| General > General Technical Chat |
| "Veritasium" (YT) - "The Big Misconception About Electricity" ? |
| << < (301/396) > >> |
| aetherist:
--- Quote from: adx on March 08, 2022, 11:23:11 pm --- --- Quote from: aetherist on March 08, 2022, 10:08:27 pm ---Photaenos propagate outwards throo the aether at perhaps 5c in the near field (approx 2 m) & perhaps c in the far field (wolfgang g gasser). https://www.electronicspoint.com/forums/threads/experimental-evidence-for-v-c-in-case-of-coulomb-interaction.168813/ --- End quote --- We were taught 3c 'nearnuff', decades ago, at university. It was an interesting observation on near vs far field propagation, and how simplistic thoughts of things propagating through space can lead one astray. --- End quote --- There is some kind of standard theory re radio waves being faster than c in the near field, but i don’t understand it. The near field might be less than one wave length, dunno. But Gasser measured at over 4m. And he used a spark or pulse i think, which can't really have a wavelength. Gasser's experiment looks ok. But i don’t have a clue what it is that gave his super luminal speed. Why would photaenos propagate faster than c early on & slow down later on. It should be the other way around, if my theory is correct that photaeno congestion slows photaenos, & if there is less congestion later when the photaenos have radiated further out & have spread further apart from each other. Howardlong's X said that em radiation propagates at exactly c tween his wires which are 24 mm apart, hence that contradicts Gasser. Gasser must be wrong. But his X looks ok to me. It would be good if someone repeated Gasser's X. |
| aetherist:
--- Quote from: penfold on March 08, 2022, 11:17:43 pm --- --- Quote from: aetherist on March 08, 2022, 10:08:27 pm --- [...]I would like to add a comment re my Excel confirmation of Einstein's bending of light passing the Sun. My Excel is the only (as far as i know) proper confirmation of Einstein's bending in history. It is based on Einstein's postulates. The equations derived from Einstein's postulates are not a first rate confirmation, in that they rely on maths, ie they introduce other postulates (of a mathematical kind). The equations are a second rate confirmation. If u have not got the time to carry out thousands of calculations, following the light, inch by inch, & then add, then u will need to use the usual (second rate) short cut of deriving an equation. My Excel is a first rate confirmation. Just saying (hero). --- End quote --- You are mixing and matching concepts from your theory in there with the previous thought experiment, so it doesn't disprove anything there, it just says that the two are not compatible. I'm curious though as to what difference an iterative integration should have when compared with an analytical one if the expressions exist in excel, and the iteration is done in excel then I don't see why an analytical solution couldn't produce the exact result, i.e. minimum rounding error. Would you consider sharing the spreadsheet? I'm intrigued if nothing else, doesn't matter if it's undocumented or messy, I can guarantee I've worked with far worse and deliberately obfuscated spreadsheets. --- End quote --- If u message me your email i will send the excel. It is 25Meg so i might have to send in 2 parts. I was being funny re the first rate versus second rate confirmation stuff. But there is a bit of truth to it, that applying a pure postulate to make a simple equation & applying the simple equation for each km or each second of the traject & summing to get the total bending is a way of checking that the calculus approach has not made an error. For example Prof Poor used calculus & accidentally lost a term in his equation & claimed that the 1.75 arcsec was wrong. And yes calculus is of course more accurate than excel (the accuracy of excel depends on how many lines u use). |
| SiliconWizard:
So have you proven the existence of aether with some Excel sheets? |
| aetherist:
--- Quote from: SiliconWizard on March 09, 2022, 06:30:15 pm ---So have you proven the existence of aether with some Excel sheets? --- End quote --- Every proper aether experiment has confirmed that we have an aetherwind on Earth, especially Demjanov in 1968-72. I have used excel to help me to crunch lots of experimental numbers from MMXs etc over the years to help make sense of that stuff (which includes length contraction etc). But my excel that we are talking about for the bending of light passing the Sun has nothing to do with aether or aetherwind, it simply checks Einstein's GTR bending of light. The excel uses Einstein's postulates for bending of time & bending of space, to see if they are internally self consistent (each is supposed to give 0.87 arcsec, totalling 1.75 arcsec)(which they do). The postulates do indeed give good numbers (confirmed by Hipparcos satellite), & might be good models, but whether the postulates are good science is of course a different question. And i say that there is no such thing as spacetime, hence the science is wrong or partly wrong. The full answer for bending near the Sun has to include the aetherwind. |
| adx:
--- Quote from: aetherist on March 09, 2022, 09:25:26 pm ---... The postulates do indeed give good numbers (confirmed by Hipparcos satellite), & might be good models, but whether the postulates are good science is of course a different question. And i say that there is no such thing as spacetime, hence the science is wrong or partly wrong. The full answer for bending near the Sun has to include the aetherwind. --- End quote --- I accept that as a logically consistent 'postulate' in itself. But you have summarised what I thought you were saying a few posts back, where you say half the bending is not consistent with aetherwind, therefore - well you've described it as quoted above. You are using an assertion that the aetherwind exists as a kind of evidence to support that same assertion. It's not wrong (because it's technically meaningless beyond being an unproven postulate), but is an odd way of stating something you think, without clarifying what you mean by that circular argument. |
| Navigation |
| Message Index |
| Next page |
| Previous page |