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

Groups > sci.physics > #689319 > unrolled thread

Particle physics 2

Back to article view | Back to sci.physics

Contents

  Particle physics 2 numbernumber1964@gmail.com - 2018-06-07 10:13 -0700
    Particle physics 2 john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2018-06-07 10:17 -0700
      Re: Particle physics 2 Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> - 2018-06-08 15:02 -0500
    Re: Particle physics 2 Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-06-07 17:39 +0000
      Re: Particle physics 2 Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> - 2018-06-08 14:58 -0500
        Re: Particle physics 2 Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-06-08 20:43 +0000
          Re: Particle physics 2 benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2018-06-08 19:13 -0400
            Re: Particle physics 2 Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> - 2018-06-08 18:48 -0500
    Re: Particle physics 2 numbernumber1964@gmail.com - 2018-06-07 12:25 -0700
      Re: Particle physics 2 Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-06-07 20:38 +0000
      Re: Particle physics 2 Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2018-06-07 22:44 +0200
    Re: Particle physics 2 numbernumber1964@gmail.com - 2018-06-07 12:26 -0700
    Re: Particle physics 2 numbernumber1964@gmail.com - 2018-06-07 12:27 -0700
      Re: Particle physics 2 Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2018-06-07 23:06 +0200
        Re: Particle physics 2 Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-06-07 21:47 +0000
          Re: Particle physics 2 Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2018-06-08 04:16 +0200
    Re: Particle physics 2 Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2018-06-07 22:38 +0200
      Re: Particle physics 2 Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> - 2018-06-08 15:07 -0500
    Re: Particle physics 2 furthermore7990662@gmail.com - 2018-06-08 09:57 -0700
      Re: Particle physics 2 Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-06-08 17:48 +0000
    Re: Particle physics 2 furthermore7990662@gmail.com - 2018-06-08 10:05 -0700
      Re: Particle physics 2 Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-06-08 17:48 +0000
        Re: Particle physics 2 Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> - 2018-06-08 14:53 -0500
        Re: Particle physics 2 Steve Carroll <frelwizzen@gmail.com> - 2018-06-08 12:54 -0700
        Re: Particle physics 2 benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2018-06-08 18:57 -0400
    Re: Particle physics 2 furthermore7990662@gmail.com - 2018-06-08 12:26 -0700
      Re: Particle physics 2 Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-06-08 20:43 +0000
    Re: Particle physics 2 furthermore7990662@gmail.com - 2018-06-08 12:27 -0700
      Re: Particle physics 2 Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-06-08 20:43 +0000
        Re: Particle physics 2 benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2018-06-08 19:10 -0400
          Re: Particle physics 2 Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> - 2018-06-09 19:03 -0500
            Re: Particle physics 2 benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2018-06-09 22:50 -0400
              Re: Particle physics 2 Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> - 2018-06-10 21:11 -0500
                Re: Particle physics 2 benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2018-06-11 11:58 -0400
          Re: Particle physics 2 Edward Prochak <edprochak@gmail.com> - 2018-06-12 08:09 -0700
            Re: Particle physics 2 benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2018-06-12 18:05 -0400
              Re: Particle physics 2 Edward Prochak <edprochak@gmail.com> - 2018-06-13 06:48 -0700
    Re: Particle physics 2 furthermore7990662@gmail.com - 2018-06-11 09:30 -0700
      Re: Particle physics 2 Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-06-11 16:43 +0000
    Re: Particle physics 2 furthermore7990662@gmail.com - 2018-06-11 09:31 -0700
    Re: Particle physics 2 furthermore7990662@gmail.com - 2018-06-11 09:36 -0700
      Re: Particle physics 2 Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-06-11 16:46 +0000
        Re: Particle physics 2 Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> - 2018-06-11 14:07 -0500
