[...]
One problem with speed is that all metals have corrosion which must slow the electons (i mean the oxide, not the roughness). But if the threaded bar & plain bar are the same material then that might not be a big worry.
[...]
Not all metals corrode at the same rate so some may even remain mostly oxide free for the duration of a test, a reasonably well controlled layer of oxide could even be incrimentally grown onto a test rod. Differrent oxides would have different properties, iron oxide is renowned for making things go slowly, so obviously thats the first candidate. Green copper oxide is a pretty fast colour, though not as fast as chrome oxide. Nickel is a wildcard.
Finally, I think I'm understanding this theory.
Yes i steer clear from any quantum stuff. Hence i dont understand it. However i think that it uses aether. I am ok with models that give good numbers. But i cant argue re Q stuff. Does it use any kind of relativity? Does it use E=mcc?
But Einsteinian stuff in the modern super accurate era, & computer era, is failing.
I am not sure how aetherwind might affect CERN. If they did observe aetherwind they would of course never report it. They would invent some kind of excuse. In fact they are so clever that they would have no trouble finding a way to use that excuse to once again prove Einstein. Why defend when u can attack. Oh, wait, if forgot, they could score 3 home runs with the one hit, they could throw in a Nobel nomination. Whether they were awarded the Nobel would be another matter, i mean there are so many faux-discoveries out there, its like having umpteen gangs trying to rob the same bank on the same day.
STR is krapp -- & GTR is mostly krapp.
We are presently in the Einsteinian Dark Age of science -- but the times they are a-changin'.
The aether will return -- it never left.
By the way, the behavior of conduction electrons in a solid metal wire is governed by quantum mechanics.
A long time ago (1928), Dirac expanded quantum mechanics to include special relativistic conditions: see the "Dirac equation", which is the relativistic form of the original Schrödinger equation.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dirac_equation
One of my former co-workers, for purely political reasons, did not "believe in" biological evolution or quantum mechanics. I told him he would have to stop using solid-state electronics, which depends on quantum mechanics to explain its operation.
Yes i steer clear from any quantum stuff. Hence i dont understand it. However i think that it uses aether. I am ok with models that give good numbers. But i cant argue re Q stuff. Does it use any kind of relativity? Does it use E=mcc?You... you don't know anything about 'quantum stuff' and yet you want to sit there and write gobbledeegook about photons and electrons? Have you never heard of the Dirac Equation until just now?!?!
Yes... yes quantum physics does use E = mc^2... that's the basis of nuclear fission/fusion. For such a self-proclaimed genius I am astounded at your apparently profound ignorance of something high school students learn.
QuoteBut Einsteinian stuff in the modern super accurate era, & computer era, is failing.
I am not sure how aetherwind might affect CERN. If they did observe aetherwind they would of course never report it. They would invent some kind of excuse. In fact they are so clever that they would have no trouble finding a way to use that excuse to once again prove Einstein. Why defend when u can attack. Oh, wait, if forgot, they could score 3 home runs with the one hit, they could throw in a Nobel nomination. Whether they were awarded the Nobel would be another matter, i mean there are so many faux-discoveries out there, its like having umpteen gangs trying to rob the same bank on the same day.
And like all cranks - your ultimate bastion is to accuse numerous independent international laboratories of a century long conspiracy.QuoteSTR is krapp -- & GTR is mostly krapp.
We are presently in the Einsteinian Dark Age of science -- but the times they are a-changin'.
The aether will return -- it never left.
This reminds me of the Catholic Church's rejection of Copernican astronomy (later, of course, improved by Galileo and Kepler) because they did not want to believe in a non-geocentric Solar System.
However, Copernicus' De revolutionibus orbium coelestium was allowed in Jesuit libraries because it gave better numbers than Ptolemy's Almagest.
The "operation of something" is measured and described by numbers, not hypothetical angels dancing on the head of a pin. This is the purpose of experimental proof.
I am not sure how aetherwind might affect CERN. If they did observe aetherwind they would of course never report it.
Why defend when u can attack.
E=mcc has never been proven, ie the correct equation might be E=mcc/2. We don’t know.
And E=mcc has never been needed to build a fission bomb.
Yes, but i don’t know about a century long, LIGO has been going for only say 30 years. The CMBR krapp for say 35 years.
I am not sure how aetherwind might affect CERN. If they did observe aetherwind they would of course never report it.FFS So anything that doesn't support your claims is yet more clear and undeniable proof that the whole scientific world conspiring against your claims in a diabolical effort to suppress them. Good to know.Why defend when u can attack.Says the guy who's been shitting on Einstein for most of the thread.
