic energy.
>> Maybe, IT'S THE MECHANISM OF "FOOD" SUPPLY, in the form of electric
>> fields. As speed increases, the formula for ENERGY TRANSFER fails, as
>> the electron fields is extremely deformed and huge.
>
> Or maybe you're simply insane for writing such crap.

Scott Ritter: *_‘Ukraine_is_Demolished’_*
This is no longer a war, *_this_is_a_humanitarian_crisis_* says Colonel Douglas Macgregor
https://www.vtforeignpolicy.com/2023/04/scott-ritter-ukraine-is-demolished/
https://youtu.be/aWLvqPyC0yk

On 5/1/2023 11:25 AM, Evenezer Nigro wrote:
> Volney wrote:
>> On 5/1/2023 9:50 AM, Richard Hertz wrote:
>>> MASS DO NOT INCREASE WITH SPEED! MOMENTUM DOES.
>> Where did he say mass increases with speed? He wrote an equation for
>> energy increasing with speed:
>>>> the term (γ−1)mc² is the frame dependent kinetic energy.
>>> Maybe, IT'S THE MECHANISM OF "FOOD" SUPPLY, in the form of electric
>>> fields. As speed increases, the formula for ENERGY TRANSFER fails, as
>>> the electron fields is extremely deformed and huge.
>>
>> Or maybe you're simply insane for writing such crap.
>
> Scott Ritter: *_‘Ukraine_is_Demolished’_*
> This is no longer a war, *_this_is_a_humanitarian_crisis_* says Colonel Douglas Macgregor
> https://www.vtforeignpolicy.com/2023/04/scott-ritter-ukraine-is-demolished/
> https://youtu.be/aWLvqPyC0yk
>

How many photons can an electron emit before it decays into nothingness?

Chris M. Thomasson wrote:

>> Scott Ritter: *_‘Ukraine_is_Demolished’_*
>> This is no longer a war, *_this_is_a_humanitarian_crisis_* says Colonel
>> Douglas Macgregor
>> https://www.vtforeignpolicy.com/2023/04/scott-ritter-ukraine-is-demolished/
>> https://youtu.be/aWLvqPyC0yk
>>
>
> How many photons can an electron emit before it decays into nothingness?

the atoms emits, decaying, not the electrons. Go kiss a cat.

On 5/1/2023 11:38 AM, Evenezer Nigro wrote:
> Chris M. Thomasson wrote:
>
>>> Scott Ritter: *_‘Ukraine_is_Demolished’_*
>>> This is no longer a war, *_this_is_a_humanitarian_crisis_* says Colonel
>>> Douglas Macgregor
>>> https://www.vtforeignpolicy.com/2023/04/scott-ritter-ukraine-is-demolished/
>>> https://youtu.be/aWLvqPyC0yk
>>>
>>
>> How many photons can an electron emit before it decays into nothingness?
>
> the atoms emits, decaying, not the electrons. Go kiss a cat.

Can an electron decay?

On 5/1/2023 11:41 AM, Chris M. Thomasson wrote:
> On 5/1/2023 11:38 AM, Evenezer Nigro wrote:
>> Chris M. Thomasson wrote:
>>
>>>> Scott Ritter: *_‘Ukraine_is_Demolished’_*
>>>> This is no longer a war, *_this_is_a_humanitarian_crisis_* says Colonel
>>>> Douglas Macgregor
>>>> https://www.vtforeignpolicy.com/2023/04/scott-ritter-ukraine-is-demolished/
>>>> https://youtu.be/aWLvqPyC0yk
>>>>
>>>
>>> How many photons can an electron emit before it decays into nothingness?
>>
>> the atoms emits, decaying, not the electrons. Go kiss a cat.
>
> Can an electron decay?

Or lose energy that decreases its "probability" that a photon can be
released?

Chris M. Thomasson wrote:

> On 5/1/2023 11:38 AM, Evenezer Nigro wrote:
>> Chris M. Thomasson wrote:
>>
>>>> Scott Ritter: *_‘Ukraine_is_Demolished’_*
>>>> This is no longer a war, *_this_is_a_humanitarian_crisis_* says
>>>> Colonel Douglas Macgregor
>>>> https://www.vtforeignpolicy.com/2023/04/scott-ritter-ukraine-is-
demolished/
>>>> https://youtu.be/aWLvqPyC0yk
>>>>
>>>>
>>> How many photons can an electron emit before it decays into
>>> nothingness?
>>
>> the atoms emits, decaying, not the electrons. Go kiss a cat.
>
> Can an electron decay?

not alone and not decay. Not alone. It’s the other way around. A muon
decays into an electron and two neutrinos.

