General > General Technical Chat

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

<< < (293/396) > >>

aetherist:
 :=\
--- Quote from: HuronKing on March 04, 2022, 11:38:33 pm ---
--- 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 ---
url=https://aether.lbl.gov/www/classes/p10/gr/PrecessionperihelionMercury.htm]https://aether.lbl.gov/www/classes/p10/gr/PrecessionperihelionMercury.htm[/url]
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.
--- End quote ---
I don’t invoke aetherwind to explain the Faraday Disc Paradox, i invoke aether.

I see that Feynman waves away the catastrophe by simply saying that a magnetic field can't move. Here he is agreeing that a magnetic field is static in the aether.

I doubt that Einsteinist's can explain away their catastrophe for the Faraday Disc Paradox by invoking GTR. However Einsteinists have an almost limitless menu of fudges twists tricks etc. The youtube i linked mentions about 6 different motions of the discs & probes. I doubt that GTR can explain even one of them.

But lets eliminate GTR by changing the spinning discs to non-spinning discs. We remove the axles. Now instead of spinning the discs we simply move them up or down either individually or together or in opposite directions, hence we have the same number of 6 different motions, & we will see the same kinds of voltages, & there is no possibility of GTR playing a role here in any way.

STR is krapp -- & GTR is mostly krapp.
We are presently in the Einsteinian Dark Age of science -- but the times they are a-changin'.
The aether will return -- it never left.

aetherist:

--- Quote from: HuronKing on March 04, 2022, 11:38:33 pm ---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

--- End quote ---
I see that Feynman loves the STR explanation of magnetic attraction to a  wire. But as i have explained a number of times on this thread the equations say for the force tween parallel wires relate to the amps in the wire(s), & they ignore the diameters. But, for say 1.0 Amp, if the ave drift vel is say 1 m/s, then if the wire is 1/10th the dia then the ave vel of the drifting electrons in the wire is say 100 m/s, & if the wire is 10 times the dia then the ave vel is 0.01 m/s, in which case the relativistic calc of the force will i think be in the ratio 10:1:0.1, whereas Ampere's Law tells us the ratio is 1:1:1.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biot%E2%80%93Savart_law

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amp%C3%A8re%27s_force_law

Special case: Two straight parallel wires[edit]
The best-known and simplest example of Ampère's force law, which underlaid (before 20 May 2019[1]) the definition of the ampere, the SI unit of current, states that the magnetic force per unit length between two straight parallel conductors is where   is the magnetic force constant from the Biot–Savart law,   is the total force on either wire per unit length of the shorter (the longer is approximated as infinitely long relative to the shorter),   is the distance between the two wires, and  ,   are the direct currents carried by the wires.
This is a good approximation if one wire is sufficiently longer than the other, so that it can be approximated as infinitely long, and if the distance between the wires is small compared to their lengths (so that the one infinite-wire approximation holds), but large compared to their diameters (so that they may also be approximated as infinitely thin lines). The value of   depends upon the system of units chosen, and the value of   decides how large the unit of current will be. In the SI system,[2][3] with   the magnetic constant, defined in SI units as[4][5] Thus, in vacuum, the force per meter of length between two parallel conductors – spaced apart by 1 m and each carrying a current of 1 A – is exactly

PlainName:

--- Quote ---I don’t invoke aetherwind to explain the Faraday Disc Paradox, i invoke aether.
--- End quote ---

I don't see how that explains it either. In the experiment videos you posted the only constant is the pickup moving across the disk. When the disk rotates and the magnet doesn't there is a voltage, but the pickup is moving relative to the disk. When the disk is stationary and the magnet rotates there is no voltage, and the pickup is also stationary relative to the disk. When the disk and magnet are stationary but the pickup is waggled back and forth, there is a voltage.

