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

[aetherist]

...There is no such thing as a gravity wave.
Gravity propagates at at least 20 billion c ...

Uh? What does it propagate as then?
Negative reality wave? Leprechaun kinesin?

There is no such thing as a GW.
It is a tension of the aether. Aether transmits such tension tween mass/matter at at least 20 billion c m/s. But it serves little purpose to call that tension a wave. The tension radiates continuously from each/every photon, to infinity, for ever. No, hold on, it radiates to the limit of our local cosmic cell, & throo other adjacent cells, but eventually fizzles out. However our universe is indeed infinite & eternal.
Re my mention of photons, everything in the universe that we see & feel is made of photons, or is a part of each photon (ie the em radiation, so called)(which radiates from each photon).
There are 4 classes of photon. Free photons (light), semi-confined photons (electons), confined photons (electron etc).
The 4th kind is neutrinos, which are paired photons sharing the same helical axis.

[SandyCox]

According to Wikipedia:

Some cranks claim vast knowledge of any relevant literature, while others claim that familiarity with previous work is entirely unnecessary.

In addition, the overwhelming majority of cranks:

seriously misunderstand the mainstream opinion to which they believe that they are objecting,
stress that they have been working out their ideas for many decades, and claim that this fact alone shows that their belief cannot be dismissed as resting upon some simple error,
compare themselves with luminaries in their chosen field (often Galileo Galilei, Nicolaus Copernicus, Leonhard Euler, Isaac Newton, Albert Einstein or Georg Cantor),[citation needed] implying that the mere unpopularity of some belief is not good reason for it to be dismissed,
claim that their ideas are being suppressed, typically backed up by conspiracy theories invoking intelligence organizations, mainstream science, powerful business interests, or other groups which, they allege, are terrified by the possibility of their revolutionary insights becoming widely known,
appear to regard themselves as persons of unique historical importance.
Cranks who contradict some mainstream opinion in some highly technical field, (e.g. mathematics, cryptography, physics) may:

exhibit a marked lack of technical ability,
misunderstand or not use standard notation and terminology,
ignore fine distinctions which are essential to correctly understand mainstream belief.
That is, cranks tend to ignore any previous insights which have been proven by experience to facilitate discussion and analysis of the topic of their cranky claims; indeed, they often assert that these innovations obscure rather than clarify the situation.[6]

[aetherist]

According to Wikipedia:

Some cranks claim vast knowledge of any relevant literature, while others claim that familiarity with previous work is entirely unnecessary.

In addition, the overwhelming majority of cranks:

seriously misunderstand the mainstream opinion to which they believe that they are objecting,
stress that they have been working out their ideas for many decades, and claim that this fact alone shows that their belief cannot be dismissed as resting upon some simple error,
compare themselves with luminaries in their chosen field (often Galileo Galilei, Nicolaus Copernicus, Leonhard Euler, Isaac Newton, Albert Einstein or Georg Cantor),[citation needed] implying that the mere unpopularity of some belief is not good reason for it to be dismissed,
claim that their ideas are being suppressed, typically backed up by conspiracy theories invoking intelligence organizations, mainstream science, powerful business interests, or other groups which, they allege, are terrified by the possibility of their revolutionary insights becoming widely known,
appear to regard themselves as persons of unique historical importance.
Cranks who contradict some mainstream opinion in some highly technical field, (e.g. mathematics, cryptography, physics) may:

exhibit a marked lack of technical ability,
misunderstand or not use standard notation and terminology,
ignore fine distinctions which are essential to correctly understand mainstream belief.
That is, cranks tend to ignore any previous insights which have been proven by experience to facilitate discussion and analysis of the topic of their cranky claims; indeed, they often assert that these innovations obscure rather than clarify the situation.[6]

Name 10 controversial scientific topics & i will make u look like a kindergarten kid in every one of them.

[penfold]

[...]

And you're confident that there's no classical EM explanation for what's contained in those scope traces?

The old (electron drift inside a wire) electricity can't explain how electricity is so fast along a wire.
And the Poynting Field version can't explain how electricity is slowed by a thin coat of insulation on a wire.
[...]

Except classical theory does both of those things, as long as they are adequately represented in the analysis. You may very often see that in student exercises and lecture examples that wires are assumed to be free of insulation - otherwise, the amount of algebra would balloon way beyond what might be useful as a worked example. That level of analysis was way beyond the scope of the Veritassium video etc.

