Henri Wilson wrote:
On 4 Apr 2006 01:50:07 -0700, "PD" wrote:


Henri Wilson wrote:
On 3 Apr 2006 06:37:52 -0700, "PD" wrote:



One puts the beam in spatially separated bunches and times their travel
between two points that are reasonably distant apart.
This is what is done routinely at both linear and circular beamlines.

Are you *completely* unaware of all the rather commonplace
verifications of SR?

That's hardly a 'free beam'. It is confined by a strong magnetic field.

A linear beamline is hardly a strong magnetic field

As usual, you're talking incomprehensible crap PD.

Really?
You asked how one measures the speed of a free electron beam.
I told you it was routinely done in a linear beamline, and told you
how.
You said this is hardly a free electron beam, due to the presence of a
strong magnetic field.
I said a linear beamline does not have a strong magnetic field.

What's incomprensible about that, Henri?
When you get to facts you don't like, you announce that they are
incomprehensible?

Is this similar to your approach to the scientific method, wherein if
experiment disagrees with your theory, then the experiment is obviously
suspect?

PD



It doesn't tell us what we want to know anyway. We want to see if there is an
'apparent mass increase'.

Why do you want to know that? You wanted to know how to measure the
*speed* of an electron beam. Why do you need to know an "apparent mass
increase" to do that?

Attempt to change the subject noted.

As usual, you're talking incomprehensible crap PD.

Do you have anything intelligent to contribute?

PD



PD

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


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


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

"PD" wrote in message
ups.com...
|
| Henri Wilson wrote:
| On 4 Apr 2006 01:50:07 -0700, "PD" wrote:
|
|
| Henri Wilson wrote:
| On 3 Apr 2006 06:37:52 -0700, "PD" wrote:
|
|
|
| One puts the beam in spatially separated bunches and times their
travel
| between two points that are reasonably distant apart.
| This is what is done routinely at both linear and circular
beamlines.
|
| Are you *completely* unaware of all the rather commonplace
| verifications of SR?
|
| That's hardly a 'free beam'. It is confined by a strong magnetic
field.
|
| A linear beamline is hardly a strong magnetic field
|
| As usual, you're talking incomprehensible crap PD.
|
| Really?
| You asked how one measures the speed of a free electron beam.
| I told you it was routinely done in a linear beamline, and told you
| how.
| You said this is hardly a free electron beam, due to the presence of a
| strong magnetic field.
| I said a linear beamline does not have a strong magnetic field.
|
| What's incomprensible about that, Henri?
| When you get to facts you don't like, you announce that they are
| incomprehensible?
|
| Is this similar to your approach to the scientific method, wherein if
| experiment disagrees with your theory, then the experiment is obviously
| suspect?

Yeah... Of course. Free cosmic muons travel 62 miles in 2.2 usec
but cannot exceed the speed of light, which plays the part of an infinitely
great velocity in our theory, so they must be time dilated and the distance
length contracted.

What's stupid about that, Phuckwit Duck?
When you get to facts you don't like, you announce that 62 miles/2.2usec
is stupid?
Is this similar to your approach to the scientific method, wherein if
experiment disagrees with your theory, then the speed of cosmic muons
is obviously suspect, you ****ing moron?

Androcles.




| PD
|
|
|
| It doesn't tell us what we want to know anyway. We want to see if
there is an
| 'apparent mass increase'.
|
| Why do you want to know that? You wanted to know how to measure the
| *speed* of an electron beam. Why do you need to know an "apparent mass
| increase" to do that?
|
| Attempt to change the subject noted.
|
| As usual, you're talking incomprehensible crap PD.
|
| Do you have anything intelligent to contribute?
|
| PD
|
|
|
| PD
|
| 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
|
|
| HW.
| www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/index.htm
|
|
| HW.
| www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/index.htm
|

Hexenmeister wrote:
"PD" wrote in message
ups.com...
|
| Henri Wilson wrote:
| On 4 Apr 2006 01:50:07 -0700, "PD" wrote:
|
|
| Henri Wilson wrote:
| On 3 Apr 2006 06:37:52 -0700, "PD" wrote:
|
|
|
| One puts the beam in spatially separated bunches and times their
travel
| between two points that are reasonably distant apart.
| This is what is done routinely at both linear and circular
beamlines.
|
| Are you *completely* unaware of all the rather commonplace
| verifications of SR?
|
| That's hardly a 'free beam'. It is confined by a strong magnetic
field.
|
| A linear beamline is hardly a strong magnetic field
|
| As usual, you're talking incomprehensible crap PD.
|
| Really?
| You asked how one measures the speed of a free electron beam.
| I told you it was routinely done in a linear beamline, and told you
| how.
| You said this is hardly a free electron beam, due to the presence of a
| strong magnetic field.
| I said a linear beamline does not have a strong magnetic field.
|
| What's incomprensible about that, Henri?
| When you get to facts you don't like, you announce that they are
| incomprehensible?
|
| Is this similar to your approach to the scientific method, wherein if
| experiment disagrees with your theory, then the experiment is obviously
| suspect?

