| General > General Technical Chat |
| "Veritasium" (YT) - "The Big Misconception About Electricity" ? |
| << < (323/396) > >> |
| aetherist:
--- Quote from: dunkemhigh on March 17, 2022, 09:56:23 am --- --- Quote from: aetherist on March 17, 2022, 12:14:24 am --- --- Quote from: dunkemhigh on March 16, 2022, 11:46:13 pm ---OK, you got me. Is the misspelling just an affectation or is there some genuine reason for it? Normally one would use correct spelling and punctuation so that readers aren't confused about what's being said, and also because first impressions count for a lot, so giving the appearance of an uneducated yob doesn't exactly promote the idea that here is an intelligent and knowledgeable person. You seem to be perfectly capable of using quite large words (albeit a fair number of those are apparently cut'n'pasted), so how come you feel the need to mangle even simple words? --- End quote --- It would be good if English spelling changed quickly to simplify spelling etc. It would be good if spelling changed to accord with modern pronunciation. It would be good if large words were shortened. I am surprised that u have complained re my punctuation. I wonder whether the www google era will hasten such changes to English or slow them. In the meantime for sure i am waging a little war on English, but of course i dont want to overdo it, i suppose that koz & woz & probly etc might confuse readers from non-English speaking countries. Would u like to return to the year 1600? --- End quote --- There is a time and place to tilt at windmills, but I think that if you're trying to get across potentially complicated ideas then the fewer sharp corners that get in the way, the better. It's bad enough when you go on about MMX (I only recently, like in the past day or so, realised X means 'experiment'), but when simple infrastructural words are mangled each is like a bump in the road. The conscious mind should be entirely focused on the ideas, not the means by which the ideas are expressed (which should be handled by the subconscious), so every time you use something obscure you're mentally tripping up your reader and actively preventing them from giving your ideas their full attention. --- End quote --- Yes Michelson invented the interferometer & did the first such experiment to try to detect the speed of Earth through space in 1881, without much success -- too much vibration from nearby traffic & too much vibration from the axle of his slowly rotating gizmo. That X could be called a MX. Then he made a bigger better interferometer & did some experiments with the help of Morley starting in 1887 – ie MMXs. Later Morley got together & did more such experiments with Miller – ie MMXs – until praps 1935 (not sure). I sometimes call these experiments MMMXs, to include the three Ms. Every one of these MMXs found a signal, & Michelson reckoned that the signal showed an aetherwind of 6 km/s, instead of the sought 30 km/s (due to Earth's orbit they thort)(through a static aether they thort). Miller found an aetherwind of i think he said 220 km/s. The lower than expected speed was explained away (by FitzGerald & others) as being due to length contraction (or a change of shape) due to the aetherwind affecting the action of subatomic & atomic em forces. Munera (Brazil i think) in about 1990 found a mistake in Michelson's calculations, & corrected the 6 km/s to 8 km/s. Cahill in about 2001 found a mistake in the calibrations, & corrected Michelson's 8 km/s to 400 km/s, & Miller's 220 km/s to 420 km/s (i forget the exact numbers). Demjanov invented a twin-media MMX interferometer in 1968, & measured the horizontal component of the aetherwind at Obninsk to vary from 140 km/s to 480 km/s during a day. Today we all know that the background aetherwind blows at about 500 km/s south to north about 20 deg off Earth's axis. Demjanov in 1969 found the cause of a spurious signal that plagued the early MMXs, & indeed his own MMX. He called it a linear drift of zero. Miller called it compensation for incline. Demjanov wrote about 10 papers. And little ol me in 2017 found the full cause of that spurious signal. And for good measure in 2017 i found the cause of an additional spurious signal (that plagued Michelson & Morley & Miller) that was periodic in a full turn (the sought for standard MMX signal is periodic in a half turn). Cahill conducted a number of different kinds of his own MMXs from 2001 to 2017 approx. He wrote about 40 papers. Cahill didn’t call it aether or aetherwind, he called it quantum foam, & dynamic space (ie the usual terms used by Einsteinist's nowadays)(to avoid using the correct terms). |
| TimFox:
Why do you say that black-hole singularities, consistent with Schwartzschild's calculations from the Einstein's then newly-published General Theory of Relativity are "fictional"? I was just starting graduate school when Cygnus X-1 was discovered, and there have been many discovered since. (My relativity teacher was Subrahmanyan Chandrasekhar, but 50 years later I now need to look things up to confirm what I learned then.) Here is a list (which includes unproven candidates) that pops up immediately on Wikipedia: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_black_holes If you investigate each one on the list, you will find that some of them have not been firmly established. Note that this includes binaries and triples. Most of these were discovered by astronomical methods before the recent detection of gravitational waves, so you needn't sneer at the waves. |
