Author Topic: Veritasium -- How Special Relativity Makes Magnets Work.  (Read 25667 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline PlainName

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 7508
  • Country: va
Re: Veritasium -- How Special Relativity Makes Magnets Work.
« Reply #200 on: April 17, 2022, 11:18:42 pm »
Quote
bulk liquids themselves can't length contract, they just fill their container (as usual)

If they are unconstrained (a puddle, perhaps) then the puddle would stay the same size or what? If they completely fill a container and the container contracts, would the uncompressible liquid cause the container to burst or do liquids actually contract after all?

 

Offline hamster_nz

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 2812
  • Country: nz
Re: Veritasium -- How Special Relativity Makes Magnets Work.
« Reply #201 on: April 17, 2022, 11:27:49 pm »
Quote
bulk liquids themselves can't length contract, they just fill their container (as usual)

If they are unconstrained (a puddle, perhaps) then the puddle would stay the same size or what? If they completely fill a container and the container contracts, would the uncompressible liquid cause the container to burst or do liquids actually contract after all?

I was thinking along much the same lines - that the pressure and/or temperature in a container would change depending on which way the aether was blowing...

What about the quantum electron gas in a metal (the Drude–Sommerfeld model)?
Gaze not into the abyss, lest you become recognized as an abyss domain expert, and they expect you keep gazing into the damn thing.
 

Offline aetheristTopic starter

  • Frequent Contributor
  • **
  • !
  • Posts: 621
  • Country: au
  • The aether will return. It never left.
Re: Veritasium -- How Special Relativity Makes Magnets Work.
« Reply #202 on: April 17, 2022, 11:50:46 pm »
Quote
bulk liquids themselves can't length contract, they just fill their container (as usual)
If they are unconstrained (a puddle, perhaps) then the puddle would stay the same size or what? If they completely fill a container and the container contracts, would the uncompressible liquid cause the container to burst or do liquids actually contract after all?
I was thinking along much the same lines - that the pressure and/or temperature in a container would change depending on which way the aether was blowing...

What about the quantum electron gas in a metal (the Drude–Sommerfeld model)?
dunkemhigh………….. In a puddle, & in a container, if the length contraction gamma for the liquid is the same as the length contraction gamma for the puddle/container then there would be no apparent change in length or volume etc for an observer in the frame of the puddle/container.
But, as i said earlier, different substances probly have a different length contraction gamma. Hence the pressure in the container would change.


hamster…………… The direction of the aetherwind would not affect the above.
I think that the apparent temperature & the real temperature would change, koz, as i said earlier, in aether theory everything is apparently variant (ie apparently changes with velocity)(ie apparently changes with aetherwind), nothing is apparently invariant.
Re real changes (ie as observed by an observer stationary in the absolute frame), real changes happen to everything all the time (if the aetherwind changes)(which it duz)(continuously & continually).
 

Offline TimFox

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 9002
  • Country: us
  • Retired, now restoring antique test equipment
Re: Veritasium -- How Special Relativity Makes Magnets Work.
« Reply #203 on: April 18, 2022, 03:32:26 am »
"But, as i said earlier, different substances probly have a different length contraction gamma."

What experimental evidence is there for that statement?
 

Offline aetheristTopic starter

  • Frequent Contributor
  • **
  • !
  • Posts: 621
  • Country: au
  • The aether will return. It never left.
Re: Veritasium -- How Special Relativity Makes Magnets Work.
« Reply #204 on: April 18, 2022, 07:30:44 am »
"But, as i said earlier, different substances probly have a different length contraction gamma."

What experimental evidence is there for that statement?
There is no X evidence that different substances have a different length contraction gamma. But, it is a very reasonable hypotheses.
The size & shape of different atoms is likely to result in a different gamma. Then, add to that, the size & shape of different molecules etc. However, i grant that it iznt immediately obvious. It takes a genius to even suppose it. All of the forces are em, but the actions of the em are likely to be non-uniform, when the longi aetherwind in the arm changes in strength.

MMXs dunn in vacuo prove that the Lorentz/FitzGerald gamma & the Lorentz/FitzGerald equation, for length contraction, are good, for Fe (ie they give a zero result for the aetherwind).
I suppose that an MMX dunn in vacuo & with one arm made of Fe (atomic number 26) & another arm made of say Beryllium (atomic number 4) could be a goodish test of my supposition.

Praps better still, a Demjanov MMX, using his twin media, air & carbondisulphide (gas)(with one arm Fe & other arm Be).

Einsteinian STR of course takes no notice of substance, in any way. It duznt even take notice of whether a solid or a liquid or a gas, or a vacuum.  Einsteinian STR only takes notice of co-ordinates & kinematics.
« Last Edit: April 18, 2022, 07:33:49 am by aetherist »
 

Offline raptor1956

  • Frequent Contributor
  • **
  • Posts: 869
  • Country: us
Re: Veritasium -- How Special Relativity Makes Magnets Work.
« Reply #205 on: April 18, 2022, 10:57:25 am »
How in hell did this thread reach 9 pages when it could have been summed up as:

Dunning Frickin Kruger!

Honestly, there are a subset of people on YT and elsewhere that fancy themselves as smarter than the smartest people that ever lived yet somehow manage to come across as a simpleton at the extreme edge of the Dunning-Kruger curve.  Take a guy that calls himself Theoria Apophasis, or the Angry Photographer, he posts insane nonsense in a form not unlike our aetherist.  Basically, invent an idea then cloke in in word salad -- repeat!


