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.
[...]

Will everything eventually decay into a collection of stable particles?

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

How could this be written with a straight face?

Maybe "Richard" is an AI program (still a bit buggy looks like)?

--
Jan

On 5/1/2023 2:03 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_*.

Are you still talking about Russian dicks? Still can't find anything
else interesting? Oh well, better that than nothing I suppose, but then
I don't share your problem.

On Sunday, April 30, 2023 at 11:58:38 PM UTC-4, 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.

The electric charge is not an interior property. It is an external property on the aether caused by the electron internal motion in the aether (the E-Matrix). This is described on page 26 of my book in the following link:
Model Mechanics (MM) in the following link describes a valid "THEORY OF EVERYTHING"
https://acrobat.adobe.com/link/track?uri=urn:aaid:scds:US:d034e9d9-d64b-4d04-9c7e-9e11240d858c

Ken Seto

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.
>
> 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.

Falling to light speed would give the atom infinite kinetic energy.
That is why BHs are not real. Limited gravity acceleration obeying
the universal speed limit replaces them.

mitchr...@gmail.com wrote:

> Falling to light speed would give the atom infinite kinetic energy. That
> is why BHs are not real. Limited gravity acceleration obeying the
> universal speed limit replaces them.

Medvedev Vows Russia Will Crush Ukrainian Nazis and Their Supporters
https://b%69%74%63%68ute.com/video/AUEZBTR4i9bg

Dmitry Medvedev: Our main task is completely different: to inflict a
*_devastating_defeat_on_all_enemies_* - the Ukronazis,
*_the_United_States_*, their minions in NATO, including
*_the_fucking_Poland_* and other fucking khazar controlled Western nits.

Den 01.05.2023 15:50, skrev Richard Hertz:
> 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.

Right. So what is your point?

>
> 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.

You have a serious reading comprehension problem.

<snip>

> 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.
>

You got it upside down.
The 'downloaded energy' doesn't decrease with speed.

> And this effect is not explained by your fucking relativity.

No, because there is no such effect.

KE = (γ−1)mc²

dKE/dv = v⋅m/√(1−v²/c²)³

lim(dKE/dv) = ∞ when v → c

There is no limit for the "downloaded energy", it
increases strongly with speed, but since the increase
approaches infinity when the speed approaches c, the speed
can never exceed c because the amount of energy the accelerating
device can supply is limited.

You will probably not read the following, or if you do,
your reading comprehension problem will probably prevent
you from understand it:

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

NOTE THIS:
In the RF-cavities the electrons are accelerated (longitudinally)
by electric fields, and their kinetic energy increases by about
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 speed increases, the energy lost in the bends increases,
and 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.

Synchrotrons do work, and they wouldn't if these question
were not very well understood.
Physicists have learned this through experience, and only
ignorant and naive fools would claim that the physicists
are wrong and that their own fantasies are right.

Are you such a ignorant fool, Richard?

--
Paul

https://paulba.no/

On Tuesday, May 2, 2023 at 5:25:39 PM UTC-3, Paul B. Andersen wrote:
> Den 01.05.2023 15:50, skrev Richard Hertz:
> > 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.
> Right. So what is your point?
> >
> > 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.
> You have a serious reading comprehension problem.
>
> <snip>
>
>
> > 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.
> >
>
> You got it upside down.
> The 'downloaded energy' doesn't decrease with speed.
>
>
> > And this effect is not explained by your fucking relativity.
>
> No, because there is no such effect.
>
> KE = (γ−1)mc²
>
> dKE/dv = v⋅m/√(1−v²/c²)³
>
> lim(dKE/dv) = ∞ when v → c
>
> There is no limit for the "downloaded energy", it
> increases strongly with speed, but since the increase
> approaches infinity when the speed approaches c, the speed
> can never exceed c because the amount of energy the accelerating
> device can supply is limited.
>
> You will probably not read the following, or if you do,
> your reading comprehension problem will probably prevent
> you from understand it:
>
> A synchrotron consists of straight stretches with RF-cavities
> which accelerates the electrons, and bends where the the electrons
> are deflected by magnetic fields.
>
> NOTE THIS:
> In the RF-cavities the electrons are accelerated (longitudinally)
> by electric fields, and their kinetic energy increases by about
> 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 speed increases, the energy lost in the bends increases,
> and 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.
> Synchrotrons do work, and they wouldn't if these question
> were not very well understood.
> Physicists have learned this through experience, and only
> ignorant and naive fools would claim that the physicists
> are wrong and that their own fantasies are right.
>
> Are you such a ignorant fool, Richard?
>
> --
> Paul
>
> https://paulba.no/

Bla, bla, bla, bla, .....

Throw away your kindergarden book on particle physics, and read some serious stuff.

You PERSIST with your fucking KE and E fields regularly causing centripetal acceleration, and the balance between absorbed
and irradiated energy.

Your description is so infantile that I really think that your prototemporal dementia has really reached a critical point, so you
only understand one or two things.

I told you about the problem with ANGULAR MOMENTUM, and you didn't even care.

As irradiated photons increase their energy, well past visible light, the cumulative recoil effects on the electrons affect their
angular momentum increasingly. You FORGOT the huge magnetic field required to keep electrons in a circular path PLUS
to maintain the beam of electrons as tight as possible.

You also FORGOT the bremsstrahlung radiation, emitted when charged particles are subject to an acceleration perpendicular
to their velocity. You CONFUSED IT with Larmor radiation, which is derived from Maxwell's wave theory of light.