          Re: Particle physics 2 Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-06-11 19:27 +0000
    Re: Particle physics 2 furthermore7990662@gmail.com - 2018-06-11 09:39 -0700
      Re: Particle physics 2 Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-06-11 16:56 +0000
        Re: Particle physics 2 Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> - 2018-06-11 14:06 -0500
          Re: Particle physics 2 benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2018-06-11 17:24 -0400
          Re: Particle physics 2 poraty149@gmail.com - 2018-06-11 22:46 -0700
            Re: Particle physics 2 john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2018-06-12 05:31 -0700
              Re: Particle physics 2 Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> - 2018-06-12 09:09 -0500
                Re: Particle physics 2 john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2018-06-12 08:31 -0700
                Re: Particle physics 2 benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2018-06-12 17:34 -0400
                Re: Particle physics 2 poraty149@gmail.com - 2018-06-12 17:00 -0700
              Re: Particle physics 2 benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2018-06-12 17:15 -0400
                Re: Particle physics 2 Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-06-12 22:06 +0000
    Re: Particle physics 2 furthermore7990662@gmail.com - 2018-06-11 09:43 -0700
    Re: Particle physics 2 furthermore7990662@gmail.com - 2018-06-11 12:27 -0700
      Re: Particle physics 2 Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-06-11 19:53 +0000
    Re: Particle physics 2 furthermore7990662@gmail.com - 2018-06-11 12:32 -0700
      Re: Particle physics 2 Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-06-11 19:59 +0000
      Re: Particle physics 2 benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2018-06-11 17:29 -0400
      Re: Particle physics 2 Edward Prochak <edprochak@gmail.com> - 2018-06-12 08:20 -0700
    Re: Particle physics 2 numbernumber1964@gmail.com - 2018-06-11 12:48 -0700
      Re: Particle physics 2 Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-06-11 20:45 +0000
      Re: Particle physics 2 benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2018-06-11 17:34 -0400
    Re: Particle physics 2 numbernumber1964@gmail.com - 2018-06-11 12:52 -0700
      Re: Particle physics 2 Edward Prochak <edprochak@gmail.com> - 2018-06-12 08:25 -0700
    Re: Particle physics 2 numbernumber1964@gmail.com - 2018-06-11 12:53 -0700
      Re: Particle physics 2 Edward Prochak <edprochak@gmail.com> - 2018-06-12 08:42 -0700
        Re: Particle physics 2 benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2018-06-12 18:12 -0400
          Re: Particle physics 2 Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-06-13 00:50 +0000
            Re: Particle physics 2 benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2018-06-12 22:29 -0400
              Re: Particle physics 2 Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-06-13 12:21 +0000
                Re: Particle physics 2 benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2018-06-13 11:36 -0400
                  Re: Particle physics 2 Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> - 2018-06-13 13:03 -0500
                    Re: Particle physics 2 benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2018-06-13 14:38 -0400
          Re: Particle physics 2 Edward Prochak <edprochak@gmail.com> - 2018-06-13 06:50 -0700
    Re: Particle physics 2 numbernumber1964@gmail.com - 2018-06-11 14:33 -0700
      Re: Particle physics 2 Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-06-11 22:30 +0000
    Re: Particle physics 2 numbernumber1964@gmail.com - 2018-06-11 14:36 -0700
      Re: Particle physics 2 Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-06-11 22:31 +0000
    Re: Particle physics 2 numbernumber1964@gmail.com - 2018-06-11 14:39 -0700
    Re: Particle physics 2 numbernumber1964@gmail.com - 2018-06-11 14:52 -0700
    Re: Particle physics 2 numbernumber1964@gmail.com - 2018-06-11 15:05 -0700
    Re: Particle physics 2 numbernumber1964@gmail.com - 2018-06-11 15:07 -0700
    Re: Particle physics 2 furthermore7990662@gmail.com - 2018-06-11 15:55 -0700
      Re: Particle physics 2 moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2018-06-12 00:02 +0000
