Hexenmeister wrote:
"Paul B. Andersen" wrote in message
...
| Paul B. Andersen wrote:
| We know the kinetic energy of the particle + your bubble
| is m*gamma*v.
|
| That's the momentum, of course.
| The energy is m*gamma*c^2.
|
| Paul

OK, Andersen, you have convinced me.
Your stupidity IS so gigantic that you do not
understand why your statement is nonsense.
Please don't forgive me for not having doubted that.
I'm sure it will happen again.

http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/E^2/EnergySquare.htm

Hilarious, yes?

Thanks for making me aware of the paper by Fox.
Here it is - as he wrote it.

http://scitation.aip.org/getpdf/serv...ps&prog=normal


(Fox didn't write a single word of what Androcles
"quoted" on his page above. Androcles is, as we know,
dishonest through and through.)

Paul

"Paul B. Andersen" wrote in message
...
| Hexenmeister wrote:
| "Paul B. Andersen" wrote in message
| ...
| | Paul B. Andersen wrote:
| | We know the kinetic energy of the particle + your bubble
| | is m*gamma*v.
| |
| | That's the momentum, of course.
| | The energy is m*gamma*c^2.
| |
| | Paul
|
| OK, Andersen, you have convinced me.
| Your stupidity IS so gigantic that you do not
| understand why your statement is nonsense.
| Please don't forgive me for not having doubted that.
| I'm sure it will happen again.
|
| http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/E^2/EnergySquare.htm
|
| Hilarious, yes?
|
| Thanks for making me aware of the paper by Fox.
| Here it is - as he wrote it.
|
|
http://scitation.aip.org/getpdf/serv...ps&prog=normal
|
|
| (Fox didn't write a single word of what Androcles
| "quoted" on his page above. Androcles is, as we know,
| dishonest through and through.)
|
| Paul

The red text at the top of
http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/E^2/EnergySquare.htm
was hand copied verbatim with the one omission, reference to footnote 21.
It is clear from the colour and text size where I quoted and where
I included my own words.

The two paragraphs I quoted may be found on page 8 in section 7,
PHOTON MODEL AND INERTIA OF ENERGY.

We are done with hilarious, this time you've gone too far.

I shall make an appointment on Monday to see a solicitor
with the intent of suing you and Agder University College
(whom you, " represent )
for libel and seek damages and a public apology.

YOU are a LIAR, Andersen.

Androcles.

Henri Wilson wrote:
On 28 Mar 2006 05:38:25 -0800, "Paul Cardinale"
wrote:

There is no answer to the question "What is the speed of ______ [fill
in the blank with anything] with respect to laser pulses?" because
there is not a legitimate frame of reference for light.


But there can be an FoR for an electron traveling at 0.9999999999999c ?

Sure.


It's possible
that you knew this and posed the question anyway because you need to
publicly demonstrate that you're a jackass. It's also possible that,
despite being told many times, you still didn't didn't know it because
you are extremely stupid and incapable of learning anything.

Seto is often wrong

Wrong again ralph. Seto is always wrong. He's also a lying *******.

Paul Cardinale

Hexenmeister wrote:
"Paul B. Andersen" wrote in message
...
| Hexenmeister wrote:
| "Paul B. Andersen" wrote in message
| ...
| | Paul B. Andersen wrote:
| | We know the kinetic energy of the particle + your bubble
| | is m*gamma*v.
| |
| | That's the momentum, of course.
| | The energy is m*gamma*c^2.
| |
| | Paul
|
| OK, Andersen, you have convinced me.
| Your stupidity IS so gigantic that you do not
| understand why your statement is nonsense.
| Please don't forgive me for not having doubted that.
| I'm sure it will happen again.
|
| http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/E^2/EnergySquare.htm
|
| Hilarious, yes?
|
| Thanks for making me aware of the paper by Fox.
| Here it is - as he wrote it.
|
|
http://scitation.aip.org/getpdf/serv...ps&prog=normal
|
|
| (Fox didn't write a single word of what Androcles
| "quoted" on his page above. Androcles is, as we know,
| dishonest through and through.)
|
| Paul

The red text at the top of
http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/E^2/EnergySquare.htm
was hand copied verbatim with the one omission, reference to footnote 21.
It is clear from the colour and text size where I quoted and where
I included my own words.

