General > General Technical Chat
"Veritasium" (YT) - "The Big Misconception About Electricity" ?
<< < (231/396) > >>
SandyCox:

--- Quote from: aetherist on February 16, 2022, 03:40:20 am ---But, getting back to coaxial cables. Tony Wakefield did an experiment using a coaxial cable as a capacitor. This discharged at a half of the predicted voltage (ie a half of the voltage predicted by old electricity) taking double the predicted time (ie double the time predicted by old electricity). But as we all know the half voltage & doubled time accords exactly with my new (electon) electricity, where a half of the electons (in a capacitor) are going each way at any one time (ie before the discharge switch is closed). I think he used 18 m of coax, a 9 V battery, a mercury reed switch, & a 350 MHz scope.
http://www.ivorcatt.co.uk/x37p.htm

Erik Margan repeated Wakefield's X.
http://www.ivorcatt.co.uk/x726.pdf

--- End quote ---
No! You ignoramus!
The problem is that you are misapplying Maxwell's equations. I will post the correct solution.
penfold:

--- Quote from: aetherist on February 16, 2022, 03:40:20 am ---[...]
Erik Margan repeated Wakefield's X.
http://www.ivorcatt.co.uk/x726.pdf

--- End quote ---

I see, so your own theory of electrons isn't even your own theory? It is just a hunch based on a fallacious extension to a fallacious interpretation of a misrepresented version of a genuine theory? Or at least that is how it appears to me; your consistent inability to provide any genuine reasoning of your dogma speaks the loudest volume.

I'm still not totally dismissive of your ideas, after all, below the scale of common household particles (proton, neutron, electron etc), it's surely impossible to even comprehend and futile to even attempt a visualisation. I've personally never seen inside a wire, so sure, why not have electrons hugging wires, or skipping along the surface if the model agrees with those actual measurable quantities - why not?

So, hypothetically, let's say Einstein's work (and countless others' work before and after) was all wrong - what did he have that you don't? Why is he the one whose theory has been so widely accepted? There cannot possibly be such a huge conspiracy that could cause so many physicists to perpetuate a lie and consistently misrepresent results just to keep their funding up... I've met enough physicists to know just how keen any one of them would be to jump up and prove all others wrong. The keyword there being prove, a rational proof is what is required.

Without a rational, indisputable and well-formed proof any theory is irrational and absurd, except when it is asserted wildly on the internet where it is absurd irrational dogma. We could have a 'working theory' still in its early days, but it is just an insult to assert it as a fact.
aetherist:

--- Quote from: penfold on February 16, 2022, 11:15:42 am ---
--- Quote from: aetherist on February 16, 2022, 03:40:20 am ---[...]Erik Margan repeated Wakefield's X. http://www.ivorcatt.co.uk/x726.pdf 
--- End quote ---
I see, so your own theory of electrons isn't even your own theory? It is just a hunch based on a fallacious extension to a fallacious interpretation of a misrepresented version of a genuine theory? Or at least that is how it appears to me; your consistent inability to provide any genuine reasoning of your dogma speaks the loudest volume.

I'm still not totally dismissive of your ideas, after all, below the scale of common household particles (proton, neutron, electron etc), it's surely impossible to even comprehend and futile to even attempt a visualisation. I've personally never seen inside a wire, so sure, why not have electrons hugging wires, or skipping along the surface if the model agrees with those actual measurable quantities - why not?

So, hypothetically, let's say Einstein's work (and countless others' work before and after) was all wrong - what did he have that you don't? Why is he the one whose theory has been so widely accepted? There cannot possibly be such a huge conspiracy that could cause so many physicists to perpetuate a lie and consistently misrepresent results just to keep their funding up... I've met enough physicists to know just how keen any one of them would be to jump up and prove all others wrong. The keyword there being prove, a rational proof is what is required.

Without a rational, indisputable and well-formed proof any theory is irrational and absurd, except when it is asserted wildly on the internet where it is absurd irrational dogma. We could have a 'working theory' still in its early days, but it is just an insult to assert it as a fact.
--- End quote ---
My new (electon) electricity model is unique, it is my own, i thought of it in Dec 2021.

I doubt that Wakefield invokes electrons to explain his X. Catt certainly duznt. And they dont invoke electons, or any kind of photon. They simply invoke the Heaviside slab of EbyH energy current in the space around the wire (in the coax), or tween the wires if an ordinary TL. Catt duznt believe in electrons nor in photons, hence he duznt believe in my electons (however he hasnt actually said that my electons are absurd)(he didnt want to hurt my feelings).