When you try to make a balance of given and radiated energy, do the proper math including ALL THE FACTORS:

- Recoil of electrons caused by emission of high energy photons.
- Increasingly inefficient mechanism to deliver energy to electrons, as their electric field adopts a form of a tail of a comet.
- Total energy supplied, at any instant, by electric AND magnetic fields, to keep electrons moving even faster.
- Energy wasted to maintain compact the bunch of electrons (CERN like to pack them in bunches of 2048).
- Other UNKNOWN effects kept buried into the crappy pile of lies that researchers write (don't contradict Einstein dogma).

Accelerators have a limit in their capability to supply energy to electrons traveling near c, and IS NOT because of relativity.

Read something about cosmic electrons, accelerated by galactic energies beyond dreams of humans. They travel at c or faster.

On Tuesday, May 2, 2023 at 1:25:39 PM UTC-7, Paul B. Andersen wrote:
> Den 01.05.2023 15:50, skrev Richard Hertz:
> > 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.
> Right. So what is your point?
> >
> > 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.
> You have a serious reading comprehension problem.
>
> <snip>
>
>
> > 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.
> >
>
> You got it upside down.
> The 'downloaded energy' doesn't decrease with speed.
>
>
> > And this effect is not explained by your fucking relativity.
>
> No, because there is no such effect.
>
> KE = (γ−1)mc²
>
> dKE/dv = v⋅m/√(1−v²/c²)³
>
> lim(dKE/dv) = ∞ when v → c
>
> There is no limit for the "downloaded energy", it
> increases strongly with speed, but since the increase
> approaches infinity when the speed approaches c, the speed
> can never exceed c because the amount of energy the accelerating
> device can supply is limited.
>
> You will probably not read the following, or if you do,
> your reading comprehension problem will probably prevent
> you from understand it:
>
> A synchrotron consists of straight stretches with RF-cavities
> which accelerates the electrons, and bends where the the electrons
> are deflected by magnetic fields.
>
> NOTE THIS:
> In the RF-cavities the electrons are accelerated (longitudinally)
> by electric fields, and their kinetic energy increases by about
> 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 speed increases, the energy lost in the bends increases,
> and 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.
> Synchrotrons do work, and they wouldn't if these question
> were not very well understood.
> Physicists have learned this through experience, and only
> ignorant and naive fools would claim that the physicists
> are wrong and that their own fantasies are right.
>
> Are you such a ignorant fool, Richard?
>
> --
> Paul
>
> https://paulba.no/

As you predicted, the nutter ignored everything and kept on going.

On Tuesday, May 2, 2023 at 2:43:40 PM UTC-7, Richard Hertz wrote:

> Accelerators have a limit in their capability to supply energy to electrons traveling near c, and IS NOT because of relativity.
>
Actually, it is, dumbestfuck.

On Tuesday, May 2, 2023 at 2:43:40 PM UTC-7, Richard Hertz wrote:

> Read something about cosmic electrons, accelerated by galactic energies beyond dreams of humans. They travel at c or faster.

What have you been smoking, Dick?

On 5/1/2023 3:33 PM, Chris M. Thomasson wrote:
> 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?

Yes. Until it interacts with something (like annihilating with a
positron) it will exist forever.

> An electron will never decay into nothingness,
> right?

All electrons are the same, but they can be in different energy states.
An electron giving off a photon is still an electron but is in a lower
energy state of some sort. Perhaps in a lower orbital of an atom or
something. It can also absorb a photon and be in a higher energy state.
It's still an electron.

On 5/1/2023 4:34 PM, Chris M. Thomasson wrote:
> 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?

Without being supplied with external energy, things will tend to wind up
in the lowest energy state possible. Since you have to supply energy to
atoms to wrench their electrons away from them, the lowest state is
normally a neutral atom*, with the electrons in the lowest available
orbitals. For example only 2 electrons can be in the lowest energy
orbital, the 1S orbital. A third electron cannot go there. Look up the
"ground state" of atoms.

You may look at a diagram of an atom and say "but but what if the
electron crashes into a proton??" yes classical theory says that would
be a lower energy state but quantum theory disallows that, it would need
to do some weak force magic and interact to become a neutron (plus
neutrino) but that's actually a HIGHER energy state so it doesn't
(normally) happen.

(*) individual atoms usually can combine with each other forming
molecules with even lower energy but that just confuses things.

On 5/1/2023 5:32 PM, Chris M. Thomasson wrote:

> Will everything eventually decay into a collection of stable particles?
>
Individual atoms are a lower energy state than a bunch of stable
particles so they will tend to form atoms.

Which is why we are here, things are in a relatively low energy state so
we have atoms. In the sun it is too hot for atoms to exist so it is made
of plasma, which is a collection of stable particles (electrons and nuclei).

