"Veritasium" (YT) - "The Big Misconception About Electricity" ?

[aetherist]

"I don’t know much about atomic clocks. Some i think have a quartz crystal as a part of their circuitry. So i am not sure whether they are truly atomic."
Atomic clocks rely on the energy levels of atoms, so that a transition corresponds (by elementary quantum mechanics) to a frequency, as in the definition I quoted.
If you don't understand that, how can you talk about the difference between quartz and atom-beam clocks?

Early atomic clocks had a quartz crystal in their circuitry.
Are u sure that there are some moderner versions that dont have quartz?
Anyhow, if an atomic clock has quartz, then there is a chance that the aetherwind can have a similar ticking dilation effect as for a plain quartz clock.
No wonder Hafele & Keating had such a hard time.
If i were on the team i could have solved their quandary.
Ignorance of electons might give the same kind of trouble -- if u dont know exactly what is happening then u might end up like poor Hafele & Keating.

[aetherist]

I thought the concept of aether (that I was more used to seeing spelled ether) was long abandoned, but apparently not. Even seems to be a whole "community" of people around that idea.

It was never abandoned. Anyone can google re the history of that. I suggest --  Demjanov, Reg Cahill, Michelson, Miller, Munera, Marmet. But then it might result in 10 years of interesting follow-up study.

[aetherist]

I had wondered about the 'other sort' of tobacco - but it was too obvious to account for all the experimental effects.

Then "Tobacco smoke was whisked axially upwards" hinted at far-reaching (for days after) experimental consequences of quadru-bottle triple-distilled double-shot single-malt, but even that volume of aethernol can't support the sheer magnitude of the reported experimental (d)effects.

No, the only poison of choice which suits the dire weirdness of this thread is that of John Lilly and NASA's dolphin sex house:

https://boingboing.net/2021/02/22/the-dolphin-house-a-documentary-on-john-lilly-and-margaret-howes-attempts-to-communicate-with-dolphins.html

Science.

If ever there is any successful follow-up of Podkletnov's spinning disc experiments re anti-gravity & re ticking dilation then the serendipitious  rising smoke episode would become very famous.
I don’t believe in anti-gravity, except for the faux-gravity or pseudo-gravity kind of effect that i reckon might/will be produced near spinning discs because of my centrifuging of aether effects.

Once again here we have an example of ignorance leading to a quandary or paradox. Engineers can't explain how supposedly very accurate clocks in some planes are not as accurate as they should be.
I came along & pointed out that the clocks were often mounted close to the plane's gyros, hence the centrifuging of aether affected the ticking.

But there's more. I have pointed out that even if they were to move the clocks or the gyros then they would still suffer the same problem, but a weaker version, if they parked the plane on the same north or south etc orientation in the hangar – the orientation should be varied (to reduce ticking dilation).
The problem here being the aetherwind. It blows at a maximum on a certain orientation. If u know what the maximum orientation is, & if u know certain particulars re the clock itself, then it might be possible to calculate the orientation that gives the minimum trouble, & park the plane on that orientation each night.
Or, i suppose, the easiest thing might be to simply correct the clock more often.

[daqq]

Early atomic clocks had a quartz crystal in their circuitry.
Are u sure that there are some moderner versions that dont have quartz?
Anyhow, if an atomic clock has quartz, then there is a chance that the aetherwind can have a similar ticking dilation effect as for a plain quartz clock.

Atomic clocks do have a quartz, but it's in a loop, always being adjusted by the 'reference' physical phenomena. Basically any effect the shifting of the frequency of the quartz or the surrounding circuitry would have is compensated by the physical phenomena.

Before you start arguing that aether-based gremlins are affecting the 'reference' physical phenomena as well, well, they would have to affect a wide variety of different phenomena in the exact same way. Atomic clocks are based of of several principles. You may wish to take a look at them.

[aetherist]

Early atomic clocks had a quartz crystal in their circuitry.
Are u sure that there are some moderner versions that dont have quartz?
Anyhow, if an atomic clock has quartz, then there is a chance that the aetherwind can have a similar ticking dilation effect as for a plain quartz clock.

Atomic clocks do have a quartz, but it's in a loop, always being adjusted by the 'reference' physical phenomena. Basically any effect the shifting of the frequency of the quartz or the surrounding circuitry would have is compensated by the physical phenomena.

Before you start arguing that aether-based gremlins are affecting the 'reference' physical phenomena as well, well, they would have to affect a wide variety of different phenomena in the exact same way. Atomic clocks are based of of several principles. You may wish to take a look at them.

In that case the length contraction effect on atomic clocks might have little to do with the quartz.

However, atomic clocks will i think have their own atomic problem with length contraction.

I think that in effect atomic clocks (& almost every kind of gadget that ever exists) can be detectors for aetherwind. Every gadget ever made will be affected differently, but, that effect is always a signal. If u can work out the calibration for that signal then u have an aetherwind detector. Of course a purpose made detector will always be better. It will if possible make use of one strong effect. But, there will always be other weaker effects, usually relegated to being called noise – no – they are signals, albeit non-wanted signals.

The oldendays MMXs had about 4 major signals & about 10 minor signals. They didn’t ever work out the proper calibration back then, but they got fairly useful results anyhow. The proper calibrations were not discovered until Demjanov came along in Russia in 1968, & Munera in Brazil or somesuch in about 1990, & then Cahill in Adelaide in about 2001. Nearly forgot, me myself i finished the job (or at least took it to the next level) in Ballarat in 2018. I explained the biggest non-wanted signal. The elephant in the room for MMXs. And, for good measure, i identified another major spurious systematic error, that was periodic in a full turn, i explained that it was due to angle contraction of mirrors, & was not an error, it was a signal (albeit with no known calibration)(but i alone could work out the calibration if ever needed).

So, every gadget ever made has aetherwind gremlins. And ignorance of aetherwind effects can (& duz)  hurt the progress of science.

Re atomic clocks. The effect of elevation on ticking has 2 effects. One is due to the aetherwind. One is due to the nearness of mass (which is not the same thing as being due to gravity)(but i wont explain today).

[penfold]

[...]
Do you know what "permittivity" means?

No, but i doubt that anyone knows what permittivity means.
Firstly u would have to know what permittivity is.
In other words u would have to know what causes permittivity. Obviously it has to do with the aether.
[...]

Before we get bogged down with "what permittivity means", what does "electricity" mean?

"Electricity" is a bit of a strange concept, to say that "the electricity flows at a rate" is a weak statement. In terms of observable quantities, electric field, magnetic field, and current, constitute "electricity", they are all inter-related. It is also the meeting point of several interpretations of nature, where electrons must be considered both as discrete particles and a continuous flux (J component of Maxwell), on a nano-scale some effects described by quantum theories are evident, and at the larger scale observations follow a mostly Maxwellian behaviour. In either case, there are defined relationships between all the quantities that agree with all those theories. Just some involve properties that don't have an effect at other scales and some properties that are otherwise embodied by the model and are apparently ignored and higher or lower levels.

Electronicians typically refer to the propagation of a signal when quantifying a rate of propagation. The signal would typically be a voltage, but measurement of that voltage is, at least, difficult to do without drawing some current, that current is a burden and requires that to simply measure a voltage, some current must flow. So, in anything other than an abstract thought experiment, measurement instruments cannot be an after-thought and must be part of "the experiment" (the physical collection of stuff that we intend to analyse). Modern test equipment is less burdensome, but you have to think about how their connections and the effect that will have on the measurement, oscilloscopes with "earthed" ground clips are a prime example.

Most common voltage and current measurement instruments have a "resistance" at the input, which immediately puts a known relationship between the voltage and current, there is a unique relationship between I,V,R (under most circumstances, knowing any two gives the third, a common interpretation of Ohm's law) - additionally, we have a law whereby the thermal/Ohmic losses have been observed to follow a unique relationship between P,I,V P,I,R and P,V,R. Poynting showed that the relationship between electric and magnetic fields AND ohmic losses was a theorem of the Maxwell equations when assumed axiomatic. So... the flow of power is a good candidate.

