Veritasium -- How Special Relativity Makes Magnets Work. - Page 1
Forum section: electronics / general

author: aetherist
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: March 25, 2022, 01:16:09 am
content: On the other Veritasium thread/topic/subject we got sidetracked a little.https://www.eevblog.com/forum/chat/veritasium-(yt)-the-big-misconception-about-electricity/msg4077409/#msg4077409We mentioned the Faraday Disc Paradox (re the spin or non-spin of a magnetic field)(i will link later).We mentioned the Purcell book (re the relativistic cause of magnetism near a wire carrying an electric current)(i will link later).Purcell refers to the (Henry) Rowland-X (re a charged spinning disc). The first supposed proof that drifting electrons in a wire can make a magnetic field (i will link later).I had a look at the youtube by (Derek) Veritasium (link below). And 2 youtubes by (Nick) The Science Asylum (i will show links later).All of these Einsteinian STR explanations for the relativistic cause of magnetism near a wire carrying an electric current are krapp. I will show links & i will point out errors later.How Special Relativity Makes Magnets Work3,122,546 views Sep 23, 2013 Veritasium 11.6M subscribers . 6,631 CommentsMagnetism seems like a pretty magical phenomenon. Rocks that attract or repel each other at a distance - that's really cool - and electric current in a wire interacts in the same way. What's even more amazing is how it works. We normally think of special relativity as having little bearing on our lives because everything happens at such low speeds that relativistic effects are negligible. But when you consider the large number of charges in a wire and the strength of the electric interaction, you can see that electromagnets function thanks to the special relativistic effect of length contraction. In a frame of reference moving with the charges, there is an electric field that creates a force on the charges. But in the lab frame, there is no electric field so it must be a magnetic field creating the force. Hence we see that a magnetic field is what an electric field becomes when an electrically charged object starts moving.

author: aetherist
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: March 25, 2022, 01:24:55 am
content: Here are the 2 youtubes by Nick at The Science Asylum. I will comment later.How Special Relativity Fixed Electromagnetism 307,828 views Sep 12, 2019 The Science Asylum 530K subscribersElectrodynamics (electricity and magnetism) is governed by Maxwell's equations and the Lorentz force law, but that left it a little broken. It would take Albert Einstein inventing special relativity to fix it. If magnets are based on motion and motion is relative, how does that work?Magnetic Force Does NOT Exist! 354,172 views Apr 4, 2016 The Science Asylum 531K subscribersWe've all played with magnets before watching them attract or repel via magnetic force. In this video, I make the bold claim that magnetic force doesn't actually exist. It's an illusion.

author: aetherist
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: March 25, 2022, 01:34:33 am
content: There are many youtubes re the Faraday Disc Paradox, these 2 might be the best (by Doug Marett i think).Purcell in his book says that there is a relativistic explanation. I will link & comment on that later.Faraday paradox unipolar dynamo demo Part1 38,653 views Aug 27, 2014 plenum88 1.57K subscribersThis video is a demonstration of the Faraday paradox using a 3D printed unipolar dynamo The unipolar generator is composed of three key elements - a copper disk, a ring magnet, and a stator wire circuit to the oscilloscope, all three of which are independently rotatable. A stepper motor is used to set rotation at a fixed speed, using an Arduino control board. In part 1, we explore the essential elements of the paradox, namely the apparent magnetic induction which occurs between the co-rotating disk and magnetic elements in the device. The controversy reduces to the key question: do the magnetic lines of force rotate with the magnet or not? Einstein and Maxwell / Faraday disagreed on this point, which has also been phrased: what is the seat of the electromagnetic induction? To be continued with part2.Faraday Paradox Unipolar Dynamo Part 2: The Solution 15,845 views Oct 31, 2016 plenum88 1.57K subscribers 95 CommentsIn this part 2 of our Faraday Paradox series, we explore the explanations of the effect and examine some scientific papers and patents that would appear to explain the paradox.

author: aetherist
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: March 25, 2022, 01:48:48 am
content: Here is the link to Purcell's book, plus some snippets. Purcell says that STR explains magnetism. Nope, he is wrong. I will comment later.https://cdn.bc-pf.org/resources/physics/Theory/Purcell-electricity_and_magnetism_3rd_edition.pdf5.9 Interaction between a moving charge and other moving charges.Equation (5.1) tells us that there can be a velocity-dependent force on a moving charge. That force is associated with a magnetic ﬁeld, the sources of which are electric currents, that is, other charges in motion. Oersted’s experiment showed that electric currents could inﬂuence magnets, but at that time the nature of a magnet was totally mysterious. Soon Ampère and others unravelled the interaction of electric currents with each other, as in the attraction observed between two parallel wires carrying current in the same direction. This led Ampère to the hypothesis that a magnetic substance contains permanently circulating electric currents. If so, Oersted’s experiment could be understood as the interaction of the galvanic current in the wire with the permanent microscopic currents that gave the compass needle its special properties. Ampère gave a complete and elegant mathematical formulation of the interaction of steady currents, and of the equivalence of magnetized matter to systems of permanent currents. His brilliant conjecture about the actual nature of magnetism in iron had to wait a century, more or less, for its ultimate conﬁrmation.Whether the magnetic manifestations of electric currents arose from anything more than the simple transport of charge was not clear to Ampère and his contemporaries. Would the motion of an electrostatically charged object cause effects like those produced by a continuous galvanic current? Later in the century, Maxwell’s theoretical work suggested the answer should be yes. The ﬁrst direct evidence was obtained by Henry Rowland, to whose experiment we shall return at the end of Chapter 6.From our present vantage point, the magnetic interaction of electric currents can be recognized as an inevitable corollary to Coulomb’s law. If the postulates of relativity are valid, if electric charge is invariant, and if Coulomb’s law holds, then, as we shall now show, the effects we commonly call “magnetic” are bound to occur. They will emerge as soon as we examine the electric interaction between a moving charge and other moving charges. A simple system will illustrate this.Figure 5.22. A test charge q moving parallel to a current in a wire. (a) In the lab frame, the wire, in which the positive charges are ﬁxed, is at rest. The current consists of electrons moving to the right with speed v0. The net charge on the wire is zero. There is no electric ﬁeld outside the wire. (b) In a frame in which the test charge is at rest, the positive ions are moving to the left with speed v, and the electrons are moving to the right with speed v'0. The linear density of positive charge is greater than the linear density of negative charge. The wire appears positively charged, with an external ﬁeld E'r, which causes a force qE'r on the stationary test charge q. (c) That force transformed back to the lab frame has the magnitude qE'r/γ, which is proportional to the product of the speed v of the test charge and the current in the wire, −λ0v0.In the lab frame of Fig. 5.22(a), with spatial coordinates x, y, z, there is a line of positive charges, at rest and extending to inﬁnity in both directions. We shall call them ions for short. Indeed, they might represent the copper ions that constitute the solid substance of a copper wire. There is also a line of negative charges that we shall call electrons. These are all moving to the right with speed v0. In a real wire the electrons would be intermingled with the ions; we’ve separated them in the diagram for clarity. The linear density of positive charge is λ0. 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 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.]The net charge on the wire is zero. Gauss’s law tells us there can be no ﬂux from a cylinder that contains no charge, so the electric ﬁeld must be zero everywhere outside the wire. A test charge q at rest near this wire experiences no force whatsoever.Suppose the test charge is not at rest in the lab frame but is moving with speed v in the x direction. Transform to a frame moving with the test charge, the x', y' frame in Fig. 5.22(b). The test charge q is here at rest, but something else has changed: the wire appears to be charged! There are two reasons for that: the positive ions are closer together, and the electrons are farther apart. Because the lab frame in which the positive ions are at rest is moving with speed v, the distance between positive ions as seen in the test charge frame is contracted by1−v2/c2, or 1/γ. The linear density of positive charge in this frame is correspondingly greater; it must be γλ0. The density of negative charge takes a little longer to calculate, for the electrons were already moving with speed v0 in the lab frame. Hence their linear density in the lab frame, which was −λ0, had already been increased by a Lorentz contraction. In the electrons’ own rest frame the negative charge density must have been −λ0/γ0, where γ0 is the Lorentz factor that goes with v0.Now we need the speed of the electrons in the test charge frame in order to calculate their density there. To ﬁnd that velocity (v'0 in Fig. 5.22(b)) we must add the velocity −v to the velocity v0, remembering to use the relativistic formula for the addition of velocities (Eq. (G.7) in Appendix G).

author: aetherist
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: March 25, 2022, 02:25:24 am
content: Here is the link to Purcell's book, plus some of his snippets re the experiment by Henry Rowland re a charged spinning disc, the first supposed proof that drifting electrons in a wire can make a magnetic field (see link below).https://cdn.bc-pf.org/resources/physics/Theory/Purcell-electricity_and_magnetism_3rd_edition.pdfhttps://archive.org/details/physicalpapersof00rowlrichhttps://archive.org/stream/physicalpapersof00rowlrich/physicalpapersof00rowlrich_djvu.txt6.8 Rowland’s experiment.As we remarked in Section 5.9, it was not obvious 150 years ago that a current ﬂowing in a wire and a moving electrically charged object are essentially alike as sources of magnetic ﬁeld. The uniﬁed view of electricity and magnetism that was then emerging from Maxwell’s work suggested that any moving charge ought to cause a magnetic ﬁeld, but experimental proof was hard to come by. That the motion of an electrostatically charged sheet produces a magnetic ﬁeld was ﬁrst demonstrated by Henry Rowland, the great American physicist renowned for his perfection of the diffraction grating. Rowland made many ingenious and accurate electrical measurements, but none that taxed his experimental virtuosity as severely as the detection and measurement of the magnetic ﬁeld of a rotating charged disk. The ﬁeld to be detected was something like 10−5 of the earth’s ﬁeld in magnitude –a formidable experiment, even with today’s instruments! In Fig. 6.31, you will see a sketch of Rowland’s apparatus and a reproduction of the ﬁrst page of the paper in which he described his experiment. Ten years before Hertz’s discovery of electromagnetic waves, Rowland’s result gave independent, if less dramatic, support to Maxwell’s theory of the electromagnetic ﬁeld.

author: aetherist
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: March 25, 2022, 11:11:02 pm
content: 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.STRIKE-1.So, the STR explanation of the magnetomotive force fails at the first pitch, which was an easy meatball.However, i will keep going, koz this Einsteinian farce has an astonishing number of fudges pushes & stupid postulates.A more sensible application of STR demands that the current carrying wire has zero charge when the wire is moving at V/2, ie at a half of the drift velocity, ie at 0.15 mm/s (if Veritasium's 0.3 mm/s is true).When/if the wire is moving at 0.15 mm/s, then in the wire's reference frame the protons will have a relative V of 0.15 mm/s to the left, & the electrons will have a relative V of 0.15 mm/s to the right, in which case the spacings for the protons & the spacings for the electrons will be both contracted by the same amount, in which case the wire will have a neutral nett charge.The silly STR push, that the wire has a neutral charge when the wire is stationary, ie when the electrons are drifting at 0.3 mm/s, must be one of the stupidest postulates that i have seen.Why hasn’t it been debunked before. Why did it have to wait for me to come along, a mere civil engineer, allergic to electricity, to point the problem out to all u EEs.Veritasium's 0.3 mm/s is very fast, by a factor of 10, ie 0.03 mm/s is more likely. Wiki gives an example of 0.023 mm/s for 1 Amp in a 2 mm dia Cu wire.Notice that in the Veritasium youtube the electrons are drifting at about 1 m/s (judging by the size of Veritasium's head). Whereas the total distance of drift would have been only say 77.4 mm, based on his 0.3 mm/s for the whole 258 seconds (4:18) of his whole youtube. This 77.4 mm would be about 1.5 diameters of his drawn circular electrons. But if based on 0.03 mm/s then the total drift would have been 7.74 mm, ie say 0.15 dia. His electron speed of 1000 mm/s is 33,333 times faster than 0.03 mm/s.My above numbers are a bit unfair (& silly). He drew his wire to appear to be say 300 mm dia (judging by the size of his head), hence if the wire is meant to be say 2 mm dia then the drawing is a 150 times magnification. Hence his 0.3 mm/s should have given a drawn drift speed of 45 mm/s instead of his actual drawn speed of 1000 mm/s. And, as i said, his 0.3 mm/s should have been more like 0.03 mm/s, which would have needed a drawn drift speed of 4.5 mm/s. Just saying. More tomorrow.https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Drift_velocityNumerical exampleElectricity is most commonly conducted through copper wires. Copper has a density of 8.94 g/cm3 and an atomic weight of 63.546 g/mol, so there are 140685.5 mol/m3. In one mole of any element, there are 6.022×1023 atoms (the Avogadro number). Therefore, in 1 m3 of copper, there are about 8.5×1028 atoms (6.022×1023 × 140685.5 mol/m3). Copper has one free electron per atom, so n is equal to 8.5×1028 electrons per cubic metre.Assume a current I = 1 ampere, and a wire of 2 mm diameter (radius = 0.001 m). This wire has a cross sectional area A of π × (0.001 m)2 = 3.14×10−6 m2 = 3.14 mm2. The charge of one electron is q = −1.6×10−19 C. The drift velocity therefore can be calculated:Therefore, in this wire, the electrons are flowing at the rate of 23 μm/s. At 60 Hz alternating current, this means that, within half a cycle, the electrons drift less than 0.2 μm. In other words, electrons flowing across the contact point in a switch will never actually leave the switch.By comparison, the Fermi flow velocity of these electrons (which, at room temperature, can be thought of as their approximate velocity in the absence of electric current) is around 1570 km/s.

author: penfold
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: March 26, 2022, 12:25:12 am
content: Quote from: aetherist on March 25, 2022, 11:11:02 pm... why do I keep coming back for more?!Regarding the experiment:QuoteThe experimental setup looks a bit sub-par for one, motor wires running right past the open box of the preamp... not the end of the world, but attention to detail is nice to see. Nothing about the experiment is itself proved, the properties/polarity/field-distribution of the magnet is not demonstrated and the pre-amp isn't demonstrated to be true and linear, if I were more suspicious, I would be wanting to see what the black coax leading from amp to scope was doing off-camera.Of the many more test cases I would want to be seeing, which are unfortunately very difficult to do, a few are: the entire test rig (including scope) rotating, and TBH all permutations and combinations or rotatables in fixed, forward, and reverse; the same combinations repeated with the sliding contacts removed from the surface and also repeated with a fixed short at the ends; and the geometry, spacing, and angle of contact with the disc varied in a few combinations. Eliminating the variables like that does two things, generates more test cases for the proposed theory, and provides more avenues to distinction with competing explanations.

author: EEVblog
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: March 26, 2022, 12:46:43 am
content: Quote from: aetherist on March 25, 2022, 01:16:09 amGenuine question, why don't you make response video?

author: bsfeechannel
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: March 26, 2022, 01:32:51 am
content: Quote from: EEVblog on March 26, 2022, 12:46:43 amOh, well. Now it's official. The EEVBlog has become a haven for crankery. Pseudo-scientific claims are now "genuine questions". At least this gives us a purpose in life: debunk them.

author: EEVblog
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: March 26, 2022, 08:27:54 am
content: Quote from: bsfeechannel on March 26, 2022, 01:32:51 am"Genuine question" means "I have a genuine question for you, why don't you make response video? (instead of just posting like crazy on a forum)

author: SandyCox
author_rank: Regular Contributor
timestamp: March 26, 2022, 09:48:17 am
content: Quote from: aetherist on March 25, 2022, 11:11:02 pmFrom the way you write and the way you argue, I find it very hard to believe that you even finished secondary school. Where did you study Civil Engineering?

author: aetherist
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: March 26, 2022, 11:17:27 am
content: Quote from: EEVblog on March 26, 2022, 12:46:43 amYes, i think that i could make a number of youtubes, mainly debunking Einstein's famous gedankens, or debunking gedankens like this one by Derek-Veritasium & the 2 by Nick-The Science Asylum.But firstly i think that i would need to bounce my half baked amateur ideas off professionals, eg on this forum.Its funny, the Veritasium youtube claims that the length contraction of the drifting electrons cause of the magnetomotive force is a supreme example & proof of the validity of STR, when my STRIKE-1 post shows that it is a supreme example of a failure of STR.One more catastrophe which might qualify asSTRIKE-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.

author: aetherist
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: March 26, 2022, 11:40:46 am
content: Quote from: penfold on March 26, 2022, 12:25:12 amI had a close look at pretty much every Faraday Disc Paradox youtube a couple of years ago, & i think that they all agreed re what did or didn’t happen. I agree with u that there are many variables, but the experiments don’t need to be very exact, they merely need to show which box to tick (rather than provide accurate numbers or something).However i see that Einsteinist's claim that STR ticks them boxes too. I will have to look into that, but i need to deal with Veritasium & Co first. I could have started a separate thread for the Faraday Disc Paradox, but i could see some overlap, which now eludes me today.

