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

[SandyCox]

But, getting back to coaxial cables. Tony Wakefield did an experiment using a coaxial cable as a capacitor. This discharged at a half of the predicted voltage (ie a half of the voltage predicted by old electricity) taking double the predicted time (ie double the time predicted by old electricity). But as we all know the half voltage & doubled time accords exactly with my new (electon) electricity, where a half of the electons (in a capacitor) are going each way at any one time (ie before the discharge switch is closed). I think he used 18 m of coax, a 9 V battery, a mercury reed switch, & a 350 MHz scope.
http://www.ivorcatt.co.uk/x37p.htm

Erik Margan repeated Wakefield's X.
http://www.ivorcatt.co.uk/x726.pdf

No! You ignoramus!
The problem is that you are misapplying Maxwell's equations. I will post the correct solution.

[penfold]

[...]
Erik Margan repeated Wakefield's X.
http://www.ivorcatt.co.uk/x726.pdf

I see, so your own theory of electrons isn't even your own theory? It is just a hunch based on a fallacious extension to a fallacious interpretation of a misrepresented version of a genuine theory? Or at least that is how it appears to me; your consistent inability to provide any genuine reasoning of your dogma speaks the loudest volume.

I'm still not totally dismissive of your ideas, after all, below the scale of common household particles (proton, neutron, electron etc), it's surely impossible to even comprehend and futile to even attempt a visualisation. I've personally never seen inside a wire, so sure, why not have electrons hugging wires, or skipping along the surface if the model agrees with those actual measurable quantities - why not?

So, hypothetically, let's say Einstein's work (and countless others' work before and after) was all wrong - what did he have that you don't? Why is he the one whose theory has been so widely accepted? There cannot possibly be such a huge conspiracy that could cause so many physicists to perpetuate a lie and consistently misrepresent results just to keep their funding up... I've met enough physicists to know just how keen any one of them would be to jump up and prove all others wrong. The keyword there being prove, a rational proof is what is required.

Without a rational, indisputable and well-formed proof any theory is irrational and absurd, except when it is asserted wildly on the internet where it is absurd irrational dogma. We could have a 'working theory' still in its early days, but it is just an insult to assert it as a fact.

[aetherist]

[...]Erik Margan repeated Wakefield's X. http://www.ivorcatt.co.uk/x726.pdf 

I see, so your own theory of electrons isn't even your own theory? It is just a hunch based on a fallacious extension to a fallacious interpretation of a misrepresented version of a genuine theory? Or at least that is how it appears to me; your consistent inability to provide any genuine reasoning of your dogma speaks the loudest volume.

I'm still not totally dismissive of your ideas, after all, below the scale of common household particles (proton, neutron, electron etc), it's surely impossible to even comprehend and futile to even attempt a visualisation. I've personally never seen inside a wire, so sure, why not have electrons hugging wires, or skipping along the surface if the model agrees with those actual measurable quantities - why not?

So, hypothetically, let's say Einstein's work (and countless others' work before and after) was all wrong - what did he have that you don't? Why is he the one whose theory has been so widely accepted? There cannot possibly be such a huge conspiracy that could cause so many physicists to perpetuate a lie and consistently misrepresent results just to keep their funding up... I've met enough physicists to know just how keen any one of them would be to jump up and prove all others wrong. The keyword there being prove, a rational proof is what is required.

Without a rational, indisputable and well-formed proof any theory is irrational and absurd, except when it is asserted wildly on the internet where it is absurd irrational dogma. We could have a 'working theory' still in its early days, but it is just an insult to assert it as a fact.

My new (electon) electricity model is unique, it is my own, i thought of it in Dec 2021.

I doubt that Wakefield invokes electrons to explain his X. Catt certainly duznt. And they dont invoke electons, or any kind of photon. They simply invoke the Heaviside slab of EbyH energy current in the space around the wire (in the coax), or tween the wires if an ordinary TL. Catt duznt believe in electrons nor in photons, hence he duznt believe in my electons (however he hasnt actually said that my electons are absurd)(he didnt want to hurt my feelings).

I can't remember what Margan reckons about electrons being guilty. But i think he is sympathetic to energy current.

In effect Veritasium believes in Heaviside's energy current, alltho i suspect that Veritasium duznt actually know much about Heaviside, Veritasium probably reckons that it is the Poynting field by another name.

I am not aware of Einstein having anything much to say about electricity in/on/around a wire. Except that Einstein or someone invoked length contraction to explain magnetism near a wire. Einstein did mention electrons in some of his papers. I remember that in one paper he mentioned that electrons would change shape due to their speed or something. I am not sure whether this was mentioned as a part explanation of his STR or his GTR. So what is his theory of electricity that is so widely accepted. I suspect that u are talking about his non-electricity stuff.

He did of course have a paper on the photoelectric effect. But i doubt that that could be used to confirm my electons nor to deny my electons.

I wonder what a proof of electons hugging a wire would look like.
At present we don’t have a proof that electrons orbit a nucleus. Or that electrons drift inside a wire. Or that electrons even exist.
We don’t have a proof that (free) photons exist. And we don’t know what they look like.
Hence i think that we might have a hard time trying to see semi-confined photons (electons) hugging a wire.