On 5/2/2023 5:43 PM, Richard Hertz wrote:
> On Tuesday, May 2, 2023 at 5:25:39 PM UTC-3, Paul B. Andersen wrote:
>> Den 01.05.2023 15:50, skrev Richard Hertz:
>>> 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.
>> Right. So what is your point?
>>>
>>> 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.
>> You have a serious reading comprehension problem.
>>
>> <snip>
>>
>>
>>> 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.
>>>
>>
>> You got it upside down.
>> The 'downloaded energy' doesn't decrease with speed.
>>
>>
>>> And this effect is not explained by your fucking relativity.
>>
>> No, because there is no such effect.
>>
>> KE = (γ−1)mc²
>>
>> dKE/dv = v⋅m/√(1−v²/c²)³
>>
>> lim(dKE/dv) = ∞ when v → c
>>
>> There is no limit for the "downloaded energy", it
>> increases strongly with speed, but since the increase
>> approaches infinity when the speed approaches c, the speed
>> can never exceed c because the amount of energy the accelerating
>> device can supply is limited.
>>
>> You will probably not read the following, or if you do,
>> your reading comprehension problem will probably prevent
>> you from understand it:
>>
>> A synchrotron consists of straight stretches with RF-cavities
>> which accelerates the electrons, and bends where the the electrons
>> are deflected by magnetic fields.
>>
>> NOTE THIS:
>> In the RF-cavities the electrons are accelerated (longitudinally)
>> by electric fields, and their kinetic energy increases by about
>> 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 speed increases, the energy lost in the bends increases,
>> and 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.
>> Synchrotrons do work, and they wouldn't if these question
>> were not very well understood.
>> Physicists have learned this through experience, and only
>> ignorant and naive fools would claim that the physicists
>> are wrong and that their own fantasies are right.
>>
>> Are you such a ignorant fool, Richard?
>>
>> --
>> Paul
>>
>> https://paulba.no/
>
> Bla, bla, bla, bla, .....
>
> Throw away your kindergarden book on particle physics, and read some serious stuff.
>
> You PERSIST with your fucking KE and E fields regularly causing centripetal acceleration, and the balance between absorbed
> and irradiated energy.

Sorry, Dick. Accelerating charges radiate energy away. I don't know the
formula other than in general, the more acceleration, the more energy lost.

A synchrotron supplies a constant energy with every pass. Magnets
curving the electrons accelerate them which causes them to radiate energy.

If each of the acceleration in the RF cavities exceeds the energy lost
to the bending magnet, the electron beam gets more and more energetic.
If (somehow) the RF cavity acceleration is less than lost to the
magnets, the beam will lose power.

Typically a beam will gain energy until it reaches a value where the
added energy exactly equals the energy lost to the bending. The beam
neither gains nor loses total energy and it has the maximum energy for
that particular design.

All this has been known since the 1930s, where have you been?

> Read something about cosmic electrons, accelerated by galactic energies beyond dreams of humans. They travel at c or faster.

They are accelerated by methods we cannot recreate on earth. No, they do
not go at c or faster, they just have more 9 digits after the decimal
point than accelerated electrons we accelerate on earth, because their γ
is very, very large.

Volney <volney@invalid.invalid> wrote:

> On 5/1/2023 4:34 PM, Chris M. Thomasson wrote:
> > 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?
>
> Without being supplied with external energy, things will tend to wind up
> in the lowest energy state possible. Since you have to supply energy to
> atoms to wrench their electrons away from them, the lowest state is
> normally a neutral atom*, with the electrons in the lowest available
> orbitals. For example only 2 electrons can be in the lowest energy
> orbital, the 1S orbital. A third electron cannot go there. Look up the
> "ground state" of atoms.
>
> You may look at a diagram of an atom and say "but but what if the
> electron crashes into a proton??" yes classical theory says that would
> be a lower energy state but quantum theory disallows that, it would need
> to do some weak force magic and interact to become a neutron (plus
> neutrino) but that's actually a HIGHER energy state so it doesn't
> (normally) happen.

Nothing in quantum mechanics disallows it.
It is just that the neutron has more energy.
It can, and will happen, if you apply sufficient pressure,
like in a neutron star.
It is a reversible reaction,
just like an ordinary chemical equilibrium,

Jan

Volney wrote:

>> An electron will never decay into nothingness, right?
>
> All electrons are the same, but they can be in different energy states.
> An electron giving off a photon is still an electron but is in a lower
> energy state of some sort. Perhaps in a lower orbital of an atom or
> something. It can also absorb a photon and be in a higher energy state.
> It's still an electron.

when Kiev says *_"no_idea,_this_was_not_us"_*, then you know this was
Kiev. So, Putin, an eye for an eye. However, Christians do not operate by
Mosaic law. That would be the satanists khazars. Wherever that gay little
khazar gypsy rat is, he will be found.

On May 2, Volney wrote:
> Accelerating charges radiate energy away. I don't know the
> formula other than in general, the more acceleration, the more energy lost.

So when a straight wire radio receiver antenna gets hit by
a RF signal, the charges accelerate, and radiate energy away?

--
Rich

Den 02.05.2023 23:43, skrev Richard Hertz:
> On Tuesday, May 2, 2023 at 5:25:39 PM UTC-3, Paul B. Andersen wrote:
>> Den 01.05.2023 15:50, skrev Richard Hertz:
>>> On Monday, May 1, 2023 at 7:14:58 AM UTC-3, Paul B. Andersen wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>> 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.

>> Right. So what is your point?

>>>
>>> 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.

>> You have a serious reading comprehension problem.

>>> 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.
>>>

>>
>> You got it upside down.
>> The 'downloaded energy' doesn't decrease with speed.
>>
>>

>>> And this effect is not explained by your fucking relativity.

>>
>> No, because there is no such effect.
>>
>> KE = (γ−1)mc²
>>
>> dKE/dv = v⋅m/√(1−v²/c²)³
>>
>> lim(dKE/dv) = ∞ when v → c
>>
>> There is no limit for the "downloaded energy", it
>> increases strongly with speed, but since the increase
>> approaches infinity when the speed approaches c, the speed
>> can never exceed c because the amount of energy the accelerating
>> device can supply is limited.
>>

< snip what Richard Hertz didn't read or didn't understand >

>
> Bla, bla, bla, bla, .....
>
> Throw away your kindergarden book on particle physics, and read some serious stuff.
>
> You PERSIST with your fucking KE and E fields regularly causing centripetal acceleration, and the balance between absorbed
> and irradiated energy.