| aetherist:
--- Quote from: bsfeechannel on March 17, 2022, 10:05:10 am --- --- Quote from: aetherist on March 17, 2022, 02:07:43 am ---Hence Einsteinists are not peers of neoLorentzists or of aetherists. It works both ways. --- End quote --- That's why Professor Dave Explains rightfully exposes cranks as liars, con men, ill-intentioned people, not just innocent idiots. You now agree that pseudo-scientists are not peers of scientists. This means that your claim that the muon experiment was peer reviewed to be proven wrong is a big LIE. Good to know that you admit that. --- Quote ---Or it works the same way if one accepts that it is the Einsteinists that are the pseudo-scientists. --- End quote --- Except that if Einstein's theories were wrong we wouldn't be having this conversation. The truth is that his theories were proved right quotidianly and changed the lives of the common people, whereas your claims weren't demonstrated once and constitute just a bunch of incongruent, empty assertions. So you are the pseudobear here. --- End quote --- Einstein never had any peer review for his published papers. But, in 1905, who would have been his peers? Patent clerks? professor Dave aint a Professor. Dr Pierre-Marie Robitaille did an expose on prof Dave that showed that Dave was a nincompoop re CMBR & re the Sun. But praps Dave does a good job in some of his youtubes – i haven’t seen them. Does he have any re aether? Einstein's theories have not affected progress, except to retard it. |
| TimFox:
As I pointed out earlier, when a first experiment is done on a given topic, many further experiments will follow, either to confirm the earlier results or, even better, to use improved equipment to get a more accurate result. Here is a popular description of a 2009 experiment based on Michelson and Morley's late 19th century work, using optical cavities, where the sensitivity is roughly 108 higher than the 1887 experiment. https://physicsworld.com/a/michelson-morley-experiment-is-best-yet/ By the way, I never encountered Michelson's original experimental equipment (at now Case Western Reserve University in Ohio), but Michelson went from there to found the Physics department at my alma mater (University of Chicago), and some of his equipment was still in usable condition over 70 years later, and I used one of his small interferometers in a lab class. His instrument-making skills were amazing. My copy of his complete works is in storage, but I remember his article about how to measure the prototype meter (the Pt-Ir alloy rod in Paris) in terms of a mercury wavelength, despite the fact that the mercury lamp's coherence length is much shorter than 1 meter. As a child, I saw the Bonanza TV episode (1962) with Michelson in Virginia City, Nevada, and assumed it was fictional, but the encyclopedia biography said that he was, in fact, there (after immigrating from Prussia, now Poland with his family) until he was appointed to the US Naval Academy. If you must launch ad hominem attacks on great scientists, you should get your facts straight. Peer review: I discussed this many pages earlier in Reply #1317. The two editors at Annalen der Physik, Planck and Wien, were as good as any other peers available at that time. PS: here is the abstract of the 2009 German experiment, printed in Physical Review Letters (you will need to go to a library or purchase it to read the paper): https://journals.aps.org/prl/abstract/10.1103/PhysRevLett.103.090401 |
| penfold:
--- Quote from: aetherist on March 17, 2022, 08:48:03 pm ---I have already explained that every MMX (1887-2016) has confirmed the existence of aetherwind. The best MMX being by Demjanov at Obninsk in 1968-72, but he did not publish in English until about 2005. In addition the aetherwind has been seen to affect the speed of electricity in a coaxial cable (DeWitte). --- End quote --- You made such a statement, but you didn't explain. It certainly doesn't prove, demonstrate or show any evidence of aether wind in a scientific sense. Maybe to you, it proves it... but evidently to any rational being... it doesn't. All that those papers do prove is that the people performing the experiments are incapable of actually determining the source of their errors and cannot find a reason why there is no correlation between their own experiments and those performed scientifically. I actually said "with modern-science, which includes the work of Einstein, society has achieved something", modern science has achieved an incredible amount. There are indeed devices that employ models developed from Einsteinian relativity in use across the globe, maybe the theory is wrong... but it is useable and it works. Aetherists don't even understand the maths they're dealing with or the experiments they're trying to perform. There's no useful research performed on aether and no useful results... it is still within your power to change that, do something useful with it, develop rational conclusions from the data -- or at least demonstrate you have some capacity to do so. |
| Navigation |
| Message Index |
| Next page |
| Previous page |