The two paragraphs I quoted may be found on page 8 in section 7,
PHOTON MODEL AND INERTIA OF ENERGY.

OK. Fox has written a small part of it.
But the point is that your whole page is written
under the heading:
Evidence Against Emission Theories
J.G.Fox
making it appear that the whole page is authored by J.G.Fox.
There isn't even a quotation mark showing where the quotation ends,
and no other name than J.K.Fox appear as the author of that page!

You have done this many times:
Quoting somebody without making it clear where the quotation
ends and your own words begin. You are effectually claiming
that people have written something which they haven't.

That's a fallacy, Androcles.

You should be glad that nobody is taking you seriously
enough to sue you, Androcles.


We are done with hilarious, this time you've gone too far.

I shall make an appointment on Monday to see a solicitor
with the intent of suing you and Agder University College
(whom you, " represent )
for libel and seek damages and a public apology.

Quite.
Being sued by a Roman slave will amuse us a lot. :-)

YOU are a LIAR, Andersen.

Androcles.

Being threatened by lawsuit for pointing out that
you have made a fallacy is rather amusing.

Or should we say hilarious? :-)

Paul

Paul B. Andersen wrote:
Hexenmeister wrote:
"Paul B. Andersen" wrote in message
...
| Hexenmeister wrote:
| "Paul B. Andersen" wrote in message
| ...
| | Paul B. Andersen wrote:
| | We know the kinetic energy of the particle + your bubble
| | is m*gamma*v.
| |
| | That's the momentum, of course.
| | The energy is m*gamma*c^2.
| |
| | Paul
|
| OK, Andersen, you have convinced me.
| Your stupidity IS so gigantic that you do not
| understand why your statement is nonsense.
| Please don't forgive me for not having doubted that.
| I'm sure it will happen again.
|
| http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/E^2/EnergySquare.htm
|
| Hilarious, yes?
|
| Thanks for making me aware of the paper by Fox.
| Here it is - as he wrote it.
|
|
http://scitation.aip.org/getpdf/serv...ps&prog=normal
|
|
| (Fox didn't write a single word of what Androcles
| "quoted" on his page above. Androcles is, as we know,
| dishonest through and through.)
|
| Paul

The red text at the top of
http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/E^2/EnergySquare.htm
was hand copied verbatim with the one omission, reference to footnote 21.
It is clear from the colour and text size where I quoted and where
I included my own words.

The two paragraphs I quoted may be found on page 8 in section 7,
PHOTON MODEL AND INERTIA OF ENERGY.

OK. Fox has written a small part of it.
But the point is that your whole page is written
under the heading:
Evidence Against Emission Theories
J.G.Fox
making it appear that the whole page is authored by J.G.Fox.
There isn't even a quotation mark showing where the quotation ends,
and no other name than J.K.Fox appear as the author of that page!

What I always find comical is that awhile back either Henri or
Androcles got me to dig up that reference just to find the "classical"
derivation of E=mc^2. Obviously it was not there, but what was there
was a complete smashing of Henri's BaTh theory *and* it bases all of
that on experiments that not only disprove the BaTh but *supports*
special relativity.

He says that at the end of the paper, in fact.

So Androcles is citing a paper that explicitly supports special
relativity. Whoops. Logic was never his strong suite anyway.


You have done this many times:
Quoting somebody without making it clear where the quotation
ends and your own words begin. You are effectually claiming
that people have written something which they haven't.

That's a fallacy, Androcles.

You should be glad that nobody is taking you seriously
enough to sue you, Androcles.


We are done with hilarious, this time you've gone too far.

I shall make an appointment on Monday to see a solicitor
with the intent of suing you and Agder University College
(whom you, " represent )
for libel and seek damages and a public apology.

Quite.
Being sued by a Roman slave will amuse us a lot. :-)

He cannot be serious. That is stupid, even for him.


YOU are a LIAR, Andersen.

