General > General Technical Chat
"Veritasium" (YT) - "The Big Misconception About Electricity" ?
<< < (256/396) > >>
penfold:

--- Quote from: aetherist on February 23, 2022, 07:42:46 am ---
--- Quote from: Sredni on February 23, 2022, 05:07:11 am ---This thread has gone so far south that it fell off the border of flat earth.

--- End quote ---
Physicists sometimes mention pure energy.  What is pure energy?
[...]

--- End quote ---

OK, one last try.

Like all of the invisible scales of the world, pure energy is a philosophical concept. Pure energy has properties and attributes, but the difficulty in its concept is that it is defined by an absense of all the properties that separate any more specific form of energy from oneanother, and retains only those that make it 'energy'.

The word 'particle' can be quite misleading since it connotes certain properties by association with 'dust particles' etc. Rather than "an electron is...", think "an electron has properties of...". Theories such as QM, QED etc serve to complete the sentense "an electron behaves...". Disagreement between theories does not necesarily invalidate them, not unless they directly contradict oneanother in a specific situation.

The consequence of saying that an electron itself has sub-particles is a trickier subject. It is really just short-hand for "predicted by the standard model are a number of further elementary building blocks which satisfy a number of rules, from those rules a number of experiments have been defined and the results of experiments have confirmed the attributes and the defined model according to which they can interract" - it is just much fewer words to say "an electron is".

Now, space-time! Its existance is undenyable... it just is... it is a mathematical construct much like a coordinate system, it exists only on paper. The way in which numbers and calculations on paper relate to nature/reality/etc is a bit more of a touchy subject. It can appear that when modelling physical phenomina in 'n' dimensions that there is a direct implication that there are indeed 'n' physical dimemsnsions - maybe there are, maybe not, but neither is mandated by the algebra. The structure of the algebra, metric signature etc define how it relates to reality... that is still not concretely defined in a universal single throery and that lack of definition does open it to wild speculation. LIGO for instance, success or failure in detecting gravity waves is a moot point, there are important conclusions to be drawn from either case. There are no conspiracies in any of the big experiments, but there is a difference between the scientific and "press release" motives behind experiments.
aetherist:

--- Quote from: penfold on February 23, 2022, 10:47:50 am ---
--- Quote from: aetherist on February 23, 2022, 07:42:46 am ---
--- Quote from: Sredni on February 23, 2022, 05:07:11 am ---This thread has gone so far south that it fell off the border of flat earth.
--- End quote ---
Physicists sometimes mention pure energy.  What is pure energy?[...]
--- End quote ---
OK, one last try.

Like all of the invisible scales of the world, pure energy is a philosophical concept. Pure energy has properties and attributes, but the difficulty in its concept is that it is defined by an absense of all the properties that separate any more specific form of energy from oneanother, and retains only those that make it 'energy'.

The word 'particle' can be quite misleading since it connotes certain properties by association with 'dust particles' etc. Rather than "an electron is...", think "an electron has properties of...". Theories such as QM, QED etc serve to complete the sentense "an electron behaves...". Disagreement between theories does not necesarily invalidate them, not unless they directly contradict oneanother in a specific situation.

The consequence of saying that an electron itself has sub-particles is a trickier subject. It is really just short-hand for "predicted by the standard model are a number of further elementary building blocks which satisfy a number of rules, from those rules a number of experiments have been defined and the results of experiments have confirmed the attributes and the defined model according to which they can interract" - it is just much fewer words to say "an electron is".

Now, space-time! Its existance is undenyable... it just is... it is a mathematical construct much like a coordinate system, it exists only on paper. The way in which numbers and calculations on paper relate to nature/reality/etc is a bit more of a touchy subject. It can appear that when modelling physical phenomina in 'n' dimensions that there is a direct implication that there are indeed 'n' physical dimemsnsions - maybe there are, maybe not, but neither is mandated by the algebra. The structure of the algebra, metric signature etc define how it relates to reality... that is still not concretely defined in a universal single throery and that lack of definition does open it to wild speculation. LIGO for instance, success or failure in detecting gravity waves is a moot point, there are important conclusions to be drawn from either case. There are no conspiracies in any of the big experiments, but there is a difference between the scientific and "press release" motives behind experiments.
--- End quote ---
Spacetime, time dilation, STR & GTR, the bigbang, dark matter, gravity waves, gravity waves that propagated at the speed of light, cosmic microwave background radiation, constant speed of light, pure energy, E=mcc, singularity blackholes, dark energy, expansion of the universe, Higgs, gluons, gravitons etc -- all are rubbish.