      Re: Particle physics 2 Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-06-12 12:27 +0000
        Re: Particle physics 2 Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> - 2018-06-12 09:10 -0500
          Re: Particle physics 2 Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-06-12 14:36 +0000
    Re: Particle physics 2 numbernumber1964@gmail.com - 2018-06-11 17:21 -0700
      Re: Particle physics 2 moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2018-06-12 01:28 +0000
      Re: Particle physics 2 Edward Prochak <edprochak@gmail.com> - 2018-06-12 09:02 -0700
    Re: Particle physics 2 numbernumber1964@gmail.com - 2018-06-11 17:51 -0700
      Re: Particle physics 2 Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-06-12 12:27 +0000
        Re: Particle physics 2 Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> - 2018-06-12 09:16 -0500
          Re: Particle physics 2 Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-06-12 14:36 +0000
            Re: Particle physics 2 Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> - 2018-06-12 09:54 -0500
    Re: Particle physics 2 numbernumber1964@gmail.com - 2018-06-11 17:55 -0700
      Re: Particle physics 2 moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2018-06-12 01:33 +0000
    Re: Particle physics 2 numbernumber1964@gmail.com - 2018-06-11 18:12 -0700
    Re: Particle physics 2 numbernumber1964@gmail.com - 2018-06-11 18:24 -0700
    Re: Particle physics 2 numbernumber1964@gmail.com - 2018-06-11 18:35 -0700
      Re: Particle physics 2 moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2018-06-12 01:49 +0000
    Re: Particle physics 2 numbernumber1964@gmail.com - 2018-06-11 18:36 -0700
      Re: Particle physics 2 moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2018-06-12 01:54 +0000
    Re: Particle physics 2 numbernumber1964@gmail.com - 2018-06-12 09:33 -0700
      Re: Particle physics 2 Edward Prochak <edprochak@gmail.com> - 2018-06-12 10:08 -0700
    Re: Particle physics 2 numbernumber1964@gmail.com - 2018-06-12 09:41 -0700
      Re: Particle physics 2 Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-06-12 17:53 +0000
      Re: Particle physics 2 moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2018-06-12 17:55 +0000
    Re: Particle physics 2 numbernumber1964@gmail.com - 2018-06-12 10:04 -0700
      Re: Particle physics 2 Edward Prochak <edprochak@gmail.com> - 2018-06-12 10:18 -0700
      Re: Particle physics 2 moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2018-06-12 17:57 +0000
      Re: Particle physics 2 Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-06-12 18:01 +0000
    Re: Particle physics 2 numbernumber1964@gmail.com - 2018-06-12 10:06 -0700
      Re: Particle physics 2 moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2018-06-12 17:59 +0000
        Re: Particle physics 2 Edward Prochak <edprochak@gmail.com> - 2018-06-13 06:20 -0700
    Re: Particle physics 2 numbernumber1964@gmail.com - 2018-06-12 10:17 -0700
    Re: Particle physics 2 numbernumber1964@gmail.com - 2018-06-12 10:21 -0700
      Re: Particle physics 2 moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2018-06-12 18:05 +0000
      Re: Particle physics 2 Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-06-12 18:35 +0000
    Re: Particle physics 2 furthermore7990662@gmail.com - 2018-06-12 10:24 -0700
    Re: Particle physics 2 numbernumber1964@gmail.com - 2018-06-12 13:59 -0700
      Re: Particle physics 2 Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-06-12 22:06 +0000
      Re: Particle physics 2 Edward Prochak <edprochak@gmail.com> - 2018-06-13 06:22 -0700
        Re: Particle physics 2 Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> - 2018-06-13 15:48 -0500
    Re: Particle physics 2 numbernumber1964@gmail.com - 2018-06-12 14:02 -0700
    Re: Particle physics 2 numbernumber1964@gmail.com - 2018-06-12 14:04 -0700
    Re: Particle physics 2 numbernumber1964@gmail.com - 2018-06-12 14:09 -0700
      Re: Particle physics 2 Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-06-12 22:06 +0000
      Re: Particle physics 2 Edward Prochak <edprochak@gmail.com> - 2018-06-13 06:37 -0700
    Re: Particle physics 2 numbernumber1964@gmail.com - 2018-06-12 14:13 -0700
      Re: Particle physics 2 Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-06-12 22:06 +0000
      Re: Particle physics 2 Volney <volney@volney.invalid> - 2018-06-13 01:26 -0400
