| General > General Technical Chat |
| "Veritasium" (YT) - "The Big Misconception About Electricity" ? |
| << < (246/396) > >> |
| aetherist:
--- Quote from: adx on February 22, 2022, 03:59:48 am --- --- Quote from: aetherist on February 22, 2022, 01:07:29 am ---...There is no such thing as a gravity wave. Gravity propagates at at least 20 billion c ... --- End quote --- Uh? What does it propagate as then? Negative reality wave? Leprechaun kinesin? --- End quote --- There is no such thing as a GW. It is a tension of the aether. Aether transmits such tension tween mass/matter at at least 20 billion c m/s. But it serves little purpose to call that tension a wave. The tension radiates continuously from each/every photon, to infinity, for ever. No, hold on, it radiates to the limit of our local cosmic cell, & throo other adjacent cells, but eventually fizzles out. However our universe is indeed infinite & eternal. Re my mention of photons, everything in the universe that we see & feel is made of photons, or is a part of each photon (ie the em radiation, so called)(which radiates from each photon). There are 4 classes of photon. Free photons (light), semi-confined photons (electons), confined photons (electron etc). The 4th kind is neutrinos, which are paired photons sharing the same helical axis. |
| SandyCox:
According to Wikipedia: Some cranks claim vast knowledge of any relevant literature, while others claim that familiarity with previous work is entirely unnecessary. In addition, the overwhelming majority of cranks: seriously misunderstand the mainstream opinion to which they believe that they are objecting, stress that they have been working out their ideas for many decades, and claim that this fact alone shows that their belief cannot be dismissed as resting upon some simple error, compare themselves with luminaries in their chosen field (often Galileo Galilei, Nicolaus Copernicus, Leonhard Euler, Isaac Newton, Albert Einstein or Georg Cantor),[citation needed] implying that the mere unpopularity of some belief is not good reason for it to be dismissed, claim that their ideas are being suppressed, typically backed up by conspiracy theories invoking intelligence organizations, mainstream science, powerful business interests, or other groups which, they allege, are terrified by the possibility of their revolutionary insights becoming widely known, appear to regard themselves as persons of unique historical importance. Cranks who contradict some mainstream opinion in some highly technical field, (e.g. mathematics, cryptography, physics) may: exhibit a marked lack of technical ability, misunderstand or not use standard notation and terminology, ignore fine distinctions which are essential to correctly understand mainstream belief. That is, cranks tend to ignore any previous insights which have been proven by experience to facilitate discussion and analysis of the topic of their cranky claims; indeed, they often assert that these innovations obscure rather than clarify the situation.[6] |
| aetherist:
--- Quote from: SandyCox on February 22, 2022, 06:28:11 am ---According to Wikipedia: Some cranks claim vast knowledge of any relevant literature, while others claim that familiarity with previous work is entirely unnecessary. In addition, the overwhelming majority of cranks: seriously misunderstand the mainstream opinion to which they believe that they are objecting, stress that they have been working out their ideas for many decades, and claim that this fact alone shows that their belief cannot be dismissed as resting upon some simple error, compare themselves with luminaries in their chosen field (often Galileo Galilei, Nicolaus Copernicus, Leonhard Euler, Isaac Newton, Albert Einstein or Georg Cantor),[citation needed] implying that the mere unpopularity of some belief is not good reason for it to be dismissed, claim that their ideas are being suppressed, typically backed up by conspiracy theories invoking intelligence organizations, mainstream science, powerful business interests, or other groups which, they allege, are terrified by the possibility of their revolutionary insights becoming widely known, appear to regard themselves as persons of unique historical importance. Cranks who contradict some mainstream opinion in some highly technical field, (e.g. mathematics, cryptography, physics) may: exhibit a marked lack of technical ability, misunderstand or not use standard notation and terminology, ignore fine distinctions which are essential to correctly understand mainstream belief. That is, cranks tend to ignore any previous insights which have been proven by experience to facilitate discussion and analysis of the topic of their cranky claims; indeed, they often assert that these innovations obscure rather than clarify the situation.[6] --- End quote --- Name 10 controversial scientific topics & i will make u look like a kindergarten kid in every one of them. |
| penfold:
--- Quote from: aetherist on February 22, 2022, 12:29:19 am ---[...] --- Quote from: penfold on February 21, 2022, 11:38:09 pm ---And you're confident that there's no classical EM explanation for what's contained in those scope traces? --- End quote --- The old (electron drift inside a wire) electricity can't explain how electricity is so fast along a wire. And the Poynting Field version can't explain how electricity is slowed by a thin coat of insulation on a wire. [...] --- End quote --- Except classical theory does both of those things, as long as they are adequately represented in the analysis. You may very often see that in student exercises and lecture examples that wires are assumed to be free of insulation - otherwise, the amount of algebra would balloon way beyond what might be useful as a worked example. That level of analysis was way beyond the scope of the Veritassium video etc. Surface finish would be a problem for all materials, I guess maybe you're right in trying to force a defined pattern. If I were to construct a 1m long coaxial line from M3 brass studding and 15mm copper plumbing pipe: the tube polished inside and out as too would be the threads. If I short one end to the tube and drive the other, I can measure the frequency response. Classical theory would predict some highs and lows to the impedance at well defined frequencies, related to the geometry etc, packing the air-gap with a known insulator would change the response in a predictable way. For a simple air-gapped line, would you expect there to be a significant change in the resonant frequencies compared with classical predictions? |
| daqq:
If there are no gravity waves, what did LIGO and the other gravitational wave observatories observe and why did it travel seemingly at c? |
| Navigation |
| Message Index |
| Next page |
| Previous page |