Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > sci.physics.relativity > #461658 > unrolled thread

Particle Physics 4

Back to article view | Back to sci.physics.relativity

Contents

  Particle Physics 4 numbernumber1964@gmail.com - 2018-06-18 14:56 -0700
    Re: Particle Physics 4 Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-06-20 00:56 +0000
    Re: Particle Physics 4 numbernumber1964@gmail.com - 2018-06-19 12:42 -0700
      Re: Particle Physics 4 Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-06-19 21:47 +0000
    Re: Particle Physics 4 furthermore7990662@gmail.com - 2018-06-19 15:51 -0700
      Re: Particle Physics 4 Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-06-19 23:21 +0000
    Re: Particle Physics 4 furthermore7990662@gmail.com - 2018-06-19 15:58 -0700
    Re: Particle Physics 4 carleto4157990662@gmail.com - 2018-06-19 16:55 -0700
    Re: Particle Physics 4 numbernumber1964@gmail.com - 2018-06-20 09:06 -0700
      Re: Particle Physics 4 Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-06-20 16:43 +0000
    Re: Particle Physics 4 furthermore7990662@gmail.com - 2018-06-20 09:52 -0700
      Re: Particle Physics 4 Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-06-20 17:01 +0000
    Re: Particle Physics 4 numbernumber1964@gmail.com - 2018-06-20 12:57 -0700
    Re: Particle Physics 4 numbernumber1964@gmail.com - 2018-06-21 09:45 -0700
      Re: Particle Physics 4 Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-06-21 17:44 +0000
    Re: Particle Physics 4 numbernumber1964@gmail.com - 2018-06-21 11:32 -0700
      Re: Particle Physics 4 Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-06-21 20:56 +0000

#461658 — Particle Physics 4

The CERN Large Hadron Collider LHC (2017) uses two hadron (proton) beams that are accelerated using an RF cavity and superconducting magnets where the proton beam make 100,000 passes through the 27 km circumference beam pipe and RF cavity that accelerates the proton beam with every pass to achieve an energy of 6.4 TeV. The Lawrence cyclotron (1932) is used to justify the acceleration of the proton beam but the cyclotron accelerates protons using an electric field formed between two halves of the cyclotron's semi-circular metal apparatus but the cyclotron's positively charged protons would be attracted to the negative charged semi-circular cyclotron's metal apparatus preventing the propagation of the protons through the apparatus. Example, an electron beam of a 2000 W arc welder is formed by negatively charged electrons that are propagating in free space to a positive charged anode yet the cyclotron experiment depicts a proton beam with a blue colored light beam. The LHC experiment is based on a hadron beam consisting of disassociated hydrogen gas molecules but the disassociation of hydrogen would result in an extremely unstable positive charged protons that would be attracted to the negative surface of the RF cavity that is used to accelerate the proton beam. Proton beam therapy is used to justify the existence of a proton beam but protons that have a mass 1,000 times greater than an electron would destroy human skin, bone and tissue in the path of the proton beam similar to the affects of an electron beam of an arch welder. It is more likely that gamma rays are producing the effects of proton beam therapy. To form the circular path of the proton beam would require a constant magnetic field pointing perpendicular to the direction of the proton beam to maintain the protons on the 27 km circular path of the beam pipe but the symmetry of the superconducting magnetic do not represent an almost perfectly constant perpendicular magnetic field from all positions within the beam pipe that is required in the propagation of the proton beam in the 27 km circumference pipe beam. Furthermore, every pass of the proton beam through the 27 km circular path would require the magnet field to incrementally increase through out the entire 27 km path of the beam pipe every 9 x 10^-5 seconds which is highly unlikely since electric signals to increase the magnetic field propagate with less velocity. Along the beam pipe are arranged 392 quadrapole superconductor magnets that are used to contain the proton beam within the beam pipe but the magnetic field of the quadrapoles would negate the affect of the 1,232 dipole superconducting magnets that are used to contain the proton beam on the 27 km circular path of the pipe beam. The magnetic field of a quadrapole's magnetic field would focus the proton beam to the center of the beam pipe but after the proton beam is focused the protons would disperse towards the sides of the beam pipe resulting in at least .1% of the protons to collide with the sides of the beam pipe for every pass of the proton beam which would result in the elimination of the accelerated proton beam after 100,000 passes. ALso, the dipole magnets are pushing the protons towards the center of the 27 km circumference circular beam pipe to maintain the circular path of the proton beam yet the quadrapole magnets are straightening the path of the proton beam. Furthermore, the two accelerated proton beams are said to be combined within the Atlas particle physics detector which is used to form the images of the two proton beam's collision that is used to justify the existence of subatomic particles of the proton beam collision but the the detector is composed of concentric metal cylinders around the interaction point where the proton beams collision occurs but the concentric cylinders are composed of metal (matter). The subatomic particles that are composed of matter cannot propagate through the detector cylinders without producing a holes in the metallic cylinders and destroying the detector.

