General > General Technical Chat
"Veritasium" (YT) - "The Big Misconception About Electricity" ?
<< < (295/396) > >>
bsfeechannel:

--- Quote from: aetherist on March 05, 2022, 11:48:16 pm ---And clearly Dr Pierre-Marie Robitaille's debunking wins 100 to zero.
--- End quote ---

That's your opinion.

Pierre Robitaille is a con artist. And we don't need Professor Dave to tell it. Pierre made a video to "prove" that Kirchhoff's law of thermal radiation is invalid. But his experiment, as it happens with every single proponent of unscientific ideas, was deliberately rigged.

Many people pointed that out in the comments, but Pierre didn't care. Why? Because Pierre Robitaille is a creationist and represents creationists, and by "invalidating" Kirchhoff's law of thermal radiation he can say that the big bang theory is false, because he and the group he represents think that the big bang kills his god.

He knows the truth, but he decided to deceive his audience.

Pathetic.


--- Quote ---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.
--- End quote ---

There. That's what we needed: some crackpot somewhat considering Mehdi to be in the same category as Robitaille. 

Thank you very much.

I'm looking forward to seeing Mehdi make a video advocating the idea that the sun is in fact the anode of an arc lamp that can be modeled as a transistor.







adx:

--- Quote from: penfold on March 02, 2022, 05:57:09 pm ---Seeing as I'm passing... I shudder to think of how I've portrayed myself in this thread, naturally, I'm open-minded and supportive of ideas and beliefs, whether scientific, religious or alt-science, sometimes it takes a little more effort than others but I think I'd appear similar to a vegan demanding a grilled aubergine at a fox-hunt - my objection to either life-choice is non-existent(-ish) but I would be saying "...read the room, dear" and slowly reach an internal divide by zero exception.
...

--- End quote ---

I've had to wonder the same thing, especially with my impractically loose anonymity and the general lay expectation that engineering is a professional career choice :). But no one who knows me could be surprised at the spouting of endless BS, with things like "An objective reality clearly exists at the individual level, but society as a whole is limited to belief.".

What has been an eye-opener is the 'repeatability' of crackpotisim (eg crackpot index), and its overlap with some of what mainstream science might be if someone really were to be "on the cutting edge of a paradigm shift". Maybe I shouldn't give science (the consensus, not the method) such a hard ride if belief (faith) in it is the only thing which stops the so-called developed world from regressing into some wild existence at the first mis-step (as some of its adherents seem to unquestioningly assume, and the behaviour of this decade so far seems to confirm in many heaping spades). Maybe science does need to progress one funeral at a time, perhaps any original thoughts I have should immediately be flung into the short conical frustum filing cabinet. I was going to make a joke comparing it with viXra, but perhaps that's a bit unfair, and perhaps this repeatability implies that crackpotism is a valid (or at least expected) facet of science? Not one to cut out in ever-deeper slices until all knowledge disappears up a vortex of its own infallibility. But - the spouting, the BS.

Not being one to ignore an opportunity to know when to stop, a current example being "Conclusion. Einstein's STR fails to properly explain magnetism near a wire." - if I say I believe that is equal in meaning to "Einstein's STR is successful at properly explaining magnetism near a wire." then people will conclude I am crazy (same etymology as crackpot, another thing I learned here, I will never drop hot glass in water the same again, or rather I will tone my squeak of excitement more towards the pitch of a maniacal laugh). But to science the method, they are equal.
HuronKing:

--- Quote from: aetherist on March 05, 2022, 12:32:46 am --- I don’t invoke aetherwind to explain the Faraday Disc Paradox, i invoke aether.
--- End quote ---

Oh right, of course, how silly of me. The aether is static when you need it to be and blowing when you need it to be.

Who needs consistency in a theory when you're making it up as you go along without a shred of mathematics?


--- Quote ---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.
--- End quote ---

The material is probably too advanced if that was your takeaway.


--- Quote ---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.
--- End quote ---

Are you sure? Have you done this experiment? Do you have any idea what the difference is between a rotating non-inertial reference frame and an inertial reference frame?

