General > General Technical Chat

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

<< < (324/396) > >>

aetherist:

--- Quote from: TimFox on March 17, 2022, 09:32:15 pm ---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.
--- End quote ---

Blackholes are very interesting for sure. I think there are a few possible kinds. The singularity blackhole (i don’t believe in singularities). The say non-singularity kind of blackhole (possible) – this would i suppose be very similar in most ways to the singularity blackhole. Brownholes – almost black – light can escape, just.

Aether theory says that blackholes are impossible. Its like this. Aether theory says that light can't exceed  c km/s in the aether. This means that particles can't reach  c  in the aether. This means that aether can't reach  c  at a particle. This means that aether can't flow into matter (ie into a super massive star) at more than  c. This means that light can escape from every super massive star, just.

Aether theory says that aether flows into all matter, to replace aether annihilated in all matter, & the inflow is at the escape velocity.

It strains the imagination of what a super massive star might look like. Would it be very bright? Or gray? Or brown?

Hold on, i am wrong. I forgot that Einstein said (correctly) that light is slowed when near mass. This means that the speed of light is less than  c in the aether, when near a super massive star, lets call that speed c'. Hence the max speed of a particle in the aether is  c', when near a super massive star. Hence the max speed of the aether inflow into a super massive star is  c'. So, we are back to where we started, ie light can escape, just.

But this creates an aetheric paradox. Matter needs a healthy inflow of aether, to sustain the matter. If the inflow is reduced to almost zero at the surface of a super massive star then matter deeper in the star is starved of aether. Something is wrong here. Still thinking.

aetherist:

--- Quote from: TimFox on March 17, 2022, 09:54:29 pm ---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

--- End quote ---
Michelson was an interesting character. I haven’t attacked him, but i sort of will now.
His 4m by 4m MMXs floating on mercury were horrible. The MMX was top heavy, & the axle pin was very loose & floppy. And having mirrors at two levels was a mini disaster (it gave a signal periodic in a full turn).
Unfortunately for Miller, Miller borrowed Michelson's gizmo, & hence Miller had the same trouble.
It’s a wonder that they got any useful results.

Its not well known, but Michelson made a new gizmo in about 1929 i think, similar to his earlier gizmo, but with the new gizmo u sat over the top center, & u didn’t have to walk round & round. But it was even more top heavy than the old gizmo, & probly just as floppy, & he published a 1-page paper saying that it was a failure.

Modern optical cavity MMXs use vacuum. Cahill in 2001 explained that MMXs need to be in gas mode, eg using air. Vacuum gives a null result. Helium is almost as bad as vacuum. Demjanov used carbon disulphide gas.
But modern optical cavity MMXs do find a weak signal anyhow (which they blame on systematic noise or something)(& subtract). I don’t know whether this weak signal is koz their vacuum is not perfect, or whether it is koz Cahill is wrong. I think that Cahill is wrong, a perfect vacuum gives a 3rd order signal or a 4th order signal (gas mode gives a 2nd order signal), ie vacuum duznt give a zero signal (but praps Cahill knew that).

Cahill explains that modern vacuum mode cavity Xs (there have been many) are a good test of (aetherwind) length contraction (& are otherwise of no use), but i doubt that any of the papers mention length contraction at all. When i say that they are otherwise of no use, Cahill was aware that in one or two of them they had a weak signal which confirmed the aetherwind (if properly explained)(& properly calibrated).

Almost every gizmo ever made is capable of detecting the aetherwind. But of course the trick is to make a gizmo that is very sensitive, & has an explainable calibration, while minimizing unwanted aetherwind signals. The oldendays MMXs must have had about 10 kinds of aetherwind signal, which had to be deducted, or treated as noise (but they werent noise, they were signals).
Like i said earlier, i could use a set of intersection traffic signals to measure the aetherwind.

TimFox:
In 1929, Michelson started work on improving the accuracy of his speed of light measurements, but he died in 1931 before that work was complete.
The history of the speed of light measurements is an interesting topic in its own right, the work that Michelson started in 1927 was the first to use a reasonable vacuum (< 0.5 Torr).
When contemplating the invariance of the speed of light with respect to direction, etc., I submit that measurements in vacuo represent true physics.

An interesting use of the postulates in General Relativity:  consider a sealed railway boxcar, with a helium balloon on the end of a string tied to the center of the floor, floating about half-way up the interior of the car.
We assume that the railroad is the good kind that Einstein used in his popular explanations, rather than the bumpy ones that I encounter.
Now, let the train accelerate from rest, at a constant acceleration rate, towards the east.  In what direction, with respect to the interior of the car, does the balloon float?

HuronKing:

--- Quote from: aetherist on March 17, 2022, 09:40:02 pm ---Einstein's theories have not affected progress, except to retard it.

--- End quote ---

Special relativity led directly to the prediction and discovery of the positron as well as predicting hydrogen spectra via the Dirac Equation.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dirac_equation

But because you are calculus illiterate, you are completely incapable of even reading the equation, let alone understanding it.

Stop spreading your lies.

aetherist:

--- Quote from: TimFox on March 17, 2022, 10:58:22 pm ---In 1929, Michelson started work on improving the accuracy of his speed of light measurements, but he died in 1931 before that work was complete.
The history of the speed of light measurements is an interesting topic in its own right, the work that Michelson started in 1927 was the first to use a reasonable vacuum (< 0.5 Torr).
When contemplating the invariance of the speed of light with respect to direction, etc., I submit that measurements in vacuo represent true physics.

An interesting use of the postulates in General Relativity:  consider a sealed railway boxcar, with a helium balloon on the end of a string tied to the center of the floor, floating about half-way up the interior of the car.
We assume that the railroad is the good kind that Einstein used in his popular explanations, rather than the bumpy ones that I encounter.
Now, let the train accelerate from rest, at a constant acceleration rate, towards the east.  In what direction, with respect to the interior of the car, does the balloon float?
--- End quote ---
For sure vacuum is needed for the measurement of c. But, Einstein also inferred that the experiment had to be done well away from any mass, or as far away as possible, but this advice seems to be ignored.

But, vacuum is not needed if wanting to find the effect of the aetherwind on c. DeWitte did it. Torr & Kolen did it.
http://mountainman.com.au/process_physics/hps13.pdf

I reckon that the balloon will float towards the east, ie in the direction of acceleration. But i don’t see any GTR stuff going on here. Einstein & Co would give that answer before 1915 & after 1915.

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