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

[aetherist]

In the meantime for sure i am waging a little war on English, but of course i dont want to overdo it, i suppose that koz & woz & probly etc might confuse readers from non-English speaking countries.
Would u like to return to the year 1600?

The townspeople of New Lorentzburg have also raised concerns over the new language, there's a running conspiracy theory that you are trying to prevent them from being able to read literature, learn for themselves, and that it makes it easier for you to censor their concerns.
The angst is growing as they are still waiting for the electricity system to be upgraded for 'new electrons'.

In the oldendays dunkemhigh would have had me burnt at the stake for my devil talk.
Or praps dunk me low into the drink for my witch spelling ………
Wiki…………. In medieval times until the early 18th century, ducking was a way used to establish whether a suspect was a witch.  The ducking stools were first used for this purpose but ducking was later inflicted without the chair. In this instance the subject's right thumb was bound to her left big toe. A rope was tied around the waist of the accused and she was thrown into a river or deep pond. If she floated, it was deemed that she was in league with the devil, rejecting the baptismal water. If she sank, she was "cleared. And dead"…….

[bsfeechannel]

The modern peer review of the 1962 muon X criticized the calculation of the effect of the slowing & loss of energy of muons arising from the mass of the atmosphere tween the altitudes of the 2 tests

Peer review. What a cheeky devil. Scientists and pseudo-scientists are not peers.

[adx]

If it were not for the scientific godma of the Roman Catholic Church humans might have stood on the Moon in July 969, instead of July 1969.

What's wrong with that? Standing on the moon is dangerous.

Humans are notoriously forgetful and complacent - one particularly impetuous and neglectful soul opens the door of Virgin's latest "Mary" spacecraft one fateful morning in 969, steps out onto the regolith, yawns and notices the water boiling off their tongue. 12 to 15 seconds later it's on the ground, mashing that face you just want to punch in that open mouth into the ground (at much reduced speed compared to Earth).

"Gas expelled from their bowels and stomachs caused simultaneous defecation, projectile vomiting and urination. They suffered massive seizures."

(https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/survival-in-space-unprotected-possible)

The stupidest human in the world (loose definition to that latter part) is retrieved by grappling lanyard, given oxygen at 1/10th Earth atm in the hopes of keeping them subdued, but not dead, which unfortunately is successful, even after deorbit jettison, reentry and headfirst landing in a Nevada desert right in front of a slow-scan TV crew (it's 969 after all), all because of that immensely thick skull. Massive lunar clean up costs trigger litigation which drags out for 1000 years due to space jurisdiction, and eventual release of the footage.

What we got instead was experimentation on animals.

[SiliconWizard]

That's pretty funny.

[aetherist]

The modern peer review of the 1962 muon X criticized the calculation of the effect of the slowing & loss of energy of muons arising from the mass of the atmosphere tween the altitudes of the 2 tests

Peer review. What a cheeky devil. Scientists and pseudo-scientists are not peers.

Hence Einsteinists are not peers of neoLorentzists or of aetherists. It works both ways.
Or it works the same way if one accepts that it is the Einsteinists that are the pseudo-scientists.
Anyhow i hope that the modern muon Xs have sorted out errors re the calibration re the slowing of muons in air. It makes a difference to the exact form of the equation for gamma, ie it tells us whether Einstein's gamma for time dilation is ok for the decay of muons.
At the same time it tells us whether the neoLorentz gamma is ok (this is almost identical to Einstein's gamma).
I think that both are a little or a lot wrong.

I havent bothered to mention it until now, but Einstein's gamma is used more than once in the muon X.
It is i think used in the E=mcc used to calc the slowing of muons.
So, that makes the muon X a circular argument. Alltho the gamma is i admit used for a slightly different purpose (length contraction)(time dilation)(mass increase or decrease). But the equation has the same form in each purpose. And an error in logic in one purpose means an error in logic in every purpose.

[aetherist]

If it were not for the scientific godma of the Roman Catholic Church humans might have stood on the Moon in July 969, instead of July 1969.

What's wrong with that? Standing on the moon is dangerous.
Humans are notoriously forgetful and complacent - one particularly impetuous and neglectful soul opens the door of Virgin's latest "Mary" spacecraft one fateful morning in 969, steps out onto the regolith, yawns and notices the water boiling off their tongue. 12 to 15 seconds later it's on the ground, mashing that face you just want to punch in that open mouth into the ground (at much reduced speed compared to Earth).

"Gas expelled from their bowels and stomachs caused simultaneous defecation, projectile vomiting and urination. They suffered massive seizures."

(https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/survival-in-space-unprotected-possible)

The stupidest human in the world (loose definition to that latter part) is retrieved by grappling lanyard, given oxygen at 1/10th Earth atm in the hopes of keeping them subdued, but not dead, which unfortunately is successful, even after deorbit jettison, reentry and headfirst landing in a Nevada desert right in front of a slow-scan TV crew (it's 969 after all), all because of that immensely thick skull. Massive lunar clean up costs trigger litigation which drags out for 1000 years due to space jurisdiction, and eventual release of the footage.
What we got instead was experimentation on animals.

If we stood on the Moon in 969, then today would in effect be like 3022.
In which case Earth today (2022) might be an overpopulated polluted hot wasteland, where everyone spoke Middle English, & Einsteinists launched raids on Flat-Earthers, & all did rue the day that some  persecuted a wise handsome rugged softly spoken stranger from the east, who called hizself aetherist, & rue the day that some laughed at his erections electons, & his advanced spelling.

[penfold]

[...]
If it were not for the scientific godma of the Roman Catholic Church humans might have stood on the Moon in July 969, instead of July 1969.
Einsteinian dogma might have a similar effect (but hopefully not 1000 years).
Old (electron) electricity dogma might have a similar effect.
Aether theory & new (electon) electricity theory might give us fusion power at an early date (i think never). Who knows.

So with modern-science, which includes the work of Einstein, society has achieved something. Aetherists have done nothing... there is nothing sane which has been developed within a framework of what you might call aether-theory.

