General > General Technical Chat
"Veritasium" (YT) - "The Big Misconception About Electricity" ?
<< < (294/396) > >>
aetherist:

--- Quote from: adx on March 05, 2022, 04:06:32 am ---
--- 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

--- End quote ---
Well spotted. But the ratio of total force is still in error.
I mentioned a dia ratio of 10 to 1 to 0.1, which gave an area ratio of 100 to 1 to 0.01, which gave an ave vel ratio of 100 to 1 to 0.01 (for the same Amp), which gave a length contraction ratio of 10 to 1 to 0.1, which i said gave a force ratio of 0.1 to 1 to 10. Except that i made a mistake, i said 10 to 1 to 0.1.
Now, the ratios of the numbers of electrons involved in the moving is not 10 to 1 to 0.1, but if it were then STR would give Ampere's desired 1 to 1 to 1.
The ratios of the numbers of electrons involved is 100 to 1 to 0.01, which gives a force ratio of 10 to 1 to 0.1 (not the desired STR of 1 to 1 to 1). Which is what i said. However i had 2 mistakes. Firstly i had the ratios arse about. Secondly (as u pointed out) i forgot to take into account the ratio of the electrons on the move, ie 10 to 1 to 0.1, using your wires, but 100 to 1 to 0.01 using my wires.
But (like Einstein in his bending of light), i had the correct answer for the wrong reason(s).

Conclusion. Einstein's STR fails to properly explain magnetism near a wire.
bsfeechannel:

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

--- End quote ---

Man, it is striking to see how the arguments of these crackpots obey the same pattern. He thinks that pseudovectors are something someone who doesn't understand of vectors "invokes".

From wikipedia:

--- Quote ---Physical examples of pseudovectors include torque, angular velocity, angular momentum, magnetic field, and magnetic dipole moment.

--- End quote ---

It's the same thing with the KVLiars, who think that "invoking" the concept of non-conservative fields to explain why KVL doesn't hold for a circuit immersed in a varying magnetic field means that energy is not conserved and therefore Walter Lewin doesn't understand how magnetic induction works.

And thank you for the eye-opening videos from Professor Dave Explains about the debunking of those pseudo-science con artists' claims. They show that misleading the audience has become a lucrative business for incompetent people with a hidden agenda.
TimFox:
In some circles, the study of crackpots is known as "psychoceramics".
aetherist:

--- Quote from: bsfeechannel on March 05, 2022, 11:08:23 pm ---
--- Quote from: HuronKing on March 04, 2022, 11:38:33 pm ---
--- 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.
--- End quote ---
Man, it is striking to see how the argument of these crackpots obey the same pattern. He thinks that pseudovectors are something someone who doesn't understand of vectors "invokes".
From wikipedia:
--- Quote ---Physical examples of pseudovectors include torque, angular velocity, angular momentum, magnetic field, and magnetic dipole moment.
--- End quote ---
It's the same thing with the KVLiars, who think that "invoking" the concept of non-conservative fields to explain why KVL doesn't hold for a circuit immersed in a varying magnetic field means that energy is not conserved and therefore Walter Lewin doesn't understand how magnetic induction works.

And thank you for the eye-opening videos from Professor Dave Explains about the debunking of those pseudo-science con artists' claims. They show that misleading the audience has become a lucrative business for incompetent people with a hidden agenda.
--- End quote ---
prof Dave appears to have lots of good stuff in his youtube site. He has 1.85 million subscribers & 158 million views.
Dr Pierre-Marie Robitaille has 37k subscribers & 1.7 million views.
prof Dave got 512k views for his debunking footage. Dr Pierre-Marie Robitaille got 49k views for his debunking of prof Dave's debunking. And clearly Dr Pierre-Marie Robitaille's debunking wins 100 to zero. prof Dave can be seen to be very ignorant in the CMBR area.

I have emailed Crothers to ask him if the wiki pseudo vectors are in the same category as the Einstein (GTR) pseudo vectors.

Einstein’s Pseudotensor- a Meaningless Concoction of Mathematical Symbols   Stephen J. Crothers   23 January 2020
Abstract: In an attempt to make his General Theory of Relativity comply with the usual conservation of energy and momentum for a closed system which a vast array of experiments has ascertained, Mr. A. Einstein constructed, ad hoc, his pseudotensor. That it is not a tensor is outside the very mathematical structure of his theory. Beyond that, it violates the rules of pure mathematics. It is therefore a meaningless concoction of mathematical symbols.

https://vixra.org/pdf/2001.0499v1.pdf
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pseudovector

I havnt studied the KVL Lewin saga. But from what i have seen it appears to me that Lewin is wrong, & Mehdi & Co are correct.
I dont remember what eev-Dave said.
The  probes can deceive.
This probe problem shows up in the Faraday Disc Paradox too.








TimFox:
Views on YouTube are not to be considered peer review.
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