On 5/5/2023 8:28 PM, Richard Hertz wrote:
> 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,

And there is NO WAY to obtain Newtonian ~6 TeV energies for an electron
or proton equal to mv²/2 unless you have a v MUCH larger than c. FAIL.

> as a function of β = v/c
>
> m(v) = e²/(8πc²R) [-1/β ln[(1+β)/(1-β) + 2/(1-β²)]/ β²

That looks suspiciously like it was pulled from SR before you gnawed on
it. You even used β = v/c rather than try to hide that by using a new
variable.

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

The parts you pulled out of SR do, but calling the SR momentum increase
"mass" is considered obsolete.

On Saturday, May 6, 2023 at 12:10:21 AM UTC-3, Volney wrote:
> On 5/5/2023 8:28 PM, Richard Hertz wrote:
> > 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,
> And there is NO WAY to obtain Newtonian ~6 TeV energies for an electron
> or proton equal to mv²/2 unless you have a v MUCH larger than c. FAIL.
> > as a function of β = v/c
> >
> > m(v) = e²/(8πc²R) [-1/β ln[(1+β)/(1-β) + 2/(1-β²)]/ β²
> That looks suspiciously like it was pulled from SR before you gnawed on
> it. You even used β = v/c rather than try to hide that by using a new
> variable.
> > KE = e²/(16πR) [-1/β ln[(1+β)/(1-β) + 2/(1-β²)], Isn't this pretty and simple?
> The parts you pulled out of SR do, but calling the SR momentum increase
> "mass" is considered obsolete.

HAVE YOU EVER CARE TO READ THE CONTENTS OF THE TWO LINKS THAT I DID POST HERE?

https://groups.google.com/g/sci.physics.relativity/c/XG48sQO1ATg/m/hs70bRUZAgAJ

These links contain the formulae that I posted, developed between 1893 and 1904. NO RELATIVITY AT ALL!

Just intelligent marriage between Newton, Coulomb and Maxwell. It's all that it takes.

Is it too much for you, Mr. EE? Did you forget what your degree means, or are you so desperate for companionship
that embraced the movement of relativism with relativists, who are talking all the fucking day about traveling at 0.6 c?

You still have time to recovers your senses and CULTURE. Read the classic physics. Better yet, study it in depth.

On 5/5/23 1:37 PM, Paul B. Andersen wrote:
> 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?

This has nothing to do with "energy transfer efficiency", whatever that
is supposed to mean.

These machines have different operating energies because the operators
configure the machines that way. The magnets in these machines impose an
upper limit the momentum of the protons (and antiprotons for the
Tevatron), and those limits are different for the two machines. The
operators do not permit the RF cavities to accelerate the beams to
higher momentum than the magnets' ability to keep them in the beam
pipe(s). The operating momentum (and energy) is determined by the
bending magnets and the radius of the beam pipes in them, not the RF
cavities. The LHC has stronger bending magnets and a larger radius, so
it can transport higher-energy proton beams.

(Once the operating energy is reached, they do need to keep
the RF cavities energized for longitudinal stability, but
the RF phase is adjusted so it no longer accelerates the
beam.)

Tom Roberts

On 5/5/2023 11:31 PM, Richard Hertz wrote:
> On Saturday, May 6, 2023 at 12:10:21 AM UTC-3, Volney wrote:
>> On 5/5/2023 8:28 PM, Richard Hertz wrote:
>>> 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,
>> And there is NO WAY to obtain Newtonian ~6 TeV energies for an electron
>> or proton equal to mv²/2 unless you have a v MUCH larger than c. FAIL.
>>> as a function of β = v/c
>>>
>>> m(v) = e²/(8πc²R) [-1/β ln[(1+β)/(1-β) + 2/(1-β²)]/ β²
>> That looks suspiciously like it was pulled from SR before you gnawed on
>> it. You even used β = v/c rather than try to hide that by using a new
>> variable.
>>> KE = e²/(16πR) [-1/β ln[(1+β)/(1-β) + 2/(1-β²)], Isn't this pretty and simple?
>> The parts you pulled out of SR do, but calling the SR momentum increase
>> "mass" is considered obsolete.
>
> HAVE YOU EVER CARE TO READ THE CONTENTS OF THE TWO LINKS THAT I DID POST HERE?
>
> https://groups.google.com/g/sci.physics.relativity/c/XG48sQO1ATg/m/hs70bRUZAgAJ

I already addressed that. All those "betas" (β) equal to v/c already
implies SR relationships as none of that is even remotely Newtonian, but
the big one is the implicit squared Lorentz factor term (γ²) or
(1/(1-β²)), right out of SR.