The fundamental experimental evidence for the equivalence of rest mass and energy commonly written in an equation (without hand waving) E = mc2 can be found in comparing the masses of the nuclei before and after a fission reaction, where the difference goes into the energy release. The measurements are not off by a factor of 2.
see https://www.dummies.com/article/academics-the-arts/science/physics/nuclear-fission-basics-200956
Careful measurements of atomic mass predate experimental fission. See "History" section of
https://www.newworldencyclopedia.org/entry/Atomic_mass
I am not sure how aetherwind might affect CERN. If they did observe aetherwind they would of course never report it.FFS So anything that doesn't support your claims is yet more clear and undeniable proof that the whole scientific world conspiring against your claims in a diabolical effort to suppress them. Good to know.Why defend when u can attack.Says the guy who's been shitting on Einstein for most of the thread.
E=mcc has never been proven, ie the correct equation might be E=mcc/2. We don’t know.
And E=mcc has never been needed to build a fission bomb.Once again demonstrating your total and absolute ignorance of any of the stuff you're babbling about.
First, E = mc^2 has been experimentally demonstrated in Pair Production in particle accelerators. And it's a pretty routine calculation in nuclear energy plant output (how much fuel is required to produce energy).
Second, you are, again, totally ignorant of the history of fission:
http://www.greatachievements.org/?id=3693
https://www.ans.org/news/article-938/lise-meitners-fantastic-explanation-nuclear-fission/QuoteYes, but i don’t know about a century long, LIGO has been going for only say 30 years. The CMBR krapp for say 35 years.I can't keep up with your insane conspiracies and whether you think the 'Einsteinian dark age' began in 1905, 1930, 1950, or 1980 or whatever.
Whatever you think, you're consistently demonstrating utter unfamiliarity with even basic tenets of the physics at play here.
The fact that you think relativity and quantum mechanics are separate disciplines with no relation to one another is another egregious misstep so far.
QM uses spacetime. Enough said.
The Dark Age of Science i think began with Einstein's STR. It got worse year by year, eg he got a Nobel in 1928 or something. Although it didn’t really begin until after he died, ie when experiments & measurements became much more accurate. And the Dark Age of Science will die when experiments & measurements get super accurate.
The establishment still scoffed at relativity in 1921, so the 1922 prize awarded to Einstein was for his explanation of the photoelectric effect.
This effect was one of the famous experimental results that could not be explained by classical physics.
His explanation involved photons, electrons, and equations. The equations still explain the quantitative aspects of the photoelectric effect.
The history of science is interesting, but should not be confused with the body of physical theory now in use. During the inter-war period, there was a lot of controversy and polite (usually) discussion between the leading natural philosophers of the day, involving both actual experimental evidence and thought-experiments. Einstein's point of view was opposed to probabilistic explanations ("God does not play dice"). Usually, the adult in the room during these arguments was Neils Bohr. (Bohr's original explanation of atomic energy levels motivated further theoretical development by Heisenberg, Schroedinger, and others, and is no longer used in its original form.) Thus, science progresses.
I am not very religious, but I share Einstein's credo: "Raffiniert ist der Herr Gott, aber boshaft ist er nicht."
QM uses spacetime. Enough said.Ahh. This explains why you admit your cluelessness about QM. You should leave photons and electrons alone though... basically all of electricity.QuoteThe Dark Age of Science i think began with Einstein's STR. It got worse year by year, eg he got a Nobel in 1928 or something. Although it didn’t really begin until after he died, ie when experiments & measurements became much more accurate. And the Dark Age of Science will die when experiments & measurements get super accurate.Please... stop... I can't take this level of comedy.
... I discovered electons, & i explained electricity in/on a wire. ...
I am not sure how aetherwind might affect CERN. If they did observe aetherwind they would of course never report it. They would invent some kind of excuse. In fact they are so clever that they would have no trouble finding a way to use that excuse to once again prove Einstein.
I am not sure how aetherwind might affect CERN. If they did observe aetherwind they would of course never report it. They would invent some kind of excuse. In fact they are so clever that they would have no trouble finding a way to use that excuse to once again prove Einstein.This has got to be my favorite flavor of conspiracy theory: that a bunch of scientists all agree to the same lie. Obviously, you don't know any scientists. All they want to do is be the first to find something new. (Just like you, except you're not a scientist.) There's no way you could keep each of them from secretly publishing their own paper and getting all of the glory. The premise is laughable.
This thread has gone so far south that it fell off the border of flat earth.
... I discovered electons, & i explained electricity in/on a wire. ...Wow. This reminds me of a book I read (part of) years ago when I was spending time in a Barnes & Noble many years ago: There Are No Electrons: Electronics for Earthlings, by Kenn Amdahl. I think I'm going to order it and give it a re-read.