On 5/3/2023 1:36 PM, RichD wrote:
> 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?

I am not familiar with the exact details, but yes I would say that such
absorption of RF energy could not be 100% efficient because some of it
would have to be radiated away as electrons accelerate.

On Thursday, May 4, 2023 at 11:27:55 AM UTC-5, Volney wrote:
> On 5/3/2023 1:36 PM, RichD wrote:
> > 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?
> I am not familiar with the exact details, but yes I would say that such
> absorption of RF energy could not be 100% efficient because some of it
> would have to be radiated away as electrons accelerate.

I believe that a standard method of bug detection is to sweep an
area with RF and to filter the re-radiated energy for odd harmonics
which could be indicative of active electronic circuits. False
positives could be the result of corroded wiring, etc.

On Thursday, May 4, 2023 at 11:03:53 AM UTC-7, Prokaryotic Capase Homolog wrote:
> On Thursday, May 4, 2023 at 11:27:55 AM UTC-5, Volney wrote:
> > On 5/3/2023 1:36 PM, RichD wrote:
> > > 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?
> > I am not familiar with the exact details, but yes I would say that such
> > absorption of RF energy could not be 100% efficient because some of it
> > would have to be radiated away as electrons accelerate.
> I believe that a standard method of bug detection is to sweep an
> area with RF and to filter the re-radiated energy for odd harmonics
> which could be indicative of active electronic circuits. False
> positives could be the result of corroded wiring, etc.

If BH were real fermions falling into the event horizon
could get infinite energy kinetic. But there is no
black hole to cause that infinite energy.
Only light can move at the maximum speed
limit in the universe.

Den 04.05.2023 14:57, skrev Richard Hertz:
> 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:
>>>
>>> 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
>>

>
> You keep parroting bla, bla, bla, ....

Quite.
I am parroting people who know how a synchrotron works.
I am not making it up like you did in your original posting.

Richard Hertz fantasized:
"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."
and:
"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 will hardly find support for your fantasies in the discription
of the LHC. :-D

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

>
> But YOU DON'T UNDERSTAND SQUAT. You're just a parrot, of the kind of lesser gifted parrots. Some are really smart. You are not.
>
> I clearly wrote that experiments IN THE MOST ADVANCED ACCELERATOR IN THE WORLD are based on bunches of NO LESS
> THAN 100 BILLION PARTICLES AT A TIME (10E+11), but you (STUPIDLY) insist that relativistic effects ARE SHOWN on any single
> fucking particle within the 100,000,000,000 others, which travel together in a "volume" of 10 cm long and a radius of 5 microns.
>
>
> You are so IMBECILE that you refuse to include the interaction of 100 billion particles packed together, and REDUCE your relativism
> to ONE of them, just ONE.

Not quite.
I wrote:
"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."

Of course I know that it is one bunch in the RF-cavity at the time,
but that doesnt change the fact that each particle in the bunch gains
the kinetic energy E⋅l eV in a passing.
(See: https://paulba.no/temp/RFcavity.pdf )

And of course I know that there usually are many bunches in
a synchrotron at the time. I also know that there normally
are (several) chains of RF-cavites which are synched such that
there is one bunch in each cavity when the E-field is at maximum.

>
> Then, I suggest you to DEVELOP A NEW THEORY: STATISTICAL RELATIVISM, so you can BURY unexplained effects within statistics.
>
> You HAVE NO INFORMATION about the behavior of A SINGLE CHARGED PARTICLE within the LHC. And, as I know, this is the most
> powerful machine that exist.
>
> Try to read again the development of this thread, and MAYBE (I doubt it), light will enter into your fucking brain.
>
> There is NOTHING, even with what I cited on purpose, that contradict my initial position. NOTHING.
>
> Now, I'd be glad to observe how do you manage to extract individual behavior of an electron or proton out of the HERD OF 10E+11.
>
> Good luck, and eat fish.

Quite.
Let's leave it at that.

