General > General Technical Chat
"Veritasium" (YT) - "The Big Misconception About Electricity" ?
<< < (229/396) > >>
aetherist:

--- Quote from: rfeecs on February 15, 2022, 07:32:28 pm ---Why use an archaic, imprecise term like "electricity"?
What is it supposed to mean?  Electrical charge?  Electric field?
What about magnetism?  Electromagnetic fields?  Are they included in "electricity"?
And let's dispense with the claim that Maxwell's equations don't accurately predict what we measure, or don't include the effects of a dielectric insulator.  Or is mysterious or no one can solve them.
Those claims are utter complete bullshit as we all (with one exception) well know.
OK, I hope I'm done feeding the troll.  :phew:
--- End quote ---
My new electricity says that there are 3 kinds of electricity propagating/flowing/drifting    on/on/in a wire.
The em field or fields are the transmitters of the electrical force or forces.
Maxwell's (Heaviside's) equations are probably ok, except of course for the silly (needless) inclusion of the (impossible) displacement current.
But anyhow no-one uses Maxwell's equations i think. Except to confuse skoolkids. I don’t eat bread nowadays hence i guess that i no longer use curl (to make toast).

What it means is that Veritasium & Co are sort of slightly wrong re electricity being in the space around a wire.
Or, they would be wrong, if they bothered to explain what they mean.
The energy & power of electricity is primarily in the electons hugging the wires, not in the space around the wires.
However an electon's field(s) is a part of the electon. A photon includes its field(s).
The fields produce forces that transmit the energy & power of the (negatively charged) electons.
The fields radiate from the electons, & fields radiate from (negatively charged) electrons (in & on the wires) that have been influenced by the electons.
The influenced electrons then produce what can be considered to be the 2 other kinds of electricity.
But electron electricity is a secondary effect of the primary electon electricity.

The field(s) do carry energy & power in themselves.
And, the field(s) do detach from the central main part of the electon. And after they detach they do carry energy & power in their own right. Its complicated. I might explain in more detail later.
I am not sure whether to call it a field or fields. The electro field exists hand in hand with the magnetic field. I need to think it through.
Anyhow, the field(s) carry energy & power & they also transmit energy & power.
HuronKing:

--- Quote from: aetherist on February 15, 2022, 11:16:49 pm ---Or, they would be wrong, if they bothered to explain what they mean.

--- End quote ---

Or maybe you shouldn't have dropped out of school.

But please, don't try to explain any more. My stomach cannot take laughing this hard at the crankery on display here.  :-DD :-DD :-DD :-DD
adx:

--- Quote from: aetherist on February 15, 2022, 11:16:49 pm ---
--- Quote from: rfeecs on February 15, 2022, 07:32:28 pm ---Why use an archaic, imprecise term like "electricity"?
What is it supposed to mean?  Electrical charge?  Electric field?
What about magnetism?  Electromagnetic fields?  Are they included in "electricity"?
And let's dispense with the claim that Maxwell's equations don't accurately predict what we measure, or don't include the effects of a dielectric insulator.  Or is mysterious or no one can solve them.
Those claims are utter complete bullshit as we all (with one exception) well know.
OK, I hope I'm done feeding the troll.  :phew:
--- End quote ---
My new electricity says that there are 3 kinds of electricity propagating/flowing/drifting    on/on/in a wire.
The em field or fields are the transmitters of the electrical force or forces.
Maxwell's (Heaviside's) equations are probably ok, except of course for the silly (needless) inclusion of the (impossible) displacement current.
But anyhow no-one uses Maxwell's equations i think. Except to confuse skoolkids. I don’t eat bread nowadays hence i guess that i no longer use curl (to make toast).

What it means is that Veritasium & Co are sort of slightly wrong re electricity being in the space around a wire.
Or, they would be wrong, if they bothered to explain what they mean.
The energy & power of electricity is primarily in the electons hugging the wires, not in the space around the wires.
However an electon's field(s) is a part of the electon. A photon includes its field(s).
The fields produce forces that transmit the energy & power of the (negatively charged) electons.
The fields radiate from the electons, & fields radiate from (negatively charged) electrons (in & on the wires) that have been influenced by the electons.
The influenced electrons then produce what can be considered to be the 2 other kinds of electricity.
But electron electricity is a secondary effect of the primary electon electricity.

