General > General Technical Chat

Electroboom: How Right IS Veritasium?! Don't Electrons Push Each Other??

<< < (6/148) > >>

Sredni:

--- Quote from: SiliconWizard on June 19, 2022, 08:06:41 pm ---
--- Quote from: eti on June 19, 2022, 08:02:18 am ---It’s all a protracted ego flex for YouTubers to show how intelligent they are (The real reason is actually just earning convenient ad revenue for a string of pointless videos)

--- End quote ---
The successive back-and-forth videos replying to one another are surely both an ego thing, and most of all, a way for them to protect their image (which you must realize is for them a business), and I can understand that. In other words, that ends up getting annoying, but they unfortunately don't have much choice. If they leave someone else "debunk" their videos without replying to that, they are by default acknowledging they were wrong, and thus their image gets a dent and their YT channel loses credibility.

--- End quote ---

Yeah, and when they are wrong they need to spin it, like Science Asylum did with his animation on energy transfer, or Electroboom itself, falsely stating that Feynman and Belcher agreed with him on applying KVL on an unlumpable circuit (no, both were talking about lumped circuits). Minor youtubers simply resort to censor critic comments (like fromjesse and RSD Academy) and sometimes they redo their videos multiple times and hide the ones where their ignorance was exposed (RSD Academy).


--- Quote ---Doesn't mean that what's being discussed is not interesting. But you must realize that this is a general problem with online discussions, especially when someone cares about their image. You just can't let others "debunk" you if you think you're right or that the other has not fully understood your point. Letting them is akin to approving. Of course, unless you were actually wrong, which can happen, in which case the appropriate reply is just to admit you were. But in many cases, as with this discussion, there is no fundamental "wrong" in any of what Veritasium, Electroboom and others have said. Those are just different points of view, and they are essentially debating models, none of which is fully accurate or fully depainting "reality". Our models are just useful tools. Just my 2 cents.

--- End quote ---

Well, yes and no. Yes, models are imperfect and the map is not the territory. But no, sometimes there is a right side and a wrong side.
In this last video Mehdi exposes the root of his misunderstanding: it really looks like he was unaware of the role of surface charge in simple electric circuits. And he has a problem with superposition, too. When he tries to picture the electric field that the rings of charge create inside the conductors he only considers the field of the charges inside and on the surface. But what about the original field, that generated by the battery?
Thinking that the field experienced by electrons inside the conductor is only the field generated by said charges is what prevented him to understand why voltage is path depedendent. In the case of Lewin's ring he was not accounting for the external Eind field. Now he is not accounting for the external Ebatt field (let's call it this way).
The charge on the surface of the conductor is disposed that way because it is reacting to the external field imposed by the battery. It's the superposition of the original external field and the surface charge field that gives rise to the Etot = j / sigma field that obeys Ohm's law in the conductor.

So, no. "It's raining" and "Tt's sunny" are not two different points of view. One is right, the other one isn't.

By the look of it, Derek is just 4-5 remote calls away from dubbing Mehdi a flatearther.

electrodacus:

--- Quote from: Sredni on June 21, 2022, 05:30:12 am ---Yeah, and when they are wrong they need to spin it, like Science Asylum did with his animation on energy transfer, or Electroboom itself, falsely stating that Feynman and Belcher agreed with him on applying KVL on an unlumpable circuit (no, both were talking about lumped circuits). Minor youtubers simply resort to censor critic comments (like fromjesse and RSD Academy) and sometimes they redo their videos multiple times and hide the ones where their ignorance was exposed (RSD Academy).

--- End quote ---

I'm not that familiar with those youtube channels but removing videos that contain a wrong explanation is probably the best way to go about it.
What will you prefer ?



--- Quote from: Sredni on June 21, 2022, 05:30:12 am ---Well, yes and no. Yes, models are imperfect and the map is not the territory. But no, sometimes there is a right side and a wrong side.
In this last video Mehdi exposes the root of his misunderstanding: it really looks like he was unaware of the role of surface charge in simple electric circuits. And he has a problem with superposition, too. When he tries to picture the electric field that the rings of charge create inside the conductors he only considers the field of the charges inside and on the surface. But what about the original field, that generated by the battery?
Thinking that the field experienced by electrons inside the conductor is only the field generated by said charges is what prevented him to understand why voltage is path depedendent. In the case of Lewin's ring he was not accounting for the external Eind field. Now he is not accounting for the external Ebatt field (let's call it this way).
The charge on the surface of the conductor is disposed that way because it is reacting to the external field imposed by the battery. It's the superposition of the original external field and the surface charge field that gives rise to the Etot = j / sigma field that obeys Ohm's law in the conductor.

So, no. "It's raining" and "Tt's sunny" are not two different points of view. One is right, the other one isn't.

By the look of it, Derek is just 4-5 remote calls away from dubbing Mehdi a flatearther.