Yeah... Of course. Free cosmic muons travel 62 miles in 2.2 usec
but cannot exceed the speed of light, which plays the part of an infinitely
great velocity in our theory, so they must be time dilated and the distance
length contracted.

What's stupid about that, Phuckwit Duck?
When you get to facts you don't like, you announce that 62 miles/2.2usec
is stupid?

Except it doesn't go for 2.2 usec in a muon beam. It goes longer than
that, according to *timers*.
This, of course, is counter to Androcles's mythology, so it must have
only gone 2.2 usec anyway, or so he would have us believe.

Is this similar to your approach to the scientific method, wherein if
experiment disagrees with your theory, then the speed of cosmic muons
is obviously suspect, you ****ing moron?

Androcles.




| PD
|
|
|
| It doesn't tell us what we want to know anyway. We want to see if
there is an
| 'apparent mass increase'.
|
| Why do you want to know that? You wanted to know how to measure the
| *speed* of an electron beam. Why do you need to know an "apparent mass
| increase" to do that?
|
| Attempt to change the subject noted.
|
| As usual, you're talking incomprehensible crap PD.
|
| Do you have anything intelligent to contribute?
|
| PD
|
|
|
| PD
|
| 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
|
|
| HW.
| www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/index.htm
|
|
| HW.
| www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/index.htm
|

On Tue, 04 Apr 2006 13:12:38 +0200, "Paul B. Andersen"
wrote:

Henri Wilson wrote:
Paul B. Andersen wrote:
Henri Wilson wrote:
Paul B. Andersen wrote:
Henri Wilson wrote:
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.

[snip obfuscating quibble]

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.

You are evading the point.
Whatever your "field bubble" does, it cannot cancel the accelerating field.


Why not. It is a 'reverse' field. It MUST partly neutralize it.

Refuted below.

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.

All charged particles behave in such a way that
p = m*gamma*v and E = m*gamma*c^2.
Both protons and ions are routinely accelerated in accelerators.


As I have pointed out elsewharer

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.

Here is why the "bubble energy" must be kinetic energy:
It is YOU that include the "bubble energy" in the KE of of the particle.
The particle is KNOWN to have the KE = m*(gamma-1)*c^2.
YOU claim that the part of this energy that exceeds mv^2/2 is
contained in the "field bubble".
KE is by definition the energy that depend on the speed.
So the "bubble energy" MUST be KE.

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.

There is no "travel time of electric fields" in an accelerator.
The electric field is established _before_ the charged particle
enters it, and it can be considered a static field during the very
short time the particle is in it.
You KNOW this because you have been told many times,
so why do you keep repeating this stupidity?


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.

You are repeating your giant self contradiction.
Read again what I have told you over and over,
and think just a little bit, for once.
1. We KNOW that the particle gains the same amount of
KE every time it passes through the accelerating field (RF-cavity),
regardless of what the speed is. The gained energy is simply q*V,
where q is the charge and V is the potential drop in the accelerating
field (integral E ds). We know this because when the accelerator is
in steady state (at the top of its performance), the KE gained in
the RF-cavities is lost as synchrotron radiation in the bends.
This energy is easily measured, and MUST be carried from the RF-cavity
to the bends as KE in the particles. That's why high performance
accelerators have to be big, the bends must be gentle to loose less
energy per revolution.

That is not a proof that the gained energy goes entirely into particle KE.

I'm saying the bubble builds up during acceleration and dissipates (in time) in
steady state.
That is in conformity with what you are saying here.

Electrons are accelerated to 100 GeV, that is gamma = 200000,
v = 0.999999999987c, or v = (c - 3.8 mm/sec).
Even at this speed, the electric field transfers as much energy
to the particle as at any other speed.

That's quite OK by me. As the speed approaches c, more and more of that energy
goes into maintaining the bubble.