author: EEVblog
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: March 26, 2022, 11:46:22 am
content: Quote from: aetherist on March 26, 2022, 11:17:27 amI think a physics forum is a better bet.

author: aetherist
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: March 26, 2022, 11:48:14 am
content: Quote from: SandyCox on March 26, 2022, 09:48:17 amI studied in my home town of Ballarat. My average grades were about 51/100, but i got the same salary as the good students. I think that i did Electricity-1 & Electricity-2. And they fed me that krapp about drifting electrons. Little did i know that one day i would discover the true cause of electricity along a wire, ie a new particle, the elekton.

author: aetherist
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: March 26, 2022, 11:52:55 am
content: Quote from: EEVblog on March 26, 2022, 11:46:22 amNone of the main physics forums allow any badmouthing of anything Einsteinian. I have been banned from at least 3 ovem.

author: thinkfat
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: March 26, 2022, 12:26:10 pm
content: So, your arguments didn't convince the physicists. Do you think EEs are an easier prey?

author: aetherist
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: March 26, 2022, 01:19:09 pm
content: Quote from: thinkfat on March 26, 2022, 12:26:10 pmI have enjoyed finding the truth about things. It has been a slow process. I wish that i had had someone to steer me. I want to do some steering, & raise awareness. On this forum it will of course be mostly about electricity. I think that a lot of people understand & agree with what i say, but i am not surprised that no-one has said so. EEs have been preyed upon, slaves for 117 years, i want to set them free & help end the Einsteinian Dark Age of science/electricity.

author: SandyCox
author_rank: Regular Contributor
timestamp: March 26, 2022, 02:49:48 pm
content: Quote from: aetherist on March 26, 2022, 01:19:09 pmI do not agree with a single thing you said. The electon theory is absolute nonsense.

author: aetherist
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: March 26, 2022, 09:37:28 pm
content: QuoteHere (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 callSTRIKE-1).https://cdn.bc-pf.org/resources/physics/Theory/Purcell-electricity_and_magnetism_3rd_edition.pdfI 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.In the lab frame of Fig. 5.22(a), with spatial coordinates x, y, z, there is a line of positive charges, at rest and extending to inﬁnity in both directions. We shall call them ions for short. Indeed, they might represent the copper ions that constitute the solid substance of a copper wire. There is also a line of negative charges that we shall call electrons. These are all moving to the right with speed v0. In a real wire the electrons would be intermingled with the ions; we’ve separated them in the diagram for clarity. The linear density of positive charge is λ0.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 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.]The net charge on the wire is zero. Gauss’s law tells us there can be no ﬂux from a cylinder that contains no charge, so the electric ﬁeld must be zero everywhere outside the wire. A test charge q at rest near this wire experiences no force whatsoever.

author: EEVblog
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: March 26, 2022, 10:42:36 pm
content: Quote from: aetherist on March 26, 2022, 11:52:55 amSo should we just move this thread over to the dodgy technology section now?FYI for all those involved, there is no rule against posting wacky physics or free energy stuff etc here. So you are free to post your stuff here, just don't expect anyone to engage with it.

author: aetherist
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: March 26, 2022, 11:41:15 pm
content: Quote from: EEVblog on March 26, 2022, 10:42:36 pmGeneral Technical Chat or Dodgy Technology. I dont know which might get more engagement.I think that i have at least 3 more postings that i should make re the shortcomings of the (fake) STR cause of mmf.

author: aetherist
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: March 28, 2022, 07:04:41 am
content: Quote from: SandyCox on March 26, 2022, 02:49:48 pmMy new (elekton) elekticity isn’t especially helpful in this present thread, ie it duznt tell us the cause of the magnetic field around a wire, or the causes of the magnetomotive forces.This present thread merely explains that the STR explanation of the magnetomotive force on a moving charged particle is impossible.And i explain how the magnetomotive force on a moving charged particle in fact falsifies STR length contraction, it is not the touted shining example of an STR success.But i don’t attempt to invent my own theory for the magnetic field & the magnetomotive force near a wire. However, the true cause will not be due to drifting electrons, nor to STR.

author: aetherist
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: March 28, 2022, 07:18:32 am
content: Quote from: bsfeechannel on March 26, 2022, 01:32:51 amI welcome debunking of my debunking of the STR cause of magnetomotive force (on this thread). And debunking of my elekton elekticity (on the other Veritasium thread).One strike & i am out.But up to now i have hit every pitch out of the park.

author: PlainName
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: March 30, 2022, 11:17:00 pm
content: Quotehttps://www.eevblog.com/forum/chat/veritasium-(yt)-the-big-misconception-about-electricity/msg4043983/#msg4043983

author: aetherist
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: March 31, 2022, 01:24:21 am
content: Quote from: dunkemhigh on March 30, 2022, 11:17:00 pmYes, i see that there were about 14 postings (on that thread)(re Veritasium (YT)) re the Faraday Disc Paradox starting at my own reply #1457, & then a few more at #1669.I will have to look into all of that later in the week. The aether explains the Faraday Disc Paradox, but then the aetherwind (500 km/s) creates a difficulty, but i think that i can find the answer (& avoid a strike).Einsteinists reckon that GTR provides the answer to the Faraday Disc Paradox. I might look into that too, but for sure i wont understand it. Next week hopefully.

author: aetherist
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: March 31, 2022, 09:12:08 pm
content: 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).Aetherists believe in length contraction due to velocity, the velocity of the aetherwind (not due to some stupid STR relative velocity). In the case of a wire conducting an electric current, the aetherwind or length contraction are not needed to explain anything (eg electric current, emf, mmf etc). However, the aetherwind will of course affect the electric fields etc, eg the aetherwind can (we know) slow electricity (if a headwind), or can fast electricity (if a tailwind)(as shown by DeWitte)(& Torr & Kolen).The cause of mmf near a wire remains a mystery. Indeed emf remains a mystery. But electricity is no longer a mystery, it is due to (my) elektons (photons that hug the wire).So, lets look again at what Purcell wrote….In the lab frame of Fig. 5.22(a), with spatial coordinates x, y, z, there is a line of positive charges, at rest and extending to inﬁnity in both directions. We shall call them ions for short. Indeed, they might represent the copper ions that constitute the solid substance of a copper wire. There is also a line of negative charges that we shall call electrons. These are all moving to the right with speed v0. In a real wire the electrons would be intermingled with the ions; we’ve separated them in the diagram for clarity. The linear density of positive charge is λ0.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 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.]The net charge on the wire is zero. Gauss’s law tells us there can be no ﬂux from a cylinder that contains no charge, so the electric ﬁeld must be zero everywhere outside the wire. A test charge q at rest near this wire experiences no force whatsoever.How can Purcell & Co justify? They can't. A disaster for the STR cause of mmf, & a disaster for STR, both killed with one stone.

author: TimFox
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: March 31, 2022, 09:49:30 pm
content: A very important feature of magnetic forces in engineering is that very strong forces can be produced by running reasonable currents through conductors, especially when forming the wires into coils so that the same current contributes to the field over and over. In normal constructions, it is hard to obtain very large electrostatic forces from charged metal objects.Under normal conditions, matter in bulk is very, very close to electrically neutral, which means that the number of protons and electrons in the piece of bulk material are very, very, very close to equal.In setting up his calculation, Dr Purcell starts out with a metal cylinder (wire) that is electrostatically neutral, to see what happens when a current runs through it.What possible objection could there be to starting from that initial condition?

author: aetherist
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: March 31, 2022, 10:20:08 pm
content: 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).POSTULATE (1).The electron to electron (center to center) spacings (of drifting conduction electrons in the wire)(measured along the wire)(measured in the wire frame)(ie the lab frame) stay the same, ie before & after the current is switched on.(2) These spacings are the same as the Cu atom spacings (ie the proton spacings)(measured along the wire). (3) Hence the wire is charge neutral, before & after the current is switched on (in the wire frame)(ie the lab frame). (4) The current is due to electrons being injected into the wire (at say one end). (5) For a steady state current, electrons are ejected from the wire (at the other end). (6) There is some kind of automatic natural process whereby the injection & ejection rates ensure that the number of drifting electrons equal the number of (say Cu) atoms in any length of wire (at least for a steady state current). (7) The auto process in (6) automatically takes into consideration the Einsteinian (STR) length contraction of the spacings, such that the injection rate reduces (or something). (8 ) The auto process in (6) also automatically offsets the contraction-compression of the electron spacings that arises due to the forces needed to drive the electric current (ie push the electrons) along the wire. (9) Some of the force & energy of the compression in (8 ) is of course needed to overcome the electrical resistance, & (10) it heats the wire.POSTULATE (11). All conduction electrons participate in the current, ie they all drift, & (12) the average drift velocity is often very slow (eg 0.02 mm/s). (13) The length contraction of electron to electron spacings involves the ave drift velocity, ie (14) it duznt matter that most drift slower or faster most of the time, (15) it duznt matter that the thermal motion of a Cu atom (& hence the thermal motion of conduction electrons) is about 200 m/s (ie 10,000,000 times the drift velocity). (16) The length contraction of proton to proton spacings involves the ave drift velocity of the electrons, (17) it duznt matter that a Cu nucleus (& the protons in the nucleus) have a thermal speed of say 200 m/s, (18) & it duznt matter that protons in a Cu nucleus have a high vibratory motion (say 1000 m/s)(needs checking). (19) It duznt matter that the thermal or vibrational etc motions are in the opposite direction to the drift velocity a half of the time. (20) Motions across the wire do not matter (in the simple case today), koz STR length contraction only applies to the xx direction (not the yy or zz directions). (21) Electrons have to travel much further koz they have to pass around atoms etc, but this extra distance & (22) the extra speed needed are automatically included in the calculation of ave drift velocity.POSTULATE (21). The Coulomb force (or Lorentz force) experienced by the test charge (say electron) moving at the drift velocity (or at some other velocity) needs to be converted to the equivalent force in the stationary lab frame. (22) This conversion requires the application of the Einsteinian gamma, (23) giving a lesser force in the lab frame.STR POSTULATES.STR says that space contracts, & hence that everything in that space contracts, eg electrons contract, the spacings tween electrons contract, the gaps tween electrons contract. But Einsteinists don’t agree (with each other) re length contraction. U might notice that Derek (Veritasium) in his youtube says that the spacings appear to contract (he uses the term perceived spacings). While Nick (The Science Asylum) says that the spacings actually contract. Einsteinists probly don’t care whether contraction is real or just apparent. I can't remember what Einstein thort.Funny, i saw a comment in a youtube that said that a Professor said that when the electricity is switched on that the drifting electrons contract but that the spacings did not contract. The Prof said or implied that objects contract but spacings don’t. The Prof said that when the wire has a relative velocity then the wire suffers length contraction, ie proton to proton spacings are contracted. But if the wire is stationary then the spacings of drifting electrons dont change, no matter how fast they drift. I suppose that that explanation works, but i think that it violates the standard (Einsteinian) version of STR. I know that Einstein hizself said that individual electrons are length contracted, but Einstein did not ever (that i know of) mention a case where spacings or gaps were not length contracted.

author: TimFox
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: March 31, 2022, 10:48:39 pm
content: Read again what you highlighted in red.You objected to a particular statement "" that the wire is electrically neutral (no net charge).

author: aetherist
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: March 31, 2022, 11:02:22 pm
content: Quote from: TimFox on March 31, 2022, 09:49:30 pm(0) Yes of course its ok to start with neutral wire. Me myself i reckon that all metals have a concentration of free-ish electrons on the surfaces, koz electrons repel electrons. And a greater concentration at sharper areas (eg external corners & edges). The centre of the metal would have a positive charge. This must result in the absorption of electrons from the environment, & the additional electrons would result in there being less (positive) charge in the center. (1) So, metal objects would tend to have a slight natural negative charge (in the near field)(& in the far field).(2) When a switch in a circuit is closed i suppose that initially some surface electrons would move away from the contact. A weak & brief current. Old (electron) electricity would say that electrons injected into a wire would push & compress the electron sea in the wire, & (3) the wire would get a negative charge. STR would say (should say) that (4) the now drifting electrons get closer together due to length contraction, a double dose of negative charge.But Purcell & Co ignore (3) & (4).(0) is not the issue.And its ok to ignore (1) & (2) (these are very weak effects).I think that (1) & (2) might be (at least partly) responsible for the mmf in the Rowland-X. I might look into that next week.

author: aetherist
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: March 31, 2022, 11:04:48 pm
content: Quote from: TimFox on March 31, 2022, 10:48:39 pmYes, but  refers to the wire being neutral after the switch is closed, ie after the electric current is turned on, ie after the drifting starts.

author: TimFox
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: March 31, 2022, 11:12:36 pm
content: That's not what your quoted text states.It's an initial condition for his discussion of what happens in the wire.

author: aetherist
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: March 31, 2022, 11:40:23 pm
content: Quote from: TimFox on March 31, 2022, 11:12:36 pmIf 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.

author: PlainName
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: April 01, 2022, 09:14:07 am
content: QuoteThis is the tubegen's equivalent of a friend's brother's mate down the pub as a measure of actualness, right?

author: aetherist
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: April 01, 2022, 10:59:22 pm
content: Quote from: dunkemhigh on April 01, 2022, 09:14:07 amIt would be surprising if a Prof did make that comment re electrons contracting but the spacings not contracting.However we know that Einsteinists often disagree in drastic ways (eg the gedanken re whether the string tween spaceships breaks if they accelerate).Another example. I could ask u whether a glass rod (here on Earth) suffers length contraction when it is hit by a quadrupolar gravitational wave (eg created by the merger of 2 cosmic blackholes). U might i think say yes.Then i could ask u whether the glass rod resisted that there length contraction, ie whether the glass rod fully contracted or only partly contracted. U might i think say it fully contracts, ie it duznt resist the contraction of the spacetime in which it sits.If so, if that is your answer, then i could point out to u that u have just denied that the 2 LIGOs can possibly detect quadrupolar gravitational waves, koz LIGO will not work unless the glass rod resists (their glass rod is their main laser).Anyhow, Einsteinists don’t all agree, even Professors. Prof Reg Cahill (Adelaide)(one of my heroes) duznt believe in STR nor in (most of) GTR.

author: penfold
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: April 02, 2022, 07:00:11 pm
content: Quote from: aetherist on April 01, 2022, 10:59:22 pmPart of the purpose of LIGO is to test that very matter and provide some resolution to that issue. From a simplistic pop-science viewpoint, it can be easily interpreted that the entire and only purpose of such a detector is to do some gravity wave star-gazing, and where it is claimed by yourself (repeating the un-founded "research"/random-speculation in some papers) that it is a waste of money: that is the value (quite literally) ofproof. There is always a chance that any experiment will not produce the anticipated result and what you may see as "failure" is well within the spectrum of possible outcomes that physicists are more than willing to embrace, but as scientists, they can only embrace that for which they evidence or rational basis... hence why there haven't been any champions of electon theory so far.

author: aetherist
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: April 02, 2022, 09:48:38 pm
content: Quote from: penfold on April 02, 2022, 07:00:11 pmI have mentioned my new (elekton) elekticity theory to a few scientists. One said that that kind of theory duznt work koz in some situations the (negatively charged) elektons need to have a (positively charged) partner that is an anti-elekton or somesuch. I avoid the need for an anti-elekton, eg i say that elektons on the negative plate of a capacitor repel surface elektons on the positive plate – anti-electons not needed (ie both plates have elektons but one plate has fewer).LIGO & Co are a waste of money. However, LIGO & Co will eventually prove that quadrupolar gravitational waves don’t exist. In that sense the failure would be a success. And it would be good if LIGO & Co proved that gravity duz not propagate at c km/s (we know that it propagates at at least 20 billion c)(but i don’t think that LIGO & Co can provide that there proof). Anyhow one out of two aint bad. If LIGO & Co resulted in the death of GTR (& STR) then praps LIGO & Co would be worth the money after all.

author: TimFox
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: April 02, 2022, 09:52:57 pm
content: You realize that in standard physics, the (negative) electron has a (positive) anti-particle, the positron?Positron-emission tomography (PET) imaging is a very useful technique in medical imaging: when a radioactive nucleus in a "radiopharmaceutical" (a compound containing a radioactive element that goes where the doctor wants it to go) emits a positron (positive beta decay), it doesn't go very far at all in your body before it collides with a regular electron, and the mutual annihilation results in two photons (gammas) that head off in opposite directions. Temporal coincidence between two gamma detections in area detectors on opposite sides of your body therefore defines a line through your body and the accumulation of many such lines localizes where the radiopharmaceutical is concentrated in the body.