Chris M. Thomasson wrote:

>>>>> Scott Ritter: *_‘Ukraine_is_Demolished’_*
>>>>> This is no longer a war, *_this_is_a_humanitarian_crisis_* says
>>>>> Colonel Douglas Macgregor
>>>>> https://www.vtforeignpolicy.com/2023/04/scott-ritter-ukraine-is-
demolished/
>>>>> https://youtu.be/aWLvqPyC0yk
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>> How many photons can an electron emit before it decays into
>>>> nothingness?
>>>
>>> the atoms emits, decaying, not the electrons. Go kiss a cat.
>>
>> Can an electron decay?
>
> Or lose energy that decreases its "probability" that a photon can be
> released?

this has nothing to do with anything. If it's small, it has a probability,
Even the large objects has probability associated with, since large
objects are *_averages_*.

On 5/1/2023 2:41 PM, Chris M. Thomasson wrote:
> On 5/1/2023 11:38 AM, Evenezer Nigro wrote:
>> Chris M. Thomasson wrote:
>>
>>>> Scott Ritter: *_‘Ukraine_is_Demolished’_*
>>>> This is no longer a war, *_this_is_a_humanitarian_crisis_* says Colonel
>>>> Douglas Macgregor
>>>> https://www.vtforeignpolicy.com/2023/04/scott-ritter-ukraine-is-demolished/
>>>> https://youtu.be/aWLvqPyC0yk
>>>>
>>>
>>> How many photons can an electron emit before it decays into nothingness?
>>
>> the atoms emits, decaying, not the electrons. Go kiss a cat.
>
> Can an electron decay?

No. At least not without violating some "law" of physics or other, such
as conservation of electric charge and energy. Good thing, too, since if
it did, we wouldn't be here.

On 5/1/2023 12:09 PM, Volney wrote:
> On 5/1/2023 2:41 PM, Chris M. Thomasson wrote:
>> On 5/1/2023 11:38 AM, Evenezer Nigro wrote:
>>> Chris M. Thomasson wrote:
>>>
>>>>> Scott Ritter: *_‘Ukraine_is_Demolished’_*
>>>>> This is no longer a war, *_this_is_a_humanitarian_crisis_* says
>>>>> Colonel
>>>>> Douglas Macgregor
>>>>> https://www.vtforeignpolicy.com/2023/04/scott-ritter-ukraine-is-demolished/
>>>>> https://youtu.be/aWLvqPyC0yk
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> How many photons can an electron emit before it decays into
>>>> nothingness?
>>>
>>> the atoms emits, decaying, not the electrons. Go kiss a cat.
>>
>> Can an electron decay?
>
> No. At least not without violating some "law" of physics or other, such
> as conservation of electric charge and energy. Good thing, too, since if
> it did, we wouldn't be here.

So, without violating our current laws, and electron can exist
"forever", so to speak? An electron will never decay into nothingness,
right?

On 5/1/2023 12:03 PM, Evenezer Nigro wrote:
> Chris M. Thomasson wrote:
>
>>>>>> Scott Ritter: *_‘Ukraine_is_Demolished’_*
>>>>>> This is no longer a war, *_this_is_a_humanitarian_crisis_* says
>>>>>> Colonel Douglas Macgregor
>>>>>> https://www.vtforeignpolicy.com/2023/04/scott-ritter-ukraine-is-
> demolished/
>>>>>> https://youtu.be/aWLvqPyC0yk
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>> How many photons can an electron emit before it decays into
>>>>> nothingness?
>>>>
>>>> the atoms emits, decaying, not the electrons. Go kiss a cat.
>>>
>>> Can an electron decay?
>>
>> Or lose energy that decreases its "probability" that a photon can be
>> released?
>
> this has nothing to do with anything. If it's small, it has a probability,
> Even the large objects has probability associated with, since large
> objects are *_averages_*.

Can these probabilities be reduced to infinitesimally small numbers?
Not, zero but very close...

On 5/1/2023 11:38 AM, Evenezer Nigro wrote:
> Chris M. Thomasson wrote:
>
>>> Scott Ritter: *_‘Ukraine_is_Demolished’_*
>>> This is no longer a war, *_this_is_a_humanitarian_crisis_* says Colonel
>>> Douglas Macgregor
>>> https://www.vtforeignpolicy.com/2023/04/scott-ritter-ukraine-is-demolished/
>>> https://youtu.be/aWLvqPyC0yk
>>>
>>
>> How many photons can an electron emit before it decays into nothingness?
>
> the atoms emits, decaying, not the electrons. Go kiss a cat.