2. This proves that nothing cancels the electric field at any speed,
the effect of the electric field is the same at any speed.

Both the applied field and the reverse field add. The sum approaches zero as
the speed -c.
The sum acts on the particle. Where the hell is your problem?


3. Since we know that the KE = m*gamma*c^2 (gamma-1 ~= gamma)
even when the particle is NOT in the electric field, and you
claim that the vast majority of this KE is contained in
the "field bubble", it follows that this "field bubble"
has nothing with the accelerating field to do, but is only
determined by the mass and the speed of the particle.


The bubble has to move with the charge. This is where the field reaction time
enters the picture.

Oh? How? What is it?

It determines the size and strength of the bubble.


4. The fact that the KE of your "field bubble" is independent
of the charge of the particle shows that it is not of
electromagnetic nature.

Since this is a totally new concept, I don't see how you can make any such
claims.



I said the bubble has PE not KE.

And I showed above why your bubble energy is KE.


Henri, you haven't even tried to refute any of my arguments.
Why is that?
Didn't you read them?
Didn't you understand them?
Or do you agree with them?

None of these.
I'm quite happy with my theory as is.
It provides a physical model for the approximate maths treatment, fluked by SR.

(How could it be? If an electron and a proton are moving
with the same speed, we have - according to you - two
unity charges moving with the same speed, but the "field bubble"
of one of them contains much more energy than the other.)


I have several views on this.
One goes along the lines of Len Gassenbeek's spinning particle idea.
(the 'bubble' involves the spinning of the particle)

So the KE is now stored as spin? No bubble? :-)
When you realize that one "explanation" is wrong, invent a new,
entirely different, and even more idiotic explanation, eh? :-)

It is quite feasible...not at all idiotic.
You are under some kind of delusion that SR provides all the answers to every
problem. In actual fact, relativity hasn't achieved or solved anything.

Another says the 'gamma' increase has only been accurately verified with
electrons.

Which illustrates your desperate seach for explanations. :-)

So what is the nature of you bubble? What kind of field is it?
Could I suggest WUBEBW field?
(Wilsonian Unknown By Everybody But Wilson - field.)
Another world shattering discovery by Henri Wilson.


It stands to reason that it must be true. It is simple stuff really.

A moving charge constitutes a current that creates a 'back emf' in a closed
circuit (or between two plates). The field created by an accelerating charge
must therefore have the effect of reducing the applied field. Its effect will
be local to the charge. It must require considerable energy to maintain a field
gradient in space.

Yes, it is indeed quite simple.
If you have a static electric field with no energy supply,
this field will obviously be diminished somewhat when a charge
move along the field because the energy gained by the particle
must be taken from PE of the field. The gained energy of the charge
is qV, so the field must be diminished accordingly.

that's correct. The 'reverse field' causes it to diminish.

Look at this drawing:
V
E
|+ -- -|
|+ -- -| drift tube
-----|+ -- -|----------
-
q+
-----|+ -- -|-----------
|+ -- -|
|+ -- -|

It is basically a charged condenser with a tube through it.
(No tube between the condenser plates, though).
The tube on each side is at the same potential as the plates.
The potential difference between the plates is V.
In the tube a positive charge q is moving. There is
no field inside the tube, but there will be a surface
charge inside the tube with the opposite polarity,
following the moving charge q. (It is a local field
around the charge in the tube)

(That field will become distorted into the 'reverse field bubble')

Now the situation after the charge has passed:
V

|+ -- -|
|+ -- -| drift tube
-----| |----------
-
q+
-----|+ -- -|-----------
|+ -- -|
|+ -- -|

The field have diminished somewhat.
The point is that the moving positive charge is
a part of the whole condenser system, and when
this charge has moved from the positive side of
the system to the negative side, the net result must
be a small discharge of the condenser.
(In my drawings the condenser charge has diminished
from 6q to 5q.)

I would dispute that.
I would say that V momentarily drops as q passes between the plates but returns
to its original value after it has gone.
I cannot see any sign of the condensor circuit passing current. The charge q
came from a separate circuit, CMIIW.

Where did your 6th '+' go, eh, Paul?

You started with seven and ended with six...strange that.

I realise you are trying to simulate a cyclotron but remember the field between
the D's is AC.

The energy of the whole system is unchanged.
The PE lost by the field must be equal to the gain
of the KE of the moving charged particle.

Well something doesn't add up.