author: aetherist
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: April 02, 2022, 10:47:21 pm
content: Quote from: TimFox on April 02, 2022, 09:52:57 pmInteresting. An electron is a photon that has bitten its own tail & formed a loop, the positive em radiation from the photon being annihilated inside the loop, the negative em radiation being emitted gives a negative charge (Williamson). A positron has a different kind of twist, & it is the negative charge that is annihilated inside the loop (Williamson).Elektons have a negative charge koz the em radiation emitted into the wire is absorbed or annihilated or reflected or something. I think reflected. I think that the reflected em radiation has lost the positive part of its em radiation. I suppose that it aint impossible that an elekton can have a positive charge, which would make it an anti-elekton (ie a positon). But i dont need anti-elektons, all i need is that there are fewer elektons on one plate than the other.

author: PlainName
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: April 03, 2022, 01:00:08 am
content: QuoteFor someone describing their own (new) theory, you seem very unsure of things. Or how things fit together. In fact, the only thing you seem sure of is that everyone else is wrong. Somehow.

author: aetherist
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: April 03, 2022, 01:27:23 am
content: Quote from: dunkemhigh on April 03, 2022, 01:00:08 amDeciding on wrong is easy, one strike is out. Old (electron) electricity can't explain how insulation lowers the speed of electricity on a wire from c/1 to 2c/3. Hence old (electron) electricity is out. Plus it is out for lots of other reasons.Measuring the speed of electricity on a threaded rod compared to non-threaded rod would be the most critical test of my new (elekton) elekticity, i say that the speed will appear to be reduced by exactly the extra distance (ie i say that the speed will not be reduced, i say that the distance will be increased).Bob at RSD Academy needs to measure the exact nature of the sharp transient spike of current in his inductor.Brian at AlphaPhoenix needs to tell us the details of the rising transient near his positive terminal.

author: HuronKing
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: April 03, 2022, 04:24:52 am
content: Quote from: dunkemhigh on April 03, 2022, 01:00:08 amIt could be this, or that, or the opposite, or both at the same time or nothing but everything or something.Man, no wonder Steinmetz thought aetherists were all cowardly loons.

author: PlainName
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: April 03, 2022, 10:52:33 am
content: QuoteHow do you know?

author: aetherist
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: April 03, 2022, 08:56:01 pm
content: Quote from: dunkemhigh on April 03, 2022, 10:52:33 amI know throo my own searches over a few months that there has not been any satisfactory or reasonable explanation.I know throo my own reasoning that there can be no satisfactory or reasonable explanation.

author: aetherist
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: April 03, 2022, 09:12:30 pm
content: Quote from: HuronKing on April 03, 2022, 04:24:52 amA photon has no nett em radiation in the far field.An elekton (a photon hugging the surface of the wire) has a nett negative charge in the far field, outside the wire.An electron (a photon biting its own tail, to form a loop) has a nett negative charge in the far field, all around.The cause of the photon's field, & the cause of the electron's field, are i think fairly easily explainable, but the elekton's field aint so easy to explain.Reflection of the em radiation emitted from the elekton sideways, on an angle to the surface of the wire, could do the trick. The reflected em radiation would then combine with the directly emitted radiation to give a combined field.Em radiation emitted directly down into the wire would be unlikely to be reflected, & if not reflected then it might be lost (annihilated)(probly not important)(it might add to the heat gain).I don’t feel sure that everyone else is wrong, i am certain. However, it would make it easier to be certain if everyone else somehow managed to put some words together in a way that explained what in hell they are thinking. What exactly is the role played by their silly drifting electrons?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, hence he did not have the benefit of Miller's improved MMX. Had he lived, Steinmetz would have been an aetherist.

author: TimFox
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: April 03, 2022, 09:16:52 pm
content: Drifting electrons and holes make transistors work.Flying electrons make vacuum tubes work.

author: PlainName
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: April 03, 2022, 09:21:36 pm
content: Quote from: aetherist on April 03, 2022, 08:56:01 pmThat's strange because through my own searches over a few years and with my own reasoning I came to the opposite conclusion to you. But I can spell properly, so clearly my opinion is the more thoughtful and, hence, correct one.

author: aetherist
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: April 03, 2022, 09:26:35 pm
content: Quote from: TimFox on April 03, 2022, 09:16:52 pmYes, i am ok with drifting electrons making transistors work. And flying electrons too.But how do drifting electrons in a wire know that the wire is or isnt insulated?

author: aetherist
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: April 03, 2022, 09:29:29 pm
content: Quote from: dunkemhigh on April 03, 2022, 09:21:36 pmA wonderful achievement. Congratulations. Have u told anyone of your explanation of how drifting electrons in a wire know whether the wire is insulated? And how exactly they adjust their speed or something?

author: TimFox
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: April 03, 2022, 09:37:24 pm
content: Quote from: aetherist on April 03, 2022, 09:26:35 pmIn a coaxial cable, see how the dielectric effects the speed of propagation of the voltage from center conductor to coaxial shield in any normal textbook.In such a cable, the relevant variables as a function of time at a given plane cutting the cable are the voltage from center to outer conductors, and the net current in the center conductor.Note that the coaxial transmission line is a generalization of Heaviside's triumphant demonstration of adding inductive loading with lumped-constant inductors to telegraph lines.A commercial cable (e.g., RG-58/U) is an example of a good transmission line. An insulated wire in an undefined environment (like from the bench to the floor) is a crummy ill-defined transmission line.

author: aetherist
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: April 03, 2022, 10:36:38 pm
content: Quote from: TimFox on April 03, 2022, 09:37:24 pmThere is still no explanation of how internal drifting electrons (in the central wire in the coax)(& in the ordinary wire that is not a coax) change their speed, or the speed of the wavefront, based on(1) whether there is internal dielectric (in the coax), or(2) whether there is external insulation on the outside of the shield of the coax, or(3) whether there is insulation on the outside of an ordinary wire.Which raises an interesting question. What is the speed of electricity along a coax if the outer shield duznt have insulation on the outside?I think that the speed of electricity along the central wire would depend on the speed of electricity in the dielectric (usually 2c/3).And the speed along the outer shield would be the speed of electricity in air (ie c/1).Two different speeds. Fast going out, slow coming back.

author: TimFox
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: April 03, 2022, 10:45:18 pm
content: Quote from: aetherist on April 03, 2022, 10:36:38 pmIn a transmission line, the observable variables are the voltage across and the current down the cable, that I discussed in my reply.That is "electricity" moving through the cable. The electrons respond in their own manner.

author: aetherist
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: April 03, 2022, 11:10:28 pm
content: Quote from: TimFox on April 03, 2022, 10:45:18 pmIf 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.

author: aetherist
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: April 03, 2022, 11:13:24 pm
content: Here is one attempt to wave away the "insulation catastrophe".William BeatyElectrical Engineer 35yrs, electrostatics hobbyist, Amasci siteUpdated Jun 16Is it true that electric currents are normally much faster than the actual electrons?Well …is it true that air currents are much faster than the actual air? Yep.• If you blow into a hose, the air in the far end of the hose starts moving instantly. Actually there’s a tiny delay before it starts moving: the speed of sound. Currents of air have a “startup-wave,” which is the same as a sound wave. The current moves at hundreds of KPH, while the air itself moves slow. (And, if rather than blowing, instead you sucked on the end of the hose, then what happens? Instead the air-currents travel opposite to the direction of the air! The air moves toward your lips, while the “current” races in the opposite direction, going out to the far end of the hose.)• Is it true that water currents are much faster than actual water? Yes, water currents travel at the speed of sound. Step into a pool or pond, and the water level rises everywhere at the same time (after a speed-of-sound delay.) All the water moved slightly outward, away from your intruding foot. Now lift your foot back out. A “wave of decrease” races outwards, as all the water is slightly moved towards your foot.• Is it true that “wood currents” are much faster than the actual wood? Yes, if you pick up a broom from one end, all the wood seems to move instantly. The wood-currents seem to appear everywhere in the wood. But there’s actually a small delay …from the speed of sound inside wood! The wood-current travels faster than the actual wood. (Heh, and if you lifted the broom handle sideways, then you generated a transverse wave, which travels slightly slower than pressure-waves inside wood. S-waves versus P-waves in solids.)• Is it true that “train-car currents” are faster than actual train-cars? Yep. If you’ve heard a long freight-train starting up, maybe you’ve heard the “booms” as the couplings between cars are suddenly tightened. The train itself moves slowly forwards, and the “boom-boom-booms” races backwards along the chain of cars. Train-currents are very fast! Also, they’re backwards!________________________________________PSElectric currents have another name: ELECTROMAGNETIC WAVES! That’s why currents (and voltage) in wires will always travel at the speed of light. When the electricity inside a wire starts to flow, it doesn’t actually all flow at once. Instead, all the movable charges are using e-fields to “talk” with their neighbors. When one electron is forced to move, the surrounding e-fields change, and this moves the next electron in the chain …which changes that electron’s surrounding fields, which then moves the next one. It’s like a long row of train-cars, going “boom-boom-boom-boom.” Wires contain long columns of electrons. Fast EM waves travel along these columns, “informing” all the electrons to start moving.Heh, electric companies don’t sell “electricity.” Instead they sell electromagnetic waves! (The EM waves at 60Hz frequency.) The electricity just sits inside the wires and wiggles back and forth. Electricity doesn’t travel to your home. The electric companies are actually selling us some 60Hz photons.Also, these waves of e-fields are not moving inside the metal wires. Instead, the fields are out in the air, in the space surrounding the wires. The “startup wave”is leapfrogging through space,skipping across billions of electrons on the surface of the wire.In other words, wires are like energy-ducts. Wires behave something like hoses full of air, with sound waves racing along, while the “air” inside moves slowly. Also, the “air” in the hose can wiggle back and forth, while the energy zooms along in just one direction.Too complicated?Just remember that the flow-rate of these energy-waves is measured in watts, while the flow-rate of the electricity inside the copper is measured in amperes. Two kinds of flow, with two different units of measurement. For AC circuitry, the amperes are a back-and-forth wiggle, while the watts are an EM wave at the speed of light. (It’s a lot like wiggling air …versus moving sound waves.)________________________________________ In wires the current usually propagates slightly slower than light in a vacuum, going slower than “c”. This happens whenever the wire is encased in plastic, not in vacuum. The plastic insulation slows down the waves of current …much like the glass in a prism slows down the light waves passing through it. The electrical waves will propagate at 2/3 of “c,” or even slower, depending on the type of plastic. Search for… “velocity factor” in cables.

author: TimFox
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: April 03, 2022, 11:16:55 pm
content: Something causes the electrons to drift, not the other way 'round.Applied voltage, time-changing magnetic flux, photons, thermoelectric effects, etc.I am speaking of physical observables, like when you connect a transmission line to an oscilloscope, or a wire to an ammeter and voltmeter.Maxwell and theories derived from his theories treatelectricity.Solid-state physics, working from quantum mechanics, discusses how the electrons behave in metal conductors in response to electrical causes.

author: aetherist
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: April 03, 2022, 11:22:08 pm
content: Here is another explanation by William Beaty.Is the speed of electricity in a wire (signal speed) related to the speed of light (a function of the permeability and permittivity of space) or the speed of sound (based on nearest neighbor interactions of electrons)?Signals on wires aren’t a “nearest neighbor” phenomenon. Instead, when electrons move, they create altered EM fields and altered attraction/repulsion forces. These forces are experienced by distant electrons in the wire, not just by the close neighbors in adjacent atoms. Next, those distant electrons are, again, moved by those long-range EM field-forces …which then send out new fields, which affect even more distant electrons in the wire.In other words, the vibrations of one electron can “leapfrog” across large distances and pass over immense numbers of electrons. If electrons are like a chain, then the “yank” isn’t going from link to link, instead it’s an EM wave which ripples through the space outside the links, yet is guided by the row of links (the column of mobile electrons in the wire surface.)This effect, plus the extremely low mass of electrons, leads to signal-velocities closely approaching lightspeed. And, since these fields DON’T travel inside the metal of the wires …if we place some ferrite or some plastic insulation just outside the wires, the“leapfrogging fields”must pass through that material, and this has an enormous effect on the speed of the signals

author: penfold
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: April 03, 2022, 11:22:55 pm
content: Quote from: aetherist on April 03, 2022, 11:10:28 pmErr... 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.

author: TimFox
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: April 03, 2022, 11:23:27 pm
content: Are your citations from William Beaty peer reviewed? You objected that Einstein's papers were not.

author: aetherist
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: April 03, 2022, 11:32:39 pm
content: Quote from: TimFox on April 03, 2022, 11:23:27 pmI 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.

author: aetherist
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: April 03, 2022, 11:57:19 pm
content: Quote from: penfold on April 03, 2022, 11:22:55 pmYes. 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 (elekton) elekticity involves the main current being due to elektons 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 (elekton) elekticity & the old (electron) electricity. In both, the Poynting Field describes things but does nothing.

author: SandyCox
author_rank: Regular Contributor
timestamp: April 04, 2022, 08:12:20 am
content: Quote from: aetherist on April 03, 2022, 11:57:19 pmThe initial current isn't necessarily very small. If the resistance of the bulb is equal to twice the characteristic impedance of the transmission line (perfect series matching), then the initial current is equal to half the steady-state current. My attached note explains this.

author: SandyCox
author_rank: Regular Contributor
timestamp: April 04, 2022, 08:34:45 am
content: Quote from: aetherist on April 03, 2022, 08:56:01 pmIt can. Look at this paper:https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/document/9586871

author: penfold
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: April 04, 2022, 10:45:50 am
content: Quote from: aetherist on April 03, 2022, 11:57:19 pmThen 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 moregeneral. 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.

author: TimFox
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: April 04, 2022, 02:07:59 pm
content: Quote from: aetherist on April 03, 2022, 11:32:39 pmIn another one of these threads, you objected by my statement that the editors ofAnnalen 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.

author: penfold
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: April 04, 2022, 06:54:46 pm
content: Quote from: aetherist on April 03, 2022, 11:32:39 pmReview 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.

author: aetherist
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: April 04, 2022, 09:04:51 pm
content: I see that D'Abramo & Jefimenko preceded me in pointing out that Purcell stinx.https://arxiv.org/pdf/2108.07169.pdfA note on Purcell’s basic explanation of magnetic forces Germano D’AbramoAbstract.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.

author: aetherist
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: April 04, 2022, 09:12:25 pm
content: Quote from: SandyCox on April 04, 2022, 08:12:20 amThat might be so. But, i think that we have two electricitys, proper steady state electricity, & transient electricity.Induction is transient electricity. It has a different strength at different places at different times. And is then killed when the steady state electricity eventually arrives. In a capacitor it falls to zero. It comes & goes before we know it, except of course if AC instead of DC.

author: aetherist
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: April 04, 2022, 09:17:51 pm
content: Quote from: TimFox on April 04, 2022, 02:07:59 pmYes, 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).

author: TimFox
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: April 04, 2022, 09:25:00 pm
content: 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.

author: aetherist
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: April 04, 2022, 09:25:35 pm
content: Quote from: penfold on April 04, 2022, 10:45:50 amOld (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.

author: aetherist
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: April 04, 2022, 09:35:13 pm
content: Quote from: penfold on April 04, 2022, 06:54:46 pmEvery 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.

author: TimFox
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: April 04, 2022, 09:40:49 pm
content: So, the demonstrated fact that the electron accelerators I mentioned behave according to Einstein's 1905 paper inAnnalen 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?

author: aetherist
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: April 04, 2022, 09:41:44 pm
content: Quote from: TimFox on April 04, 2022, 09:25:00 pmI am half ok with electrons being accelerated to almost c ------ i prefer that the max speed is about 0.71c.I don’t know what STR predicts re fast moving electrons.I don’t like the E=mcc stuff. But i suppose that this aint a part of STR.

author: TimFox
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: April 04, 2022, 09:44:32 pm
content: Perhaps you should read a standard textbook about what Special Relativity predicts about real situations before you claim that it is nonsense, or less polite words that have no place in a technical discussion.

author: aetherist
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: April 04, 2022, 09:46:21 pm
content: Quote from: TimFox on April 04, 2022, 09:40:49 pmI don’t know what behaviour that is. But i would ask does that behaviour accord with other relativity theorys, eg Voigt, Cohn (after which Einstein name her paper), Poincare, Lorentz, Larmor

author: aetherist
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: April 04, 2022, 09:55:11 pm
content: https://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.205.4405&rep=rep1&type=pdfIs magnetic field due to an electric current a relativistic effect? Oleg D JefimenkoAbstract.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.

author: penfold
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: April 04, 2022, 09:59:39 pm
content: Quote from: aetherist on April 04, 2022, 09:25:35 pmYou're going to need to produce formal proof that classical theory doesn't explain the speed of electricity along a wire... because it does... it travels at a rate that is dependent on the EM properties of the wire and surroundings... is a non-issue for classical theory.The speed of EM fields inside a wire isn't important because the fields can travel externally to the wire and the electrons inside respond.Old electricity explains the propagation speed of the "velocity wavefront" or "current density wavefront" that exists in response to the external fields. The presence of insulation slows the external fields to an extent that depends on their thickness and characteristics, some fields travel external to the insulation. Your theory does not explain how an air gap between conductor and insulation can also affect the speed of electrons.Quote from: aetherist on April 04, 2022, 09:25:35 pmIt's neither scientific nor a discovery.