But, sure, on the surface, it's all dogma, both modern science and religion involve lots of lessons where the students are told facts and expected to believe them -- the separation occurs when students of science are able to further study the rational basis of theories, perform experiments, make observations and interpret the results and are encouraged to think for themselves -- whereas religion is an irrational interpretation of an irrational text which is reliant on suppressing free-thought.

Your presentation of aether-theory is irrational and stems from irrational text -- it is dogma, the very definition of it. The reliance of aether-theory on malicious character assasination and your belief that there are such things as followers of Einstein is further evidence to that. You can change that though, if your-aether (not to be confused with urethra) is there to be found, find it, isolate it, test it. Learn some maths, develop the proofs, just do it.

P.S. The remaining citizens of New Lorentzburg are still waiting for the electriciy system upgrade to 'new electrons'. The 'new language' problem is losing significance, as many New-Lorentzburgites are choosing to move to a neighbouring town, Maxwellington (strictly two sub-towns of Maxwellington-Lightside and Maxwellington-Heaviside, both under the jurisdiction and locality of Quantum View) Quantum View is an interesting town, because just out-side of the (classical) city limits of Maxwellington, there's many more towns where people are alowed to think for themselves.
The townspeople of New Lorentzburg are still waiting for your opinion on the road-traffic incident that occured at the intersection of (the newly renamed) [cross-product West-Cruthers-Avenue-East and Up] and [cross-product I-Jay-Kay-NorthWest Boulevard and Down] (the citizens overwhelmingly prefered the pseudo-vector description), Driver A is claiming that the aetherwind must have changed, causing a red-shift in the green light and Driver B is claiming that all lights are red regardless of their colour, the observer claims the incident hadn't happened yet... the town is still in deadlock... the three remaining citizens still can't agree how to proceed at least.

[PlainName]

OK, you got me.

Is the misspelling just an affectation or is there some genuine reason for it? Normally one would use correct spelling and punctuation so that readers aren't confused about what's being said, and also because first impressions count for a lot, so giving the appearance of an uneducated yob doesn't exactly promote the idea that here is an intelligent and knowledgeable person.

You seem to be perfectly capable of using quite large words (albeit a fair number of those are apparently cut'n'pasted), so how come you feel the need to mangle even simple words?

It would be good if English spelling changed quickly to simplify spelling etc.
It would be good if spelling changed to accord with modern pronunciation. 
It would be good if large words were shortened.
I am surprised that u have complained re my punctuation.
I wonder whether the www google era will hasten such changes to English or slow them.
In the meantime for sure i am waging a little war on English, but of course i dont want to overdo it, i suppose that koz & woz & probly etc might confuse readers from non-English speaking countries.
Would u like to return to the year 1600?

There is a time and place to tilt at windmills, but I think that if you're trying to get across potentially complicated ideas then the fewer sharp corners that get in the way, the better. It's bad enough when you go on about MMX (I only recently, like in the past day or so, realised X means 'experiment'), but when simple infrastructural words are mangled each is like a bump in the road. The conscious mind should be entirely focused on the ideas, not the means by which the ideas are expressed (which should be handled by the subconscious), so every time you use something obscure you're mentally tripping up your reader and actively preventing them from giving your ideas their full attention.

[bsfeechannel]

Hence Einsteinists are not peers of neoLorentzists or of aetherists. It works both ways.

That's why Professor Dave Explains rightfully exposes cranks as liars, con men, ill-intentioned people, not just innocent idiots.

You now agree that pseudo-scientists are not peers of scientists. This means that your claim that the muon experiment was peer reviewed to be proven wrong is a big LIE.

Good to know that you admit that.

Or it works the same way if one accepts that it is the Einsteinists that are the pseudo-scientists.

Except that if Einstein's theories were wrong we wouldn't be having this conversation.

The truth is that his theories were proved right quotidianly and changed the lives of the common people, whereas your claims weren't demonstrated once and constitute just a bunch of incongruent, empty assertions.

So you are the pseudobear here.

[aetherist]

[...]If it were not for the scientific godma of the Roman Catholic Church humans might have stood on the Moon in July 969, instead of July 1969.
Einsteinian dogma might have a similar effect (but hopefully not 1000 years).
Old (electron) electricity dogma might have a similar effect.
Aether theory & new (electon) electricity theory might give us fusion power at an early date (i think never). Who knows.

So with modern-science, which includes the work of Einstein, society has achieved something. Aetherists have done nothing... there is nothing sane which has been developed within a framework of what you might call aether-theory.

But, sure, on the surface, it's all dogma, both modern science and religion involve lots of lessons where the students are told facts and expected to believe them -- the separation occurs when students of science are able to further study the rational basis of theories, perform experiments, make observations and interpret the results and are encouraged to think for themselves -- whereas religion is an irrational interpretation of an irrational text which is reliant on suppressing free-thought.

Your presentation of aether-theory is irrational and stems from irrational text -- it is dogma, the very definition of it. The reliance of aether-theory on malicious character assasination and your belief that there are such things as followers of Einstein is further evidence to that. You can change that though, if your-aether (not to be confused with urethra) is there to be found, find it, isolate it, test it. Learn some maths, develop the proofs, just do it.

P.S. The remaining citizens of New Lorentzburg are still waiting for the electriciy system upgrade to 'new electrons'. The 'new language' problem is losing significance, as many New-Lorentzburgites are choosing to move to a neighbouring town, Maxwellington (strictly two sub-towns of Maxwellington-Lightside and Maxwellington-Heaviside, both under the jurisdiction and locality of Quantum View) Quantum View is an interesting town, because just out-side of the (classical) city limits of Maxwellington, there's many more towns where people are alowed to think for themselves.
The townspeople of New Lorentzburg are still waiting for your opinion on the road-traffic incident that occured at the intersection of (the newly renamed) [cross-product West-Cruthers-Avenue-East and Up] and [cross-product I-Jay-Kay-NorthWest Boulevard and Down] (the citizens overwhelmingly prefered the pseudo-vector description), Driver A is claiming that the aetherwind must have changed, causing a red-shift in the green light and Driver B is claiming that all lights are red regardless of their colour, the observer claims the incident hadn't happened yet... the town is still in deadlock... the three remaining citizens still can't agree how to proceed at least.

