Show me experience in which the temperature of the anode (target) continues to grow in proportion to the potential difference of the accelerating field for the case of super-relativistic electrons.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
Three Experiments Challenging SRT
- Thread starter Masterov
- Start date
Source fields are stationary
Particles are accelerated using series of positive and negative charges that are alternated over time. That is how accelerators work.
and the Coulomb force depends on the speed of electron.
You have no evidence of that. This is ridiculous. When relativity is consistent with every experiment we have, it is "lies" and "fraud" and even "crime". Yet when you think you have an alternative explanation that is superficially consistent with a few results you happen to know about, suddenly that is "fact". Why?
Since when is science whatever you dictate it to be?
Show me experience in which the temperature of the anode (target) continues to grow in proportion to the potential difference of the accelerating field for the case of super-relativistic electrons.
No. Stop making arbitrary demands and start considering the experimental evidence and decades of experience we do have.
I can't follow all the math. But after reading the majority of this thread it seems obvious that Masterov's working physics life is dedicated to rebelling against the USSR's (supposed) not allowing SRT to be questioned. This has caused a complex within Masterov that drives him to clutch at anything he can like a rebellious child that refuses to admit it is wrong. He has clearly been forged by his environment (through rebellion against an obviously oppressive state) to want SRT to be wrong so much that his whole work is tainted by the drive to prove SRT wrong. This is no way to do science. It's akin to a god-believer shaping science to prove god exists. Surely scientists look at the evidence and then come to the most accurate conclusions. Not start with a desired conclusion and then search for evidence that backs it up, alongside the exclusion of alternate, empirically proven data/evidence/fact. Facts can be polished, improved, but something that is so testably correct (newtonian physics, evolution, relativity) are theories that will never be abolished, simply polished?
Surely Masterov isn't a closet Einstein?But even Einstein didn't prove Newton defunct?
Surely Masterov isn't a closet Einstein?But even Einstein didn't prove Newton defunct?
This circumstance has no effect on the velocity of electromagnetic wave.Particles are accelerated using series of positive and negative charges that are alternated over time. That is how accelerators work.Source fields are stationary
Such fact (which shows the dependence of the Coulomb force on the speed of electron) is a lack of publication of the results of experiments in which the energy of the electrons is measured directly.You have no evidence of that. This is ridiculous. When relativity is consistent with every experiment we have, it is "lies" and "fraud" and even "crime". Yet when you think you have an alternative explanation that is superficially consistent with a few results you happen to know about, suddenly that is "fact". Why?and the Coulomb force depends on the speed of electron.
Since when is science whatever you dictate it to be?
Second fact: Three Experiments of Liangzao FAN Challenging Einstein’s Relativistic Mechanics and Traditional Electromagnetic Acceleration Theory
New facts appear together with repeated Liangzao FAN's experiments.
This is a timid step in the direction to declare me paranoid.I can't follow all the math. But after reading the majority of this thread it seems obvious that Masterov's working physics life is dedicated to rebelling against the USSR's (supposed) not allowing SRT to be questioned. This has caused a complex within Masterov that drives him to clutch at anything he can like a rebellious child that refuses to admit it is wrong. He has clearly been forged by his environment (through rebellion against an obviously oppressive state) to want SRT to be wrong so much that his whole work is tainted by the drive to prove SRT wrong. This is no way to do science. It's akin to a god-believer shaping science to prove god exists. Surely scientists look at the evidence and then come to the most accurate conclusions. Not start with a desired conclusion and then search for evidence that backs it up, alongside the exclusion of alternate, empirically proven data/evidence/fact. Facts can be polished, improved, but something that is so testably correct (newtonian physics, evolution, relativity) are theories that will never be abolished, simply polished?
Surely Masterov isn't a closet Einstein?But even Einstein didn't prove Newton defunct?
If we develop this idea further, the diagnosis becomes apparent.
I am familiar with these tricks of phrase-mongering.
This is exactly what used the criminals in Russia (USSR): gently and kindly hang "mad label" on scientist, issue a piece of paper with the press, fired from the science, and if a scientist wants to remain silent - is forcibly placed in a psychiatric hospital.
I have reason to suspect that such a method of protecting SRT operates in Russia/Soviet Union not only.
This circumstance has no effect on the velocity of electromagnetic wave.
Huh? Your response has nothing to do with what I said in my post: the way accelerators are designed and used means they are incapable of accelerating particles faster than the speed of light. That is true regardless of what you assume about "relativistic" mass or the Lorentz force. That is not the problem you need to explain.