In the (unlikely) event that you are correct and this is all pre-SR, it
means someone was really onto SR but did not quite make it. Since your
equations seem to be SR based, no need to investigate further.

Tom Roberts wrote:

> On 5/5/23 1:37 PM, Paul B. Andersen wrote:
>> 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?
> This has nothing to do with "energy transfer efficiency", whatever that
> is supposed to mean.
>
> These machines have different operating energies because the operators
> configure the machines that way. The magnets in these machines impose an
> upper limit the momentum of the protons (and antiprotons for the
> Tevatron), and those limits are different for the two machines. The
> operators do not permit the RF cavities to accelerate the beams to
> higher momentum than the magnets' ability to keep them in the beam
> pipe(s). The operating momentum (and energy) is determined by the
> bending magnets and the radius of the beam pipes in them, not the RF
> cavities. The LHC has stronger bending magnets and a larger radius, so
> it can transport higher-energy proton beams.
>
> (Once the operating energy is reached, they do need to keep
> the RF cavities energized for longitudinal stability, but the RF
> phase is adjusted so it no longer accelerates the beam.)

this is a *_common_error_*. Many out there confusing the
*_inductive_coupling_* with _RF_. For instance the ISO14443 (proximity
ICC) are doing it at 13.56MHz, called also *_RFID_*, but has nothing to do
with _RF_.

On Saturday, May 6, 2023 at 4:12:42 AM UTC-3, Volney wrote:
> On 5/5/2023 11:31 PM, Richard Hertz wrote:
> > On Saturday, May 6, 2023 at 12:10:21 AM UTC-3, Volney wrote:
> >> On 5/5/2023 8:28 PM, Richard Hertz wrote:
> >>> 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,
> >> And there is NO WAY to obtain Newtonian ~6 TeV energies for an electron
> >> or proton equal to mv²/2 unless you have a v MUCH larger than c. FAIL.
> >>> as a function of β = v/c
> >>>
> >>> m(v) = e²/(8πc²R) [-1/β ln[(1+β)/(1-β) + 2/(1-β²)]/ β²
> >> That looks suspiciously like it was pulled from SR before you gnawed on
> >> it. You even used β = v/c rather than try to hide that by using a new
> >> variable.
> >>> KE = e²/(16πR) [-1/β ln[(1+β)/(1-β) + 2/(1-β²)], Isn't this pretty and simple?
> >> The parts you pulled out of SR do, but calling the SR momentum increase
> >> "mass" is considered obsolete.
> >
> > HAVE YOU EVER CARE TO READ THE CONTENTS OF THE TWO LINKS THAT I DID POST HERE?
> >
> > https://groups.google.com/g/sci.physics.relativity/c/XG48sQO1ATg/m/hs70bRUZAgAJ
> I already addressed that. All those "betas" (β) equal to v/c already
> implies SR relationships as none of that is even remotely Newtonian, but
> the big one is the implicit squared Lorentz factor term (γ²) or
> (1/(1-β²)), right out of SR.
>
> In the (unlikely) event that you are correct and this is all pre-SR, it
> means someone was really onto SR but did not quite make it. Since your
> equations seem to be SR based, no need to investigate further.

Stubborn as hell!

The use of β = v/c comes from Wikipedia articles, using modern notation.

β is used in modern physics, as you should know. Einstein's 1905 β was exactly Lorentz 1904 k.

Einstein didn't use any notation for v²/c², and his 1905 manifesto is plagued with this expression. The use of β = v/c
came from others, rewriting relativity decades later, as well as the greek letter Gamma.

Every time you see something like (1-β²), you think about Einstein and Lorentz, because you ARE INDOCTRINATED to think so.

Go back to Voigt, 15 years before 1902, and you have a similar expression, I can't say that it wasn't used before Voigt, but you
are extremely biased with this expression and its relationship with relativity.

Give it up, have a drink and relax. Forget this fantasy of yours.

