General > General Technical Chat
"Veritasium" (YT) - "The Big Misconception About Electricity" ?
<< < (328/396) > >>
aetherist:

--- Quote from: HuronKing on March 22, 2022, 09:57:22 pm ---
--- Quote from: aetherist on March 22, 2022, 08:37:43 pm ---Did Steinmetz believe in electrons?
--- End quote ---
Who cares? He died before he knew about the Pauli Exclusion Principle, the Dirac Equation, Wave-Particle Duality etc etc etc... Which means he did not know about electrons and photons to the extent we do now.

If he believed in electrons, great! But he didn't know what we know now.
If he didn't believe in electrons, that's okay too. It's not his fault he died before so much more was discovered about them.

Whatever he believed about electrons is incomplete and irrelevant to our current understanding. Although, from a historical point of view, if you read his lectures on relativity you'll see he was very close to describing a proto-idea of quantum field theory.

This is like asking if Newton believed in galaxies...


--- Quote ---Did Steinmetz believe that electricity was due to drifting electrons inside a wire?
--- End quote ---
Who cares?
--- Quote ---It appears that Steinmetz was an Einsteinist in that Steinmetz believed that the speed of light was a constant.
--- End quote ---
LOL are you choosing to ignore the evidence of your own eyes? Steinmetz delivered 4 scathing lectures in which he went through all of special relativity and general relativity. He was into the whole thing, hardcore. I'm surprised you weren't aware of how thoroughly he shreds ether to pieces.
--- Quote ---What would Steinmetz have thort about DeWitte finding that the speed of electricity is not a constant (coax cables)?
--- End quote ---
Steinmetz knew that dielectrics affect the speed of light - it's not light in a vacuum anymore...
--- Quote ---What would Steinmetz have thort about new (electon) electricity?
--- End quote ---
Krapp. Next?  :scared:
--- End quote ---
Can u show me where Steinmetz ever mentions the STR cause of magnetism around a current carrying wire.

In his 4 lectures, can u show me where Steinmetz ever mentions the STR cause of magnetism around a current carrying wire.

I think that u can't.
So, in the only area where he should have some expertise (electricity & em radiation) & can comment on STR, he is mute.
penfold:

--- Quote from: aetherist on March 22, 2022, 09:24:11 pm ---[...]
What did Steinmetz think of the electric energy being in the Poynting Field? I think Steinmetz agreed.

--- End quote ---

I don't think Steinmetz did any particular work which would have led to a contrary opinion, I suspect that he'd have spotted any deviations from Maxwell, of which Poynting is a theorem, and his years overlapped with the advent of the Drude model - I've no reason to suspect he would have disagreed with either.
aetherist:

--- Quote from: penfold on March 22, 2022, 10:43:40 pm ---
--- Quote from: aetherist on March 22, 2022, 09:24:11 pm ---[...]What did Steinmetz think of the electric energy being in the Poynting Field? I think Steinmetz agreed.
--- End quote ---
I don't think Steinmetz did any particular work which would have led to a contrary opinion, I suspect that he'd have spotted any deviations from Maxwell, of which Poynting is a theorem, and his years overlapped with the advent of the Drude model - I've no reason to suspect he would have disagreed with either.
--- End quote ---
But, Steinmetz knew that the ave drift velocity of electrons varied with the dia of the wire squared.
Steinmetz knew that the magnetic field depended on the amps in the wire, not on the dia, ie not on the ave drift velocity.
Steinmetz knew that by doubling the dia or by halving the dia then the magnetic field did not change.
But STR said that the magnetic field did change.
STR said that u could get a magnetic field 1000 times stronger by simply using a very thin wire.
So, Steinmetz committed suicide. Admirable.
HuronKing:

--- Quote from: aetherist on March 22, 2022, 10:17:14 pm ---Can u show me where Steinmetz ever mentions the STR cause of magnetism around a current carrying wire.
In his 4 lectures, can u show me where Steinmetz ever mentions the STR cause of magnetism around a current carrying wire.
I think that u can't.
--- End quote ---

Oh, but yes I can. It's on p.20-21 of the lectures. He uses relativistic field theory to explain the emergence of electromagnetic interactions (notice his careful use of relative velocities) in a chapter called "Conclusions from Relativity Theory."


--- Quote ---So, in the only area where he should have some expertise (electricity & em radiation) & can comment on STR, he is mute.

--- End quote ---

He's not mute - he's simplifying the explanation. If you read Steinmetz's introduction to the lectures he says explicitly that he seeks to only give a layman's explanation of special and general relativity theories... it's NOT his complete exegesis on the theories or all their consequences. Are you insane?