"fucking KE and E fields regularly causing centripetal acceleration" :-D

Wake up! You are dreaming!

I said:
| In the RF-cavities the electrons are accelerated (longitudinally)
| by electric fields, and their kinetic energy increases by about
| 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.

Let's look closer at these RF-cavities, and see why
the gained energy does not decrease with increasing
speed of the charged particle.

The basic principle is quite simple, see:
https://paulba.no/temp/RFcavity.pdf

The cavity is a short, circular waveguide, closed in both ends.
In this waveguide you can have a standing TM01 wave (resonance).
In the centre it is a hole in both end walls where the charged particles
can flow. Energy is coupled into the cavity via a small wire loop
fed by RF power from a klystron (or similar) via another waveguide.
The electric field will be constant along the z-axis, and strongest
in the centre. The E-field will vary sinusoidally with time,
and the phase is synced so that the charged particle (bunch) passes
through when the E-field is at maximum.

The gained energy is ΔKE = F⋅l = q⋅E⋅l
Note that the speed of the particle is irrelevant,
but it will be so fast that E can be considered
to be at the maximum while the particle is in the cavity.

E⋅l is the voltage between the end walls, so the gained energy
is E⋅l eV every time the charged particle passes through the cavity.
It does NOT diminish with increasing speed.

>
> Your description is so infantile that I really think that your prototemporal dementia has really reached a critical point, so you
> only understand one or two things.
>
> I told you about the problem with ANGULAR MOMENTUM, and you didn't even care.
>
> As irradiated photons increase their energy, well past visible light, the cumulative recoil effects on the electrons affect their
> angular momentum increasingly. You FORGOT the huge magnetic field required to keep electrons in a circular path PLUS
> to maintain the beam of electrons as tight as possible.

This is incoherent babble.

>
> You also FORGOT the bremsstrahlung radiation, emitted when charged particles are subject to an acceleration perpendicular
> to their velocity. You CONFUSED IT with Larmor radiation, which is derived from Maxwell's wave theory of light.

You have been sleeping again, and haven't heard what I said.

I said:
| 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.

Synchrotron radiation IS bremsstrahlung.

The charged particles looses kinetic energy and thus speed.
They are 'braked'.

>
> When you try to make a balance of given and radiated energy, do the proper math including ALL THE FACTORS:

All you have to know is:
1. The energy supplied by the RF-cavities per passing is constant
and does not diminish with the speed of the particles.
2. The kinetic energy lost in the bends will increase with
the speed of the particles.

So when the accelerator is started, the speed of the particles
will increase until the lost energy is equal to the gained energy.

Neither I nor you are competent to do all the calculations to
make a synchrotron work, but as opposed to you, I know the basic
principles.

And you can't do it without SR.

--
Paul

https://paulba.no/

On Wednesday, May 3, 2023 at 5:37:31 PM UTC-3, Paul B. Andersen wrote:
> Den 02.05.2023 23:43, skrev Richard Hertz:
> > On Tuesday, May 2, 2023 at 5:25:39 PM UTC-3, Paul B. Andersen wrote:
> >> Den 01.05.2023 15:50, skrev Richard Hertz:
> >>> On Monday, May 1, 2023 at 7:14:58 AM UTC-3, Paul B. Andersen wrote:
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>> 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.
>
> >> Right. So what is your point?
>
> >>>
> >>> 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.
>
> >> You have a serious reading comprehension problem.
> >>> 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.
> >>>
>
> >>
> >> You got it upside down.
> >> The 'downloaded energy' doesn't decrease with speed.
> >>
> >>
>
> >>> And this effect is not explained by your fucking relativity.
>
> >>
> >> No, because there is no such effect.
> >>
> >> KE = (γ−1)mc²
> >>
> >> dKE/dv = v⋅m/√(1−v²/c²)³
> >>
> >> lim(dKE/dv) = ∞ when v → c
> >>
> >> There is no limit for the "downloaded energy", it
> >> increases strongly with speed, but since the increase
> >> approaches infinity when the speed approaches c, the speed
> >> can never exceed c because the amount of energy the accelerating
> >> device can supply is limited.
> >>
> < snip what Richard Hertz didn't read or didn't understand >
> >
> > Bla, bla, bla, bla, .....
> >
> > Throw away your kindergarden book on particle physics, and read some serious stuff.
> >
> > You PERSIST with your fucking KE and E fields regularly causing centripetal acceleration, and the balance between absorbed
> > and irradiated energy.
> "fucking KE and E fields regularly causing centripetal acceleration" :-D
>
> Wake up! You are dreaming!
> I said:
> | In the RF-cavities the electrons are accelerated (longitudinally)
> | by electric fields, and their kinetic energy increases by about
> | 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.
> Let's look closer at these RF-cavities, and see why
> the gained energy does not decrease with increasing
> speed of the charged particle.
>
> The basic principle is quite simple, see:
> https://paulba.no/temp/RFcavity.pdf" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">https://paulba.no/temp/RFcavity.pdf
>
> The cavity is a short, circular waveguide, closed in both ends.
> In this waveguide you can have a standing TM01 wave (resonance).
> In the centre it is a hole in both end walls where the charged particles
> can flow. Energy is coupled into the cavity via a small wire loop
> fed by RF power from a klystron (or similar) via another waveguide.
> The electric field will be constant along the z-axis, and strongest
> in the centre. The E-field will vary sinusoidally with time,
> and the phase is synced so that the charged particle (bunch) passes
> through when the E-field is at maximum.
>
> The gained energy is ΔKE = F⋅l = q⋅E⋅l
> Note that the speed of the particle is irrelevant,
> but it will be so fast that E can be considered
> to be at the maximum while the particle is in the cavity.
>
> E⋅l is the voltage between the end walls, so the gained energy
> is E⋅l eV every time the charged particle passes through the cavity.
> It does NOT diminish with increasing speed.
> >
> > Your description is so infantile that I really think that your prototemporal dementia has really reached a critical point, so you
> > only understand one or two things.
> >
> > I told you about the problem with ANGULAR MOMENTUM, and you didn't even care.
> >
> > As irradiated photons increase their energy, well past visible light, the cumulative recoil effects on the electrons affect their
> > angular momentum increasingly. You FORGOT the huge magnetic field required to keep electrons in a circular path PLUS
> > to maintain the beam of electrons as tight as possible.
> This is incoherent babble.
> >
> > You also FORGOT the bremsstrahlung radiation, emitted when charged particles are subject to an acceleration perpendicular
> > to their velocity. You CONFUSED IT with Larmor radiation, which is derived from Maxwell's wave theory of light.
> You have been sleeping again, and haven't heard what I said.
> I said:
> | 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.
> Synchrotron radiation IS bremsstrahlung.
>
> The charged particles looses kinetic energy and thus speed.
> They are 'braked'.
> >
> > When you try to make a balance of given and radiated energy, do the proper math including ALL THE FACTORS:
> All you have to know is:
> 1. The energy supplied by the RF-cavities per passing is constant
> and does not diminish with the speed of the particles.
> 2. The kinetic energy lost in the bends will increase with
> the speed of the particles.
>
> So when the accelerator is started, the speed of the particles
> will increase until the lost energy is equal to the gained energy.
>
> Neither I nor you are competent to do all the calculations to
> make a synchrotron work, but as opposed to you, I know the basic
> principles.
>
> And you can't do it without SR.
>
>
> --
> Paul
>
> https://paulba.no/