STR is krapp -- & GTR is mostly krapp. They are not rational, indisputable and well-formed. They are an insult. They are dogma.
We are presently in the Einsteinian Dark Age of science -- but the times they are a-changin'.
The aether will return -- it never left.

[adx]

RETRACTED: Physical interpretation of the fringe shift measured on Michelson interferometer in optical media
V.V. Demjanov
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0375960109016375

I also followed the cornflakes and found echo chamber upon echo chamber of 'krapp' where 1000s of "I rekon"s and "It feels" amplify concepts like "ExH slab". Aetherist is skilled with words after existing in such places for so long, but when confronted with the possibility that electons might have to exceed the speed of light to hug a threaded conductor...

... i would be forced to abandon electons & invoke my roo-tons, which are photons that hop along the surface.

ie, from crest to crest (a point I missed while taking them too 'seriously'). Just making stuff up, on the fly - not even trying any more.

...
Hence i think that we might have a hard time trying to see semi-confined photons (electons) hugging a wire.

An active admission it might be non-falsifiable and therefore worthy of endless echoes in a fantasy place of no relevance to industry or science. Knowing full well it won't work forever here.

STR is krapp -- & GTR is mostly krapp. They are not rational, indisputable and well-formed. They are an insult. They are dogma.

They are also correct, to the best of our knowledge. We know SR and GR are theories, and to many people are horribly unintuitive, this fact isn't a problem for science.

The aether will return -- it never left.

Feel-good sound bite of the echo chamber, repeating it here won't increase its chance of echoing, which you know.

You would have known the risks of going outside your comfort zone. Might be time to admit you came here seeking experimental reality not to convince us of anything, but yourself.

[penfold]

In effect Veritasium believes in Heaviside's energy current, alltho i suspect that Veritasium duznt actually know much about Heaviside, Veritasium probably reckons that it is the Poynting field by another name.

Earlier on in this thread, I'm pretty sure that the main objection to the Vertiassium video was that only a single perspective was presented in the form of the Poynting theorem. Firstly, it's a pop-science video, it's not a research article, the aim was to present, to a very broad demographic (encompassing all from graphic designers to engineers), that there is more to the transfer of electrical power than the "electron-marble duality" (high-school physics teaching model). I think it served its job very well (just look at that viewer count).

I don't have a particular beef with Poynting's theorem, I deal mostly with separate electric and magnetic fields mostly, they explain the nuances of misbehaving circuits better to me than their cross product does. Just a side note there.

I wonder what a proof of electons hugging a wire would look like.
At present we don’t have a proof that electrons orbit a nucleus. Or that electrons drift inside a wire. Or that electrons even exist.

Very true. I don't have any proof that there's an invisible leprechaun that lives in my butter dish which comes out and sings happy birthday to the cheese when he knows I cannot hear him... hang on, I just need to check something.

My previous use of the term "rational, indisputable and well-formed" was a little improper, it is a big ask of anything to be all those, rational alone would be acceptable.

[TimFox]

For those interested in a serious discussion of a topic that one person here finds "silly", here is a description of how special relativity and distance contraction gives the magnetic field due to a current in a conductor:
https://physics.weber.edu/schroeder/mrr/mrrtalk.html
I first encountered this analysis in E M Purcell's freshman textbook "Electricity and Magnetism", in the Berkeley Series of introductory physics texts.  It is hard to fathom that this textbook (subsidized by the NSF) could be purchased for less than $10 USD in 1967.   The author of the article cited above found Purcell's discussion a bit difficult for an elementary text, and attempts to elucidate it.
Einstein died when I was only five years old, but I did attend a lecturer by Purcell in the mid-1970s and found him to be very understandable.

[daqq]

We are presently in the Einsteinian Dark Age of science -- but the times they are a-changin'.

I don't think you are using the terms "Einsteinian", "Dark Age" and "Science" correctly.

[bsfeechannel]

You seem to be confusing the contemporary American IEEE (formerly IRE) with the former British IEE (now renamed "IET").
[url]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Institution_of_Electrical_Engineers[/url]
Note the first line of the wikipedia article on the IEE:  "Not to be confused with the Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers (IEEE, I-triple-E)."

Interesting, William Preece, the thorn in the Heaviside (sorry for the lame pun), was president of the IEE in 1893.

Leaving Cu-hugging theories aside for a moment and returning to the electricity-hydraulic analogy, I found this article on Wikipedia about the subject (not sure if someone has posted this before).

It says:

The electronic–hydraulic analogy (derisively referred to as the drain-pipe theory by Oliver Lodge) is the most widely used analogy for "electron fluid" in a metal conductor. Since electric current is invisible and the processes in play in electronics are often difficult to demonstrate, the various electronic components are represented by hydraulic equivalents. Electricity (as well as heat) was originally understood to be a kind of fluid, and the names of certain electric quantities (such as current) are derived from hydraulic equivalents. As with all analogies, it demands an intuitive and competent understanding of the baseline paradigms (electronics AND hydraulics).

Emphasis mine.

The limits to the analogy (although no sources are provided) are also very interesting:

If taken too far, the water analogy can create misconceptions. For it to be useful, one must remain aware of the regions where electricity and water behave very differently.