But I have one question.
Now when you have studied the LHC and probably know how it works
much better than me:

Must SR be used to do the calculations that must be made
to make the LHC work?

--
Paul

https://paulba.no/

Den 04.05.2023 20:03, skrev Prokaryotic Capase Homolog:
> On Thursday, May 4, 2023 at 11:27:55 AM UTC-5, Volney wrote:
>> On 5/3/2023 1:36 PM, RichD wrote:
>>> 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?
>> I am not familiar with the exact details, but yes I would say that such
>> absorption of RF energy could not be 100% efficient because some of it
>> would have to be radiated away as electrons accelerate.
>
> I believe that a standard method of bug detection is to sweep an
> area with RF and to filter the re-radiated energy for odd harmonics
> which could be indicative of active electronic circuits. False
> positives could be the result of corroded wiring, etc.
>

And when a bug is detected, you can use this:
https://tinyurl.com/2fbynsr9

--
Paul

https://paulba.no/

On Thursday, May 4, 2023 at 5:14:12 PM UTC-3, Paul B. Andersen wrote:
> Den 04.05.2023 14:57, skrev Richard Hertz:
> > 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:
> >>>
> >>> 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
> >>
>
> >
> > You keep parroting bla, bla, bla, ....
> Quite.
> I am parroting people who know how a synchrotron works.
> I am not making it up like you did in your original posting.
>
> Richard Hertz fantasized:
> "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."
> and:
> "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 will hardly find support for your fantasies in the discription
> of the LHC. :-D
>
> There is nothing below which contradicts my explanation of
> the basic principles of how a synchrotron works.
>
> >
> > But YOU DON'T UNDERSTAND SQUAT. You're just a parrot, of the kind of lesser gifted parrots. Some are really smart. You are not.
> >
> > I clearly wrote that experiments IN THE MOST ADVANCED ACCELERATOR IN THE WORLD are based on bunches of NO LESS
> > THAN 100 BILLION PARTICLES AT A TIME (10E+11), but you (STUPIDLY) insist that relativistic effects ARE SHOWN on any single
> > fucking particle within the 100,000,000,000 others, which travel together in a "volume" of 10 cm long and a radius of 5 microns.
> >
> >
> > You are so IMBECILE that you refuse to include the interaction of 100 billion particles packed together, and REDUCE your relativism
> > to ONE of them, just ONE.
> Not quite.
> I wrote:
> "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."
> Of course I know that it is one bunch in the RF-cavity at the time,
> but that doesnt change the fact that each particle in the bunch gains
> the kinetic energy E⋅l eV in a passing.
> (See: https://paulba.no/temp/RFcavity.pdf" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">https://paulba.no/temp/RFcavity.pdf )
>
> And of course I know that there usually are many bunches in
> a synchrotron at the time. I also know that there normally
> are (several) chains of RF-cavites which are synched such that
> there is one bunch in each cavity when the E-field is at maximum.
> >
> > Then, I suggest you to DEVELOP A NEW THEORY: STATISTICAL RELATIVISM, so you can BURY unexplained effects within statistics.
> >
> > You HAVE NO INFORMATION about the behavior of A SINGLE CHARGED PARTICLE within the LHC. And, as I know, this is the most
> > powerful machine that exist.
> >
> > Try to read again the development of this thread, and MAYBE (I doubt it), light will enter into your fucking brain.
> >
> > There is NOTHING, even with what I cited on purpose, that contradict my initial position. NOTHING.
> >
> > Now, I'd be glad to observe how do you manage to extract individual behavior of an electron or proton out of the HERD OF 10E+11.
> >
> > Good luck, and eat fish.
> Quite.
> Let's leave it at that.
>
> But I have one question.
> Now when you have studied the LHC and probably know how it works
> much better than me:
>
> Must SR be used to do the calculations that must be made
> to make the LHC work?
>
>
> --
> Paul
>
> https://paulba.no/

On 5/4/23 3:59 PM, Richard Hertz wrote:
> On Thursday, May 4, 2023 at 5:14:12 PM UTC-3, Paul B. Andersen
> wrote:
>> Now when you have studied the LHC and probably know how it works
>> much better than me: Must SR be used to do the calculations that
>> must be made to make the LHC work?
>
> No.

