General > General Technical Chat
"Veritasium" (YT) - "The Big Misconception About Electricity" ?
TimFox:
--- Quote from: daqq on February 22, 2022, 10:33:38 pm ---
--- 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.
--- End quote ---
Scatology rarely improves an argument.
aetherist:
--- Quote from: TimFox on February 22, 2022, 10:30:11 pm ---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
--- End quote ---
I am not allergic to E=mcc. I am allergic to the Einstein derivation.
But if tests lean towards E=mcc rather than E=mcc/2 then i am happy with that. There is a slight chance of having a circular argument on both sides of the equation, but i can accept that that can be ruled out with good tests. But the Einstein derivation is a circular argument, as shown by Ives.
The real problem is of course that no-one knows what E=mcc really means. Einstein changed his mind on this as the years went by, as of course u will be aware. But skoolkids are still taught that mass increases with speed.
aetherist:
--- Quote from: daqq on February 22, 2022, 10:33:38 pm ---
--- 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.
--- End quote ---
Einstein shit on aetherwind. It all comes back to the aetherwind, the suppression of aetherwind. Shankland was Einstein's hitman here, in 1955 (a few months before Einstein died).
In the modern era we have hitman No2, Roberts (in about 2002). Others pointed out where Shankland was wrong. And it was me myself that pointed out where Roberts was wrong.
The aether will return, it never left.
aetherist:
--- Quote from: HuronKing on February 22, 2022, 10:39:24 pm ---
--- 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.
--- End quote ---
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.
HuronKing:
--- Quote from: aetherist on February 22, 2022, 10:59:49 pm ---QM uses spacetime. Enough said.
--- End quote ---
Ahh. This explains why you admit your cluelessness about QM. You should leave photons and electrons alone though... basically all of electricity.
--- Quote ---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.
--- End quote ---
Please... stop... I can't take this level of comedy. :-DD
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page
Go to full version