I have already explained that every MMX (1887-2016) has confirmed the existence of aetherwind. The best MMX being by Demjanov at Obninsk in 1968-72, but he did not publish in English until about 2005. In addition the aetherwind has been seen to affect the speed of electricity in a coaxial cable (DeWitte).

Society has not been affected much by anything Einsteinian. Fictional stories of singularity blackholes the bigbang wormholes time travel amazing atomic particles the CMBR etc  do result in the wastage of money which could have been better used. Whereas ordinary fiction (books films etc) duz little economic harm. On the other hand knowledge of the aether & the aetherwind (& electons) might have produced gains – we don’t know.

Re traffic accidents involving the Jetsons. The problem of determining the simultaneity & exact timing of an accident & signals exists in every relativity that one could possibly devise. An observer & Driver-A & Driver-B might indeed have a problem with the apparent color of red & green lights due to approach speed etc. These kinds of problems must surface with every kind of relativity.

Aether theory alone adds the problem of the colors being affected by the changing direction of the aetherwind during each 24 hrs. In that sense i could use an ordinary set of intersection traffic signals as a kind of MMX, to measure the change in aetherwind during 24 hrs.

[aetherist]

OK, you got me.

Is the misspelling just an affectation or is there some genuine reason for it? Normally one would use correct spelling and punctuation so that readers aren't confused about what's being said, and also because first impressions count for a lot, so giving the appearance of an uneducated yob doesn't exactly promote the idea that here is an intelligent and knowledgeable person.

You seem to be perfectly capable of using quite large words (albeit a fair number of those are apparently cut'n'pasted), so how come you feel the need to mangle even simple words?

It would be good if English spelling changed quickly to simplify spelling etc.
It would be good if spelling changed to accord with modern pronunciation. 
It would be good if large words were shortened.
I am surprised that u have complained re my punctuation.
I wonder whether the www google era will hasten such changes to English or slow them.
In the meantime for sure i am waging a little war on English, but of course i dont want to overdo it, i suppose that koz & woz & probly etc might confuse readers from non-English speaking countries.
Would u like to return to the year 1600?

There is a time and place to tilt at windmills, but I think that if you're trying to get across potentially complicated ideas then the fewer sharp corners that get in the way, the better. It's bad enough when you go on about MMX (I only recently, like in the past day or so, realised X means 'experiment'), but when simple infrastructural words are mangled each is like a bump in the road. The conscious mind should be entirely focused on the ideas, not the means by which the ideas are expressed (which should be handled by the subconscious), so every time you use something obscure you're mentally tripping up your reader and actively preventing them from giving your ideas their full attention.

Yes Michelson invented the interferometer & did the first such experiment to try to detect the speed of Earth through space in 1881, without much success --  too much vibration from nearby traffic & too much vibration from the axle of his slowly rotating gizmo. That X could be called a MX.

Then he made a bigger better interferometer & did some experiments with the help of Morley  starting in 1887 – ie MMXs.
Later Morley got together & did more such experiments with Miller – ie MMXs – until praps 1935 (not sure).
I sometimes call these experiments MMMXs, to include the three Ms.
Every one of these MMXs found a signal, & Michelson reckoned that the signal showed an aetherwind of 6 km/s, instead of the sought 30 km/s (due to Earth's orbit they thort)(through a static aether they thort).
Miller found an aetherwind of i think he said 220 km/s.
The lower than expected speed was explained away (by FitzGerald & others) as being due to length contraction (or a change of shape) due to the aetherwind affecting the action of subatomic & atomic em forces.
Munera (Brazil i think) in about 1990 found a mistake in Michelson's calculations, & corrected the 6 km/s to 8 km/s.
Cahill in about 2001 found a mistake in the calibrations, & corrected Michelson's 8 km/s to 400 km/s, & Miller's 220 km/s to 420 km/s (i forget the exact numbers).
Demjanov invented a twin-media MMX interferometer in 1968, & measured the horizontal component of the aetherwind at Obninsk to vary from 140 km/s to 480 km/s during a day.
Today we all know that the background aetherwind blows at about 500 km/s south to north about 20 deg off Earth's axis.
Demjanov in 1969 found the cause of a spurious signal that plagued the early MMXs, & indeed his own MMX. He called it a linear drift of zero. Miller called it compensation for incline. Demjanov wrote about 10 papers.
And little ol me in 2017 found the full cause of that spurious signal.
And for good measure in 2017 i found the cause of an additional spurious signal (that plagued Michelson & Morley & Miller) that was periodic in a full turn (the sought for standard MMX signal is periodic in a half turn).
Cahill conducted a number of different kinds of his own MMXs from 2001 to 2017 approx. He wrote about 40 papers. Cahill didn’t call it aether or aetherwind, he called it quantum foam, & dynamic space (ie the usual terms used by Einsteinist's nowadays)(to avoid using the correct terms).

[TimFox]

Why do you say that black-hole singularities, consistent with Schwartzschild's calculations from the Einstein's then newly-published General Theory of Relativity are "fictional"? 
I was just starting graduate school when Cygnus X-1 was discovered, and there have been many discovered since.
(My relativity teacher was Subrahmanyan Chandrasekhar, but 50 years later I now need to look things up to confirm what I learned then.)
Here is a list (which includes unproven candidates) that pops up immediately on Wikipedia:  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_black_holes
If you investigate each one on the list, you will find that some of them have not been firmly established.
Note that this includes binaries and triples.   Most of these were discovered by astronomical methods before the recent detection of gravitational waves, so you needn't sneer at the waves.

[aetherist]

Hence Einsteinists are not peers of neoLorentzists or of aetherists. It works both ways.

That's why Professor Dave Explains rightfully exposes cranks as liars, con men, ill-intentioned people, not just innocent idiots.