On 5/6/2023 9:25 AM, Richard Hertz wrote:
> On Saturday, May 6, 2023 at 4:12:42 AM UTC-3, Volney wrote:
>> On 5/5/2023 11:31 PM, Richard Hertz wrote:
>>> On Saturday, May 6, 2023 at 12:10:21 AM UTC-3, Volney wrote:
>>>> On 5/5/2023 8:28 PM, Richard Hertz wrote:
>>>>> 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,
>>>> And there is NO WAY to obtain Newtonian ~6 TeV energies for an electron
>>>> or proton equal to mv²/2 unless you have a v MUCH larger than c. FAIL.
>>>>> as a function of β = v/c
>>>>>
>>>>> m(v) = e²/(8πc²R) [-1/β ln[(1+β)/(1-β) + 2/(1-β²)]/ β²
>>>> That looks suspiciously like it was pulled from SR before you gnawed on
>>>> it. You even used β = v/c rather than try to hide that by using a new
>>>> variable.
>>>>> KE = e²/(16πR) [-1/β ln[(1+β)/(1-β) + 2/(1-β²)], Isn't this pretty and simple?
>>>> The parts you pulled out of SR do, but calling the SR momentum increase
>>>> "mass" is considered obsolete.
>>>
>>> HAVE YOU EVER CARE TO READ THE CONTENTS OF THE TWO LINKS THAT I DID POST HERE?
>>>
>>> https://groups.google.com/g/sci.physics.relativity/c/XG48sQO1ATg/m/hs70bRUZAgAJ
>> I already addressed that. All those "betas" (β) equal to v/c already
>> implies SR relationships as none of that is even remotely Newtonian, but
>> the big one is the implicit squared Lorentz factor term (γ²) or
>> (1/(1-β²)), right out of SR.
>>
>> In the (unlikely) event that you are correct and this is all pre-SR, it
>> means someone was really onto SR but did not quite make it. Since your
>> equations seem to be SR based, no need to investigate further.
>
>
> Stubborn as hell!

Why yes, you are. But mental illness is like that, it is why you are so
stubborn.
>
> The use of β = v/c comes from Wikipedia articles, using modern notation.

I was talking about the v/c appearance itself. In Newtonian mechanics, c
is just another speed. Appearance of v/c all over the place indicates
there's something special about c, just like SR states.

> Every time you see something like (1-β²), you think about Einstein and Lorentz, because you ARE INDOCTRINATED to think so.

No, gamma γ = √(1/(1-v²/c²)) is very important to SR so the appearance
of (1-v²/c²) in that math implies some SR involvement. Remember, in
Newtonian mechanics c is another speed so it would not have infinities
from appearances of (1/(1-v²/c²)).
>
> Go back to Voigt, 15 years before 1902, and you have a similar expression, I can't say that it wasn't used before Voigt, but you
> are extremely biased with this expression and its relationship with relativity.

Yes Voigt was so close, he was simply off by a factor of (what would be
later known as) gamma or the Lorentz factor.
>
> Give it up, have a drink and relax. Forget this fantasy of yours.

Taunting crackpots such as yourself is how I relax.

Den 06.05.2023 00:38, skrev Richard Hertz:
> On Friday, May 5, 2023 at 3:37:12 PM UTC-3, Paul B. Andersen wrote:

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

Typo. The proton speed is for the Tevatron.
The proton speed for the LHC is 0.999999990c

>>
>> 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".

The relevant numbers for the LHC are:
(With better precision)

Measured values:
Proton mass m = 1.67262192369e-27 kg,
Erest = mc² = 1.503277e-10 J = 938.272 MeV
Etot = 6.8 TeV

γ = Etot/Erest = 7247.4
Etot = Erest+KE = mc²+(γ-1)mc² = γmc²

v = √(1−1/γ²)c = 0.999999990 c

Only ignorant idiots can dispute the fact
that all particle accelerators are designed
according to SR, and if SR were wrong
the accelerators wouldn't work.

They do.

Case closed.