Fields (Maxwell equations, Inductance): Electrons can push or pull other distant electrons via their fields, while water molecules experience forces only from direct contact with other molecules. For this reason, waves in water travel at the speed of sound, but waves in a sea of charge will travel much faster as the forces from one electron are applied to many distant electrons and not to only the neighbors in direct contact. In a hydraulic transmission line, the energy flows as mechanical waves through the water, but in an electric transmission line the energy flows as fields in the space surrounding the wires, and does not flow inside the metal. Also, an accelerating electron will drag its neighbors along while attracting them, both because of magnetic forces.

Charge: Unlike water, movable charge carriers can be positive or negative, and conductors can exhibit an overall positive or negative net charge. The mobile carriers in electric currents are usually electrons, but sometimes they are charged positively, such as the positive ions in an electrolyte, the H+ ions in proton conductors or holes in p-type semiconductors and some (very rare) conductors.

Leaking pipes: The electric charge of an electrical circuit and its elements is usually almost equal to zero, hence it is (almost) constant. This is formalized in Kirchhoff's current law, which does not have an analogy to hydraulic systems, where the amount of the liquid is not usually constant. Even with incompressible liquid the system may contain such elements as pistons and open pools, so the volume of liquid contained in a part of the system can change. For this reason, continuing electric currents require closed loops rather than hydraulics' open source/sink resembling spigots and buckets.

Fluid velocity and resistance of metals: As with water hoses, the carrier drift velocity in conductors is directly proportional to current. However, water only experiences drag via the pipes' inner surface, while charges are slowed at all points within a metal, as with water forced through a filter. Also, typical velocity of charge carriers within a conductor is less than centimeters per minute, and the "electrical friction" is extremely high. If charges ever flowed as fast as water can flow in pipes, the electric current would be immense, and the conductors would become incandescently hot and perhaps vaporize. To model the resistance and the charge-velocity of metals, perhaps a pipe packed with sponge, or a narrow straw filled with syrup, would be a better analogy than a large-diameter water pipe.

Quantum Mechanics: Solid conductors and insulators contain charges at more than one discrete level of atomic orbit energy, while the water in one region of a pipe can only have a single value of pressure. For this reason there is no hydraulic explanation for such things as a battery's charge pumping ability, a diode's depletion layer and voltage drop, solar cell functions, Peltier effect, etc., however equivalent devices can be designed which exhibit similar responses, although some of the mechanisms would only serve to regulate the flow curves rather than to contribute to the component's primary function.

In order for the model to be useful, the reader or student must have a substantial understanding of the model (hydraulic) system's principles. It also requires that the principles can be transferred to the target (electrical) system. Hydraulic systems are deceptively simple: the phenomenon of pump cavitation is a known, complex problem that few people outside of the fluid power or irrigation industries would understand. For those who do, the hydraulic analogy is amusing, as no "cavitation" equivalent exists in electrical engineering. The hydraulic analogy can give a mistaken sense of understanding that will be exposed once a detailed description of electrical circuit theory is required.

One must also consider the difficulties in trying to make an analogy match reality completely. The above "electrical friction" example, where the hydraulic analog is a pipe filled with sponge material, illustrates the problem: the model must be increased in complexity beyond any realistic scenario.

In short, as this article about cranks targeting Einstein says, "[a]nalogies are useful when explaining science to a broad audience, but they aren’t the be-all and end-all of science".

[aetherist]

RETRACTED: Physical interpretation of the fringe shift measured on Michelson interferometer in optical media
V.V. Demjanov
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0375960109016375
I also followed the cornflakes and found echo chamber upon echo chamber of 'krapp' where 1000s of "I rekon"s and "It feels" amplify concepts like "ExH slab". Aetherist is skilled with words after existing in such places for so long, but when confronted with the possibility that electons might have to exceed the speed of light to hug a threaded conductor...

... i would be forced to abandon electons & invoke my roo-tons, which are photons that hop along the surface.

ie, from crest to crest (a point I missed while taking them too 'seriously'). Just making stuff up, on the fly - not even trying any more.

...Hence i think that we might have a hard time trying to see semi-confined photons (electons) hugging a wire.

An active admission it might be non-falsifiable and therefore worthy of endless echoes in a fantasy place of no relevance to industry or science. Knowing full well it won't work forever here.

STR is krapp -- & GTR is mostly krapp. They are not rational, indisputable and well-formed. They are an insult. They are dogma.

They are also correct, to the best of our knowledge. We know SR and GR are theories, and to many people are horribly unintuitive, this fact isn't a problem for science.

The aether will return -- it never left.

Feel-good sound bite of the echo chamber, repeating it here won't increase its chance of echoing, which you know.
You would have known the risks of going outside your comfort zone. Might be time to admit you came here seeking experimental reality not to convince us of anything, but yourself.

That Demjanov paper was not retracted by Demjanov, it was removed by the Journal. Hence it was not retracted, & they lied. So, u are supporting censorship, & a lie. And cheering it on.
Demjanov has about 40 brilliant papers, mostly re the aetherwind. I don’t know any of his personal details, but he is one of my heroes, i think he is still kicking.

Leapfrogging electons were the first electons that i thought of in Dec 2021. Shortly after, i realized that simple hugging must be the answer, no hopping. If the screw-thread X does not show the extra delay due to the simple extra distance then that would falsify my electons. And i don’t see how roo-tons could come to the rescue. Roo-tons would fail just as Beaty's silly leapfrogging em radiation must fail to rescue old (electron) electricity from the elephant in the room.

