General > General Technical Chat

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

<< < (281/396) > >>

adx:

--- Quote from: aetherist on February 27, 2022, 09:52:08 pm ---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.

--- End quote ---

Yes I know, but you explained it in the most perplexing way possible. Two of your "differences" between wet and dry antennas were wet and dry behaving the same. You also advanced a troll-like argument that a fundamental difference between Tx and Rx is a physical distance in km. It shows you're thinking, I'll grant you that.

aetherist:

--- Quote from: TimFox on February 28, 2022, 12:29:51 am ---By the way, Rutherford used alpha particles emitted from a radium source, with a kinetic energy of approximately 4.6 MeV.  Since the rest mass of an alpha particle (helium nucleus) is about 3.7 GeV/c2, 800 times higher, the kinematics of his experiment are non-relativistic (kinetic energy much less than rest mass), so classical mechanics and Coulomb forces suffice to describe the results, including the famous back-scattering that shows the small dimensions of the scattering center (nucleus), compared with the "plum pudding" model (negative electrons embedded in a cloud of positive charge) postulated by Thomson.
--- End quote ---
I dont remember ever looking into that stuff, but i should. I suppose that an equivalent % backscatter could be got if the plumpuddings were small & had lots of space tween puddings. Anyhow all of that is well over my head.

Over the years i usually only spent time on stuff if it looked like it affected my precious aether. A sort of aether profiling.
Or today i guess i can add electon profiling.

Alex Eisenhut:
Do you have any PCB design guidelines using your theory that could be useful?

aetherist:

--- Quote from: Alex Eisenhut on February 28, 2022, 05:23:57 am ---Do you have any PCB design guidelines using your theory that could be useful?
--- End quote ---
No i had to google to find out what a PCB was a few weeks ago. And now i am an expert.
All i know is that Catt reckons that in critical areas both sides of the "wire" should be covered to reduce diffusion.
And i have watched lots of Eric Bogatin's stuff. He talks about an evergrowing spike of crosstalk current on the parallel secondary trace following opposite the leading edge of the current on the primary trace, & a diffused pulse on the secondary trace going the other way. I think that Eric might reckon that the currents on the secondary trace was radio crosstalk (cant remember).
But as i explained earlier in this thread i see that that there crosstalk as being due to surface electrons being squeezed out along the surface of the secondary trace in both directions, by induction from my electons hugging the primary trace (& the leading edge of the primary current duznt have a major role)(i mean compared to the role of the leading edge if indeed the crosstalk is due to radio, which i dont think it is).
And my electons propagate at the speed of light in the plastic (touching the trace). And the squeezed electrons flow at c/100 or c/1000 or c/10000 or somesuch, in the plastic (touching the trace)(but all of that is a work in progress)(thats why i am here)(getting ideas).

penfold:

--- Quote from: aetherist on February 28, 2022, 02:20:32 am ---
--- Quote from: TimFox on February 28, 2022, 12:29:51 am ---By the way, Rutherford used alpha particles emitted from a radium source, with a kinetic energy of approximately 4.6 MeV.  Since the rest mass of an alpha particle (helium nucleus) is about 3.7 GeV/c2, 800 times higher, the kinematics of his experiment are non-relativistic (kinetic energy much less than rest mass), so classical mechanics and Coulomb forces suffice to describe the results, including the famous back-scattering that shows the small dimensions of the scattering center (nucleus), compared with the "plum pudding" model (negative electrons embedded in a cloud of positive charge) postulated by Thomson.
--- End quote ---
I dont remember ever looking into that stuff, but i should. I suppose that an equivalent % backscatter could be got if the plumpuddings were small & had lots of space tween puddings. Anyhow all of that is well over my head.

Over the years i usually only spent time on stuff if it looked like it affected my precious aether. A sort of aether profiling.
Or today i guess i can add electon profiling.

--- End quote ---

The equivalent backscatter is met only by an arrangement with similar properties of a Bohr model. An aether that could support enough of a force between 'externally neutral' plum-puddings, enough to hold matter together, wouldn't be susceptible to aetherwind. Maybe that explains why conventional science has disproven aetherwind on so many counts.

Interestingly with atomic structure, the 'new electricity' cannot explain the electron microscopy results of an energised circuit. I'm still intrigued by your process of 'profiling' or cherry-picking results that confirm your theory, without a quantified version of your theory, how is it possible to make a fair comparison between 'fringe' and 'conventional' physics?

With the maths, why not start with a high-dimension quasi-space-time algebra and develop from there, you can still have a 3D+time system within that structure and if that's genuinely all that's needed, the higher dimensions will just vanish through normalisation and in your choice of metric. Start with something simple like the motion of an electron beam in E and B fields and progress from there. At least from that point, you can begin to set constraints due to observations and effects without 'forcing': i.e. not mandating that because an electron is affected by an E-field that it produces one. Your concept will remain forever useless unless you can somehow find a practical use for it.

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