Does the probability of a photon being emitted by an electron decrease
per photon emitted? Say, this electron currently has a 90% probability
that it can emit a photon. A photon is emitted, now its 89.999%
probability. The probability decreased.

Chris M. Thomasson wrote:

>>>> Scott Ritter: *_‘Ukraine_is_Demolished’_*
>>>> This is no longer a war, *_this_is_a_humanitarian_crisis_* says
>>>> Colonel Douglas Macgregor
>>>> https://www.vtforeignpolicy.com/2023/04/scott-ritter-ukraine-is-
demolished/
>>>> https://youtu.be/aWLvqPyC0yk
>>>>
>>>>
>>> How many photons can an electron emit before it decays into
>>> nothingness?
>>
>> the atoms emits, decaying, not the electrons. Go kiss a cat.
>
> Does the probability of a photon being emitted by an electron decrease
> per photon emitted? Say, this electron currently has a 90% probability
> that it can emit a photon. A photon is emitted, now its 89.999%
> probability. The probability decreased.

not sure what to say, it's the atom decaying, not the electron. The
electron is still there. So it depends on the energy state of the atom.
Reinstate the level and it will emit again. This is how my
*_Divergent_Matter_of_the_Moving_Koerper_* works.

Chris M. Thomasson wrote:

>>>>>>> Scott Ritter: *_‘Ukraine_is_Demolished’_*
>>>>>>> This is no longer a war, *_this_is_a_humanitarian_crisis_* says
>>>>>>> Colonel Douglas Macgregor
>>>>>>> https://www.vtforeignpolicy.com/2023/04/scott-ritter-ukraine-is-
>> demolished/
>>>>>>> https://youtu.be/aWLvqPyC0yk
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> How many photons can an electron emit before it decays into
>>>>>> nothingness?
>>>>>
>>>>> the atoms emits, decaying, not the electrons. Go kiss a cat.
>>>>
>>>> Can an electron decay?
>>>
>>> Or lose energy that decreases its "probability" that a photon can be
>>> released?
>>
>> this has nothing to do with anything. If it's small, it has a
>> probability,
>> Even the large objects has probability associated with, since large
>> objects are *_averages_*.
>
> Can these probabilities be reduced to infinitesimally small numbers?
> Not, zero but very close...

small objects, in quantum physics, do have spatial/time low probability.
In macro, the opposite is true.

On 5/1/2023 12:55 PM, Evenezer Nigro wrote:
> Chris M. Thomasson wrote:
>
>>>>> Scott Ritter: *_‘Ukraine_is_Demolished’_*
>>>>> This is no longer a war, *_this_is_a_humanitarian_crisis_* says
>>>>> Colonel Douglas Macgregor
>>>>> https://www.vtforeignpolicy.com/2023/04/scott-ritter-ukraine-is-
> demolished/
>>>>> https://youtu.be/aWLvqPyC0yk
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>> How many photons can an electron emit before it decays into
>>>> nothingness?
>>>
>>> the atoms emits, decaying, not the electrons. Go kiss a cat.
>>
>> Does the probability of a photon being emitted by an electron decrease
>> per photon emitted? Say, this electron currently has a 90% probability
>> that it can emit a photon. A photon is emitted, now its 89.999%
>> probability. The probability decreased.
>
> not sure what to say, it's the atom decaying, not the electron. The
> electron is still there. So it depends on the energy state of the atom.
> Reinstate the level and it will emit again. This is how my
> *_Divergent_Matter_of_the_Moving_Koerper_* works.

Can the atom decay to a point where it can no longer "contain" its
electrons?

On 5/1/2023 12:55 PM, Evenezer Nigro wrote:
> Chris M. Thomasson wrote:
>
>>>>> Scott Ritter: *_‘Ukraine_is_Demolished’_*
>>>>> This is no longer a war, *_this_is_a_humanitarian_crisis_* says
>>>>> Colonel Douglas Macgregor
>>>>> https://www.vtforeignpolicy.com/2023/04/scott-ritter-ukraine-is-
> demolished/
>>>>> https://youtu.be/aWLvqPyC0yk
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>> How many photons can an electron emit before it decays into
>>>> nothingness?
>>>
>>> the atoms emits, decaying, not the electrons. Go kiss a cat.
>>
>> Does the probability of a photon being emitted by an electron decrease
>> per photon emitted? Say, this electron currently has a 90% probability
>> that it can emit a photon. A photon is emitted, now its 89.999%
>> probability. The probability decreased.
>
> not sure what to say, it's the atom decaying, not the electron. The
> electron is still there. So it depends on the energy state of the atom.
> Reinstate the level and it will emit again. This is how my
> *_Divergent_Matter_of_the_Moving_Koerper_* works.