Forum members around here seem to be unaware that it is almost impossible to prove something, especially a subatomic something. But it is of course possible to disprove something. Anyhow, it is easy for me to say that there is no proof for electrons & photons, because there will always be good alternative theories that fit the facts. Many scientists don’t believe in electrons & photons. Or, putting it another way, if u designed a page full of yes/no questions re electrons (or photons), the chances are that no 2 scientists in the whole world would tick the same boxes exactly.

Forum members seem to be unaware that Einstein contradicted Einstein. His ideas changed right up to his death. Einstein would disagree with much of modern (supposedly Einsteinian) science. And modern science disagrees with much of Einstein.
Einstein would be thrilled by my electons.

We have facts & we have hot air.  I came here & i have tried to point the way to replace hot air with facts.
Can any members here use old electricity to explain the traces for the AlphaPhoenix X pt1 & (later) pt2?
When someone does the screw-thread X, will old (electron) electricity explain that?

My new (electon) electricity might explain (we will see).
In the meantime old (electron) electricity badly needs to feed & water its giant elephant (named Drifto)(see photo). Poor Drifto has been ignored since the electron was discovered in 1897. I should advise the RSPCA. He is chained, so that he can only move at 0.0001 m/s. Luckily for Drifto i will free him later in 2022, when the screw-thread X confirms my electon. To help remove the stench of old (electron) chains he will then want a new name. Why not Electon.

[aetherist]

In effect Veritasium believes in Heaviside's energy current, alltho i suspect that Veritasium duznt actually know much about Heaviside, Veritasium probably reckons that it is the Poynting field by another name.

Earlier on in this thread, I'm pretty sure that the main objection to the Vertiassium video was that only a single perspective was presented in the form of the Poynting theorem. Firstly, it's a pop-science video, it's not a research article, the aim was to present, to a very broad demographic (encompassing all from graphic designers to engineers), that there is more to the transfer of electrical power than the "electron-marble duality" (high-school physics teaching model). I think it served its job very well (just look at that viewer count).
I don't have a particular beef with Poynting's theorem, I deal mostly with separate electric and magnetic fields mostly, they explain the nuances of misbehaving circuits better to me than their cross product does. Just a side note there.

I wonder what a proof of electons hugging a wire would look like. At present we don’t have a proof that electrons orbit a nucleus. Or that electrons drift inside a wire. Or that electrons even exist.

Very true. I don't have any proof that there's an invisible leprechaun that lives in my butter dish which comes out and sings happy birthday to the cheese when he knows I cannot hear him... hang on, I just need to check something.

My previous use of the term "rational, indisputable and well-formed" was a little improper, it is a big ask of anything to be all those, rational alone would be acceptable.

I think u are being unfair to Veritasium. The more i look at his youtube the more i am impressed with how much work Derek has put into it. He genuinely relies on the words of a number of top scientists & engineers. In particular Prof Geraint Lewis. I found Geraint Lewis's original sketch for what later became the basis for the Veritasium Question.

As can be seen it was Geraint that proposed the much criticised 1/c. Much criticised because it should have said 1(m)/c(m/s) or somesuch. So Veritasium was not to blame, he simply followed his hero, Geraint.

And Veritasium got some criticism because he hot-wired his bulb to the negative, whereas an electrician might lose his licence for doing that sort of (non-safe) thing (meant to be humorous i suppose).
But once again, Veritasium was being faithful to his hero, Geraint.

And Geraint had no qualms about the bulb lighting up brightly at 1/c seconds, & staying bright for ever. Veritasium was once again simply believing his hero. Especially because Dr Olsen's equations supported there being a strong direct effect (albeit indirectly through the air).

We can infer that Geraint believed that the Poynting Vector would strongly act from the battery (or somewhere) across to the bulb (or bulb & wire). No crosstalk needed. But Geraint was wrong, the Poynting Vector is rubbish (here), the Poynting Vector only applies to wires.

It is crosstalk that must light the bulb, until the main current arrives in 1 second.
And, that crosstalk does not come from the battery, it comes from the wire near the switch.

[TimFox]

Removal of Demjanov paper (from above link):
"This article has been retracted at the request of the Editor.
Reason: The article was accepted before the review process was complete.
Further review has revealed that the theoretical and experimental claims made by the author cannot be supported and the article should not have been published."

[aetherist]

Removal of Demjanov paper (from above link):
"This article has been retracted at the request of the Editor.
Reason: The article was accepted before the review process was complete.
Further review has revealed that the theoretical and experimental claims made by the author cannot be supported and the article should not have been published."

Yes. The claims made by Demjanov cant be supported.
Why?
Because the Einsteinian Mafia gatekeepers say they cant be supported.

It is rare to see a Mafia journal publish a paper critical of Einstein.
Usually such a paper only slips throo if it adopts a clever title, & cloaks the heretical epistle with apparently Einstein-friendly jargon.
Often Einstein is wounded by friendly fire. The authors & editors & reviewers dont realise that their stuff falsifies STR & GTR.
But luckily in the modern www era there are lots of journals that will publish. And lots of self-published papers & websites.