Androcles.

Being threatened by lawsuit for pointing out that
you have made a fallacy is rather amusing.

Or should we say hilarious? :-)

Paul

"Paul B. Andersen" wrote in message
...
| Hexenmeister wrote:
| "Paul B. Andersen" wrote in message
| ...
| | Hexenmeister wrote:
| | "Paul B. Andersen" wrote in
message
| | ...
| | | Paul B. Andersen wrote:
| | | We know the kinetic energy of the particle + your bubble
| | | is m*gamma*v.
| | |
| | | That's the momentum, of course.
| | | The energy is m*gamma*c^2.
| | |
| | | Paul
| |
| | OK, Andersen, you have convinced me.
| | Your stupidity IS so gigantic that you do not
| | understand why your statement is nonsense.
| | Please don't forgive me for not having doubted that.
| | I'm sure it will happen again.
| |
| | http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/E^2/EnergySquare.htm
| |
| | Hilarious, yes?
| |
| | Thanks for making me aware of the paper by Fox.
| | Here it is - as he wrote it.
| |
| |
|
http://scitation.aip.org/getpdf/serv...ps&prog=normal
| |
| |
| | (Fox didn't write a single word of what Androcles
| | "quoted" on his page above. Androcles is, as we know,
| | dishonest through and through.)
| |
| | Paul
|
| The red text at the top of
| http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/E^2/EnergySquare.htm
| was hand copied verbatim with the one omission, reference to footnote
21.
| It is clear from the colour and text size where I quoted and where
| I included my own words.
|
| The two paragraphs I quoted may be found on page 8 in section 7,
| PHOTON MODEL AND INERTIA OF ENERGY.
|
| OK. Fox has written a small part of it.
| But the point is that your whole page is written
| under the heading:
| Evidence Against Emission Theories
| J.G.Fox
| making it appear that the whole page is authored by J.G.Fox.
| There isn't even a quotation mark showing where the quotation ends,
| and no other name than J.K.Fox appear as the author of that page!

Bull****, there is a clear change of text size and colour. Only
a ****ing moron like you would squirm as you are doing.

I've written to ;
;
;


stating what a libellous jerk you are, and the web pages stay up.

http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonde.../LIAR/LIAR.htm

| You have done this many times:
| Quoting somebody without making it clear where the quotation
| ends and your own words begin. You are effectually claiming
| that people have written something which they haven't.
|
| That's a fallacy, Androcles.
|
| You should be glad that nobody is taking you seriously
| enough to sue you, Androcles.


I'm taking you seriously enough to sue you and Agder
University College, Andersen, you maliciously impugned
my integrity. We'll let a court decide whether I deliberately
implied Fox wrote my words or not.


| We are done with hilarious, this time you've gone too far.
|
| I shall make an appointment on Monday to see a solicitor
| with the intent of suing you and Agder University College
| (whom you, " represent )
| for libel and seek damages and a public apology.
|
| Quite.
| Being sued by a Roman slave will amuse us a lot. :-)

I hope you enjoy paying, squirming arsehole.

|
| YOU are a LIAR, Andersen.
|
| Androcles.
|
| Being threatened by lawsuit for pointing out that
| you have made a fallacy is rather amusing.

You did more than that, libellous arsehole, you said I was
dishonest.


| Or should we say hilarious? :-)

It may well be, liar. I hope your bank account and tenure
can stand the humour.

Androcles.



| Paul

Hexenmeister wrote:

[snip]

Do keep us updated, Androcles.

