General > General Technical Chat

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

<< < (277/396) > >>

aetherist:

--- Quote from: Alex Eisenhut on February 27, 2022, 05:31:10 pm ---Oh I see now, "electon" is your name for your pet theory. Nice. How about protons? There are energy levels inside the nucleus, shifting those around causes gamma rays. Are they photons?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_isomer
And doing a TDR of a threaded rod vs a smooth rod should be easy, I have some 1S2 3.9GHz plugins... none of which work, really. :-DD
--- End quote ---
Gamma rays are i think always photons.
Radio waves are not photons, they are pure em radiation.
Electons are photons that are hugging the wire.
Photons have a neutral nett em field, at least in the far field, but for some reason electons have a non-nett em field in the far field (hence electons give us electricity).

I have never used a scope. But 3.9 GHz sounds good to me (ie fast enuff)(better than 100 MHz). This might not need a long circuit of threaded rods, one 2.4 m threaded rod might be enough to give a rough answer (that screw-thread slows electricity), but the more rods the more accurate the answer (& adx is not going to cough up re our bet without a fight).
Part B of the test of course needs a plain bar or bars.

Electons are the core of my new (electon) electricity, but my new (electon) electricity also includes a (very slow) component of electricity involving the flow of free-surface-electrons along the outside of a wire. In the case of a capacitor these electrons account for a half of the stored energy/charge. The bottom line is that i do not agree with Heaviside & Steinmetz & Tesla & Catt & Bishop & Co (& Feynman)(& Thompson)(or was it Thomson) that electrons do not exist. And i am happy with the general notion of drifting electrons, & that they might contribute to electricity, but i say that that contribution is insignificant. Just saying.

aetherist:

--- Quote from: TimFox on February 27, 2022, 03:04:52 pm ---The easiest to understand experimental evidence for time dilation in the real world involved flying "atomic clocks" in opposite directions on jetliners back in 1971.
Perhaps you heard about it?  http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/Relativ/airtim.html
Note that both gravitational (general relativity) and the larger kinematic (special relativity) effects are quantitatively important in the predictions that agree nicely with the experimental results.

--- End quote ---
A G Kelly tells us that Hafele & Keating disproved time dilation.
http://www.cartesio-episteme.net/h%26kpaper.htm

aetherist:

--- Quote from: adx on February 27, 2022, 11:50:59 am ---
--- Quote from: aetherist on February 26, 2022, 09:25:51 pm ---<better snip that longness>
--- End quote ---
Unfortunately I think I can understand it (I have oft wondered if it's like the way drunk people at parties appear drunk and silly when you're sober, but completely normal if you're not - I can only assume it also applies for madness).

The lack of difference between a transmitting antenna and a receiving antenna occurs in full duplex operation. In that instance the same antenna in the same location and at the same time transmits and receives something which isn't its own signal. Because an antenna is indistinguishable from itself in this situation, despite the fact it is doing 2 different things at once, it can't be said it is different from itself. Most cellphones are full duplex (transmit and receive at the same time), AFAIK it is only 2G GSM and so-called "TDMA" that operate in a TDMA mode (nodes do alternate transmit and receive separated in time). Single-antenna radar is an example of where the transmitting antenna and a receiving antenna are different, even though they are the same; at one point in time it transmits, later on it receives. There is no physical change needed for this difference to manifest - the antenna is otherwise the same, and shares the same resonance frequency and stuff (in this sense by same I mean not different). If the same type of antenna is transmitting in one location and receiving in another, then yes the difference is some number of km or other arbitrary distance (also of course another difference exists, being that the antennas are different ones because they are not the same antenna). But the exact same differences exist between 2 such antennas that are both transmitting, or both receiving, or just sitting there doing something like nothing, or collecting rain drops, bird drops, who knows.

But in that latter combination (Tx something=nothing, Rx something=nothing), old cans of Bud Light will perform admirably at any distance (whether modified to be cantennae or not). Similar to if I wanted to take part in a speed typing competition but chose to abstain as the winning strategum, then I could cut the lids off, cram my hands in there (carefully), and achieve the same wpm of 0 (or perhaps 1, depending on the size of the backspace key, and whether and where I emptied them first) as trying to do my clattery-mashey-shortey best. But I see your point, in that you are talking about Tx and Rx being involved in the same communication, and thus part of an interdependent system where we are trying to tease apart effects which can occur on transmission and reception and even some sort of intermediate field / X-ton tennis fixture / aetheirc medium.

On the other hand (either, as both have cans), whenever I made the same kind of silly pedantic arguments thinking I was being clever, it never worked out well because it left me looking like a nut. Refer to this post if you’re not already reading it now for a good example.

Still, it's possibly the most sense you have made so far, because it shows you are thinking from first principles and a crystal of logic is forming, even if it redissolves.