[toc] | [next] | [standalone]

#461705

<carleto4157990662@gmail.com> wrote:
>> Yes I can explain why. You are introducing pointless noise. It is easy for 
> someone to generate blablablabullshit, spewing random and wrong claims into 
> any conversation. It is harder to say something well researched and well 
> considered. You chose noisemaking and I’m asking you WHY. People have 
> motives for their actions. What are yours? What are you trying to 
> accomplish? 
> 
> 
> _________________________________________________________________
> 
> 
> 
> Physics silly.
> 
> 

Errors of fact will never be physics. Also insisting that obviously working
things cannot possibly work will never be physics.   

So answer again. Truthfully this time. 

-- 
Odd Bodkin — Maker of fine toys, tools, tables

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#461737

In the CERN large hadron collider (LHC) (2017), the RF cavity accelerates the proton beam but the positively charged protons would be attracted to the negative surface of the RF cavity that is said to accelerate the proton beam since the RF cavity is not employing magnets to keep the proton on it's path because interfering with the path of the protons using magnets would affect the delicate balance require to accelerate the proton beam.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#461746

<numbernumber1964@gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> In the CERN large hadron collider (LHC) (2017), the RF cavity accelerates
> the proton beam but the positively charged protons would be attracted to
> the negative surface of the RF cavity that is said to accelerate the
> proton beam since the RF cavity is not employing magnets to keep the
> proton on it's path because interfering with the path of the protons
> using magnets would affect the delicate balance require to accelerate the proton beam.
> 

What do you get out of spouting false claims like this, claiming that
things don’t work that obviously do work? What’s your motive? 

-- 
Odd Bodkin — Maker of fine toys, tools, tables

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#461757

There is a limit to everything but physicists do not seem to believe this. Example, if someone said that they drank 100 gallons of beer in one day and had 50 MIT physicists verify this fact would you not be skeptical. Also, if a person said that they fucked 5,000 women in one month would you also not wonder. And, if a little boy that was six years old said he was a pitcher on a baseball team when he was 13 would you not think something was wrong? There are what 30,000 physicists on this earth today and they all still believe in the tooth fairy and wet their beds and wish they had their mommies rather then their significant other and they blame Trump and their wives for everything for everything bad in the world. Mirrors are hard to hide from. Maybe you should take a close look once and a while. 

__________________________


What do you get out of spouting false claims like this, claiming that 
things don’t work that obviously do work? What’s your motive? 

______________________________


Do you swear to God and heaven that what I am stating are false to the best of your knowledge. Also, after you swear to the God of Nazareth,  could you briefly explain why you are doing it?



________________________________________


Please re state the false claims that you are stating since it cannot be so hard to cut and paste on a computer or are you doing this with a pencil in your butt and typing everything into the keyboard Steph Hawkings style.



So thats who you are!!!!!!!!!!

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#461769

<furthermore7990662@gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> There is a limit to everything but physicists do not seem to believe
> this. Example, if someone said that they drank 100 gallons of beer in one
> day and had 50 MIT physicists verify this fact would you not be
> skeptical. Also, if a person said that they fucked 5,000 women in one
> month would you also not wonder. And, if a little boy that was six years
> old said he was a pitcher on a baseball team when he was 13 would you not
> think something was wrong? There are what 30,000 physicists on this earth
> today and they all still believe in the tooth fairy and wet their beds
> and wish they had their mommies rather then their significant other and
> they blame Trump and their wives for everything for everything bad in the
> world. Mirrors are hard to hide from. Maybe you should take a close look once and a while. 
> 
> __________________________
> 
> 
> What do you get out of spouting false claims like this, claiming that 
> things don’t work that obviously do work? What’s your motive? 
> 
> ______________________________
> 
> 
> Do you swear to God and heaven that what I am stating are false to the
> best of your knowledge. Also, after you swear to the God of Nazareth, 
> could you briefly explain why you are doing it?