I'm going to jump ahead to something else you said to someone else because it's relevant,


--- Quote ---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.
--- End quote ---

Not that I wish to dredge up the pseudoscience of Mehdi and Co. in this thread - but it is not surprising you don't understand relativity in the Faraday Disc and also agree with Mehdi and Co.
I say this because what's tricky about the Faraday Disc is that it is a rotating field - i.e. it is a non-conservative field so it also exhibits path-dependency.

Now I admit I stated this is a GR phenomena and referred you to Panofsky & Philips who themselves would refer you to Schiff so maybe you want more details. For that - I'd suggest this paper but the mathematics are ghastly and if you're weak in calculus this will just make your eyes bleed:
"Charged Particles and the Electro-Magnetic Field in Non-Inertial Frames of Minkowski Spacetime: II. Applications: Rotating Frames, Sagnac Effect, Faraday Rotation, Wrap-up Effect"
https://arxiv.org/pdf/0908.0215.pdf

If this is too hard (let's be real, it is very hard), then try these introductory texts on the trickiness of rotating reference frames:
https://phys.libretexts.org/Bookshelves/Relativity/Book%3A_Special_Relativity_(Crowell)/08%3A_Rotation/8.01%3A_Rotating_Frames_of_Reference
https://phys.libretexts.org/Bookshelves/Relativity/Supplemental_Modules_(Relativity)/Miscellaneous_Relativity_Topics/GENERAL_RELATIVITY_-_a_primer

And honestly, before getting all worked up about the Faraday Disc, which is an immensely complex problem, the solution to the disc is wrapped up in the same solution that the two links above are really driving at - solving the Ehrenfest Paradox (the solution to which motivated the creation of General Relativity).

There has been quite a bit of literature written on the electrodynamics of rotating reference frames. This isn't even the tip of the tip of the iceberg:
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/0031891464901065?via%3Dihub

And I'm not terribly interested in parsing your interpretation of Biot-Savart and Ampere. I'm much more persuaded by the fact that we can start with Lorentz transformations and Gauss' Law and use relativity to derive Ampere's Law mathematically:
https://www.damtp.cam.ac.uk/user/tong/em/el4.pdf

@bsfeechannel - if you're reading this, then the links above are utterly fascinating to me as the circular train clock synchronization scenario reminds me of line integration around a circulating magnetic field adding up to non-zero EMF as predicted by Faraday's Law. The synchronization of the clocks is also non-zero. In the second link, even though Clocks 1 and 2 are both on they disk, both rotating at the same rate, they do not read the same times after circumventing different closed paths. It gives me a lot of amazing things to ponder about the physical meaning of line integration.
aetherist:

--- Quote from: HuronKing on March 06, 2022, 05:17:49 am ---
--- Quote from: aetherist on March 05, 2022, 12:32:46 am --- I don’t invoke aetherwind to explain the Faraday Disc Paradox, i invoke aether.
--- End quote ---
Oh right, of course, how silly of me. The aether is static when you need it to be and blowing when you need it to be. Who needs consistency in a theory when you're making it up as you go along without a shred of mathematics?
--- End quote ---
  Yes the aether is always blowing hence there is always an aetherwind. But sometimes i simply mention the aether, but i am fully aware that an in depth analysis if it gets that far will probably involve the aetherwind.

--- Quote from: HuronKing on March 06, 2022, 05:17:49 am ---
--- Quote ---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.
--- End quote ---
The material is probably too advanced if that was your takeaway.
--- End quote ---
Those words were Feynman's.

--- Quote from: HuronKing on March 06, 2022, 05:17:49 am ---
--- Quote ---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.
--- End quote ---
Are you sure? Have you done this experiment? Do you have any idea what the difference is between a rotating non-inertial reference frame and an inertial reference frame?
--- End quote ---

I havnt done the experiment. I think there are 8 combinations of motions. I would put money on the outcome. But the positioning of the probes might not be simple.

There is in a sense no difference tween a rotating non-inertial reference frame & an inertial reference frame, in that both are irrelevant to a magnetic field.
--- Quote from: HuronKing on March 06, 2022, 05:17:49 am ---I'm going to jump ahead to something else you said to someone else because it's relevant,
--- Quote ---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.
--- End quote ---
Not that I wish to dredge up the pseudoscience of Mehdi and Co. in this thread - but it is not surprising you don't understand relativity in the Faraday Disc and also agree with Mehdi and Co.
I say this because what's tricky about the Faraday Disc is that it is a rotating field - i.e. it is a non-conservative field so it also exhibits path-dependency.