Poynting is inescapable, the conclusion in this thread has been that when it is appropriately calculated and all facets of the "experiment" are considered, it is indeed true and valid... which is good because it has been proven as a unique theorem relating the flows of ohmic, stored and E-cross-B interpretations of energy. The hardest (my opinion only in rigger, existence is indisputable) evidence of drift velocity has been its agreement with special relativity interpretations of magnetism and the more global observations of special relativity - but it agrees also with non-relativistic analysis (just maybe the mean path length, velocity, collision time etc don't get a unique solution there). The relationship between the momentum of electrons and how the fields behave around them is a key part of the delay in energy transfer and the evolution of fields between steady-state conditions.

The propagation of a voltage along a wire, what are we observing? The E-field, the current, the B-field or power (E-cross-H, I*V, V^2/R etc)? In terms of time, there may be dispersive effects and generally, the signal entering will not be exactly what we put in, so what properties of the signals define the time? If we measure the energy we have input'ed to the system and the energy we get out, we see an interesting property. There will be a time where there has been no energy output'ed and some energy input'ed, if we wait a while and stop inputting to the system, there will still be some energy output'ed with none input'ed. From that, we infer that energy is stored in the system and that is well validated by measurements. Comparison of the profile of energy input and energy output from a zoomed-out perspective will just look shifted in time (ignoring losses etc for the moment) so we can infer that there is a delay between energy entering and leaving at two points. That is all well predicted by Maxwell's equations. The properties of dielectric mediums are embodied in the permittivity term and have a calculatable and measurable effect on the system.

So, you want to view the E-cross-H, S, field as constituted by photons? Sure, why not, but what properties are we installing in these S-tons (new name to show I'm talking about E-cross-H)? The Poynting S-field would do some interesting dynamic things like dive in and out of the surface when electrons change momentum, more like dolphins than kangaroos. But what evidence is there to say that field behaves more like a lot of quanta than a continuous field?

I guess the idea of a circulating "photon" comes from reciprocity with a circulating electron producing something photon like... any comments?

[aetherist]

[...]Do you know what "permittivity" means?

No, but i doubt that anyone knows what permittivity means. Firstly u would have to know what permittivity is. In other words u would have to know what causes permittivity. Obviously it has to do with the aether.[...]

Before we get bogged down with "what permittivity means", what does "electricity" mean?

"Electricity" is a bit of a strange concept, to say that "the electricity flows at a rate" is a weak statement. In terms of observable quantities, electric field, magnetic field, and current, constitute "electricity", they are all inter-related. It is also the meeting point of several interpretations of nature, where electrons must be considered both as discrete particles and a continuous flux (J component of Maxwell), on a nano-scale some effects described by quantum theories are evident, and at the larger scale observations follow a mostly Maxwellian behaviour. In either case, there are defined relationships between all the quantities that agree with all those theories. Just some involve properties that don't have an effect at other scales and some properties that are otherwise embodied by the model and are apparently ignored and higher or lower levels.

Permittivity to me is a sign of failure. Constants are a sign of failure. Except i suppose constants needed to make the units work ok. But permittivity is a non-constant constant – a double failure.

Fields are usually to do with forces, force fields. A field might also describe what we see, rather than a force, we might see the occurrence of something, or a length or speed or colour, & we can measure it, & give it a number(s), & plot it on paper or in 3D, & we might draw lines or contours or colours to help make some sense of it. We might invent models & equations to describe it and to help predict things & to aid design of gadgets.

After a while we forget what is a model & what is an equation &what is a drawing & we start to treat some things as having a real existence or some clever meaning.

We miss out on finding fields for things we can't see, or forces that we have not yet imagined, or have imagined but have not yet found a way to measure.

And in the meantime reality & the truth are getting further away. Especially when the ignorant masses get tribal & fight to the death to protect their dogma.

Our notions of the meanings or causes of electricity along a wire fail in every way. We don’t know much, & we don’t agree on what we do or don’t know. Where does the energy reside. How does it move. How is the force of the energy transmitted. We have various notions of where the energy exists (is it in the wire, in conduction electrons)(or on the wire)(or in the space, in the em radiation). Do conduction electrons drift along, does drift add to electricity or is drift because of electricity & is merely a waste of energy. Is the energy or power in the Poynting Vectors, ie are they real. Does drawing Poynting Vectors help us to predict, or are they useless (like entropy & enthalpy)(what i call enthaltropy).

Some of us are followers of Heaviside & believe that electricity is an E×H slab of energy current, a transvers em wave, in the space surrounding the wires. Slab meaning that there is no rolling E to H to E etc throbbing, the E×H are both fixed & in the ratio 377 to 1. And electron drift if it exists is merely a waste of energy.

Some of us believe that electricity is in the E×H Poynting Vectors surrounding the wires, & that the E part mobilises conduction electrons, & the drift of conduction electrons introduces the magnetic field (the H part) back into the Poynting Vectors, by virtue of the charge gained due to the length contraction of inter electron gaps suffered by the drifting conduction electrons based on their average drift speed when that speed is treated as a relative speed that can be inserted into Einstein's gamma in his equation for length contraction in his Special Theory of Relativity.
Tell me if i am wrong, but wouldn’t that relativistic explanation for the magnetic field mean that if the wire was double the thickness then the same amperage would give a magnetic field with a quarter the strength. And, if on the other hand the wire was a half of the thickness then the same amperage would give a magnetic field with four times the strength. Is that in accord with the laws?

But there are more versions of electricity than there are electronicians.

My new (electon) electricity says that the energy is partly in the main body of the photons (electons) hugging the wire, & partly in the em radiation emitted by the electons. The energy is carried by each electon as it propagates along the wire at the speed of light, & the energy is continuously emitted via its em radiation, which radiates out from in effect a static point on the wire, & that outwards em radiation radiates outwards from the wire at the speed of light. And there are no relativistic effects needed.

An electon has infinite energy, what i mean is that it lives for eternity (sort of), & emits em radiation continuously. The aether feeds the electon with energy, continuously. Hence electons, indeed all photons, violate conservation during every second of their existence. This is a property of the aether. Indeed there are other instances of such violation of conservation of energy, all of which are ignored by what we call modern science. Electons on the negative plate of a capacitor propagate for ever (almost), in every direction, their dielectric fields adding, & their magnetic fields cancelling, thusly giving the impression of there being static charge, & zero magnetic field. But the magnetic field is not zero, it is nett zero, the magnetic fields cancel, they don’t annihilate.

Electronicians typically refer to the propagation of a signal when quantifying a rate of propagation. The signal would typically be a voltage, but measurement of that voltage is, at least, difficult to do without drawing some current, that current is a burden and requires that to simply measure a voltage, some current must flow. So, in anything other than an abstract thought experiment, measurement instruments cannot be an after-thought and must be part of "the experiment" (the physical collection of stuff that we intend to analyse). Modern test equipment is less burdensome, but you have to think about how their connections and the effect that will have on the measurement, oscilloscopes with "earthed" ground clips are a prime example.

Most common voltage and current measurement instruments have a "resistance" at the input, which immediately puts a known relationship between the voltage and current, there is a unique relationship between I,V,R (under most circumstances, knowing any two gives the third, a common interpretation of Ohm's law) - additionally, we have a law whereby the thermal/Ohmic losses have been observed to follow a unique relationship between P,I,V P,I,R and P,V,R. Poynting showed that the relationship between electric and magnetic fields AND ohmic losses was a theorem of the Maxwell equations when assumed axiomatic. So... the flow of power is a good candidate.