Surface finish would be a problem for all materials, I guess maybe you're right in trying to force a defined pattern.
If I were to construct a 1m long coaxial line from M3 brass studding and 15mm copper plumbing pipe: the tube polished inside and out as too would be the threads. If I short one end to the tube and drive the other, I can measure the frequency response. Classical theory would predict some highs and lows to the impedance at well defined frequencies, related to the geometry etc, packing the air-gap with a known insulator would change the response in a predictable way.
For a simple air-gapped line, would you expect there to be a significant change in the resonant frequencies compared with classical predictions?

[daqq]

If there are no gravity waves, what did LIGO and the other gravitational wave observatories observe and why did it travel seemingly at c?

[aetherist]

[...]

And you're confident that there's no classical EM explanation for what's contained in those scope traces?

The old (electron drift inside a wire) electricity can't explain how electricity is so fast along a wire.
And the Poynting Field version can't explain how electricity is slowed by a thin coat of insulation on a wire.[...]

Except classical theory does both of those things, as long as they are adequately represented in the analysis. You may very often see that in student exercises and lecture examples that wires are assumed to be free of insulation - otherwise, the amount of algebra would balloon way beyond what might be useful as a worked example. That level of analysis was way beyond the scope of the Veritassium video etc.

Surface finish would be a problem for all materials, I guess maybe you're right in trying to force a defined pattern.
If I were to construct a 1m long coaxial line from M3 brass studding and 15mm copper plumbing pipe: the tube polished inside and out as too would be the threads. If I short one end to the tube and drive the other, I can measure the frequency response. Classical theory would predict some highs and lows to the impedance at well defined frequencies, related to the geometry etc, packing the air-gap with a known insulator would change the response in a predictable way.
For a simple air-gapped line, would you expect there to be a significant change in the resonant frequencies compared with classical predictions?

Threaded steel rod costs about $1 per ft so $100 for 100 ft. Galvanised might be best. And compare with plain galvanised (another $100 i suppose).
I dont know about frequency stuff. DC would be a must.
Hollow pipe or tube would be interesting but i would put it on the bottom of my list.
I am tempted to fork out say $400 for a 300 MHz scope from china.
I bet Tony Wakefield would loan me his 350 MHz scope but he is over 2 hrs away from me.

[daqq]

I am tempted to fork out say $400 for a 300 MHz scope from china.

Ebay, local forum buy/sell ( https://www.eevblog.com/forum/buysellwanted/ )?

[penfold]

[...]
Dont forget light propagates at c throo the aether.
Actually Einstein said that light is slowed by the presence of mass. Which everyone ignores. So, light always propagates at less than c, koz there is nowhere in the universe that is not near mass.
[...]

When did Einstein say that? Experimental evidence has shown that speed of light is constant with relative distance to massive objects, but time and space dilation happens.

[aetherist]

If there are no gravity waves, what did LIGO and the other gravitational wave observatories observe and why did it travel seemingly at c?

I have spent a long time reading about LIGO. Lots of good scientists have written heaps saying that it is rubbish. One thing that LIGO keeps quiet is that their signal depends on the supposed fact that their glass lasers resist length contraction, whereas their mirrors, or i mean the distance tween their hanging mirrors, duznt resist contraction.

Its funny. Weber the pioneer of GW research, who used an aluminium bar for his detector, based his theory on the supposed fact that his bar would not resist length contraction. He wanted a Nobel, but didn’t get one. LIGO, who use an opposite theory, did get a Nobel.

[penfold]

Threaded steel rod costs about $1 per ft so $100 for 100 ft. Galvanised might be best. And compare with plain galvanised (another $100 i suppose).
I dont know about frequency stuff. DC would be a must.
Hollow pipe or tube would be interesting but i would put it on the bottom of my list.
I am tempted to fork out say $400 for a 300 MHz scope from china.
I bet Tony Wakefield would loan me his 350 MHz scope but he is over 2 hrs away from me.

Making the experiment co-axial would reduce the influence of external 'stuff', equipment wires etc, and provides a well defined ground return path through the outer tube (could go up to 54mm diameter if 15mm is too close) - even better if you can inject and measure signals through the same port. Brass isn't ferro-magnetic and has better defined electrical properties than construction steel, a galv'd finish would be a nightmare for any easily predictable surface finish. A 1m length is far easier to make straight (without insulator supports) by adding a little tension... 100' would be very difficult to set up in a repeatable manner. With a threaded rod forming the middle conductor of a coaxial line we then have an experiment that would be easily analysed from both a classical and 'new' theory.

