General > General Technical Chat

"Veritasium" (YT) - "The Big Misconception About Electricity" ?

<< < (259/396) > >>

penfold:

--- Quote from: adx on February 24, 2022, 06:29:36 am ---[...]
Didn't they do this? Even a low-tech timer with a repeatability of 1ppm would show this up?

--- End quote ---

I guess there'll always be a way the theory can be changed to call all experiments invalid.

Just thinking out loud, but I suppose there could be a way to justify a delay of zero seconds in th bulb lighting - an observer stood on the bulb side would see a very small difference in time between the light arriving from the switch (indicating closure) and the energy arriving at the bulb. The person closing the switch would have to wait for 2*(1/c) seconds to find out.

aetherist:

--- Quote from: adx on February 24, 2022, 06:29:36 am ---
--- Quote from: aetherist on February 24, 2022, 01:06:02 am ---...If the aetherwind blowing through Earth is 500 km/s, which is c/600, then Veritasium's delay could be 1/(599c/600) or it could be 1/(601c/600). A difference of say -1/600 or +1/600, which is say a span of 1/300.
Hence the delay of 3,333 ps for Veristasium's em radiation crossing his say 1000 mm can be 16 ps less or 16 ps more.
In which case the delay could be 3,317 ps or 3,350 ps.
--- End quote ---
That's not impossible to measure. If you could arrange a reflection+timer apparatus to rotate into and out of the wind, then say for wind from N to S:

* apparatus N-S delay = 1/(599/600)+1/(601/600) = 2.000005556
* apparatus E-W delay = 1/(600/600)+1/(600/600) = 2
* apparatus S-N delay = 1/(601/600)+1/(599/600) = 2.000005556
* apparatus W-E delay = 1/(600/600)+1/(600/600) = 2
Didn't they do this? Even a low-tech timer with a repeatability of 1ppm would show this up?

--- End quote ---
Lots of measurements of the aetherwind were done in the oldendays & in the modern era using free photons (light). And at least two experiments have been done in the modern era using electricity, ie using my electons (semi-confined photons). 

The 1-way measurement of the speed of light is supposedly impossible according to Einsteinists. That’s another tell-tale sign of an Einsteinist, they keep chanting – it is impossible to measure the 1-way speed of light – they even chant this in their sleep. However, i think that the 1-way speed of light has been successfully measured at least two times, & each shows that the 1-way speed of light varies depending on direction (ie due to the aetherwind), which once again, for the umpteenth time, falsifies STR.

Roland DeWitte did it in 1991, using two 1500 m long coaxial cables (in effect he had two 1-way experiments in one), using electric (RF) signals, ie using my electons. But he needed or at least used a set of 3 atomic clocks at each of two ends.
https://arxiv.org/pdf/physics/0608205v1.pdf
The Roland De Witte 1991 Detection of Absolute Motion and Gravitational Waves Reginald T. Cahill

The first one-way coaxial cable speed-of-propagation experiment was performed at the Utah University in 1981 by Torr and Kolen [8]. This involved two rubidium vapor clocks placed approximately 500m apart with a 5 MHz sinewave RF signal propagating between the clocks via a buried nitrogen filled coaxial cable maintained at a constant pressure of ∼2 psi.
http://mountainman.com.au/process_physics/hps13.pdf

aetherist:

--- Quote from: HuronKing on February 24, 2022, 08:47:54 am ---
--- Quote from: adx on February 24, 2022, 06:29:36 am ---That's not impossible to measure. If you could arrange a reflection+timer apparatus to rotate into and out of the wind, then say for wind from N to S:
* apparatus N-S delay = 1/(599/600)+1/(601/600) = 2.000005556
* apparatus E-W delay = 1/(600/600)+1/(600/600) = 2
* apparatus S-N delay = 1/(601/600)+1/(599/600) = 2.000005556
* apparatus W-E delay = 1/(600/600)+1/(600/600) = 2Didn't they do this? Even a low-tech timer with a repeatability of 1ppm would show this up?
--- End quote ---
They have. Experimentalists since the 1880s tried desperately and with insanely sensitive equipment to try to find this aetherwind... and nada.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michelson%E2%80%93Morley_experiment
--- End quote ---
Prof Reg Cahill disagrees.
http://mountainman.com.au/process_physics/hps13.pdf

penfold:

--- Quote from: aetherist on February 24, 2022, 09:10:53 am ---
--- Quote from: HuronKing on February 24, 2022, 08:47:54 am ---
--- Quote from: adx on February 24, 2022, 06:29:36 am ---That's not impossible to measure. If you could arrange a reflection+timer apparatus to rotate into and out of the wind, then say for wind from N to S:
* apparatus N-S delay = 1/(599/600)+1/(601/600) = 2.000005556
* apparatus E-W delay = 1/(600/600)+1/(600/600) = 2
* apparatus S-N delay = 1/(601/600)+1/(599/600) = 2.000005556
* apparatus W-E delay = 1/(600/600)+1/(600/600) = 2Didn't they do this? Even a low-tech timer with a repeatability of 1ppm would show this up?
--- End quote ---
They have. Experimentalists since the 1880s tried desperately and with insanely sensitive equipment to try to find this aetherwind... and nada.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michelson%E2%80%93Morley_experiment
--- End quote ---
Prof Reg Cahill disagrees.
http://mountainman.com.au/process_physics/hps13.pdf

--- End quote ---

Science does not progress on the opinions of one person (or even the opinions of many). Science relies on rational conclusions drawn from well designed experiments. If multiple parties could verify any single experiment in a manner that suggests an 'aether' with consistant properties there'd be no discussion... aether would exist. At present, nobody can do that, experiments disagree and there is even an outright avoidance to repeating experiments consistanty: therefore aether does not exist with the properties you describe.

I'd guess you could latch on to the emerging possibility of an aether that explains some quantum entanglement studies... but that isn't the same aether you describe. So, specifically, your aether does not exist.

So, again, yes, some theories turn out to be wrong, some can neither be proven nor disproven and some are correct. Maybe we have it all wrong and maybe the foundations of human reasoning are wrong - but science is not what you think it is. Philosophy and maths begin with a set of axioms, rules and theorems from which aparently more complex topics are derived - science can be viewed as the study of how those apply to 'nature'. You can harbour whatever thoughts and opinions you like, as can any person, and you can believe them to be true, but on what grounds should any person to whom you tell them consider believing them?

Without any strong, peer reviewed and consistant experimental data, I personally couldn't accept your theory. I have, however, seen good data that correlates well with special relativity, on what grounds should I reject one over the other there?

aetherist:

--- Quote from: penfold on February 24, 2022, 10:53:06 am ---
--- Quote from: aetherist on February 24, 2022, 09:10:53 am ---
--- Quote from: HuronKing on February 24, 2022, 08:47:54 am ---
--- Quote from: adx on February 24, 2022, 06:29:36 am ---That's not impossible to measure. If you could arrange a reflection+timer apparatus to rotate into and out of the wind, then say for wind from N to S:
* apparatus N-S delay = 1/(599/600)+1/(601/600) = 2.000005556
* apparatus E-W delay = 1/(600/600)+1/(600/600) = 2
* apparatus S-N delay = 1/(601/600)+1/(599/600) = 2.000005556
* apparatus W-E delay = 1/(600/600)+1/(600/600) = 2Didn't they do this? Even a low-tech timer with a repeatability of 1ppm would show this up?
--- End quote ---
They have. Experimentalists since the 1880s tried desperately and with insanely sensitive equipment to try to find this aetherwind... and nada.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michelson%E2%80%93Morley_experiment
--- End quote ---
Prof Reg Cahill disagrees.
http://mountainman.com.au/process_physics/hps13.pdf

--- End quote ---

Science does not progress on the opinions of one person (or even the opinions of many). Science relies on rational conclusions drawn from well designed experiments. If multiple parties could verify any single experiment in a manner that suggests an 'aether' with consistant properties there'd be no discussion... aether would exist. At present, nobody can do that, experiments disagree and there is even an outright avoidance to repeating experiments consistanty: therefore aether does not exist with the properties you describe.

I'd guess you could latch on to the emerging possibility of an aether that explains some quantum entanglement studies... but that isn't the same aether you describe. So, specifically, your aether does not exist.

So, again, yes, some theories turn out to be wrong, some can neither be proven nor disproven and some are correct. Maybe we have it all wrong and maybe the foundations of human reasoning are wrong - but science is not what you think it is. Philosophy and maths begin with a set of axioms, rules and theorems from which aparently more complex topics are derived - science can be viewed as the study of how those apply to 'nature'. You can harbour whatever thoughts and opinions you like, as can any person, and you can believe them to be true, but on what grounds should any person to whom you tell them consider believing them?

Without any strong, peer reviewed and consistant experimental data, I personally couldn't accept your theory. I have, however, seen good data that correlates well with special relativity, on what grounds should I reject one over the other there?

--- End quote ---
Science advances one funeral at a time.
Aether has been proven. STR has been disproven.
None of Einstein's stuff has ever been peer reviewed, at least not at the time of publishing.

Navigation

[0] Message Index

[#] Next page

[*] Previous page

There was an error while thanking
Thanking...
Go to full version
Powered by SMFPacks Advanced Attachments Uploader Mod