Brian
 

Offline aetheristTopic starter

  • Frequent Contributor
  • **
  • !
  • Posts: 621
  • Country: au
  • The aether will return. It never left.
Re: Veritasium -- How Special Relativity Makes Magnets Work.
« Reply #206 on: April 18, 2022, 09:37:38 pm »
How in hell did this thread reach 9 pages when it could have been summed up as:
Dunning Frickin Kruger!
Honestly, there are a subset of people on YT and elsewhere that fancy themselves as smarter than the smartest people that ever lived yet somehow manage to come across as a simpleton at the extreme edge of the Dunning-Kruger curve.  Take a guy that calls himself Theoria Apophasis, or the Angry Photographer, he posts insane nonsense in a form not unlike our aetherist.  Basically, invent an idea then cloke in in word salad -- repeat! Brian
I don’t class myself as smart or others as stupid. Praps myself as knowing & others as ignorant, re some things.
Praps the Dunning Kruger applies to u. I wonder whether, if later u change your mind & start to agree with my ideas, would u be happy, ie happy to learn, ie happy to be less ignorant, or would u be angry, ie angry with me, for replacing falseness with truth. Here i am not trying to be nasty, i pose that as a genuine question. It applies to me too, & everyone out there. This question applies to life. The answer ideally would be that u would thank me, & that u would be very happy to learn, & to be less ignorant (once again i don’t mean that in a nasty way).

This thread is not about inventing an idea & cloaking it in word salad. I have tried to explain that an existing old idea is wrong (ie the silly STR cause of mmf).
I have not invented anything in this thread to replace that old wrong idea. mmf around a current carrying wire is a mystery to me.
But for sure it duznt have anything to do with any kind of relativity, not with STR, not with neoLorentz relativity, not with my own version of neoLorentz relativity.

As a part of explaining that the STR cause of mmf is wrong i have also tried to briefly explain that STR is wrong. This kind of argument is ok. If i show that STR is wrong then of course i at the same time show that the STR cause of mmf is wrong. But i don’t want to enter into a big argument about STR itself (that would need its own thread). But, anyhow, i don’t have to. In this here thread i try to show that STR has not been properly applied to the cause of mmf. I don’t have to show that STR itself is a silly idea. I repeat, i simply show that STR has not been properly applied. That’s all i had to do. And i did it.

As a part of explaining that STR is wrong, i have also tried to briefly explain how relativity actually works, ie proper relativity, ie aetheric relativity. This kind of argument is ok. But, once again, i don’t want to enter into a big argument about aether (that would need its own thread), or about relativity (that would need its own thread).

If u read Dunning Kruger u will see that they also mention a subset of people that fancy themselves to be less smart than they actually are. I suspect that i am in that subset.
« Last Edit: April 18, 2022, 09:48:36 pm by aetherist »
 

Offline PlainName

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 7508
  • Country: va
Re: Veritasium -- How Special Relativity Makes Magnets Work.
« Reply #207 on: April 18, 2022, 10:04:35 pm »
Quote
And i did it.

You did? I must've missed that - perhaps you can repeat it (this time not ignoring any corrections the kindly Tim Fox has pointed out).

Quote
(ie the silly STR cause of mmf)

You do realise that in repeating that kind of thing you are essentially saying to everyone else here "you are silly and stupid", which is not really a good way to get people on-side before you even start trying to explain stuff. There is no need to be a troll other than to wind people up - is that what you're here for?
 

Offline hamster_nz

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 2812
  • Country: nz
Re: Veritasium -- How Special Relativity Makes Magnets Work.
« Reply #208 on: April 18, 2022, 10:14:44 pm »
How in hell did this thread reach 9 pages when it could have been summed up as:

Dunning Frickin Kruger!

Honestly, there are a subset of people on YT and elsewhere that fancy themselves as smarter than the smartest people that ever lived yet somehow manage to come across as a simpleton at the extreme edge of the Dunning-Kruger curve.  Take a guy that calls himself Theoria Apophasis, or the Angry Photographer, he posts insane nonsense in a form not unlike our aetherist.  Basically, invent an idea then cloke in in word salad -- repeat!


Brian

I too initially shared your frustration, but it seems to quickly morphs into an exercise in critical thinking. My current bit of critical thinking is wondering if Aetherist is some sort of AI-powered bot sent to troll us.

Given the word salad of some of their posts, but also appears to be very well read and able to put some research in context, and the endless patience in face of overwhelming inconsistencies in their position.

If I had to call odds on a bet that they are a bot, I'm currently at 10:1 (ie most likely not a bot, but still a better than outside chance...).
Gaze not into the abyss, lest you become recognized as an abyss domain expert, and they expect you keep gazing into the damn thing.
 

Offline raptor1956

  • Frequent Contributor
  • **
  • Posts: 869
  • Country: us
Re: Veritasium -- How Special Relativity Makes Magnets Work.
« Reply #209 on: April 18, 2022, 10:35:21 pm »
How in hell did this thread reach 9 pages when it could have been summed up as:

Dunning Frickin Kruger!

Honestly, there are a subset of people on YT and elsewhere that fancy themselves as smarter than the smartest people that ever lived yet somehow manage to come across as a simpleton at the extreme edge of the Dunning-Kruger curve.  Take a guy that calls himself Theoria Apophasis, or the Angry Photographer, he posts insane nonsense in a form not unlike our aetherist.  Basically, invent an idea then cloke in in word salad -- repeat!


Brian

I too initially shared your frustration, but it seems to quickly morphs into an exercise in critical thinking. My current bit of critical thinking is wondering if Aetherist is some sort of AI-powered bot sent to troll us.