Electons produce an Ohmic loss, probably by losing energy to the copper atoms in the wire, via the excitation of the conduction electrons inside the wire, & via the bumping of the free surface electrons on the wire. The mystery to me is how do electons find the energy to heat the wire. It must come from the aether.

We know that aether continuously feeds energy to photons, so that photons can radiate continuously. The heating of the wire must come from the radiation (already) emitted by the photon, ie the heating duznt steal from the photon proper (photons have a helical central body).

I think that the heating of the wire duz not slow the electon. What i mean is that heating the wire needs a force, but that force i think duz not retard the speed of the electon. An electon hugging  a wire in vacuum has the same speed as a photon propagating through space. With the exception that all light (ie all photons)(ie including electons) is slowed by the presence of any mass nearby. Hence an electon being (by definition) near the wire must suffer a slight slowing.

Indeed that slowing is moreso on the nearside to the wire, which is why the electon wants to bend in to the wire, which results in the electon following the wire, which i call hugging.

But if the wire has a sharp bend then the electon can escape from the surface, perhaps falling back later, a kind of hopping, & while off the surface the electon is possibly a photon again.

But perhaps the electon duznt fall back, perhaps it escapes, & then remains a photon.  If it then happens to collide with the wire, will it reflect, or will it stick to the wire, & revert to being an electon. Which raises the question, how far can an electon hop away from a wire before it refuses to stick back onto the wire. Still thinking.

Poynting is inescapable, the conclusion in this thread has been that when it is appropriately calculated and all facets of the "experiment" are considered, it is indeed true and valid... which is good because it has been proven as a unique theorem relating the flows of ohmic, stored and E-cross-B interpretations of energy. The hardest (my opinion only in rigger, existence is indisputable) evidence of drift velocity has been its agreement with special relativity interpretations of magnetism and the more global observations of special relativity - but it agrees also with non-relativistic analysis (just maybe the mean path length, velocity, collision time etc don't get a unique solution there). The relationship between the momentum of electrons and how the fields behave around them is a key part of the delay in energy transfer and the evolution of fields between steady-state conditions.

I have already mentioned one way that STR fails when explaining the electron drift nature of the magnetic field. There might be ten ways it fails. I will add another. It is not permissible to use the average electron drift for the velocity in the equation for gamma. The V in gamma is the relative speed, not the average relative drift speed. The relative speed of an electron must include its vibrational speed while it is say static in its lattice. Or, if it is orbiting, then its V includes its orbital speed. At room temperature no electron in a wire has a V of  0.1 mm/s, they are all moving a million times faster, albeit in different directions.

The propagation of a voltage along a wire, what are we observing? The E-field, the current, the B-field or power (E-cross-H, I*V, V^2/R etc)? In terms of time, there may be dispersive effects and generally, the signal entering will not be exactly what we put in, so what properties of the signals define the time? If we measure the energy we have input'ed to the system and the energy we get out, we see an interesting property. There will be a time where there has been no energy output'ed and some energy input'ed, if we wait a while and stop inputting to the system, there will still be some energy output'ed with none input'ed. From that, we infer that energy is stored in the system and that is well validated by measurements. Comparison of the profile of energy input and energy output from a zoomed-out perspective will just look shifted in time (ignoring losses etc for the moment) so we can infer that there is a delay between energy entering and leaving at two points. That is all well predicted by Maxwell's equations. The properties of dielectric mediums are embodied in the permittivity term and have a calculatable and measurable effect on the system.

Lumped element TL models are a bit silly. The Ohmic description of TL impedance is a bit silly.
The input of electric energy into a system is the energy needed to create electons & to place them onto a wire. The energy to create electons is merely the energy needed to convert electrons to electons. Once the electons are created they get their energy from the aether, automatically, all the time, for ever. This is almost a case of having free energy. Actually, when the electon was an electron (a confined photon), it too got its energy from the aether, all the time. All photons do that, all the time. The say battery feeds the wire with electons, until the (surface of the) wire is saturated, & will take no more electons, at which time the feeding of energy stops. Or, more commonly, the electricity on the wire will reach a steady state, with the battery feeding energy (electons) into the wire at a steady rate.

The energy stored in the system is in the electons, plus i suppose the heat in the wires. The radiated em radiation can't be counted as stored energy, it has escaped, & can do work in the far field, but can't be regained. Except that if the em radiation is in the form of em radiation in a coil then some of it can be regained as we all know. And the energy in a capacitor can be regained. No, wait, both of those are examples of the regaining of electons, not the regaining of the energy of the already emitted em radiations (not sure).

I don’t see that Maxwell's equations (ie Heaviside's 4 equations) predict anything about the delay of electricity, or the delay in any transients etc whatsoever. I think that they describe steady  state electricity, not transients, not delays.

So, you want to view the E-cross-H, S, field as constituted by photons? Sure, why not, but what properties are we installing in these S-tons (new name to show I'm talking about E-cross-H)? The Poynting S-field would do some interesting dynamic things like dive in and out of the surface when electrons change momentum, more like dolphins than kangaroos. But what evidence is there to say that field behaves more like a lot of quanta than a continuous field?

I say that radio waves are em radiation, & that em radiation is not photons, & that photons are not em radiation. EM radiation is emitted by photons, em radiation is if u like a part of a photon(s).

EM fields do behave like lots of quanta, because em fields come from photons, ie each photon has a field. A photon's field starts at the photon, & radiates out to infinity for ever. The field itself is made of lots of mini-photons if u like. A mini-photon is rooted to a point on the central helix of the photon. When the tail end of the photon passes the mini-photon the mini-photon loses its connection to the central helix & it then follows the head of the mini-photon, ie it becomes the tail of the mini-photon, propagating out into space for eternity (almost). The free (em) mini-photon has its own (em) mass & its own (em) energy. It might even be helical, ie like its mum.

An electron, a photon that has bitten its own tail, has no tail end. Its mini-photons do not detach. They remain attached for ever.  When an electron moves (through the aether) it has to drag all of its mini-photons with it, because they don’t ever detach. That there dragging (ie sideways) is the key to the cause of the magnetic field. A static dielectric field (or electric field if u like) gives us charge. A dragged dielectric field (dragged sideways) gives us the magnetic field (but this is a work in progress)(still thinking).

Anyhow, the Poynting Field at every point in space around a circuit is the big-S sum of all of the mini-s Poynting Field vectors. A mini-s vector is the vector product of the mini-E field & the mini-M field from each photon (ie every photon electon & electron) in the circuit. We can if we like draw lines of big-S but i don’t see how that helps anything. Anyhow, big-S fields do not exist, & mini-s fields do not exist, they exist in mathland.
We can draw lines of nett dielectric field starting at (say positive) charges & ending at (negative) charges, & these might help our thinking, but nett fields only exist in mathland.  Some might say that all fields only exist in mathland.
All the more complicated when u realize that there is a 500 km/s aetherwind.

I guess the idea of a circulating "photon" comes from reciprocity with a circulating electron producing something photon like... any comments?

I wonder what electricity would be like if it were due to drifting electrons. The speed of propagation of the electricity would be the speed of the wavefront of the electron to electron bumping, say 10 m/s for DC. Computers would take 57 years to do something that should take 1 second. Free surface electrons might flow at c/1000, instead of the 0.1 mm/s of the drifting electrons. But the idea of electons hugging wires comes from the need for electricity to propagate at c/1 on bare wire & 2c/3 on insulated wire.

[TimFox]

"Early atomic clocks had a quartz crystal in their circuitry.
Are u sure that there are some moderner versions that dont have quartz?
Anyhow, if an atomic clock has quartz, then there is a chance that the aetherwind can have a similar ticking dilation effect as for a plain quartz clock."