I insist: you are all bla, bla, bla, .....

Get serious, be an adult, and figure out what facts ARE NOT ADDRESSED in this booklet:

https://home.cern/resources/brochure/knowledge-sharing/lhc-facts-and-figures

And, if you can, explain how come Moon's gravity is another cause for loss of energy in accelerated protons (which are used at the LHC).

Also, make some calculations about the compensations for energy losses that HUGE magnetic fields of many kinds being used.

And about RF cavities providing accelerating energy for charged particles (protons in the CERN brochure) by means of 5 Megavolt/mt,
stop being simplistic and tell:

- How come the E field is increased and synchronized with bunches of protons that loop around 11,000 times/sec IF very complex
CORRECTIONS are made by more than 8 types of magnetic fields.

- Why do you refuse to compute the magnetic energy LOST in keeping bunches of 100 billion protons orbiting the LHC.

- Why do you refuse to take into account the increasing loss of energy due to the recoil of emitted photons, as their energy grows.

- How do you compute the energy lost by the technical impossibility of adjusting the peak E field uniformly, along a path of 170 Km
over about 2,808 bunches separated about 20 nsec each. Moving at 0.99999991 c, they are separated no more than 7.6 meters.

- The above is for 7 TeV protons, in the final stage. They are accelerated at the LHC from 0.5 TeV to 7 TeV in 20 minutes. You can
do the math for the radiation lost, as it's not so difficult. What you can't compute is another "hidden" factor, which is photon
scattering within 100 billion protons packed together on each bunch. Not only huge amounts of recoils due to photon emission,
but many other "not told" effect like antiparticles created in such a messy train of protons, compressed in a length of a few cm
and separated nanometers one from each other, per bunch.

When you have the above details understood (read the CERN brochure), and also computed Moon's gravity, try again to post
something for adults, not kinder garden children.

On Monday, May 1, 2023 at 4:58:38 AM UTC+1, 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.

I think that in 2023, your question has the best chance of being answered by someone who's an expert in quantum field theory, whereas I'm not. But I'll say this which others more expert can correct: Nowadays, the electron is modelled as an excitation of an electron field, just as a photon is modelled as an excitation of the electromagnetic field, so that using old classical field models may lead to apparent paradoxes that can only be resolved using QFT.

However, it's still possible to create a crude, but workable model in most cases for an electron via a hollow charged sphere, to understand the fundamental physical issues at hand when using classical field theory. For example: when placed in an applied E field the charge is polarized to one side until the resulting internal E field cancels the applied one so that the net E field inside is zero; the internal energy of the charged sphere has now increased. And if allowed to accelerate while we remain at rest in the inertial lab frame, we'll observe the dimensions of the sphere being reduced along the direction its accelerating in, implying a movement of charge from internal forces in addition to the applied electric field, yet remaining a rigid charged sphere in its comoving rest frame.

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

So an answer to your question using classical field theory is that the radiated energy comes from the applied electromagnetic field interacting with the electron, with the remaining being used to increase its kinetic energy while maintaining an electron as an electron.

