| General > General Technical Chat |
| "Veritasium" (YT) - "The Big Misconception About Electricity" ? |
| << < (260/396) > >> |
| SandyCox:
You weren't able to spot the blatantly obvious mistake in Catt's paper. I assume that you are also unable to identify the mistakes in all these "papers". When can we expect equations that describe "new electric"? |
| adx:
--- 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 --- And there's my problem. Without commenting too much on the truth or intentions, coming at it from both sides are attempts to confirm a particular set of beliefs though canon and a chain of trust. I'm not saying either is wrong or that there is anything unreasonable about the approach, and in the past I have whiled away time I probably should have spent on something more productive, reading about the Michelson–Morley experiment and pondering on the theoretical practicalities of moving and synchronising clocks. But that's not what I asked. I posed an experimental test which should be able to confirm or deny a theory asserted as fact, in a straightforward manner without having to overly worry about experimental design and falsifiability etc. It's a bit like using a pre-validated sky colour tester to answer whether the sky is blue. It comes up black, and you know what is probably going on (never with complete certainty), but you can be fairly certain the sky isn't blue. My test is not far off a restatement of the claim, without additional baggage, or needing to worry about the precise vagaries of aether theories old and new. It's technically easy, not dungeon-size, fast, and although the expected 2-way slowdown disappears much quicker than the claimed difference in aether speed, timing is immensely good these days and can delve into the (non)existence of aetherwinds much slower than claimed (which is a pretty adamant claim, and doesn't permit things like length contraction in the time calculation). If it fails to detect the effect claimed, then we start delving into whether the clocks and distances might change in accordance with some other theory which would produce a null 2-way slowdown. But then we're into shaky territory where we can expect the situation to collapse into farce once more, like it did with the Michelson–Morley experiment, for the same reasons it did, and for that theory to be indistinguishable from Einstein's relativistic aether. Which is not to prove it, but it will do your cause no good, if that should transpire. It doesn't do you any harm, it just says Mr and Mrs Einstein get to keep their original, non-3D-printed medal, because they got there first. So I suggest we don't go there, and only answer what is easy to do on a bench top with 7 digit frequency counter and some bearings. But I suggest we don't go there aither (oops understandable typo) because this is the sort of thing engineers do all day and don't see a thing. So in the end I'm just asking some questions, really around that point. |
| aetherist:
--- Quote from: SandyCox on February 24, 2022, 11:07:04 am ---You weren't able to spot the blatantly obvious mistake in Catt's paper. I assume that you are also unable to identify the mistakes in all these "papers". When can we expect equations that describe "new electric"? --- End quote --- Which mistake. I think u mean Cahill's paper. What mistakes in the other papers. I have read all of them & i dont remember any mistakes, but it was a long time ago. Equations have given us Higgs gluons gravitons etc. These only exist in mathland. Electons are not mathland. |
| aetherist:
--- Quote from: adx on February 24, 2022, 11:16:14 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 --- And there's my problem. Without commenting too much on the truth or intentions, coming at it from both sides are attempts to confirm a particular set of beliefs though canon and a chain of trust. I'm not saying either is wrong or that there is anything unreasonable about the approach, and in the past I have whiled away time I probably should have spent on something more productive, reading about the Michelson–Morley experiment and pondering on the theoretical practicalities of moving and synchronising clocks. But that's not what I asked. I posed an experimental test which should be able to confirm or deny a theory asserted as fact, in a straightforward manner without having to overly worry about experimental design and falsifiability etc. It's a bit like using a pre-validated sky colour tester to answer whether the sky is blue. It comes up black, and you know what is probably going on (never with complete certainty), but you can be fairly certain the sky isn't blue. My test is not far off a restatement of the claim, without additional baggage, or needing to worry about the precise vagaries of aether theories old and new. It's technically easy, not dungeon-size, fast, and although the expected 2-way slowdown disappears much quicker than