--
Paul

https://paulba.no/

On Saturday, May 6, 2023 at 2:31:57 PM UTC-3, Paul B. Andersen wrote:
> Den 06.05.2023 00:38, skrev Richard Hertz:
> > On Friday, May 5, 2023 at 3:37:12 PM UTC-3, Paul B. Andersen wrote:
>
> >> Can you please tell me how a particle with rest mass 938 MeV
> >> and speed 0.999999560c can have an energy 6.8 TeV?
> Typo. The proton speed is for the Tevatron.
> The proton speed for the LHC is 0.999999990c
> >>
> >> 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".
> The relevant numbers for the LHC are:
> (With better precision)
>
> Measured values:
> Proton mass m = 1.67262192369e-27 kg,
> Erest = mc² = 1.503277e-10 J = 938.272 MeV
> Etot = 6.8 TeV
>
> γ = Etot/Erest = 7247.4
> Etot = Erest+KE = mc²+(γ-1)mc² = γmc²
>
> v = √(1−1/γ²)c = 0.999999990 c
>
> Only ignorant idiots can dispute the fact
> that all particle accelerators are designed
> according to SR, and if SR were wrong
> the accelerators wouldn't work.
>
> They do.
>
> Case closed.
>
> --
> Paul
>
> https://paulba.no/

What are you, a fucking retarded?

I'm the one who gave you the ratio 7,249 (you calculated 7247.4), to demonstrate you that 6.8 TeV was the alleged
final KE of ONE PROTON, not ONE ELECTRON. Your mental health is on a deep pit today.

But, anyway, you FAIL TO UNDERSTAND the alleged realities behind the LHC.

They DON'T KNOW the KE of ONE proton. They know the KE of the bunch of 100,000,000,000 protons packed together
in a volume of about 2 cm x π x 25 μm² = 1.6E+06 μm³. Then, each proton has a volume around it of 1.57E+04 nm³.

It could be equivalent, roughly, to have each proton centered in a rectangular box with sides of 25 nm. The distance
with any other proton would be approximately 50 nm.

If that was the distance of a pair of protons at rest, the Coulomb repulsive force would be incredibly high. But, actually,
each proton has another five protons at a distance (averaged) of 50 nm. Figure it out what would be the magnetic
compression force required at the LHC.

But this is not the real value for a bunch of protons traveling together at 0.999999990 c.

The electric repulsive force would be increased by a factor [1/β ln[(1+β)/(1-β) - 1] (Searle, 1897).

And the TOTAL KE OF EACH PROTON WOULD BE GIVEN BY:

KE = e²/(16πR) [-1/β ln[(1+β)/(1-β) + 2/(1-β²)] = 6.8 TeV (for β = 0.999999990).

This also allow you to calculate the radius of a proton, if you work with the 1900's physics, much more full of sense and
rationality than the shitty relativity and Lorentz.

I insist: the energy transfer of THE ENTIRE LHC (magnetic and electric) register an efficiency that drops to zero at v = c.
No mysteries here:

η = √{[e^(-β+1) - 1]/(e - 1)}

Now, digest all of the above and, later, sign up for an online course on Physics 101.

You suck at physics, man.

On May 4, 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.

This has always mystified me, how a charge in an antenna
knows what to do.

Maxwell tells us, where there's accelerated charge, there's radiation.
So in a receiver, it absorbs energy from the field, and accelerates... then
radiates? In a transmitter, it accelerates and radiates... then decelerates?

How does it know which is which? Is it like the army, they have a classification
and pay grade, and simply follow orders?

Note also that in physics, there's no such thing as 'deceleration'.

--
Rich

On Saturday, May 6, 2023 at 9:38:15 PM UTC-3, RichD wrote:

<snip>

> This has always mystified me, how a charge in an antenna
> knows what to do.
>
> Maxwell tells us, where there's accelerated charge, there's radiation.
> So in a receiver, it absorbs energy from the field, and accelerates... then
> radiates? In a transmitter, it accelerates and radiates... then decelerates?
>
> How does it know which is which? Is it like the army, they have a classification
> and pay grade, and simply follow orders?
>
> Note also that in physics, there's no such thing as 'deceleration'.

Nothing mystical here, and the theory behind is almost 140 years old, thanks to Hertz's dipole, which is essential even today.

1. Take half of a dipole (weep antenna), having a length L, and put it in a vertical position over the ground.
2. Connect the lower end to the input of an HF receiver, and connect the "electric ground" to the same ground as the antenna.