Such fact (which shows the dependence of the Coulomb force on the speed of electron) is a lack of publication of the results of experiments in which the energy of the electrons is measured directly.
Stop lying. You have already been told of Bertozzi's experiment. You have been told that the energies of ultrarelativistic particles are routinely measured in accelerator physics. You are not seeing what you don't want to see.
Second fact: Three Experiments of Liangzao FAN Challenging Einstein’s Relativistic Mechanics and Traditional Electromagnetic Acceleration Theory
We have already explained that Liangzao Fan's experiment is very badly reported and not credible at all. rpenner has pointed out that Liangzao Fan's results actually seem to be in better agreement with SRT than with either Newtonian physics or Fan's own model.
New facts appear together with repeated Liangzao FAN's experiments.
You are making self-serving assumptions about experiments that have not been performed while giving no reason for ignoring the results of experiments that have been performed.
I have reason to suspect that such a method of protecting SRT operates in Russia/Soviet Union not only.
This is sickening.
Fine. You are medically insane. You are paranoid. You are obviously brain-damaged. You are probably posting your tirades from the psychiatric institution you are already locked in.
Now, I have no medical evidence of this, of course. But I have reason to suspect based on your posting behaviour here. Apparently, I'm not the only one. By your own standards, that is enough for anyone to call you insane and paranoid.
Don't like it? Then stop calling physicists frauds and criminals without evidence. Keep your unfounded "suspicions" to yourself if you expect the same courtesy from others.
For a stationary observer the accelerating field is quasi static.Huh? Your response has nothing to do with what I said in my post: the way accelerators are designed and used means they are incapable of accelerating particles faster than the speed of light. That is true regardless of what you assume about "relativistic" mass or the Lorentz force. That is not the problem you need to explain.This circumstance has no effect on the velocity of electromagnetic wave.
In the coordinate system of the moving electron, this field is not static, so the speed of propagation of electromagnetic wave is important.
In addition, the static electric and magnetic fields is EMW too.
Ie - a dynamic process, similar to the stationary wave.
EMW speed in this case is significant.
Russin text:
Для стационарного наблюдателя ускоряющее поле является квази статическим.
В системе координат движущегося электрона это поле статическим не является, поэтому скорость распространения ЭМВ важна..
Кроме того, статическое электрическое и магнитное поле это тоже ЭМВ, т.е. – динамический процесс, похожий на стационарную волну. Скорость ЭМВ и в этом случае имеет значение.
For a stationary observer the accelerating field is quasi static.
In the coordinate system of the moving electron, this field is not static, so the speed of propagation of electromagnetic wave is important.
In addition, the static electric and magnetic fields is EMW too.
Ie - a dynamic process, similar to the stationary wave.
EMW speed in this case is significant.
And...?
Bertozzi proved nothing.Stop lying. You have already been told of Bertozzi's experiment.
Bertozzi has not shown that the temperature of the aluminum disk continues to grow, while the velocity of the electrons is almost unchanged.
Experiments Bertozzi no repeated for 50 years.
Experiments Bertozzi eaten old-mustiness.
I promised to ignore the posts in which an argument proposed experiments Bertozzi, but you pull tongue of my.
Coulomb force must depend on the speed of the electron.And...?In the coordinate system of the moving electron, this field is not static, so the speed of propagation of electromagnetic wave is important.Huh? Your response has nothing to do with what I said in my post: the way accelerators are designed and used means they are incapable of accelerating particles faster than the speed of light. That is true regardless of what you assume about "relativistic" mass or the Lorentz force. That is not the problem you need to explain.This circumstance has no effect on the velocity of electromagnetic wave.
For a stationary observer the accelerating field is quasi static.
In addition, the static electric and magnetic fields is EMW too.
Ie - a dynamic process, similar to the stationary wave.
EMW speed in this case is significant.
The energy of the electron is no grow up along with his speed.
Statement that allegedly was obtained in an accelerators an electron energy, which is measured by MeV, GeV and TeV - an outright lie.
Bertozzi proved nothing.
Bertozzi has not shown that the temperature of the aluminum disk continues to grow, while the velocity of the electrons is almost unchanged.
Bertozzi showed that the energy continues to grow while the velocity approaches that of light. See figure 3 in his paper, where both a table and graph of his results is given. Bertozzi's energy measurements were within 10% of the accelerating potential, which is easily enough to rule out the Newtonian energy relation.