Yes, atomic clocks contain control circuitry that includes quartz crystals, copper conductors for electron current, capacitors with displacement current coursing through them, semiconductors that exploit quantum mechanics, and other results of 20th-century electronic engineering from physical principles.
What makes them "atomic" is that the frequency from which the time outputs are derived is that of a specific transition between atomic energy levels (in the microwave range) of cesium, analogous to the two yellow wavelengths found in transitions between levels in sodium atoms.  The control circuitry locks the various internal generators to that transition frequency, independent of physical dimensions of the apparatus.
This interesting article from the Hewlett-Packard fan club shows the original -hp- 5060A configured for traveling.  Later in the article, the 5060A is posed next to larger laboratory units.
https://www.hpmemoryproject.org/news/flying_clock/celebration_01.htm
The 5060 series was introduced in 1964, and the cesium clocks are now a mature technology.  You can find further details on the web, should you care to see what you are talking about.
The 1977 popular article cited in that reference,  https://www.hpmemoryproject.org/timeline/alan_bagley/measure_77-04.htm  discusses the details of a later time dilation experiment using specially ruggedized versions of the basic instrument to avoid potential practical problems (vibration, etc.) in the original 1971 experiment.
The final cesium clock model from -hp-/Agilent/Keysight, the 5071A, was spun off to Symmetricom (now Microsemi) in 2005.  https://www.microsemi.com/product-directory/clocks-frequency-references/3832-cesium-frequency-references  It is still available, yet expensive.  You can find used 5060A units on eBay.

[penfold]

[...]
But there are more versions of electricity than there are electronicians.
[...]
Indeed that slowing is moreso on the nearside to the wire, which is why the electon wants to bend in to the wire, which results in the electon following the wire, which i call hugging.
[...]

As the lengths of these posts is climbing, I'm going to struggle even more to relevantly comment without misinterpreting, and all this sitting on the fence is hurting my behind... I'm gonna have to call it a day after this. I've enjoyed the debate, but it has been a long away off-topic for long enough and the powers that be have been more than generous by allowing it to continue - I hope that's because there is a glimmer of value, somewhere deep. Last post from me... I promise.

I cherry-picked the two points in the quote above, because, yes, I'm sure I commented earlier that electronics, electricity, EM etc does bring together some rather distinct areas of physics with different interpretations of what's going on. The take-away from that really shouldn't be that they necessarily disagree, but theories and models have differing applications, as a practitioner of electronarianism, calculating the power delivered from a battery to a bulb, I will not be evaluating 10^32 wave-functions or calculating fields unless I need to, Poynting says that Kirchoff agrees with Ohm, so I'm happy. If the timing is critical to the ns, yeah, I'll solve for fields, and I'll charge my client accordingly and justify it because of the pesky imaginary terms in Poynting. Neither solution invalidates the other, I am just accepting the approximation and ignorance of the transients of one for its immense efficiency, likewise, with a lumped transmission line, it is immensely more numerically efficient when compared with a full Maxwell solution - doesn't apply to all applications but it is my choice to make the trade-off between accuracy and speed - if measurement and observation disagree enough, I'll rethink... hence the original theme of this thread, a lumped model plus an appreciation of minimum speed-of-light delay is a far more practical method to approach the experiment, Poynting produces a universally valid answer but may require 10^10 more multiplications. (SandyCox vs official statement of Poynting not discounted)

The second point was really where I struggled, a diagram would have been nice because I can't follow what's hugging what and whether hugging is essential and when it's allowed to make a jump. There is a conventional physics problem with the photon chasing its own tail and why it isn't a stable existence IIRC... is it the observed magnetic moment and quantum spin? But yeah, I can't keep track of all those words, it's pushing the limits of the thread and my reluctance to type-set maths and the contents of my brain too far.

On the plus side, I do see where you're coming from with the screw thread concept better now, (did I mention that it sounded interesting because I can't imagine what the B field would look like... I meant to, maybe forgot)... I think it would look very interesting with regard to electon flow but wouldn't discredit a Maxwell/Poynting solution.

Thanks for the debate, you've out-worded me!

[aetherist]

[...]But there are more versions of electricity than there are electronicians.[...]
Indeed that slowing is moreso on the nearside to the wire, which is why the electon wants to bend in to the wire, which results in the electon following the wire, which i call hugging. [...]

As the lengths of these posts is climbing, I'm going to struggle even more to relevantly comment without misinterpreting, and all this sitting on the fence is hurting my behind... I'm gonna have to call it a day after this. I've enjoyed the debate, but it has been a long away off-topic for long enough and the powers that be have been more than generous by allowing it to continue - I hope that's because there is a glimmer of value, somewhere deep. Last post from me... I promise.

I cherry-picked the two points in the quote above, because, yes, I'm sure I commented earlier that electronics, electricity, EM etc does bring together some rather distinct areas of physics with different interpretations of what's going on. The take-away from that really shouldn't be that they necessarily disagree, but theories and models have differing applications, as a practitioner of electronarianism, calculating the power delivered from a battery to a bulb, I will not be evaluating 10^32 wave-functions or calculating fields unless I need to, Poynting says that Kirchoff agrees with Ohm, so I'm happy. If the timing is critical to the ns, yeah, I'll solve for fields, and I'll charge my client accordingly and justify it because of the pesky imaginary terms in Poynting. Neither solution invalidates the other, I am just accepting the approximation and ignorance of the transients of one for its immense efficiency, likewise, with a lumped transmission line, it is immensely more numerically efficient when compared with a full Maxwell solution - doesn't apply to all applications but it is my choice to make the trade-off between accuracy and speed - if measurement and observation disagree enough, I'll rethink... hence the original theme of this thread, a lumped model plus an appreciation of minimum speed-of-light delay is a far more practical method to approach the experiment, Poynting produces a universally valid answer but may require 10^10 more multiplications. (SandyCox vs official statement of Poynting not discounted)

The second point was really where I struggled, a diagram would have been nice because I can't follow what's hugging what and whether hugging is essential and when it's allowed to make a jump. There is a conventional physics problem with the photon chasing its own tail and why it isn't a stable existence IIRC... is it the observed magnetic moment and quantum spin? But yeah, I can't keep track of all those words, it's pushing the limits of the thread and my reluctance to type-set maths and the contents of my brain too far.

On the plus side, I do see where you're coming from with the screw thread concept better now, (did I mention that it sounded interesting because I can't imagine what the B field would look like... I meant to, maybe forgot)... I think it would look very interesting with regard to electon flow but wouldn't discredit a Maxwell/Poynting solution.

Thanks for the debate, you've out-worded me!

Yes the administrators have been kind.
Electons could/should have their own thread, but they are not irrelevant to this thread.
I have had some further thinx re my screwthread X. I will start a new thread.
When i came here i paid for an argument (i didn’t pay for abuse), to both learn & teach, while helping to explain the Veritasium gedanken, & the AlphaPhoenix X pt1, & i reckon that i have gotten my money's worth.
In the meantime while waiting for AlphaPhoenix X pt2 we had a quasi-diversion re aether & Einstein.
But i am starting to think that the AlphaPhoenix X pt2 aint coming.
Still, the AlphaPhoenix X pt1 did partly answer the Veritasium gedanken. There is an anomalous (for me anyhow)(not for folk around here) early significant signal, ie before the main signal arrives.
And, the Howardlong X told us that (e)(ie 1/c) was indeed correct.

Alltho there is a small say 20 ns hiatus tween the Howardlong X (which shows us the first say 10 ns from 00 ns to 10 ns, & the AlphaPhoenix X pt1 which duznt clearly show us much before about 30 ns but shows from say 30 ns to 3000 ns.
That greyish 20 ns zone could be eliminated if Howardlong zoomed out (he used i think a 650 ps pulse), &/or if AlphaPhoenix zoomed in (he used a step)(but we don’t know the rise time of the leading edge of his step).
But i doubt that the grey zone would have any surprises.