No charge from the condensor circuit moves from one plate to the other.
I think you are saying one is 'pushed back' into the battery by the field of
the moving q+. It is replenished to 6q with current from the battery when q
passes through.
In other words, there is s small blip of current going in and out of the
battery as q passes. That's where the loss of energy occurs. ..half a cycle of
AC current x the circuit impedance.

AhA! I think I have discovered another reason for the difficulty in
accelerating charges.

The energy gained is not qV. It reduces with particle speed.

Time to burn all those books and start again, I think.


There is no need to see what happens to the local
field around the charge while the particle is
in transit when we know the net result.
And the net result is independent of the speed of the charge.
That means that the electric field is diminished by the same
amount regardless of what the speed of the particle is!
It is no additional cancelling of the electric field due
to the speed of the charge.

The "considerable energy to sustain the field" is qV
per passing charge. This "considerable energy" do
not change with the speed of the particle.

Of course the situation in an RF-cavity is much
more complicated that this, an RF-cavity is not
without power supply. There will be a current flowing
into it, and the field will not be diminished in
the same way as above.

The bottom line is still:
Every time the particle passes through the RF-cavity,
it gains the same amount of energy, regardless of
the speed of the particle.

No it doesn't Paul. Tear up all the books that says it does.
The energy gained falls of with speed.


You can twist an turn as much as you want,
experimental evidence show that the accelerating
field is never cancelled by anything related
to the speed of the particle.

The whole "reverse field bubble" idea is ridiculous.
It simply does not add up.

Can you not see that the distortion of the charge's own natural field
constitutes that bubble?



Paul


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

On Tue, 04 Apr 2006 13:18:40 GMT, "Hexenmeister"
wrote:


"Paul B. Andersen" wrote in message
...

[snip]

Nothing the lying troll Andersen says is trustworthy.

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

Androcles.

Actually he is being quite useful here.
Even conversing with an idiot occasionally produces a worthwhile thought. (with
the exception of geesey, of course)

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

On 4 Apr 2006 16:12:54 -0700, "PD" wrote:


Henri Wilson wrote:
On 4 Apr 2006 01:50:07 -0700, "PD" wrote:


Henri Wilson wrote:
On 3 Apr 2006 06:37:52 -0700, "PD" wrote:



One puts the beam in spatially separated bunches and times their travel
between two points that are reasonably distant apart.
This is what is done routinely at both linear and circular beamlines.

Are you *completely* unaware of all the rather commonplace
verifications of SR?

That's hardly a 'free beam'. It is confined by a strong magnetic field.

A linear beamline is hardly a strong magnetic field

As usual, you're talking incomprehensible crap PD.

Really?
You asked how one measures the speed of a free electron beam.
I told you it was routinely done in a linear beamline, and told you
how.
You said this is hardly a free electron beam, due to the presence of a
strong magnetic field.
I said a linear beamline does not have a strong magnetic field.

What's incomprensible about that, Henri?
When you get to facts you don't like, you announce that they are
incomprehensible?

Is this similar to your approach to the scientific method, wherein if
experiment disagrees with your theory, then the experiment is obviously
suspect?

You didn't describe your method.

Are you saying that the electrons are pulsed and you measure the time for
consecutive pulses to pass a detector?



PD



It doesn't tell us what we want to know anyway. We want to see if there is an
'apparent mass increase'.

Why do you want to know that? You wanted to know how to measure the
*speed* of an electron beam. Why do you need to know an "apparent mass
increase" to do that?

Attempt to change the subject noted.

As usual, you're talking incomprehensible crap PD.

Do you have anything intelligent to contribute?

PD



PD

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


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


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


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

Henri Wilson wrote:
On 4 Apr 2006 16:12:54 -0700, "PD" wrote:


Henri Wilson wrote:
On 4 Apr 2006 01:50:07 -0700, "PD" wrote:


Henri Wilson wrote:
On 3 Apr 2006 06:37:52 -0700, "PD" wrote:



One puts the beam in spatially separated bunches and times their travel
between two points that are reasonably distant apart.
This is what is done routinely at both linear and circular beamlines.

Are you *completely* unaware of all the rather commonplace
verifications of SR?

That's hardly a 'free beam'. It is confined by a strong magnetic field.

A linear beamline is hardly a strong magnetic field

As usual, you're talking incomprehensible crap PD.

Really?
You asked how one measures the speed of a free electron beam.
I told you it was routinely done in a linear beamline, and told you
how.
You said this is hardly a free electron beam, due to the presence of a
strong magnetic field.
I said a linear beamline does not have a strong magnetic field.