author: TimFox
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: April 04, 2022, 10:04:07 pm
content: This reminded me of a very bad time in the history of physics, discussed in this long articlehttps://www.scientificamerican.com/article/how-2-pro-nazi-nobelists-attacked-einstein-s-jewish-science-excerpt1/Note 1 at the end of the article discusses the early history of plagiarism against Einstein.What does this sentence mean: "(after which Einstein name her paper)" ?Re: "I don’t know what behaviour that is."Modern electron accelerators ("linear accelerators") are discussed here:https://web.stanford.edu/~rlbyer/PDF_AllPubs/2005/407.pdfThis article concentrates on very high energy accelerators, but the relativistic effects are already important at a few MeV.

author: HuronKing
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: April 04, 2022, 11:10:28 pm
content: Cathode-ray-tube televisions are particle accelerators. They wouldn't work properly without special relativity.Jefimenko's papers are fun (because it seems he's mostly bitching about pedagogy) but he points the way to Jackson who makes it clear what Purcell and others are saying:https://archive.org/details/ClassicalElectrodynamics2nd/page/n605/mode/2upI kind of laughed when Jackson wrote,"But what if there had been a magnetic fieldB'inK'?"So to be clear, Jackson, cited by Jefimenko, isn't taking issue with the relativistic transformation of the E-field from moving charges causing the appearance of B-field effects in the other reference frame, he just wants you to know that it can't be a complete description of the B-field in other reference frame unless you say so...Of course the relativistic transformation of the E-field is not a complete description of the B-field in the other reference frame if that other reference frame already had a B-field from some other source... you'd have to account for that too. Duh? And Jackson delves into this further in homework problem 12.3 (where he calls this a pseudomagnetic force).And even, to his credit, the Science Asylum video that says the magnetic force does not exist specifically addresses the problem Jefimenko was mad about - that one could argue the Electric Force does not exist either. And that's exactly it - they're not independent entities. They're both representations of the total electromagnetic field.And this is what makes aetherists cowardly hacks as Steinmetz warned us about. An aetherist can spend weeks on an EE forum getting personalized counseling from numerous experts after having been banned from multiple physics forums, yet still have no idea what anyone is talking about regarding EM fieldsExemplified by saying stupid shit likeQuoteMy God, that's STR 101...

author: aetherist
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: April 04, 2022, 11:54:15 pm
content: Quote from: penfold on April 04, 2022, 09:59:39 pmEinstein was correct that light slows when near mass. This is why my elektons hug a wire, the nearside being slowed moreso than the farside (plus charge attraction). But this raises a problem for my elektons, if they are slowed then elekticity can't ever propagate at the speed of light, koz elektons must propagate a little slower than the speed of light. If its only say 1% slower then praps its ok. After all most of the work done with electricity is for insulated wires, or at least wires that have corroded on the outside.But the question re the effect of an air gap tween wire & insulation is interesting. The speed of the elektons would be the speed of light in air. Minus some km/s due to the slowing of the nearness of mass of the Cu. Minus some km/s due to the nearness of the mass of the insulation outside the gap. I think that the speed of elekticity along a wire with an air gap tween the wire & insulation would be very little different to the speed of elekticity with zero insulation.But the reference to the effect of the gap on the speed of electrons must be a typing error. U must have meant elektons. It is old (electron) electricity that can't explain (how insulation affects the old (electron) electricity speed)(or how a small gap might affect).But in any case we can't say can't based merely on a gedanken, we would need real numbers/speeds.

author: xrunner
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: April 04, 2022, 11:59:50 pm
content: Quote from: aetherist on April 04, 2022, 11:54:15 pmI don't think so. Mass causes light to follow a curved path, but it does not slow down.

author: aetherist
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: April 05, 2022, 12:11:55 am
content: Quote from: TimFox on April 04, 2022, 10:04:07 pmMrs Einstein worked for Lenard, & stole his ideas.So, u are saying that STR explains E=mcc or m=e/cc. The derivation of E=mcc was flawed, it was a circular proof/derivation (as shown by Ives & Co).Anyhow, aether theory says that c is a speed limit (me myself i reckon that the limit is about 0.7c).However, aether theory duznt say that the mass of an electron increases with speed. But it duznt rule it out either.If indeed mass duz increase with speed then it will need a proper explanation, not some silly STR or spacetime explanation.I suspect that the application of gamma to mass to give a very large mass as the speed approaches the speed of light is a circular theory. One outcome of this is that we have lots of new particles that don’t really exist.

author: aetherist
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: April 05, 2022, 12:24:18 am
content: Quote from: xrunner on April 04, 2022, 11:59:50 pmIts difficult to know what Einstein meant some of the time, ie re orbits being real, or just a trick of the warping of spacetime.I think that Einstein would say that the light goes straight, but that spacetime warps or bends or somesuch.Anyhow, Shapiro proved that light does indeed slow when passing the Sun (now called Shapiro Delay).I rate this as being Einstein's only real contribution to science, albeit a lucky outcome (his reasoning was faulty)(me myself i came up with the correct explanation).But, if u are correct, then Shapiro Delay falsifies GTR.Which leads us to the proper explanation of why the bending of light passing the Sun is twice the Newtonian bending.But anyhow Einstein helped me to come up with my new (elekton) electricity. His slowing of light is what makes the elekton hug the wire (together with charge attraction).

author: aetherist
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: April 05, 2022, 12:49:08 am
content: Quote from: HuronKing on April 04, 2022, 11:10:28 pmCRTs don’t need relativity. GPS duznt need relativity.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.E=mcc is not a part of STR. STR duznt even lead to E=mcc.If indeed mass duz increase with speed then it will need a proper explanation, not some silly STR or spacetime explanation.Aether theory says that mass is the property of photons & elementary particles (eg electrons)(confined photons)(everything is photons)(everything has mass) whereby they annihilate aether, & aether flows in to replace the lost aether, the acceleration of the inflow whereby the streamlines converge in 3 dimensions giving us the well known 1/RR relationship.Hence, if mass increases with speed (which aether theory duz not rule out) then that would require that speed increases the rate of annihilation.But i doubt that (real) mass increases with speed. Apparent (non-real) mass might increase.But for sure spacetime (ticking dilation)(length contraction) has zero to do with mass.Aether theory prefers that there is only one real mass, in effect the rest mass, & that this never changes.But, if it duz change with speed, then aether theory will have to accept that, but it would then have to try to come up with an explanation.

author: HuronKing
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: April 05, 2022, 01:32:00 am
content: Quote from: aetherist on April 05, 2022, 12:49:08 amHow do you know? You just said you don't know what happens when an electron goes very fast, or at least, what STR says about it.You ignored this in the other thread. You'll ignore it again, I'm sure.Example 5.4:https://openstax.org/books/university-physics-volume-3/pages/5-3-time-dilationQuoteEvery new post you make just shows how completely unhinged you are from reality.

author: aetherist
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: April 05, 2022, 02:13:48 am
content: Quote from: HuronKing on April 05, 2022, 01:32:00 amCRT duznt need relativity koz the designers don’t need relativity. We don’t know what electricity is, but there are a lot of electric designers out there getting paid good money.Time dilation in STR is due to the silly gedanken way of synchronising clocks using light & mirrors. If Einstein synchronised his gedanken clocks by using sensible slow transport then silly STR & silly time dilation would not have been needed.However, what we do have is ticking dilation, where all clocks of all kinds are affected in varying degrees by speed (ie the speed of the aetherwind), & also in varying degrees by the nearness of mass.Anyhow, i am still waiting for u to explain to me how STR can help B' to make an mmf (ie having already used STR to make an mmf from B). No hurry.

author: TimFox
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: April 05, 2022, 02:25:20 am
content: In the relativistic electron accelerators made by my former employer, I assure you that the electrons go faster than 0.707c.The timing with respect to the microwave-frequency excitation of the cavities wouldn't work at the frequency and dimensions where they do,in fact, work quite well.

author: aetherist
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: April 05, 2022, 02:52:44 am
content: Quote from: TimFox on April 05, 2022, 02:25:20 amYes. That is a problem for my theory. And i would be surprised if standard science gets the measurement of the speeds wrong.If an electron can never attain c, then an orbiting elektron can't orbit once the atom nears c.Hence i say that the atom can never attain say 0.71c, so that the orbital elektron can still orbit with some kind of speed, say c/100. No that’s not a good gedanken, c/100 might demand a limit of 0.99c for the atom. An orbital speed of nearly c would demand a max atomic speed of 0.71c.Anyhow, my thinking here arises from the idea that an atom flattens to a 2-dimensional disc if it gets to a speed of c.I say that if the atom has a speed of c plus the elektrons have a speed of c then that demands a total speed of 1.41c, hence i invoke a lower speed limit for an atom, such that the total speed for the elektron duznt have to reach 1c.But all of that supposes that the em forces in an atom propagate at c. Praps they propagate at more than c, in the nearfield so to speak. Still thinking.

author: hamster_nz
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: April 05, 2022, 03:08:34 am
content: Quote from: aetherist on April 05, 2022, 12:49:08 amNeed? Could you still make GPS system if there were not relativistic effects? Sure.But these effects are there, and you need to needs to make allowances for it. This is due to the difference of the passing of time in a semi-synchronous orbit compared to where the receiver is, and for the journey between the two. The calculations needed for approximating the required correction can be found on page 88 ofhttps://www.gps.gov/technical/icwg/IS-GPS-200D.pdf.

author: Circlotron
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: April 05, 2022, 03:27:53 am
content: This thread give me flashbacks to usenet back in the day, reading Archimedes Plutonium and his Plutonium Atom Totality theory.https://www.quora.com/What-effect-did-Archimedes-Plutonium-and-his-Plutonium-Atom-Totality-theory-have-upon-your-view-of-the-world

author: HuronKing
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: April 05, 2022, 03:41:44 am
content: Quote from: aetherist on April 05, 2022, 02:13:48 amI've shown you how it gets used. You can stick your fingers in your ears and go 'lalalala no it doesn't.' And Steinmetz laughs at you.QuoteYour entire understanding of the phenomena is shoddy 'krapp' so you wouldn't even understand any such answer (if the foundation of your question wasn't even on already super faulty premises). You can't even read the equations.Let's not forget how little you admit to knowing,QuoteTranslation:"Herp dee derp, I don't even know the first thing about relativity."And you want to get all worked up about relativistic transformations of the E-field in current carrying wires - and you don't even know what a high school AP physics student knows about electrons and special relativity.This material is too advanced for you. Go back to secondary school.

author: aetherist
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: April 05, 2022, 10:05:48 am
content: Quote from: hamster_nz on April 05, 2022, 03:08:34 am(1) GPS duznt use any STR or GTR corrections.(2) The ticking of the clocks are certainly affected by speed & elevation & location, in relativistic ways.(3) There is no difference of the passing of time, koz time duznt exist, there is no such thing as time dilation.(4) Yes, there is a need to make allowances for the differences in ticking rates.(5) No, they don’t use any STR or GTR equations, ie to pre-set the ticking rates, or to adjust the ticking rates, or to adjust the indicated times.(6) They use equations that they know work, that have been proven to work.(7) In any case they make regular adjustments during each day, no drastic action needed.(8 ) The adjustments mentioned in (5)(6)(7) are not necessary, but the GPS system works more easily if the clocks tick as closely as possible, rather than the operators having to juggle huge numbers.(9) GPS falsifies STR, & to some extent falsifies GTR. Koz STR says that time dilation is reciprocal, but GPS shows that it aint reciprocal, STR is a dead-duck.(10) Einsteinists try to wave away the GPS falsification of STR by inventing & invoking an orbital Sagnac effect. They always seem to be able to invent something to get around any kind of failure, & it duznt matter that it makes no real sense, as long as it satisfies disciples, & anyone who believes in STR is easily satisfied.(11) There is no excuse for not knowing most of the above, anyone can google the views of GPS experts.

author: aetherist
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: April 05, 2022, 10:39:41 am
content: Quote from: HuronKing on April 05, 2022, 03:41:44 amVoigt was the first to derive an equation for gamma. But i think it was Searle that was the first to derive a transformation for em radiation. Not for wires, but for em radiation, in connection with length contraction. I think that Lorentz built on that. I think that Larmor used his own transforms to derive equations for gamma for the ticking of atoms. But he didn’t call this time dilation, he wasn’t that stupid. Neither was Lorentz.But along came Albert, & he was stupid, & he foisted time dilation on the world, & the rest is history.Anyhow, length contraction is often quite rightly called FitzGerald length contraction.And ticking dilation is often quite rightly called Larmor ticking dilation. However, this can only apply to atomic clocks, it seems to be fairly accurate re atomic clocks, but its main problem being that it duznt readily explain the change in ticking with elevation. But in any case the Larmor gamma can't be applied to any other kind of clock.Einstein's STR is based on relative velocity, or in the case of his time dilation it is based on relative speed.All of the other kinds of relativity are based on the speed of the object through a static aether.The neoLorentz version is based on the aetherwind blowing through the object or clock.My own version of relativity is i think the best. The length contraction part is based on neoLorentz. The ticking dilation part is based on a combination of the length contraction due to the aetherwind plus a GTR kind of contribution to the length contraction due to the nearness of mass. All ticking dilation being due to length contraction. With each kind of clock being affected in a different way (eg balance wheel clocks, pendulums etc). I have made an Excel for the ticking dilation of tuning forks.Bearing in mind that length contraction has never been proven. What i mean is that there is definitely a change in length or in width or some combination, but we don’t know which. I think that Lorentz mentioned this.The funny thing is that in the modern era the only tests of time dilation have been by using atomic clocks, which were only invented after Einstein died. Einstein loved balance wheel clocks, but (i know that) his time dilation gamma can't possibly apply to balance wheel clocks (but might be ok for atomic clocks)(we don’t know yet).

author: Circlotron
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: April 05, 2022, 11:20:02 am
content: Quote from: aetherist on April 05, 2022, 10:05:48 amSounds like a toned down version of Time cube.https://web.archive.org/web/20160112193916/http://timecube.com/

author: penfold
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: April 05, 2022, 12:06:25 pm
content: Quote from: aetherist on April 04, 2022, 11:54:15 pmSo all electronic devices designed, manufactured, and tested according to old-electrons that show no discrepancies to classical theory isn't enough to go by? It all works according to the classical theory, it's all explained in a cohesive set of equations that agree even with broader observations of the universe.Electons don't exist in classical theory, so it would be surprising if I felt a need to reference them, but yeah, could easily be a typing error or a sign of mental deficiency, it's difficult to be sure. But we sure do need some real numbers and speeds, when can we expect some quantitative predictions regarding electricity and magnetism to test your theory?

author: aetherist
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: April 05, 2022, 09:35:37 pm
content: Quote from: penfold on April 05, 2022, 12:06:25 pmElektons were discovered/invented in Dec 2021 to better explain what we see re electricity, ie better than the drifting electrons nonsense.If u can show me one instance where elekton elekticity duznt work, or works less well than drifting electrons electricity, then u win.The best test that i can think of (of my new (elekton) elekticity) is a measurement of the speed of elekticity along a threaded rod compared to a plain rod. The speed of elekticity along the threaded rod will be slower in the ratio of the extra distance up&down over the threads.But i like your idea that we should abandon all electric devices designed before my new (elekton) elekticity was discovered in Dec 2021.They should have abandoned devices designed before STR in 1905. Bad luck for Steinmetz.They should have abandoned devices designed before the electron was found in 1897.They should have abandoned devices designed before the electron was named in 1891.They should have abandoned devices designed before the charged particle was hypothesised in 1838.They should have abandoned all devices designed by Tesla, koz before 1905 he hadnt heard of STR, & after 1905 he didn’t believe in STR.Wow, this is going to be a big job. I wonder whether i should have kept quiet.https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electron…………….. Interactions involving electrons with other subatomic particles are of interest in fields such as chemistry and nuclear physics. The Coulomb force interaction between the positive protons within atomic nuclei and the negative electrons without, allows the composition of the two known as atoms. Ionization or differences in the proportions of negative electrons versus positive nuclei changes the binding energy of an atomic system. The exchange or sharing of the electrons between two or more atoms is the main cause of chemical bonding. In1838, British natural philosopher Richard Laming first hypothesized the concept of an indivisible quantity of electric charge to explain the chemical properties of atoms. Irish physicist George Johnstone Stoney named this charge 'electron' in1891, and J. J. Thomson and his team of British physicists identified it as a particle in1897during the cathode-ray tube experiment. Electrons can also participate in nuclear reactions, such as nucleosynthesis in stars, where they are known as beta particles. Electrons can be created through beta decay of radioactive isotopes and in high-energy collisions, for instance when cosmic rays enter the atmosphere. The antiparticle of the electron is called the positron; it is identical to the electron except that it carries electrical charge of the opposite sign. When an electron collides with a positron, both particles can be annihilated, producing gamma ray photons…………..When Einsteinists finally agree whether relativistic mass exists (ie that mass increases with velocity), & when they finally agree whether the concepts of longitudinal mass & transverse mass exist (for a beam of electrons in a CRT), then which Cathode Ray devices should we dump at the dump. Could we sue the manufacturers of TVs?

