| General > General Technical Chat |
| If the electrical energy is outside the wires, how is insulation protecting us? |
| << < (5/17) > >> |
| RJSV:
So...Is there a textbook / Univ. Course available, describing 'aether', as I am ignorant, there. Or, if it's controversial, what dynamic exists ? Unfair established physicists ? Any medical implications, that folks don't usually hear about ? I'm just saying...(That's the kind of reactive comments I've gotten. I just tolerate it...I'm flawed too.) |
| aetherist:
--- Quote from: RJHayward on April 03, 2022, 12:13:41 am ---So...Is there a textbook / Univ. Course available, describing 'aether', as I am ignorant, there. Or, if it's controversial, what dynamic exists ? Unfair established physicists ? Any medical implications, that folks don't usually hear about ? I'm just saying...(That's the kind of reactive comments I've gotten. I just tolerate it...I'm flawed too.) --- End quote --- Aether aint gonna change anything much. But aether might help to explain things, & it might help with new discoveries, inventions etc. The aetherwind plus my elektons explains why the speed of elekticity along a wire varies with direction (due to the aetherwind)(the aetherwind is 500 km/s, ie c/600). Photons (eg elektons) propagate at the speed of light in the aether, hence a photon (& elekticity) will have a speed of c+V or c-V for a tailwind or headwind. If an aether then no STR, & no GTR (or most of it). But i don’t know of any uni course that considers that aether is real. They come close, ie when they talk of quantum foam, or dynamic space etc. |
| RJSV:
Sorry, but I'm relegating this, into the 'Tolerance Folder'. You can't waste my time, and others ('eti' also expressed that, approx.), with your narrative relating to Physics, in ABSENCE of any other reference text, reference credentialed professor, reference diagrams, ANYTHING. I admit, My presentations are bad, partially, but: Did anybody make suggestions, before ? I mean, that got ignored? Because, short of any more reading your dialog, I'm outa here¥ |
| T3sl4co1l:
--- Quote from: RJHayward on April 03, 2022, 02:42:41 am --- Sorry, but I'm relegating this, into the 'Tolerance Folder'. You can't waste my time, and others ('eti' also expressed that, approx.), with your narrative relating to Physics, in ABSENCE of any other reference text, reference credentialed professor, reference diagrams, ANYTHING. I admit, My presentations are bad, partially, but: Did anybody make suggestions, before ? I mean, that got ignored? Because, short of any more reading your dialog, I'm outa here¥ --- End quote --- "Aether" is a disproven hypothesis positing that the universe has a unique reference frame, and thus effects carried by that medium -- electromagnetism, or maybe gravity too, sure why not* -- show effects with respect to it. This was a very reasonable supposition at the time -- wave mechanics were well known in the study of matter-based media, i.e. acoustic waves, gravity waves, etc. In these phenomena, waves move with respect to the stuff of the medium itself, thus e.g. waves on a flowing river propagate faster (with respect to stationary ground) in the direction of flow. Put another way: you get a Doppler effect all for free, when the medium is in relative motion. *Aether predates relativity, but if they had known of gravitational waves at the time (or, really just been hinted at the possibility of such -- it's not much of a leap to suppose gravity might be carried by waves too), they'd have probably lumped it in as well. Now, whether gravity has its own aether or is in fact the same as EM, wouldn't be so easy to determine given the information at the time. EM aether theory was soundly considered disproven, after a series of experiments using interferometry to measure this supposed Doppler shift, gave a null result to extremely tight bounds: a modest fraction of the tangential velocity of the Earth. Since the Earth is constantly in non-inertial motion (i.e. rotation on its axis and orbit), we should have no expectation that any particular time of day or year shows a consistent aether current with respect to it; and yet the observation was zero in all cases, no periodic change. By this time (early 1900s), Einstein introduced Relativity; which, if you like, describes a kind of "aether", but one that is relative to any observer, specifically excluding any sort of unique or universal frame of reference. A medium we today call spacetime. Perhaps you could rescue "aether" by saying it's drawn along by any matter doing the observing, but that's quite a stretch. Whereas the field equations are fully described and complete: as simple as can be, but no simpler. Alternately, in the context of field theories, the field itself is a particular property of the universe, carrying waves of that particular type (i.e. EM waves, electron waves, quark waves, etc..), and coupling to other fields. In a sense, these could be considered "aethers", and it turns out we have not one but many, one for each fundamental particle. But this is, again, severely straining the usual meaning of "aether", and hence we call them what we do today -- particle fields. These of course obey relativity (no special frame of reference, Lorentz invariant), at least the ones incorporating it such that they can. (For example, you can take bog-standard quantum mechanics, which does not; but rolling in SR, and quite a lot of work later, you get QED, Quantum ElectroDynamics, a theory which describes to essentially exactness, essentially all of our everyday experience. Adding the weak and strong fields, with their corresponding particles, and you get basically the Standard Model as we know it today, accommodating everything from atom smashing in particle accelerators, to neutron stars, and the first vanishingly small timesteps since the Big Bang. It only leaves out GR, which has so far proven a tough fit with traditional field theories, and so mostly sits alongside on its own, in the Standard Model.) I don't know (or care, frankly) if this [historical aether theories] is what aetherist is trying to promote here, but I agree with the conclusion that it is likely not worth ones' time. (Or if you've properly set this thread on ignore, then consider this an FYI for all you other readers who should happen upon this thread. :) ) Tim |
| RJSV:
Wow, thanks for spending that detailed time! I wasn't aware I could put a block, on a THREAD, that's a useful item. Blown away, by the HISTORY and expertise, thanks Dave, and Tim. |
| Navigation |
| Message Index |
| Next page |
| Previous page |