--- End quote ---

Derek is completely wrong and Mehdi has enough gap in understanding that it was easily confused by Derek.
Derek knows that he has gaps in understanding this but he published two videos on the subject.

Electric current is defined as a stream of charged particles traveling through a conductor or space (as in the vacuum diode I mentioned in last post).
There are no stream of charged particles in Dereks example outside of the wire.  Since current is only through wire energy only travels in wire in his example.
Lewin has no idea of what he was doing in that experiment as Mehdi correctly pointed out.
The lumped circuit model for a transmission line provides the correct result and it is a simplification/reduction in order to be able to do the calculation.
The one that could be considered a flat earther will be Derek at least based on this two videos about how electricity works and the ones about direct downwind faster than wind vehicle where he is basically saying he has a overunity device.
In both cases is about understanding what energy and energy storage is.

pcprogrammer:

--- Quote from: Sredni on June 21, 2022, 05:30:12 am ---Minor youtubers simply resort to censor critic comments (like fromjesse and RSD Academy) and sometimes they redo their videos multiple times and hide the ones where their ignorance was exposed (RSD Academy).

--- End quote ---

Funny you say this and it sure is happening. There was this video about a problem with the FNIRSI-1013D touch panel and the youtuber fixed it basically without knowing what he was doing. So I left a comment about that he was wrong and that there is a thread on EEVblog where this scope is discussed and reverse engineered. The comment did not became public and when I viewed the video a while later the schematic I made was shown to point out how the touch panel was connected. It was still advocating the original solution of a resistor to ground. :palm:

For some reason I seem to be unable to post comments on youtube on other channels than my own. For instance I commented the FNIRSI-1014D review and tear down video Kerry Wong made, pointing out that he should have done his homework and looked on EEVblog before making his video, but that was also not published :-//

Sredni:

--- Quote from: electrodacus on June 21, 2022, 07:01:31 am ---
--- Quote from: Sredni on June 21, 2022, 05:30:12 am ---Yeah, and when they are wrong they need to spin it, like Science Asylum did with his animation on energy transfer, or Electroboom itself, falsely stating that Feynman and Belcher agreed with him on applying KVL on an unlumpable circuit (no, both were talking about lumped circuits). Minor youtubers simply resort to censor critic comments (like fromjesse and RSD Academy) and sometimes they redo their videos multiple times and hide the ones where their ignorance was exposed (RSD Academy).

--- End quote ---

I'm not that familiar with those youtube channels but removing videos that contain a wrong explanation is probably the best way to go about it.
What will you prefer ?

--- End quote ---

Absolutely. Removing the wrong explanation and replacing it with the correct explanation is the way to go.
Removing the wrong explanation and replacing it with the same wrong explanation -while removing some of the errors, not so much. Especially when it's done to reset the comments after banning users who pointed out the remaining errors in previous videos.


--- Quote ---Derek is completely wrong
...
Lewin has no idea of what he was doing in that experiment...

--- End quote ---

Have you ever consider the possibility that it might be you going the wrong way on the highway?

Sredni:

--- Quote from: pcprogrammer on June 21, 2022, 07:33:14 am ---
--- Quote from: Sredni on June 21, 2022, 05:30:12 am ---Minor youtubers simply resort to censor critic comments (like fromjesse and RSD Academy) and sometimes they redo their videos multiple times and hide the ones where their ignorance was exposed (RSD Academy).

--- End quote ---

Funny you say this and it sure is happening. There was this video about a problem with the FNIRSI-1013D touch panel and the youtuber fixed it basically without knowing what he was doing. So I left a comment about that he was wrong and that there is a thread on EEVblog where this scope is discussed and reverse engineered. The comment did not became public

--- End quote ---

Youtube is very strong in gaslighting.
It does not allow external links that are not links to youtube (or shortcuts to youtube videos - there might be some other minor exception). I no longer post comments with links because they will be automatically deleted  - sometimes I can still see them from my account when I am logged in, most of the times they dissapear from my history as well.
Even worse, I have noticed that youtube deletes also comments where one explains how to reach a certain internet page without giving a link. I believe there is some form of AI that is dedicated to that.
I have also noticed that when there is an ongoing discussion, some words might trigger youtube's censorship. Your comment will be deleted, but you will still be able to see it as if it was published. This is the real gaslighting. It is possible they are doing this to prevent flame wars and degeneration (you think you had the last word and your opponent had nothing to reply - and the same goes for your opponent).

It is scary how this imposed censorship can be used to drive public opinion, by carefully tweaking the algorithms... This is Orwell level stuff.

(Very often the channel owner has nothing to do with it)

Navigation

[0] Message Index

[#] Next page

[*] Previous page

There was an error while thanking
Thanking...
Go to full version
Powered by SMFPacks Advanced Attachments Uploader Mod