General > General Technical Chat

"Veritasium" (YT) - "The Big Misconception About Electricity" ?

<< < (236/396) > >>

TimFox:
Mapping (imaging) electron density has been done for a long time using x-ray diffraction (crystallography) and different methods of electron microscopy.
Strictly, this is a map of the probability spatial distribution of electrons in, say, a large molecule.

aetherist:

--- Quote from: SandyCox on February 17, 2022, 12:23:22 pm ---Will you please explain how "new electricity" leads to the conclusion that a capacitor discharging into a transmission line leads to a step-like voltage?
--- End quote ---
The main thing here is that old (electron) electricity can't explain the discharge, ie the half voltage for double the time.

The second thing here is that it might be possible to come up with lots of theories about what electricity is or isn’t, & for most of these to satisfactorily explain the discharge (ie to tick that box). I could come up with other theories that tick that box, but would they tick all of the boxes. My new (electon) electricity i think ticks all of the boxes (so far).

But old (electron) electricity duznt tick the capacitor discharge box, as far as i can tell. But u or someone else might indeed be able to explain a way that drifting electrons tick the box. If so then i would not be able to use that box to falsify old (electron) electricity. But that would then leave me with all of the other boxes that falsify old (electron) electricity. And i only need one box. One strike & old (electron) electricity is out.

Now to answer your question. New (electon) electricity says that in a charged capacitor the negative plate is full of (covered by)(saturated with) electons propagating in every direction, as is a short wire connected to the negative plate. On the short wire half of the electons are going one way & half are going the other way. When electons get to the end of the short wire they do a u-turn (in reality they go straight ahead as usual)(it is the surface of the wire that does a u-turn). When the short wire is connected to a new non-charged long wire the electons on the short wire that are already heading towards the long wire will instead of doing a u-turn will enter onto the long wire. Some of the electons going the "wrong way" on the short wire will have to go all the way to the end of that circuit, ie to the furthest end of the negative plate, & do a u-turn, & head back & enter the long wire.

So, the time taken for the last electon to leave the capacitor & enter the long wire is double the average time. The average time is the time taken for an electon to travel from the farthest point on the negative plate to the nearest point on the long wire.

That is the simple version of the electon discharge from the negative plate of a capacitor.
The positive plate is different. I think that it has no electons. It has an induced positive charge, ie due to the repulsion of electrons due to the negative charge on the negative plate (ie due to the negatively charged electons on the negative plate). I need to have a think about how the positive plate might discharge, & how that would affect current in the long wire. The discharge involves the flow of electrons on the surface, & this will be very slow, ie much slower than the speed of light. This will produce i think a long slow weak discharge, in addition to the almost instantaneous electon discharge mentioned above.  I need to have a think.

I might be overplaying the importance of the short wire. If the capacitor holds say 100 times the number of electons on the short wire then the length of the short wire might not make much difference to the time of the (main) discharge, ie the geometry of the capacitor itself would be paramount.

Here is a link to what Harry Ricker says. Harry has written lots of good articles.
https://beyondmainstream.org/the-wakefield-experiments-background-and-motivation/


aetherist:

--- Quote from: adx on February 17, 2022, 12:48:29 pm ---
--- Quote from: aetherist on February 16, 2022, 09:43:00 pm ---That Demjanov paper was not retracted by Demjanov, it was removed by the Journal. Hence it was not retracted, & they lied. So, u are supporting censorship, & a lie. And cheering it on.
--- End quote ---
Yet I was able to download it, and read it, so not censored. They merely offer their apologies for letting it slip through, without which we would not be discussing it. The journal did aetheriests (or whatever they are called) a service, you complain about the taking away of a part of something given in error, where's the lie?

I see your rational core bubbling up and causing these confusing surface vacillations in your logic. You sought evidence, it's your choice and I am merely observing an evolution towards imaginative rationalism. I don't want or expect you to abandon your ideas, but that does not preclude your journey to evidence-based thinking you clearly seek. Far be it from me to judge, but bravo.
--- Quote from: aetherist on February 16, 2022, 09:43:00 pm ---Leapfrogging electons were the first electons that i thought of in Dec 2021. Shortly after, i realized that simple hugging must be the answer, no hopping. If the screw-thread X does not show the extra delay due to the simple extra distance then that would falsify my electons. And i don’t see how roo-tons could come to the rescue. Roo-tons would fail just as Beaty's silly leapfrogging em radiation must fail to rescue old (electron) electricity from the elephant in the room.
--- End quote ---
Ok but leapfrogging is due to someone else you said. If the "X" fails to support your electon theory then on one-strike rules you will be forced to invoke your roo-tons, you said. Why? If roo-tons would also likely fail as you now claim then that is effectively a prehumous admission of failure for your revised theory. You set up a false dilemma, by denying any possibility to revise your theory, by speculatively revising your theory into a form that would also fail. But that doesn't prevent you from seizing an opportunity. You have previously used the device which I expect you would again invoke upon failure of the experiment (which your rational core might have determined is quite likely): "I don’t agree that roo-tons explain this null result. But perhaps they could. Blah blah de blah ...". You have actively sought out this situation which has doomed you to fail then come to your own transparently ridiculous rescue, yet you chose a forum where you know you can get called up on this issue after all these years. Welcome.
--- 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 ---
It is impossible to disprove anything. It is merely a quicker path to the same false certainty one gets from 'proof' through absence of evidence - tipping the balance of probability quicker. There is no certainty, only belief. A composite of conscious hope and subconscious fear. Any belief I have in electrons and photons is therefore optional. I am not against alternative theories. Your comment about the quiz is probably true.
--- Quote from: aetherist on February 16, 2022, 09:43:00 pm ---Forum members seem to be unaware that Einstein contradicted Einstein. His ideas changed right up to his death. Einstein would disagree with much of modern (supposedly Einsteinian) science. And modern science disagrees with much of Einstein. Einstein would be thrilled by my electons.
--- End quote ---
That may all be true, or at least not wildly untrue. But I was thrilled by your roo-tons. Does any of this particularly matter?
--- Quote from: aetherist on February 16, 2022, 09:43:00 pm ---We have facts & we have hot air.  I came here & i have tried to point the way to replace hot air with facts.
--- End quote ---
And it's working. Refer to your rational core.
--- Quote from: aetherist on February 16, 2022, 09:43:00 pm ---Can any members here use old electricity to explain the traces for the AlphaPhoenix X pt1 & (later) pt2?
--- End quote ---
Once again, this explanation is in this thread way back - the answer is yes. The Maxwell simulation (or even all of them) replicates the features seen in the measurement I think better than expected given the problems with 'X' technique. The only thing I found 'interesting' is the "subtle lift", in both. I didn't quite go to town on the scope screenshot to the degree you have, but I did pore over it for a time not to treat it as some kind of smorgasbord of  Dunning-Krugeresque intrigue but because I use scopes and know what to look for. You are ignoring the fact pointed out in one of my first replies to you that the result of the measurement matches the Maxwellian simulator's output, confirming the theory for that particular case, which is what you question, resulting in the answer "yes" which is a simple word with a stable meaning and unlikely to be confusing unlike this unnecessarily long sentence which you have no problem understanding. Ask your rational core, it asked the question.
--- End quote ---
I am still not happy with lumped element TL models. And i admit that they can replicate the initial 0.2 V that AlphaPhoenix (Brian) got in his white trace for V across his bulb.