But lucky for me, I don't need to hang my hat on every word out of Steinmetz's mouth on lectures about relativity to an audience of mathematical laymen in the early 1920s. I have Edward Purcell, Chapter 5:
https://cdn.bc-pf.org/resources/physics/Theory/Purcell-electricity_and_magnetism_3rd_edition.pdf

Coming back to Steinmetz, he's obviously familiar with, and agrees with, Einstein's solution to the moving conductor problem (that electric fields in one moving frame of reference must give rise to magnetic fields in another frame of reference) because he's heaping praise on special relativity all throughout the text while ripping ether as a useless paradigm.

And he does mention electrons on p.8 of the lectures (and how they provide evidence for special relativity).

You really need to give up trying to co-opt Steinmetz for your crankery. I know why you latched onto him as soon as he got mentioned - because other cranks on the Internet have tried to co-opt Steinmetz. He won't help you - he was a filthy Einteinist and he helped nail the coffin shut on the ether.


--- Quote ---The hypothesis of the ether has been finally disproven and abandoned. There is no such thing as the ether.
--- End quote ---
Charles Steinmetz p.16
aetherist:

--- Quote from: HuronKing on March 22, 2022, 11:33:17 pm ---
--- Quote from: aetherist on March 22, 2022, 10:17:14 pm ---Can u show me where Steinmetz ever mentions the STR cause of magnetism around a current carrying wire.
In his 4 lectures, can u show me where Steinmetz ever mentions the STR cause of magnetism around a current carrying wire.
I think that u can't.
--- End quote ---
Oh, but yes I can. It's on p.20-21 of the lectures. He uses relativistic field theory to explain the emergence of electromagnetic interactions (notice his careful use of relative velocities) in a chapter called "Conclusions from Relativity Theory."
--- Quote ---So, in the only area where he should have some expertise (electricity & em radiation) & can comment on STR, he is mute.
--- End quote ---
He's not mute - he's simplifying the explanation. If you read Steinmetz's introduction to the lectures he says explicitly that he seeks to only give a layman's explanation of special and general relativity theories... it's NOT his complete exegesis on the theories or all their consequences. Are you insane?

But lucky for me, I don't need to hang my hat on every word out of Steinmetz's mouth on lectures about relativity to an audience of mathematical laymen in the early 1920s. I have Edward Purcell, Chapter 5:
https://cdn.bc-pf.org/resources/physics/Theory/Purcell-electricity_and_magnetism_3rd_edition.pdf

Coming back to Steinmetz, he's obviously familiar with, and agrees with, Einstein's solution to the moving conductor problem (that electric fields in one moving frame of reference must give rise to magnetic fields in another frame of reference) because he's heaping praise on special relativity all throughout the text while ripping ether as a useless paradigm.

And he does mention electrons on p.8 of the lectures (and how they provide evidence for special relativity).

You really need to give up trying to co-opt Steinmetz for your crankery. I know why you latched onto him as soon as he got mentioned - because other cranks on the Internet have tried to co-opt Steinmetz. He won't help you - he was a filthy Einsteinist and he helped nail the coffin shut on the ether.
--- Quote ---The hypothesis of the ether has been finally disproven and abandoned. There is no such thing as the ether.
--- End quote ---
Charles Steinmetz p.16
--- End quote ---

Purcell ch5 is no better. He in effect confirms that STR infers that there is no limit to the hi-strength of a magnetic field around a current carrying wire if u make the wire thinner & thinner. And, no limit to the lo-strength if u make the wire thicker & thicker. All wires carrying the same say one Amp.
What to call it?  Einstein's Magnetism Catastrophe – might do.

Einstein's MC can be added to Einstein's TC (Twins Catastrophe)(which i see that Steinmetz ignored in his 4 lectures).

I see that Steinmetz too called the MMX null, when in fact the MMX showed a 6 km/s aetherwind, corrected to 8 km/s by Munera (using the proper averages), corrected to about 380 km/s by Cahill (using the proper calibration).

In 1925-33 approx Miller & Morley repeated the Michelson & Morley MMX & found an aetherwind of about 240 km/s, later corrected to 400 km/s by Cahill using the proper calibration. But Steinmetz died in 1923 (either from shame re the Einsteinian Twins Catastrophe, or from anxiety re the Einsteinian Magnetic Catastrophe), hence he did not have the benefit of Miller's improved MMX.

Einstein's STR, a theory so wrong that it was proven wrong (in 1887)(when Einstein was 8YO) before STR was invented (in 1905).

Re Einstein's Magnetism Catastrophe. Einsteinist's always invoke an infinitely long wire. Did u ever wonder why it was infinitely long? Allow me to tell u. It was infinitely long koz a finitely long wire duznt work.

The attraction (or repulsion) tween 2 finite parallel wires can't increase with relative speed, koz STR length contraction (supposedly) lessens the spacings tween electrons or protons, but it can't add or subtract electrons or protons from the wire(s).
What to call this? Einstein's Catastrophe For Wires With Finite Length.
It means that finite lengths of wire can't have magnetism.
Navigation
Message Index
Next page
Previous page
There was an error while thanking
Thanking...

Go to full version
Powered by SMFPacks Advanced Attachments Uploader Mod