You now agree that pseudo-scientists are not peers of scientists. This means that your claim that the muon experiment was peer reviewed to be proven wrong is a big LIE.

Good to know that you admit that.

Or it works the same way if one accepts that it is the Einsteinists that are the pseudo-scientists.

Except that if Einstein's theories were wrong we wouldn't be having this conversation.

The truth is that his theories were proved right quotidianly and changed the lives of the common people, whereas your claims weren't demonstrated once and constitute just a bunch of incongruent, empty assertions.

So you are the pseudobear here.

Einstein never had any peer review for his published papers. But, in 1905, who would have been his peers? Patent clerks?

professor Dave aint a Professor. Dr Pierre-Marie Robitaille did an expose on prof Dave that showed that Dave was a nincompoop re CMBR & re the Sun. But praps Dave does a good job in some of his youtubes – i haven’t seen them. Does he have any re aether?

Einstein's theories have not affected progress, except to retard it.

[TimFox]

As I pointed out earlier, when a first experiment is done on a given topic, many further experiments will follow, either to confirm the earlier results or, even better, to use improved equipment to get a more accurate result.
Here is a popular description of a 2009 experiment based on Michelson and Morley's late 19th century work, using optical cavities, where the sensitivity is roughly 10⁸ higher than the 1887 experiment.
https://physicsworld.com/a/michelson-morley-experiment-is-best-yet/
By the way, I never encountered Michelson's original experimental equipment (at now Case Western Reserve University in Ohio), but Michelson went from there to found the Physics department at my alma mater (University of Chicago), and some of his equipment was still in usable condition over 70 years later, and I used one of his small interferometers in a lab class.  His instrument-making skills were amazing.  My copy of his complete works is in storage, but I remember his article about how to measure the prototype meter (the Pt-Ir alloy rod in Paris) in terms of a mercury wavelength, despite the fact that the mercury lamp's coherence length is much shorter than 1 meter.
As a child, I saw the Bonanza TV episode (1962) with Michelson in Virginia City, Nevada, and assumed it was fictional, but the encyclopedia biography said that he was, in fact, there (after immigrating from Prussia, now Poland with his family) until he was appointed to the US Naval Academy.
If you must launch ad hominem attacks on great scientists, you should get your facts straight.

Peer review:  I discussed this many pages earlier in Reply #1317.  The two editors at Annalen der Physik, Planck and Wien, were as good as any other peers available at that time.

PS:  here is the abstract of the 2009 German experiment, printed in Physical Review Letters (you will need to go to a library or purchase it to read the paper):  https://journals.aps.org/prl/abstract/10.1103/PhysRevLett.103.090401

[penfold]

I have already explained that every MMX (1887-2016) has confirmed the existence of aetherwind. The best MMX being by Demjanov at Obninsk in 1968-72, but he did not publish in English until about 2005. In addition the aetherwind has been seen to affect the speed of electricity in a coaxial cable (DeWitte).

You made such a statement, but you didn't explain. It certainly doesn't prove, demonstrate or show any evidence of aether wind in a scientific sense. Maybe to you, it proves it... but evidently to any rational being... it doesn't. All that those papers do prove is that the people performing the experiments are incapable of actually determining the source of their errors and cannot find a reason why there is no correlation between their own experiments and those performed scientifically.

I actually said "with modern-science, which includes the work of Einstein, society has achieved something", modern science has achieved an incredible amount. There are indeed devices that employ models developed from Einsteinian relativity in use across the globe, maybe the theory is wrong... but it is useable and it works. Aetherists don't even understand the maths they're dealing with or the experiments they're trying to perform. There's no useful research performed on aether and no useful results... it is still within your power to change that, do something useful with it, develop rational conclusions from the data -- or at least demonstrate you have some capacity to do so.

[aetherist]

Why do you say that black-hole singularities, consistent with Schwartzschild's calculations from the Einstein's then newly-published General Theory of Relativity are "fictional"? 
I was just starting graduate school when Cygnus X-1 was discovered, and there have been many discovered since.
(My relativity teacher was Subrahmanyan Chandrasekhar, but 50 years later I now need to look things up to confirm what I learned then.)
Here is a list (which includes unproven candidates) that pops up immediately on Wikipedia:  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_black_holes
If you investigate each one on the list, you will find that some of them have not been firmly established.
Note that this includes binaries and triples.   Most of these were discovered by astronomical methods before the recent detection of gravitational waves, so you needn't sneer at the waves.

Blackholes are very interesting for sure. I think there are a few possible kinds. The singularity blackhole (i don’t believe in singularities). The say non-singularity kind of blackhole (possible) – this would i suppose be very similar in most ways to the singularity blackhole. Brownholes – almost black – light can escape, just.

Aether theory says that blackholes are impossible. Its like this. Aether theory says that light can't exceed  c km/s in the aether. This means that particles can't reach  c  in the aether. This means that aether can't reach  c  at a particle. This means that aether can't flow into matter (ie into a super massive star) at more than  c. This means that light can escape from every super massive star, just.

Aether theory says that aether flows into all matter, to replace aether annihilated in all matter, & the inflow is at the escape velocity.

It strains the imagination of what a super massive star might look like. Would it be very bright? Or gray? Or brown?

Hold on, i am wrong. I forgot that Einstein said (correctly) that light is slowed when near mass. This means that the speed of light is less than  c in the aether, when near a super massive star, lets call that speed c'. Hence the max speed of a particle in the aether is  c', when near a super massive star. Hence the max speed of the aether inflow into a super massive star is  c'. So, we are back to where we started, ie light can escape, just.

But this creates an aetheric paradox. Matter needs a healthy inflow of aether, to sustain the matter. If the inflow is reduced to almost zero at the surface of a super massive star then matter deeper in the star is starved of aether. Something is wrong here. Still thinking.