Clearly, from that experiment the magnet is superfluous and the interaction of the pickup with the disk is what is causing the voltage (somehow). Is aether the lubricant? Can't see how it can be anything else since whether it (aether) is moving relative to the disk or pickup is irrelevant.

aetherist:

--- Quote from: dunkemhigh on March 05, 2022, 01:27:58 am ---
--- Quote ---I don’t invoke aetherwind to explain the Faraday Disc Paradox, i invoke aether.
--- End quote ---

I don't see how that explains it either. In the experiment videos you posted the only constant is the pickup moving across the disk. When the disk rotates and the magnet doesn't there is a voltage, but the pickup is moving relative to the disk. When the disk is stationary and the magnet rotates there is no voltage, and the pickup is also stationary relative to the disk. When the disk and magnet are stationary but the pickup is waggled back and forth, there is a voltage.

Clearly, from that experiment the magnet is superfluous and the interaction of the pickup with the disk is what is causing the voltage (somehow). Is aether the lubricant? Can't see how it can be anything else since whether it (aether) is moving relative to the disk or pickup is irrelevant.

--- End quote ---
Yes, there are lots of youtubes re the FDP, & the later ones start to twig that the probes have their own V.
I said that aether explains, & aetherwind aint needed. That’s a bit of a white lie. In fact the aetherwind presents its own paradox (i hope it aint a catastrophe)(gulp). Koz, for one thing, the aetherwind is always there, blowing through our labs at 500 km/s.

When the magnetic disc is stationary, it aint. It is moving at 500 km/s, through the aether. And, if the Cu disc is stationary, next to the stationary magnetic disc, then it too is moving at 500 km/s through the aether. And so are the probes. And so is the Voltmeter. However, i reckon that the relative speed tween the Cu disc etc & the magnetic field is zero km/s, hence this explains the zero Voltage.
In a similar way the aetherwind always comes into play in every science instance that we could ever think of, & whenever i simply mention or invoke the aether (ie when i ignore the aetherwind) then i am telling a white lie. In some instances it duznt matter, but in some it (the aetherwind) creates a paradox even for old aetherists like myself.

But i don’t see how the probes/pickup can induce a voltage in the Cu disc. It would be like a spinning Cu disc inducing a voltage in a stationary Cu disc.
Actually, i would not be surprised if there was a weak voltage. I reckon that free surface electrons must exist on both Cu discs, & these electrons would repel.
I have an idea, if the 2 discs had a 50% overlap, instead of a 100% overlap, ie if the axles were separated by say R, then i think that we would have a voltage if the spin rate was superfast. Due to the free surface electrons having to move to redistribute the charge, due to repulsion (there being no magnetic field)(correction, there would be a magnetic field due to the flow of the free surface electrons). In which case this might create a positive additive feedback in which case we could have a significant V (albeit still very weak).
Experiment needed.

adx:

--- Quote from: aetherist on March 05, 2022, 01:03:17 am ---I see that Feynman loves the STR explanation of magnetic attraction to a  wire. But as i have explained a number of times on this thread the equations say for the force tween parallel wires relate to the amps in the wire(s), & they ignore the diameters. But, for say 1.0 Amp, if the ave drift vel is say 1 m/s, then if the wire is 1/10th the dia then the ave vel of the drifting electrons in the wire is say 100 m/s, & if the wire is 10 times the dia then the ave vel is 0.01 m/s, in which case the relativistic calc of the force will i think be in the ratio 10:1:0.1, whereas Ampere's Law tells us the ratio is 1:1:1.

--- End quote ---

I did notice that, and simply agreed with it (in general with other stuff), which may have falsely given the impression that I supported it, or even think it is correct. (By agreeing, I simply was prospounding the view that no idea is a bad idea, no matter how bad they seem until the latter is proven. And by "prospounding" I mean that I felt like making up a word that has an apparent meaning, but no actual meaning, and hold out a hope that one day the meaning will return.)

I'm only guessing, because I haven't done the math/s, but: A wire carrying 1A through a 1(mm^2) area will have 10% as much charge in a short volume as a wire of 10(mm^2). If the full 100% charge moves at 10% of the speed for the same 1A, then the contraction and stuff is 10% (for 10% force when considering a 1(mm^2) area of it). But there are 9 other parallel flows parallel to it, bringing the total force to 100%.

The math/s, the mistakes, and the moral of the story:
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/231009511_Lorentz_contraction_and_current-carrying_wires

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