Larry Harson

On Wednesday, May 3, 2023 at 8:14:51 PM UTC-3, larry harson wrote:
> On Monday, May 1, 2023 at 4:58:38 AM UTC+1, 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.
> I think that in 2023, your question has the best chance of being answered by someone who's an expert in quantum field theory, whereas I'm not. But I'll say this which others more expert can correct: Nowadays, the electron is modelled as an excitation of an electron field, just as a photon is modelled as an excitation of the electromagnetic field, so that using old classical field models may lead to apparent paradoxes that can only be resolved using QFT.
>
> However, it's still possible to create a crude, but workable model in most cases for an electron via a hollow charged sphere, to understand the fundamental physical issues at hand when using classical field theory. For example: when placed in an applied E field the charge is polarized to one side until the resulting internal E field cancels the applied one so that the net E field inside is zero; the internal energy of the charged sphere has now increased. And if allowed to accelerate while we remain at rest in the inertial lab frame, we'll observe the dimensions of the sphere being reduced along the direction its accelerating in, implying a movement of charge from internal forces in addition to the applied electric field, yet remaining a rigid charged sphere in its comoving rest frame.
> "How come an electron can still be an electron if radiates endlessly energy (photons or waves) while being accelerated, like Larmor discovered?"
> So an answer to your question using classical field theory is that the radiated energy comes from the applied electromagnetic field interacting with the electron, with the remaining being used to increase its kinetic energy while maintaining an electron as an electron.
>
> Larry Harson

As Dirac said, the problem with QFT are the infinities.

An electron's annihilation energy is about 8E-14 J. Assuming the electric field equation applies down to 10E-18 m (the estimated
electron radius in Dirac's epoch, the energy in an electron's electric field would be about 1400 times more energy than an electron's annihilation energy. In QFT, the electron radius is zero, so its electric energy is infinite.

QED "solved" both problems by inventing the "classic electron radius" of 10E-15 m, which gives 0.511 MeV.

Funny, isn't it?

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

Thanks for your post this interests me.

Den 04.05.2023 00:23, skrev Richard Hertz:
> On Wednesday, May 3, 2023 at 5:37:31 PM UTC-3, Paul B. Andersen wrote:
>> Den 02.05.2023 23:43, skrev Richard Hertz:
>>>
>>> Throw away your kindergarden book on particle physics, and read some serious stuff.
>>>
>>> You PERSIST with your fucking KE and E fields regularly causing centripetal acceleration, and the balance between absorbed
>>> and irradiated energy.

>> "fucking KE and E fields regularly causing centripetal acceleration" :-D
>>
>> Wake up! You are dreaming!
>> I said:
>> | In the RF-cavities the electrons are accelerated (longitudinally)
>> | by electric fields, and their kinetic energy increases by about
>> | 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.
>> Let's look closer at these RF-cavities, and see why
>> the gained energy does not decrease with increasing
>> speed of the charged particle.
>>
>> The basic principle is quite simple, see:
>> https://paulba.no/temp/RFcavity.pdf
>>
>> The cavity is a short, circular waveguide, closed in both ends.
>> In this waveguide you can have a standing TM01 wave (resonance).
>> In the centre it is a hole in both end walls where the charged particles
>> can flow. Energy is coupled into the cavity via a small wire loop
>> fed by RF power from a klystron (or similar) via another waveguide.
>> The electric field will be constant along the z-axis, and strongest
>> in the centre. The E-field will vary sinusoidally with time,
>> and the phase is synced so that the charged particle (bunch) passes
>> through when the E-field is at maximum.
>>
>> The gained energy is ΔKE = F⋅l = q⋅E⋅l
>> Note that the speed of the particle is irrelevant,
>> but it will be so fast that E can be considered
>> to be at the maximum while the particle is in the cavity.
>>
>> E⋅l is the voltage between the end walls, so the gained energy
>> is E⋅l eV every time the charged particle passes through the cavity.
>> It does NOT diminish with increasing speed.

>>>
>>> Your description is so infantile that I really think that your prototemporal dementia has really reached a critical point, so you
>>> only understand one or two things.
>>>
>>> I told you about the problem with ANGULAR MOMENTUM, and you didn't even care.
>>>
>>> As irradiated photons increase their energy, well past visible light, the cumulative recoil effects on the electrons affect their
>>> angular momentum increasingly. You FORGOT the huge magnetic field required to keep electrons in a circular path PLUS
>>> to maintain the beam of electrons as tight as possible.
>> This is incoherent babble.
>>>
>>> You also FORGOT the bremsstrahlung radiation, emitted when charged particles are subject to an acceleration perpendicular
>>> to their velocity. You CONFUSED IT with Larmor radiation, which is derived from Maxwell's wave theory of light.

>> You have been sleeping again, and haven't heard what I said.
>> I said:
>> | 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.
>> Synchrotron radiation IS bremsstrahlung.
>>
>> The charged particles looses kinetic energy and thus speed.
>> They are 'braked'.

>>>
>>> When you try to make a balance of given and radiated energy, do the proper math including ALL THE FACTORS:

>> All you have to know is:
>> 1. The energy supplied by the RF-cavities per passing is constant
>> and does not diminish with the speed of the particles.
>> 2. The kinetic energy lost in the bends will increase with
>> the speed of the particles.
>>
>> So when the accelerator is started, the speed of the particles
>> will increase until the lost energy is equal to the gained energy.
>>
>> Neither I nor you are competent to do all the calculations to
>> make a synchrotron work, but as opposed to you, I know the basic
>> principles.
>>
>> And you can't do it without SR.
>>

>
> I insist: you are all bla, bla, bla, .....
>
> Get serious, be an adult, and figure out what facts ARE NOT ADDRESSED in this booklet:
>
> https://home.cern/resources/brochure/knowledge-sharing/lhc-facts-and-figures

There is nothing here which contradicts my explanation of
the basic principles of how a synchrotron works.
Quite the contrary.