What would Einstein say about Veritasium's gedanken, & how might he justify (d) ie 1/c ?
What would Einstein say about my Electons?

[penfold]

[...]
Forum members around here seem to be unaware that it is almost impossible to prove something, especially a subatomic something. But it is of course possible to disprove something. Anyhow, it is easy for me to say that there is no proof for electrons & photons, because there will always be good alternative theories that fit the facts. Many scientists don’t believe in electrons & photons. Or, putting it another way, if u designed a page full of yes/no questions re electrons (or photons), the chances are that no 2 scientists in the whole world would tick the same boxes exactly.
[...]

Have you read much of philosophy? I personally found John Stuart Mill's 'Inductive and Ratiocinative Logic' to have a nice treatment of what you're struggling with there, it's a rather old book but there's pdf's knocking around and some reprints over the last couple of decades. The general concept of "what is a name?" can be a bit of a mind-bend for some students, but ultimately may free your thinking a bit.

What you may be seeing as a complete disagreement between theories and interpretations may be more closely related to the role and attributes of the said particle in each theory rather than a disagreement in what 'it' actually is. If you were to ask immediate questions such as "is an electron a beach-ball?", "is an electron a singular irreducible fundamental particle?", "is an electron a particle composed of a combination of quarks?" etc... I could believe you'd get different answers. If you were to ask questions about what characteristics each person would use to detect "an electron", how they would discriminate between it and any other particle, and how these characteristics change with other factors (velocity, temperature etc)... maybe you'd start to see a little more convergence in answers... I'm almost interested enough to consider posing that questionnaire.

Say the results of the questionnaire come in and there's some disagrement, just for fun, we decide to take a subset of the characteristics which were most well agreed with... would those results agree with the drift model?

[aetherist]

[...]Forum members around here seem to be unaware that it is almost impossible to prove something, especially a subatomic something. But it is of course possible to disprove something. Anyhow, it is easy for me to say that there is no proof for electrons & photons, because there will always be good alternative theories that fit the facts. Many scientists don’t believe in electrons & photons. Or, putting it another way, if u designed a page full of yes/no questions re electrons (or photons), the chances are that no 2 scientists in the whole world would tick the same boxes exactly.[...]

Have you read much of philosophy? I personally found John Stuart Mill's 'Inductive and Ratiocinative Logic' to have a nice treatment of what you're struggling with there, it's a rather old book but there's pdf's knocking around and some reprints over the last couple of decades. The general concept of "what is a name?" can be a bit of a mind-bend for some students, but ultimately may free your thinking a bit.

What you may be seeing as a complete disagreement between theories and interpretations may be more closely related to the role and attributes of the said particle in each theory rather than a disagreement in what 'it' actually is. If you were to ask immediate questions such as "is an electron a beach-ball?", "is an electron a singular irreducible fundamental particle?", "is an electron a particle composed of a combination of quarks?" etc... I could believe you'd get different answers. If you were to ask questions about what characteristics each person would use to detect "an electron", how they would discriminate between it and any other particle, and how these characteristics change with other factors (velocity, temperature etc)... maybe you'd start to see a little more convergence in answers... I'm almost interested enough to consider posing that questionnaire.

Say the results of the questionnaire come in and there's some disagrement, just for fun, we decide to take a subset of the characteristics which were most well agreed with... would those results agree with the drift model?

Thanx for the ref to Mills. I will read it when i have more time.
I havent read any hard core philosophy theory. But i have followed lots of arguments (mainly re aether & Einstein) from both sides for lots of years (since 2011).

I have the utmost respect for words & terminology etc.
Re the drift model of old (electron) electricity, i would make a questionnaire dealing directly with drift.
A yes/no format would suffer restrictions. I see the need to add space for detailed explanations.
A yes answer to a particular box (re say aether) might lead to a whole new page dedicated to follow-up boxes, etc etc (eg – is aether contractile?).
Such a questionnaire for say Christians re the existence of God would of course reveal that there are more versions of God than there are Christians.
I might end up in a civil war with each of my aetherist mates.

But, i wonder whether any scientist has ever changed his opinion re Einsteinian stuff in the modern era based on well-put argument. Probably yes. Has any such scientist admitted that – probably not.

We see it here on this forum. No-one has come forward & said, yes, i had never thought very deeply re the impossibility of old (electron) electricity being able to explain how electricity propagates along a wire at nearly c/1. Or, i have never thought very deeply re how old (electron) electricity fails to explain how insulation slows electricity. Undoubtedly there are some who believe my new (electon) electricity – but they wont say.

[aetherist]

For those interested in a serious discussion of a topic that one person here finds "silly", here is a description of how special relativity and distance contraction gives the magnetic field due to a current in a conductor:
https://physics.weber.edu/schroeder/mrr/mrrtalk.html
I first encountered this analysis in E M Purcell's freshman textbook "Electricity and Magnetism", in the Berkeley Series of introductory physics texts.  It is hard to fathom that this textbook (subsidized by the NSF) could be purchased for less than $10 USD in 1967.   The author of the article cited above found Purcell's discussion a bit difficult for an elementary text, and attempts to elucidate it.
Einstein died when I was only five years old, but I did attend a lecturer by Purcell in the mid-1970s and found him to be very understandable.

