General > General Technical Chat

Veritasium -- How Special Relativity Makes Magnets Work.

<< < (15/47) > >>

aetherist:

--- Quote from: TimFox on April 04, 2022, 02:07:59 pm ---
--- Quote from: aetherist on April 03, 2022, 11:32:39 pm ---
--- Quote from: TimFox on April 03, 2022, 11:23:27 pm ---Are your citations from William Beaty peer reviewed?  You objected that Einstein's papers were not.
--- End quote ---
I think that Beaty's leapfrogging em radiation( leapfrogging out of the wire & into the insulation & back into the wire)(at the speed of light in the insulation) would not satisfy many, it duznt satisfy me. But i am happy to quote any attempts, good or bad, there being no good attempts, which is why i am here.

I have never objected that Einstein's papers were not peer reviewed, my objection was that papers that i was quoting were objected to by many here koz the papers were not peer reviewed, whilst that same many were claiming that the sun shone out of Einstein's bum, even tho his papers were not peer reviewed.
--- End quote ---
In another one of these threads, you objected by my statement that the editors of Annalen der Physik (as good a pair as any other peers at the time) had reviewed Einstein's papers before publication by claiming that opening the mail to confirm the address is not peer review, to which I replied that opening the file to confirm the address is how stuff gets on YouTube.
--- End quote ---
Yes, of course the editors did their own peer review, they would not print obvious nonsense, but in Einsteinist's case they did print nonsense (STR & GTR).

TimFox:
STR and GTR (to use your ugly abbreviations) are not nonsense--they are logically internally compatible theories.
Your attempts to cite evidence that they are not physically correct are not convincing.
As one of many examples, my former employer manufactured devices that accelerated electrons to a kinetic energy between 1 and 25 MeV. which is far above the electron rest mass of 0.511 MeV/c2, and they behaved exactly how the Special Theory of Relativity predicts.

aetherist:

--- Quote from: penfold on April 04, 2022, 10:45:50 am ---
--- Quote from: aetherist on April 03, 2022, 11:57:19 pm ---
--- Quote from: penfold on April 03, 2022, 11:22:55 pm ---
--- Quote from: aetherist on April 03, 2022, 11:10:28 pm ---[...]If the electrons merely respond (which i agree with) then ok this avoids the "insulation catastrophe". But, it then contradicts any old electricity theory that claims that drifting electrons cause the electricity.
--- End quote ---
Err... you still haven't defined "the electricity"... that is an incredibly important definition to get right. Conventionally, the arrival of power emitted from point A arriving at point B, does not depend on a continuous movement of electrons along the length of the wire... it can happen, but it's not essential. Current is just one of the fields within Maxwell that so happens to only occur in the presence of charges. Poynting's theorem explains this phenomenon (reasonably) exactly, the exactness depends on how much of the physical circuit is included in the mathematical model.
--- End quote ---
Yes. The Veritasium gedanken & the AlphaPhoenix-X show that the main current (whatever it is) takes the usual time to go around along a circuit, but that there can be a very early induced small current in the parallel wire (induced by the em radiation from the main current). And we see the same induction effect at a capacitor, albeit a strong current (strong due to the small gap)(& strong due to the large area of metal)(& strong due to the magnification of the dielectric in the gap).

My new (electon) electricity involves the main current being due to electons hugging the wire. And, at a capacitor it involves the induction of charge on the positive plate. And on a parallel wire it involves the induction of (repulsion of) surface electrons. And, inside the wire, it involves the movement (drift) of conduction electrons.

There is a lot of similarity tween my new (electon) electricity & the old (electron) electricity. In both, the Poynting Field describes things but does nothing.
--- End quote ---
Then why is your theory needed? As far as "electricity" on the macro-scale, the classical theory shows no weaknesses. As far as Poynting describing but not explaining... that's the entire of physics... it describes and models. The term "fundamental" is often used to imply that a theory or explanation is actually starting to get close to a fundamental truth, but really what it means is that the theory is more general. A more generalised version of "electricity" involves quantum mechanics because the J-field is believed to be made up of "charges that have velocity", those charges are believed to be what we call electrons and are known to behave quantum-mechanically in confined spaces generally, in orbits of atoms and inside conductors. Quantum mechanics is a big area of physics and it's difficult to really start answering questions from just cursory knowledge, so we tend not to in macro-scale electrical circuits because EM works fine. Taking the scale down to a nano-metre scale semiconductor, then quantum is a big factor that cannot be ignored. It's not necessarily that any one theory is more fundamental, just more or less applicable, suitable or efficient for a particular case.

The problem with composing a theory as such you have is that the only test cases available are ones that are already described by a very well established theory. Any new theory only has those existing observations to give an explanation to, so it would be the exact same theory, maybe in different maths, but the results must be the same unless there's a genuine problem to address. If there was a genuine problem or discrepancy, then it must be isolated and better studied... but there are none.
--- End quote ---
Old (electron) electricity fails to explain how electricity propagates at the speed of light c/1 along a wire. Bearing in mind that the speed of em radiation in Cu is 10 m/s DC, & less if AC.
And, old (electron) electricity fails to explain how drifting electrons inside a wire know that the wire has an insulation coating, ie the drifting electrons decide to propagate the electricity at 2c/3 instead of c/1.
So that is why i discovered my new (elekton) elekticity, ie elekticity is in the photons hugging the wire.
This must rate as the best scientific discovery of 2021. And more.

aetherist:

--- Quote from: penfold on April 04, 2022, 06:54:46 pm ---
--- Quote from: aetherist on April 03, 2022, 11:32:39 pm ---
--- Quote from: TimFox on April 03, 2022, 11:23:27 pm ---Are your citations from William Beaty peer reviewed?  You objected that Einstein's papers were not.
--- End quote ---
[...]I have never objected that Einstein's papers were not peer reviewed, my objection was that papers that i was quoting were objected to by many here koz the papers were not peer reviewed, whilst that same many were claiming that the sun shone out of Einstein's bum, even tho his papers were not peer reviewed.
--- End quote ---
Review or not, it is generally accepted that the work of Einstein has been substantiated through the vast body of work that has been peer-reviewed and subjected to the rigors of modern scientific process. Even if Einstein's work was somehow proven wrong, it would not diminish his brilliantness of having come up with such a well rationalized theory - it wasn't just a random imagining, there is a lot of hard work behind it.
--- End quote ---
Every one of Einsteinist's gedankens is rubbish. His spacetime is rubbish. His good predictions & postdictions were due to luck, not good science. It is well known that Mrs Einstein wrote STR. And she wrote the photoelectric effect for which he got his Nobel. And it was Minkowski that developed STR.
As science gets more& more accurate STR & GTR will be seen even moreso to fail, ie in addition to the old failures.
The JamesWebb will add to the known failures.

TimFox:
So, the demonstrated fact that the electron accelerators I mentioned behave according to Einstein's 1905 paper in Annalen der Physik "On the electrodynamics of moving bodies" (English title) is due to other people, including Frau Einstein and Mr Minkowski?  Does that change physical reality? 

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