Given the word salad of some of their posts, but also appears to be very well read and able to put some research in context, and the endless patience in face of overwhelming inconsistencies in their position.

If I had to call odds on a bet that they are a bot, I'm currently at 10:1 (ie most likely not a bot, but still a better than outside chance...).


Actually, it may be the case that he's a troll sent here to further the agenda of making as many in the west doubt all authority.  Whether it's flat earth, or any number of conspiracy theories that purport to show the evil inside the darkened room that is our institutions and government, the deep state.  Many of these 'channels' appear to be the work of an individual, but often the video's they produce are packed with content that anyone who's created content will tell you is unlikely to be the work of a loan individual.  Just canvasing the internet for snippets of content to piece together is a lot of work before you get into animations and slick graphics them some seem able to produce with amazing frequency.  So, is aetherist a troll sent from Russia to undermine our way of life -- I have no idea, but it does fit the pattern.

As surprising as it may seem, attacking all manor of authority is useful to a nation state in their effort to destroy an 'enemy' from within and by enlisting their enemies own people to help them.  Flat earth and other nonsense has the effect of making more and more people doubt science and by extension, all other institutions.

I don't know what aetherist is all about, he may be just a nut case and classic example of Dunning-Kruger or he may be a troll sent to divide -- that someone who struggles with the English language while portraying himself as an Aussie yet manages to sprinkle enough semi-plausible word salad suggests the later.   


Brian
 

Offline aetheristTopic starter

  • Frequent Contributor
  • **
  • !
  • Posts: 621
  • Country: au
  • The aether will return. It never left.
Re: Veritasium -- How Special Relativity Makes Magnets Work.
« Reply #210 on: April 18, 2022, 11:27:25 pm »
Quote
And i did it.
You did? I must've missed that - perhaps you can repeat it (this time not ignoring any corrections the kindly Tim Fox has pointed out).
Quote
(ie the silly STR cause of mmf)
You do realise that in repeating that kind of thing you are essentially saying to everyone else here "you are silly and stupid", which is not really a good way to get people on-side before you even start trying to explain stuff. There is no need to be a troll other than to wind people up - is that what you're here for?
Here below i have shown copies of parts of some of my Replys. Not one has been debunked (u ask that i not ignore any corrections)(there were no corrections).

When i say "the silly STR cause of mmf" I am not saying that everyone here is silly & stupid. I am emphasising that the STR cause of mmf is silly, & that STR itself is silly. I realize that some years ago i too believed in STR etc. It took say one year of googling before i realised the real nature & failings of STR. I was shocked.  Now, 13 yrs later, i am still learning. I don’t expect everyone here to be as interested in STR as me.

However, the STR explanation of mmf around a wire is an electrical thing & should of course interest everyone around here, but a proper (full) understanding of that there explanation needs a study of STR itself, taking years, few around here would be that interested, that’s ok, that duznt make anyone silly or stupid.

Reply#5.
The Veritasium youtube etc tells us that drifting electrons drifting at (Veritasium says) 0.3 mm/s in the lab frame have the same spacings (center to center) as the Cu nuclei (ie protons)(which are stationary in the lab frame). Veritasium & Co have to invoke that postulate, koz they know that a stationary charge is not attracted or repelled by a wire carrying an electric current. But, if, when there is zero electric current, the electron to electron spacing is the same as the proton to proton spacing, then, when the current is turned on, & electrons drift, surely STR demands that in the lab frame the electron to electron spacing will be contracted. In which case the wire will have a negative charge in the lab frame.

Reply#11.
One more catastrophe which might qualify as STRIKE-2. While Veritasium's kitty & The Science Asylum's squirrel are moving along at say 0.03 mm/s in the drifting electron frame, they suffer a repulsion due to the excess of positive charge in the wire, due to the length contraction of the spacing of the protons. What Veritasium & Co failed to tell us is that the kitty & the squirrel were carrying magnetic compasses, & the compasses reacted to the magnetic field, in the same way that they always react, even tho the kitty & squirrel & compasses were moving at 0.03 mm/s. And they failed to tell us that the compasses reacted exactly in that same way (to the magnetic field) at any & every speed (eg -3 mm/s, 00 mm/s, + 3 mm/s)(or at any speed that u might care to nominate). In other words, the kitty & squirrel got (can get) a double dose of magnetomotive force. They get the standard magnetomotive force from the magnetic field (which exists at all velocities), plus they can get the pseudo STR magnetomotive force (which varies with velocity). What a disaster. But there are lots more disasters to follow.

Reply#20.
Here (below in italics)(& in the linked pdf)(& in the three jpg attached below) is what Purcell says in his own version of the pathetic Einsteinian attempt to wave away this STR catastrophe (that i call STRIKE-1).  https://cdn.bc-pf.org/resources/physics/Theory/Purcell-electricity_and_magnetism_3rd_edition.pdf
I say that we all agree that there is zero force on a stationary test charge in the lab frame when there is no electric current in the stationary wire.  I say that Einsteinists (eg Purcell) need to explain why the force remains zero, when the current is switched on.  I say that (when the current is switched on) STR demands that the electron to electron spacings of the conduction electrons must (suddenly) contract, due to their (sudden) drift velocity, in which case the wire must (suddenly) have a nett negative charge, in which case the (say positive)(stationary) test charge must be (suddenly) attracted.  But, Einsteinists wave away this obvious catastrophe by working backwards. (1) They admit that we all know that there is zero force (after the current is switched on), & (2) then they say that this zero force can only be zero if the electron to electron spacings of the (now) drifting electrons are the same as the (stationary) proton to proton spacings, & (3) then they explain that – well, actually, they don’t explain, they don’t explain how it is that the electron to electron spacings stay the same, ie before & after the current is switched on. What a disaster.