[dannybeckett]

This guy's youtube chan is really good, I'd advise watching this one

[snip]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Speed_of_gravity
"...between -3×10^-15 and +7×10^-16 times the speed of light"

Wait... what?

I skimmed the page you linked to. It offers an extensive history of the subject and lists quite a few different speeds as predicted by different scientists, but, in the end, the consensus seems to be that speed of gravity = c.

But that's old physics. It includes relativity, etc, but it's still old in the context of this thread. It's exciting to be a part of history in the making.   

Its mainly baloney. LIGO is rubbish. As we will all find out shortly, after they bring some new sites into being (India Australia etc).
There is no such thing as a gravity wave.
Gravity propagates at at least 20 billion c, not at c, nothing about gravity has a speed of c.
Even Einstein did no believe in quadrupolar GWs, or, at least, he believed that if they existed then they could not carry or transmit energy.

[adx]

Heh, dolphins. Thought I better descend from madness to reply, while things have taken a distinct (and unexpected) turn toward the sane, but only time to rhetorically deal with one point for today:

... The relationship between the momentum of electrons and how the fields behave around them is a key part of the delay in energy transfer and the evolution of fields between steady-state conditions.
...

That's the bit that (as aetherist says) seems the most synthetic of conventional theory to me, as if vacuum permittivity is a made up constant to generate the speed of light in mathland. Does this momentum produce the delay (which implies if it were different then the speed of light could be higher, like is possible of sound), or is this momentum a roundabout manifestation of the effectively infinite speed of light? The observation that light cannot have a longitudinal mode (for massless photons) suggests to me that it is the latter. And the apparent wave behaviour of EM is a result of time istelf. Or is time.

That's what I meant a while back where I said "we are watching the fabric of time itself in action", and was questioning the hoopla about "action at a distance", magnets, the force, and whether we really want cats experimenting and humans philosophising over what it is.

The Wikipedia article for action at a distance isn't clear on what the complaint (the hoopla) is. I can only assume that it is as plainly obvious to others as it is to me that if I pick up a magnet in each hand, then there is an action occurring at a distance. There is no material connection that I can see or detect without another magnet-like entity (like a Hall effect sensor) which is completely optional unless I'm a pigeon. There are no physically detectable particles, even photons don't have a position at that scale. I can theorise, hypothesise and philosophise about aethers, fields, or other magicks as much as I want, for there is certainly something there (even if only an ability for other regions to carry force) and perhaps approach a happy truth as to a cause. But nothing alters the fact that there is an action happening at a distance, and I can't conclusively say why.

This is worse than saying the instinctively programmed belief in an explanation for a chain of particles which can be seen to be acting on each other locally, is fundamentally just as mysterious. It's not. Yes the force is conducted the same way locally, and the meaning of what it is for items to move through space is somewhat icky when you think about it (what permits space to have a change of configuration which allows objects to be seen to translate through it as if they are really moving? without diving into some unsubstantiated imagining). Etc. But in the chain situation, we are closer to the explanation, because we can know the path and overall mechanism (even if we don't know the sub-mechanism). We can alter the path by moving something tangible. This difference is a wire vs radio, or stick vs magnets. It's a weak argument, but an argument: I can take a much more reasonable guess at the means and the path.

The Wikipedia article for locality does have a better explanation of the hoopla:

... an object is influenced directly only by its immediate surroundings ...
... something in the space between those points must mediate the action ...
... something, such as a wave or particle, must travel through the space between the two points ...

But that is basically an even weaker form of my chain argument above, still grasping at straws that don't necessarily exist - somewhat dependent on biologically instinctive feelings that may cause us to miss the real problems or ignore the fact we are trying to run away from - that there is an action at a distance and efforts to rationalise that away are failing.

Some latch onto aethers, others to fields, as if they are real (some experimental evidence suggests that they are). Some go along with what the current fashionable consensus might be, others might be happy enough with the knowledge that something like the magnet force 'just is' and see no more mystery in it travelling through empty space than a particle going through an empty region. After all - there is no proof an object is not influenced only by its immediate surroundings (some evidence they are), there is no reason to suppose that anything in between the points is needed to mediate anything where there is no cause and effect there, and no proof that anything actually travels through the space.

So that gets back to the magnets. If I move one, we now know (or can justifiably assume to know) that the potential action appears to travel at the speed of light. This statement alone perfectly defines a spherical shell of potential action expanding at the speed of light. Forgetting about the mechanics of BxH for the moment, that qualitatively defines the wavefront travelling through space - hence what I said about "we are watching the fabric of time itself in action".

As the coffee machine was grinding away with its pump this morning (loose definition, but I do try to get up before the crack of noon), I realised that the "something in the space between those points must mediate the action" could be time - if there were no time (infinite speed), then we would have action at a distance by the Wikipedia definition, and no content to dwell or rest in the space, no mediation. The aether is time.

But it gets worse than that (aetherist may have beaten me to the punch here) I realised tonight; because the speed is constant, time need not exist. There is only any need to know distance from the source. But that is mostly encoded in the positions of the points. Therefore the aether is the unidirectional speed of light.

Something like that, and it's no longer getting late.

[HuronKing]

Some latch onto aethers, others to fields, as if they are real (some experimental evidence suggests that they are). Some go along with what the current fashionable consensus might be, others might be happy enough with the knowledge that something like the magnet force 'just is' and see no more mystery in it travelling through empty space than a particle going through an empty region. After all - there is no proof an object is not influenced only by its immediate surroundings (some evidence they are), there is no reason to suppose that anything in between the points is needed to mediate anything where there is no cause and effect there, and no proof that anything actually travels through the space.

So that gets back to the magnets. If I move one, we now know (or can justifiably assume to know) that the potential action appears to travel at the speed of light. This statement alone perfectly defines a spherical shell of potential action expanding at the speed of light. Forgetting about the mechanics of BxH for the moment, that qualitatively defines the wavefront travelling through space - hence what I said about "we are watching the fabric of time itself in action".

[penfold]

Heh, dolphins. Thought I better descend from madness to reply, while things have taken a distinct (and unexpected) turn toward the sane, but only time to rhetorically deal with one point for today:

... The relationship between the momentum of electrons and how the fields behave around them is a key part of the delay in energy transfer and the evolution of fields between steady-state conditions.
...

That's the bit that (as aetherist says) seems the most synthetic of conventional theory to me, as if vacuum permittivity is a made up constant to generate the speed of light in mathland. Does this momentum produce the delay (which implies if it were different then the speed of light could be higher, like is possible of sound), or is this momentum a roundabout manifestation of the effectively infinite speed of light? The observation that light cannot have a longitudinal mode (for massless photons) suggests to me that it is the latter. And the apparent wave behaviour of EM is a result of time istelf. Or is time.
[...]

Seeing as I'm passing... I shudder to think of how I've portrayed myself in this thread, naturally, I'm open-minded and supportive of ideas and beliefs, whether scientific, religious or alt-science, sometimes it takes a little more effort than others but I think I'd appear similar to a vegan demanding a grilled aubergine at a fox-hunt - my objection to either life-choice is non-existent(-ish) but I would be saying "...read the room, dear" and slowly reach an internal divide by zero exception.

So, sticking with the food analogy, it's a chicken and egg argument for so much of what this thread has been about, eggs take <10 minutes to boil, a chicken takes much longer in the oven, so, from the table's reference frame, the egg will arrive first. But, the argument doesn't predicate that the egg will be that of a chicken, that it will incubate properly and that it won't get smashed before hatching... so there could be more value in saying that the existence of an egg depends on the existence of a chicken, there is a lower probability that an egg will become a chicken than a chicken will remain a chicken, a chicken produces many eggs in its life, so the most stable state in the cycle of chicken and egg is chicken a superposition of chicken and egg that is mostly chicken, or egg, I lost track, but you could easily find a spin-state of a chick-tron and egg-tron that appeared like both. And the probability of that superposition would still be higher than seeing a pig-tron accelerate to flight velocity in a hay-field. The quantum and particle views are quite difficult to shake, nomatter what field they're in.