Hertz CLEARLY does not understand how the LHC actually works. Using SR
in its design and analysis is absolutely required [#].

[#] Because the protons go around the rings at speed
indistinguishable from c, rather than enormously
faster than c as Newtonian physics would require
for their observed kinetic energy. This directly
affects the frequency and phasing of the RF cavities.

(Well, I suppose one could use one of the infinite number
of other theories that are experimentally indistinguishable
from SR, but that would be A LOT more work, and nobody
would believe it, anyway.)

Tom Roberts

On Thursday, May 4, 2023 at 11:06:35 PM UTC-3, Tom Roberts wrote:
> On 5/4/23 3:59 PM, Richard Hertz wrote:
> > On Thursday, May 4, 2023 at 5:14:12 PM UTC-3, Paul B. Andersen
> > wrote:
> >> Now when you have studied the LHC and probably know how it works
> >> much better than me: Must SR be used to do the calculations that
> >> must be made to make the LHC work?
> >
> > No.
>
> Hertz CLEARLY does not understand how the LHC actually works. Using SR
> in its design and analysis is absolutely required [#].
>
> [#] Because the protons go around the rings at speed
> indistinguishable from c, rather than enormously
> faster than c as Newtonian physics would require
> for their observed kinetic energy. This directly
> affects the frequency and phasing of the RF cavities.
>
> (Well, I suppose one could use one of the infinite number
> of other theories that are experimentally indistinguishable
> from SR, but that would be A LOT more work, and nobody
> would believe it, anyway.)
>
> Tom Roberts

What about this theory:

The efficiency in energy transfer from RF cavities to the bunch of protons follows the function

Et = η E = E √{[e^(-β+1) - 1]/(e - 1)} ; β = v/c

Give it a try calculating Et for β > 0.9.

You'll appreciate how fast Et declines toward zero, in comparison with 0 < β < 0.9.

Because E fields have problems to what would be a pack of "charged comets" irradiating photons like crazy.

There is a reason by which LHC can't get v > 0.99999991 c, even with E fields of 5 MegaVolts/mt.

And is not due to Lorentz gamma. No relativity involved. Just classic physics.

On 5/3/2023 7:18 AM, J. J. Lodder wrote:
> 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.

Maybe "disallows" isn't right, but it's not going to happen without some
energy input. Meanwhile, if energy is released, it will happen
spontaneously.

> It is just that the neutron has more energy.
> It can, and will happen, if you apply sufficient pressure,
> like in a neutron star.

In a neutron star all the lower energy states for electrons are occupied
so some can only be in a high energy state. This provides energy for
them to combine with protons to form neutrons.

> It is a reversible reaction,
> just like an ordinary chemical equilibrium,
>
> Jan
>

On 5/4/2023 11:44 PM, Richard Hertz wrote:
> On Thursday, May 4, 2023 at 11:06:35 PM UTC-3, Tom Roberts wrote:
>> On 5/4/23 3:59 PM, Richard Hertz wrote:
>>> On Thursday, May 4, 2023 at 5:14:12 PM UTC-3, Paul B. Andersen
>>> wrote:
>>>> Now when you have studied the LHC and probably know how it works
>>>> much better than me: Must SR be used to do the calculations that
>>>> must be made to make the LHC work?
>>>
>>> No.
>>
>> Hertz CLEARLY does not understand how the LHC actually works. Using SR
>> in its design and analysis is absolutely required [#].
>>
>> [#] Because the protons go around the rings at speed
>> indistinguishable from c, rather than enormously
>> faster than c as Newtonian physics would require
>> for their observed kinetic energy. This directly
>> affects the frequency and phasing of the RF cavities.
>>
>> (Well, I suppose one could use one of the infinite number
>> of other theories that are experimentally indistinguishable
>> from SR, but that would be A LOT more work, and nobody
>> would believe it, anyway.)
>>
>> Tom Roberts
>
>
> What about this theory:

What about explaining how protons in the LHC can have energies in the
THz range, but Newtonian math for protons with THz energies and 1/2 mv^2
would require them to have a v many times c?