        Re: Particle physics 2 Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-06-13 08:04 -0500
    Re: Particle physics 2 numbernumber1964@gmail.com - 2018-06-12 15:39 -0700
      Re: Particle physics 2 Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-06-13 00:50 +0000
        Re: Particle physics 2 benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2018-06-12 22:33 -0400
    Re: Particle physics 2 furthermore7990662@gmail.com - 2018-06-12 15:45 -0700
      Re: Particle physics 2 Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-06-13 00:50 +0000
        Re: Particle physics 2 Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> - 2018-06-13 15:46 -0500
      Re: Particle physics 2 Volney <volney@volney.invalid> - 2018-06-13 01:31 -0400
    Re: Particle physics 2 furthermore7990662@gmail.com - 2018-06-12 15:50 -0700
      Re: Particle physics 2 Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-06-13 00:50 +0000
        Re: Particle physics 2 benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2018-06-12 22:36 -0400
          Re: Particle physics 2 Edward Prochak <edprochak@gmail.com> - 2018-06-13 07:28 -0700
            Re: Particle physics 2 benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2018-06-13 11:13 -0400
    Re: Particle physics 2 numbernumber1964@gmail.com - 2018-06-12 18:14 -0700
      Re: Particle physics 2 poraty149@gmail.com - 2018-06-12 22:15 -0700
      Re: Particle physics 2 Volney <volney@volney.invalid> - 2018-06-13 01:34 -0400
        Re: Particle physics 2 Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-06-13 08:05 -0500
      Re: Particle physics 2 Edward Prochak <edprochak@gmail.com> - 2018-06-13 07:25 -0700
    Re: Particle physics 2 furthermore7990662@gmail.com - 2018-06-13 11:14 -0700
      Re: Particle physics 2 Edward Prochak <edprochak@gmail.com> - 2018-06-14 07:53 -0700
        Re: Particle physics 2 earle Jones <earle.jones@comcast.net> - 2018-06-14 11:38 -0700
    Re: Particle physics 2 furthermore7990662@gmail.com - 2018-06-13 11:17 -0700
    Re: Particle physics 2 furthermore7990662@gmail.com - 2018-06-13 11:20 -0700
      Re: Particle physics 2 Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-06-13 18:40 +0000
        Re: Particle physics 2 Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> - 2018-06-13 15:50 -0500
    Re: Particle physics 2 furthermore7990662@gmail.com - 2018-06-13 11:24 -0700
      Re: Particle physics 2 benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2018-06-13 14:43 -0400
        Re: Particle physics 2 Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> - 2018-06-13 15:52 -0500
    Re: Particle physics 2 furthermore7990662@gmail.com - 2018-06-13 11:25 -0700
      Re: Particle physics 2 Edward Prochak <edprochak@gmail.com> - 2018-06-14 07:57 -0700
    Re: Particle physics 2 numbernumber1964@gmail.com - 2018-06-13 12:31 -0700
      Re: Particle physics 2 Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-06-13 20:30 +0000
      Re: Particle physics 2 Volney <volney@volney.invalid> - 2018-06-13 16:42 -0400
    Re: Particle physics 2 numbernumber1964@gmail.com - 2018-06-13 13:55 -0700
      Re: Particle physics 2 Edward Prochak <edprochak@gmail.com> - 2018-06-14 08:06 -0700
        Re: Particle physics 2 Volney <volney@volney.invalid> - 2018-06-14 12:42 -0400
          Re: Particle physics 2 Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> - 2018-06-14 11:52 -0500
            Re: Particle physics 2 Volney <volney@volney.invalid> - 2018-06-14 13:04 -0400
              Re: Particle physics 2 Volney <volney@volney.invalid> - 2018-06-14 13:08 -0400
                Re: Particle physics 2 Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> - 2018-06-14 12:40 -0500
                  Re: Particle physics 2 benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2018-06-14 16:01 -0400
                Re: Particle physics 2 Edward Prochak <edprochak@gmail.com> - 2018-06-15 05:39 -0700
    Re: Particle physics 2 numbernumber1964@gmail.com - 2018-06-13 13:58 -0700
    Re: Particle physics 2 numbernumber1964@gmail.com - 2018-06-13 14:01 -0700
      Re: Particle physics 2 benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2018-06-13 20:41 -0400
    Re: Particle physics 2 numbernumber1964@gmail.com - 2018-06-14 11:15 -0700
    Re: Particle physics 2 furthermore7990662@gmail.com - 2018-06-14 11:57 -0700
    Re: Particle physics 2 numbernumber1964@gmail.com - 2018-06-14 13:04 -0700