I can't remember what Margan reckons about electrons being guilty. But i think he is sympathetic to energy current.

In effect Veritasium believes in Heaviside's energy current, alltho i suspect that Veritasium duznt actually know much about Heaviside, Veritasium probably reckons that it is the Poynting field by another name.

I am not aware of Einstein having anything much to say about electricity in/on/around a wire. Except that Einstein or someone invoked length contraction to explain magnetism near a wire. Einstein did mention electrons in some of his papers. I remember that in one paper he mentioned that electrons would change shape due to their speed or something. I am not sure whether this was mentioned as a part explanation of his STR or his GTR. So what is his theory of electricity that is so widely accepted. I suspect that u are talking about his non-electricity stuff.

He did of course have a paper on the photoelectric effect. But i doubt that that could be used to confirm my electons nor to deny my electons.

I wonder what a proof of electons hugging a wire would look like.
At present we don’t have a proof that electrons orbit a nucleus. Or that electrons drift inside a wire. Or that electrons even exist.
We don’t have a proof that (free) photons exist. And we don’t know what they look like.
Hence i think that we might have a hard time trying to see semi-confined photons (electons) hugging a wire.

STR is krapp -- & GTR is mostly krapp. They are not rational, indisputable and well-formed. They are an insult. They are dogma.
We are presently in the Einsteinian Dark Age of science -- but the times they are a-changin'.
The aether will return -- it never left.
adx:
RETRACTED: Physical interpretation of the fringe shift measured on Michelson interferometer in optical media
V.V. Demjanov
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0375960109016375

I also followed the cornflakes and found echo chamber upon echo chamber of 'krapp' where 1000s of "I rekon"s and "It feels" amplify concepts like "ExH slab". Aetherist is skilled with words after existing in such places for so long, but when confronted with the possibility that electons might have to exceed the speed of light to hug a threaded conductor...

--- Quote ---... i would be forced to abandon electons & invoke my roo-tons, which are photons that hop along the surface.

--- End quote ---
ie, from crest to crest (a point I missed while taking them too 'seriously'). Just making stuff up, on the fly - not even trying any more.


--- Quote from: aetherist on February 16, 2022, 12:08:34 pm ---...
Hence i think that we might have a hard time trying to see semi-confined photons (electons) hugging a wire.

--- End quote ---
An active admission it might be non-falsifiable and therefore worthy of endless echoes in a fantasy place of no relevance to industry or science. Knowing full well it won't work forever here.


--- Quote ---STR is krapp -- & GTR is mostly krapp. They are not rational, indisputable and well-formed. They are an insult. They are dogma.

--- End quote ---
They are also correct, to the best of our knowledge. We know SR and GR are theories, and to many people are horribly unintuitive, this fact isn't a problem for science.


--- Quote ---The aether will return -- it never left.

--- End quote ---
Feel-good sound bite of the echo chamber, repeating it here won't increase its chance of echoing, which you know.

You would have known the risks of going outside your comfort zone. Might be time to admit you came here seeking experimental reality not to convince us of anything, but yourself.
penfold:

--- Quote from: aetherist on February 16, 2022, 12:08:34 pm ---In effect Veritasium believes in Heaviside's energy current, alltho i suspect that Veritasium duznt actually know much about Heaviside, Veritasium probably reckons that it is the Poynting field by another name.

--- End quote ---

Earlier on in this thread, I'm pretty sure that the main objection to the Vertiassium video was that only a single perspective was presented in the form of the Poynting theorem. Firstly, it's a pop-science video, it's not a research article, the aim was to present, to a very broad demographic (encompassing all from graphic designers to engineers), that there is more to the transfer of electrical power than the "electron-marble duality" (high-school physics teaching model). I think it served its job very well (just look at that viewer count).

I don't have a particular beef with Poynting's theorem, I deal mostly with separate electric and magnetic fields mostly, they explain the nuances of misbehaving circuits better to me than their cross product does. Just a side note there.


--- Quote from: aetherist on February 16, 2022, 12:08:34 pm ---I wonder what a proof of electons hugging a wire would look like.
At present we don’t have a proof that electrons orbit a nucleus. Or that electrons drift inside a wire. Or that electrons even exist.

--- End quote ---

Very true. I don't have any proof that there's an invisible leprechaun that lives in my butter dish which comes out and sings happy birthday to the cheese when he knows I cannot hear him... hang on, I just need to check something.

My previous use of the term "rational, indisputable and well-formed" was a little improper, it is a big ask of anything to be all those, rational alone would be acceptable.
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