General > General Technical Chat
"Veritasium" (YT) - "The Big Misconception About Electricity" ?
aetherist:
--- Quote from: HuronKing on February 22, 2022, 09:27:10 pm ---
--- Quote from: aetherist on February 22, 2022, 09:19:40 pm ---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?
--- End quote ---
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?!?!
--- End quote ---
Aha, that’s where i have gone wrong, i have invoked photons (electrons are photons), when i should have invoked an equation. Equations are the fundamental essence. And the fundamental elementary particle. I bet that Dirac wiped his bum with equations. While kissing his Nobel medallion.
--- Quote from: HuronKing on February 22, 2022, 09:27:10 pm ---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.
--- End quote ---
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.
--- Quote from: HuronKing on February 22, 2022, 09:27:10 pm ---
--- Quote ---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.
--- End quote ---
And like all cranks - your ultimate bastion is to accuse numerous independent international laboratories of a century long conspiracy. >:D
--- Quote ---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.
--- End quote ---
:-DD :-DD :-DD :-DD
--- End quote ---
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.
aetherist:
--- Quote from: TimFox on February 22, 2022, 10:01:32 pm ---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.
--- End quote ---
Most proofs (so called) need numbers & units.
And my electons will be confirmed by numbers & units.
Angels dancing on the head of a pin can of course be proven with numbers & units.
CERN could do it. LIGO could do it. WMAP could do it. And they would get another Nobel for it.
Dirac might have had an equation for it. After all an Angel is merely a wave function. And we have virtual Angels popping in & out of existence. Feynman had an Angel diagram for that.
But what is the rest mass for an Angel? Is a dancing Angel truly at rest?
Dirac could predict anti-Angels. Not hypothetical anti-Angels, i mean real anti-Angels, ie with their own wave-equations, u cant get more real than that.
TimFox:
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
daqq:
--- Quote from: aetherist on February 22, 2022, 09:19:40 pm ---I am not sure how aetherwind might affect CERN. If they did observe aetherwind they would of course never report it.
--- End quote ---
FFS :palm: 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.
--- Quote from: aetherist on February 22, 2022, 09:19:40 pm ---Why defend when u can attack.
--- End quote ---
Says the guy who's been shitting on Einstein for most of the thread.
HuronKing:
--- Quote from: aetherist on February 22, 2022, 10:10:29 pm ---
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.
--- End quote ---
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/
--- Quote ---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.
--- End quote ---
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.
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page
Go to full version