On Thursday, May 4, 2023 at 8:44:14 PM UTC-7, Richard Hertz wrote:

> What about this theory:
>
> The efficiency in energy transfer from RF cavities to the bunch of protons follows the function
>
> Et = η E = E √{[e^(-β+1) - 1]/(e - 1)} ; β = v/c
>
> Give it a try calculating Et for β > 0.9.
>
> You'll appreciate how fast Et declines toward zero, in comparison with 0 < β < 0.9.
>
Dumbestfuck

The above is perfectly consistent with the SR proof that one cannot accelerate massive particles all the way to "c"
It also falsifies Newtonian mechanics that claims the opposite.

> And is not due to Lorentz gamma. No relativity involved. Just classic physics.

Dubestfuck,

The above formula is derived based on SR dynamics. You just shot yourself in the foot. Again.

On Friday, 5 May 2023 at 19:32:36 UTC+2, Dono. wrote:
> On Thursday, May 4, 2023 at 8:44:14 PM UTC-7, Richard Hertz wrote:
>
> > What about this theory:
> >
> > The efficiency in energy transfer from RF cavities to the bunch of protons follows the function
> >
> > Et = η E = E √{[e^(-β+1) - 1]/(e - 1)} ; β = v/c
> >
> > Give it a try calculating Et for β > 0.9.
> >
> > You'll appreciate how fast Et declines toward zero, in comparison with 0 < β < 0.9.
> >
> Dumbestfuck
>
> The above is perfectly consistent with the SR proof that one cannot accelerate massive particles all the way to "c"
> It also falsifies Newtonian mechanics that claims the opposite.

A lie, of course, Newtonian mechanics claims no such thing.

Den 05.05.2023 05:44, skrev Richard Hertz:
>
> What about this theory:
>
> The efficiency in energy transfer from RF cavities to the bunch of protons follows the function
>
> Et = η E = E √{[e^(-β+1) - 1]/(e - 1)} ; β = v/c

I suppose the t in Et is an index and not time.

Can you please explain what the equation Et = η E means:

What is Et, and what is E ?

>
> Give it a try calculating Et for β > 0.9.
>
> You'll appreciate how fast Et declines toward zero, in comparison with 0 < β < 0.9.
>
> Because E fields have problems to what would be a pack of "charged comets" irradiating photons like crazy.
>
> There is a reason by which LHC can't get v > 0.99999991 c, even with E fields of 5 MegaVolts/mt.

You got the speed slightly wrong. Probably a typo.

Let's compare the LHC at Cern to the Tevatron at Fermi Lab.
(The latter was shut down in 2011)

The most important data are:

LHC:
Max energy in each proton: 6.8 TeV
Max speed of each proton: 0.999999990c = (1-9.5e-9)c
Circumference: 26.66 km

Tevatron:
Max energy in each proton: 1.0 TeV
Max speed of each proton: 0.999999560c = (1-4.4e-7)c
Circumference: 6.28 km

Why do you think the RF-cavities in the LHC are able to
accelerate the protons to higher kinetic energy and speed
than the RF-cavities in the Tevatron?

Is it only because the RF-cavities in the LHC have higher
'energy transfer efficiency' than the RF-cavities in the LHC,
or is there another difference between the accelerators that
may explain the different efficiency?

If you had read what I have told you, you would have known the answer.

>
> And is not due to Lorentz gamma. No relativity involved. Just classic physics.
>
>

Can you please tell me how a particle with rest mass 938 MeV
and speed 0.999999560c can have an energy 6.8 TeV?

Is the relevant equation KE = (1/√(1−v²/c²) −1)⋅mc²
or is it KE = mc²/2?