Now I admit I stated this is a GR phenomena and referred you to Panofsky & Philips who themselves would refer you to Schiff so maybe you want more details. For that - I'd suggest this paper but the mathematics are ghastly and if you're weak in calculus this will just make your eyes bleed:
"Charged Particles and the Electro-Magnetic Field in Non-Inertial Frames of Minkowski Spacetime: II. Applications: Rotating Frames, Sagnac Effect, Faraday Rotation, Wrap-up Effect"
https://arxiv.org/pdf/0908.0215.pdf
If this is too hard (let's be real, it is very hard), then try these introductory texts on the trickiness of rotating reference frames:
https://phys.libretexts.org/Bookshelves/Relativity/Book%3A_Special_Relativity_(Crowell)/08%3A_Rotation/8.01%3A_Rotating_Frames_of_Reference
https://phys.libretexts.org/Bookshelves/Relativity/Supplemental_Modules_(Relativity)/Miscellaneous_Relativity_Topics/GENERAL_RELATIVITY_-_a_primer
--- End quote ---

STR is rubbish, Minkowski spacetime is rubbish. The Silberstein GTR explanation for the Sagnac Effect deserves some respect koz i respect Silberstein.
Magnetic fields are static in the aether, ie they cant rotate, koz magnetic fields cant go sideways (ie they cant crab or sidle). However i suppose that we can make a pseudo-rotating field, which appears to rotate.
--- Quote from: HuronKing on March 06, 2022, 05:17:49 am ---And honestly, before getting all worked up about the Faraday Disc, which is an immensely complex problem, the solution to the disc is wrapped up in the same solution that the two links above are really driving at - solving the Ehrenfest Paradox (the solution to which motivated the creation of General Relativity).
--- End quote ---
The aether solution to the Faraday Disc Paradox is simple (it aint an immensely complex problem). Except of course we don’t know what the aether is, & we don’t know what magnetism is (& we don’t know much about anything).

The Ehrenfest Paradox is interesting. I think that it deserves to be called a paradox, but the solution is simple. A spinning disc will suffer a shrinkage of the atoms & molecules along its circumference due to relativistic length contraction, whilst its radius is not much affected. Hence the disc can suffer radial cracks (which solves the paradox)(no GTR needed)(GTR solved a problem that did not exist). However, centrifugal forces would destroy a disc before the peripheral speed got to say c/50,000.
--- Quote from: HuronKing on March 06, 2022, 05:17:49 am ---There has been quite a bit of literature written on the electrodynamics of rotating reference frames. This isn't even the tip of the tip of the iceberg:
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/0031891464901065?via%3Dihub
--- End quote ---
A part of that iceberg is Cohn's electrodynamics, which preceded Einstein's, Einstein even used Cohn's heading, & then Einstein did not mention Cohn in his index.
--- Quote from: HuronKing on March 06, 2022, 05:17:49 am --- And I'm not terribly interested in parsing your interpretation of Biot-Savart and Ampere. I'm much more persuaded by the fact that we can start with Lorentz transformations and Gauss' Law and use relativity to derive Ampere's Law mathematically:
https://www.damtp.cam.ac.uk/user/tong/em/el4.pdf

--- End quote ---
I don’t know why Einsteinist's keep invoking the Lorentz transformations, when they should be invoking the Einstein transformations. The two are different in that the terms have different meanings. I suspect that in the early days Einstein was aware that using the Lorentz name added wt to Einstein's silly STR.

But if u are referring to the relativistic explanation for the magnetic field near an electric wire then i have already shown in this thread that that explanation is wrong/impossible.
--- Quote from: HuronKing on March 06, 2022, 05:17:49 am ---@bsfeechannel - if you're reading this, then the links above are utterly fascinating to me as the circular train clock synchronization scenario reminds me of line integration around a circulating magnetic field adding up to non-zero EMF as predicted by Faraday's Law. The synchronization of the clocks is also non-zero. In the second link, even though Clocks 1 and 2 are both on they disk, both rotating at the same rate, they do not read the same times after circumventing different closed paths. It gives me a lot of amazing things to ponder about the physical meaning of line integration.

