| 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 |