General > General Technical Chat

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

<< < (297/396) > >>

bsfeechannel:

--- Quote from: aetherist on March 06, 2022, 10:03:05 pm ---The short answer is no.

--- End quote ---

Of course the answer is no. Einstein is wrong according to the new definition of pseudovector. The same thing in Mehdi's claims, where Lewin is wrong according to the new definition of voltage. And Kirchhoff, who is wrong according to Robitaille's new definition of the law of thermal radiation.

While these clowns redefine the definitions to suit their misconceptions they're laughing at you (and probably taking your money).

adx:

--- Quote from: aetherist on March 05, 2022, 04:52:38 am ---Well spotted. But the ratio of total force is still in error.

--- End quote ---

That was my thought too - of your initial post line above prior to edit where IIRC you said something like lambda involved a squaring (thereby implying the alleged relativistic magnetic force was a nonlinear function of drift velocity). Yet I still went against my suspicion and presented it as though it was linear. That is because I don't know, and I don't want to look too much like a crackpot, with a choice between:

(a) conventional theory and a published paper including a back and forth over the same kind of issue you subsequently brought up ("But (like Einstein in his bending of light), i had the correct answer for the wrong reason(s).") and its resultant debug cycle correcting some mistake(s), and

(b) thoughts and words (mine and yours), without any illustration of the nonlinearity in action (and the subsequent claim was later removed by you).

So I picked a side, without checking, and just assumed that the velocity is so minuscule compared to the speed of light that the Lorentz transformation works out linear, or some other effect takes the squaring out, or anything else that makes the world seem rational. Was it wrong of me to intentionally go against my suspicion and make a claim I didn't believe? That's a question for philosophy, but I'll note no one needs to know how I arrived at my opinion, and as such, I'm entitled to be wrong. Also I'm not a physicist, and being endlessly right has its disadvantages (see aforementioned "debug cycle") so there's something bigger at play here (along the lines of trust in distrust, or even trust in error).

But I can't get far past the fact that someone (this includes all 'competent' alt-scientists) can go against a well established calculation like this one without checking their assertions, and just jump onto the first apparent contradiction that occurs to them, hand-wave away the rest - then be so assured they are right. I can understand it - don't get me wrong. I just can't go far past it. So I didn't.

Remember I don't know what the answer is to my complete satisfaction (I won't look at the equation properly until after posting this).

Edits: To reduce confusion over which post I am talking about. BTW I did check the equations but it would go against my point to post the result here.

aetherist:

--- Quote from: bsfeechannel on March 07, 2022, 01:08:36 am ---
--- Quote from: aetherist on March 06, 2022, 10:03:05 pm ---The short answer is no.
--- End quote ---
Of course the answer is no. Einstein is wrong according to the new definition of pseudovector. The same thing in Mehdi's claims, where Lewin is wrong according to the new definition of voltage. And Kirchhoff, who is wrong according to Robitaille's new definition of the law of thermal radiation.

While these clowns redefine the definitions to suit their misconceptions they're laughing at you (and probably taking your money).
--- End quote ---
Einstein's GTR & his field equations are wrong koz his postulates are wrong.
And the definition goes back to 1901, or at least the problem with the pseudovector goes back to 1901, hence it aint exactly a new thing.
And his elevator equivalence gedanken is wrong. A proper look at  Einstein's elevator gedanken shows no equivalence tween gravity & inertia (for lots of reasons)(or at least i should say u can see it in lots of ways, gedanken wise).

And while we are on the subject, his elevator or chest gedanken predicts a reversed bending of light, ie in the wrong direction to what we observe, plus the numerical value for the bending is different (i worked it out in Excel).

bsfeechannel:

--- Quote from: aetherist on March 07, 2022, 02:45:07 am ---Einstein's GTR & his field equations are wrong koz his postulates are wrong.

--- End quote ---

Yes. He chose the wrong wrong postulates.

HuronKing:

--- Quote from: bsfeechannel on March 07, 2022, 03:19:50 am ---
--- Quote from: aetherist on March 07, 2022, 02:45:07 am ---Einstein's GTR & his field equations are wrong koz his postulates are wrong.

--- End quote ---

Yes. He chose the wrong wrong postulates.

--- End quote ---

The essential component of physics crackpottery is to focus on character assassination of Einstein - to misdirect so that the casual reader thinks physics stopped in 1905 or 1916 or even 1955.

Meanwhile, physicists are using general relativity and the field equations to accurately predict the appearance of supernova from gravitational lensing (only appropriate that this thread ought to loop back to Veritasium... somehow).

 

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