General > General Technical Chat

Veritasium -- How Special Relativity Makes Magnets Work.

<< < (28/47) > >>

aetherist:

--- Quote from: hamster_nz on April 06, 2022, 11:31:25 pm ---
--- Quote from: aetherist on April 06, 2022, 10:17:22 pm ---If the acceleration of the aetherwind decreases somewhere inside Earth, then there must be a deceleration of the aetherwind, in which case gravity at the bottom of a deep hole might be upwards not downwards. No.
--- End quote ---
With a deep enough hole I think you will find the force of gravity is multiplied by i^2 (i.e. acts in the other direction). If not, dig deeper.
--- Quote from: aetherist on April 06, 2022, 10:17:22 pm ---Aether is annihilated in matter, ie in Earth. Hence there is no need for a theoretical deceleration.
--- End quote ---
What is the special attribute of matter in the Earth, vs that of a steel box around some electronics, or epoxy potting compound, or rock around a mine shaft that allows it to annihilate the aether?
--- End quote ---
Photons are an annihilation & excitation of the aether. Photons make our fundamental particles. Hence all matter annihilates aether.
EM radiation is a part of every photon, it is emitted by photons. EM radiation too annihilates aether, ie it has mass.

If simple Newton duznt explain the borehole anomaly, nor the big G anomaly, then these are a catastrophe, not a paradox. These are a catastrophe for Newton, & for Einstein, & for (basic) aether theory.
Me myself i am the only one who explains. In my (advanced aether) theory they are a paradox, not a catastrophe.

aetherist:

--- Quote from: HuronKing on April 06, 2022, 10:35:28 pm ---
--- Quote from: aetherist on April 06, 2022, 09:33:33 pm ---Is there anything specific in what Mueller & Lenard said that is wrong, re their criticisms of STR & GTR?
Me myself i don’t agree with every criticism in Mueller's book. He has hundreds.
Some criticisms are fatal to STR or GTR, some are important but not fatal. My above question refers to any fatal criticism.
--- End quote ---
Lenard's arguments were answered directly by Einstein (Lenard's arguments apparently amounting to "wahh! relativity is hard and my brain is too dumb to get it").
https://theconversation.com/when-science-gets-ugly-the-story-of-philipp-lenard-and-albert-einstein-43165

Anything else regarding Lenard on the subject of relativity is scientific jealousy at best and outright racism at worst:

Reactionaries and Einstein's Fame: “German Scientists for the Preservation of Pure Science,” Relativity, and the Bad Nauheim Meeting
https://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/1111/1111.2194.pdf

Compiling a giant list of 'objections' and 'criticisms' of STR or GTR is as infantile and hackneyed as those giant lists of 'scientists who oppose climate science':
http://ossfoundation.us/projects/environment/global-warming/myths/31000-scientists-say-no-convincing-evidence

And there are equally large lists of people who claim to have discovered free energy. No one is under any obligation to publish them if they lack basic competency in the theories they're criticizing.

The G.O. Muller list is definitely interesting from a historical point of view and as a nice compilation of active pseudoscientists or honest people who keep making basic mistakes about relativity.
--- End quote ---
Lists of people is not the same thing as lists of criticisms.
But it would be good if u criticised a selected (basic mistake) criticism, & then i could criticise your criticism.
U might be surprised, i don’t agree with some of the criticisms of STR & GTR.

It just occurred to me. I wonder whether Mueller & Co go further than criticising, ie whether they mention the alternative idea of there being an aether & aetherwind. I can't remember. I think they do.

HuronKing:

--- Quote from: aetherist on April 06, 2022, 11:49:29 pm ---Lists of people is not the same thing as lists of criticisms.
But it would be good if u criticised a selected (basic mistake) criticism, & then i could criticise your criticism.
U might be surprised, i don’t agree with some of the criticisms of STR & GTR.

--- End quote ---

I've been knocking down tired insane 'criticisms' of relativity for weeks on this forum. I don't need to go hunting for more to satisfy your incoherent ramblings.
There is nothing new in the Muller list (except their disgusting conspiratorial thinking which the more I look into the more it reeks of the evil legacy of Lenard).
https://www.c-span.org/video/?406673-2/the-man-stalked-einstein

When are YOU going to learn some relativity before wasting everyone's time decrying a theory you don't know the first thing about?