Yes I can explain why. You are introducing pointless noise. It is easy for
someone to generate blablablabullshit, spewing random and wrong claims into
any conversation. It is harder to say something well researched and well
considered. You chose noisemaking and I’m asking you WHY. People have
motives for their actions. What are yours? What are you trying to
accomplish?

> 
> 
> 
> ________________________________________
> 
> 
> Please re state the false claims that you are stating since it cannot be
> so hard to cut and paste on a computer or are you doing this with a
> pencil in your butt and typing everything into the keyboard Steph Hawkings style.
> 
> 
> 
> So thats who you are!!!!!!!!!!
> 
> 



-- 
Odd Bodkin — Maker of fine toys, tools, tables

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#461762

here's some confirmation----------->




"More artificial theories have been tried out, assuming that the real truth lies somewhere between these two limiting cases: that the ether is only partially carried by the moving bodies. But they all failed! Every attempt to explain the electromagnetic phenomena in moving CS with the help of the motion of the ether, motion through the ether, or both these motions, proved unsuccessful. Thus arose one of the most dramatic situations in the history of science. All assumptions concerning ether led nowhere! The experimental verdict was always negative." (Weaver, p. 145).

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#461788

>Yes I can explain why. You are introducing pointless noise. It is easy for 
someone to generate blablablabullshit, spewing random and wrong claims into 
any conversation. It is harder to say something well researched and well 
considered. You chose noisemaking and I’m asking you WHY. People have 
motives for their actions. What are yours? What are you trying to 
accomplish? 


_________________________________________________________________



Physics silly.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#461846

Theoretical physics is not based on fact that why they call it theory.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#461860

<numbernumber1964@gmail.com> wrote:
> Theoretical physics is not based on fact that why they call it theory.
> 

Why do you lie?

-- 
Odd Bodkin — Maker of fine toys, tools, tables

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#461867

the·o·ret·i·cal

adjective

concerned with or involving the theory of a subject or area of study rather than its practical application.

"a theoretical physicist"

synonyms: hypothetical, abstract, conjectural, academic, suppositional, speculative, notional, postulatory, what-if, assumed, presumed, untested, unproven, unsubstantiated

"it's just a theoretical situation"

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#461871

<furthermore7990662@gmail.com> wrote:
> the·o·ret·i·cal
> 
> adjective
> 
> concerned with or involving the theory of a subject or area of study
> rather than its practical application.
> 
> "a theoretical physicist"
> 
> synonyms: hypothetical, abstract, conjectural, academic, suppositional,
> speculative, notional, postulatory, what-if, assumed, presumed, untested,
> unproven, unsubstantiated
> 
> "it's just a theoretical situation"
> 


Note that not being concerned with the practical application does NOT mean
it has no basis in experimental facts. 

And the synonyms for the colloquial usage are pointlessly irrelevant.
Didn’t you take 8th grade science? Didn’t you ever learn the scientific
method? 

Why do you lie? What do you get out of it?



-- 
Odd Bodkin — Maker of fine toys, tools, tables

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#461895

dfdf

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#462008

the·o·ret·i·cal. 

adjective. 

concerned with or involving the. theory of a subject or area of study rather than its practical application.. 
.
"a theoretical physicist". 

synonyms: hypothetical, abstract,, conjectural, academic, suppositional, speculative, notional,, postulatory, what-if, assumed, presumed, untested, unproven, unsubstantiated.
 


____________________________________________________



I have a right to believe anything that you want. I cannot stop you that is what freedom of speech is but if you state that theory is a fact and obtain money from the government that is fraud. Also, this is a equation between Harvard, Standford and MIT etc. english magor and linguist regarding the definition of the word theory since they specficially say "a theoretical physicist" in quotation marks and post the words . 