Thanx for that link. I will have a read & i will comment as soon as i can. I guess that no-one else is going to.
A vet spotted a thylacine not far from my bush block last week, so i have one eye looking out my window & one eye on my computer screen. And i have my cell phone ready for a video. I get black tailed wallabies hanging around the house, & its amazing how when they duck down & keep a low profile a pair of them scuttling along in the bracken can look like a black panther, or i suppose a thylacine. Something big crashed into the cyclone (steel mesh) barrier on my veranda last nite, i use it to keep my dogs in, but i aint got no dogs no more, anyhow last nite i closed it across the veranda for the first time in years to keep big varmints out. I might have a look with a strong torch tonite. Probably a fox.

[rs20]

Totally plugging my own stuff here, but here's a post I wrote nearly 10 years ago on the topic of seeing magnetism as a consequence of electric field + relativity: https://www.rs20.net/w/2012/08/how-do-magnets-work-magnetism-electrostatics-relativity/

[aetherist]

Thanx to rs20 & TimFox re Einsteinian magnetism. I found some calcs that i did recently re Veritasium's youtube, so i well regurgitate that as per below.

I had a look at Veritasium's youtube footage re relativistic magnetic fields (see below). His numbers don’t work.
Derek says that the charges in a wire appear closer together due to length contraction due to Einstein's special relativity.
He says that the v/c of the electron drift velocity is typically 0.000 000 000 1% (which is 1 by 10^-12 of c).
Speed c is 3 by 10^11 mm/s – hence his electron drift velocity is 0.3 mm/s. However i think that 0.03 mm/s is more typical (but i will stick with his 0.3 mm/s).
Anyhow, the length contraction factor for 0.3 mm/s is (1-vv/cc)^0.5 (where v/c is 1 by 10^-12).
This equals i think…. (0.999 999 999 999 999 999 999 999)^0.5…. (which is 24 decimals ^0.5).
This equals i think….. 0.999 999 999 999 999 999 999 999 5……… (which is 25 decimals).
So, a 1 m length of wire (moving at 0.3 mm/s) contracts to 0.999 999 999 999 999 999 999 999 5 m.
So, the loss in length is  0.000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 5 m  (which is  5.0 by 10^-25 m).
I had previously calculated that there is 0.077 kg of free electrons in one cubic metre of copper.
Hence there is 7.7 by 10^-8  kg of free electrons in a wire of 1 mm2 if the wire is 1 m long.
One electron has a mass of 9.11 by 10^-31 kg.
Hence that  1 m of wire contains  8.5 by 10^22 free electrons.
Each 1.0 by 10^-25 m length of the wire contains 8.5 by 10^-3 electrons.
The lost length contains 5 times as much -- ie  4.25 by 10^-2 electrons – ie 0.0425 electrons – ie 1/23.5 electrons.
 
If so then the length contraction in 23.5 m of wire would involve just 1 whole solitary lonely electron.
I doubt that this weak relativistic length contraction effect would explain the magnetic field around the wire [ignoring for now that Einsteinian length contraction is baloney].
Or have i erred?
 
Another thing, Veritasium applies the length contraction gambit 2 times, thus doubling his effective charge – he uses it to give the "stationary" electrons a wider spacing – whilst at the same time giving the positively charged "drifting" nuclei a closer spacing – no, u can't do that.
 
 

How Special Relativity Makes Magnets Work
3,065,179 viewsSep 23, 2013 Veritasium 11.2M subscribers
MinutePhysics on permanent magnets: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hFAOXd...
Magnetism seems like a pretty magical phenomenon. Rocks that attract or repel each other at a distance - that's really cool - and electric current in a wire interacts in the same way. What's even more amazing is how it works. We normally think of special relativity as having little bearing on our lives because everything happens at such low speeds that relativistic effects are negligible. But when you consider the large number of charges in a wire and the strength of the electric interaction, you can see that electromagnets function thanks to the special relativistic effect of length contraction.
In a frame of reference moving with the charges, there is an electric field that creates a force on the charges.
But in the lab frame, there is no electric field so it must be a magnetic field creating the force.
Hence we see that a magnetic field is what an electric field becomes when an electrically charged object starts moving.
I was inspired to make this video by Prof. Eric Mazur http://mazur.harvard.edu/emdetails.php
Huge thank you to Ralph at the School of Physics, University of Sydney for helping us out with all this magnetic gear. Thanks also to geology for loaning the rocks. This video was filmed in the studio at the University of New South Wales - thanks to all the staff there for their time and support.
6,568 Comments

[aetherist]

Totally plugging my own stuff here, but here's a post I wrote nearly 10 years ago on the topic of seeing magnetism as a consequence of electric field + relativity: https://www.rs20.net/w/2012/08/how-do-magnets-work-magnetism-electrostatics-relativity/

I think that a major problem with relativistic magnetism around a wire is that if the wire had a dia of say 0.1 mm, then a length with 1 mm, then a length with 10 mm, the areas would have the ratio 1 to 100 to 10,000, in which case the drift speeds would be in that ratio (for the same amperage), in which case the length contractions would be in the ratios 100 to 10 to 1, in which case the electrostatic forces near each of the 3 lengths would be in thems ratios. While the conventional calc of the theoretical magnetic force demands the ratios 1 to 1 to 1.
I think i can smell another elephant.
Or have i erred?