--
Paul

https://paulba.no/

Volney wrote:

>> It is just that the neutron has more energy.
>> It can, and will happen, if you apply sufficient pressure,
>> like in a neutron star.
>
> In a neutron star all the lower energy states for electrons are occupied
> so some can only be in a high energy state. This provides energy for
> them to combine with protons to form neutrons.

just be saying it, as it is - you khazars from america are not white. One
of the reasons, for which you changed your name and moved to america.
Which is a 3rd world corporation shithole, ruled by *_deep_criminals_*.

On 5/5/2023 2:01 PM, Weslee Alberici wrote:
> Volney wrote:
>
>>> It is just that the neutron has more energy.
>>> It can, and will happen, if you apply sufficient pressure,
>>> like in a neutron star.
>>
>> In a neutron star all the lower energy states for electrons are occupied
>> so some can only be in a high energy state. This provides energy for
>> them to combine with protons to form neutrons.
>
> just be saying it, as it is - you khazars from america are not white. One
> of the reasons, for which you changed your name and moved to america.
> Which is a 3rd world corporation shithole, ruled by *_deep_criminals_*.

And still not drunk. Oh well.

Le 05/05/2023 à 20:37, "Paul B. Andersen" a écrit :
> Den 05.05.2023 05:44, skrev Richard Hertz:

> Is the relevant equation KE = (1/√(1−v²/c²) −1)⋅mc²
> or is it KE = mc²/2?

Ec=mc².[sqrt(1+Vr²/c²)-1]

Vr=Vo/sqrt(1-Vo²/c²)

Well, Ec=mc².[1/sqrt(1-Vo²/c²) -1]

wee see that if Vo <<< c then Ec~(1/2)mVo²

R.H.

On Friday, May 5, 2023 at 2:32:36 PM UTC-3, Dono. wrote:
> On Thursday, May 4, 2023 at 8:44:14 PM UTC-7, Richard Hertz wrote:
>
> > What about this theory:
> >
> > The efficiency in energy transfer from RF cavities to the bunch of protons follows the function
> >
> > Et = η E = E √{[e^(-β+1) - 1]/(e - 1)} ; β = v/c
> >
> > Give it a try calculating Et for β > 0.9.
> >
> > You'll appreciate how fast Et declines toward zero, in comparison with 0 < β < 0.9.

> Dumbestfuck
>
> The above is perfectly consistent with the SR proof that one cannot accelerate massive particles all the way to "c"
> It also falsifies Newtonian mechanics that claims the opposite.

IMBECILE IGNORANT GYPSY RELATIVIST POS: I INVENTED THE FORMULA OF ENERGY TRANSFER EFFICIENCY JUST TO
MOCK ASSHOLES LIKE YOU!

AT FIRST, I DIDN'T USE THE SQUARE ROOT, BUT I INSERTED IT BECAUSE THE GRAPH IS MUCH SHARPER, PLUS GIVES
IMAGINARY VALUES FOR v > c.

> > And is not due to Lorentz gamma. No relativity involved. Just classic physics.

> Dubestfuck,
>
> The above formula is derived based on SR dynamics. You just shot yourself in the foot. Again.

IMBECILE IGNORANT GYPSY RELATIVIST POS: I INVENTED THE FORMULA OF ENERGY TRANSFER EFFICIENCY JUST TO
MOCK ASSHOLES LIKE YOU!

YOUR COMMENT MADE MY DAY! IT'S A PROOF THAT CRETIN RETARDED LIKE YOU BUY ANY SHIT IF IT SEEMS TO SUPPORT
YOUR FUCKING RELATIVITY.

YOU CAN GET RID OF THE SQUARE ROOT. I INSERTED IT JUST TO FUCK YOUR TINY BRAIN.