[aetherist]

As I pointed out earlier, when a first experiment is done on a given topic, many further experiments will follow, either to confirm the earlier results or, even better, to use improved equipment to get a more accurate result.
Here is a popular description of a 2009 experiment based on Michelson and Morley's late 19th century work, using optical cavities, where the sensitivity is roughly 10⁸ higher than the 1887 experiment.
https://physicsworld.com/a/michelson-morley-experiment-is-best-yet/
By the way, I never encountered Michelson's original experimental equipment (at now Case Western Reserve University in Ohio), but Michelson went from there to found the Physics department at my alma mater (University of Chicago), and some of his equipment was still in usable condition over 70 years later, and I used one of his small interferometers in a lab class.  His instrument-making skills were amazing.  My copy of his complete works is in storage, but I remember his article about how to measure the prototype meter (the Pt-Ir alloy rod in Paris) in terms of a mercury wavelength, despite the fact that the mercury lamp's coherence length is much shorter than 1 meter.
As a child, I saw the Bonanza TV episode (1962) with Michelson in Virginia City, Nevada, and assumed it was fictional, but the encyclopedia biography said that he was, in fact, there (after immigrating from Prussia, now Poland with his family) until he was appointed to the US Naval Academy.
If you must launch ad hominem attacks on great scientists, you should get your facts straight.

Peer review:  I discussed this many pages earlier in Reply #1317.  The two editors at Annalen der Physik, Planck and Wien, were as good as any other peers available at that time.

PS:  here is the abstract of the 2009 German experiment, printed in Physical Review Letters (you will need to go to a library or purchase it to read the paper):  https://journals.aps.org/prl/abstract/10.1103/PhysRevLett.103.090401

Michelson was an interesting character. I haven’t attacked him, but i sort of will now.
His 4m by 4m MMXs floating on mercury were horrible. The MMX was top heavy, & the axle pin was very loose & floppy. And having mirrors at two levels was a mini disaster (it gave a signal periodic in a full turn).
Unfortunately for Miller, Miller borrowed Michelson's gizmo, & hence Miller had the same trouble.
It’s a wonder that they got any useful results.

Its not well known, but Michelson made a new gizmo in about 1929 i think, similar to his earlier gizmo, but with the new gizmo u sat over the top center, & u didn’t have to walk round & round. But it was even more top heavy than the old gizmo, & probly just as floppy, & he published a 1-page paper saying that it was a failure.

Modern optical cavity MMXs use vacuum. Cahill in 2001 explained that MMXs need to be in gas mode, eg using air. Vacuum gives a null result. Helium is almost as bad as vacuum. Demjanov used carbon disulphide gas.
But modern optical cavity MMXs do find a weak signal anyhow (which they blame on systematic noise or something)(& subtract). I don’t know whether this weak signal is koz their vacuum is not perfect, or whether it is koz Cahill is wrong. I think that Cahill is wrong, a perfect vacuum gives a 3rd order signal or a 4th order signal (gas mode gives a 2nd order signal), ie vacuum duznt give a zero signal (but praps Cahill knew that).

Cahill explains that modern vacuum mode cavity Xs (there have been many) are a good test of (aetherwind) length contraction (& are otherwise of no use), but i doubt that any of the papers mention length contraction at all. When i say that they are otherwise of no use, Cahill was aware that in one or two of them they had a weak signal which confirmed the aetherwind (if properly explained)(& properly calibrated).

Almost every gizmo ever made is capable of detecting the aetherwind. But of course the trick is to make a gizmo that is very sensitive, & has an explainable calibration, while minimizing unwanted aetherwind signals. The oldendays MMXs must have had about 10 kinds of aetherwind signal, which had to be deducted, or treated as noise (but they werent noise, they were signals).
Like i said earlier, i could use a set of intersection traffic signals to measure the aetherwind.

[TimFox]

In 1929, Michelson started work on improving the accuracy of his speed of light measurements, but he died in 1931 before that work was complete.
The history of the speed of light measurements is an interesting topic in its own right, the work that Michelson started in 1927 was the first to use a reasonable vacuum (< 0.5 Torr).
When contemplating the invariance of the speed of light with respect to direction, etc., I submit that measurements in vacuo represent true physics.

An interesting use of the postulates in General Relativity:  consider a sealed railway boxcar, with a helium balloon on the end of a string tied to the center of the floor, floating about half-way up the interior of the car.
We assume that the railroad is the good kind that Einstein used in his popular explanations, rather than the bumpy ones that I encounter.
Now, let the train accelerate from rest, at a constant acceleration rate, towards the east.  In what direction, with respect to the interior of the car, does the balloon float?

[HuronKing]

Einstein's theories have not affected progress, except to retard it.

Special relativity led directly to the prediction and discovery of the positron as well as predicting hydrogen spectra via the Dirac Equation.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dirac_equation

But because you are calculus illiterate, you are completely incapable of even reading the equation, let alone understanding it.

Stop spreading your lies.

[aetherist]

In 1929, Michelson started work on improving the accuracy of his speed of light measurements, but he died in 1931 before that work was complete.
The history of the speed of light measurements is an interesting topic in its own right, the work that Michelson started in 1927 was the first to use a reasonable vacuum (< 0.5 Torr).
When contemplating the invariance of the speed of light with respect to direction, etc., I submit that measurements in vacuo represent true physics.

An interesting use of the postulates in General Relativity:  consider a sealed railway boxcar, with a helium balloon on the end of a string tied to the center of the floor, floating about half-way up the interior of the car.
We assume that the railroad is the good kind that Einstein used in his popular explanations, rather than the bumpy ones that I encounter.
Now, let the train accelerate from rest, at a constant acceleration rate, towards the east.  In what direction, with respect to the interior of the car, does the balloon float?

For sure vacuum is needed for the measurement of c. But, Einstein also inferred that the experiment had to be done well away from any mass, or as far away as possible, but this advice seems to be ignored.

But, vacuum is not needed if wanting to find the effect of the aetherwind on c. DeWitte did it. Torr & Kolen did it.
http://mountainman.com.au/process_physics/hps13.pdf

I reckon that the balloon will float towards the east, ie in the direction of acceleration. But i don’t see any GTR stuff going on here. Einstein & Co would give that answer before 1915 & after 1915.