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#462035

<numbernumber1964@gmail.com> wrote:
> the·o·ret·i·cal. 
> 
> adjective. 
> 
> concerned with or involving the. theory of a subject or area of study
> rather than its practical application.. 
> .
> "a theoretical physicist". 
> 
> synonyms: hypothetical, abstract,, conjectural, academic, suppositional,
> speculative, notional,, postulatory, what-if, assumed, presumed,
> untested, unproven, unsubstantiated.
>  
> 
> 
> ____________________________________________________
> 
> 
> 
> I have a right to believe anything that you want. I cannot stop you that
> is what freedom of speech is but if you state that theory is a fact and
> obtain money from the government that is fraud. Also, this is a equation
> between Harvard, Standford and MIT etc. english magor and linguist
> regarding the definition of the word theory since they specficially say
> "a theoretical physicist" in quotation marks and post the words . 
> 
> 

Dude. If you are not familiar with the role of theory and experiment in the
scientific method, it is easy to correct ignorance. It just takes reading.
More than a blurb, though. 

Theory is a model of reality. There are aspects of theory that are
conjectures, but the quality of a theory in science is how well it matches
experimental data. Without that reference and match to real data, theories
do not gain acceptance. Well accepted theories have a ton of matches to
lots of experimental data. Relativity and quantum mechanics and the
Standard Model are all examples of very well tested and accepted theories.
Your assumption that theories have no connection to real data is just
completely off the mark. 

Nobody claims that theories are FACTS and it is not necessary for a theory
to be a fact to be funded. Likewise, open exploration is funded and goes
into uncharted waters. Exploration of only known facts or places already
visited would be useless. The purpose of science, and why it is funded, is
to EXPAND knowledge. If you don’t know this, physics is not a good hobby
for you. 

-- 
Odd Bodkin — Maker of fine toys, tools, tables

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#462053

Well accepted theories have a ton of matches to. 
lots of experimental data.. Relativity and quantum mechanics and the 
Standard Model are all examples of. very well tested and accepted theories. 
Your assumption that theories. have no connection to real data is just 
completely off the mark.. 

_______________________________________



That's your opinion not mine. Once again you are entitled to your own opinion since this is a free country. Also, why does the definition specifically states "theoretical physicists". It seems that they are targeting physicists that may be over extending the word theoretical which they are objecting to which also just my opinion. We are all entitle to our own opinions, right? I do not have to believe in what you say nor do you have to believe what I am say. In fact go ahead and believe what ever you want I am sure the tooth fairy and santa will be extremely happy. Merry Christmas!!!!!  Tinker bell.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#462074

<numbernumber1964@gmail.com> wrote:
> Well accepted theories have a ton of matches to. 
> lots of experimental data.. Relativity and quantum mechanics and the 
> Standard Model are all examples of. very well tested and accepted theories. 
> Your assumption that theories. have no connection to real data is just 
> completely off the mark.. 
> 
> _______________________________________
> 
> 
> 
> That's your opinion not mine. 

Mine comes from being educated on what the scientific method is, and
reading the writings of physicists who describe the interplay of theory and
experiment. What have YOU read?

I don’t know what world you belong to, but in mine, an uninformed opinion
does not carry the same weight as an informed one. 

You are free to hold onto an uninformed opinion if you wish. No one will be
able to sway you from that. However, the more uninformed opinions you
express (repeatedly), the more those expressions will be either openly
mocked or ignored. 

You and you alone are in command about whether you become informed or not. 

> Once again you are entitled to your own opinion since this is a free
> country. Also, why does the definition specifically states "theoretical
> physicists". It seems that they are targeting physicists that may be over
> extending the word theoretical which they are objecting to which also
> just my opinion. We are all entitle to our own opinions, right? I do not
> have to believe in what you say nor do you have to believe what I am say.
> In fact go ahead and believe what ever you want I am sure the tooth fairy
> and santa will be extremely happy. Merry Christmas!!!!!  Tinker bell.
> 



-- 
Odd Bodkin — Maker of fine toys, tools, tables

[toc] | [prev] | [standalone]

Back to top | Article view | sci.physics.relativity

csiph-web