Reply#27.
There are lots of (stupid) youtubes re the (stupid) STR cause of the mmf near a wire. They all briefly & quietly assert or infer that the electron spacings stay the same, ie before & after the current is switched on.  A disaster for STR.  I called it STRIKE-1, but that makes it look as if u are allowed a number of strikes – NO – one strike & the STR cause of mmf is out, that game is over. And, if u think about it, STR is also out, that makes it two lost games, each has been struck out with the one pitch, its a case of killing two birds with one stone.  When i say STR is also out (falsified), i mean the length contraction part of STR (not the time dilation part).

Reply#29.
So, Purcell & Co say that the center to center spacings of drifting conduction electrons in a wire dilate when the current is switched on. Actually, that is a postulate, alltho Purcell & Co don’t give it that status. They know that raising it to the level of a postulate would be like waving a red flag, & they would rather sneak it into the conversation with zero fanfare. So here below is my version of this postulate (1). And i have composed & added a few other (mostly implicit) postulates (some good)(some bad)(some ugly).

Reply#34.
If u look at Purcell's 3 pages attached to my reply #20, u will see his Fig 5.22 (a) &(b) & (c).
He duznt have a (d) showing the stationary protons & stationary electrons in a stationary wire in the stationary lab frame. No, Purcell is too clever for that. That would emphasise the extent of his fudge/push/lie/nonsense.
Purcell's initial condition is Fig 5.22(a), with the electrons drifting.

Reply#68.
I see that D'Abramo & Jefimenko preceded me in pointing out that Purcell stinx.
https://arxiv.org/pdf/2108.07169.pdf
A note on Purcell’s basic explanation of magnetic forces Germano D’Abramo
Abstract. In the 1960s, E.M. Purcell presented a basic explanation of the magnetic force experienced by a test charge moving parallel to a stationary current-carrying wire. According to Purcell’s derivation, this force results from the difference between the relativistic length contraction of the distance among the stationary positive charges of the wire and the relativistic length contraction of the distance among the negative charges moving in the wire, when the charges are observed in the rest frame of the test charge. The contraction difference generates a charge density unbalance that in the rest frame of the test charge is experienced as an electrostatic force, while in the lab frame is perceived as the magnetic force. In the present paper, we show that Purcell’s approach is problematic since it generates inconsistencies and paradoxes. We maintain that Purcell’s derivation has only an illustrative and expository value and should not be taken literally as describing something that really and physically happens in the wire. Furthermore, we believe that the difficulties pointed out here should be explicitly presented and discussed when introducing Purcell’s approach in physics courses at the undergraduate and graduate levels.


Reply#78.
https://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.205.4405&rep=rep1&type=pdf
Is magnetic field due to an electric current a relativistic effect? Oleg D Jefimenko

Abstract. Several authors have asserted that the magnetic field due to an electric current is a relativistic effect. This assertion is based on the fact that if one assumes that the interaction between electric charges is entirely due to the electric field, then the relativistic force transformation equations make it imperative that a second field—the magnetic field—is present when the charges are moving. However, as is shown in this paper, if one assumes that the interaction between moving electric charges is entirely due to the magnetic field, then the same relativistic force transformation equations make it imperative that a second field—this time the electric field—is also present. Therefore, since it is impossible to interpret both the electric and the magnetic field as relativistic effects, one must conclude that neither field is a relativistic effect. The true meaning of the calculations demonstrating the alleged relativistic nature of the magnetic field and of the calculations presented in this paper is, therefore, that the idea of a single force field, be it magnetic or electric, is incompatible with the relativity theory.


Reply#86.
One problem with STR explaining mmf, is that after it explains the mmf, there is still nearly 100% of the mmf (lets call it B') sitting there in parallel with the non-mmf. But, there is no way that B' can contribute any mmf (according to STR). What a disaster.

Reply#158.
A DC beam in a long glass tube would be simpler. But the spinning disc or cylinder reminds me of Kennard's version of the Faraday disc X where Kennard shows a falsification of the STR explanation for mmf around a current carrying wire.  http://www.conspiracyoflight.com/Kennard.pdf  Attached below are pages of Kennard's 1912 paper.

Reply#160.
(1) A glass tube would show whether an electron beam makes a similar mmf to what is found around a wire carrying an electric current. Talking bout steady DC current.
(2a) A glass tube would show whether an electron beam makes an identical mmf to (2b) what is found around a wire carrying an electric current, if the wire is a part of that circuit. Talking bout steady DC current.
Apparently neither test has ever been done. We can be sure of that, koz, if it (one ovem)(or both) had ever been done, then thems who reckon that the sun shines out of Einstein's bum would be crowing about it from rooftops, but they aint, so it haznt.  No, i am wrong. They might be crowing if (1) shows an mmf. But they would not be crowing if (2a) equals (2b), koz (2a) has no protons that can length contract.  And, if they think about it, they shouldn’t be crowing re (1).

Reply#162.
Faraday (Faraday Disc) proved that STR was wrong back in say 1831, 74 yrs before STR was invented in 1905.  Michelson & Morley (MMX) proved that STR was wrong in 1887, 18 yrs before 1905.  Kennard (Kennard coil version of Faraday Disc) proved that STR was wrong in 1912.  And if an aetherist (or anyone else) ever does that there (2a)(2b)(electron beam in glass tube) experiment then that too will prove that STR is wrong.   Funny, there is no way that (2a)(2b) can confirm STR, it can only falsify STR.

