| General > General Technical Chat |
| "Veritasium" (YT) - "The Big Misconception About Electricity" ? |
| << < (233/396) > >> |
| TimFox:
Removal of Demjanov paper (from above link): "This article has been retracted at the request of the Editor. Reason: The article was accepted before the review process was complete. Further review has revealed that the theoretical and experimental claims made by the author cannot be supported and the article should not have been published." |
| aetherist:
--- Quote from: TimFox on February 16, 2022, 10:39:10 pm ---Removal of Demjanov paper (from above link): "This article has been retracted at the request of the Editor. Reason: The article was accepted before the review process was complete. Further review has revealed that the theoretical and experimental claims made by the author cannot be supported and the article should not have been published." --- End quote --- Yes. The claims made by Demjanov cant be supported. Why? Because the Einsteinian Mafia gatekeepers say they cant be supported. It is rare to see a Mafia journal publish a paper critical of Einstein. Usually such a paper only slips throo if it adopts a clever title, & cloaks the heretical epistle with apparently Einstein-friendly jargon. Often Einstein is wounded by friendly fire. The authors & editors & reviewers dont realise that their stuff falsifies STR & GTR. But luckily in the modern www era there are lots of journals that will publish. And lots of self-published papers & websites. What would Einstein say about Veritasium's gedanken, & how might he justify (d) ie 1/c ? What would Einstein say about my Electons? |
| penfold:
--- Quote from: aetherist on February 16, 2022, 09:43:00 pm ---[...] Forum members around here seem to be unaware that it is almost impossible to prove something, especially a subatomic something. But it is of course possible to disprove something. Anyhow, it is easy for me to say that there is no proof for electrons & photons, because there will always be good alternative theories that fit the facts. Many scientists don’t believe in electrons & photons. Or, putting it another way, if u designed a page full of yes/no questions re electrons (or photons), the chances are that no 2 scientists in the whole world would tick the same boxes exactly. [...] --- End quote --- Have you read much of philosophy? I personally found John Stuart Mill's 'Inductive and Ratiocinative Logic' to have a nice treatment of what you're struggling with there, it's a rather old book but there's pdf's knocking around and some reprints over the last couple of decades. The general concept of "what is a name?" can be a bit of a mind-bend for some students, but ultimately may free your thinking a bit. What you may be seeing as a complete disagreement between theories and interpretations may be more closely related to the role and attributes of the said particle in each theory rather than a disagreement in what 'it' actually is. If you were to ask immediate questions such as "is an electron a beach-ball?", "is an electron a singular irreducible fundamental particle?", "is an electron a particle composed of a combination of quarks?" etc... I could believe you'd get different answers. If you were to ask questions about what characteristics each person would use to detect "an electron", how they would discriminate between it and any other particle, and how these characteristics change with other factors (velocity, temperature etc)... maybe you'd start to see a little more convergence in answers... I'm almost interested enough to consider posing that questionnaire. Say the results of the questionnaire come in and there's some disagrement, just for fun, we decide to take a subset of the characteristics which were most well agreed with... would those results agree with the drift model? |
| aetherist:
--- Quote from: penfold on February 17, 2022, 12:18:39 am --- --- Quote from: aetherist on February 16, 2022, 09:43:00 pm ---[...]Forum members around here seem to be unaware that it is almost impossible to prove something, especially a subatomic something. But it is of course possible to disprove something. Anyhow, it is easy for me to say that there is no proof for electrons & photons, because there will always be good alternative theories that fit the facts. Many scientists don’t believe in electrons & photons. Or, putting it another way, if u designed a page full of yes/no questions re electrons (or photons), the chances are that no 2 scientists in the whole world would tick the same boxes exactly.[...] --- End quote --- Have you read much of philosophy? I personally found John Stuart Mill's 'Inductive and Ratiocinative Logic' to have a nice treatment of what you're struggling with there, it's a rather old book but there's pdf's knocking around and some reprints over the last couple of decades. The general concept of "what is a name?" can be a bit of a mind-bend for some students, but ultimately may free your thinking a bit. What you may be seeing as a complete disagreement between theories and interpretations may be more closely related to the role and attributes of the said particle in each theory rather than a disagreement in what 'it' actually is. If you were to ask immediate questions such as "is an electron a beach-ball?", "is an electron a singular irreducible fundamental particle?", "is an electron a particle composed of a combination of quarks?" etc... I could believe you'd get different answers. If you were to ask questions about what characteristics each person would use to detect "an electron", how they would discriminate between it and any other particle, and how these characteristics change with other factors (velocity, temperature etc)... maybe you'd start to see a little more convergence in answers... I'm almost interested enough to consider posing that questionnaire. Say the results of the questionnaire come in and there's some disagrement, just for fun, we decide to take a subset of the characteristics which were most well agreed with... would those results agree with the drift model? --- End quote --- Thanx for the ref to Mills. I will read it when i have more time. I havent read any hard core philosophy theory. But i have followed lots of arguments (mainly re aether & Einstein) from both sides for lots of years (since 2011). I have the utmost respect for words & terminology etc. Re the drift model of old (electron) electricity, i would make a questionnaire dealing directly with drift. A yes/no format would suffer restrictions. I see the need to add space for detailed explanations. A yes answer to a particular box (re say aether) might lead to a whole new page dedicated to follow-up boxes, etc etc (eg – is aether contractile?). Such a questionnaire for say Christians re the existence of God would of course reveal that there are more versions of God than there are Christians. I might end up in a civil war with each of my aetherist mates. But, i wonder whether any scientist has ever changed his opinion re Einsteinian stuff in the modern era based on well-put argument. Probably yes. Has any such scientist admitted that – probably not. We see it here on this forum. No-one has come forward & said, yes, i had never thought very deeply re the impossibility of old (electron) electricity being able to explain how electricity propagates along a wire at nearly c/1. Or, i have never thought very deeply re how old (electron) electricity fails to explain how insulation slows electricity. Undoubtedly there are some who believe my new (electon) electricity – but they wont say. |
| aetherist:
--- Quote from: TimFox on February 16, 2022, 02:54:46 pm ---For those interested in a serious discussion of a topic that one person here finds "silly", here is a description of how special relativity and distance contraction gives the magnetic field due to a current in a conductor: https://physics.weber.edu/schroeder/mrr/mrrtalk.html I first encountered this analysis in E M Purcell's freshman textbook "Electricity and Magnetism", in the Berkeley Series of introductory physics texts. It is hard to fathom that this textbook (subsidized by the NSF) could be purchased for less than $10 USD in 1967. The author of the article cited above found Purcell's discussion a bit difficult for an elementary text, and attempts to elucidate it. Einstein died when I was only five years old, but I did attend a lecturer by Purcell in the mid-1970s and found him to be very understandable. --- End quote --- Thanx for that link. I will have a read & i will comment as soon as i can. I guess that no-one else is going to. A vet spotted a thylacine not far from my bush block last week, so i have one eye looking out my window & one eye on my computer screen. And i have my cell phone ready for a video. I get black tailed wallabies hanging around the house, & its amazing how when they duck down & keep a low profile a pair of them scuttling along in the bracken can look like a black panther, or i suppose a thylacine. Something big crashed into the cyclone (steel mesh) barrier on my veranda last nite, i use it to keep my dogs in, but i aint got no dogs no more, anyhow last nite i closed it across the veranda for the first time in years to keep big varmints out. I might have a look with a strong torch tonite. Probably a fox. |
| Navigation |
| Message Index |
| Next page |
| Previous page |