the claimed difference in aether speed, timing is immensely good these days and can delve into the (non)existence of aetherwinds much slower than claimed (which is a pretty adamant claim, and doesn't permit things like length contraction in the time calculation). If it fails to detect the effect claimed, then we start delving into whether the clocks and distances might change in accordance with some other theory which would produce a null 2-way slowdown. But then we're into shaky territory where we can expect the situation to collapse into farce once more, like it did with the Michelson–Morley experiment, for the same reasons it did, and for that theory to be indistinguishable from Einstein's relativistic aether. Which is not to prove it, but it will do your cause no good, if that should transpire. It doesn't do you any harm, it just says Mr and Mrs Einstein get to keep their original, non-3D-printed medal, because they got there first. So I suggest we don't go there, and only answer what is easy to do on a bench top with 7 digit frequency counter and some bearings. But I suggest we don't go there aither (oops understandable typo) because this is the sort of thing engineers do all day and don't see a thing. So in the end I'm just asking some questions, really around that point. --- End quote --- I think we have been talking about 2 kinds of experiments. (1) Experiments to test my new (electon) electricity. Mainly an X re the speed of electricity along a threaded bar. (2) Experiments to test my idea that the speed of electon electricity along a wire is influenced by the aetherwind. The (1) kind will be i think very easy to do. The (2) kind of experiment would be tricky. And as i said two have already been done (DeWitte in 1991)(Torr & Kolen in 1981). (3) I think that your X can be called a third kind, ie (3) here. U are talking about a reflexion at the end of the wire coming back to the scope. So, the signal has a tailwind in one direction, & a headwind in the other. So, we get the average speed. And then we compare that average speed to the average speed for the east-west orientation, where the electons will have a side-wind to fight against. So then we have to compare the slowing of the headwind/tailwind to the slowing of the sidewind/sidewind. And here we have to juggle lots of decimal places. But, it gets worse, the aetherwind causes length contraction, & this tends to reduce the difference in the numbers that we are comparing to almost zero. In fact in vacuum the difference is zero (at least it is for 2nd order effects), which is why most modern interferometer tests for invariance do indeed show an invariance, & all of the Einsteinists sleep soundly. But all such tests ever done in air have all shown an aetherwind signal, every time, no exceptions. And in the modern era the tests are now so accurate that a signal can be seen even when vacuum is used, ie they can see the very weak 3rd order or 4th order signals, which needs about 12 decimals. But the Einsteinists always find an excuse to remove these signals, they blame systematic effects, ignoring the fact that the aetherwind signals are systematic effects. Anyhow, type (3) experiments have to be very clever, temperature is usually the main problem. (4) The best way to do type (3) might be to do an electric version of Demjanov's twin media MMX. He used air & carbon disulphide, & his MMX was 1000 times as sensitive as the oldendays MMXs. In fact his was less than 500 mm by 500 mm, with 6 mirrors, while the oldendays MMXs were often 4200 mm by 4200 mm with 16 mirrors. An electric version might use the twin media of air (ie a bare wire) & plastic (ie an insulated wire). Yes, that might do it. In fact that might be my cleverest bit of thinking in 2022, the electon being my cleverest bit of thinking in 2021. No, the screw-thread X has to be my cleverest bit of thinking in 2022. So simple, yet so clever. Anyhow, a twin-media (air & plastic) electricity version (& using a scope) of the oldendays MMX (they used light & interferometry) might be brilliant. |
| penfold:
--- Quote from: aetherist on February 24, 2022, 11:01:51 am ---[...] 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. --- End quote --- I can accept an inferred peer review from the enormous quantity of work over the years on the development of STR. What definition of 'proven' and 'disproven' are you using? I assumed that the definition I go by was reasonably universal, but I may be wrong. The dictionary definition probably uses the word 'truth' but thats a bit connotative of 'absolute truth'; 'verified' or 'showing agreement with experiental data' is closer to what I'm considering proof here. In the stricter sense, proof would be a 'demonstration through rational argument of an agreement with a concrete truth', but, lets just stick some some valid evidence for the moment. |
| Navigation |
| Message Index |
| Next page |
| Previous page |