Reply#168.
But, if the magnetic field of a steady DC electron beam in vacuo (in a glass tube) is equal to the magnetic field of the wire supplying the steady DC, then this falsifies the STR explanation (ie that it is due to the length contraction of the wire), because there is no wire for the electron beam, there is only vacuum.  The vacuum contains spacetime, & i suppose that Einsteinists could claim that the space of the spacetime contracts, but that would i think require that the electrons spacings also contract, which would give the beam a double dose of negative charge, which is the opposite of what Einsteinists are looking for.

Reply#172.
Re Purcell's STR explanation. I will now add that in his final step (of his derivation of the equation) he invokes a relativistic change in the Coulomb force to correct the force to a value seen in the stationary lab frame. However, in STR, charge has the same value in every frame, ie Einsteinists say that charge is invariant. But Purcell says that the force (due to charge) is not invariant. Smells fishy to me. Earlier i pointed out Purcell's mistake/push that he did in his first step, & it looks to me that he adds another in his final step. I think that the 2 pushes are in the same direction, ie they don’t negate each other. If they negated then he would not need them.
« Last Edit: April 18, 2022, 11:47:48 pm by aetherist »
 

Offline TimFox

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 9002
  • Country: us
  • Retired, now restoring antique test equipment
Re: Veritasium -- How Special Relativity Makes Magnets Work.
« Reply #211 on: April 18, 2022, 11:36:55 pm »
re:  Reply #160:
You claimed that no one had measured the magnetic field induced by an electron beam inside a glass tube.
I pointed out that there is a commercially-available off-the-shelf device that does exactly that, from the Bergoz company.  https://www.bergoz.com/
They make different models, including one that works down to DC and others that work for medium-frequency AC or fast pulses.
It is used in "beam diagnostics" in particle accelerators.
(Which, of course, obey Einstein's special relativity with respect to kinetic energy and velocity of the accelerated charged particles.)
« Last Edit: April 18, 2022, 11:39:12 pm by TimFox »
 
The following users thanked this post: HuronKing

Offline aetheristTopic starter

  • Frequent Contributor
  • **
  • !
  • Posts: 621
  • Country: au
  • The aether will return. It never left.
Re: Veritasium -- How Special Relativity Makes Magnets Work.
« Reply #212 on: April 19, 2022, 12:08:37 am »
re:  Reply #160:
You claimed that no one had measured the magnetic field induced by an electron beam inside a glass tube.
I pointed out that there is a commercially-available off-the-shelf device that does exactly that, from the Bergoz company.  https://www.bergoz.com/
They make different models, including one that works down to DC and others that work for medium-frequency AC or fast pulses.
It is used in "beam diagnostics" in particle accelerators.
(Which, of course, obey Einstein's special relativity with respect to kinetic energy and velocity of the accelerated charged particles.)
Yes. And i much appreciate your interest & wise contribution etc.  I have learnt much since starting this thread.
And likewise the contribution of others. I often get a good lead from even the most abusive of replies, hence i welcome all comments.
But, re mmfs, i asked praps four times for an example of such a measurement (ie for an mmf around an electron beam in a glass tube). And a couple of times i asked about measurements of mmfs in two parts of a circuit with a wire part & the glass part. But i havnt yet seen any such measurements.
Not that any such measurements would prove the STR cause of mmf. Yes, they could support the STR cause, plus they would support any other cause that aligned with the measurements (eg Lorentz theory of Relativity, which goes back to about 1900)(LTR is based on the aetherwind due to a say wire moving throo a static aether).

The real thrust of my Reply#160 is that (back then) i suddenly realized that the measurement of an mmf around an electron beam in a glass tube would falsify the STR cause, koz in an electron beam there is no line of protons to length contract.
The absence of an mmf around an electron beam would support the STR cause.
I am not sure whether my wording in Reply#160 made this clear.
« Last Edit: April 19, 2022, 12:20:03 am by aetherist »
 

Offline PlainName

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 7508
  • Country: va
Re: Veritasium -- How Special Relativity Makes Magnets Work.
« Reply #213 on: April 19, 2022, 12:22:18 am »
Quote
I am not sure whether my wording in Reply#160 made this clear.

I am lost for words.
 

Offline aetheristTopic starter

  • Frequent Contributor
  • **
  • !
  • Posts: 621
  • Country: au
  • The aether will return. It never left.
Re: Veritasium -- How Special Relativity Makes Magnets Work.
« Reply #214 on: April 19, 2022, 01:00:56 am »
How in hell did this thread reach 9 pages when it could have been summed up as:
Dunning Frickin Kruger!
Honestly, there are a subset of people on YT and elsewhere that fancy themselves as smarter than the smartest people that ever lived yet somehow manage to come across as a simpleton at the extreme edge of the Dunning-Kruger curve.  Take a guy that calls himself Theoria Apophasis, or the Angry Photographer, he posts insane nonsense in a form not unlike our aetherist.  Basically, invent an idea then cloke in in word salad -- repeat! Brian
I too initially shared your frustration, but it seems to quickly morphs into an exercise in critical thinking. My current bit of critical thinking is wondering if Aetherist is some sort of AI-powered bot sent to troll us.

Given the word salad of some of their posts, but also appears to be very well read and able to put some research in context, and the endless patience in face of overwhelming inconsistencies in their position.