Page 8 of 10 — ← Prev page 1 … 6 7 [8] 9 10  Next page →

#690336

The whole point is how does the subatomic particles propagate through 
matter without producing a hole. The electrons of the CRT screen do not 
propagate through the glass enclosure.

______________________________________________________ 

Yes many of them do. Why do you think they do not? 

And cosmic rays are routinely picked up in detectors that are tens of 
meters underground. 

_______________________________________________________


Is your proof that electrons propagate through glass without producing holes in the glass similar to cosmic rays propagating through 1800 meters of bedrock?

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

#690359

<furthermore7990662@gmail.com> wrote:
> The whole point is how does the subatomic particles propagate through 
> matter without producing a hole. The electrons of the CRT screen do not 
> propagate through the glass enclosure.
> 
> ______________________________________________________ 
> 
> Yes many of them do. Why do you think they do not? 
> 
> And cosmic rays are routinely picked up in detectors that are tens of 
> meters underground. 
> 
> _______________________________________________________
> 
> 
> Is your proof that electrons propagate through glass without producing
> holes in the glass similar to cosmic rays propagating through 1800 meters of bedrock?
> 

The proof is the OBSERVATION of penetrating electrons. 

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

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

#690470

On 6/12/2018 7:50 PM, Odd Bodkin wrote:
> <furthermore7990662@gmail.com> wrote:
>> The whole point is how does the subatomic particles propagate through 
>> matter without producing a hole. The electrons of the CRT screen do not 
>> propagate through the glass enclosure.
>>
>> ______________________________________________________ 
>>
>> Yes many of them do. Why do you think they do not? 
>>
>> And cosmic rays are routinely picked up in detectors that are tens of 
>> meters underground. 
>>
>> _______________________________________________________
>>
>>
>> Is your proof that electrons propagate through glass without producing
>> holes in the glass similar to cosmic rays propagating through 1800 meters of bedrock?
>>
> 
> The proof is the OBSERVATION of penetrating electrons. 
> 

this is well know and observed daily.

an electron beam will go through air several feet, and will go through
glass attenuated as well.  depends upon energy and beam divergance.

       easy google search.

https://radiologykey.com/electron-beam-therapy/



electrons and cosmic rays are completly different critters.
then throw in Gamma rays.

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

#690382

On 6/12/2018 6:45 PM, furthermore7990662@gmail.com wrote:
> The whole point is how does the subatomic particles propagate through
> matter without producing a hole. The electrons of the CRT screen do not
> propagate through the glass enclosure.

Why would you think subatomic particles would leave holes? Crazy.
At least as long as there aren't 80 amperes worth of them trained on a 
small spot where the sheer total energy of all those electrons gang up 
to blast a hole in steel.

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

#690338

I did a search of "do electrons propagate through glass" and this is what I got "Propagation of 10-keV electrons through glass macrocapillaries" and the rest was photon propagating through glass. So your conjecture that electrons propagates through the glass of the CRT screen is nullified based on probability. Jackson.

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

#690358

<furthermore7990662@gmail.com> wrote:
> I did a search of "do electrons propagate through glass" and this is what
> I got "Propagation of 10-keV electrons through glass macrocapillaries"
> and the rest was photon propagating through glass. So your conjecture
> that electrons propagates through the glass of the CRT screen is
> nullified based on probability. Jackson.
> 
> 

You cannot do an internet search effectively to save your life. 

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

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

#690369

On 6/12/2018 8:50 PM, Odd Bodkin wrote:
> <furthermore7990662@gmail.com> wrote:
>> I did a search of "do electrons propagate through glass" and this is what
>> I got "Propagation of 10-keV electrons through glass macrocapillaries"
>> and the rest was photon propagating through glass. So your conjecture
>> that electrons propagates through the glass of the CRT screen is
>> nullified based on probability. Jackson.
>>
>>
> 
> You cannot do an internet search effectively to save your life.
> 
Come on Odd. You've just been spanked for being an idiot. You are pwned!
if you want to talk science I've told you 1000 times that you can't just 
spout philosophical generalities and try to call it science. You must 
have CAREFUL, EXACT, definitions of things including extant conditions.

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

#690414

On Tuesday, June 12, 2018 at 10:36:59 PM UTC-4, benj wrote:
> On 6/12/2018 8:50 PM, Odd Bodkin wrote:
> > <furthermore7990662@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> I did a search of "do electrons propagate through glass" and this is what
> >> I got "Propagation of 10-keV electrons through glass macrocapillaries"
> >> and the rest was photon propagating through glass. So your conjecture
> >> that electrons propagates through the glass of the CRT screen is
> >> nullified based on probability. Jackson.
> >>
> >>
> > 
> > You cannot do an internet search effectively to save your life.
> > 
> Come on Odd. You've just been spanked for being an idiot. You are pwned!
> if you want to talk science I've told you 1000 times that you can't just 
> spout philosophical generalities and try to call it science. You must 
> have CAREFUL, EXACT, definitions of things including extant conditions.

yet you do not scold Furthermore for even worse inexactness.
Consistency benj!

ed  :)