The field(s) do carry energy & power in themselves.
And, the field(s) do detach from the central main part of the electon. And after they detach they do carry energy & power in their own right. Its complicated. I might explain in more detail later.
I am not sure whether to call it a field or fields. The electro field exists hand in hand with the magnetic field. I need to think it through.
Anyhow, the field(s) carry energy & power & they also transmit energy & power.

--- End quote ---

Ok, after reading Heaviside et al, you have come up with a theory that is effectively identical to convention, aside some semantic differences which might collapse to the same meaning once stated or described more precisely.

It seems to me you are trying to invent something new out of something fixed (Heaviside's convention), so are stuck between a conventional description and a host of fanciful imaginings whereby you will invent a world of fake measurement discrepancies - they are not real.

I don’t have a problem with the former, but you will (and then might sidestep) result after result of evidence from measurement, because of the desire above. You won't face facts head on, you need to swerve and obfuscate at every turn. I can only guess that this arises because you know those results might limit your ideas (again, not a bad wish), and so very consciously engage in the swerving and contradictory BS descriptions of reality to avoid getting caught out.

Again, your theory, as stated above, does kind of hold water, and might hold useful insights which could possibly in time seem more correct than convention. But it is a restatement of convention, and you yourself admit that it might result in little to no change in the way things are calculated in practice.

Edit: Where did the "et" go?
aetherist:

--- Quote from: penfold on February 15, 2022, 10:49:03 am ---
--- 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.
--- End quote ---

Einsteinian Relativity is rubbish. But we know that speed does affect length (or size or shape or somesuch). Speed affects the atomic & molecular etc em forces in the speeder, thusly changing the speeder's length (or somesuch). But i doubt that change in length can be used to explain magnetism.
Einstein's Special Relativity (length contraction)(time dilation) plays no part in electricity. Time dilation does not exist. Length contraction does exist, but Einstein's STR version is rubbish. I used to argue re Einsteinian stuff on forums but i don’t have much interest nowadays. A search for "Einstein" gets 182 hits on this board. I doubt that Einstein's STR is invoked to explain anything re electricity, except for (the silly explanation for) magnetism around a wire.

--- Quote from: penfold on February 15, 2022, 10:49:03 am ---Key example of the insulated antenna, the paper demonstrates how conventional EM theory and practical measurement agree... it sounds like you're disputing that.
--- End quote ---

I think that that paper has a paywall.
Does the paper say that an insulated antenna need to be 50% longer? I think that insulation would have that effect, but no-one has ever confirmed my suspicion.
The issue is not whether old electricity can explain antennas, the issue is whether the explanation makes sense. And it fails to make sense because it demands that electron drift in a wire (antenna) causes moving charges to have a wavefront that propagates at nearly c/1 inside a wire, which is obviously impossible seeing as the speed of em radiation  in Cu is only about 10 m/s, ie c/30,000,000. There might be other reasons why old electricity fails to make sense (i haven’t read the paper), even tho it might give good numbers. My new electricity would i think make sense & give good numbers.

--- Quote from: penfold on February 15, 2022, 10:49:03 am ---
--- 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.
--- End quote ---
If we are to make a good model for the (cause of the) em field around a wire then we firstly need to have good models for photons & electons & electrons etc.
Then we need to have a good model for electricity.
If my new (electon) electricity is correct, & if the em field from an electon is different to the em field from an electron, then using old (electron) electricity will fail.
And, i think that a model for em radiation will need the aether. In which case we will need a good model for the aether. But that model need not be very clever, it just needs a few basic agreed properties.
TimFox:
What prediction of Einstein's special relativity has been shown to be incorrect?
Navigation
Message Index
Next page
Previous page
There was an error while thanking
Thanking...

Go to full version
Powered by SMFPacks Advanced Attachments Uploader Mod