[penfold]

[...]
Cahill explains that modern vacuum mode cavity Xs (there have been many) are a good test of (aetherwind) length contraction (& are otherwise of no use), but i doubt that any of the papers mention length contraction at all. When i say that they are otherwise of no use, Cahill was aware that in one or two of them they had a weak signal which confirmed the aetherwind (if properly explained)(& properly calibrated).
[...]

I wouldn't trust Cahill if I were you. He proves only one of two things, that he is incapable of seeing the flaws in his own pontifications or that he is capable and is maliciously hiding them. Try thinking for yourself, maybe you'll actually come up with a useable aether theory that'll change the world.

[bsfeechannel]

Einstein never had any peer review for his published papers.

And after his theories helped change the face of the earth, you obviously think we need to.

professor Dave aint a Professor.

Professor Dave Explains is the name of his channel not his academic title.

Dr Pierre-Marie Robitaille did an expose on prof Dave that showed that Dave was a nincompoop re CMBR & re the Sun.

Man, you have the nerve to make such a stupid assertion in an electronics forum. Robitaille is a crook. He knows his audience, comprised exclusively of nitwits, doesn't know the difference between a directional and an isotropic antenna. So he manages to dupe them into thinking that the CMBR could have come from a motorcycle across the street.

All because the CMBR simply destroys his creationist dogmas.

But his assertions about the sun is what place Robitaille firmly in the gallery of fraudsters. He says he has a background in spectroscopy and says that the sunlight has a continuous spectrum, when it in fact has gaps that give clues about the composition of the sun which again debunks his creationist agenda.

Einstein's theories have not affected progress, except to retard it.

The progress of pseudo science,  no doubt.

[adx]

Bit late but ere goes...

Engineers had four decades to come up with the transistor after the invention of the triode, yet it was up to three physicists to understand how to control the current through a semiconductor slab by an external electric field.

Did they really? Was there a significant effort beyond individual 'hackers' prior, were any being funded by an enormous monopoly? Did physicists not also have that same four decades? Why did the incipient transistor team also fail for years? Did that team include only physicists (or physicists in absolute command)? Would it have been doomed to also replicate "until then engineers could only produce boat anchors" had Bardeen not suggested surface states? Was he a 'proper' physicist, or an electrical engineer who went back to do some physics papers - or someone above classification, and the transistor was waiting for him and his particular set of interests? And again, did physicists not have that same four decades to come up with the transistor?

When analysing that situation, the effect you want to confirm seems lost in the noise and bias, and only one thing shines through (apart from cleverness persistence and teamwork of course): The almighty dollar.

So maybe that's the problem, and this false dichotomy I suggested is correctly not a real argument. Routine work like pushing numbers from datasheet to spreadsheet easily collapses to "engineering" - but new discoveries or advances by definition are physics. If I were to make "a great physical discovery" while doing some EMC tests on a bucket of water, would any exploitative institution (like a university, or corporation) be able to resist properly pigeon-holing my contribution? Imagine if a drug researcher comes up with some new surgical technique while chopping holes to deliver drugs - the PTB will be itching to paint that person as a surgeon to lend validity to 'their' creation, or even redirect it to someone more worthy sounding (or even looking).

Those same PTB have been successful in perpetuating many false narratives, but the times they are a-changin', apparently.

I'm just against the 'physics is the source of all engineering' claptrap, as if it's an unavoidable 1-way street.

OK. So name an engineering field that doesn't have its origin in--and/or whose current tenets weren't shaped by--science. Civil engineering, perhaps? Certainly not electronics. Electronics is drenched with physics and math.

I see that as tangential to my argument or simply invalid. I'm not denying that science existed before electronics, I'm not trying to deny physics' formative role or assert that it was merely formative as is your (other?) concern. If those things are all you mean, then yes of course I agree. If physics hadn't discovered those things, then they wouldn't have been under its banner. Physics is good, so I'm not complaining.

But it's not what you're saying, as far as I can tell. It's that electronics would not, and could never, exist without the intellectual acumen, academic mindset, and the literature of "physics" - a 1-way street for every tenet of significant merit and so obvious the logic need not be considered. This is ridiculous to varying degrees (some of which admit to you being right), because a much more ad-hoc task focussed approach would tease out most if not all of the empirical relations which form the useful parts of electronics. You may want to argue that is still science if done right, but in the same breath you would deny it is real physics (except where those ad-hoc empirical relations are Maxwell's equations) - leaving me not knowing what you mean.

Medicine didn't have an origin in science. Now it's dripping with science, but even that science frequently relies on empirical results with no or loose working theories over a fair bit of it. There is a strong basis in chemistry, but does it form everything of merit, including the well-characterised unknown? Surgery? It doesn't stop the progress of medicine, arguably it is when theories get entrenched that it comes most unstuck. Universities work much closer to 'industry' without some presumed one-way flow of ideas from say chemistry to research, or research to the ward.

I'm not advocating for a purely empirical approach. I'm not suggesting "a much more ad-hoc task focussed approach" is necessarily a good idea at all. I'm just saying that cherry-picked examples that are as wrong as they are right (eg "How about the blue LED? It all started with physicists.") seem about as useful as proof as they seem objective, and the argument just does not ring true. I can just as validly (and meaninglessly) argue that we would not have modern physics without engineering providing equipment that 'physics' could not practically have ever built on its own (like the LHC). Saying "but physics still came first" to that is not an answer, it is a meaningless circular argument.

Drenched with physics and math - so say you. If this thread has shown us anything, it is that most electronics engineering is devoid of any direct use of physics and math, even the derived simplifications such as circuit theory are a rare find in the engineering world. I wasn't joking earlier in this thread when I said I don't remember what Kirchoff's voltage and current laws actually are (and I still haven't checked, in case it comes up). I can look at a schematic and just 'know' how it works, and if I need to calculate something, I have my little V IR triangle. Failing that I can pull out the real-world simulator and attach a scope. Of course that has an origin in concepts of science, but nothing like what you would call "pure physics".