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

#690416

On 6/13/2018 10:28 AM, Edward Prochak wrote:
> On Tuesday, June 12, 2018 at 10:36:59 PM UTC-4, benj wrote:
>> On 6/12/2018 8:50 PM, Odd Bodkin wrote:
>>> <furthermore7990662@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> I did a search of "do electrons propagate through glass" and this is what
>>>> I got "Propagation of 10-keV electrons through glass macrocapillaries"
>>>> and the rest was photon propagating through glass. So your conjecture
>>>> that electrons propagates through the glass of the CRT screen is
>>>> nullified based on probability. Jackson.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>> You cannot do an internet search effectively to save your life.
>>>
>> Come on Odd. You've just been spanked for being an idiot. You are pwned!
>> if you want to talk science I've told you 1000 times that you can't just
>> spout philosophical generalities and try to call it science. You must
>> have CAREFUL, EXACT, definitions of things including extant conditions.
> 
> yet you do not scold Furthermore for even worse inexactness.
> Consistency benj!
> 
> ed  :)
> 
Well, Yes, but Odd is my pal, and I have high hopes one day he'll "get 
it". Furthermore, not so much. Unlike the Nads sisters I have no wish to 
save the world from themselves.

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

#690361

The magnetic fields of a quadrupole superconducting magnetic. arrangement 
would result in the protons to be forced toward the side of the beam pipe.. 

________________________________________________________________________


It’s simply an incorrect assertion.. That’s not the effect of those fields. 
This is like you saying 2+2 cannot possibly equal 4 because it equals 75 
instead. It’s simply wrong. 

______________________________________________________________________


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quadrupole#/media/File:VFPt_quadrupole_coils_1.svg


See how the quad's magnetic field is pointing in different directions? Guess what would happen to the protons. Half of the protons would be forced to the left and the other half to the right. Right to say Jackson.

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

#690380

On Wednesday, June 13, 2018 at 4:14:25 AM UTC+3, numbernu...@gmail.com wrote:
> The magnetic fields of a quadrupole superconducting magnetic. arrangement 
> would result in the protons to be forced toward the side of the beam pipe.. 
> 
> ________________________________________________________________________
> 
> 
> It’s simply an incorrect assertion.. That’s not the effect of those fields. 
> This is like you saying 2+2 cannot possibly equal 4 because it equals 75 
> instead. It’s simply wrong. 
> 
> ______________________________________________________________________
> 
> 
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quadrupole#/media/File:VFPt_quadrupole_coils_1.svg
> 
> ==========================
does those above  CURVED  force lines -

-do not remind you the 
Y CIRCLON MECHANISM ??!!

Google :

http://sites.google.com/site/theyporatmodel/an-abstract 

at its appendix  !!
TIA
Y.Porat
========================


> See how the quad's magnetic field is pointing in different directions? Guess what would happen to the protons. Half of the protons would be forced to the left and the other half to the right. Right to say Jackson.

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

#690383

On 6/12/2018 9:14 PM, numbernumber1964@gmail.com wrote:
> See how the quad's magnetic field is pointing in different directions? Guess what would happen to the protons. Half of the protons would be forced to the left and the other half to the right. Right to say Jackson.

That's how they work. The protons that are too far to the right are 
forced to the left, the ones too far left are forced to the right.

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

#690404

On 6/13/18 12:34 AM, Volney wrote:
> On 6/12/2018 9:14 PM, numbernumber1964@gmail.com wrote:
>> See how the quad's magnetic field is pointing in different directions? 
>> Guess what would happen to the protons. Half of the protons would be 
>> forced to the left and the other half to the right. Right to say Jackson.
> 
> That's how they work. The protons that are too far to the right are 
> forced to the left, the ones too far left are forced to the right.

Exactly. That's the lens-like refractive behavior.

-- 
Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables

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

#690413

On Tuesday, June 12, 2018 at 9:14:25 PM UTC-4, numbernu...@gmail.com wrote:
> The magnetic fields of a quadrupole superconducting magnetic. arrangement 
> would result in the protons to be forced toward the side of the beam pipe.. 
> 
> ________________________________________________________________________
> 
> 
> It’s simply an incorrect assertion.. That’s not the effect of those fields. 
> This is like you saying 2+2 cannot possibly equal 4 because it equals 75 
> instead. It’s simply wrong. 
> 
> ______________________________________________________________________
> 
> 
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quadrupole#/media/File:VFPt_quadrupole_coils_1.svg
> 
> 
> See how the quad's magnetic field is pointing in different directions?
> Guess what would happen to the protons. Half of the protons would be
> forced to the left and the other half to the right. Right to say Jackson.