On Friday, May 5, 2023 at 6:32:22 PM UTC-3, Richard Hertz wrote:
> On Friday, May 5, 2023 at 2:32:36 PM UTC-3, Dono. wrote:
> > On Thursday, May 4, 2023 at 8:44:14 PM UTC-7, Richard Hertz wrote:
> >
> > > What about this theory:
> > >
> > > The efficiency in energy transfer from RF cavities to the bunch of protons follows the function
> > >
> > > Et = η E = E √{[e^(-β+1) - 1]/(e - 1)} ; β = v/c
> > >
> > > Give it a try calculating Et for β > 0.9.
> > >
> > > You'll appreciate how fast Et declines toward zero, in comparison with 0 < β < 0.9.
>
>
> > Dumbestfuck
> >
> > The above is perfectly consistent with the SR proof that one cannot accelerate massive particles all the way to "c"
> > It also falsifies Newtonian mechanics that claims the opposite.
> IMBECILE IGNORANT GYPSY RELATIVIST POS: I INVENTED THE FORMULA OF ENERGY TRANSFER EFFICIENCY JUST TO
> MOCK ASSHOLES LIKE YOU!
>
> AT FIRST, I DIDN'T USE THE SQUARE ROOT, BUT I INSERTED IT BECAUSE THE GRAPH IS MUCH SHARPER, PLUS GIVES
> IMAGINARY VALUES FOR v > c.
> > > And is not due to Lorentz gamma. No relativity involved. Just classic physics.
>
> > Dubestfuck,
> >
> > The above formula is derived based on SR dynamics. You just shot yourself in the foot. Again.
> IMBECILE IGNORANT GYPSY RELATIVIST POS: I INVENTED THE FORMULA OF ENERGY TRANSFER EFFICIENCY JUST TO
> MOCK ASSHOLES LIKE YOU!
>
> YOUR COMMENT MADE MY DAY! IT'S A PROOF THAT CRETIN RETARDED LIKE YOU BUY ANY SHIT IF IT SEEMS TO SUPPORT
> YOUR FUCKING RELATIVITY.
>
> YOU CAN GET RID OF THE SQUARE ROOT. I INSERTED IT JUST TO FUCK YOUR TINY BRAIN.

Now that I think, better use:

E_t = E_supplied . {[e(-β+1) - 1]/(e - 1)}

In this way, for v > c, the charged particle stop absorbing any energy. Instead, it reflects it back, so the LHC would explode.

On Friday, May 5, 2023 at 3:37:12 PM UTC-3, Paul B. Andersen wrote:

<snip>

> Can you please tell me how a particle with rest mass 938 MeV
> and speed 0.999999560c can have an energy 6.8 TeV?
>
> Is the relevant equation KE = (1/√(1−v²/c²) −1)⋅mc² or is it KE = mc²/2?

NONE OF THE ABOVE.

AND NOT ANY PARTICLE. ONLY PROTONS. READ ABOUT IT AT CERN.
The values given by you imply an increase of 7,249 time its "energy at rest".

But you are tied to the doctrine of relativity, which don't give a shit about the electrical and magnetic effects, and
about the electromagnetic nature of the mass (the only valid mass).

The electron mass is of electromagnetic nature, pure and exclusively, as Lorentz CLEARLY WROTE in his 1904 paper.

This is the original formula that Lorentz used. It was WIDELY KNOWN since 1893 and the works of JJ Thomson and many others:

mo = e²/(6πc²R) [cgs units]

This is the Searle (1897) formula for electromagnetic energy of an electron in motion, derived after Thomson's discoveries.

E(v) = Eo [1/β ln[(1+β)/(1-β) - 1]

and like Thomson he concluded: ... when v = c the energy becomes infinite, so that it would seem to be impossible to make a charged
body move at a greater speed than that of light.

