General > General Technical Chat
"Veritasium" (YT) - "The Big Misconception About Electricity" ?
TimFox:
I found this useful lecture: https://itp.uni-frankfurt.de/~hees/pf-faq/homopolar.pdf
Quoting the paper: "It is surprising that the so-called Faraday paradox is still a source of confusion although the “electrody-
namics of moving bodies” is well understood with Einstein’s famous special-relativity paper. Here, I
try to give an explanation by avoiding the use of the integral form of Maxwell’s equation, which seems
to be the main source of the confusion."
Instead of ad hominem attacks on dead scientists, I suggest you read the 7-page paper.
aetherist:
--- Quote from: TimFox on March 04, 2022, 10:08:17 pm ---I found this useful lecture: https://itp.uni-frankfurt.de/~hees/pf-faq/homopolar.pdf
Quoting the paper: "It is surprising that the so-called Faraday paradox is still a source of confusion although the “electrody-
namics of moving bodies” is well understood with Einstein’s famous special-relativity paper. Here, I
try to give an explanation by avoiding the use of the integral form of Maxwell’s equation, which seems
to be the main source of the confusion."
Instead of ad hominem attacks on dead scientists, I suggest you read the 7-page paper.
--- End quote ---
I saw nothing in that paper that explained how there is a voltage when the disc & a disc magnet are spinning locked together as one, when the relative motion is zero.
I saw nothing that explained how if the disc was static & the disc magnet was spinning then how is there zero voltage even tho there is a non-zero relative motion.
Faraday paradox unipolar dynamo demo Part1
38,492 views Aug 27, 2014 410 plenum88 1.56K subscribers 168 Comments
part2 at: https://youtu.be/c5wgmTGi5pU
This video is a demonstration of the Faraday paradox using a 3D printed unipolar dynamo The unipolar generator is composed of three key elements - a copper disk, a ring magnet, and a stator wire circuit to the oscilloscope, all three of which are independently rotatable. A stepper motor is used to set rotation at a fixed speed, using an Arduino control board. In part 1, we explore the essential elements of the paradox, namely the apparent magnetic induction which occurs between the co-rotating disk and magnetic elements in the device. The controversy reduces to the key question: do the magnetic lines of force rotate with the magnet or not? Einstein and Maxwell / Faraday disagreed on this point, which has also been phrased: what is the seat of the electromagnetic induction? To be continued with part2.
TimFox:
What is your reference with experimental data that shows a voltage when the disc and disc magnet move together?
Faraday's homopolar generator is shown in this 1884 drawing: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Faraday_disk_generator.jpg Note the rotating disc and fixed magnet.
This article (which you need to go to a library for) explains the "paradox". https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1361-6404/ab2345
Every historical or explanatory reference I can find to Faraday's generator shows a rotating disc and a stationary magnet.
aetherist:
--- Quote from: TimFox on March 04, 2022, 10:45:46 pm ---What is your reference with experimental data that shows a voltage when the disc and disc magnet move together?
Faraday's homopolar generator is shown in this 1884 drawing: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Faraday_disk_generator.jpg Note the rotating disc and fixed magnet.
This article (which you need to go to a library for) explains the "paradox". https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1361-6404/ab2345
Every historical or explanatory reference I can find to Faraday's generator shows a rotating disc and a stationary magnet.
--- End quote ---
I added a youtube to my previous reply. There are lots of similar youtubes re this paradox. With aether it is indeed a paradox. Without aether it is a catastrophe.
HuronKing:
--- Quote from: aetherist on March 04, 2022, 09:36:13 pm --- GTR does not predict Mercury's orbit. Firstly it was a postdiction, after a few years of trying (where Einstein finally got his recipe right). Secondly we are not sure what the size of the anomaly is. Thirdly we are not sure of the Newtonian component. Fourthly modern computer analysis shows that GTR duznt even give Mercury a proper orbit, Mercury flies off in a short time.
--- End quote ---
https://aether.lbl.gov/www/classes/p10/gr/PrecessionperihelionMercury.htm
And if anyone really cares to see the derivation of the mathematics:
https://www.math.toronto.edu/~colliand/426_03/Papers03/C_Pollock.pdf
--- Quote ---Stephen Crothers explains that GTR invokes pseudo-vectors, & that Einstein lacks an understanding of vectors.
--- End quote ---
HAHAHAHAHAHA. You're seriously going to cite Stephen Crothers at me? HAHAHAHA.
https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Stephen_J._Crothers
--- Quote ---I thought that Einstein got the idea for his 1905 paper on STR because the standard explanation failed as to why if a magnet was passed through a loop of wire then the wire got an electric current & vice versa.
--- End quote ---
That was a motivating idea... but he also wrote,
"Examples of this sort [the moving conductor problem], together with the unsuccessful attempts to discover any motion of the earth relatively to the “light medium,” suggest that the phenomena of electrodynamics as well as of mechanics possess no properties corresponding to the idea of absolute rest."
-- Albert Einstein, 1905
--- Quote ---However Einsteinists are happy to ignore that Einstein's STR fails to explain Faraday's homopolar disc generator, re the voltage produced by spinning discs & spinning magnets. More than that, STR contradicts those experiments. In other words the experiments prove that STR is wrong, at least re that aspect of electricity.
Faraday's homopolar disc generator is however easily explained by the existence of the aether.
--- End quote ---
Ahh I should've expected the Faraday Disc Generator to get a mention at some point. Are you just checking off the boxes on all the crackpot theories you can cram into one thread (seriously, I am still reeling to see Stephen Crothers get a shoutout).
As for the disc generator, I admit I don't fully understand the correct solution. Feynman alluded to it in his lectures (again, allergy warning) but left it as an exercise for the reader (in the grand tradition of physics professors):
https://www.feynmanlectures.caltech.edu/II_17.html
https://www.feynmanlectures.caltech.edu/II_13.html
Fortunately, Panofsky and Philips give a more in-depth treatment of the problem as well as an in-depth treatment of the relationship between electromagnetism and relativity. And the answer is... of course special relativity isn't sufficient to explain the phenomena because we aren't discussing inertial reference frames (p.337-339) - you need to use general relativity:
https://dokumen.tips/documents/panofsky-and-philips-classical-electricity-and-magnetism-2nd-edpdf.html?page=349
I am aware that there are some authors who think SR is sufficient to explain the Faraday generator but I am more persuaded by the arguments of Panofsky and Philips that the requirements for SR are not met in the problem. Maybe there is an interpretation of SR that allows it to work - for me, I'm satisfied that GR explains it.
What I am not persuaded by is screaming 'AETHERWIND!' when it has no measurable properties, no predictive properties, and nothing but pseudoscientific gobbledygook.
You remind me of those poor sea creatures who starve to death on a full stomach - because they've been eating plastic. I'll grant you that you've read and exposed yourself to lots of... stuff... but I fear that for as full as your mind's stomach is there is tremendous intellectual starvation going on.
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page
Go to full version