Now the system is ready to absorb HF waves, with higher efficiency for wavelengths 4L, but still with a good reception spectrum
between 8L and 2L wavelengths.

It will pick up incoming waves with vertical E fields, for maximum efficiency. It's only half of the EM energy, as H field is not detected.

When a sinusoidal vertical E field with L wavelength reach the antenna, free electrons in the metallic pole (cooper is better) are
accelerated, in a motion that mimic the sinusoidal signal.

Such motion of the electrons generates an electric signal at the input of the receiver, so the radio reception is produced.

Complex patterns of waves (like AM carrying voice) are demodulated with the above process, as a complex signal can be
decomposed into infinite Fourier components, which add by linear superposition.

The radiation that accelerated electrons in the antenna produce is millions of times lower than the radiation absorbed by the antenna.

This has been the basis of radio since Hertz INVENTED the dipole, the sparking oscillator and proved Maxwell in the HF/VHF region.

Den 07.05.2023 00:07, skrev Richard Hertz:
> On Saturday, May 6, 2023 at 2:31:57 PM UTC-3, Paul B. Andersen wrote:
>> Den 06.05.2023 00:38, skrev Richard Hertz:
>>> On Friday, May 5, 2023 at 3:37:12 PM UTC-3, Paul B. Andersen wrote:

LOOK HERE:
>>>> Can you please tell me how a particle with rest mass 938 MeV
>>>> and speed 0.999999990c can have an energy 6.8 TeV?
>>>> Is the relevant equation KE = (1/√(1−v²/c²) −1)⋅mc² or is it KE = mc²/2?

γ = (6.8 TeV)/(938 MeV) = 7249 (rounded to integer)

The number 7249 was in my question.

>>
>> Measured values:
>> Proton mass m = 1.67262192369e-27 kg,
>> Erest = mc² = 1.503277e-10 J = 938.272 MeV

Note that 938.272 MeV is a more precise proton rest mass
than the 938 MeV above.

>> Etot = 6.8 TeV
>>
>> γ = Etot/Erest = 7247.4

And this is a more precise value for γ.

>> Etot = Erest+KE = mc²+(γ-1)mc² = γmc²
>>
>> v = √(1−1/γ²)c = 0.999999990 c
>>

>
> What are you, a fucking retarded?
>
> I'm the one who gave you the ratio 7,249 (you calculated 7247.4), to demonstrate you that 6.8 TeV was the alleged
> final KE of ONE PROTON, not ONE ELECTRON. Your mental health is on a deep pit today.

Are you drunk?
Or do you have another problem?

We are talking about the LHC, so of course 6.8 TeV is
the energy of ONE PROTON, not ONE ELECTRON.

>
> But, anyway, you FAIL TO UNDERSTAND the alleged realities behind the LHC.
>
> They DON'T KNOW the KE of ONE proton.

Don't be ridiculous.

6.8 TeV is the energy of one proton.

_______________

Only ignorant idiots can dispute the fact
that all particle accelerators are designed
according to SR, and if SR were wrong
the accelerators wouldn't work.

They do.

--
Paul

https://paulba.no/

On Sunday, 7 May 2023 at 15:22:10 UTC+2, Paul B. Andersen wrote:
> and if SR were wrong
> the accelerators wouldn't work.

Any evidence for this ridiculous assertion?

On Sunday, May 7, 2023 at 11:53:52 AM UTC-3, Maciej Wozniak wrote:
> On Sunday, 7 May 2023 at 15:22:10 UTC+2, Paul B. Andersen wrote:
> > and if SR were wrong
> > the accelerators wouldn't work.
> Any evidence for this ridiculous assertion?

Good question.

Also, another question could be: Do you have the evidence, with a chart certified by a respectable group of scientists
NOT BELONGING TO CERN (preferably African scientists) that such CHART verify the increase of KE as described by
the formula KE = (γ-1) mc², from v = 0 to v = 0.999999990 c?

IF NOT, you are a gullible imbecile that BELIEVE what a multi-corporate group of bureaucrats, industry and some physicists
have been selling to you and the rest, in order to milk billions of USD from public money to get comfy, not accountable jobs.

It's the easiest thing to claim that you verify "Einstein's right" with just A SINGLE POINT in the curve of KE = (γ-1)mc².