If I had to call odds on a bet that they are a bot, I'm currently at 10:1 (ie most likely not a bot, but still a better than outside chance...).
Actually, it may be the case that he's a troll sent here to further the agenda of making as many in the west doubt all authority.  Whether it's flat earth, or any number of conspiracy theories that purport to show the evil inside the darkened room that is our institutions and government, the deep state.  Many of these 'channels' appear to be the work of an individual, but often the video's they produce are packed with content that anyone who's created content will tell you is unlikely to be the work of a loan individual.  Just canvasing the internet for snippets of content to piece together is a lot of work before you get into animations and slick graphics them some seem able to produce with amazing frequency.  So, is aetherist a troll sent from Russia to undermine our way of life -- I have no idea, but it does fit the pattern.

As surprising as it may seem, attacking all manor of authority is useful to a nation state in their effort to destroy an 'enemy' from within and by enlisting their enemies own people to help them.  Flat earth and other nonsense has the effect of making more and more people doubt science and by extension, all other institutions.

I don't know what aetherist is all about, he may be just a nut case and classic example of Dunning-Kruger or he may be a troll sent to divide -- that someone who struggles with the English language while portraying himself as an Aussie yet manages to sprinkle enough semi-plausible word salad suggests the later.   Brian
There are numerous youtubes re mmfs around a straight wire carrying an electric current, & at least say  7  easily found youtubes praising the STR cause of mmf around a straight wire, & i think  0  youtubes anti the STR cause of mmf around a wire.
There are numerous youtubes that are anti STR or GTR, but as i said i don’t know of any that are anti the STR cause of mmf around a wire, if anyone finds one i would of course like to know.

Me myself i wonder whether there are trolls sent here to further the agenda of making as many in the west believe all authority. 

I doubt that an Aussie nut case undermining the STR cause of mmf around a wire will undermine theusofa way of life, & destroy an 'enemy' from within, & make more and more people doubt all institutions. But i can only try.

If the Russians were truly serious about undermining theusofa way of life then they would be pushing pornography, not anti-Einsteinism.
« Last Edit: April 19, 2022, 01:08:51 am by aetherist »
 

Offline bsfeechannel

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 1668
  • Country: 00
Re: Veritasium -- How Special Relativity Makes Magnets Work.
« Reply #215 on: April 19, 2022, 12:01:55 pm »
How in hell did this thread reach 9 pages

Very simple. This aetherist guy is a retired civil engineer. He's not relevant for his field anymore. He obviously can't propose "alternative" theories there because he's not protected by ignorance. So he comes here, declares our theories as rubbish and then starts to present his ignorance as a "new" theory.

All to grab our attention and have someone to talk.

Keep entertaining him. He needs it.
 

Offline aetheristTopic starter

  • Frequent Contributor
  • **
  • !
  • Posts: 621
  • Country: au
  • The aether will return. It never left.
Re: Veritasium -- How Special Relativity Makes Magnets Work.
« Reply #216 on: April 19, 2022, 12:07:41 pm »
How in hell did this thread reach 9 pages
Very simple. This aetherist guy is a retired civil engineer. He's not relevant for his field anymore. He obviously can't propose "alternative" theories there because he's not protected by ignorance. So he comes here, declares our theories as rubbish and then starts to present his ignorance as a "new" theory.

All to grab our attention and have someone to talk.

Keep entertaining him. He needs it.
In early 2021 i became the No1 expert on the JFK accidental homicide.
Then i became the No1 expert on the chain fountain.
Then in late 2021 i became the No1 expert on the primary cause of electricity in a wire.
That’s three acts of genius in one year.
What have u dunn? ? ? ?
 

Offline PlainName

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 7508
  • Country: va
Re: Veritasium -- How Special Relativity Makes Magnets Work.
« Reply #217 on: April 19, 2022, 02:33:38 pm »
You're nothing if you aren't also No 1 expert on 9/11.
 
The following users thanked this post: HuronKing

Offline aetheristTopic starter

  • Frequent Contributor
  • **
  • !
  • Posts: 621
  • Country: au
  • The aether will return. It never left.
Re: Veritasium -- How Special Relativity Makes Magnets Work.
« Reply #218 on: April 19, 2022, 09:52:57 pm »
Yesterday i had a look at 5 or 6 youtubes by Christian Sutterlin on the channel called Jean de Climont.
Sutterlin says that magnetic fields are due to an electron's spin or spin precession or something, & that magnetic fields are not due to an electron's translation or motion (i don’t understand his theory)(i might have another look later).
Anyhow, i will make detailed comments on each of his youtubes later this week. Today i show links to 3 ovem below. He made 2 claims that especially caught my eye (i will comment on these later this week) …..
1. The magnetic field of an electron beam is cancelled when the beam deviates by 90 deg. He mentions an experiment using a 42mm glass tube with a 90deg bend, but this is confusing, i think that the laboratory never did complete that experiment, even tho Sutterlin mentions the experiment a number of times in a number of his youtubes.
2. When a current carrying long straight copper conductor is spun around its long axis the magnetic field increases by a factor of 5 for 100 rps or 10 for 260 rps. Here the magnetic field being measured is the standard field found around a stationary current carrying straight wire (it is not the axial field found in a coil)(he/they didn’t measure the axial field). He/they used a pulsed current (100 Hz i think), so that the detectors (2 coils) could get a reading.


The origin of magnetic fields. [31:34 long]  3,067 views.  Feb 3, 2018   Jean de Climont (Anglais)  873 subscribers 11 Comments.
Magnetic fields do not result from the movement of electrons, but from their intrinsic magnetic field. Moreover, the intrinsic magnetic field of the electrons does not have a dipole structure, but a rotational structure.