I am fairly sure that Einstein did not believe in spacetime.

Spacetime might exist on paper, but that existence is flawed. If it gave good numbers then its existence on paper, as a model, would be ok, but, it aint a good model, & it duznt exist in reality. Length contraction does exist of course, but here again the Einsteinian version is wrong, or it is based on wrong reasoning (relative velocity)(complete krapp). The FitzGerald version  might be ok. Anyhow, the time in spacetime is wrong, & the length contraction in the space part is wrong, & 2 wrongs don’t make a right.

Ticking dilation does exist, & it is explained by my own version of relativity, ticking dilation is based mainly on length contraction. In a sense all of this affects electricity, especially the measurement of electricity, hence it is not wildly off topic re the Veritasium gedanken.
adx:

--- Quote from: aetherist on February 22, 2022, 12:00:39 pm ---
--- Quote from: adx on February 22, 2022, 11:40:08 am ---
--- Quote from: aetherist on February 22, 2022, 04:16:45 am ---
--- 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.

--- End quote ---
Psychological tension, as in a kind of nervousness? I don't get it. What slows this radiation down to a known speed? Or is it particles, travelling at this 20E9*3E8 m^2/s^2? That seems to be incompatible with the idea of an aether under constant tension.

--- End quote ---
The speed of gravity is at least 20 billion c. There is no known upper speed, ie no reason for one -- what we have is a fairly logical lower speed, based i think mainly on the stability of planetary etc orbits.
Aether has no mass, but what it does is it transfers force tween stuff that has mass, eg stars. Which in effect supports Mach's idea that gravity is due to the mass of the universe.
I am happy to talk about gravity, & aether, koz the aetherwind will be found to have an influence in lots of things that happen in a laboratory, including electricity.

--- End quote ---
Oh ok, there is no known speed, because it is empirical. My bad. Possibly arose because of the original assertion that gravity propagates at a speed, and the assumption of a theory.

Yes Mach's principle. Tricky.
SandyCox:

--- Quote from: aetherist on February 22, 2022, 09:25:40 pm ---
--- Quote from: penfold on February 22, 2022, 09:15:57 pm ---
--- Quote from: aetherist on February 22, 2022, 07:55:18 pm ---[...]
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.
[...]

--- End quote ---

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.

--- End quote ---
Seriously, there are Nobels waiting here. A 2 page paper getting a Nobel. We would share the money. And SandyCox would be happy to nominate us.

--- End quote ---
That's never going to happen. Your theory is nonsense! It's garbage! Let it go and do something meaningful with your time!

Your theory is the definition of nonsense. It is one billion units of nonsense!
penfold:

--- Quote from: aetherist on February 23, 2022, 11:30:21 am ---[...]
Spacetime, time dilation, STR & GTR, the bigbang, dark matter, gravity waves, gravity waves that propagated at the speed of light, cosmic microwave background radiation, constant speed of light, pure energy, E=mcc, singularity blackholes, dark energy, expansion of the universe, Higgs, gluons, gravitons etc -- all are rubbish.
[...]

--- End quote ---

Except... you're wrong. All of those maters you listed have experimental evidence and they all have an axiomatic basis. They have all stood up to peer review and indipendent validation. That is quite litterally the definition of "not rubbish".

Your theory of electrons doesn't have any basis beyond your belief, absolutely zero experimental evidence, it cannot form predictions and it self contradicts. At least with those fringe-physics theories that break causality there is an amusing arithmatic blunder to find: but what you present here is just sad and it is quite literally the definition of "rubbish".
Navigation
Message Index
Next page
Previous page
There was an error while thanking
Thanking...

Go to full version
Powered by SMFPacks Advanced Attachments Uploader Mod