What's incomprensible about that, Henri?
When you get to facts you don't like, you announce that they are
incomprehensible?

Is this similar to your approach to the scientific method, wherein if
experiment disagrees with your theory, then the experiment is obviously
suspect?

You didn't describe your method.

Are you saying that the electrons are pulsed and you measure the time for
consecutive pulses to pass a detector?

No. That would be measuring the time between pulses. What is done is to
time the flight of a single pulse between two distant locations. One
can do this if the time of flight is short compared with the time
between bunches, or if there are distinguishing characteristics between
one pulse and the next.

Did you not know that it is fairly straightforward to measure the time
of flight of a single pulse through two widely separated detectors? (It
is not my method, note. It is so mundane that it is commonly given as a
basic exercise to young HEP students to set up the equipment and the
electronics to measure that time of flight. I see that you have never
been give that opportunity, which is perhaps why you are so prone to
saying ridiculous things about how nature behaves in real life.)

PD

"Henri Wilson" HW@.. wrote in message
...
| On Tue, 04 Apr 2006 13:18:40 GMT, "Hexenmeister"
| wrote:
|
|
| "Paul B. Andersen" wrote in message
| ...
|
| [snip]
|
| Nothing the lying troll Andersen says is trustworthy.
|
| http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonde.../LIAR/LIAR.htm
|
| Androcles.
|
| Actually he is being quite useful here.
| Even conversing with an idiot occasionally produces a worthwhile thought.
(with
| the exception of geesey, of course)
|
| HW.
| www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/index.htm


You mean you need **** to try out a new broom?
Isn't ordinary dirt good enough?

Androcles.

"PD" wrote in message
ups.com...
|
| Hexenmeister wrote:
| "PD" wrote in message
| ups.com...
| |
| | Henri Wilson wrote:
| | On 4 Apr 2006 01:50:07 -0700, "PD"
wrote:
| |
| |
| | Henri Wilson wrote:
| | On 3 Apr 2006 06:37:52 -0700, "PD"
wrote:
| |
| |
| |
| | One puts the beam in spatially separated bunches and times their
| travel
| | between two points that are reasonably distant apart.
| | This is what is done routinely at both linear and circular
| beamlines.
| |
| | Are you *completely* unaware of all the rather commonplace
| | verifications of SR?
| |
| | That's hardly a 'free beam'. It is confined by a strong magnetic
| field.
| |
| | A linear beamline is hardly a strong magnetic field
| |
| | As usual, you're talking incomprehensible crap PD.
| |
| | Really?
| | You asked how one measures the speed of a free electron beam.
| | I told you it was routinely done in a linear beamline, and told you
| | how.
| | You said this is hardly a free electron beam, due to the presence of a
| | strong magnetic field.
| | I said a linear beamline does not have a strong magnetic field.
| |
| | What's incomprensible about that, Henri?
| | When you get to facts you don't like, you announce that they are
| | incomprehensible?
| |
| | Is this similar to your approach to the scientific method, wherein if
| | experiment disagrees with your theory, then the experiment is
obviously
| | suspect?
|
| Yeah... Of course. Free cosmic muons travel 62 miles in 2.2 usec
| but cannot exceed the speed of light, which plays the part of an
infinitely
| great velocity in our theory, so they must be time dilated and the
distance
| length contracted.
|
| What's stupid about that, Phuckwit Duck?
| When you get to facts you don't like, you announce that 62
miles/2.2usec
| is stupid?
|
| Except it doesn't go for 2.2 usec in a muon beam. It goes longer than
| that, according to *timers*.

*Timers*, Duck?
I'm still waiting to see an inertial observer and a clock that moves at
0.9c. So far you've handwaved about muon beams.
"One puts the beam in spatially separated bunches and times their
travel between two points that are reasonably distant apart."
62 miles is "reasonably distant apart". Now you say a *timer*
is used.
Ok, what duration of time does it take a bunch of muons to
travel 62 miles by your *timer*?
I'll tell you one thing, Phuckwit Duck. You are a lying ****.
Androcles.