Rowland with a rotating conductor.  [3:24 long]  171 views.   Jan 14, 2022  Jean de Climont (Anglais)  873 subscribers
Rowland's experiment shows a magnetic field. The electrons in the electrically charged, high-speed spinning disk form circles. They form a kind of loop and therefore create a magnetic field in the axis of the disc. The disc can be replaced by a rotating conductive cylinder and the static electrons by an electric current. The magnetic field of the rotating conductor is about five times greater than the field of an identical current of 1 Amperes at 100 Hz through the motionless conductor.
2 Comments. Mathew Orman  2 months ago. The same experiment with compass near moving Van De Graaff generator charged belt show no magnetic filed... Draw your own conclusion..



The motion of electrons is not the cause of magnetic field. [14:05 long]   2,235 views.    Jan 18, 2020   Jean de Climont (Anglais)  873 subscribers.
The magnetic field of an electron beam is cancelled when the beam is deviated by 90°. This occurs in the Cyclotron. Scientists have long known that the electron, proton or ion beam of cyclotrons do not have any magnetic field although they travel at speeds of tens of thousands of kilometre per second. It is therefore that the magnetic field can not result from the motion of electrons.
« Last Edit: April 19, 2022, 10:35:06 pm by aetherist »
 

Offline EEVblog

  • Administrator
  • *****
  • Posts: 39026
  • Country: au
    • EEVblog
Re: Veritasium -- How Special Relativity Makes Magnets Work.
« Reply #219 on: April 20, 2022, 06:57:51 am »
I too initially shared your frustration, but it seems to quickly morphs into an exercise in critical thinking. My current bit of critical thinking is wondering if Aetherist is some sort of AI-powered bot sent to troll us.
Given the word salad of some of their posts, but also appears to be very well read and able to put some research in context, and the endless patience in face of overwhelming inconsistencies in their position.
If I had to call odds on a bet that they are a bot, I'm currently at 10:1 (ie most likely not a bot, but still a better than outside chance...).

It cannot be ruled out to be a sentient evolved version of the Rod Speed bot.
For those unaware, Rod Speed was (still is?) an infamous prolific aussie Usenet user who posted for decades in various electronics and political channels, and was so preditable in his replies that someone wrote a bot to simulate him. You could hardly tell the difference.
 

Offline TimFox

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 9002
  • Country: us
  • Retired, now restoring antique test equipment
 
The following users thanked this post: aetherist

Offline TimFox

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 9002
  • Country: us
  • Retired, now restoring antique test equipment
Re: Veritasium -- How Special Relativity Makes Magnets Work.
« Reply #221 on: April 20, 2022, 07:35:05 pm »
By coincidence, I stumbled across this cartoon while looking for something else:
https://xkcd.com/675/
 
The following users thanked this post: hamster_nz, HuronKing

Offline aetheristTopic starter

  • Frequent Contributor
  • **
  • !
  • Posts: 621
  • Country: au
  • The aether will return. It never left.
Re: Veritasium -- How Special Relativity Makes Magnets Work.
« Reply #222 on: April 21, 2022, 12:39:03 am »
Beam diagnostics for charged-particle accelerators is a mature field.
https://cds.cern.ch/record/499098/files/p154.pdf
https://cds.cern.ch/record/1982418/files/23-60%20Jones.pdf
https://uspas.fnal.gov/materials/14UNM/Diagnostics.pdf
The electron beam stuff & cyclotron stuff is re a pulsed beam. Their detectors, beam transformers (or beam current transformers), detect the leading edge of a pulse & the trailing edge. They detect the change in the magnetic field around the beam. Ok, this confirms that there is a magnetic field associated with an electron beam. I admit that. If i wanted to take a hard line i could suggest that the magnetic field itself arises from the change in current. But i wont, i accept that the magnetic field exists in the steady state current part of the pulse. Allbeit a current of free-ish electrons in vacuum, rather than the Veritasium current of free-ish electrons in/on a wire (the central topic of this thread).

Today i want to take a closer look at that there pulses of current. But not so much re pulses of flying electron beams in vacuo, no, i want to look at pulses of drifting electrons in Veritasium's wire.

Trailing Edge Catastrophe.   The first problem with a pulse of drifting electrons (in a wire) is that a pulse of drifting electrons can't have a trailing edge. Or, they can have a trailing edge, if we invoke the momentum of the drifting electrons. It is easy to understand that the push force at the leading edge of a pulse can be very great, that’s ok, electrons push electrons, as hard as is needed.  But, if we look at a short pulse, what is pushing the pulse?  Nothing!  We have to create a postulate that a pulse has its own momentum. But how powerful might that momentum be?  Drifting electrons drift at say 0.3 mm/s. The pulse momentum would evaporate in the first few mm of the wire (due to resistance)(heat loss). I think this came up earlier in this thread, or was it on the other Veritasium thread. And i don’t want to revisit it today, except to say that the trailing edge catastrophe for old (electron) electricity is not a big problem for my new (electon) electricity – if one accepts that my electons propagate happily (at c)(along the surface of a wire) without needing anything to push them along, ie just like free photons (light) in vacuum (or in air or glass etc).

Ok, where was i.  Veritasium & Co explain (try to explain) that STR explains mmf around a wire. This STR explanation invokes length contraction (& dilation) of the line of drifting electrons or length contraction (but not dilation) of the line of protons or both. 
Neutral Wire Catastrophe (Strike-1).  In my Reply#5 #20 #27 #29 #34 (all reproduced in part in my #210) i pointed out my main objection to Veritasium's & Purcell's explanation for the STR cause of mmf around a wire. Veritasium & Purcell invoke what is a new postulate, which they fail to call a new postulate, koz that would invite closer scrutiny. Today i will call this saga the Neutral Wire Catastrophe. Earlier i had called it Strike-1.