[SandyCox]

That's cool.
What if an experiment were to give a result vastly closer to zero change in speed than the predicted slowdown due to surface hugging of the macroscopic threadform?

Would you consider a medium frequency (say 100MHz or 1 GHz) result for say the central conductor in a coax threaded vs 'smooth'?

Would you accept that increased loss is different from increased delay?
Not saying I have the intention or equipment, just wondering how you would handle a confounding result if it were to eventuate.

Similar for the painted antenna.

I reckon one strike & my new (electon) electricity is out. It has to tick every box.
Delays sound simple to me. If screw threads didn’t have a delay or a delay that was not 100% predictable then i would be forced to abandon electons & invoke my roo-tons, which are photons that hop along the surface.

Which reminds me, William Beaty at one time invoked a leapfrogging em field, that leaped out of a wire (where the speed of the em was only 10 m/s), into the insulation (where the speed was 2c/3), & landing back in the wire. Hence he might be happy with my roo-tons (but might prefer to call them frogtons). I could meet him halfway, hoptons.

Losses i don’t understand, sounds complicated.
Effect of frequency sounds complicated, over my head.
Co-axial cables might be over my head too.

Painting a rod would be interesting.
We could paint longi stripes, & see what happens (to the speed of electricity). Adding one at a time, until coverage is 100%.
We could paint transverse stripes, ie one at a time, until the coverage was 100%.
We could have very thin paint, eg less than 1000 nm thick, to find the critical thickness (where the enamel is no longer 100% effective).
Painting a threaded rod would be interesting. A double whammy of slowing.

But, getting back to coaxial cables. Tony Wakefield did an experiment using a coaxial cable as a capacitor. This discharged at a half of the predicted voltage (ie a half of the voltage predicted by old electricity) taking double the predicted time (ie double the time predicted by old electricity). But as we all know the half voltage & doubled time accords exactly with my new (electon) electricity, where a half of the electons (in a capacitor) are going each way at any one time (ie before the discharge switch is closed). I think he used 18 m of coax, a 9 V battery, a mercury reed switch, & a 350 MHz scope.
http://www.ivorcatt.co.uk/x37p.htm

Erik Margan repeated Wakefield's X.
http://www.ivorcatt.co.uk/x726.pdf

Is this the example where "old electricity" doesn't predict the discharge rate of the capacitor correctly?

[aetherist]

That's cool.
What if an experiment were to give a result vastly closer to zero change in speed than the predicted slowdown due to surface hugging of the macroscopic threadform?

Would you consider a medium frequency (say 100MHz or 1 GHz) result for say the central conductor in a coax threaded vs 'smooth'?

Would you accept that increased loss is different from increased delay?
Not saying I have the intention or equipment, just wondering how you would handle a confounding result if it were to eventuate.

Similar for the painted antenna.

I reckon one strike & my new (electon) electricity is out. It has to tick every box.
Delays sound simple to me. If screw threads didn’t have a delay or a delay that was not 100% predictable then i would be forced to abandon electons & invoke my roo-tons, which are photons that hop along the surface.

Which reminds me, William Beaty at one time invoked a leapfrogging em field, that leaped out of a wire (where the speed of the em was only 10 m/s), into the insulation (where the speed was 2c/3), & landing back in the wire. Hence he might be happy with my roo-tons (but might prefer to call them frogtons). I could meet him halfway, hoptons.

Losses i don’t understand, sounds complicated.
Effect of frequency sounds complicated, over my head.
Co-axial cables might be over my head too.

Painting a rod would be interesting.
We could paint longi stripes, & see what happens (to the speed of electricity). Adding one at a time, until coverage is 100%.
We could paint transverse stripes, ie one at a time, until the coverage was 100%.
We could have very thin paint, eg less than 1000 nm thick, to find the critical thickness (where the enamel is no longer 100% effective).
Painting a threaded rod would be interesting. A double whammy of slowing.

But, getting back to coaxial cables. Tony Wakefield did an experiment using a coaxial cable as a capacitor. This discharged at a half of the predicted voltage (ie a half of the voltage predicted by old electricity) taking double the predicted time (ie double the time predicted by old electricity). But as we all know the half voltage & doubled time accords exactly with my new (electon) electricity, where a half of the electons (in a capacitor) are going each way at any one time (ie before the discharge switch is closed). I think he used 18 m of coax, a 9 V battery, a mercury reed switch, & a 350 MHz scope.
http://www.ivorcatt.co.uk/x37p.htm

Erik Margan repeated Wakefield's X.
http://www.ivorcatt.co.uk/x726.pdf

Is this the example where "old electricity" doesn't predict the discharge rate of the capacitor correctly?

I think that old electricity say that discharge follows  a nice curve.
But new electricity says a step.

[SandyCox]

Will you please explain how "new electricity" leads to the conclusion that a capacitor discharging into a transmission line leads to a step-like voltage?

[adx]

That Demjanov paper was not retracted by Demjanov, it was removed by the Journal. Hence it was not retracted, & they lied. So, u are supporting censorship, & a lie. And cheering it on.

Yet I was able to download it, and read it, so not censored. They merely offer their apologies for letting it slip through, without which we would not be discussing it. The journal did aetheriests (or whatever they are called) a service, you complain about the taking away of a part of something given in error, where's the lie?