Bertozzi explains how both the velocity and the energy are measured in his paper. Liangzao Fan does not explain how he measured the velocity or energy in anywere near as much detail. Bertozzi considered velocities from 0.752 c up to more than 0.974 c (his last measured velocity is apparently indistinguishable from c). Liangao Fan never worked with velocities above 0.480 c and thus did not work in the regime where "velocity of the electrons is almost unchanged".
Bertozzi measured the energy using a thermocouple system that is described in his paper. Some modern electric thermometers work based on exactly the same principle.
Experiments Bertozzi no repeated for 50 years.
Experiments Bertozzi eaten old-mustiness.
That is the equivalent of resorting to name-calling. Bertozzi's experiment is not invalid just because it was performed in the 1960s. You are clearly grasping at straws with this one.
As rpenner pointed out, Bertozzi's experiment is much better reported and thus more reliable than Fan's experiment. If you ignore Bertozzi's experiment, you certainly cannot continue to cite Fan's experiment.
Coulomb force must depend on the speed of the electron.
That is not the only explanation for why accelerating potentials fail to accelerate particles faster than light.
The energy of the electron is no grow up along with his speed.
Statement that allegedly was obtained in an accelerators an electron energy, which is measured by MeV, GeV and TeV - an outright lie.
You have no evidence for your claims and have given no reason the routine detection of collision by-products with energies in the range of MeVs and GeVs should be ignored.
Continues to grow?Bertozzi showed that the energy continues to grow while the velocity approaches that of light.
No diminish?
Who would ever have thought?
Bertozzi's experiment is invalid because it no has redid in during 50 years.Bertozzi's experiment is not invalid just because it was performed in the 1960s.
Yes, but...That is not the only explanation for why accelerating potentials fail to accelerate particles faster than light.Coulomb force must depend on the speed of the electron.
Full absence a published results of direct measurements of energy of relativistic electrons indicates that the experiment contradicts SRT.
If the energy of super-relativistic electrons continued to grow in proportion to the potential difference of the accelerating field, the results of direct experiments have been published and frequently revised.
But during 50 years after Bertozzi not published any experiment in which the energy of the electrons would be measured directly.
Bertozzi also just showed that energy continued to grow with the velocity increases, and it is not proved that the energy continues to increase, while the rate is virtually identical to the speed of light.
I admire the dexterity SRT-lobbyists with which they cover their lies, by which are trying to build physics during century.
No – exist: Three Experiments Challenging Einstein’s Relativistic Mechanics and Traditional Electromagnetic Acceleration Theory of Liangzao FAN.You have no evidence for your claims and have given no reason the routine detection of collision by-products with energies in the range of MeVs and GeVs should be ignored.The energy of the electron is no grow up along with his speed.
Statement that allegedly was obtained in an accelerators an electron energy, which is measured by MeV, GeV and TeV - an outright lie.
When will be stop hindering the publication of the results of experiments that contradict SRT, such evidence will emerge again and again, over and over.
Continues to grow?
No diminish?
Specifically, continues to grow in a way that is consistent with SRT and inconsistent with the Newtonian energy formula.
Who would ever have thought?
Anyone who learned SRT in school and was familiar with the theoretical and experimental support for it up to that point. When a theory works, even in many "indirect" tests, we generally do not regard that as a coincidence.
In the history of physics, whenever a well established theory was found to be wrong, it has always remained as a useful approximation to whatever new theory replaced it. For example, Newtonian physics appears as a low velocity approximation to relativistic physics. Classical physics can be derived as an approximation to quantum physics. Newtonian gravity can be derived as a low velocity and weak field approximation to general relativity.
Even if SRT is discovered to be wrong, that will not change the fact that many theorists, experimenters, and engineers have found it useful. We will still owe the prediction of the positron and nuclear power to relativity. We will still owe our knowledge of phenomena such as gravitational time dilation to general relativity which predicted we would see these phenomena in experiments.
Bertozzi's experiment is invalid because it no has redid in during 50 years.
If you read the thread, you would know that we are not relying on Bertozzi's experiment alone as experimental support for SRT. Even in the 1960s, Bertozzi's experiment only confirmed what was generally expected based on already existing support for SRT at the time.
Is consistent with SRT?Specifically, continues to grow in a way that is consistent with SRT and inconsistent with the Newtonian energy formula.Continues to grow?
No diminish?
With what accuracy?
It's not a scientific argument, and a prayers muttering of devout believer fanatic.Anyone who learned SRT in school and was familiar with the theoretical and experimental support for it up to that point. When a theory works, even in many "indirect" tests, we generally do not regard that as a coincidence.Who would ever have thought?