Of your rain options, the correct ones by conventional theory and knowledge are "IS IS" and "AINT AINT". I'd say in equal proportion, because evidence can't determine what counts as subjectively significant affect (but some people turn to counting Google hits for this data). Conventional theory and measurement does not know of IS/AINT and AINT/IS. Which is why SandyCox said there is no fundamental difference between a transmitting and receiving antenna. That rules out 2 of 4 differences, leaving 2 differences which are the same, in turn leaving 1 difference, which can't be different from itself, so there are really 0 differences. Which is why SandyCox said there is no fundamental difference between a transmitting and receiving antenna. Logic 101 (I reversed the order of the digits to make it more mysterious and "mine").

I learnt what gibbers are though.

No, I didn't say "that insulation on an antenna affected its power by only a few %", I was talking about the (happy) frequency you wished I had referred to. In that wetantennas article, something like the peak in Q changes from (for DL6WU 12 vs DL6WU 12 (wet)) 153MHz to 150.5MHz which is a 1.6% drop in frequency. So I was "referring to the ratios of the happy frequencies, not the ratio of the powers". I thought by using the word "detune" after you had spoken of "frequency", might lend you to understand something along the lines of tuning a radio across the dial, rather than putting a Tesla on a dyno to eke out the last bit of power from the aftermarket turbo you had fitted. I forgot about RCB (rampant confirmation bias).

Um bored now. That would be a mic drop but I already lost it about the same time I spewed down my own shirt and fell into the front row of the crowd. It's been a terrible show.
--- End quote ---

The point i was trying to make re IS/AINT & AINT/IS  is that a wet antenna can cause problems, but that these problems are worse if the transmitting antenna is wet & the receiving antenna is dry (IS/AINT) & if the transmitting antenna is dry & the receiving antenna is wet (AINT/IS).

It was a peripheral side issue, of no great moment re my electons, nor re the Veritasium gedanken. I only brought it up koz someone said that wetness or insulation acted on both the transmitting antenna & the receiving antenna, & i showed that there were four combinations not two, & that two of these were not a "both" scenario.

In fact this whole foray into the antenna world has been of no great moment re my electons etc.  We have not explored the notion that Veritasium's bulb will have a weak spike of current soon after 1/c seconds (ie due to a radio crosstalk signal from the leading edge of the current going through his switch), which is no great loss, the weak spike has no hope of being seen in AlphaPhoenix's X, ie compared to his nice early signal of 0.2 V.

TimFox:
Your source does not state that Hafele & Keating "disproved time dilation"--it alleges that the rig had larger experimental errors than stated in their paper.
Here is a much later discussion that includes the corrections from time dilation that are needed in GPS, with tighter errors than back in 1971.
https://phys.libretexts.org/Bookshelves/Relativity/Book%3A_General_Relativity_(Crowell)/01%3A_Geometric_Theory_of_Spacetime/1.02%3A__Experimental_Tests_of_the_Nature_of_Time
It also discusses the other examples, such as muon lifetime, that might not be as easy to understand.
Time dilation is not "silly".

aetherist:

--- Quote from: TimFox on February 27, 2022, 09:52:45 pm ---Your source does not state that Hafele & Keating "disproved time dilation"--it alleges that the rig had larger experimental errors than stated in their paper.
Here is a much later discussion that includes the corrections from time dilation that are needed in GPS, with tighter errors than back in 1971.
https://phys.libretexts.org/Bookshelves/Relativity/Book%3A_General_Relativity_(Crowell)/01%3A_Geometric_Theory_of_Spacetime/1.02%3A__Experimental_Tests_of_the_Nature_of_Time
It also discusses the other examples, such as muon lifetime, that might not be as easy to understand.
Time dilation is not "silly".

--- End quote ---
Kelly says that all in all the clocks were not good enough to show anything definite. He did point out that the tests showed zero time dilation, & i reckon that zero means "disproof".
In addition Kelly points out that rather than being negative, the results suggested the reverse for time dilation,  ie H&K proved time contraction (my words).

The rate changes are random and could have occurred in either a + or - direction. Clock 120 altered in drift-rate by +4.39ns/h on the Eastward test and by -4.31ns/h on the Westward test; we should not say that this clock had an average drift-rate change of 0.04ns/h; indeed this was the clock with the most erratic performance. This is like saying that a watch, which gained ten hours in the first week and lost ten in the second, is a perfect timekeeper! From Figure 1, Clock 447 can be interpreted as having a small alteration in drift from 100 hours into the test period to the end of the Westward test. Had this clock, with the most steady performance, been chosen,the overall result would have been zero......

..... The trend shown in Figure 2 was derived from the average of the four clocks. The results from the individual clocks was not disclosed; they are published here for the first time in Columns 2 and 5 of Table 3. Taking the mathematical average of Columns 2 or 5 is meaningless; on the Eastward trip, clock 408 gained 166ns, while the theory forecast a loss of 40ns; on the Westward trip clock 361 lost 44ns, while the theory forecast a gain of 275ns! ......

I will have a read of that link & get back.

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