newolder wrote:Yaniv, The proton bunches in the LHC are at temperatures around 1 billion Kelvin degrees. No attempt is made to counteract the forces described by your wibble, but relativistic effects explain the required increases in mass/energy of the beams, so how is it that those protons do not rise to the top of the vacuum tube?

newolder wrote:Yaniv, The proton bunches in the LHC are at temperatures around 1 billion Kelvin degrees.

newolder wrote:so how is it that those protons do not rise to the top of the vacuum tube?

Yaniv wrote:

newolder wrote:Yaniv, The proton bunches in the LHC are at temperatures around 1 billion Kelvin degrees.

W reduction at increasing T disproves this statement.

T≈(1e5eV)∗(1.6e-19joule/eV)/(1.38e-23joule/K)
...
T≈1e9K.
Within a couple of orders of magnitude of the transverse temperature, slightly smaller than the transverse temperature at the IP where there's greater transverse pressure but slightly larger elsewhere. – Peter Morgan Feb 20 '15 at 16:08

newolder wrote:so how is it that those protons do not rise to the top of the vacuum tube?

Held by strong magnetic fields.

newolder wrote:

Yaniv wrote:

newolder wrote:Yaniv, The proton bunches in the LHC are at temperatures around 1 billion Kelvin degrees.

W reduction at increasing T disproves this statement.

Other way around. The data disproves "W reduction at increasing T".

T≈(1e5eV)∗(1.6e-19joule/eV)/(1.38e-23joule/K)
...
T≈1e9K.
Within a couple of orders of magnitude of the transverse temperature, slightly smaller than the transverse temperature at the IP where there's greater transverse pressure but slightly larger elsewhere. – Peter Morgan Feb 20 '15 at 16:08

physics stack exchange source

newolder wrote:so how is it that those protons do not rise to the top of the vacuum tube?

Held by strong magnetic fields.

see LucidFlight above. The calculations of the required strength of the magnetic fields has 0 relation to your wibble.

Yaniv wrote:...
Is T a measure of particle velocity ?

newolder wrote:

Yaniv wrote:...
Is T a measure of particle velocity ?

T is thermodynamic temperature and measured in Kelvin degrees of hotness. Root mean square kinetic energy is a determining factor in thermodynamic temperature and mass behaves relativistically under LHC conditions.

For example, you have W = mg - f(T) such that things weigh less at elevated temperature. At the LHC both m and T increase with speed in such a manner that W (the force required to maintain proton beam circulation) increases as beam energies increase, i.e. opposite to your (falsified) notion.

Yaniv wrote:

newolder wrote:

Yaniv wrote:...
Is T a measure of particle velocity ?

T is thermodynamic temperature and measured in Kelvin degrees of hotness. Root mean square kinetic energy is a determining factor in thermodynamic temperature and mass behaves relativistically under LHC conditions.

For example, you have W = mg - f(T) such that things weigh less at elevated temperature. At the LHC both m and T increase with speed in such a manner that W (the force required to maintain proton beam circulation) increases as beam energies increase, i.e. opposite to your (falsified) notion.

In my theory T is an atomic and macroscopic property of matter and protons do not have T so this does not falsify my theory.

Yaniv wrote:...
Are physicists lost their appetite for experiments ? #ResultsRequired

An excess is found over the background-only hypothesis with a significance of 3.4 standard deviations.

laklak wrote:Another future Nobel winner posts first in RatSkep!!

Thommo wrote:But to be clear, you're saying the Earth has a large net positive charge that would attract all electrons, yes?

So for example, you could test your theory by buying an ordinary compass and seeing if it constantly tries to point downwards.

Yaniv wrote:Classical physics predict weights (W) should NOT change at increasing temperature (T) in vacuum. Relativistic physics predicts W should INCREASE at increasing T in vacuum. My theory predicts W should DECREASE at increasing T in vacuum and can be found here yaniv-stern.webnode.com. W reduction at increasing T in vacuum disproves conservation of mass and most of the rest of physics. Over the past ten years I contacted thousand of scientists to weigh a heated metal in vacuum and publish the results. I did NOT get the results of the experiment. #Results Required.

laklak wrote:Another future Nobel winner posts first in RatSkep!!

Thommo wrote:Ok, so one last go at this. This time with a paint picture!

Yaniv, this is the picture from the Gravity section of your hypothesis:


This is in fact in self-contradiction with what you call your "theory". Here's why, and how you can test it with a very easy experiment in your own home (which might explain why you're getting the reception you are from the thousands of scientists you contact). Try dropping an object from a variety of heights and timing how long it falls for.

There are three possibilities for the amount of force being exerted by these net positive charges of the Cosmos and of Earth on the net positive atom you depict:



If the polarisation occurs in the fashion you depict, then the only case that remains is case (i). The force from the cosmos is greater than the force from the Earth. This means positive charge is pushed downwards towards the Earth. So far, so good, we could see this as something like gravity.

However, we very quickly contradict your theory in a couple of ways:

(a) The polarisation occurs exactly opposite from the way you depict (the effect on the positive P and negative E components of the atom is they respond to the same net positive from the cosmos and the Earth).
(b) Gravity has been experimentally observed to behave almost exactly in proportion to the inverse square of the distance between two objects. In (i) as a net positive moves further from Earth the repulsion of Earth gets smaller and the repulsion of the cosmos gets bigger, leading to a net increase in the force towards the Earth's surface. This is a contradiction between prediction and experiment.