But you, Richard Hertz, have documented that you have no clue
about the basics of a synchrotron.
For example, you wrote:
"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."

...which is plain wrong, the "downloaded energy" (kinetic energy)
the RF-cavities supply to the charged particles does not decrease
when the particle speed increases.
And if your reading comprehension problems hadn't prevented
you from understanding my bla bla, you would have known why.

You have also written a number of completely ridiculous
and meaningless statements like:
"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."

It seems like you don't understand that the energy that is
gained in the RF-cavities and lost as synchrotron radiation
in the bends is simply kinetic energy of a mass.

It is very obvious that the correct equation is:
KE = (γ−1)mc² because there is no limit for the KE.

The Newtonian equation KE = mv²/2 is limited to mc²/2,
which is only a tiny fracton of the kinetic energy in
a particle with speed close to c.
_______________________

And now you, to divert the attention from all the stupid
claims you have made in this thread, pretend that what I
have said about synchrotrons above is wrong unless I can
do the calculations you demand of me below.

I am obviously not competent to do the calculations which
only VERY few people in CERN can do.

I will leave them as a demonstration of your desperation.

>
>
> And, if you can, explain how come Moon's gravity is another cause for loss of energy in accelerated protons (which are used at the LHC).
>
> Also, make some calculations about the compensations for energy losses that HUGE magnetic fields of many kinds being used.
>
> And about RF cavities providing accelerating energy for charged particles (protons in the CERN brochure) by means of 5 Megavolt/mt,
> stop being simplistic and tell:
>
> - How come the E field is increased and synchronized with bunches of protons that loop around 11,000 times/sec IF very complex
> CORRECTIONS are made by more than 8 types of magnetic fields.
>
> - Why do you refuse to compute the magnetic energy LOST in keeping bunches of 100 billion protons orbiting the LHC.
>
> - Why do you refuse to take into account the increasing loss of energy due to the recoil of emitted photons, as their energy grows.
>
> - How do you compute the energy lost by the technical impossibility of adjusting the peak E field uniformly, along a path of 170 Km
> over about 2,808 bunches separated about 20 nsec each. Moving at 0.99999991 c, they are separated no more than 7.6 meters.
>
> - The above is for 7 TeV protons, in the final stage. They are accelerated at the LHC from 0.5 TeV to 7 TeV in 20 minutes. You can
> do the math for the radiation lost, as it's not so difficult. What you can't compute is another "hidden" factor, which is photon
> scattering within 100 billion protons packed together on each bunch. Not only huge amounts of recoils due to photon emission,
> but many other "not told" effect like antiparticles created in such a messy train of protons, compressed in a length of a few cm
> and separated nanometers one from each other, per bunch.
>
> When you have the above details understood (read the CERN brochure), and also computed Moon's gravity, try again to post
> something for adults, not kinder garden children.
>