Hexenmeister wrote:
"Paul B. Andersen" wrote in message
...
| Hexenmeister wrote:
| "Paul B. Andersen" wrote in message
| ...
| | Hexenmeister wrote:
| | "Paul B. Andersen" wrote in
message
| | ...
| | | Paul B. Andersen wrote:
| | | We know the kinetic energy of the particle + your bubble
| | | is m*gamma*v.
| | |
| | | That's the momentum, of course.
| | | The energy is m*gamma*c^2.
| | |
| | | Paul
| |
| | OK, Andersen, you have convinced me.
| | Your stupidity IS so gigantic that you do not
| | understand why your statement is nonsense.
| | Please don't forgive me for not having doubted that.
| | I'm sure it will happen again.
| |
| | http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/E^2/EnergySquare.htm
| |
| | Hilarious, yes?
| |
| | Thanks for making me aware of the paper by Fox.
| | Here it is - as he wrote it.
| |
| |
|
http://scitation.aip.org/getpdf/serv...ps&prog=normal
| |
| |
| | (Fox didn't write a single word of what Androcles
| | "quoted" on his page above. Androcles is, as we know,
| | dishonest through and through.)
| |
| | Paul
|
| The red text at the top of
| http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/E^2/EnergySquare.htm
| was hand copied verbatim with the one omission, reference to footnote
21.
| It is clear from the colour and text size where I quoted and where
| I included my own words.
|
| The two paragraphs I quoted may be found on page 8 in section 7,
| PHOTON MODEL AND INERTIA OF ENERGY.
|
| OK. Fox has written a small part of it.
| But the point is that your whole page is written
| under the heading:
| Evidence Against Emission Theories
| J.G.Fox
| making it appear that the whole page is authored by J.G.Fox.
| There isn't even a quotation mark showing where the quotation ends,
| and no other name than J.K.Fox appear as the author of that page!

Bull****, there is a clear change of text size and colour. Only
a ****ing moron like you would squirm as you are doing.

I've written to ;
;
;


stating what a libellous jerk you are, and the web pages stay up.

I've been through this kind of thing with Androcles before. Eventually,
the embarassment overcomes him and he takes the pages down, but only
when he thinks no one is watching.


http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonde.../LIAR/LIAR.htm

| You have done this many times:
| Quoting somebody without making it clear where the quotation
| ends and your own words begin. You are effectually claiming
| that people have written something which they haven't.
|
| That's a fallacy, Androcles.
|
| You should be glad that nobody is taking you seriously
| enough to sue you, Androcles.


I'm taking you seriously enough to sue you and Agder
University College, Andersen, you maliciously impugned
my integrity. We'll let a court decide whether I deliberately
implied Fox wrote my words or not.


| We are done with hilarious, this time you've gone too far.
|
| I shall make an appointment on Monday to see a solicitor
| with the intent of suing you and Agder University College
| (whom you, " represent )
| for libel and seek damages and a public apology.
|
| Quite.
| Being sued by a Roman slave will amuse us a lot. :-)

I hope you enjoy paying, squirming arsehole.

|
| YOU are a LIAR, Andersen.
|
| Androcles.
|
| Being threatened by lawsuit for pointing out that
| you have made a fallacy is rather amusing.

You did more than that, libellous arsehole, you said I was
dishonest.


| Or should we say hilarious? :-)

It may well be, liar. I hope your bank account and tenure
can stand the humour.

Androcles.



| Paul

On Fri, 31 Mar 2006 23:12:25 +0200, "Paul B. Andersen"
wrote:

Henri Wilson wrote:
On 30 Mar 2006 03:12:43 -0800, "Paul B. Andersen"
wrote:


Henri Wilson skrev:


It is true.
A charge cannot be made to move at c between the plates of a condensor (which
is effectively what an accelerator is).
It requires infinfite energy to raise its speed to c wrt those plates.

Quite. It requires infinite energy to raise its speed to c
even when there is no field.

Ah! -
What is the reference you are using for speed here?

It might already be traveling at c wrt many things in the universe.


The reason: the charge's own movement creates a reverse field that subtracts
from the applied field.

No, Henri.
Don't you see the giant self contradiction in this explanation?

What you are saying is that it takes infinite energy to
accelerate the charged particle to c because the accelerating field
is cancelled and thus doesn't transfer energy to the particle.
So where does the infinite energy go?

We KNOW that the field transfers the same amount of energy
to the particle every time the particle passes through it,
so the field cannot be cancelled by anything.

It requires a lot of energy to cancel the applied field, even locally.

The associated energy is contained in 'Wilson's reverse
field bubble' that is carried along with the charge.

