| General > General Technical Chat |
| "Veritasium" (YT) - "The Big Misconception About Electricity" ? |
| << < (264/396) > >> |
| aetherist:
--- Quote from: TimFox on February 24, 2022, 09:57:04 pm ---Einstein's four seminal papers from 1905 in Annalen der Physik were peer-reviewed by the Editor-in-Chief Max Planck and the Co-Editor Wilhelm Wien, both scientists of some reknown who later won Nobel Prizes. It is true that Einstein later was highly critical of the process of peer review, when his draft paper was shown to other specialists before publication. Modern peer review became popular in the mid 20th century. Wikipedia's article https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scholarly_peer_review discusses the process, history, and controversies about scholarly peer review. --- End quote --- Opening the mail, & checking to see if it came to the correct address, is not peer review. Science papers that mention aether are automatically dumped into the waste paper bucket today (or returned) by office assistants who have never done much science, the papers dont reach the editors. Einsteinists have to get around this by calling the aether quantum foam, or dynamic space, or vacuum energy or somesuch. Einsteinists rule. But the www & youtube etc is slowly changing things. The aether will return. I would award Nobels to .. Demjanov -- for his invention & work with his twinmedia MMX which confirmed aetherwind, & for his discovery of the proper calibration of MMXs. Cahill -- for his inventions & work on the aetherwind & aetherwind turbulence, & for his separate discovery of the proper calibration of MMXs. Ranzan -- for his explanation of the dynamic steady state cellular universe, including his explanation of redshift. aetherist -- for his discovery of electons, being the main cause of electricity on a wire, especially for his screw-thread X. Pollack -- for his discovery of EZ water, & for his explanation of electrical weather. On the electricity side (in addition to aetherist & Pollack), we have Catt & Bishop & Wakefield, jointly, for showing that old electricity (electron drift) is false. Crothers -- for showing that Einstein's equations for GTR etc are false. Pierre Marie Robitaille -- for explaining that the CMBR is false. Plus we have all of the aetherists throo history, now dead -- Morley Miller Ives & many others. Arp, & Shnoll, now dead -- for their work. |
| eugene:
--- Quote from: aetherist on February 24, 2022, 10:14:36 pm ---Science papers that mention aether are automatically dumped into the waste paper bucket today (or returned) by office assistants who have never done much science, the papers dont reach the editors. --- End quote --- You might be right. The US Patent Office will not consider any patent that claims to have invented perpetual motion. There's a reason for that... |
| adx:
--- Quote from: aetherist on February 24, 2022, 08:04:25 pm ---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. --- End quote --- Ok I had that detail wrong - apologies for that. Your statement is also short of the truth. I was going to say I thought it was penfold but chose not to check a thing in the interests of sleep. Here is the original text to focus in on this point: --- Quote from: aetherist on February 10, 2022, 11:59:18 pm --- --- Quote from: penfold on February 10, 2022, 10:47:49 am --- --- Quote from: aetherist on February 10, 2022, 01:35:11 am ---[...]The reason i don’t like drift is that it can't explain how electricity propagates at the speed of light, ... --- End quote --- ... Would a surface current also not imply a rather significant increase in resistance for conductors with a particularly rough or serrated surface? --- End quote --- ... I agree re serrations. New electricity could be tested by using a say wire with a serrated surface. I don’t think that serration would have much effect on resistance, it would mainly affect distance, ie time. A threaded surface might say double the effective length of the wire (or rod or pipe). The extra time for propagation would show. And i am confident that this test would be fatal for old electricity. Howardlong could do the test(s), using his 20 GHz scope, using say 12" of threaded steel rod, versus 12" of plain rod. Hmmmm -- a threaded pipe might be a problem, ie threaded outside, smooth inside. Electons could sneak throo the central short-cut. But a pipe might introduce some other aspects that might give us some new info. Dunno. --- End quote --- Serrations weren't (your idea), threads were (and only add practicality but the helix does not affect your principle as you later seemed to confirm), and so was your surprising suggestion that it would affect the propagation time, and even more surprising suggestion of a directly falsifiable test. To be perfectly honest I thought you were latching onto this idea purely because it hadn't already been tested out in plain view, giving your then-new theory about electons a life they were otherwise destined not to have, driven by pathological confirmation bias. That is why I said that when later discussing the test, and was reluctant to suggest a way forward beyond some possible ground rules. I didn't say "just test it" or whatever you recently claimed I said, my expectation of the null result I've alluded to a few times leads me to suspect with near certainty that you would find a need to change those rules or discredit the test. Your roo-tons arose from that discussion, and although I agree you had no desire to invoke them, a thread-hopping scenario was ripe for the plucking if you ever got your theory too hopelessly trapped. If you weren't at least partly aware of what you are doing then I would simply look upon it as a full-blown delusion and I guess steer clear entirely - but it's not, is it? I know you know that. My simple point is, science can't work that way in general, it might in your head, but people in general are as unable to swallow it as you are unable to swallow a confounding result. It's a sliding scale of course, with some people so rigidly accepting of a set of scientific principles that they abandon all creativity. Very few to none of them here though, they all seem to be more interested in the madness that resides outside of all our heads, rather than within. Ie, the theories. |
| aetherist:
--- Quote from: eugene on February 24, 2022, 10:46:12 pm --- --- Quote from: aetherist on February 24, 2022, 10:14:36 pm ---Science papers that mention aether are automatically dumped into the waste paper bucket today (or returned) by office assistants who have never done much science, the papers dont reach the editors. --- End quote --- You might be right. The US Patent Office will not consider any patent that claims to have invented perpetual motion. There's a reason for that... --- End quote --- But a lowly patent officer came up with time dilation. And started the present Dark Age of science. |
| HuronKing:
--- Quote from: aetherist on February 24, 2022, 10:14:36 pm --- Pierre Marie Robitaille -- for explaining that the CMBR is false. --- End quote --- Ooo he's a fun one. The CMBR isn't false - just Pierre's laughable inability to even understand what it is. He's kinda like you in that regard: blatantly ignorant of even the basic tenets of the physics at play. This video explains why: |
| Navigation |
| Message Index |
| Next page |
| Previous page |