On Thursday, May 4, 2023 at 7:15:20 AM UTC-3, Paul B. Andersen wrote:
> Den 04.05.2023 00:23, skrev Richard Hertz:
> > On Wednesday, May 3, 2023 at 5:37:31 PM UTC-3, Paul B. Andersen wrote:
> >> Den 02.05.2023 23:43, skrev Richard Hertz:
> >>>
> >>> Throw away your kindergarden book on particle physics, and read some serious stuff.
> >>>
> >>> You PERSIST with your fucking KE and E fields regularly causing centripetal acceleration, and the balance between absorbed
> >>> and irradiated energy.
>
> >> "fucking KE and E fields regularly causing centripetal acceleration" :-D
> >>
> >> Wake up! You are dreaming!
> >> I said:
> >> | In the RF-cavities the electrons are accelerated (longitudinally)
> >> | by electric fields, and their kinetic energy increases by about
> >> | 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.
> >> Let's look closer at these RF-cavities, and see why
> >> the gained energy does not decrease with increasing
> >> speed of the charged particle.
> >>
> >> The basic principle is quite simple, see:
> >> https://paulba.no/temp/RFcavity.pdf" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">https://paulba.no/temp/RFcavity.pdf
> >>
> >> The cavity is a short, circular waveguide, closed in both ends.
> >> In this waveguide you can have a standing TM01 wave (resonance).
> >> In the centre it is a hole in both end walls where the charged particles
> >> can flow. Energy is coupled into the cavity via a small wire loop
> >> fed by RF power from a klystron (or similar) via another waveguide.
> >> The electric field will be constant along the z-axis, and strongest
> >> in the centre. The E-field will vary sinusoidally with time,
> >> and the phase is synced so that the charged particle (bunch) passes
> >> through when the E-field is at maximum.
> >>
> >> The gained energy is ΔKE = F⋅l = q⋅E⋅l
> >> Note that the speed of the particle is irrelevant,
> >> but it will be so fast that E can be considered
> >> to be at the maximum while the particle is in the cavity.
> >>
> >> E⋅l is the voltage between the end walls, so the gained energy
> >> is E⋅l eV every time the charged particle passes through the cavity.
> >> It does NOT diminish with increasing speed.
>
> >>>
> >>> Your description is so infantile that I really think that your prototemporal dementia has really reached a critical point, so you
> >>> only understand one or two things.
> >>>
> >>> I told you about the problem with ANGULAR MOMENTUM, and you didn't even care.
> >>>
> >>> As irradiated photons increase their energy, well past visible light, the cumulative recoil effects on the electrons affect their
> >>> angular momentum increasingly. You FORGOT the huge magnetic field required to keep electrons in a circular path PLUS
> >>> to maintain the beam of electrons as tight as possible.
> >> This is incoherent babble.
> >>>
> >>> You also FORGOT the bremsstrahlung radiation, emitted when charged particles are subject to an acceleration perpendicular
> >>> to their velocity. You CONFUSED IT with Larmor radiation, which is derived from Maxwell's wave theory of light.
>
> >> You have been sleeping again, and haven't heard what I said.
> >> I said:
> >> | 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.
> >> Synchrotron radiation IS bremsstrahlung.
> >>
> >> The charged particles looses kinetic energy and thus speed.
> >> They are 'braked'.
>
> >>>
> >>> When you try to make a balance of given and radiated energy, do the proper math including ALL THE FACTORS:
>
> >> All you have to know is:
> >> 1. The energy supplied by the RF-cavities per passing is constant
> >> and does not diminish with the speed of the particles.
> >> 2. The kinetic energy lost in the bends will increase with
> >> the speed of the particles.
> >>
> >> So when the accelerator is started, the speed of the particles
> >> will increase until the lost energy is equal to the gained energy.
> >>
> >> Neither I nor you are competent to do all the calculations to
> >> make a synchrotron work, but as opposed to you, I know the basic
> >> principles.
> >>
> >> And you can't do it without SR.
> >>
>
> >
> > I insist: you are all bla, bla, bla, .....
> >
> > Get serious, be an adult, and figure out what facts ARE NOT ADDRESSED in this booklet:
> >
> > https://home.cern/resources/brochure/knowledge-sharing/lhc-facts-and-figures
> There is nothing here which contradicts my explanation of
> the basic principles of how a synchrotron works.
> Quite the contrary.
>
> But you, Richard Hertz, have documented that you have no clue
> about the basics of a synchrotron.
> For example, you wrote:
> "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."
> ..which is plain wrong, the "downloaded energy" (kinetic energy)
> the RF-cavities supply to the charged particles does not decrease
> when the particle speed increases.
> And if your reading comprehension problems hadn't prevented
> you from understanding my bla bla, you would have known why.
>
> You have also written a number of completely ridiculous
> and meaningless statements like:
> "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."
>
> It seems like you don't understand that the energy that is
> gained in the RF-cavities and lost as synchrotron radiation
> in the bends is simply kinetic energy of a mass.
>
> It is very obvious that the correct equation is:
> KE = (γ−1)mc² because there is no limit for the KE.
>
> The Newtonian equation KE = mv²/2 is limited to mc²/2,
> which is only a tiny fracton of the kinetic energy in
> a particle with speed close to c.
> _______________________
>
> And now you, to divert the attention from all the stupid
> claims you have made in this thread, pretend that what I
> have said about synchrotrons above is wrong unless I can
> do the calculations you demand of me below.
>
> I am obviously not competent to do the calculations which
> only VERY few people in CERN can do.
>
>
> I will leave them as a demonstration of your desperation.
> >
> >
> > And, if you can, explain how come Moon's gravity is another cause for loss of energy in accelerated protons (which are used at the LHC).
> >
> > Also, make some calculations about the compensations for energy losses that HUGE magnetic fields of many kinds being used.
> >
> > And about RF cavities providing accelerating energy for charged particles (protons in the CERN brochure) by means of 5 Megavolt/mt,
> > stop being simplistic and tell:
> >
> > - How come the E field is increased and synchronized with bunches of protons that loop around 11,000 times/sec IF very complex
> > CORRECTIONS are made by more than 8 types of magnetic fields.
> >
> > - Why do you refuse to compute the magnetic energy LOST in keeping bunches of 100 billion protons orbiting the LHC.
> >
> > - Why do you refuse to take into account the increasing loss of energy due to the recoil of emitted photons, as their energy grows.
> >
> > - How do you compute the energy lost by the technical impossibility of adjusting the peak E field uniformly, along a path of 170 Km
> > over about 2,808 bunches separated about 20 nsec each. Moving at 0.99999991 c, they are separated no more than 7.6 meters.
> >
> > - The above is for 7 TeV protons, in the final stage. They are accelerated at the LHC from 0.5 TeV to 7 TeV in 20 minutes. You can
> > do the math for the radiation lost, as it's not so difficult. What you can't compute is another "hidden" factor, which is photon
> > scattering within 100 billion protons packed together on each bunch. Not only huge amounts of recoils due to photon emission,
> > but many other "not told" effect like antiparticles created in such a messy train of protons, compressed in a length of a few cm
> > and separated nanometers one from each other, per bunch.
> >
> > When you have the above details understood (read the CERN brochure), and also computed Moon's gravity, try again to post
> > something for adults, not kinder garden children.
> >
> It his however quite hilarious that you, Richard Hertz, who started
> the thread with the proclamation that relativity is wrong (a HOAX),
> now use a reference to the Large Hadron Collider at CERN as a proof
> that you were right and I was wrong!
>
> Do the LHC prove that relativity is a HOAX? :-D
>
> Maybe you should read it to see what it has to say about relativity?
>
>
> https://home.cern/resources/brochure/knowledge-sharing/lhc-facts-and-figures
>
>
> --
> Paul
>
> https://paulba.no/