author: penfold
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: April 06, 2022, 07:52:42 am
content: Quote from: aetherist on April 05, 2022, 09:35:37 pmWhy are drifting electrons nonsense? What's the rationale behind that?Electon electricity doesn't work anywhere, there's no way of relating it to reality or quantifying your statements... that's the clever and intelligent part of a theory for which people get rewarded... actually relating it to reality... you're yet to do the difficult work.No. Back to the idea of proof, those devices provide evidence that substantiates classical EM theory, you have no evidence to substantiate electons. The devices will always have worked and form part of a mass proof of Maxwell, none of them expose any particular weakness.

author: SandyCox
author_rank: Regular Contributor
timestamp: April 06, 2022, 07:58:02 am
content: Quote from: aetherist on April 05, 2022, 09:35:37 pmLet's start with you abandoning your electronic devices and Internet connection.

author: thinkfat
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: April 06, 2022, 08:25:04 am
content: Fun fact: Maxwell doesn't disprove the "aether". In fact his original equations were developed based on the "Luminiferous aether" model that was the working theory about light propagation in his days. But no experimental proof came forward to substantiate this theory and experimental results could not be explained. Then Einstein came along and his Special Theory of Relativity explained all experimental results without needing to refer to the "aether" at all. The consensus was that the "aether" was not a useful concept to cling to.

author: aetherist
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: April 06, 2022, 09:32:17 am
content: Quote from: thinkfat on April 06, 2022, 08:25:04 amhttp://wiki.naturalphilosophy.org/index.php?title=G_O_MuellerMueller is a good place to start.

author: aetherist
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: April 06, 2022, 09:38:35 am
content: Quote from: penfold on April 06, 2022, 07:52:42 amWe have geniuses that light the way.We have thems that can understand & appreciate genius.We have thems that dont understand.We have thems that cant understand but are sure that the geniuses are wrong.Einstein aint one of the geniuses.My elektons are brilliant. I might have to learn some Swedish.

author: penfold
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: April 06, 2022, 09:59:11 am
content: Quote from: thinkfat on April 06, 2022, 08:25:04 amThere have been a fair number of theories and approaches to aether over the years. Aether is just the name of the collection of properties that have been assigned to "vacuum", so really, there are quite a few different aethers, if anything, Maxwell proves the existence of one as the equations were designed and developed around the idea of almost solid-like properties. As measurements and observations got more numerous and refined, one aether with those same Maxwellian properties would produce very different results in observations where relativity becomes more relevant. There's a bit of noise (accidental pun) in the quantum fields about the hypothesis ofanaether... but it's a different aether again.But anyway, scientific laws are just tools for a job, observations of nature are where the truth is, and it's the observations that the laws describe, not nature.

author: SandyCox
author_rank: Regular Contributor
timestamp: April 06, 2022, 10:15:40 am
content: Quote from: penfold on April 06, 2022, 09:59:11 amBeautiful!Just like a natural language isn't its grammatical rules. The rules try to capture the essence of the language.

author: thinkfat
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: April 06, 2022, 10:30:07 am
content: Quote from: aetherist on April 06, 2022, 09:38:35 amWell, you have neither discovered nor invented anything. You postulated the existence of something. There is no proof, and, as far as I can see, not even a coherent piece of paper that describes what you claim to have found. How can anyone apply scientific rigor to your theory when all you can show is some forum posts that only demonstrate how you cannot read physics textbooks? I think you can put off learning Swedish for a bit.

author: penfold
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: April 06, 2022, 10:30:51 am
content: Quote from: aetherist on April 06, 2022, 09:38:35 amWell, that's certainly the loosest definition of genius I've ever heard, your level of inteligence is certainly similar to that of a candle tht similarly lights the way, that I won't deny.Now, talking of candles, why doesn't aether-wind blow candles out? Photons carry momentum and interract with a static aether, a moving aether would either require that photons have no interraction with aether or that candles should at the very least burn with a significant deflection in the flame.

author: thinkfat
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: April 06, 2022, 11:14:20 am
content: Quote from: aetherist on April 06, 2022, 09:32:17 amQuote

author: aetherist
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: April 06, 2022, 12:39:40 pm
content: Quote from: thinkfat on April 06, 2022, 11:14:20 amThese links should be ok --- English...https://www.kritik-relativitaetstheorie.de/Anhaenge/Kapitel2-englisch.pdfChapter 2 Catalogue of Errors for Both Theories of Relativity from the documentation of G.O. Muellerhttps://www.ekkehard-friebe.de/95yearsrelativity.pdf95 Years of Criticism of the Special Theory of Relativity (1908-2003) The G. O. Mueller Research Project [GOM-Project Relativity] Description of a German Research Project of intehttps://www.gsjournal.net/Science-Journals/Communications-Relativity%20Theory/Download/4990

author: aetherist
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: April 06, 2022, 12:47:19 pm
content: Quote from: penfold on April 06, 2022, 10:30:51 amGood points. The aether can be seen to interact with candle flames.Candle flames move up, away from Earth. That is koz the aetherwind acceleration is down, ie giving a downwards gravity. The flames being less dense than cold air.The aetherwind affects the photons from the flames. The photons have a speed of c+V or c-V where V is the aetherwind, tailwind or headwind.If a sidewind then the photons will crab, ie sidle.

author: thinkfat
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: April 06, 2022, 12:54:54 pm
content: Quote from: aetherist on April 06, 2022, 12:39:40 pmI can understand German just fine. After all it's my native language.

author: PlainName
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: April 06, 2022, 02:46:18 pm
content: QuoteSo if here in the UK the aetherwind is blowing down, in Australia it must be blowing up and candle flames head downwards?The alternative, that the aetherwind is blowing towards the center of the Earth regardless of where you stand, seems unlikely since then there would be significant aetherpressuretmbuilding up until it must... what? Explode? Just disappear?

author: free_electron
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: April 06, 2022, 02:47:06 pm
content: Humbug and Claptrap. It's all caused by wakalixies. They are responsible for everything.

author: thinkfat
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: April 06, 2022, 04:00:43 pm
content: Quote from: dunkemhigh on April 06, 2022, 02:46:18 pmNot if the earth is flat...

author: HuronKing
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: April 06, 2022, 04:35:58 pm
content: Hooh boy that G.O. Muller is something else... and it's rather gross to see Lenard included in their list of 'totally not anti-Semitic critics of relativity.'https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/how-2-pro-nazi-nobelists-attacked-einstein-s-jewish-science-excerpt1/Methinks they doth protest too much.PSI'm not suggesting that all or even most critics of relativity are anti-Semitic and I've made no such suggestions in the many comments I've made so far (relativity stands just fine on its own on purely physical grounds). Most critics just plain don't understand relativity, after all, they say stupid stuff like:QuoteBut, since G.O. Muller has now been submitted here, it's worth pointing out directly that yes - much historic criticism of relativity in Germany IS founded on anti-Semitism and the constant accusations of a global 'Einsteinist but we totally don't mean Jewish conspiracy' is worrisome.

author: SiliconWizard
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: April 06, 2022, 07:21:23 pm
content: Quote from: aetherist on April 06, 2022, 12:47:19 pmOf course. This one is priceless.

author: HuronKing
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: April 06, 2022, 08:56:19 pm
content: I had to dig a bit more into the100 Authors Against Einsteinand I was not disappointed.It appears most of them were not even competent in understanding the theory and many of them just whinged about religious/philosophical objections (not scientific):https://skepticalinquirer.org/2020/11/100-authors-against-einstein-a-look-in-the-rearview-mirror/And this is why so much of their counter-material was rejected for publication.https://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.961.1404&rep=rep1&type=pdfQuote(Dr. Edwin Kemble to Heidenreich, 29 February 1932, copy, RP 4-24)Overall while I don't have Wazeck's full book, just the paper, it gives me a sense of her opinion and I personally think she is far too compassionate to the anti-scientific (sometimes anti-Semitic) crowd that opposed relativity. Steinmetz knew who he was dealing with - he called them cowardly hacks.

author: aetherist
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: April 06, 2022, 09:21:39 pm
content: Quote from: dunkemhigh on April 06, 2022, 02:46:18 pmI did say that gravity is due to the acceleration of the aetherwind. So, i wondered why u made a strawman that i said that aetherwind caused gravity. But on reading my last comment i do see that i added the throw-away line that aetherwind can have a velocity of c+V or c-V, & that must have confused u. Teacher's mistake-1.If the aetherwind is steady then there is no acceleration of the aetherwind & zero pressure & zero gravity. Objects retain their uniform velocity.The aetherwind in Australia is indeed blowing down, but the acceleration of the aetherwind is towards the center of the Earth everywhere on Earth. Hence gravity is down, everywhere on Earth. Acceleration causes an aether pressure.The inflow streamlines that i alluded to are streamlines of aether acceleration, not streamlines of velocity or speed. The streamlines represent the acceleration field, not the velocity field. Teacher's mistake-2.Anyhow, the streamlines converge towards the center of Earth, in 3 dimensions, hence the acceleration has a 1/RR relationship, which accords with the standard equation for gravitational attraction tween masses.Gravity causes the candle flame to go upwards, hence we do indeed feel & see the action of the aether (crudely put), which was my answer to that question. Anything & everything to do with gravity fits, its all a feeling & seeing of the action of the aether.Penfold asked, what interaction is there tween flame & aether, & does aether cause a deflection of the flame.Aether does indeed cause a deflection, it causes the flame to go up.I wonder whether there has been a flame on spacelab?

author: aetherist
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: April 06, 2022, 09:33:33 pm
content: Quote from: HuronKing on April 06, 2022, 04:35:58 pmIs 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.

author: PlainName
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: April 06, 2022, 09:40:52 pm
content: QuoteHow does acceleration towards a central point from every point on a sphere not increasesomethingin the middle? It has to go somewhere,doesn'tduznt it? So there must presumably be streamlines of deceleration to match. Somewhere.And... how can you have acceleration without a change in velocity or speed?

author: TimFox
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: April 06, 2022, 09:41:41 pm
content: "Overall while I don't have Wazeck's full book, just the paper, it gives me a sense of her opinion and I personally think she is far too compassionate to the anti-scientific (sometimes anti-Semitic) crowd that opposed relativity. Steinmetz knew who he was dealing with - he called them cowardly hacks."Before the exodus of politically-incorrect and ethnically-unwanted scientists from Germany in the 1930s, Steinmetz was a refugee from Germany to the US in 1889 (first to Switzerland in 1888) due to political activity at the University of Breslau (and some personal problems), and (among many other publications) presented a seminal paper on complex algebra for AC in 1893 (at a congress held in conjunction with the Chicago World's Columbian Exposition), and a monograph on relativity theory in 1923.I encountered a good short biographical sketch ("Proteus") near the end of the first section ("The 42nd Parallel") of John Dos Passos' very thick book "USA". The sketch ended "Steinmetz was the most valuable piece of apparatus General Electric had until he wore out and died." I recommend that long novel to technically-minded readers: the text includes conflicts between engineers and capitalists.

author: aetherist
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: April 06, 2022, 09:42:25 pm
content: Quote from: HuronKing on April 06, 2022, 08:56:19 pmI will try to read thems papers. I might be able to refer to some others that i have.

author: PlainName
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: April 06, 2022, 09:43:47 pm
content: Quote

author: YurkshireLad
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: April 06, 2022, 09:45:29 pm
content: Quote from: dunkemhigh on April 06, 2022, 09:40:52 pmThere's something underneath aether that makes it accelerate. I just invented it, it's called "Uther".Sorry, I couldn't resist!

author: TimFox
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: April 06, 2022, 09:51:54 pm
content: There be dragons!"God bless King PendragonLong may his reign drag on!"T H White:The Once and Future King

author: hamster_nz
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: April 06, 2022, 10:01:57 pm
content: Quote from: aetherist on April 06, 2022, 09:21:39 pmClose... ISShttps://www.space.com/13766-international-space-station-flex-fire-research.html

author: aetherist
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: April 06, 2022, 10:17:22 pm
content: Quote from: dunkemhigh on April 06, 2022, 09:40:52 pmYes, acceleration is a change in velocity or speed (i don’t see the problem here).I said towards the center of the Earth, crudely put. The actual acceleration will of course be a combination of the acceleration of aether into the Sun, & Moon, etc. Teacher mistake-3 if u like.U raise or infer some good points.If the gravity at the center of Earth is zero (or somewhere near center), then the acceleration of the aetherwind near center must be zero. Yes.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.Aether is annihilated in matter, ie in Earth. Hence there is no need for a theoretical deceleration.Once u pass a certain depth the acceleration will decrease, ie gravity decreases, & near center gravity is zero.Aetherons that have been annihilated (in the photons inside Earth)(all matter is photons)(all photons are photons) no longer exist, hence they can't themselves accelerate or decelerate.I admit that this process is not easy to imagine.The inflow has to increase something in the middle. No.If aether is annihilated then there is no buildup of anything near the center of the Earth.Aether is a process, it is an excitation of the praether, the praether is the fundamental essence. The point here is that when a process is annihilated then nothing material is actually annihilated. If i stop juggling some oranges, then my juggling is not annihilated, it no longer exists. And no oranges have been harmed.I said that nothing material has been annihilated. This wording is klumsy. I might come back & fix.The acceleration of the aetherwind inside Earth will reach a max at some depth, & hence gravity will reach a max at that depth. Skoolkids of course all wrongly (today) think that gravity is a max at the surface (so did i).

author: aetherist
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: April 06, 2022, 10:24:03 pm
content: Quote from: hamster_nz on April 06, 2022, 10:01:57 pmI predict that a candle-flame on spacelab can be extinguished by licking finger & thumb & pinching the wick.

author: aetherist
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: April 06, 2022, 10:27:18 pm
content: Quote from: YurkshireLad on April 06, 2022, 09:45:29 pmI reckon that a true Einsteinist would automatically say that spacetime makes the aether accelerate. And that spacetime is under over in & all around the aether.Uther makes more sense that spacetime. Progress.

author: HuronKing
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: April 06, 2022, 10:35:28 pm
content: Quote from: aetherist on April 06, 2022, 09:33:33 pmLenard'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-43165Anything 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 Meetinghttps://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/1111/1111.2194.pdfCompiling 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-evidenceAnd 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.

author: TimFox
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: April 06, 2022, 11:02:20 pm
content: "The acceleration of the aetherwind inside Earth will reach a max at some depth, & hence gravity will reach a max at that depth. Skoolkids of course all wrongly (today) think that gravity is a max at the surface (so did i)."Isaac Newton showed that in the interior of a sphere (assuming that the mass density is only a function of the radius), the gravitational force at a point is that of the sphere whose radius equals that of the point.The gravitational forces due to the shell outside that radius cancels out. Consult any textbook about that.Now, to keep things simple, let us assume that the mass density within the earth is a constantW.The gravitational force at a radiusrinside the sphere is therefore:F=GMm/r2, whereGis Newton's universal gravitational constant,mis the mass of the test object at that radius andMis the mass of the sphere inside that radius.That massM=WV, whereWis the volume density andV= (4pi/3)r3is the volume of the sphere inside the radius.The "strength" or acceleration of gravity isg=F/m.Therefore, as a function of radius inside the sphere, the acceleration of gravity isg=GM/r2= (G/r2) xWV= (G/r2)x(4pi/3)GWr3= (4pi/3)xGWxr,which is directly proportional tor, the radius from the center of the sphere.This is the physics class calculation: a civil engineer can then introduce the dependence of the mass densityWwith radiusrand get a slightly different answer, but it will still go to zero at the center.

author: hamster_nz
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: April 06, 2022, 11:31:25 pm
content: Quote from: aetherist on April 06, 2022, 10:17:22 pmWith 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 pmWhat 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?

author: aetherist
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: April 06, 2022, 11:31:35 pm
content: Quote from: TimFox on April 06, 2022, 11:02:20 pmYes i am ok with all of that. Yes, the reason for the max g being at some depth is that the density is much greater in the say iron core. And yes the gravity is always zero near center.BA. However, all of that reminds me of the borehole anomaly. It has been found that the decrease of g with depth does not follow Newton.G. And, the measurement of Newton's big G indicates that big G is not a constant.Me myself i am the only person around who has explained the BA catastrophe & the big G catastrophe. Perhaps my most brilliant discovery. I really must brush up on my Swedish.

author: aetherist
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: April 06, 2022, 11:41:27 pm
content: Quote from: hamster_nz on April 06, 2022, 11:31:25 pmPhotons 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.

