General > General Technical Chat
"Veritasium" (YT) - "The Big Misconception About Electricity" ?
<< < (267/396) > >>
bpiphany:
Yup, those COBE and Planck satellites really picked up on the signal from earth's oceans =D
penfold:

--- Quote from: aetherist on February 25, 2022, 08:15:55 am ---[...]
The Herouni antenna excludes the  signal from the oceans, & it tells us that the signal from the sky is zero, zilch, nix, nada, nought, nothing.
<>

--- End quote ---

Seeing how you said ealier that the internet, wiki, youtube etc is changing the face of research. Yes it is, in one regard it is fantastic, it is possible to share research and data accross the world, data visualisation and analysis aren't quite the epic tasks they used to be and all this can be shared with accedemics alike, and the general public. There are some good open access and low pay-wall journals. But the problem with sharing data so fast and openly, most noteably with CERN, is that it is possible to draw some very premature and incorrect conclusions - remember the faster than light particles at CERN circa 2010? It immediately hit the papers that faster than light particles were detected - esentially they were, but only because the time synchronisation had failed between detector stations.

So, one one hand it is good that so many people are getting involved and taking an interest, but it is actually very damaging also to the fringe-physics theories themselves, it pushes them into their own dark age... ironically. I don't even use the term fringe-physics in a derogatory sense, we have shadow governments, peer review and fringe-festivals as a counter-point to tradiation and main-stream for a reason. But the more background noise, the less of it actually gets considered and honestly critiqued - the result being that most people stand-by theories without a proper discourse and the harsher the ridicule of 'cranks'.

So, where that video you presented draws a conclusion of "there must be no experimental errors because no accedemics replied" is not necesarily a good conclusion at all, there are many reasons an accedemic won't respond to unsolicited requests for review.
adx:

--- Quote from: aetherist on February 25, 2022, 07:50:29 am ---Yes, interesting. It appears that antennas are another box that my electons tick.

--- End quote ---

Maybe, in a qualitative sense (I swore off commenting on your electon theory a few pages ago, because it does no good to have me guessing).

But there is some way to go in a quantitative sense; your 50% prediction in antenna length difference changed to 1% (difference per article), and your delay numbers in my aether test apparatus needed a tweak down by a factor of 1000 after I showed this would be easily testable also. I've shown at least a couple of ways the threaded rod experiment will show delay despite asserting it won't (certainly not ~50% more), this isn't a contradiction but comes down to splitting hairs over definitions (like whether 2 orders of magnitude is significant - to each their own). It's early days, your theory is still evolving, no one can expect it to be perfect at this stage.

And I think that's about all I can say.
SandyCox:

--- Quote from: aetherist on February 24, 2022, 08:33:15 pm ---
--- 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.

--- End quote ---
No. It doesn't. Their dynamic behavior is totally different. You can see this by comparing the two-port representations of the capacitor and transmission line:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Two-port_network

(And no. It's not my problem if you do not have the mathematical skills to understand two-port representations in the s domain. It just confirms that you are totally out of your depth.)

Catt measures the dynamic behavior of a transmission line in his paper.  He then compares it to dynamic behavior of a capacitor and foolishly concludes that the theory is wrong.

Your theory is unable to produce numbers. What use does it have?
aetherist:

--- Quote from: penfold on February 25, 2022, 09:22:46 am ---
--- Quote from: aetherist on February 25, 2022, 08:15:55 am ---[...]
The Herouni antenna excludes the  signal from the oceans, & it tells us that the signal from the sky is zero, zilch, nix, nada, nought, nothing.<>
--- End quote ---
Seeing how you said ealier that the internet, wiki, youtube etc is changing the face of research. Yes it is, in one regard it is fantastic, it is possible to share research and data accross the world, data visualisation and analysis aren't quite the epic tasks they used to be and all this can be shared with accedemics alike, and the general public. There are some good open access and low pay-wall journals. But the problem with sharing data so fast and openly, most noteably with CERN, is that it is possible to draw some very premature and incorrect conclusions - remember the faster than light particles at CERN circa 2010? It immediately hit the papers that faster than light particles were detected - esentially they were, but only because the time synchronisation had failed between detector stations.

So, one one hand it is good that so many people are getting involved and taking an interest, but it is actually very damaging also to the fringe-physics theories themselves, it pushes them into their own dark age... ironically. I don't even use the term fringe-physics in a derogatory sense, we have shadow governments, peer review and fringe-festivals as a counter-point to tradiation and main-stream for a reason. But the more background noise, the less of it actually gets considered and honestly critiqued - the result being that most people stand-by theories without a proper discourse and the harsher the ridicule of 'cranks'.

So, where that video you presented draws a conclusion of "there must be no experimental errors because no accedemics replied" is not necesarily a good conclusion at all, there are many reasons an accedemic won't respond to unsolicited requests for review.
--- End quote ---
Thats not what i see. I see a top scientist writing a top paper showing that the CMBR does not exist, & i see that no-one responded, & i see that he had invited comments from 10 leading laboratories, & none responded. U are inferring that some might have seen some possible errors but could not bother to report or reply.
I have seen only one criticism of Herouni's paper, & this mainly said that he was using old fashioned analogue instruments. It ignored that he had the best telescope the world had ever seen -- unique.
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