| This, of course, is counter to Androcles's mythology, so it must have
| only gone 2.2 usec anyway, or so he would have us believe.
|
| Is this similar to your approach to the scientific method, wherein if
| experiment disagrees with your theory, then the speed of cosmic muons
| is obviously suspect, you ****ing moron?
|
| Androcles.
|
|
|
|
| | PD
| |
| |
| |
| | It doesn't tell us what we want to know anyway. We want to see if
| there is an
| | 'apparent mass increase'.
| |
| | Why do you want to know that? You wanted to know how to measure the
| | *speed* of an electron beam. Why do you need to know an "apparent
mass
| | increase" to do that?
| |
| | Attempt to change the subject noted.
| |
| | As usual, you're talking incomprehensible crap PD.
| |
| | Do you have anything intelligent to contribute?
| |
| | PD
| |
| |
| |
| | PD
| |
| | 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
| |
| |
| | HW.
| | www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/index.htm
| |
| |
| | HW.
| | www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/index.htm
| |
|

Hexenmeister wrote:
"PD" wrote in message
ups.com...
|
| Hexenmeister wrote:
| "PD" wrote in message
| ups.com...
| |
| | Henri Wilson wrote:
| | On 4 Apr 2006 01:50:07 -0700, "PD"
wrote:
| |
| |
| | Henri Wilson wrote:
| | On 3 Apr 2006 06:37:52 -0700, "PD"
wrote:
| |
| |
| |
| | One puts the beam in spatially separated bunches and times their
| travel
| | between two points that are reasonably distant apart.
| | This is what is done routinely at both linear and circular
| beamlines.
| |
| | Are you *completely* unaware of all the rather commonplace
| | verifications of SR?
| |
| | That's hardly a 'free beam'. It is confined by a strong magnetic
| field.
| |
| | A linear beamline is hardly a strong magnetic field
| |
| | As usual, you're talking incomprehensible crap PD.
| |
| | Really?
| | You asked how one measures the speed of a free electron beam.
| | I told you it was routinely done in a linear beamline, and told you
| | how.
| | You said this is hardly a free electron beam, due to the presence of a
| | strong magnetic field.
| | I said a linear beamline does not have a strong magnetic field.
| |
| | What's incomprensible about that, Henri?
| | When you get to facts you don't like, you announce that they are
| | incomprehensible?
| |
| | Is this similar to your approach to the scientific method, wherein if
| | experiment disagrees with your theory, then the experiment is
obviously
| | suspect?
|
| Yeah... Of course. Free cosmic muons travel 62 miles in 2.2 usec
| but cannot exceed the speed of light, which plays the part of an
infinitely
| great velocity in our theory, so they must be time dilated and the
distance
| length contracted.
|
| What's stupid about that, Phuckwit Duck?
| When you get to facts you don't like, you announce that 62
miles/2.2usec
| is stupid?
|
| Except it doesn't go for 2.2 usec in a muon beam. It goes longer than
| that, according to *timers*.

*Timers*, Duck?
I'm still waiting to see an inertial observer and a clock that moves at
0.9c. So far you've handwaved about muon beams.
"One puts the beam in spatially separated bunches and times their
travel between two points that are reasonably distant apart."
62 miles is "reasonably distant apart".

So is 1725 m, ducky.

Now you say a *timer*
is used.

Yup. Mind you, not a sundial.

Ok, what duration of time does it take a bunch of muons to
travel 62 miles by your *timer*?

I don't use a timer for the ones in the atmosphere, ducky. I use a
timer for the ones in the beamline. Or did you get lost in the
discussion? Or are you still maintaining that "tame" muons in beamlines
live longer than "feral" muons in cosmic rays?

I'll tell you one thing, Phuckwit Duck. You are a lying ****.

Yeah, you tell me all sorts of nonsense.

PD

Androcles.





| This, of course, is counter to Androcles's mythology, so it must have
| only gone 2.2 usec anyway, or so he would have us believe.
|
| Is this similar to your approach to the scientific method, wherein if
| experiment disagrees with your theory, then the speed of cosmic muons
| is obviously suspect, you ****ing moron?
|
| Androcles.
|
|
|
|
| | PD
| |
| |
| |
| | It doesn't tell us what we want to know anyway. We want to see if
| there is an
| | 'apparent mass increase'.
| |
| | Why do you want to know that? You wanted to know how to measure the
| | *speed* of an electron beam. Why do you need to know an "apparent
mass
| | increase" to do that?
| |
| | Attempt to change the subject noted.
| |
| | As usual, you're talking incomprehensible crap PD.
| |
| | Do you have anything intelligent to contribute?
| |
| | PD
| |
| |
| |
| | PD
| |
| | 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
| |
| |
| | HW.
| | www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/index.htm
| |
| |
| | HW.
| | www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/index.htm
| |
|