In the history of physics, whenever a well established theory was found to be wrong, it has always remained as a useful approximation to whatever new theory replaced it. For example, Newtonian physics appears as a low velocity approximation to relativistic physics. Classical physics can be derived as an approximation to quantum physics. Newtonian gravity can be derived as a low velocity and weak field approximation to general relativity.
Even if SRT is discovered to be wrong, that will not change the fact that many theorists, experimenters, and engineers have found it useful. We will still owe the prediction of the positron and nuclear power to relativity. We will still owe our knowledge of phenomena such as gravitational time dilation to general relativity which predicted we would see these phenomena in experiments.
Can you show the results of experiments in which it is shown that the temperature of the target continues to grow in proportion to the potential difference in the case of super-relativistic electrons.If you read the thread, you would know that we are not relying on Bertozzi's experiment alone as experimental support for SRT. Even in the 1960s, Bertozzi's experiment only confirmed what was generally expected based on already existing support for SRT at the time.Bertozzi's experiment is invalid because it no has redid in during 50 years.
Yes, but...
Full absence a published results of direct measurements of energy of relativistic electrons indicates that the experiment contradicts SRT.
False. Bertozzi. Even if you do not think Bertozzi's experiment is sufficient, the experiment was performed and you cannot truthfully claim "full absence" of such experiments.
We also have considerable experience from accelerator physics that you still ignore for no reason:
1. Sophisticated detector systems (such as ATLAS and CMS at the LHC, ALEPH and DELPHI at LEP) are built around the locations in accelerators where collisions take place. When particles collide in accelerators, the collision produces many secondary particles which are then detected in these detection systems. By conservation of energy, the total energy of the products of the collision is the same as the total energy of the two particles that collided in the accelerator. This gives accelerator physicists a more-or-less direct measure of how powerful their accelerators are. The products of the collisions routinely have energies in the MeV and GeV ranges.
In proton-proton colliders like the LHC and proton-antiproton colliders like the Tevatron and the former SPS, it is individual quarks from the protons that collide, so the actual collision energy is typically much less than the "rated" energy of the accelerator. Electron-positron colliders such as LEP are much simpler to study in this regard. LEP was originally operated at a centre of mass (CM) energy of "91 GeV" by colliding "45 GeV" electron and positron beams. One of the simplest events observed was $$e^{+} e^{-} \,\rightarrow\, e^{+} e^{-}$$, where an electron and positron collided and an electron and positron were detected leaving the collision point in opposite directions. Often for these events, very near the full CM energy of 91 GeV was measured for the total energy of the detected $$e^{+} e^{-}$$ pair. Later, the CM energy was increased in several stages until it reached "209 GeV", and this was reflected in the total energy measured for the collision products. In particular, when LEP was operated at "161 GeV" in 1996, $$W^{+} W^{-}$$ events began to be observed, and in at least some cases the decay products were found to have a total energy approaching 160 GeV.
A gallery of some events observed by the DELPHI experiment is available here. A gallery of some ALEPH events is available here including a few $$W^{+} W^{-}$$ candidate events.
2. At the LHC, the proton beams are circulated for approximately ten hours before being disposed of and replaced with fresh beams. Because of the high total energy of the beams, an arrangement for their safe disposal is necessary. The beams are disposed of by directing them into the LHC beam dump, the target of which is a 7m long carbon cylinder. The beam is deliberately defocused while being disposed of in order to prevent it from boring straight through the beam dump.
3. In 2003 an accidental beam loss at the Tevatron resulted in damage to the accelerator.
My point is, the people operating particle accelerators have ample evidence that their accelerators really are as powerful as they think they are.
No – exist: Three Experiments Challenging Einstein’s Relativistic Mechanics and Traditional Electromagnetic Acceleration Theory of Liangzao FAN.
But "{Liangzao Fan}'s experiment is invalid because it no has redid in during {17} years". Furthermore Bertozzi's experiment is better reported, and Liangzao Fan's results, as rpenner pointed out, do not support his own hypothesis or the Newtonian energy formula.
If you choose to dismiss Bertozzi's experiment, you certainly cannot continue to use Liangzao Fan's paper as evidence.
When will be stop hindering the publication of the results of experiments that contradict SRT, such evidence will emerge again and again, over and over.
You have no evidence anything is being hindered. You have no evidence any such results even exist which could be hindered. You have no reason a repetition of Liangzao Fan's experiment would contradict SRT. Our general experience with ultrarelativistic particles to this date indicates otherwise.
I'll remind you that if you accuse physicists of suppressing results without evidence, everyone here has the same right to call you medically insane without evidence.