--- End quote ---
I can save u a lot of trouble. The time anywhere on the disc is the same. The only time that exists is the present instant, & this is universal. The ticking of clocks however is affected by motion etc. But ticking is not time.
HuronKing:

--- Quote from: aetherist on March 06, 2022, 07:47:55 am ---Those words were Feynman's.

--- End quote ---

This isn't what he said at all - or at least without citing page and reference I don't know what you're talking about. Feynman did write this,

--- Quote from: Feynman 13-6 ---Electric and magnetic forces are part of one physical phenomenon—the electromagnetic interactions of particles. The separation of this interaction into electric and magnetic parts depends very much on the reference frame chosen for the description. But a complete electromagnetic description is invariant; electricity and magnetism taken together are consistent with Einstein’s relativity.

Since electric and magnetic fields appear in different mixtures if we change our frame of reference, we must be careful about how we look at the fields E and B. For instance, if we think of “lines” of E or B, we must not attach too much reality to them. The lines may disappear if we try to observe them from a different coordinate system. For example, in system S′ there are electric field lines, which we do not find “moving past us with velocity v in system S.” In system S there are no electric field lines at all! Therefore it makes no sense to say something like: When I move a magnet, it takes its field with it, so the lines of B are also moved. There is no way to make sense, in general, out of the idea of “the speed of a moving field line.” The fields are our way of describing what goes on at a point in space. In particular, E and B tell us about the forces that will act on a moving particle. The question “What is the force on a charge from a moving magnetic field?” doesn’t mean anything precise. The force is given by the values of E and B at the charge, and the formula (13.1) is not to be altered if the source of E or B is moving (it is the values of E and B that will be altered by the motion). Our mathematical description deals only with the fields as a function of x, y, z, and t with respect to some inertial frame.

We will later be speaking of “a wave of electric and magnetic fields travelling through space,” as, for instance, a light wave. But that is like speaking of a wave travelling on a string. We don’t then mean that some part of the string is moving in the direction of the wave, we mean that the displacement of the string appears first at one place and later at another. Similarly, in an electromagnetic wave, the wave travels; but the magnitude of the fields change. So in the future when we—or someone else—speaks of a “moving” field, you should think of it as just a handy, short way of describing a changing field in some circumstances.
--- End quote ---

Emphasis mine. And what he's talking about there is an introduction to quantum field theory.


--- Quote ---There is in a sense no difference tween a rotating non-inertial reference frame & an inertial reference frame, in that both are irrelevant to a magnetic field.
--- End quote ---

Apparently you also flunked Newtonian mechanics. Understanding non-inertial reference frames is DEEPLY important to understanding how magnetism works in all the situations we may encounter it. There is an analogy between the Coriolis Effect and magnetism (see links below). Of course Special Relativity and General Relativity don't make sense to you - you don't get when the postulates of Special Relativity are applicable. By defining inertial frames, we also have to define non-inertial frames.

Why is the magnetic force similar to a Coriolis force?
https://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/1109/1109.3624.pdf

Coriolis and Magnetic Forces: The Gyrocompass and Magnetic Compass as Analogues
https://inis.iaea.org/collection/NCLCollectionStore/_Public/21/068/21068614.pdf

Skipping the stuff where you just repeat nonsense about STR being rubbish...


--- Quote ---The aether solution to the Faraday Disc Paradox is simple (it aint an immensely complex problem). Except of course we don’t know what the aether is, & we don’t know what magnetism is (& we don’t know much about anything).
--- End quote ---

You haven't actually proposed anything about what that 'solution' is. Again, pseudoscience.

I'm glad to know you have a solution that you don't know what it is or how to explain it.  :-DD

I know you're not learning anything but I hope whoever is reading this is.