--- Quote ---I don’t know what STR predicts re fast moving electrons.
--- End quote ---

aetherist:

--- Quote from: HuronKing on April 06, 2022, 11:57:26 pm ---
--- Quote from: aetherist on April 06, 2022, 11:49:29 pm ---Lists of people is not the same thing as lists of criticisms.
But it would be good if u criticised a selected (basic mistake) criticism, & then i could criticise your criticism.
U might be surprised, i don’t agree with some of the criticisms of STR & GTR.
--- End quote ---
I've been knocking down tired insane 'criticisms' of relativity for weeks on this forum. I don't need to go hunting for more to satisfy your incoherent ramblings.
There is nothing new in the Muller list (except their disgusting conspiratorial thinking which the more I look into the more it reeks of the evil legacy of Lenard).
https://www.c-span.org/video/?406673-2/the-man-stalked-einstein

When are YOU going to learn some relativity before wasting everyone's time decrying a theory you don't know the first thing about?
--- Quote ---I don’t know what STR predicts re fast moving electrons.
--- End quote ---

--- End quote ---
Does STR predict that fast moving electrons gain mass?  Something predicted that fast moving electrons gained mass, in the oldendays, but not today they say.

Does STR predict that a fast moving electron has a different longitudinal mass to its transverse mass (or longitudinal inertia  & transverse inertia if u prefer).
I am not up with what they say today about that. What did Einstein say?

E=mcc has zero to do with STR as far as i am aware. Hence it can't predict anything about the mass of fast moving electrons. Nor i think re anything to do with the momentum of fast moving electrons, nor energy.

But u seem to know what STR predicts re fast moving electrons.

HuronKing:

--- Quote from: aetherist on April 07, 2022, 12:10:24 am ---Does STR predict that fast moving electrons gain mass?  Something predicted that fast moving electrons gained mass, in the oldendays, but not today they say.

Does STR predict that a fast moving electron has a different longitudinal mass to its transverse mass (or longitudinal inertia  & transverse inertia if u prefer)
I am not up with what they say today about that. What did Einstein say?

E=mcc has zero to do with STR as far as i am aware. Hence it can't predict anything about the mass of fast moving electrons. Nor i think re anything to do with the momentum of fast moving electrons, nor energy.

But u seem to know what STR predicts re fast moving electrons.

--- End quote ---

I do because I've done my homework. Why don't you instead of continuing to bathe in ignorance?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mass_in_special_relativity

https://www.feynmanlectures.caltech.edu/I_15.html
https://www.feynmanlectures.caltech.edu/I_16.html



Short answer - you don't know very much about relativity if you're stuck on understanding the meaning of 'relativistic mass' versus 'rest mass.' Feynman does teach it the older way but he makes it very clear this is about conservation of momentum and energy in reference frames.

You're also constantly using the wrong equation by referring to E = mc^2 exclusively. That's not the equation.
The proper equation is E^2 = (pc)^2 + (mc^2)^2 and it's a consequence of relativity (as shown by Feynman Lecture 16). Pedantic on my part? No, because E = mc^2 is a special expression of the mass-energy equivalence formula which means for a massless particle (like the photon) that has momentum we need to consider this in terms of momentum more than anything else.




--- Quote ---As an example of this effect, to deflect the high-speed electrons in the synchrotron that is used here at Caltech, we need a magnetic field that is 2000 times stronger than would be expected on the basis of Newton’s laws. In other words, the mass of the electrons in the synchrotron is 2000 times as great as their normal mass, and is as great as that of a proton! That m should be 2000 times m0 means that 1−v2/c2 must be 1/4,000,000, and that means that v differs from c by one part in 8,000,000, so the electrons are getting pretty close to the speed of light. If the electrons and light were both to start from the synchrotron (estimated as 700 feet away) and rush out to Bridge Lab, which would arrive first? The light, of course, because light always travels faster.1 How much earlier? That is too hard to tell—instead, we tell by what distance the light is ahead: it is about 1/1000 of an inch, or 14 the thickness of a piece of paper! When the electrons are going that fast their masses are enormous, but their speed cannot exceed the speed of light.
--- End quote ---
Feynman 15-8

Theory and experiment in perfect agreement. While aether rots in the grave.

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