But i should have made it clear that i was referring to his green trace for the voltage across the resistor near his positive terminal.
And re his X pt2 i should have made it clear that here i was referring to his (missing) X pt1 trace for the voltage across the resistor near his negative terminal.
Brian did not show us that trace, but he said that it was different to the green trace (they should be identical i think)(according to old (electron) electricity), & he said it was so different that his head nearly melted, & he said that he would show us that trace when he got around to showing us his X pt2 (but still no new update re if he has done X pt2 or ever will)(its coming up to 2 months since he did X pt1).

I reckon that i can explain the green trace, & the missing trace (after he divulges it). But old (electron) electricity will not be able to.

Actually i will try to finish my new (electon) electricity explanation for the green trace today, & i will put it on this thread.

--- Quote from: adx on February 17, 2022, 12:48:29 pm ---
--- Quote from: aetherist on February 16, 2022, 09:43:00 pm --- When someone does the screw-thread X, will old (electron) electricity explain that?
--- End quote ---
Yes. But you already suspect it might - that's why you are here and asking the question.
--- End quote ---

--- Quote from: adx on February 17, 2022, 12:48:29 pm ---
--- Quote from: aetherist on February 16, 2022, 09:43:00 pm ---My new (electon) electricity might explain (we will see).
--- End quote ---
It won't. You will sidestep it as described above, which you know full well because you have it planned.
But that's not the point. Nor are your reasons for being here, really.
Given that it is impossible to disprove anything, what if despite all your pushing and tests which (say) leave your theory in tatters, it turns out to be correct in large part ~100 years from now? We just didn't test it right. All this would undoubtedly have happened, leaving a mark on history weirder than Tesla's, but how could it in any way affect the validity of a theory years from now?
--- End quote ---
Can u or Howardlong or someone around here to the test?
Howardlong has a 20 GHz scope & might need only  say 3 ft of threaded rod to get a half decent measurement.
A 100 MHz scope can see down to say 10 ns which is 10 ft at the speed of light, so it might need say 50 ft of threaded rod (costing say $50) to detect the extra delay, & better still say 100 ft of rod ($100) to get a half decent accuracy of measurement.

U could repeat the X after painting the rods, to get a double dose of delay, but painting would ruin the rods.
Better to simply paint with oil, which can be washed off later.

I am willing to bet that my new (electon) electricity wins. Loser pays for the rods.
But if u are correct that old (electron) electricity can just as easily explain the delay then there would be little point in doing the X.
But how could old (electron) electricity explain?

adx:

--- Quote from: aetherist on February 17, 2022, 09:22:09 pm ---
--- Quote from: SandyCox on February 17, 2022, 12:23:22 pm ---Will you please explain how "new electricity" leads to the conclusion that a capacitor discharging into a transmission line leads to a step-like voltage?
--- End quote ---
The main thing here is that old (electron) electricity can't explain the discharge, ie the half voltage for double the time.
--- End quote ---
I've already explained a page back how the test is of a transmission line not a capacitor, the source material calls it a capacitor but that is wrong. The test is not of a capacitor. Is there any way you could accept it's not a capacitor even if the source calls it one?

Your descriptions of photon-like things reflecting back and forth is barking up the right tree, and is well-known in conventional electricity and is a point made many times in this thread prior to your arrival. You have conflated electrons with photons, which might or might not have merit, I am currently not interested which one it is.

Your thoughts on experimental philosophy are just barking, and although I'm sure some people would think the same of me, I had better steer away from this too.

TimFox:
In the current political environment, I have grown sick and tired of complaints that scientists change their mind when new evidence becomes available.
Einstein lived a long life, and his thoughts evolved.  His personal life might not qualify him for sainthood, but that is a different question not relevant here.
Rigidity of thought and refusal to change ones mind regardless of evidence, is common amongst ideologues.

Navigation

[0] Message Index

[#] Next page

[*] Previous page

There was an error while thanking
Thanking...
Go to full version
Powered by SMFPacks Advanced Attachments Uploader Mod