As I was playing along with the thread much earlier on, I was scribbling out a few of the derivations and had a brain-fart idea, and just idly thinking to myself about what would happen if one or two of the quantities weren't necessarily what they seemed to be (trying not to give too much away for several obvious reasons, propagating bad arithmetic as science being top on the list), and if say one or two things weren't necessarily constants but worked along with another unobservable 'phantom' quantity... just to play hypothetically... which still left a unique solution for the measurable quantities in terms of it - long story short and a fair amount of maths later, I became significantly more sympathetic to how alt-science theories could propagate and be believed without experimental data.

Anyway, just rambling,

[aetherist]

"Early atomic clocks had a quartz crystal in their circuitry.
Are u sure that there are some moderner versions that dont have quartz?
Anyhow, if an atomic clock has quartz, then there is a chance that the aetherwind can have a similar ticking dilation effect as for a plain quartz clock."

Yes, atomic clocks contain control circuitry that includes quartz crystals, copper conductors for electron current, capacitors with displacement current coursing through them, semiconductors that exploit quantum mechanics, and other results of 20th-century electronic engineering from physical principles.
What makes them "atomic" is that the frequency from which the time outputs are derived is that of a specific transition between atomic energy levels (in the microwave range) of cesium, analogous to the two yellow wavelengths found in transitions between levels in sodium atoms.  The control circuitry locks the various internal generators to that transition frequency, independent of physical dimensions of the apparatus.
This interesting article from the Hewlett-Packard fan club shows the original -hp- 5060A configured for traveling.  Later in the article, the 5060A is posed next to larger laboratory units.
https://www.hpmemoryproject.org/news/flying_clock/celebration_01.htm
The 5060 series was introduced in 1964, and the cesium clocks are now a mature technology.  You can find further details on the web, should you care to see what you are talking about.
The 1977 popular article cited in that reference,  https://www.hpmemoryproject.org/timeline/alan_bagley/measure_77-04.htm  discusses the details of a later time dilation experiment using specially ruggedized versions of the basic instrument to avoid potential practical problems (vibration, etc.) in the original 1971 experiment.
The final cesium clock model from -hp-/Agilent/Keysight, the 5071A, was spun off to Symmetricom (now Microsemi) in 2005.  https://www.microsemi.com/product-directory/clocks-frequency-references/3832-cesium-frequency-references  It is still available, yet expensive.  You can find used 5060A units on eBay.

I would not rule out that length contraction due to aetherwind can affect the ticking of a quartz crystal or a quartz tuning fork.
But in addition length contraction can affect the lengths of circuitry, hence timings.
And aetherwind (& length contraction) can affect the speed of electricity (ie my electons) on a wire, hence timings.
And what i really want to say is that i get the impression that the best modern atomic clocks are based on an atom going round & round in a certain plane. If so then the orientation of that plane relative to the aetherwind would i think affect the ticking. In other words atomic clocks are sensitive to orientation, ie north south east west. And, sensitive to up n down. As well as being as we all already know sensitive to elevation above the surface of the Earth (or i should say elevation above the center of the Earth)(or sensitive to gravity, crudely put)(or perhaps best described as being sensitive to escape velocity at that location).

Anyhow, ticking & time aint simple. We have the influences of aetherwind, length contraction, & nearness of mass -- & each of these 3 effects are complicated by orientation.
Plus of course we have the ordinary effects, eg temperature effects, stray magnetism, stray charge, stray em radiation, air (& humidity).

[TimFox]

That may be your impression of atomic structure, but the "clocks" are based on the energy levels of the different orbitals, otherwise known as spectroscopy. 
Electrons whizzing around in planar orbits is an outdated concept, found only on graphics.
Again, the reason why time is the basic dimension that can be measured to an incredible accuracy and repeatability is the existence of these well-defined energy levels and their corresponding frequencies.
In current practice, the meter was re-defined by postulating the speed of light, since it can now be measured to better resolution than the previous wavelength standards.  We now, therefore, "measure" the meter using the defined value of the speed of light and measuring a time interval:  very roughly, this means that the foot is now a light-nanosecond.
Note that even if your aetherwind affected dimensions of the circuitry in the control system of a cesium clock, the circuitry adjusts itself to agree with the physical frequency of the atomic transition.  Similarly, vibration, stray magnetism, humidity, and temperature could cause the synchronization to fail, but they don't affect the atomic physics at the center of the system.

[aetherist]

That may be your impression of atomic structure, but the "clocks" are based on the energy levels of the different orbitals, otherwise known as spectroscopy. 
Electrons whizzing around in planar orbits is an outdated concept, found only on graphics.
Again, the reason why time is the basic dimension that can be measured to an incredible accuracy and repeatability is the existence of these well-defined energy levels and their corresponding frequencies.
In current practice, the meter was re-defined by postulating the speed of light, since it can now be measured to better resolution than the previous wavelength standards.  We now, therefore, "measure" the meter using the defined value of the speed of light and measuring a time interval:  very roughly, this means that the foot is now a light-nanosecond.
Note that even if your aetherwind affected dimensions of the circuitry in the control system of a caesium clock, the circuitry adjusts itself to agree with the physical frequency of the atomic transition.  Similarly, vibration, stray magnetism, humidity, and temperature could cause the synchronization to fail, but they don't affect the atomic physics at the center of the system.

The self-adjustment via a control would overcome ticking dilation from other parts of the clock, but of course we would still be left with the ticking dilation of the control itself.

The latest atomic clocks use photons instead of em radiation, & ions usually, & i still suspect that the vibration of the ion has a preferred orientation/plane, but a quick scan of articles duznt throw any light on that.

OPTICAL ATOMIC CLOCKS Andrew D. Ludlow1,2 , Martin M. Boyd1,3 , Jun Ye1    https://arxiv.org/pdf/1407.3493.pdf

And i still suspect that it involves an orbit of the ion (plus a spin perhaps). Anyhow even if there is no preferred orientation/plane there will allthesame be a length contraction affect on the ticking of the ion (whatever that ticking is).

Re the metre & the second being defined by lightwaves, this is so obviously so great a circular blunder that i can't believe that even Einsteinist's fell into that trap. It will bring grief in some instances.

Up till now this circular silliness appears to be getting away with it, but in this super-accurate era the wheels will fall off in a big way sooner or later. The problem aint so evident when the standards & the tests are in the same lab, or nearby.

For example the silly circular standard will almost certainly guarantee that the speed of light (& electricity) will be doomed to always be measured to have a constant value (at least in vacuum).

We use lightwaves to define length & time & speed & mass & c.
And thems lightwaves are radiations from certain atoms.
This can be ok if the experiment or test or design work or somesuch is in the same room as the equipment used to give the length/time/speed/mass.
But if it is in a different room, or if it is on a different day, or if it is at a slightly different level, then that might not be ok.

However, no matter what standard we used, we would face the same kind of problem.

The thing is that we must be better off if we understand the problem, & allow for it if possible.

Or, we can stick our fingers in our ears & close our eyes really tight, & shout
lalalalalalalalalalalalalalalalalalala…… the speed of light is constant the speed of light is constant the speed of light is constant … lalalalalalalalalalalalalalalalalalala.

[adx]

<^ link>

This whole post was a lot more solid than I was expecting (or perhaps used to), and I have to agree with a lot of it, or even most of it. Minus the guesswork - for me a lot of the theory is too far away from observed reality (or too reliant on offensively dubious (to me) experimental observations) to fit into my brain - but that's just me, and I am light on the meaning of conventional theory as it is. So I am reasonably happy with what you said here.