I see your rational core bubbling up and causing these confusing surface vacillations in your logic. You sought evidence, it's your choice and I am merely observing an evolution towards imaginative rationalism. I don't want or expect you to abandon your ideas, but that does not preclude your journey to evidence-based thinking you clearly seek. Far be it from me to judge, but bravo.

Leapfrogging electons were the first electons that i thought of in Dec 2021. Shortly after, i realized that simple hugging must be the answer, no hopping. If the screw-thread X does not show the extra delay due to the simple extra distance then that would falsify my electons. And i don’t see how roo-tons could come to the rescue. Roo-tons would fail just as Beaty's silly leapfrogging em radiation must fail to rescue old (electron) electricity from the elephant in the room.

Ok but leapfrogging is due to someone else you said. If the "X" fails to support your electon theory then on one-strike rules you will be forced to invoke your roo-tons, you said. Why? If roo-tons would also likely fail as you now claim then that is effectively a prehumous admission of failure for your revised theory. You set up a false dilemma, by denying any possibility to revise your theory, by speculatively revising your theory into a form that would also fail. But that doesn't prevent you from seizing an opportunity. You have previously used the device which I expect you would again invoke upon failure of the experiment (which your rational core might have determined is quite likely): "I don’t agree that roo-tons explain this null result. But perhaps they could. Blah blah de blah ...". You have actively sought out this situation which has doomed you to fail then come to your own transparently ridiculous rescue, yet you chose a forum where you know you can get called up on this issue after all these years. Welcome.

Forum members around here seem to be unaware that it is almost impossible to prove something, especially a subatomic something. But it is of course possible to disprove something. Anyhow, it is easy for me to say that there is no proof for electrons & photons, because there will always be good alternative theories that fit the facts. Many scientists don’t believe in electrons & photons. Or, putting it another way, if u designed a page full of yes/no questions re electrons (or photons), the chances are that no 2 scientists in the whole world would tick the same boxes exactly.

It is impossible to disprove anything. It is merely a quicker path to the same false certainty one gets from 'proof' through absence of evidence - tipping the balance of probability quicker. There is no certainty, only belief. A composite of conscious hope and subconscious fear. Any belief I have in electrons and photons is therefore optional. I am not against alternative theories. Your comment about the quiz is probably true.

Forum members seem to be unaware that Einstein contradicted Einstein. His ideas changed right up to his death. Einstein would disagree with much of modern (supposedly Einsteinian) science. And modern science disagrees with much of Einstein.
Einstein would be thrilled by my electons.

That may all be true, or at least not wildly untrue. But I was thrilled by your roo-tons. Does any of this particularly matter?

We have facts & we have hot air.  I came here & i have tried to point the way to replace hot air with facts.

And it's working. Refer to your rational core.

Can any members here use old electricity to explain the traces for the AlphaPhoenix X pt1 & (later) pt2?

Once again, this explanation is in this thread way back - the answer is yes. The Maxwell simulation (or even all of them) replicates the features seen in the measurement I think better than expected given the problems with 'X' technique. The only thing I found 'interesting' is the "subtle lift", in both. I didn't quite go to town on the scope screenshot to the degree you have, but I did pore over it for a time not to treat it as some kind of smorgasbord of  Dunning-Krugeresque intrigue but because I use scopes and know what to look for. You are ignoring the fact pointed out in one of my first replies to you that the result of the measurement matches the Maxwellian simulator's output, confirming the theory for that particular case, which is what you question, resulting in the answer "yes" which is a simple word with a stable meaning and unlikely to be confusing unlike this unnecessarily long sentence which you have no problem understanding. Ask your rational core, it asked the question.

When someone does the screw-thread X, will old (electron) electricity explain that?

Yes.

But you already suspect it might - that's why you are here and asking the question.

My new (electon) electricity might explain (we will see).

It won't. You will sidestep it as described above, which you know full well because you have it planned.

But that's not the point. Nor are your reasons for being here, really.

Given that it is impossible to disprove anything, what if despite all your pushing and tests which (say) leave your theory in tatters, it turns out to be correct in large part ~100 years from now? We just didn't test it right. All this would undoubtedly have happened, leaving a mark on history weirder than Tesla's, but how could it in any way affect the validity of a theory years from now?

[TimFox]

An example of the physical reality of the Fitzgerald contraction is in the details of "undulators" in producing synchrotron radiation.
http://photon-science.desy.de/research/studentsteaching/primers/synchrotron_radiation/index_eng.html
There was a young fencer named Fisk
Whose speed was exceedingly brisk.
So fast was his action
That the Fitzgerald contraction
Reduced his rapier to a disk.
(Assuming, of course, that the thrust of the rapier was along its long direction.)

[adx]

If interested in the physical nature of electrons, a few weeks back (something to do with this thread) I saw a "photo" (it says) in the following article of chemical bonds:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chemical_bond
also
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electron_cloud_densitometry

I thought it unusual to be referred to in this way, an actual photo or direct image of the electron cloud, but that is what it is, and times are such that this is possible. I thought I had browsed the entire web such is the strength of my procrastinatory force, but looks like I'll have to start again. It can wait till tomorrow.

[eugene]

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

Rudenite is especially photogenic.