Quote:
The fact that a multitude of simple experiments show your theory doesn't hold!


then it should be easy to find one and post it up so I
can prove to myself that I am wrong.
besides I dont have a theory.

heres something I found.

Quote:
As the particle bunch passes through the tube it is unaffected (the tube acts as a Faraday cage), while the frequency of the driving signal and the spacing of the gaps between electrodes are designed so that the maximum voltage differential appears as the particle crosses the gap. This accelerates the particle, imparting energy to it in the form of increased velocity. At speeds near the speed of light, the incremental velocity increase will be small, with the energy appearing as an increase in the mass of the particles. In portions of the accelerator where this occurs, the tubular electrode lengths will be almost constant.


is that how they decide if the particle is gaining mass?

or is the gain in mass detected at the moment of the collision?

there may not be any gain in mass , the time that the particle is under the influence of the accelerating mechanism would be shorter and shorter with each acceleration increment.

and that does not tell me that the energy went into an increase in mass.

if there is no detected gain in mass at the moment of collision then there is no gain in mass.

this is all that cern has to say about particle detectors.

http://public.web.cern.ch/public/en/research/Detector-en.html

mass x velocity !

if the speed of the particle x its mass or its kinetic energy
is equal to the impact energy produced by the collision then
thats a clear closed door on any gain in mass.

if its higher than it's speed x its mass then it is a gain in mass.

anyone know where the particle types speeds and impact energies can be found?



3/4 inch of dust build up on the moon in 4.527 billion years,LOL and QM is fantasy science.