author: aetherist
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: April 06, 2022, 11:49:29 pm
content: Quote from: HuronKing on April 06, 2022, 10:35:28 pmLists 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.

author: HuronKing
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: April 06, 2022, 11:57:26 pm
content: Quote from: aetherist on April 06, 2022, 11:49:29 pmI'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-einsteinWhen are YOU going to learn some relativity before wasting everyone's time decrying a theory you don't know the first thing about?Quote

author: aetherist
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: April 07, 2022, 12:10:24 am
content: Quote from: HuronKing on April 06, 2022, 11:57:26 pmDoes 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.

author: HuronKing
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: April 07, 2022, 12:48:52 am
content: Quote from: aetherist on April 07, 2022, 12:10:24 amI 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_relativityhttps://www.feynmanlectures.caltech.edu/I_15.htmlhttps://www.feynmanlectures.caltech.edu/I_16.htmlShort 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.QuoteFeynman 15-8Theory and experiment in perfect agreement. While aether rots in the grave.

author: aetherist
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: April 07, 2022, 02:00:17 am
content: Quote from: HuronKing on April 07, 2022, 12:48:52 amI am not sure what aether theory says about electron mass. But i see that Lorentz came up with the same equations at an earlier date than Einstein, using aether theory (not STR). So, i doubt that u can bury aether here. Me myself i don’t like the smell of any ovem, they are both rotten.http://philsci-archive.pitt.edu/16913/1/Potters_Kaufmann.pdfHeuristics versus Norms: On the Relativistic Responses to the Kaufmannn Experiments✩ Jan Potters1

author: TimFox
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: April 07, 2022, 02:00:01 pm
content: Quote from: aetherist on April 06, 2022, 11:31:35 pmYes, when you include the variation in density with radius due to the heavy core (using geological models of the Earth's internal layers), the gravity deviates from the linear calculation above. No aether required.Which of your YouTube experts has evidence that the gravitational constantGvaries substantially over a scale of the Earth's diameter (or even the Solar System dimensions)?There have been critics of relativity who suggest a time-dependent variation inG: serious experimental evidence places an upper limit of such variation at roughly 1 part in 1010per year, while the accuracy of the experimental value itself has improved to about 22 ppm (NIST recommended values).

author: aetherist
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: April 07, 2022, 11:44:21 pm
content: Quote from: TimFox on April 07, 2022, 02:00:01 pmI have not looked at the latest numbers, but in 2005 the spread was 6.66742 plus or minus 0.0100, which is plus or minus 0.15%, which is plus or minus 1500 ppm, which they somehow claim is plus or minus 150 ppm.I remember that various teams reported that their measurements of bigG on the surface of the Earth varied with time & location & time of year, ie after correcting for the usual.Instruments might well measure to plus or minus 22 ppm, but bigG seems to vary by plus or minus 1500 ppm.Aether theory might explain why bigG varies. I haven’t looked at the problem very closely.

author: TimFox
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: April 08, 2022, 01:29:02 am
content: Note that none of this discussion implies thatGvaries with space over dimensions comparable to the Earth. There is speculation thatGmay vary slightly over time in a roughly periodic fashion.Traditional measurements ofGare extremely difficult: some new quantum measurements (which still have largish uncertainties) may solve the question when they are improved sufficiently to get better repeatability.Above all of this is an interesting phenomenon sometimes called "intellectual phase lock", which has been seen in the measurement of other fundamental constants over the years: when you are setting up a difficult precision measurement, you first check to see if it is in the ballpark of the previous measurements, until the performance and uncertainty of the measurement technology improves to the point where you get a largish difference in the new value.The status of the journal "Progress in Physics" is, shall we say, controversial. It's history seems somewhat like that of social media.

author: aetherist
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: April 08, 2022, 01:52:05 am
content: Quote from: TimFox on April 08, 2022, 01:29:02 amInteresting.The same exact paper (i think) was in arxiv Physics.https://arxiv.org/pdf/physics/0512109.pdfBigG duznt have to be very accurate to get good numbers for orbits etc, koz they use mGs (for each planet & Sun etc), & mGs are known very accurately.But if the STR explanation for mmf near a wire has to include a frame correction for force, then the bigG teams should have STR & GTR corrections for their bigG measurements. I suppose that they do (i am too lazy to check).Aetherwind would demand some kind of corrections for bigG too.

author: TimFox
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: April 08, 2022, 03:03:00 am
content: arXiv physics has a similar reputation. It is a collection of pre-prints, many of which are thereafter submitted to peer-reviewed journals.

author: aetherist
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: April 08, 2022, 10:11:42 am
content: It has been said (Maxwell?) that a beam of electrons in vacuo creates a surrounding magnetic field identical to that found around a current carrying wire.However, an electron beam in vacuo does not have an associated line of protons that can be length contracted by STR.Hence, the magnetic field around an electron beam can't have an STR explanation.Does that falsify the STR explanation for mmf?A single solitary lone electron flying past at speed in vacuo has they say a surrounding magnetic field.Here, again, there is no associated line of protons. There aint even a line of electrons.Does that falsify the STR explanation for mmf?

author: TimFox
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: April 08, 2022, 12:39:59 pm
content: The standard explanation of this apparent discrepancy is that in Purcell's discussion of a copper wire, the wire itself is electrostatically neutral (equal positive and negative charges), so that the forces due to relative motion of the charge carriers is in addition to zero electrostatic force.In the case of a beam of charged particles moving through vacuum, the beam is not neutral (it has a net charge), so electrostatic forces exist outside the beam. The motion of the charged particles in the beam produces additional forces which are magnetic.

author: aetherist
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: April 08, 2022, 09:06:57 pm
content: Quote from: TimFox on April 08, 2022, 12:39:59 pmHas anyone ever measured a wire-like magnetic field around an electron beam?

author: TimFox
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: April 08, 2022, 09:24:15 pm
content: Yes. There are commercial sources for vacuum-compatible search coils that can sense a pulsed beam of charged particles flowing through the hole in the coil.Here is one commercial source with several different coil configurations built into vacuum flanges:https://www.bergoz.com/products/A coil senses the time-derivative of the magnetic field around the beam, dBdt, as the pulsed beam goes through it.Here is a tutorial from Fermilab about various "beam diagnostics", including measuring the field induced by the beam current, similar to how clamp-on ammeters measure normal AC through an insulated wire.https://lss.fnal.gov/archive/2000/conf/Conf-00-119.pdf

author: aetherist
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: April 09, 2022, 06:38:32 am
content: Quote from: TimFox on April 08, 2022, 09:24:15 pmIt looks to me that sensing a pulsed beam is a measure of the change in magnetic field, rather than the measure or detection of a steady magnetic field. However, for a change in magnetic field then there has to be a magnetic field, & if so then mission accomplished i suppose. I will have to have a think.Would one of thems gizmos detect a magnetic field around a wire carrying steady DC?Has one?If u made a steady electric DC circuit including a CRT type of device & wires, then the gizmo should detect the same magnetic field everywhere along the circuit.Has this ever been done?

author: thinkfat
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: April 09, 2022, 08:02:55 am
content: Well, just expose the steady beam to a magnetic field of known strength and look at how it's deflected. Like, how a CRT works.

author: TimFox
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: April 09, 2022, 02:08:35 pm
content: Quote from: aetherist on April 09, 2022, 06:38:32 amThe usual clamp-on ammeter or current transformer is useful for AC current measurement. The electrical circuit formed is basically a transformer, where the wire being sensed is the primary and the surrounding coil is a secondary. Of course, transformer response does not extend down to DC. The coils used to sense beam current are used in the same way, with the beam going through the center of the coil, like the wire in the current transformer case. Note that the manufacturer I cited makes different models, one optimized for low frequencies and another optimized for fast pulse response.To measure DC current in a non-contact manner there are two normal methods: Hall effect sensor or flux-gate sensor. The former uses the deflection of the drifting electrons in an external conductor from the magnetic field from the wire, and the latter is similar to a current transformer, but there are extra coils that excite the magnetic hysteresis of a ferromagnetic core and detect the second harmonic of the excitation frequency due to the magnetic flux from the current in the wire. My classic -hp- 428A "clip-on milliammeter" is a good example of the flux gate.

author: aetherist
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: April 09, 2022, 09:08:17 pm
content: Quote from: TimFox on April 09, 2022, 02:08:35 pmBut, ignoring AC, ignoring wires, ignoring pulses – has a magnetic field ever been measured around an electron beam?Here i am thinking an electron beam in a long glass tube.

author: TimFox
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: April 09, 2022, 09:10:17 pm
content: Yes: using the appropriate coils around an electron beam in linear accelerators. The vacuum chamber for the beam is usually metallic, not glass, but the coil can be placed inside the vacuum. Note that the manufacturer I cited places his coils inside standard "ConFlat" high-vacuum flanges.Re-reading the Bergoz catalog, I find one unit that goes down to DC, the "NPCT", which I assume is a flux-gate based instrument. Its specs:Full Scale Range ±20 mA, ±200 mA, ±2 A and ±20 AResolution down to 0.5 µA rms/√(Hz)Output Bandwidth from DC to 10 kHz (-3dB)Linearity error ≤ 0.1 %It can be mounted outside the chamber, or supplied on ConFlat flanges to go inside the chamber. (If outside a metallic chamber, there must be a gap to pass the magnetic field to the coil.)Another unit, the "ACCT" is AC-coupled. Its specs:Full Scale Range from ±1 mA to ±2 ASingle Range or 3 Selectable-RangeResolution ≤ 1.5 µArmsDroop ≤ 2 %/msBandwidth from 3 Hz to 1 MHz (-3dB)The linear accelerator to accelerate electrons to a high kinetic energy is a mature field. Industrial and medical units go up to around 25 MeV kinetic energy, but the big guys such as SLAC (3 km long) go up to 50 GeV.

author: penfold
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: April 09, 2022, 10:01:48 pm
content: Quote from: aetherist on April 09, 2022, 09:08:17 pmPlease (for your own sake) tread cautiously on this one, regardless of whether you approach it from a relativistic or pure-Maxwell, you must remember that there is an entire loop of circuit to consider. Remember that the total force on a charge (having velocity) near a beam of electrons is, in a Maxwellian sense, the sum of the forces due to the magnetic "field" and electric "field" whereas in the relativistic sense it is the total electric force from the charge's perspective. It adds up to the quantity in both cases, but it is not a simple sum to do in your head. In either case, it is an important distinction between, philosophically, whether you are considering the field, force or trajectory in, of, or around the beam.

author: TimFox
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: April 09, 2022, 10:07:54 pm
content: The probe coils used in electron-beam accelerators are shielded against electrostatic fields, and sense the magnetic field induced by the current passing through the center of the coil.

author: penfold
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: April 09, 2022, 11:37:28 pm
content: Ahh, yes, but the sheild must be transparant to the relativiistic effects as there is no relative motion wrt the fixed charges of the sensor of those of the hard-wired "fabric" elements of the electron beam's circuit... I think... its a bit late for me to be thinking about reference frames.If the shield were a rotating disc or a cylinder rotating about an axis that intercepts that of the electron beam (but not parallel to and the geometry of the cylinder allowing passage of electrons through), the continuous motion of the cylinder (or disc) with facets of it passing through an apparently varying electric field (seeing, relatively, a non-linear beam current), the constant redistribution of charges would constitude a current visible in all reference frames... which might make an aetherist's head explode (the rate of redistribution being higher than drift velocity), but might make for an alternative interpretation of the Faraday disc.

author: aetherist
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: April 11, 2022, 10:22:56 pm
content: Quote from: penfold on April 09, 2022, 11:37:28 pmA 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.pdfAttached below are pages of Kennard's 1912 paper.

author: penfold
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: April 12, 2022, 09:40:54 am
content: Quote from: aetherist on April 11, 2022, 10:22:56 pmThat it would, but would it really show anything interesting?The reason I suggested the off-axis rotating sheild is that it doesn't rely on metal-metal sliding contacts, so it is an experiment that may (or may not) operate on a similar underlying principal as the classic Faraday disc, but has a very different physical makeup and so relys on different sources of error and discrepancy.

author: aetherist
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: April 12, 2022, 08:04:26 pm
content: Quote from: penfold on April 12, 2022, 09:40:54 am(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).

author: TimFox
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: April 12, 2022, 08:12:07 pm
content: The manufacturer of magnetic-field probes for beam diagnostics that I cited above makes probes for both use inside a vacuum chamber and outside a vacuum chamber.I suggest you check their websitehttps://www.bergoz.com/products/which is quite detailed, or the Fermilab tutorial on how to do such things that I citedhttps://lss.fnal.gov/archive/2000/conf/Conf-00-119.pdfbefore you assert that "neither test has ever been done".Locally, you can call the Australian Synchrotron Laboratoryhttps://www.ansto.gov.au/research/facilities/australian-synchrotron/overviewand ask how they do beam diagnostics.In large-scale labs, linear electron accelerators are no longer fashionable, but there are quite a few electron synchrotrons about, since they are useful for generating intense x-ray beams, and are good examples of special relativity in action.Serious scientists and engineers do not "crow" about the application of settled physics to practical results, just if they discover something new or contrary to settled physics. Were you expecting a YouTube video: "As expected and predicted, magnetic field detected around high-current charged-particle beam in accelerator!"?Particle accelerators, both linear and circular, are a very mature technology, dating back to Cockroft and Walton (1932) and Lawrence (1929). There are commercial firms that supply instrumentation to the laboratories.

author: aetherist
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: April 12, 2022, 09:08:52 pm
content: Quote from: TimFox on April 12, 2022, 08:12:07 pmFaraday (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.

author: TimFox
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: April 12, 2022, 09:20:53 pm
content: Once again, you are wrong. The diagnostic equipment and beam testing procedures that I suggested you read clearly show that the magnetic field outside a beam of charged particles is identical to that outside a wire.In a particle accelerator, one can compare the current with these magnetic sensors to the current that hits a Faraday cup (which suppresses the effect of secondary emission from the target).Have you ever seen a particle accelerator, or read anything about them?What do your countrymen at the Australian Synchrotron Lab say?PS: doing some elementary Googling, I found an interesting engineering thesis from Georgia Tech back in 1962:https://smartech.gatech.edu/bitstream/handle/1853/14924/lineberger_william_c_196212_ms_69818.pdf?sequence=3&isAllowed=yThe author discusses practical methods for measuring the magnetic field induced by a beam of charged particles without interrupting the beam. Since this was already a physical phenomenon applied to practice in engineering, no one needed to crow about it.

author: PlainName
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: April 12, 2022, 10:12:47 pm
content: Quote from: TimFox on April 12, 2022, 09:20:53 pmI have to say that I admire your patience and and continued good humour when engaging with aetherist, who clearly isn't here to learn but merely to tell everyone they are wrong about everything. A lesser person would have said harsh words and/or left to pursue an actual worthy cause many, many pages ago.In fact, the only reason I am still watching this is to find out exactly where your limit is

author: TimFox
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: April 12, 2022, 10:14:10 pm
content: I'm approaching my limit rapidly.I made my recent posts because I feared that a reader not familiar with the topic might believe that his un-supported statements that no one had measured the magnetic field around a charged-particle beam had any truth to them.

author: YurkshireLad
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: April 12, 2022, 10:39:29 pm
content: Quote from: dunkemhigh on April 12, 2022, 10:12:47 pmI'm waiting for the announcement of the published paper on the electon, this new world changing discovery, and also whether tin foil will protect me from aetherwind. Though maybe I simply need to change my diet.

author: TimFox
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: April 12, 2022, 11:09:08 pm
content: It may be a while before it gets through normal peer review, unless they use abnormal peers.

author: aetherist
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: April 13, 2022, 12:47:34 am
content: Quote from: TimFox on April 12, 2022, 09:20:53 pmBut, 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.

author: aetherist
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: April 13, 2022, 12:57:49 am
content: Quote from: YurkshireLad on April 12, 2022, 10:39:29 pmA 2 page paper would do the job. Based on one little X involving the speed of electricity along a threaded rod compared to a plain rod. I would do it if i had access to a good scope.Electons also hug a nucleus. Electons "orbit" a nucleus, electrons dont orbit.Here the hugging force is due to the slowing of em forces near matter (ie protons & neutrons of the nucleus here)(the Cu of the wire in the case of the wire), plus the attraction of the protons (in the nucleus here).