I wonder what electricity would be like if it were due to drifting electrons. The speed of propagation of the electricity would be the speed of the wavefront of the electron to electron bumping, say 10 m/s for DC. Computers would take 57 years to do something that should take 1 second. Free surface electrons might flow at c/1000, instead of the 0.1 mm/s of the drifting electrons. But the idea of electons hugging wires comes from the need for electricity to propagate at c/1 on bare wire & 2c/3 on insulated wire.

A point I had meant to make about that, was that no existing theory works this way. Consider a barrel of charge contained in a CCB (charge confinement barrel, electrons, protons, electons, whatever). If the barrels are 1m apart, then pushing one, pushes on the other at the speed of light. It doesn't matter if the barrels are connected by a piece of wire. The electron to electron bumping in effect acts over the metre not angstroms.

[aetherist]

<^ link>

This whole post was a lot more solid than I was expecting (or perhaps used to), and I have to agree with a lot of it, or even most of it. Minus the guesswork - for me a lot of the theory is too far away from observed reality (or too reliant on offensively dubious (to me) experimental observations) to fit into my brain - but that's just me, and I am light on the meaning of conventional theory as it is. So I am reasonably happy with what you said here.

I wonder what electricity would be like if it were due to drifting electrons. The speed of propagation of the electricity would be the speed of the wavefront of the electron to electron bumping, say 10 m/s for DC. Computers would take 57 years to do something that should take 1 second. Free surface electrons might flow at c/1000, instead of the 0.1 mm/s of the drifting electrons. But the idea of electons hugging wires comes from the need for electricity to propagate at c/1 on bare wire & 2c/3 on insulated wire.

A point I had meant to make about that, was that no existing theory works this way. Consider a barrel of charge contained in a CCB (charge confinement barrel, electrons, protons, electons, whatever). If the barrels are 1m apart, then pushing one, pushes on the other at the speed of light. It doesn't matter if the barrels are connected by a piece of wire. The electron to electron bumping in effect acts over the metre not angstroms.

A year ago i made an Excel of electrons bumping electrons, where each electron influenced 3 electrons ahead. But i had a look at my effort recently & i couldn’t follow my methodology.

My Excel had the (3 No) electron to (3 No) electron bumping via a dielectric field acting at the speed of light, which i assumed was c/1 km/s. So, koz electrons have a (small) mass, & a large charge, the wavefront propagates at something less than  c/1. Lets say that it is  c/2 (i forget my actual calc). That’s too slow to explain electricity.

But, the correct speed of light in Cu is only 10 m/s, which is c/30,000,000. And, we all assume that the speed of em radiation is the same as the speed of light (except that i don’t think so). So, the speed of electricity here must be less than 10 m/s, lets say 5 m/s. That’s too slow, it is c/60,000,000.

The speed of electricity in my Excel will of course be sensitive to the electron to electron pressure, the closer the electrons at the start then the faster the electricity. I assumed one free conduction electron per Cu atom, for the initial spacing. But lets assume that the spacing was such that electrons were 0.001 of an atom apart. That duznt help much, koz in any case the speed of electricity must always be less than the speed of em radiation.
If the speed of em radiation is 0.999 of 10 m/s then the speed of electricity is still only say c/59,940,000. 
If it is 0.999999 of 10 m/s, then we have   c/59,999,940, ie not much better.

If the barrels were touching, pressed hard up to each other, u might be tempted to say that pushing the first barrel by 1 mm would give an instant push of 1 mm to the last barrel. But the push would not be instant, it would propagate at the speed of sound for barrels. And it would require at least a part of each barrel to move at at least the speed of sound for at least a small time.

So, likewise, even if the conduction electrons  in Cu were so close that they were  touching, the speed of old (electron drift) electricity in Cu would still be limited to a max of  10 m/s, assuming that the speed of the internal em radiation inside an electron was the same as the speed of the em radiation outside the electron.

And, once we start thinking in terms of electron to electron pressure, then how much pressure can the electrons withstand before they start shooting out of the Cu wire sideways.  And, how fast would they be going when they shot out. Almost the speed of light? Do we ever see anything like that?

[TimFox]

"The self-adjustment via a control would overcome ticking dilation from other parts of the clock, but of course we would still be left with the ticking dilation of the control itself."
Could you re-phrase that statement so that it makes some sense?

The reason why the definition of the meter was changed was that with cesium atom clocks, the repeatability of the "second" is better than the old repeatability of the speed of light measurements based on the wavelength definition of the meter.
Have you ever seen a description of the way in which the speed of light was measured by simultaneous measurements of the temporal frequency and spatial wavelength of a "dye-stabilized" laser beam?  It was a very clever straightforward measurement, applying a microwave frequency to an electro-optical amplitude modulator that produces a "carrier" center frequency and two "sideband" frequencies, in the same manner of an AM radio system.
You adjust the microwave frequency (with a servo) to get an interferometer to lock up on all three frequencies, then measure the characteristic length of the interferometer with a tape measure to determine the integers that define the relationship between the frequencies.   No handwaving required, just arithmetic.  See: https://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/Relativity/SpeedOfLight/measure_c.html

[aetherist]

"The self-adjustment via a control would overcome ticking dilation from other parts of the clock, but of course we would still be left with the ticking dilation of the control itself."
Could you re-phrase that statement so that it makes some sense?

The reason why the definition of the meter was changed was that with cesium atom clocks, the repeatability of the "second" is better than the old repeatability of the speed of light measurements based on the wavelength definition of the meter.
Have you ever seen a description of the way in which the speed of light was measured by simultaneous measurements of the temporal frequency and spatial wavelength of a "dye-stabilized" laser beam?  It was a very clever straightforward measurement, applying a microwave frequency to an electro-optical amplitude modulator that produces a "carrier" center frequency and two "sideband" frequencies, in the same manner of an AM radio system.
You adjust the microwave frequency (with a servo) to get an interferometer to lock up on all three frequencies, then measure the characteristic length of the interferometer with a tape measure to determine the integers that define the relationship between the frequencies.   No handwaving required, just arithmetic.  See: https://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/Relativity/SpeedOfLight/measure_c.html

For sure the new definitions must be a hell of an improvement in lots of way. I am not saying that i understand them. And i am very impressed with modern science. I love it. Can't wait for JamesWebb to moider the bigbang.

But science will find it difficult to advance in some areas unless it dumps Einsteinian stuff, & acknowledges the aether, & the aetherwind. And electons. In fact i am sure that science has dumped much of Einsteinian stuff, & they just pretend (is it to keep the Ruskis off balance?). And, the Ruskis are playing the same game. Spy versus Spy.

I suppose that until recently they used Michelson's interferometer to measure length, & the speed of light.
The same Michelson interferometer that Michelson used to show that the speed of light was c+V & c-V (but he was ignored)(but for some silly reason he called that a null result)(silly boy)(& Lorentz was even sillier, not calling out silly Einsteinian relativity)(i blame Lorentz more than i blame Michelson).

But no matter how good or smart the standards, there will always be a need to allow for the aetherwind etc.

[penfold]

[...]
A year ago i made an Excel of electrons bumping electrons, where each electron influenced 3 electrons ahead. But i had a look at my effort recently & i couldn’t follow my methodology.
[...]

Before I forget also, a couple of book recommendations to round off. The first one, probably not entirely relevant, "An Introduction to Mathematical Logic", lots of authors have written books with that title and function, the one on my shelf is by Richard E. Hodel and it "isn't bad", not without its critiques, but relates to what I've mentioned a little about the arbitrariness of numbers (squiggles on paper) and the strength they are given when related to numbers of chickens, lengths made of numbers of stacked wavelengths... you'd get a more explicit explanation from one of metric spaces, but that would get very abstract very fast.