There are shining examples of using theory, like the impedance calculator I found for this thread. But that wasn't for engineering.

Compared to my MRI example, I think a laser would be harder to stumble on by accident (or intuitive hacking). Maybe if getting something to lase without a cavity, or not requiring much gain. But there would have to be a reason to do it, and a reason to notice. I can think of some, but not many, which increases the 'time to stumble'. Perhaps my pessimism stems from disappointment of never being able to get anything aligned well enough when I tried to make lasers from scratch in my early youth.

[adx]

A bit and silly arguing against something I kind of agree with, but…

On one hand yes, a basis. But what is a basis? Theoretical? Foundational? Occupational?

That the phenomena observed is explicable and predictable. Engineers just use that phenomena to solve problems.

By that definition, any empirical observation an engineer or 'lower' worker makes consistently and believes they have a good handle on describing, fits that same bill. Perhaps with less clarity, or more depending on how it works for them.

Your story about selenium is missing the preamble - ...

Yes, because I know it had a basis in some kind of science, but that doesn't really support your original claim that Einstein's "... explanation of the photoelectric effect not only underpinned quantum mechanics (the basis for transistors) but also gave basis for the engineering of image sensors, phototelegraphy, etc etc.".

You mention work of physicists like in 1876 the rather interesting "Effect of Moonlight on Selenium", Maxwell experimenting with selenium and his letter of 1874. But I can then go back to Edmond Becquerel "credited with the discovery of the photovoltaic effect" in 1839, Wikipedia says he was a physicist but then I notice he was 19 at the time, experimenting in his father's lab - what pigeon hole does he go in?

We can keep digging back into the past to find some earlier work and say "but, but, physics!" (or "but, but, engineering!"), but as penfold said there seems to be a chicken and egg argument. Winding back in time through the chicken / egg oscillation, we soon get back to something that's not chicken, not bird egg, murkier to maybe something more like the fruiting body of a slime mould (still chicken and eggish) or with multiple phases (like instars in insects) even some which can reverse, or become chaotic:

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

(Another odd factoid stumbled on during this thread.) Eventually we reach a point where the oscillation becomes indiscernible.

My point is that image sensor technology etc predated quantum theory, when it is easy to assume that it had to be required knowledge. We can keep going back to make the same mistake. Winding back over examples to find "basis" support for an argument like physics vs engineering, or the decisive origin, is arbitrary. In fact, in bringing up this "preamble", you seem to be confirming this point.

... While the first 1925 FET patent didn't get noticed, it's remarkable how clearly Lilienfeld defines its operation is based on nascent quantum theory,

https://worldwide.espacenet.com/patent/search/family/035202468/publication/US1745175A?q=pn%3DUS1745175
"The basis of the invention resides apparently in the fact that the conducting layer at the particular point selected introduces a resistance varying with the electric field at so this point; and in this connection it may be assumed that the atoms (or molecules) of a conductor are of the nature of bipoles. In order for an electron, therefore, to travel in the electric field, the bipoles are obliged to become organized in this field substantially with their axes parallel or lying in the field of flow. - Any disturbance in this organization, as by heat inovement, magnetic field, electrostatic cross-field, etc., will serve to increase the resistance of the conductor; and in the instant case, the conductivity of the layer is influenced by the electric field. Owing to the fact that this layer is extremely thin the field is permitted to penetrate the entire volume thereof and thus will change the conductivity throughout the entire cross-section of this conducting portion."

It is, but there is no wild mathematical treatment there, and it's not really "quantum" in the sense the word is used today. The electrons are still seen as classical particles. What made fets "possible" (in extreme volumes) was purity and passivation, incl the breakthrough of "Egyptian engineer Mohamed Atalla".

I'm sure quantum theory made a good showing, but it's not intruding much into these stories.

I can only go off what I know about history. The unfortunate thing about history is that there is no "control" in the experiment of our history to tell whether something would or would not have happened without X-Y-Z.
What I do know is that MASSIVE technology advancements ALWAYS follow a PARADIGM SHIFT (term from my History of Science class) in theory.

I'm not entirely buying it. There are lots of narratives like that in belief systems, and science and technology is no exception. We will always find exemplars which or who 'bucked the trend' in the right or wrong way. I see technological progress as remarkably smooth in spite of these major events. It would be interesting to see if Moore's law applies backwards in time - from what I know about the evolution of computers it might well.

It doesn't fundamentally alter your point, but it does suggest that these patterns we like to hold high are not what they seem. There is an understandable fundamental bias in academia (to believe in itself). I can see why it feels a compelling need to be the "self-appointed defender of the orhtodoxy" (to borrow more words from the crackpot index). Universities are magnets for intellectual types, and to an extent are the tail that wags the dog of society. Like most people, I tolerate or even embrace that, but there is a limit to how much of it we will swallow. (Who am I kidding, there is no limit, not in the short term anyway.)

And I'd say we got the ol' 1-2 punch from the paradigm shift from Maxwellian Theory (that made global, wireless communications and AC power possible) to Quantum Theory (that made transistors possible, enough said!).

I'm trying but failing to let that one go. Transistors were no more or less "possible" after the discovery.

It's entirely possible one was even accidentally used by some unpublished crystal set experimenter, trying to inject DC bias as close to the rectifying point as possible under a microscope, while messing up the circuit in a way they never bothered checking, because it worked so well. Or worked out and published in some obscure way, which comes to light now, rewriting history (or at least Wikipedia). "Physics" (the belief, science the consensus) holds that that is not a true discovery, as if physics feels invalidated - language on Wikipedia reflective of that. Engineering would see it as no big, history would still call it a "discovery".

Like me probing away at the SiC "stone" (even now I don't know if it is a crystal) to replicate the blue LED. I don't need to understand everything at the quantum level (some might say I do) to do that. Nor does it imply I need to be dumb as a box of rocks and incapable of understanding it or stumbling onto a plausible explanation. Nor does it have to be a big thing or accepted in the halls of academia (where some would say it does).

