| General > General Technical Chat |
| "Veritasium" (YT) - "The Big Misconception About Electricity" ? |
| << < (262/396) > >> |
| bpiphany:
I have lost track of who is trolling who in this thread… https://www.reddit.com/r/confidentlyincorrect/comments/t068jb/e_equals_not_mc_squared/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=ios_app&utm_name=iossmf |
| aetherist:
--- Quote from: adx on February 24, 2022, 01:11:28 pm --- --- Quote from: aetherist on February 24, 2022, 12:03:37 pm ---<snip stuff getting long just keeping for the link above> --- End quote --- So my experiment wouldn't work it seems. There is an unanticipated (by me, and your numeric claims) side-wind effect which cancels or mostly cancels the headwind slowing tailwind speeding. It really sounds to me like you simply don't understand what I said, when you mention "average speed", which is the same whichever way my apparatus is pointing (that just doesn't sound right). And there is now suddenly a correction to your given delay figures for length contraction (which I know you described earlier, so was inconsistent with your calcs, but is another strike against your calcs - I admit an inaptitude with numbers myself so perhaps the mistake is mine). Can you see how this is rolling straight down from Lorentz land to come to unavoidable rest in Einstein land, like I said? Because of its various adjustments and tweaks to minimise the otherwise easily measurable (my experiment isn't very clever and is just the first thing that came to mind after seeing your numbers), your theory is progressively removing all measurable effects from the aether's grip. I'm not extremely against your theory, I just think if you don't think up something new real soon, you have unavoidably already landed very close to special relativity. I like your twin media idea, but because thin insulation makes no difference to the speed of electricity down a wire, it's not going to achieve much, unfortunately. Your screw thread idea was actually someone else's here. Nobody seems keen to say, but that will also fail because it also will have no effect on speed (unless it's my "solid core delay line" from earlier to mix cats and pigeons, dangerously). It's good you provided a much clearer description of things like ticking dilation, but the above is a problem of facts, which end up rolling down from Newton Mountain through Maxwell Pass and Heaviside Steppe, on to Lorentz Hill then come to rest in Einstein Flat. That doesn't mean there are no other paths or further jouneys (which there are), just we have a lot mapped out for us, and how far off the beaten track you want to travel is up to the explorer. Just beware trying to beat a path into the sea. --- End quote --- Your north-south & east-west & south-north & west-east & back to north-south kind of electrical X can work. I forgot that Reg Cahill has already done lots of such Xs using coax. And he got an aetherwind signal. Yes, length contraction will affect the 1/(c+V) stuff that i mentioned yesterday. I didn’t mention it koz my stuff is getting too complicated for readers here anyhow. And i didn’t expect anyone to be following so closely & realizing anyhow, so well done. But length contraction duznt make things impossible, re experiments & tests, it just makes things harder, ie the measurements have to a thousand times as accurate (unless we use a twin media wire)(bare wire & plastic coated wire). I don’t need anything new. My electons tick all of the boxes (& nothing else comes close). The screw-thread X will simply add another box that electons tick (& nothing else ticks). The screw-thread X is just the cherry on top of the icecream. What????? When did u decide that insulation on wire duznt affect the speed of electricity on the wire? No, the screw-thread X idea was my idea. I did however think of it after the question of roughness of the surface of a wire was mentioned. And i already knew about roughness affecting the speed of electricity anyhow. I have said very little about ticking dilation. Just enough to point out that time dilation is crazy. But i could start another thread about ticking dilation. I have lots of good stuff about that. Actually, it touches on anti-gravity of sorts. That would really start a commotion around here. |
| penfold:
--- Quote from: HuronKing on February 24, 2022, 05:30:53 pm --- --- Quote from: penfold on February 24, 2022, 12:55:17 pm ---An electron is just as much a mathematical object as any other (detected) particle. Experimental evidence has shown that an entity or phenomina matching the characteristics of a Higgs exists just as much as an entity or phenomina matching the characteristics an electron exists. [...] --- End quote --- I agree with much of what you said - though I would add that cloud chamber experiments offer something more than mathematics to ascribe some sense of physical reality to these particles. We can see the traces of these particles and we can see them deflect in the presence of magnetic fields. [...] --- End quote --- An excellent example. What I was really trying to convey is that as much as there is "something" in nature we call an electron that produces a distinct signature in a cloud-chamber/bubble-chamber/calorimiter/sparkgap/scintillator, the higgs is no different, albeit in a much more complex experiment. I suppose the point of contention may be that the higgs was theorised before discovery and a specific experiment was designed to reveal it. The cloud chamber is particularly interesting in this context because it also shows up muons as rather distinct entities... and delayed muon decay shows evidence of relativity. In addition to the GM tube are the scintillation detectors that produce a good discrimination between particle types. Using that discrimination with detectors in arrays can determine direction and characteristics of particles simultaneously. And those properties and detectors when applied to muons can be used to "x-ray" things like the great pyramids and is a proven technology in as much as getting correct results for known objects - all that can only exist due to relativistic effects... otherwise the muons would have decayed before getting close. |
| aetherist:
--- Quote from: penfold on February 24, 2022, 12:12:55 pm --- --- 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. --- End quote --- Einstein got one peer review for one of his papers & the result was that he withdrew his paper in protest & published in a different journal, & never submitted another paper ever again to the offending journal. What a guy. --- Quote from: penfold on February 24, 2022, 12:12:55 pm ---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 experimental 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. --- End quote --- I think that i am happy to go along with -- A theory can be proven wrong, but it can't be proven correct. An X can confirm, but it can't prove. Who was it here that mentioned that science is a consensus. That mightbeso, but if it is then that is a criticism of science. Koz it should only take one fact, one scientist, to sink a flawed theory. However, Einsteinists are good at stopping that one scientist from publishing. |
| aetherist:
--- Quote from: SandyCox on February 24, 2022, 12:25:32 pm --- --- Quote from: aetherist on February 24, 2022, 11:18:26 am --- --- 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. --- End quote --- Let's try one last time: He confused a transmission line with a capacitor. And no the two are not the same! Electons live in crazy land. --- End quote --- A fully charged DC transmission line, having 2 parallel closely space wires, acts exactly like a capacitor. Especially if it is a coax. And AC might, in a way, sometimes. A capacitor might have a more complicated geometry, which might make direct comparison difficult in some ways. But my electons tick all of the boxes for TLs & for capacitors. So i don’t know why u are worried about it. |
| Navigation |
| Message Index |
| Next page |
| Previous page |