| General > General Technical Chat |
| "Veritasium" (YT) - "The Big Misconception About Electricity" ? |
| << < (227/396) > >> |
| aetherist:
--- Quote from: penfold on February 12, 2022, 11:36:04 am --- --- Quote from: aetherist on February 11, 2022, 09:48:55 pm ---[...]Is this the same IEEE that would not let Heaviside publish in their journal? Is this the same IEEE that called Heaviside a crackpot when he came up with his equations? Is this the same IEEE that conceded that his equations worked when they fixed the telegraphy cable?[...] --- End quote --- The biggest takeaway here is not that the IEEE were wrong to reject Heaviside, but that the process and progression of scientific understanding at its very core does not and should not look particularly fondly on logical jumps without sufficient evidence. Seeing as you mentioned quaternions, I find it very difficult to believe that somebody favouring the GA representation of Maxwell could disregard relativity and Einstein-ism... surely sticking with vectors and tensors is the way to go if you're avoiding Einstein? The whole concept of space-time is baked right in there with GA isn't it? Do you have an alternative formulation, because that could be interesting? --- End quote --- I don’t know of any application of Einsteinian Relativity or spacetime to electricity, except for the silly invoking of relativistic length contraction to explain magnetism near a current in a wire. I have a few alternative formulations of length contraction & ticking dilation (using my own modified form of neoLorentz Relativity)(& funnily enuff using a bit of Einstein's GTR), but nothing that could help to explain anything about the causes etc of electricity or electro fields or magnetic fields (ie nothing relating to Maxwell or Heaviside). Length contraction & ticking dilation might of course be needed to explain problems (small errors) re the measurement of electricity & fields & forces. I have already mentioned aether & aetherwind earlier in this thread, including some electrical effects of aether & aetherwind. Some of our paradoxes relating to magnetism etc (eg the Faraday Disc paradox) would need aether as a part of the explanation (namely the explanations would for example need an absolute reference frame)(as opposed to an Einsteinian relative reference frame). I suppose that that might qualify as being an alternative formulation. Anyhow, with the removal of the silly length contraction explanation of magnetism near a wire we have to replace it with something that makes sense. I don’t know what. Obviously the electro field has a 90 deg relationship to its magnetic counterpart. One field is an excitation (eg spin) of the aether & the other field is say a different excitation (eg vibration) of the aether (perhaps at 90 deg), or together with a translation, or somesuch. But there is no rolling kind of E to H to E etc relationship going on. What we have is a fixed slab of Heaviside's E×H energy current, propagating at say c m/s along a wire, while propagating out radially at say c m/s out to infinity for eternity. Hertz was wrong. And the Heaviside E×H consists of many little E×Hs, each radiating out from every individual electon & electron & proton etc. The positively charged radiations must be some kind of mirror image of the negatively charged. I wonder whether we will ever figure it all out. My electon electricity is a good start. |
| SandyCox:
--- Quote from: aetherist on February 15, 2022, 02:32:09 am --- --- Quote from: eugene on February 14, 2022, 01:38:24 pm ---https://www.researchgate.net/publication/12688660_Unskilled_and_Unaware_of_It_How_Difficulties_in_Recognizing_One's_Own_Incompetence_Lead_to_Inflated_Self-Assessments --- End quote --- However having been given the name that it has been given it still nonetheless applies to me. I am in the upper quartile, ie the smart fellows that habitually underestimate their genius. --- End quote --- I can assure you that you are not a smart fellow. :-DD |
| penfold:
--- Quote from: aetherist on February 15, 2022, 03:56:13 am ---[...] I don’t know of any application of Einsteinian Relativity or spacetime to electricity, except for the silly invoking of relativistic length contraction to explain magnetism near a current in a wire. [...] --- End quote --- Could you justify to us the grounds you have to claim relativistic length contraction as 'silly'? Are electrons in an accelerator beam not electricity? I'm only being critical of your theory, I don't intend to be dismissive, there are some concepts you present that do have a (somewhat tenuous) link to actual physics concepts, but it does appear that there is a bit of a discrepancy between your adoption of concepts to explain un-measurable phenomena (literal electron drift velocity) by rejecting the models that explain actual measurable phenomena (special relativity), and that's going quite firmly against the whole premise of science in general. Key example of the insulated antenna, the paper demonstrates how conventional EM theory and practical measurement agree... it sounds like you're disputing that. --- Quote from: aetherist on February 15, 2022, 03:56:13 am ---[...] I wonder whether we will ever figure it all out. My electon electricity is a good start. --- End quote --- Why is it a better start than the one we already have? You've not actually provided any rational justification for the discrepancies that only you claim to be apparent. |
| eugene:
--- Quote from: aetherist on February 15, 2022, 02:32:09 am --- --- Quote from: eugene on February 14, 2022, 01:38:24 pm ---https://www.researchgate.net/publication/12688660_Unskilled_and_Unaware_of_It_How_Difficulties_in_Recognizing_One's_Own_Incompetence_Lead_to_Inflated_Self-Assessments --- End quote --- The authors had the choice of calling that paper -- The skilled have difficulty in recognizing their deflated self assessment of their own competence. If they had given it that name then it would be easily seen that it applies to me. However having been given the name that it has been given it still nonetheless applies to me. I am in the upper quartile, ie the smart fellows that habitually underestimate their genius. --- End quote --- LOL. The conclusion of the paper is that that is exactly what the unskilled bottom quartile would believe of themselves. |
| rfeecs:
--- Quote from: aetherist on February 11, 2022, 09:48:55 pm ---Is this the same IEEE that would not let Heaviside publish in their journal? Is this the same IEEE that called Heaviside a crackpot when he came up with his equations? Is this the same IEEE that conceded that his equations worked when they fixed the telegraphy cable? --- End quote --- No. Not the same IEEE. --- Quote ---It was formed in 1963 from the amalgamation of the American Institute of Electrical Engineers and the Institute of Radio Engineers. --- End quote --- Here's the real story, a nice biography of Heaviside by Bruce Hunt: https://physicstoday.scitation.org/doi/10.1063/PT.3.1788 --- Quote ---The Heaviside brothers thus could hardly have chosen a less opportune moment to call for adding inductance to telephone lines. In April 1887 they completed their joint paper on the subject and prepared to send it off to the Journal of the Society of Telegraph Engineers and of Electricians. As a post office employee, however, Arthur first had to secure clearance from his superior in the engineering ranks—none other than Preece, who promptly declared the paper worthless and blocked it. Arthur soon acquiesced, but Oliver emphatically did not. Through the summer of 1887 he sent the Electrician caustic letters attacking “the eminent scienticulist,” as he called Preece, but Biggs, though sympathetic, feared a libel suit and declined to publish them. Then in October, Biggs was abruptly removed as editor of the Electrician, a move he later hinted was prompted by his support for Heaviside. The new editor soon cancelled Heaviside’s long-running series of articles, saying he had asked around and found no one who read them. --- End quote --- |
| Navigation |
| Message Index |
| Next page |
| Previous page |