Can an electron exist forever?

Chris M. Thomasson brought next idea :
> On 5/1/2023 12:09 PM, Volney wrote:
>> On 5/1/2023 2:41 PM, Chris M. Thomasson wrote:
>>> On 5/1/2023 11:38 AM, Evenezer Nigro wrote:
>>>> Chris M. Thomasson wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>> Scott Ritter: *_‘Ukraine_is_Demolished’_*
>>>>>> This is no longer a war, *_this_is_a_humanitarian_crisis_* says Colonel
>>>>>> Douglas Macgregor
>>>>>> https://www.vtforeignpolicy.com/2023/04/scott-ritter-ukraine-is-demolished/
>>>>>> https://youtu.be/aWLvqPyC0yk
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> How many photons can an electron emit before it decays into nothingness?
>>>>
>>>> the atoms emits, decaying, not the electrons. Go kiss a cat.
>>>
>>> Can an electron decay?
>>
>> No. At least not without violating some "law" of physics or other, such as
>> conservation of electric charge and energy. Good thing, too, since if it
>> did, we wouldn't be here.
>
> So, without violating our current laws, and electron can exist "forever", so
> to speak? An electron will never decay into nothingness, right?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/One-electron_universe

Chris M. Thomasson wrote:
>>>>>> Scott Ritter: *_‘Ukraine_is_Demolished’_*
>>>>>> This is no longer a war, *_this_is_a_humanitarian_crisis_* says
>>>>>> Colonel Douglas Macgregor
>>>>>> https://www.vtforeignpolicy.com/2023/04/scott-ritter-ukraine-is-demolished/
>>>>>> https://youtu.be/aWLvqPyC0yk
>>>>> How many photons can an electron emit before it decays into
>>>>> nothingness?
>>>> the atoms emits, decaying, not the electrons. Go kiss a cat.
>>> Does the probability of a photon being emitted by an electron decrease
>>> per photon emitted? Say, this electron currently has a 90% probability
>>> that it can emit a photon. A photon is emitted, now its 89.999%
>>> probability. The probability decreased.
>> not sure what to say, it's the atom decaying, not the electron. The
>> electron is still there. So it depends on the energy state of the atom.
>> Reinstate the level and it will emit again. This is how my
>> *_Divergent_Matter_of_the_Moving_Koerper_* works.
> Can the atom decay to a point where it can no longer "contain" its
> electrons?

no, and that's not a atom anymore. You hate electrons.

UK Column News - 1st May 2023
https://b%69%74%63%68ute.com/video/3cOWnhHktrGI

Iraq demolished as US-led liberation became annihilation
https://b%69%74%63%68ute.com/video/kq27hGhT9b3L

On 5/1/2023 1:57 PM, Evenezer Nigro wrote:
> Chris M. Thomasson wrote:
>>>>>>> Scott Ritter: *_‘Ukraine_is_Demolished’_*
>>>>>>> This is no longer a war, *_this_is_a_humanitarian_crisis_* says
>>>>>>> Colonel Douglas Macgregor
>>>>>>> https://www.vtforeignpolicy.com/2023/04/scott-ritter-ukraine-is-demolished/
>>>>>>> https://youtu.be/aWLvqPyC0yk
>>>>>> How many photons can an electron emit before it decays into
>>>>>> nothingness?
>>>>> the atoms emits, decaying, not the electrons. Go kiss a cat.
>>>> Does the probability of a photon being emitted by an electron decrease
>>>> per photon emitted? Say, this electron currently has a 90% probability
>>>> that it can emit a photon. A photon is emitted, now its 89.999%
>>>> probability. The probability decreased.
>>> not sure what to say, it's the atom decaying, not the electron. The
>>> electron is still there. So it depends on the energy state of the atom.
>>> Reinstate the level and it will emit again. This is how my
>>> *_Divergent_Matter_of_the_Moving_Koerper_* works.
>> Can the atom decay to a point where it can no longer "contain" its
>> electrons?
>
> no, and that's not a atom anymore. You hate electrons.

The contents of the atom are now free as a collection of subatomic
particles, no longer contained by an atom.

>
> UK Column News - 1st May 2023
> https://b%69%74%63%68ute.com/video/3cOWnhHktrGI
>
> Iraq demolished as US-led liberation became annihilation
> https://b%69%74%63%68ute.com/video/kq27hGhT9b3L