--- Quote ---The Ehrenfest Paradox is interesting. I think that it deserves to be called a paradox, but the solution is simple. A spinning disc will suffer a shrinkage of the atoms & molecules along its circumference due to relativistic length contraction, whilst its radius is not much affected. Hence the disc can suffer radial cracks (which solves the paradox)(no GTR needed)(GTR solved a problem that did not exist). However, centrifugal forces would destroy a disc before the peripheral speed got to say c/50,000.
--- End quote ---

Oh... my... God... you can't even articulate what the paradox is. Hint: the paradox arises from idealized geometry and rigid bodies. It's not just the disc that gets destroyed - it's Euclidean geometry... which leads directly to General Relativity. And in that world rotating discs are just fine but your brain gets destroyed.  >:D


--- Quote ---I don’t know why Einsteinist's keep invoking the Lorentz transformations, when they should be invoking the Einstein transformations. The two are different in that the terms have different meanings. I suspect that in the early days Einstein was aware that using the Lorentz name added wt to Einstein's silly STR.

But if u are referring to the relativistic explanation for the magnetic field near an electric wire then i have already shown in this thread that that explanation is wrong/impossible.
--- End quote ---

Because one can start with the principle of relativity and derive the Lorentz Transformations. Again - this is part of the predictive power of relativity. From first principles, theoretical predictions led to the observation of real phenomena. Feynman made note of this,
https://www.feynmanlectures.caltech.edu/I_15.html

--- Quote from: Feynman ---For those who want to learn just enough about it so they can solve problems, that is all there is to the theory of relativity—it just changes Newton’s laws by introducing a correction factor to the mass. From the formula itself it is easy to see that this mass increase is very small in ordinary circumstances. If the velocity is even as great as that of a satellite, which goes around the earth at 5 mi/sec, then v/c=5/186,000: putting this value into the formula shows that the correction to the mass is only one part in two to three billion, which is nearly impossible to observe. Actually, the correctness of the formula has been amply confirmed by the observation of many kinds of particles, moving at speeds ranging up to practically the speed of light. However, because the effect is ordinarily so small, it seems remarkable that it was discovered theoretically before it was discovered experimentally. Empirically, at a sufficiently high velocity, the effect is very large, but it was not discovered that way. Therefore it is interesting to see how a law that involved so delicate a modification (at the time when it was first discovered) was brought to light by a combination of experiments and physical reasoning. Contributions to the discovery were made by a number of people, the final result of whose work was Einstein’s discovery.
--- End quote ---

It's the combination of theoretical prediction leading to experimental verification that makes relativity so persuasive and powerful. It is why everyone who does real physics is an "Einsteinist" as you derisively say. Because it gets results. And where engineers need it... it works, beautifully. And as a mechanism for tying together so many phenomena it is elegant in its statements but complex in its application.

Whereas whatever aether theory you're peddling has no predictive power, no explanatory power, no consistency, no observability, and thus no usage in engineering. It's not even consistent with the other crackpots you admire which is one of the interesting things about crackpots - none of them agree with each other but they are ALL certain the rest of the world is in a conspiracy against them as you said in this thread many pages ago.

Coming back to it - is there a device I can build that needs aether theory to work? Does your aetherwind affect the outcomes of any experiments? Can anyone use it to build something no one else has predicted? No modern independent experiment in our Solar System where aetherwind might be important has ever needed it.

And probably the greatest tragedy here is how much time you've wasted on it when you could've learned some vector calculus. It's quite a shame really - if anything represents the ultimate evolution of an 'aether' theory it's the formulation of curved spacetime as described by General Relativity and quantum fields as described by Quantum Electrodynamics and some physicists do take that viewpoint that the term 'aether' gets a bad rap given what it's 19th century failure grew into. (I'm personally fine burying the 'aether' term because it's less confusing. For example, even though Newtonian Optics has similarities to QED, we don't use terms like "corpuscles" to describe light... we call them photons...)



But, to you, STR, GTR and QFT is all rubbish... ah well... I guess you won't be playing nice in the sandbox.  :-//


--- Quote ---I can save u a lot of trouble. The time anywhere on the disc is the same. The only time that exists is the present instant, & this is universal. The ticking of clocks however is affected by motion etc. But ticking is not time.

--- End quote ---

We already know you live in another universe. No need to remind us.

I'm going to try to respond less to this thread because I have actual post-graduate homework to do but I suppose I should say thank you for giving me the opportunity to sharpen my 'Einsteinian' propaganda and hopefully share some useful knowledge to the silent observers in this thread.

You can have the last word for now because I know you must have it in order to repeat your religious devotion to an obsolete 19th century theory. Long-live phlogiston!  >:D
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