author: TimFox
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: April 13, 2022, 05:24:33 pm
content: Quote from: aetherist on April 13, 2022, 12:47:34 amYour logic here is fallacious.1. It is well-established experimentally that current through a wire and current in a beam of charged particles induce a magnetic fieldB, according to the law of Biot and Savart that is later incorporated into Maxwell's Equations.2. Purcell published an explanation for aparticular common caseof current flowing through a metallic conductor, where the substantial magnetic field is induced despite the wire being electrically neutral. There is some controversy about his derivation, some of which suggests that it is only useful as a pedagogical explanation. However, quantitatively, it agrees with experiment. He did not discuss this as an explanation for other situations of current, although he does say elsewhere in his textbook that there are other forms of current besides that in a wire.3. The case of a charged particle beam is a different configuration, since the beam itself is not electrically neutral and the velocity can easily be "relativistic" or "very relativistic" for an electron beam at a reasonable kinetic energy, while the drift velocity in Purcell's explanation is not so large.4. The experimental evidence for case 3 does not refute case 2, since the basic situations are different but the current is the same.I can make fun of your logic with this analogy:1. Visible light is that portion of the electromagnetic spectrum that can be sensed by human vision.2. A common source of visible light is an incandescent light bulb, where current through the filament heats it to incandescence and much of the electromagnetic radiation emitted by the hot filament is visible.3. Another source of visible light is bioluminesence, produced by chemical processes within a living organism. There is no external source of electricity to the firefly, and the firefly is not heated to incandescent temperatures.4. The experimental evidence of case 3 does not mean that case 2 does not emit visible light.Note that one form of bioluminesence is "foxfire" in forest fungi. I could claim that it was named in my honor, but it probably comes from the French "faux" for false. An interesting coincidence is that the same phenomenon is named after foxes ("kitsunebi") in Japanese folklore. See the Hiroshige print "New Year's Eve Foxfires at the Changing Tree, Oji, No. 118 from One Hundred Famous Views of Edo"https://www.brooklynmuseum.org/opencollection/objects/121730I tried to obtain a copy of this print, but had to settle for a museum-quality reproduction.

author: TimFox
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: April 13, 2022, 08:40:29 pm
content: "A 2 page paper would do the job. Based on one little X involving the speed of electricity along a threaded rod compared to a plain rod. I would do it if i had access to a good scope."In olden days, when impedances were higher (for use with vacuum tubes) and speeds were more leisurely, delay lines were made from coaxial cables where the solid center conductor was replaced by a tightly-wound helical coil.As a transmission line, this increased the inductance per unit length substantially, with some increase in the capacitance due to dimensions. This increased the characteristic impedance and the delay time per unit length, following the usual equations for coax cable.Specifically, RG-65/U (still available in a later version) has:Polyethylene dielectric: OD = 0.285 inCenter conductor: helix with ID = 0.11 in, 112 turns/in of AWG 32 (0.008 in diameter) wire.Core inside helix: 0.11 in diameter polyethylene.Parameters:Z0= 950 ohms, velocity factor 29 time slower than solid polyethylene coax, delay time = 130 ns/m.With such a slow, high-impedance construction, you shouldn't need a very expensive oscilloscope to compare it to a conventional coaxial cable.Note that in 1965, more extreme cables were available that included a ferromagnetic core inside the helix (to increase the inductance) and lower-capacitance (thicker) dielectric. Examples included:(HH-1500A) 1500 ohms, 230 ns/m; (RG-176/U) 2200 ohms, 9360 ns/m (?); (DL1100) 1100 ohms, 1800 ns/m; (HH-4000) 3900 ohms, 3350 ns/m.See: J Millman and H Taub,Pulse, Digital, and Switching Waveforms, McGraw-Hill 1965. Appendix B, pp 798 to 799.

author: aetherist
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: April 13, 2022, 09:47:02 pm
content: Quote from: TimFox on April 13, 2022, 05:24:33 pmI don’t see any reason to change one word of anything i have written on this thread.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.Anyhow, its amazing how any kind of such STR analysis can get anywhere near the correct number.If an aetherist applied a (neoLorentz) relativistic length contraction to the wire (instead of the silly Einsteinian length contraction) then nothing much would result. The wire suffers a length contraction (& width contraction)(& so duz the observer) due to the aetherwind passing throo the wire (& throo the observer). This physical real absolute contraction affects everything in & on the wire, which duznt much affect or explain any charge or voltage or amperage etc. The observer might need to correct her numbers depending on her velocity & the velocity of the wire, but this kind of correction due to change of frame could never be invoked to explain any phenomenon (that i can think of).

author: TimFox
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: April 13, 2022, 10:08:22 pm
content: I didn't think you would change anything.I just preach to the choir.

author: aetherist
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: April 13, 2022, 10:40:34 pm
content: Quote from: TimFox on April 13, 2022, 08:40:29 pmInteresting. Elektons hugging the AWG32 would need to propagate 39 helical ft per lineal ft of coax, which would take 39 ns/ft at c, or 60 ns/ft at 2c/3 in the insulation (if wires are coated), or 180 ns/yd, or 198 ns/m.U mention 130 ns/m, which is much faster than my 198 ns/m. I would have expected it to be slower than my 198 ns/m.But when i mention an X using threaded rod, my elektons hugging the surface would go up&down&up over the threads, elektons would not go the long way around&around. Hence a helical kind of wire would not do the trick.X1. Elektons going along a 10 ft plain rod would take 10 ns to go to the end & 10 ns to reflect back to the start.For a 10 ft threaded rod that 20 ns might double to 40 ns, koz of the extra distance up&down&up.A 350 MHz scope can detect say 3 ns, hence it could detect the 20 ns diff tween 20 ns & 40 ns.X2. If the rods were then painted, the times would increase to 30 ns & 60 ns, a diff of 30 ns.

author: PlainName
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: April 13, 2022, 10:42:55 pm
content: QuoteYou've been saying quite a lot that pretty much anything annihilates the aether (necessary for gravity, apparently). So... where does it come from? I mean, you can't spend 13billion years annihilating stuff without running out of it, so if essentially everything destroys it, what makes it?

author: TimFox
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: April 13, 2022, 11:32:20 pm
content: With respect to oscilloscopes: a 350 MHz oscilloscope, depending on type, should have a rise time between 1 and 1.3 ns.https://www.tek.com/en/support/faqs/how-bandwidth-related-rise-time-oscilloscopes

author: aetherist
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: April 13, 2022, 11:51:39 pm
content: Quote from: dunkemhigh on April 13, 2022, 10:42:55 pmI like Conrad Ranzan's dynamic steady state eternal infinite cellular universe.http://www.cellularuniverse.org/Aether is created in the center of each cosmic cell. And aether is annihilated in several possible ways.Me myself i add that aether is an excitation of the praether, praether being the fundamental essence.Aether is not a thing, it is a process. Everything is a process, except of course praether.A process in a sense can't run out. Annihilation is what i call a soft annihilation, ie compared to the annihilation of a thing (which would be a hard annihilation).

author: aetherist
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: April 13, 2022, 11:54:52 pm
content: Quote from: TimFox on April 13, 2022, 11:32:20 pmHowardlong posts on this forum & i see that he has access to a 20GHz scope.He could use rods just a foot or two long. I messaged him but he has not replied.

author: YurkshireLad
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: April 13, 2022, 11:57:09 pm
content: Cosmic cell? Praether?

author: aetherist
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: April 14, 2022, 12:04:54 am
content: Quote from: YurkshireLad on April 13, 2022, 11:57:09 pmConrad Ranzan is an EE. He might like my elektons. I dont think that i have asked him yet.I dont remember him having any papers re any aspect of electricity.He mainly deals with the aether, & the universe, & black holes, & neutrinos, & dark matter, & redshift.

author: YurkshireLad
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: April 14, 2022, 12:13:20 am
content: "The Big Bang has lost its Pillars. It is no longer a viable hypothesis."So if one random website says so, then it must be true?

author: aetherist
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: April 14, 2022, 12:45:43 am
content: Quote from: YurkshireLad on April 14, 2022, 12:13:20 amThe BigBang was invented to explain redshift.Ranzan's explanation of cosmic redshift is brilliant. Light (each photon) is stretched as light approaches mass & as light goes away from mass.Alltho i think Krafft (USA) came up with that same phenomenon in about 1963.Ultimately cosmic photons stretch out of existence. Hence Olbers Paradox.If they didnt then the sky would be infinitely bright or at least very bright & the CMBR & every other wavelength would be thousands of K.Conrad Ranzan – 2014 – Cosmic redshift in the nonexpanding cellular universe.http://www.cellularuniverse.org/CosmicRedshift(ajaaR)-Ranzan.pdfRanzanian Cosmic Redshift.Ranzan says that aether flowing towards or away from stars is stretched, & that photons are stretched with the aether. This explains much of the observed cosmic redshift. Doppler explains the remainder.The RCR explanation is unique in that there is no longitudinal blurring of the light, in accordance with observation. Alternative tired light etc redshift theories if true would create longitudinal blurring, not in accordance with observation.RCR also accounts for the elongation of all events & intervals, in accordance with observation. Tired light theories all fail here.Free photons are an excitation of the aether plus an annihilation of the aether, propagating through aether at c km/s. Mass is made of confined photons (Williamson), what Jeans called bottled light. Aether flows into mass to replace aether annihilated in all mass. Aether is noncompressible, hencely the aether inflow lines converge & the aether accelerates & stretches, & photons too stretch in the aether.Note that aether & photons stretch on approach to mass (here they have a tailwind) plus they get a second dose of stretching when departing mass (here they have a headwind), which is counterintuitive (indeed Marmet doesn't understand).Einstein's Einstein-Shiftgives a contraction on approach, but this is negated by a stretching on departure, hencely ES cant explain cosmic redshift. Also ES must blur light both longitudinally & transversely. ES is true, as proven by the Shapiro Delay, but ES & SD cant explain redshift.Kraffthad a stretching theory for light which didn’t involve absorption. I don’t remember the details, it might have involved gravity, for sure it involved the ether. Krafft (1963) – The structure of the atom.https://www.scribd.com/document/239479092/the-Structure-of-the-Atom-by-Carl-Frederick-KrafftOn page 8 Krafft says ....................... It appears that the red shift can be accounted for in a more reasonable manner by assuming that each train of light waves during its journey through space will undergo a slight expansion......... ............. it would require only an extremely small difference of velocity between the waves at the front and rear ends of the train to produce the observed red shift. (Popular Astronomy, Vol 39, No. 7, p.428.)But Ranzan didn't mention Krafft in Ranzan's notes & references. Ranzan didn’t mention Shapiro Delay in his stretching redshift theory, but he did mention that Einsteinian gravity (ie Einstein Shift) would have zero nett effect on stretching.RCR must also apply to light propagating near plasma (electrons protons neutrons etc) in deep space, but Ranzan doesn't mention this (he only refers to stars). RCR due to plasma must be considerable.Conrad Ranzan – DSSU papers.http://www.cellularuniverse.org/SpRanzanProfile.htm#PapersDSSU validated by redshift theory and structural evidence – Conrad Ranzan (2015).http://www.cellularuniverse.org/S4-DSSUvalidation-Ranzan.pdfCosmic-distance redshift law without c and without h -- Conrad Ranzan (2007-2013)http://www.cellularuniverse.org/D2CosmicDistEq_Ranzan.pdf

author: SiliconWizard
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: April 14, 2022, 05:42:43 pm
content: Wow.Also, this guy backs this up:https://www.infinite-energy.com/index.html

author: YurkshireLad
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: April 14, 2022, 07:24:27 pm
content: QuoteSo he just made it up then.

author: aetherist
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: April 14, 2022, 07:47:04 pm
content: Quote from: SiliconWizard on April 14, 2022, 05:42:43 pmLow Energy Nuclear Reactions & Cold Fusion might have a future. Hot fusion duznt.

author: aetherist
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: April 14, 2022, 07:52:48 pm
content: Quote from: YurkshireLad on April 14, 2022, 07:24:27 pmKrafft had a brilliant idea here. I dont know why he mentioned a train of light, he should have said that each photon would be stretched.Einstein's slowing of light near mass, compresses a photon during approach to mass, & stretches a photon during departure, ie it has a nett zero effect on redshift (but gives a small redshift near Earth)(if going away from the Sun).

author: hamster_nz
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: April 15, 2022, 12:43:44 am
content: Quote from: aetherist on April 14, 2022, 07:52:48 pmI expected you to pick your words more carefully...

author: aetherist
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: April 15, 2022, 06:27:46 am
content: Quote from: hamster_nz on April 15, 2022, 12:43:44 amI am not sure of Einstein's exact wordage, ie the English translation. But in essence it was that light slows near mass. I dont think that he said photons. Or em radiation.https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shapiro_time_delayWikileaks................ The Shapiro time delay effect, or gravitational time delay effect, is one of the four classic solar-system tests of general relativity. Radar signals passing near a massive object take slightly longer to travel to a target and longer to return than they would if the mass of the object were not present. The time delay is caused by spacetime dilation, which increases the time it takes light to travel a given distance from the perspective of an outside observer. In a 1964 article entitled Fourth Test of General Relativity, astrophysicist Irwin Shapiro wrote:Because, according to the general theory, the speed of a light wave depends on the strength of the gravitational potential along its path, these time delays should thereby be increased by almost 2×10−4 sec when the radar pulses pass near the sun. Such a change, equivalent to 60 km in distance, could now be measured over the required path length to within about 5 to 10% with presently obtainable equipment.Throughout this article discussing the time delay, Shapiro uses c as the speed of light and calculates the time delay of the passage of light waves or rays over finite coordinate distance according to a Schwarzschild solution to the Einstein field equations.Einstein’s repudiation of his own theory of relativity after 1920 ------ Peter SujakIn Einstein’s 1913 paper [1, V4, D13, p.153] ‘Outline of the generalized theory’ we can read –“I have shown in previous papers that the equivalence hypotheses leads to the consequence that in a static gravitational field the velocity of light c depends on the gravitational potential. This led me to the view that special theory of relativity provides only an approximation to reality; it should apply only in the limit case where differences in the gravitational potential in the spacetime region under consideration are not too great”.As the gravitational potential is changing in space from a star to a star, from a galaxy to a galaxy so according to the 1913 paper velocity of light in vacuum is no longer the constant and is changing (standard supposition of physicist before 1905). This means in fact an abolition of the first principle of STR which is based on firm proclamation that the velocity of light is the ultimate and constant velocity in the vacuum of the void space, that no carrying substance of the light propagation exists and that nothing can influence on the ultimate velocity of the light in the vacuum.

author: hamster_nz
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: April 15, 2022, 08:44:27 am
content: Quote from: aetherist on April 15, 2022, 06:27:46 amI was more thinking about "slowing" rather than the "light". I just thought you would have used "light takes longer to travel" as the speed of light in vacuum is a constant.

author: aetherist
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: April 15, 2022, 07:47:44 pm
content: Quote from: hamster_nz on April 15, 2022, 08:44:27 amAetherists mostly believe that the speed of light is constant, c, in the aether. They are wrong. Einstein said that light is slowed near mass, ie if in a gravity field, as proven by Shapiro. Einstein was wrong, partly, possibly.I have explained that light is slowed by gross gravity, not nett gravity. So, i would have to ask Einstein whether his equations should apply to gross gravitational potential or nett. If he said gross, then i would say that he was correct.In the instance of radar & Venus gross & nett are the same thing (very nearly), hence Shapiro didn’t have to decide tween gross & nett. Not that Shapiro was aware of the problem.And i can add that Shapiro's equation was fudged. I think that Einstein's field equations always have to be fudged, at least a little.I clearly remember a paper that Einstein wrote where he explicitly said that in GTR the STR naïve statement that the speed of light was constant did not apply. Unless the lab was far away from any mass, which is impossible (my words). He might have used the words 'in distant space'. English translation of course.Its difficult to know whether to say "light takes longer to travel", koz nothing is real in GTR, all such things are only apparent. Each observer has her own spacetime. Light appears to take longer. Light appears to bend, etc.Einstein said that a half of the slowing was due to time dilation, & a half was due to space (length contraction). Wrong. Time dilation duznt exist. Length contraction is true, but has no effect on slowing. When i say length contraction is true, i mean neoLorentz length contraction (ie due to aetherwind), not STR length contraction (due to relative velocity).Slowing is due to photaeno drag, which i won't go into today.I believe that the slowing of light might accord with the standard equation for gamma. U insert the escape velocity in the V in the VV/cc.

author: aetherist
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: April 17, 2022, 09:19:38 am
content: Herr has a nice summary of variance & invariance in STR, with of course the usual STR assumptions & suppositions elevated to the better sounding postulates & principles & laws, & the usual lies & lack of good logic.https://cds.cern.ch/record/2674125/files/337.pdfShort Overview of Special Relativity and Invariant Formulation of ElectrodynamicsW. Herr CERN, Geneva, SwitzerlandAbstractThe basic concepts of special relativity are presented in this paper. Consequences for the design and operation of particle accelerators are discussed, along with applications. Although all branches of physics must fulfil the principles of special relativity, the focus of this paper is the application to electromagnetism. The formulation of physics laws in the form of four-vectors allows a fully invariant formulation of electromagnetic theory and a reformulation of Maxwell’s equations. This significantly simplifies the treatment of moving charges in electromagnetic fields and can explain some open questions.9 Summary9.1 Summary—relativity basics– Special relativity is very simple; there are a few basic principles.– Physics laws are the same in all inertial systems.– The speed of light in vacuum is the same in all inertial systems.– Everyday phenomena lose their meaning (do not ask what is ‘real’).– Only the union of space and time preserve an independent reality: space–time.SHORT OVERVIEW OF SPECIAL RELATIVITY AND INVARIANT FORMULATION OF ELECTRODYNAMICS– Electric and magnetic fields do not exist!– They are simply different aspects of a single electromagnetic field.– The manifestation of the electromagnetic field, i.e., division into electric E~ and magnetic B~components, depends on the chosen reference frame.