I think what triggered me when you say "possible" is that you don't appear to be using it in a qualified way (or dangling it as bait - except for the intended meaning itself which you could assume would get a bite!). Alternators and transformers predate Maxwell's publication, I think it was bsfeechannel who was trying to argue that Maxwell's subsequent inspirational encapsulation of things which were already 'possible', somehow enables them, rendered it as foundational after the event. Global communications, yes, while I would say made "possible" is a stretch, Maxwell's theory directly inspired and led to it - that can't be anything but foundational.

But people were trying to make transistorish things like uber Hall-effect amplifiers well before quantum theory got a foothold, and by my reasoning, that initial desire and "scent" of expectation (they knew something like it ought to be possible) was more foundational than theories progressed in no small part because of that same effort.

I'm not certain we'd have the iPhone ever. There are a lot of 'wrong' ways to make an iPhone. It's much more likely we'd find all the wrong ways before the right ways without a governing theory to predict what to do in the next experiment... which is in the physics.

I think that relies on a misconception that engineers do not work scientifically, or methodically, so are doomed to fumble about indefinitely exploring each wrong option with equal probability as right one(s). If that were true, then iPhones would still be at version 0.1, for reasons much more fundamental than the radio module not working or even CPUs having not been invented.

It reminds me of in my youth when I tried to drive through random suburban streets to get to the top of a hill at night (in the days before maps on phones). I said just drive "up" and you'll eventually find your way to the top. My friend (also engineering) was critical, saying "there's only one way to somewhere and nearly infinite wrong turns". Then I said "all roads lead to Rome", he said "no all roads lead from Rome but only one leads to it". I can't remember how it was sorted out, except we got to the top ok, and didn't have a map. Then driving along a ridge, he said "don't look over the edge, people drive where they're looking". Narratives. Everyone learns different things, and can end up thinking about the same thing in different ways.

As sort of an aside, I think I neglected the fundamental importance of experiment at school and university. I either just believed everything I was told, formed quiet reservations, or considered labs a redundant if interesting a waste of time (it seemed unreasonable for a lab to refute something that had been taught). Nowadays I question everything I am told and believe only evidence, and even that is a risk.

I certainly don't want to say physics had no part or is dead. The only thing I want to target is this (I assume) taught notion that science begat physics begat engineering that doesn't seem to exist outside of academia and governmental ivory towers. The commercial world is completely indifferent to that, and simply assumes that physics is one of the parts of engineering.

I work in both academia and the commercial world. The predecessor to ABET defined engineering as,
"The creative application of scientific principles to design or develop structures, machines, apparatus, or manufacturing processes, or works utilizing them singly or in combination; or to construct or operate the same with full cognizance of their design; or to forecast their behavior under specific operating conditions; all as respects an intended function, economics of operation and safety to life and property."

Emphasis mine. So, if physics isn't foundational to what we do, what even is engineering??? 

Perhaps it might be helpful if you elucidate on that question. 

I've seen a similar definition trotted out by newbie engineers or students, and have a quiet chuckle (or hope) that they'll soon learn. It's not terribly wrong, but kind of misses the point of what engineering is. You do what you need to to make things work, respond to marketing, know when to copy those before you and what to check or trust, deal with overly formulaic expectations or meaningless requirements, work out how to recognise mistakes without making them, what theories deserve to be thrown out the window and when to do that (like resistivity of metals). It looks like the output of a committee - it looks like a theory.

I possibly read "scientific principles" differently from you. I take it to mean the principles of science, which in practical terms, means tested and understood. Not in a sense of selecting from a menu of established laws, equations, textbook smarts, except in loose terms.

You must use tools at your disposal and you must test. You must think, be objective. These are all no-brainers. Engineering is advanced hacking? It's certainly not going through a menu of checklist items provided by an academic recipe-writer.

Given that the definition is a fairy tale, and the premise is unfalsifiable, I'm not going to do a good job of elucidating on your question "what even is engineering?" Perhaps a job for physicists who don't care about physics?

Claims that "physics had to come before technology" can be made arbitrarily, eg fax machines might have stepper motor drivers, image sensor chips and even lasers. But when it's said that optical fax existed in the late 1800s, those claims need adjustment. They might still be correct, but it doesn't have much meaning.

I'm not sure what you're saying here.

I'm saying the premise and supporting evidence is arbitrary. Either way can be supported by picking facts to use.

Probably the real "physicists versus engineers" debate is whether to use i or j for the complex number. And the answer is obviously j because what the heck do you call current then? 

You can probably guess my response even when you wrote that! Engineers don't use j (or i). Is there any place in engineering, anywhere, where sqrt(-1) has any physical relevance at all? The only place I've ever seen it doing something useful (beyond being an arcane convenience for mathematicians) is in a Feynman lecture where it quasi-continuously described a wave function inside and out of an energy well or something (I can't find it now).

[penfold]

[...]
As sort of an aside, I think I neglected the fundamental importance of experiment at school and university. I either just believed everything I was told, formed quiet reservations, or considered labs a redundant if interesting a waste of time (it seemed unreasonable for a lab to refute something that had been taught). Nowadays I question everything I am told and believe only evidence, and even that is a risk.
[...]

Exactly! Your previous statement of "let the cats philosophize and humans experiment" was a bit of an eye-opener, to me at least, humans a terrible at philosophy -- the best system of logic we've arrived at is one that includes a theorem about itself stating that logic is itself incomplete... brilliant .

There was a chemistry Nobel laureate, who had a degree in physics and stumbled upon a mass-spectrometry process by accident... literally... he was working late one night and picked up the wrong bottle... I'm curious as to which pigeonhole he goes into.

Engineer and physicist are just job titles, there's nothing more to it, surely? It doesn't surprise me that a lot of physicists who were being paid to study something, discovered something, nor am I especially surprised that engineers who were being paid to do something else didn't beat them to it. It seems like that argument is coming from a very narrow and ill-informed (some may say academic) view of engineering: I'm hoping that all those power-supply topologies and just all that maths involved in signal processing and control theory, etc weren't just accidental obvious-nesses... some of it seems quite clever.