Curiously, one point within infinity values, which gives the "expected value".

Get the certified graph of KE(v) = [γ(v)-1] mc², and we can keep talking.

What? Such graph can't be produced? A fucking single graph? GTFO!

Den 07.05.2023 17:14, skrev Richard Hertz:
>
> Do you have the evidence, with a chart certified by a respectable group of scientists
> NOT BELONGING TO CERN (preferably African scientists) that such CHART verify the increase of KE as described by
> the formula KE = (γ-1) mc², from v = 0 to v = 0.999999990 c?
>
> IF NOT, you are a gullible imbecile that BELIEVE what a multi-corporate group of bureaucrats, industry and some physicists
> have been selling to you and the rest, in order to milk billions of USD from public money to get comfy, not accountable jobs.

Brilliant thinking, Richard. You are really sharp today! :-D

>
> It's the easiest thing to claim that you verify "Einstein's right" with just A SINGLE POINT in the curve of KE = (γ-1)mc².
>
> Curiously, one point within infinity values, which gives the "expected value".
>
> Get the certified graph of KE(v) = [γ(v)-1] mc², and we can keep talking.
>
> What? Such graph can't be produced? A fucking single graph? GTFO!
>

To be serious:

Particle accelerators have existed for 90+ years.
Very many particle accelerators with a wide range of
particle energies and speed exist today, thousands of
measurements of KE and speeds are made every day.

No sane person can believe that the only KE and speed
that is ever measured is KE = 6.8 TeV, v = 0.999999990c

So why do you pretend to be an idiot, Richard?
(Or don't you pretend?)

BTW:
Only ignorant idiots can dispute the fact
that all particle accelerators are designed
according to SR, and if SR were wrong
the accelerators wouldn't work.

They do.

--
Paul

https://paulba.no/

On Monday, 8 May 2023 at 13:25:28 UTC+2, Paul B. Andersen wrote:

> Only ignorant idiots can dispute the fact
> that all particle accelerators are designed
> according to SR, and if SR were wrong
> the accelerators wouldn't work.

Only ignorant idiots can dispute the fact, that
"if SR were wrong the accelerators wouldn't work."
is just a completely delusional assertion, quite
similiar to "if no angels pushed planets on crystal
rings - planets wouldn't move".

On May 6, Richard Hertz wrote:
>> This has always mystified me, how a charge in an antenna
>> knows what to do.
>> Maxwell tells us, where there's accelerated charge, there's radiation.
>> So in a receiver, it absorbs energy from the field, and accelerates... then
>> radiates? In a transmitter, it accelerates and radiates... then decelerates?
>> Note also that in physics, there's no such thing as 'deceleration'.
>
> 1. Take half of a dipole (weep antenna), having a length L, and put it in a vertical position over the ground.
> 2. Connect the lower end to the input of an HF receiver, and connect the "electric ground" to the same ground as the antenna.
> It will pick up incoming waves with vertical E fields, for maximum efficiency. It's only half of the EM energy,
> as H field is not detected.
> The radiation that accelerated electrons in the antenna produce is millions of times lower than
> the radiation absorbed by the antenna.

Yes, but how to explain this asymmetry? I can't find it in the theory.

In the receiving antenna, electrons absorb energy, accelerate, then
carry it to the detector. In the transmitter, electrons absorb energy
from the amp, accelerate, then radiate it out the antenna.

In one case, they accelerate and radiate; in the other, they accelerate
and increase the current. How do they know which is which?

--
Rich

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.
"In Casablanca, Dooley Wilson did not sing the Prelude to As Time Goes By that was written by Herman Hupfeld for the play Everybody’s Welcome. What was in the disremembered Prelude to As Time Goes By? The Prelude published by Harms Inc., NY in 1931 refers to Albert Einstein. It goes like this:

This day and age we’re living in
gives cause for apprehension,
With speed and new invention,
and things like third dimension.

Yet, we get a trifle weary,
with Mr. Einstein’s the’ry,
So we must get down to earth,
at times, relax relieve the tension.

No matter what the progress,
or what may yet be proved,
The simple facts of life are such
they cannot be removed…

Most performances of As Time Goes By lack the nearly-forgotten Prelude." - https://www.lansingstar.com/around-town/12214-as-time-goes-by-and-albert-einstein