author: TimFox
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: April 17, 2022, 02:04:24 pm
content: "Consequences for the design and operation of particle accelerators are discussed"Last I heard, the major particle accelerators (CERN, Fermilab, DESY, etc.) work well when following this process.

author: aetherist
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: April 17, 2022, 03:30:36 pm
content: Quote from: TimFox on April 17, 2022, 02:04:24 pmToday i have been looking into invariance, ie re inertial frames. Einsteinists suppose that some things are invariant, i think charge rest-mass c etc.I wanted to see what Lorentzists & neoLorentzists (ie aetherists) reckoned. But no luck, they dont say much re charge rest-mass c etc.I think that almost everything changes with velocity, at least a little. A different velocity means a different aetherwind. Aetherwind gives length contraction. However, this length contraction applies equally to the object in question & to the measuring rods, hence we have Lorentz invariance for apparent length (ie for perceived length). But, we don’t necessary have Lorentz invariance for apparent distance.For example, if 2 spaceships, one following the other, joined tail to nose by a tight weak string, were to accelerate, then an aetherist would say that the string would break, koz the 2 spaceships & the string all length contract. The real distance (gap) tween the 2 spaceships dilates as the spaceships accelerate & contract. And the apparent gap dilates (ie it appears to be larger)(koz the measuring rods on the spaceships suffer length contraction. The real distance & real mass & real anything are what is seen by an observer in the rest frame, ie in the absolute frame, ie where there is zero aetherwind.Re the spaceships & string. I should have said that the spaceships have a headwind. If they initially had a fast tailwind then as they accelerated their real lengths, & the real length of the string, would all dilate (get longer), & the string would slacken (at first)(ie the string would not contract). But the real gap & the apparent gap tween the spaceships would shorten, & the apparent length of the string would shorten.This kind of length contraction & real length variance or apparent length invariance are a no-brainer. And real anything is a no-brainer. But, apparent anything can get complicated. I have never thort about this very deeply. It makes my brain hurt.The apparent say force might be measured a number of ways. Each different way will involve a different apparent result. Measurement might involve a standard mass, or a standard spring, & praps a clock of some kind (eg atomic, or balance wheel, or quartz, or pendulum etc), & praps a say rod. The ticking rate of every kind of clock etc will be affected in a different way by length contraction. Some clocks might tick faster rather than slower.Time has no effect (on the measurement of force), there being no such thing as time, or time dilation. What we have is real ticking, & apparent ticking.Whether mass force charge temperature etc etc have certain real values & certain apparent values (in moving frames) is complicated. The answer has to be that everything is apparently variant, nothing is apparently invariant.Even the length of our rods is variant, both in the real sense & in the apparent sense. Its like this. The length contraction of an object depends on the size & shape of the elementary particles of the object, & the em forces within the atoms & molecules, & the em forces tween the atoms & molecules. Different substances will have different kinds of em forces acting, or i should say the same kinds of em forces but acting in different ways. Hence every object, every substance (eg steel rod)(wooden rod), will have its own gamma for length contraction. And, as i already said, that there gamma will depend on how u measure, eg it will depend on your choice of measuring instruments.Some things will be less apparently variant, ie almost apparently invariant (especially if one uses very standardized instruments)(or instruments designed to give a less variant result). But i don’t know what these things might be (eg mass, force, charge, temperature etc). Still thinking.

author: PlainName
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: April 17, 2022, 04:43:22 pm
content: QuoteReally? Mysimplisticunderstanding is that for speed of light to remain constant, for the observer in the static reference the spaceships (and string) must appear to contract, otherwise light in the moving reference would either be slower in the moving reference or seem to be faster than the speed of light from the static reference. The contraction allows the speed of light to be constant regardless of reference.But then it also follows that thedistance between spaceshipsmust also appear to contract, otherwise light passing from one ship to the other would seem to slow in the moving reference. Alternatively, if it remained c in the moving reference it would seem to be faster than c in the static reference. Thus the space contraction.So the space contracts exactly the same as the string, and the string doesn't sag or break.I think your problem with this is that you apply contraction (and similar) to physical entities rather than the reference in which they reside.Of course, I am not a physicist nor a scientist in any shape or form, so I could be as massively wrong about this as you. Happy to be put right by someone in the know.

author: aetherist
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: April 17, 2022, 07:58:03 pm
content: Quote from: dunkemhigh on April 17, 2022, 04:43:22 pmU are talking bout the silly Einsteinian solution, which is Bell's spaceship paradox. I was talking bout the likely aetherian solution.https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bell%27s_spaceship_paradoxBell's spaceship paradox is a thought experiment in special relativity. It was designed by E. Dewan and M. Beran in 1959 and became more widely known when J. S. Bell included a modified version. A delicate thread hangs between two spaceships. They start accelerating simultaneously and equally as measured in the inertial frame S, thus having the same velocity at all times as viewed from S. Therefore, they are all subject to the same Lorentz contraction, so the entire assembly seems to be equally contracted in the S frame with respect to the length at the start. At first sight, it might appear that the thread will not break during acceleration.This argument, however, is incorrect as shown by Dewan and Beran and Bell. The distance between the spaceships does not undergo Lorentz contraction with respect to the distance at the start, because in S, it is effectively defined to remain the same, due to the equal and simultaneous acceleration of both spaceships in S. It also turns out that the rest length between the two has increased in the frames in which they are momentarily at rest (S′), because the accelerations of the spaceships are not simultaneous here due to relativity of simultaneity. The thread, on the other hand, being a physical object held together by electrostatic forces, maintains the same rest length. Thus, in frame S, it must be Lorentz contracted, which result can also be derived when the electromagnetic fields of bodies in motion are considered. So, calculations made in both frames show that the thread will break; in S′ due to the non-simultaneous acceleration and the increasing distance between the spaceships, and in S due to length contraction of the thread.In the following, the rest length or proper length of an object is its length measured in the object's rest frame. (This length corresponds to the proper distance between two events in the special case, when these events are measured simultaneously at the endpoints in the object's rest frame.)

author: PlainName
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: April 17, 2022, 08:05:53 pm
content: No, I was talking about the Einstein solution. You may have been talking about the silly aetherist solution.

author: aetherist
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: April 17, 2022, 08:49:44 pm
content: Quote from: dunkemhigh on April 17, 2022, 08:05:53 pmYes i was talking bout the aetherist answer. U said....I think your problem with this is that you apply contraction (and similar) to physical entities rather than the reference in which they reside.In aether theory contraction applies to solids, not to space, not to gas, not to liquids.Alltho contraction applies to gas particles & liquid particles, & their containers if any.In the case of electrons propagating along a stationary wire, aetherists say that the electrons might be individually length contracted, but the spacings tween centers is not contracted, & the gaps are then of course dilated. Hence there can be no explanation for the magnetic field around a wire that might be similar to the silly STR explanation (of this thread).Actually, if the electrons contract & if the gaps dilate then the electrons will want to move closer together, in which case given enuff time they will, in which case the charge of the wire will grow more negative, if electrons can somehow enter the wire from the environment. In which case aether theory results in a (very weak) relativistic explanation for mmf around a current carrying wire (somewhat similar to STR theory)(but much weaker).

author: PlainName
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: April 17, 2022, 09:53:25 pm
content: In silly aether theory, if it applies only to solids what happens when, say, copper is melted. Or vaporized? Is a plasma solid, liquid or gas or something else, and does silly aether theory apply to that?

author: aetherist
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: April 17, 2022, 10:10:46 pm
content: Quote from: dunkemhigh on April 17, 2022, 09:53:25 pmAll solids are length contracted. Atoms of gas & liquid (eg melted Cu) are length contracted. But, bulk gases & bulk liquids themselves can't length contract, they just fill their container (as usual), it is their container that length contracts.

author: PlainName
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: April 17, 2022, 11:18:42 pm
content: QuoteIf 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?

author: hamster_nz
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: April 17, 2022, 11:27:49 pm
content: Quote from: dunkemhigh on April 17, 2022, 11:18:42 pmI 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)?

author: aetherist
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: April 17, 2022, 11:50:46 pm
content: Quote from: hamster_nz on April 17, 2022, 11:27:49 pmdunkemhigh………….. 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).

author: TimFox
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: April 18, 2022, 03:32:26 am
content: "But, as i said earlier, different substances probly have a different length contraction gamma."What experimental evidence is there for that statement?

author: aetherist
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: April 18, 2022, 07:30:44 am
content: Quote from: TimFox on April 18, 2022, 03:32:26 amThere 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.

author: raptor1956
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: April 18, 2022, 10:57:25 am
content: 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

author: aetherist
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: April 18, 2022, 09:37:38 pm
content: Quote from: raptor1956 on April 18, 2022, 10:57:25 amI 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.

author: PlainName
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: April 18, 2022, 10:04:35 pm
content: QuoteYou did? I must've missed that - perhaps you can repeat it (this time not ignoring any corrections the kindly Tim Fox has pointed out).QuoteYou 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?

author: hamster_nz
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: April 18, 2022, 10:14:44 pm
content: Quote from: raptor1956 on April 18, 2022, 10:57:25 amI 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...).

author: raptor1956
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: April 18, 2022, 10:35:21 pm
content: Quote from: hamster_nz on April 18, 2022, 10:14:44 pmActually, 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

author: aetherist
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: April 18, 2022, 11:27:25 pm
content: Quote from: dunkemhigh on April 18, 2022, 10:04:35 pmHere 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.pdfI 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.pdfA note on Purcell’s basic explanation of magnetic forces Germano D’AbramoAbstract.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=pdfIs magnetic field due to an electric current a relativistic effect? Oleg D JefimenkoAbstract.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.pdfAttached 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.

author: TimFox
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: April 18, 2022, 11:36:55 pm
content: 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.)

author: aetherist
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: April 19, 2022, 12:08:37 am
content: Quote from: TimFox on April 18, 2022, 11:36:55 pmYes. 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.

author: PlainName
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: April 19, 2022, 12:22:18 am
content: QuoteI am lost for words.

author: aetherist
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: April 19, 2022, 01:00:56 am
content: Quote from: raptor1956 on April 18, 2022, 10:35:21 pmThere 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 westbelieveall 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.

author: bsfeechannel
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: April 19, 2022, 12:01:55 pm
content: Quote from: raptor1956 on April 18, 2022, 10:57:25 amVery 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.

author: aetherist
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: April 19, 2022, 12:07:41 pm
content: Quote from: bsfeechannel on April 19, 2022, 12:01:55 pmIn 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? ? ? ?

author: PlainName
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: April 19, 2022, 02:33:38 pm
content: You're nothing if you aren't also No 1 expert on 9/11.

author: aetherist
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: April 19, 2022, 09:52:57 pm
content: 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 subscribersRowland'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.

author: EEVblog
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: April 20, 2022, 06:57:51 am
content: Quote from: hamster_nz on April 18, 2022, 10:14:44 pmIt 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.

author: TimFox
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: April 20, 2022, 01:37:07 pm
content: Beam diagnostics for charged-particle accelerators is a mature field.https://cds.cern.ch/record/499098/files/p154.pdfhttps://cds.cern.ch/record/1982418/files/23-60%20Jones.pdfhttps://uspas.fnal.gov/materials/14UNM/Diagnostics.pdf

author: TimFox
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: April 20, 2022, 07:35:05 pm
content: By coincidence, I stumbled across this cartoon while looking for something else:https://xkcd.com/675/

author: aetherist
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: April 21, 2022, 12:39:03 am
content: Quote from: TimFox on April 20, 2022, 01:37:07 pmThe 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 . The net charge on the wire is zero……. 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.

author: TimFox
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: April 21, 2022, 02:29:17 am
content: 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.

author: aetherist
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: April 21, 2022, 02:47:34 am
content: Quote from: TimFox on April 21, 2022, 02:29:17 amYes 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..

author: TimFox
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: April 21, 2022, 03:02:19 am
content: By the way, a conventional passive current probe for an oscilloscope clamps around the wire. If you send a pulse train down the wire, the probe should show the pulse shape, not its derivative, except that the DC level is not put out into the oscilloscope. This is the same as a pulse transformer, which also rejects the DC level and has a limit at the high-frequency content, but responds to the pulse shape within its bandwidth limit.A Tektronix P6022 passive current probe has a frequency response from 935 Hz to 120 MHz (at -3 dB).

author: aetherist
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: April 21, 2022, 03:16:03 am
content: Quote from: TimFox on April 21, 2022, 03:02:19 amYes, i remember in those CERN papers that u linked they could get a fairly good looking (ie accurate) shape for their measurement of their pulses, at some (any) frequencys, due mainly to including some capacitance etc to create a pseudo-shape. Otherwise in theory they would just get a spike at the leading edge & a spike at the trailing edge. But i didnt try to understand it, ie even tho their explanation was much simplified for beginners.

author: aetherist
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: April 21, 2022, 03:27:30 am
content: Quote from: aetherist on April 19, 2022, 09:52:57 pmHow could STR explain that spinning a Cu conductor at 260 Hz increases the magnetic field by a factor of 10?The STR (length contraction) explanation assumes that velocity in the yy or zz plane has zero effect, it assumes that only the xx velocity has effect. Additionally, it assumes that it’s the average xx velocity that has effect (which i can shoot down very simply by explaining the math)(the average of the square roots of the 1-VV/cc for each drifting electron is not the same as the square root using the average V)(they use this average V)(which they of course know is wrong, ie not true to STR)(unless drifting electrons do indeed all drift at the same speed)(but they of course don’t mention this problem of averaging).So, STR can't explain the factor of 10. So, what is the explanation? I don’t know. Still thinking.

author: TimFox
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: April 21, 2022, 04:31:43 am
content: Going back to the passive current probe:The Tektronix P6022 example also has an adjustable compensation circuit to optimize pulse fidelity and frequency response.The total electronic circuit is a transformer, with the input current (wire for the Tek, beam for the Bergoz) forming one "winding", and the coil (around a ferromagnetic core) forming the other winding.One can couple a pulse through a transformer, losing the DC component and suffering some degradation of high-frequency performance, but a good circuit will not show merely two spikes from a pulse input.In a current transformer driven by a pulsing current, if you see only a positive spike followed by a negative spike, that means that the load resistance is too high for the coil's inductance: this is analogous to the bass response of an audio transformer being seen as a "droop" in the levels when driven by a square wave.The self-inductance of the coil will short out the output voltage at DC, just as in a normal transformer.The leakage inductance and parasitic capacitances will limit the high-frequency response, but can be compensated to some extent.Note that both the scope probe and the beam probe can be adjusted and calibrated by running a known current through a wire down the bore, measuring the wire current after the probe in a normal way (into a resistor across a 'scope input, for example).

author: aetherist
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: April 22, 2022, 08:20:09 am
content: Quote from: aetherist on April 21, 2022, 03:27:30 amOk i think i know how 260 rps gives 10 times the magnetic field.The non-spinning Cu tube has say 2.5 Amps, AC, at 100 Hz. The voltage goes from say plus V to minus V 100 times per second, minus V to plus V 100 times per second. That gives 200 spikes of 2V, per second.When spinning at 260 rps the 2.5 Amps drops to 1.5 Amps due to the vibration & loss of contact of the carbon contacts.The loss of contact i reckon results in say 9 additional spikes of V to 0V to V during one half of the cycle, & say 9 additional spikes of minus V to 0V to minus V during the other half.Each extra spike is a negative spike, ie the new spike is a loss of current, not an injection of extra current, hence the loss of 1 Amp.Thusly there are 2000 spikes of 2V, compared to 200 spikes for the non-spinning case. Hence 10 times the magnetic field. Interestingly there appears to be an extra 9 spikes per cycle at low rps & at the full 260 rps. I would expect less spikes at less rps. Hmmmm, praps the Cu tube at the contacts has 9 high points along its circumference, 5 at the carbon contact at one end, 4 at the other.However, i now see that Norbert Feurle beat me to it.Comment: Norbert Feurle 2 months ago…..If the increase of the magnetic field is not caused by the spices generated in the carbon brushes, which would increase with rotating speed probably, then this is probably a closer aproximation of the electron:https://youtu.be/NoH9rn8p1w8Comment: 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.Most of this info comes from 4:59 to 7:51 on the long youtube below.

author: raptor1956
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: April 23, 2022, 07:35:22 pm
content: Quote from: aetherist on April 19, 2022, 12:07:41 pmYeah, OK ... give me a minute as I try to collect myself...Honestly, I need add nothing more, his quoted post is sufficient!Brian