General > General Technical Chat

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

<< < (315/396) > >>

aetherist:

--- Quote from: HuronKing on February 11, 2022, 10:33:16 pm ---
--- Quote from: aetherist on February 11, 2022, 09:48:55 pm ---Is this the same IEEE that would not let Heaviside publish in their journal?.......
--- End quote ---
…………But sure... you're just like Oliver Heaviside and electrons are photons.  :-DD
Do you have a paper or any mathematics at all.
--- End quote ---

--- Quote from: HuronKing on February 11, 2022, 10:33:16 pm ---Have you ever even taken an Applied EM course? No gatekeeping to knowledge - but I see a profound lack of understanding of the terms and definitions.

Addendum on seeing your latest post:
And seeing your latest post - we have gone full crank. No length contraction/time dilation of moving charges, eh? I'd be fascinated to see how you explain the muon.  :box:
--- End quote ---
Muons were mentioned by TimFox in #1386. And by penfold in #1310.

The muon is wonderful. It is another fine example where Einsteinist's shoot themselves in the foot.
That’s the beautiful thing about Einsteinist's when they proudly crow about another proof of Einsteinian stuff. They love to assert that the new experiment proves or confirms STR or GTR to well within the margin for error. Not realizing that when aetherists show that the experiment has an error then that same experiment has to then be seen to be a disproof of STR or GTR.
The muon experiment is one such disproof, within the margin for error. Newman explains.
https://www.gsjournal.net/Science-Journals/Research%20Papers-Relativity%20Theory/Download/1521
The Special Theory: Disproved by Flawed Experiment Measuring Muon Decay Times  ©Alan Newman
................One of the most famous experiments [1] in history was hailed as strong evidence in favour of the Special Theory of Relativity (SRT), but this paper explains clearly how that experiment was mal-performed, thereby offering evidence against the theory rather than for.

Its funny/strange/suspicious. The experiment failed to use the correct thickness of Fe, to correctly compensate for the slowing due to the correct mass of the atmosphere tween the 2 sites used for the 2 measurements. And, the error in thickness of Fe resulted in the exact observations needed to confirm STR. Amazing, who would have guessed.

bsfeechannel:

--- Quote from: aetherist on March 16, 2022, 01:10:48 am ---The muon experiment is one such disproof, within the margin for error. Newman explains.
https://www.gsjournal.net/Science-Journals/Research%20Papers-Relativity%20Theory/Download/1521
The Special Theory: Disproved by Flawed Experiment Measuring Muon Decay Times  ©Alan Newman
................One of the most famous experiments [1] in history was hailed as strong evidence in favour of the Special Theory of Relativity (SRT), but this paper explains clearly how that experiment was mal-performed, thereby offering evidence against the theory rather than for.

Its funny/strange/suspicious. The experiment failed to use the correct thickness of Fe, to correctly compensate for the slowing due to the correct mass of the atmosphere tween the 2 sites used for the 2 measurements. And, the error in thickness of Fe resulted in the exact observations needed to confirm STR. Amazing, who would have guessed.

--- End quote ---

From the "paper":

Calculations provided herein prove that this proportion was incorrect by 23% and resulted from a miscalculation of 77%. The results were claimed to verify the validity of the ‘Einstein Time Dilation’ included in the Special Theory of Relativity to within an acceptable margin of error, therefore that experiment proved that theory to be invalid beyond any reasonable doubt given the degree of discrepancy.

Published on a "journal" that can accept whatever stupid argument you may have:

The original and continued purpose of these pages is to provide an opportunity for public presentation of scientific theories without prior and arbitrary assessment, criticism or rejection by the recipient.

Time dilation is confirmed everyday, but the moron who wrote the "paper" concluded that it is invalid beyond any reasonable doubt, just because.

Nice try.

HuronKing:

--- Quote from: aetherist on March 16, 2022, 01:10:48 am ---
Muons were mentioned by TimFox in #1386. And by penfold in #1310.
--- End quote ---

Yes - and you have no explanation for them.


--- Quote ---The muon is wonderful. It is another fine example where Einsteinist's shoot themselves in the foot.
That’s the beautiful thing about Einsteinist's when they proudly crow about another proof of Einsteinian stuff. They love to assert that the new experiment proves or confirms STR or GTR to well within the margin for error. Not realizing that when aetherists show that the experiment has an error then that same experiment has to then be seen to be a disproof of STR or GTR.
The muon experiment is one such disproof, within the margin for error.

--- End quote ---

I'm not wasting my time parsing for errors in a crank paper published on a crank website like 'General Science Journal' though I did derive no small amusement from perusing a few of the submissions there.

Rather, I'm going to focus on something else stupid that you're asserting here - that the experiments on muon decay were done once in the 1960s and that's it! I don't care about the 1960s experiment (other than for historical reasons) - because other people did the experiment and the measurements of muon decay and the relativistic calculations associated with it are something so trivial that physics undergraduate students do this experiment ALL THE TIME:
https://scholarworks.smith.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1041&context=phy_facpubs

https://arxiv.org/pdf/physics/0502103.pdf

https://www.physlab.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/04/Muon_cali.pdf

https://www2.ph.ed.ac.uk/~muheim/teaching/projects/muon-lifetime.pdf

https://www.ictp-saifr.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/08/Lab_MuonLifetime_2018.pdf

http://www.princeton.edu/~romalis/PHYS312/Muon_lifetime.pdf

The list goes on.

Let me repeat. This experiment is so trivial that undergraduate physics students do it all the time in universities all over the world.  ::)

adx:

--- Quote from: bsfeechannel on March 16, 2022, 02:50:17 am ---... but the moron who wrote the "paper" ...

--- End quote ---

What, now subatomic particles can write papers?! I've been reading this thread too long :).

penfold:

--- Quote from: aetherist on March 16, 2022, 12:21:10 am ---
--- Quote from: penfold on March 15, 2022, 11:40:59 pm ---[...]
I can see how confined photons in an aether would produce a satisfactory explanation... without actually disputing observations and measurements... intriguing... maths time.
--- End quote ---
I didn’t use aether (i don’t know how aether could help)(unless the problem needed aetherwind).
And i didn’t use any kind of length contraction or ticking dilation.
[...]

--- End quote ---

I didn't say you did. I'm allowed to come up with my own theory of aether, aren't I?

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