Again, you have your vectors wrong. Protons on the right side
passing through that quadrature, moving INTO the image,
will be subject to a force toward the left (i.e., the center).
Correspondingly, protons on the left moving INTO the image
will be subject to a force toward the right (again the center).
 And similarly for top and bottom.

You must have been thinking the protons were coming OUT
of the image. Then your analysis would be right. It is an
easy mistake to make.

HTH,
  ed

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

#690438

They often do. Perhaps you may remember. that CRT glass tended to 
accumulate black dust/junk on their faces,. attracted there by what 
amounts to static electricity..


________________________________________________________________


An electron composed of matter cannot propagate through glass without producing a hole in the glass and the static electricity on the screen could be cause by many other effects. 

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

#690594

On Wednesday, June 13, 2018 at 2:14:21 PM UTC-4, furthermo...@gmail.com wrote:

> An electron composed of matter cannot propagate through glass
> without producing a hole in the glass

The holes are already there. Atomic and interatomic spacing leaves
hugh gaps relative to an electron.

> and the static electricity on the screen could be
> cause by many other effects.

Well you got this part right.

Enjoy,
  ed

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

#690615

On 2018-06-14 14:53:49 +0000, Edward Prochak said:

> On Wednesday, June 13, 2018 at 2:14:21 PM UTC-4, furthermo...@gmail.com wrote:
> 
>> An electron composed of matter cannot propagate through glass
>> without producing a hole in the glass
> 
> The holes are already there. Atomic and interatomic spacing leaves
> hugh gaps relative to an electron.
> 
>> and the static electricity on the screen could be
>> cause by many other effects.
> 
> Well you got this part right.
> 
> Enjoy,
>   ed

*
RCA developed and patented the "Penetration Tube" as a possible color 
TV display.
The electron beam, accelerated by up to 15 or 20 KV would strike a very 
thin layer and by varying the accelerating voltage, give up its energy 
in the phosphor layer, red, green or blue.

Later HP (Agilent) developed a color tube concept using penetration.

earle
*

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

#690440

Why would you think subatomic particles would leave holes?  
At least as long as there aren't 80 amperes worth of them .trained on a 
small spot where the sheer total energy of all. those electrons gang up 
to blast a hole in steel..

________________________________________________________________


A subatomic particle (if they even exist), composed of matter, cannot propagate through matter without producing a hole. Example, if your brain is dehydrated one cannot re-hydrate by pour water on a person's head. 

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

#690441

It's worth talking a bit about range.. 
A 20 keV electron ranges out in air after about 1 cm.. 
An 80 keV electron ranges out in air after about 10 cm.. 
A 300 keV electron ranges out in air after about 100 cm.. 
Most of the electrons observed in particle accelerator collisions are .
between 10's of MeV and 10's of GeV. At these energies, the most common .
energy loss mechanism is the creation of a shower or secondary cascade,. 
which can easily penetrate a good fraction of a meter of lead..


______________________________________________________________________



It is not physically possible for an electron that has a mass to propagate through glass that is also composed of matter. Example, if one was to attempt to drive their car into a garage, one must open the garage door since the car is composed of matter which cannot propagate through a garage door that is also composed of matter.

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

#690451

<furthermore7990662@gmail.com> wrote:
> It's worth talking a bit about range.. 
> A 20 keV electron ranges out in air after about 1 cm.. 
> An 80 keV electron ranges out in air after about 10 cm.. 
> A 300 keV electron ranges out in air after about 100 cm.. 
> Most of the electrons observed in particle accelerator collisions are .
> between 10's of MeV and 10's of GeV. At these energies, the most common .
> energy loss mechanism is the creation of a shower or secondary cascade,. 
> which can easily penetrate a good fraction of a meter of lead..
> 
> 
> ______________________________________________________________________
> 
> 
> 
> It is not physically possible for an electron that has a mass to
> propagate through glass that is also composed of matter. Example, if one
> was to attempt to drive their car into a garage, one must open the garage
> door since the car is composed of matter which cannot propagate through a
> garage door that is also composed of matter.
> 

And yet cosmic rays penetrate the roof of your car constantly. No holes. 

Given that this is an observational FACT, how then do you question your own
presumptions? Do you? Ever?  That’s a yes or no question. 

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

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

Page 8 of 10 — ← Prev page 1 … 6 7 [8] 9 10  Next page →

Back to top | Article view | sci.physics

csiph-web