The second one, on geometric algebra, a generalisation of vectors that allows both vector spaces and space-time-like spaces to exist. "Geometric Algebra for Physicists" by Doran and Lasenby is an exceptional treatment of that, it is neither completely abstract nor does it try to force "visualisation of it" (perhaps one of the reasons GA/Clifford/Quaternion representations of Maxwell failed early on), it just presents it as a tool and one that is far more powerful than euclidean vectors. GA isn't necessarily 'easier' than conventional vectors, but they're not difficult for standard 3D stuff and expanding beyond whilst not constraining to space-time and clearly seeing the implications of going space-time or non-space-time. The first few chapters (I think) should be appreciatable if not studyable by someone who can grasp at least complex numbers and geometric concepts of lines, planes and cubes etc.

Both books are quite expensive to buy but pdfs are available... somewhere, and Doran's doctoral thesis on GA for physicists and engineers is freely available... I'll drop a reference link if I remember.

[adx]

I think I'd be interested in those too, whether I would do them justice in practical application of time spent learning, I don't know. My comprehension of maths is limited, not because I don't understand it, but because it comes across as thoroughly unnatural (difficult and unpleasant) to me and I don't really know why. Perhaps somewhere on the dyscalculia spectrum, if there is such a thing. It's sort of like the way some computer languages seem arcane and inside-out in the way they go about things, while for others at least I find I can pretty much write things in my sleep. Some people (usually non-engineers) are surprised an engineer could function without maths, but most I know don't use it in the sense of deriving anything symbolically. Just punch the numbers into the formula sort of stuff. I'd rather understand what the numbers mean than be subordinate to equations, if I had to choose. I can't see that working for a career in physics though! I came unstuck trying to follow GR all the way through for that reason.

Anyway, the reason for going on about that, is to recommend to anyone attempting to get a handle on EM signals (what is being sent and received), to learn what "AC" and "DC" means, in terms of the Fourier transform. Its Wikipedia page starts ok but explodes into gobbledygook for someone of limited mathematical training or ability. The Discrete Fourier transform page is still full of weird looking stuff that I have to assume I would have not a hope of getting into if it wasn't already second nature. The Fourier series page shows some nice diagrams and animations which come closer, but the almost trivial computation of a DFT becomes lost in the well-meaning mathematical rigour - my point is to say that these concepts are not difficult but need to be appreciated quantitatively somehow when talking about things like "frequencies".

[penfold]

I think I'd be interested in those too, whether I would do them justice in practical application of time spent learning,
[...]

To be quite frank, in a professional 'engineer' sense, me neither, not even Poynting. Never in a circuit have I ever needed to calculate or visualise a Poynting vector, not at 6GHz, not at DC and not between - it would be difficult to say I was doing the design a particular disservice by not doing so because it passed all of its tests and general aetherial effects didn't affect its function in an observable sense. I suppose the same design may not be suitable to use next to an arc welder heading at c/2 towards the sun - but the client didn't ask for that - a thorough EM study isn't cheap and less so if it doesn't fall with an OTS software package's remit. Any serious maths, with me, is just an artefact of an overly academic start and a bit of lingering cross-over.

Book recommendations were also partly an "I'm too lazy to reference, you'll likely find justification of anything unfounded in there". Interestingly as you mention DFTs, I remember finding myself in a maths lecture, it was offered to 4th year EEE undergrads and I assumed it would be delivered as such (I was very wrong, it was 'also' for 4th year maths undergrads who had a very different level of rigger). Long story short was that as the lecturer was going through this derivation involving vectors and a discrete signal, when he got to the end I suddenly realised "whaaa?! a 1024-point DFT is just a 1024-dimension vector... with 1024 components... that represents the 1024-dimension signal vector... nooo, how can this be, it's frequency components!".

I'm just musing, not advocating or selling any perspective. A similar view as the FFT being strictly-frequency-components-only being ripped apart and reduced to a literal "transformation" of vectors, change of basis (i, j, k,etc.), etc, and removing all conventional interpretation of numbers/mathematical-symbols/signals is kind of similar to some of the alleged reasons that Maxwell's equations isn't Maxwell's Equation today and one of the alleged reasons that special relativity had such a rocky start (and still falls away from the side of intuition). (Clifford, Grassmann and Hamilton were the big proponents of a not-only-euclidean view of vectors).

In a geometric algebra, Maxwell reduces to a single equation, but still, splinters out into all 4 (or 8 or 12... I forget how many Maxwell came up with) 'classic' ones (and doesn't necessarily simplify under-grad worked examples).
GA does all that at the cost of losing easy interpretations of 'vectors' as describable with 3-rulers at right angles but makes it very intuitive to express them mathematically as 3 planes, one each with an axis for the x/y/z or i/j/k components where the second axis in each plane is time... making space-time intuitive but a game of battle-ships very difficult.

I'm losing the tenuous connection to the thread now, seemed interesting how sometimes the importance of relatability and observability are both fundamental requirements of physics and also sometimes a weakness.

[aetherist]

[...]A year ago i made an Excel of electrons bumping electrons, where each electron influenced 3 electrons ahead. But i had a look at my effort recently & i couldn’t follow my methodology.[...]

Before I forget also, a couple of book recommendations to round off. The first one, probably not entirely relevant, "An Introduction to Mathematical Logic", lots of authors have written books with that title and function, the one on my shelf is by Richard E. Hodel and it "isn't bad", not without its critiques, but relates to what I've mentioned a little about the arbitrariness of numbers (squiggles on paper) and the strength they are given when related to numbers of chickens, lengths made of numbers of stacked wavelengths... you'd get a more explicit explanation from one of metric spaces, but that would get very abstract very fast.

The second one, on geometric algebra, a generalisation of vectors that allows both vector spaces and space-time-like spaces to exist. "Geometric Algebra for Physicists" by Doran and Lasenby is an exceptional treatment of that, it is neither completely abstract nor does it try to force "visualisation of it" (perhaps one of the reasons GA/Clifford/Quaternion representations of Maxwell failed early on), it just presents it as a tool and one that is far more powerful than euclidean vectors. GA isn't necessarily 'easier' than conventional vectors, but they're not difficult for standard 3D stuff and expanding beyond whilst not constraining to space-time and clearly seeing the implications of going space-time or non-space-time. The first few chapters (I think) should be appreciatable if not studyable by someone who can grasp at least complex numbers and geometric concepts of lines, planes and cubes etc.

Both books are quite expensive to buy but pdfs are available... somewhere, and Doran's doctoral thesis on GA for physicists and engineers is freely available... I'll drop a reference link if I remember.

I use Excel to do my calculations to help me to avoid equations. Using lots of small iterations (using say Newton's F=ma) using Excel is a substitute for my lack of calculus, especially re integration.
I had a look & i see that i have over 600 Excel files on my computer, trying to solve say 100 problems that i came across.

I used Excel to check Einstein's stuff, especially re bending of light near the Sun. This might have been the epitome for my use of Excel. It showed that Einstein's equations etc did indeed give double the Newtonian bending.
And it confirmed that Prof Poor stuffed up his analysis of Einstein's equations for bending (Poor said that the postulates behind the equations did not give the bending equations)(but he left off one little term)(easy done).

And i have used Excel to look into the behavior of my electons, compared to old (electron) electricity.
Plus as i said i used Excel to look into 3 electrons bumping 3 electrons to help find the speed of old (electron) electricity.
I made my own Excel programs for calculating say Coulomb force etc. But nowadays there are plenty of online calculators for almost everything.

I was  amazed at how say for energy versus momentum including friction heat loss i could do a very rough Excel (using just say 10,000 iterations instead of 100,000) & still get accuracy to say 12 decimals.
Unfortunately Excel only works to 15 decimals & so it aint much good for most of the Earthly relativity problems that come up -- these need at least 16 or 17 decimals (close).