Reply#5.
The Veritasium youtube etc tells us that drifting electrons drifting at (Veritasium says) 0.3 mm/s in the lab frame have the same spacings (center to center) as the Cu nuclei (ie protons)(which are stationary in the lab frame). Veritasium & Co have to invoke that postulate, koz they know that a stationary charge is not attracted or repelled by a wire carrying an electric current. But, if, when there is zero electric current, the electron to electron spacing is the same as the proton to proton spacing, then, when the current is turned on, & electrons drift, surely STR demands that in the lab frame the electron to electron spacing will be contracted. In which case the wire will have a negative charge in the lab frame.


Veritasium & Purcell say or infer that a wire with zero current has no charge (ie is neutral), &, when a current is flowing, the wire remains neutral. Here below is what Purcell wrote…….
……It happens that the linear density of negative charge along the line of electrons is exactly equal in magnitude. That is, any given length of "wire" contains at a given instant the same number of electrons and protons [9]. The net charge on the wire is zero……. [9] It doesn't have to, but that equality can always be established, if we choose, by adjusting the number of electrons per unit length. In our idealized setup, we assume this has been done.

Purcell says that the wire is neutral (in the lab frame)(ie in the wire's frame) before & after the current starts to flow.  He infers that the wire is neutral at all points & at all times, including at or near the leading edge of the current (which is propagating at nearly c). He duznt explain how it is that an electron or electrons can exit the wire so as to satisfy his demand for neutrality.
Well, i suppose that exiting is easy, but what i mean is that electrons have to make their way from the leading edge of the current to exit at one end or the other. This must take time. Ok, the electrons don’t have to drift that far, all they have to do is to create a wavefront, & this wavefront propagates at nearly c (lets say), & it results in an electron being spat out somewhere, to give the demanded neutrality.
But, even if that wavefront propagates at nearly c, the neutrality needs time. So, during that time, the wire has a charge, either briefly, or, continuously (depending on how u visualise the whole process).

So, we have 2 wavefronts, each propagating at nearly c. One is the new electricity flowing along the wire, one is the electricity trying to give neutrality. Two electricitys.
Purcell can try to ignore that & hide that, ie he duznt worry about the DC wavefront of the electricity, he jumps straight to the case where the DC has reached steady state.
Pulse Catastrophe.   But, today, i am looking at a pulse of DC propagating along a wire. This pulse has a leading edge, & a trailing edge. And this demands two electricity wavefronts at each, ie 4 wavefronts in all. And, it demands a charge in/on the wire at the leading edge & at the trailing edge, briefly, or continuously. But, we dont see any evidence of such a charge(s).

No, the STR cause of mmf around a wire is a disaster.
« Last Edit: April 21, 2022, 12:53:50 am by aetherist »
 

Offline TimFox

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 9002
  • Country: us
  • Retired, now restoring antique test equipment
Re: Veritasium -- How Special Relativity Makes Magnets Work.
« Reply #223 on: April 21, 2022, 02:29:17 am »
I already pointed out to you that one of the Bergoz beam monitor units  measures down to DC, presumably using a flux gate instead of the simple coil (current transformer) in their other units.
CERN, Fermilab, and the other major accelerator labs know how to do this stuff.
The smaller electron linear accelerators made by my former employer were pulsed, but the pulse duty factor was quite low so the difference between an AC-coupled pulse transformer and a true DC measurement was quite small.

Cockcroft-Walton and Van der Graaf accelerators achieve > 1 MeV with DC (unpulsed) beams.

Spell-check tried to replace “Bergoz” with “Berlioz”, just like it tried to replace “Poulsen” with “Poulenc”—must be biased towards composers.
« Last Edit: April 21, 2022, 02:35:05 am by TimFox »
 

Offline aetheristTopic starter

  • Frequent Contributor
  • **
  • !
  • Posts: 621
  • Country: au
  • The aether will return. It never left.
Re: Veritasium -- How Special Relativity Makes Magnets Work.
« Reply #224 on: April 21, 2022, 02:47:34 am »
I already pointed out to you that one of the Bergoz beam monitor units  measures down to DC, presumably using a flux gate instead of the simple coil (current transformer) in their other units.
CERN, Fermilab, and the other major accelerator labs know how to do this stuff.
The smaller electron linear accelerators made by my former employer were pulsed, but the pulse duty factor was quite low so the difference between an AC-coupled pulse transformer and a true DC measurement was quite small.

Cockcroft-Walton and Van der Graaf accelerators achieve > 1 MeV with DC (unpulsed) beams.

Spell-check tried to replace “Bergoz” with “Berlioz”, just like it tried to replace “Poulsen” with “Poulenc”—must be biased towards composers.
Yes i remember that that unit measured down to 0 Hz. I accept that an electron beam has a magnetic field. In thems youtubes Sutterlin says that he measured the magnetic field around an electron beam in a straight glass tube & the field agreed with the standard equation. However, he also added that he was confident that that magnetic field would be zero if measured after a 90 deg bend (according to his own theory)(but he hasn’t dunn the X yet).

I must have a close look at what Orman said……
Mathew Orman  2 months ago. The same experiment with compass near moving Van De Graaff generator charged belt show no magnetic filed... Draw your own conclusion..
 


Share me

Digg  Facebook  SlashDot  Delicious  Technorati  Twitter  Google  Yahoo
Smf