Exactly.
You claim that the kinetic energy of a charged particle moving
in space free of field is contained in a "reverse field bubble".
We know the kinetic energy of the particle + your bubble
is m*gamma*v. So any moving charged particle must carry
a "field bubble" along with it, and this field bubble
has the remarkable property that its kinetic energy is
independent of the particle's charge, it depends only on
its mass and speed.

I know that electrons behave as though their masses increase according to
something like gamma....but has this been proven correct for, say, protons? I
doubt it.

And of course the reason why you cannot make the particle + bubble
move faster than c is that its kinetic energy approaches
infinity when its speed approaches c.

If you want to include the bubble energy in with the mechanical KE, that is
true...but I would consider the bubble energy potential rather than kinetic.

So why are you saying that the reason is that the accelerating
field is cancelled by your field bubble?
If it were, how could it then transfer energy to the particle
+ your bubble?

You must be a moron not to see the giant stupidity in this.

The bubble's existence is related to the travel time of electric fields.
The faster the electron, the bigger the bubble and the smaller the effect of
the applied field. One could speculate that the bubble field was always less
than the applied field gradient.


Hilarious, no? :-)


Major scientific discoveries shouldn't be referred to as 'hilarious' but
throughout history, that has frequently happened.

Unfortunate, no? :-(

The idiot thinks he has made a "major scientific discovery".
How pathetic.
AND hilarious.

BTW, Henri.
Can you name one major scientific discovery
which has been referred to as 'hilarious'?
Since it has happened frequently, it should be
easy to name an example.

Your use of the word 'hilarious' does not imply amusement and was
unquestionably uttered with sarcasm and malice.
Its context was: 'fantastic beyond belief and unquestionably wrong'.

The early astronomers were faced with this kind of reaction from the religious
establishment just as we thinkers are now.

Even Einstein himself was initially mocked ...and still is, by the world's
genuine scientists.


Paul


HW.
www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/index.htm

On Fri, 31 Mar 2006 23:29:21 +0200, "Paul B. Andersen"
wrote:

Henri Wilson wrote:
On 30 Mar 2006 04:09:27 -0800, "Jerry" wrote:


Henri Wilson wrote:

On 29 Mar 2006 00:00:31 -0800, "Jerry" wrote:


Henri Wilson wrote:

On 27 Mar 2006 23:54:04 -0800, "Jerry" wrote:

Oh, yeah, you postulate the existence of some sort of retrograde
force operating on charged particles, forget what you call it...

Are you refering to Wilson's 'reverse field bubble'?

Oh yeah, that's what you call it...
Tell me, Henri, what does an electron pass through that pushes back
and keeps the electron from going any faster than c?

There is no theoretical limit to relative speed.

In an accelerator that uses an electric field, the moving charge builds up a
reverse field around itself. The faster it goes the bigger the reverse field.
At speed c wrt the plates, the local reverse field balances the applied field.

What happens when the electron exits the accelerator? Where does
the reverse field bubble go? I presume that it must stay with the
electron, otherwise you have some major conservation of energy
violations to contend with.


Bolometer experiments show that it remains with the electron, at least for a
short period.
However there is another possibility.
The 'bubble' might only exists while the charge, along with its existing
bubble, is being accelerated between the electrodes.
When the change leaves the plates, the bubble might dissipate in time. If that
is true then the bubble energy would go into further accelerating the charge to
a much higher speed and KE.

Get it?

Yes, I get it.
You are saying that a charged particle will keep accelerating
after it has left the RF-cavity. Since the energy of a charged
particle+bubble going close to c can be thousands of times
the Newtonian kinetic energy, it will accelerate to tens or hundreds
times the speed of light as the bubble dissipates.

Hilarious or a major scientific discovery? :-)

How does one measure the speed of a free electron beam?
I suppose one could put it through a magnetic field but that would still give
an ambiguous answer. If it was going c due to the collapse of the bubble it
wouldn't bend as much....but the same would apply if one accepted SR's mass
increase.

So I would say the odds on a major scientific discovery are at worst evens at
best about 1000 to one on.



Paul


HW.
www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/index.htm