QUOTE FROM WIKI:

Thomson (1893) noticed that electromagnetic momentum and energy of charged bodies, and therefore their masses, depend on the speed of the bodies as well. He wrote:[4]

[p. 21] When in the limit v = c, the increase in mass is infinite, thus a charged sphere moving with the velocity of light behaves as if its mass were infinite, its velocity therefore will remain constant, in other words it is impossible to increase the velocity of a charged body moving through the dielectric beyond that of light.
...........
From Searle's formula, Walter Kaufmann (1901) and Max Abraham (1902) derived the formula for the electromagnetic mass of moving bodies:[6]

m(v) = 3/4 mo [-1/β ln[(1+β)/(1-β) + 2/(1-β²)]/ β²

or

m(v) = e²/(8πc²R) [-1/β ln[(1+β)/(1-β) + 2/(1-β²)]/ β²

Now, would you care to calculate the KE of the electron moving at v = 0.99999991 c?

OR, if you please, multiply the above result by 1,836 to obtain the KE of a proton moving at v = 0.99999991 c?

And, NO RELATIVITY INVOLVED. This knowledge was of common use by that epoch, only that the cabal buried this with the
shitty movement of relativism, supported by RELATIVISTS (they were called that way for decades).

You'll have your answers, and also explanations about the failure of LHC to provide higher speeds.

But you have to drop your fanaticism with relativity for a while, and think as a normal person.

On Friday, May 5, 2023 at 7:38:12 PM UTC-3, Richard Hertz wrote:
> On Friday, May 5, 2023 at 3:37:12 PM UTC-3, Paul B. Andersen wrote:
>
> <snip>
> > Can you please tell me how a particle with rest mass 938 MeV
> > and speed 0.999999560c can have an energy 6.8 TeV?
> >
> > Is the relevant equation KE = (1/√(1−v²/c²) −1)⋅mc² or is it KE = mc²/2?
> NONE OF THE ABOVE.
>
> AND NOT ANY PARTICLE. ONLY PROTONS. READ ABOUT IT AT CERN.
> The values given by you imply an increase of 7,249 time its "energy at rest".
>
> But you are tied to the doctrine of relativity, which don't give a shit about the electrical and magnetic effects, and
> about the electromagnetic nature of the mass (the only valid mass).
>
> The electron mass is of electromagnetic nature, pure and exclusively, as Lorentz CLEARLY WROTE in his 1904 paper.
>
> This is the original formula that Lorentz used. It was WIDELY KNOWN since 1893 and the works of JJ Thomson and many others:
>
> mo = e²/(6πc²R) [cgs units]
>
> This is the Searle (1897) formula for electromagnetic energy of an electron in motion, derived after Thomson's discoveries.
>
> E(v) = Eo [1/β ln[(1+β)/(1-β) - 1]
>
> and like Thomson he concluded: ... when v = c the energy becomes infinite, so that it would seem to be impossible to make a charged
> body move at a greater speed than that of light.
>
>
> QUOTE FROM WIKI:
>
> Thomson (1893) noticed that electromagnetic momentum and energy of charged bodies, and therefore their masses, depend on the speed of the bodies as well. He wrote:[4]
>
> [p. 21] When in the limit v = c, the increase in mass is infinite, thus a charged sphere moving with the velocity of light behaves as if its mass were infinite, its velocity therefore will remain constant, in other words it is impossible to increase the velocity of a charged body moving through the dielectric beyond that of light.
> ..........
> From Searle's formula, Walter Kaufmann (1901) and Max Abraham (1902) derived the formula for the electromagnetic mass of moving bodies:[6]
>
> m(v) = 3/4 mo [-1/β ln[(1+β)/(1-β) + 2/(1-β²)]/ β²
>
> or
>
> m(v) = e²/(8πc²R) [-1/β ln[(1+β)/(1-β) + 2/(1-β²)]/ β²
>
> Now, would you care to calculate the KE of the electron moving at v = 0..99999991 c?
>
> OR, if you please, multiply the above result by 1,836 to obtain the KE of a proton moving at v = 0.99999991 c?
>
> And, NO RELATIVITY INVOLVED. This knowledge was of common use by that epoch, only that the cabal buried this with the
> shitty movement of relativism, supported by RELATIVISTS (they were called that way for decades).
>
> You'll have your answers, and also explanations about the failure of LHC to provide higher speeds.
>
> But you have to drop your fanaticism with relativity for a while, and think as a normal person.

I forgot some references. Warning: Have been modified by relativists. NEVER TRUST WIKIPEDIA.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kaufmann%E2%80%93Bucherer%E2%80%93Neumann_experiments

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

I have better, historical sources, but you don't deserve to read them. Wikipedia is for you.

Protons do not exist since the nukes have an diameter of 10^-15 m. Do the math. Bitch

On Friday, May 5, 2023 at 1:45:29 PM UTC-3, Volney wrote:
> On 5/4/2023 11:44 PM, Richard Hertz wrote:
> > On Thursday, May 4, 2023 at 11:06:35 PM UTC-3, Tom Roberts wrote:
> >> On 5/4/23 3:59 PM, Richard Hertz wrote:
> >>> On Thursday, May 4, 2023 at 5:14:12 PM UTC-3, Paul B. Andersen
> >>> wrote:
> >>>> Now when you have studied the LHC and probably know how it works
> >>>> much better than me: Must SR be used to do the calculations that
> >>>> must be made to make the LHC work?
> >>>
> >>> No.
> >>
> >> Hertz CLEARLY does not understand how the LHC actually works. Using SR
> >> in its design and analysis is absolutely required [#].
> >>
> >> [#] Because the protons go around the rings at speed
> >> indistinguishable from c, rather than enormously
> >> faster than c as Newtonian physics would require
> >> for their observed kinetic energy. This directly
> >> affects the frequency and phasing of the RF cavities.
> >>
> >> (Well, I suppose one could use one of the infinite number
> >> of other theories that are experimentally indistinguishable
> >> from SR, but that would be A LOT more work, and nobody
> >> would believe it, anyway.)
> >>
> >> Tom Roberts
> >
> >
> > What about this theory:

I assume that you meant TeV, not THz-

> What about explaining how protons in the LHC can have energies in the
> THz range, but Newtonian math for protons with THz energies and 1/2 mv^2
> would require them to have a v many times c?

I wrote here the explanation. NO RELATIVITY NEEDED.

https://groups.google.com/g/sci.physics.relativity/c/XG48sQO1ATg/m/Im4eC8cYAgAJ

Assuming that an electron's mass is ENTIRELY ELECTROMAGNETIC, this is its KE = 1/2 mv², as a function of β = v/c

m(v) = e²/(8πc²R) [-1/β ln[(1+β)/(1-β) + 2/(1-β²)]/ β²

KE[m(v)] = 1/2 mv² = e²/(16πR) [-1/β ln[(1+β)/(1-β) + 2/(1-β²)], well known years before the fucking retarded 1905 manifesto.

KE = e²/(16πR) [-1/β ln[(1+β)/(1-β) + 2/(1-β²)], Isn't this pretty and simple?

Also, in the classic theory exists all the answers about why particle accelerator's mathematics FAIL, for using relativity.

On Friday, May 5, 2023 at 5:29:00 PM UTC-7, Richard Hertz wrote:

> I wrote the insane imbecility before.

Yep, you sure did

On Friday, May 5, 2023 at 10:02:35 PM UTC-3, Dono. wrote:

Drooling imbecile, why don't you repeat that the fake equation was derived using relativity?

Asshole!

And what about this one, little bitch?

KE = e²/(16πR) [-1/β ln[(1+β)/(1-β) + 2/(1-β²)], for electrons moving in particle accelerators at 7 TeV.

You can shove deeply into your ass your stupid "relativistic" KE = (Y-1) mc².

Your beloved equation is FALSE, a fairy tale, as all the fucking relativity is.

Choke on it, cretin.

> On Friday, May 5, 2023 at 5:29:00 PM UTC-7, Richard Hertz wrote:
>
> > I wrote the insane imbecility before.
>
> Yep, you sure did

On Friday, May 5, 2023 at 7:10:35 PM UTC-7, Richard Hertz wrote:

>
> Drooling imbecile
>
> Asshole!

Appropriate signatures, Dick