[aetherist]

Threaded steel rod costs about $1 per ft so $100 for 100 ft. Galvanised might be best. And compare with plain galvanised (another $100 i suppose).
I dont know about frequency stuff. DC would be a must.
Hollow pipe or tube would be interesting but i would put it on the bottom of my list.
I am tempted to fork out say $400 for a 300 MHz scope from china.
I bet Tony Wakefield would loan me his 350 MHz scope but he is over 2 hrs away from me.

Making the experiment co-axial would reduce the influence of external 'stuff', equipment wires etc, and provides a well defined ground return path through the outer tube (could go up to 54mm diameter if 15mm is too close) - even better if you can inject and measure signals through the same port. Brass isn't ferro-magnetic and has better defined electrical properties than construction steel, a galv'd finish would be a nightmare for any easily predictable surface finish. A 1m length is far easier to make straight (without insulator supports) by adding a little tension... 100' would be very difficult to set up in a repeatable manner. With a threaded rod forming the middle conductor of a coaxial line we then have an experiment that would be easily analysed from both a classical and 'new' theory.

I would have thort that a dozen 8ft threaded steel rods simply  connected end to end in the form of a circle to get back within probe distance at the scope  would do.
Then same thing with plain rod. Both would be galvanised. The roughness of the gal would be the same on both.
If one had a fast scope one could use just one length of threaded rod. Then it would be good to gradually grind away the thread & see how much dispersion happens. Until there is no thread & no dispersion.

[aetherist]

[...]Dont forget light propagates at c throo the aether.
Actually Einstein said that light is slowed by the presence of mass. Which everyone ignores. So, light always propagates at less than c, koz there is nowhere in the universe that is not near mass.[...]

When did Einstein say that? Experimental evidence has shown that speed of light is constant with relative distance to massive objects, but time and space dilation happens.

I had a look at my english version of some of his papers but couldnt find the paragraph.
There are plenty of paragraphs where he talks of that slowing effect of mass causing bending near the Sun, but i dont mean thems.
I mean a paragraph where he points out that his GTR contradicts STR, & he admits that his STR is not science.
But of course talking about Einstein is almost impossible. Contradictions left right & center. Light duznt slow, time goes faster. Light duznt slow, the measuring rods get  shorter. Light duznt slow, & light duznt bend, it is spacetime that  bends, etc etc etc. Idiots.
I will keep an eye out for that paragraph.

[adx]

...There is no such thing as a gravity wave.
Gravity propagates at at least 20 billion c ...

Uh? What does it propagate as then?
Negative reality wave? Leprechaun kinesin?

There is no such thing as a GW.
It is a tension of the aether. Aether transmits such tension tween mass/matter at at least 20 billion c m/s. But it serves little purpose to call that tension a wave. The tension radiates continuously from each/every photon, to infinity, for ever. No, hold on, it radiates to the limit of our local cosmic cell, & throo other adjacent cells, but eventually fizzles out. However our universe is indeed infinite & eternal.
Re my mention of photons, everything in the universe that we see & feel is made of photons, or is a part of each photon (ie the em radiation, so called)(which radiates from each photon).
There are 4 classes of photon. Free photons (light), semi-confined photons (electons), confined photons (electron etc).
The 4th kind is neutrinos, which are paired photons sharing the same helical axis.

Psychological tension, as in a kind of nervousness? I don't get it. What slows this radiation down to a known speed? Or is it particles, travelling at this 20E9*3E8 m^2/s^2? That seems to be incompatible with the idea of an aether under constant tension.

[aetherist]

...There is no such thing as a gravity wave.
Gravity propagates at at least 20 billion c ...

Uh? What does it propagate as then?
Negative reality wave? Leprechaun kinesin?

There is no such thing as a GW.
It is a tension of the aether. Aether transmits such tension tween mass/matter at at least 20 billion c m/s. But it serves little purpose to call that tension a wave. The tension radiates continuously from each/every photon, to infinity, for ever. No, hold on, it radiates to the limit of our local cosmic cell, & throo other adjacent cells, but eventually fizzles out. However our universe is indeed infinite & eternal.
Re my mention of photons, everything in the universe that we see & feel is made of photons, or is a part of each photon (ie the em radiation, so called)(which radiates from each photon).
There are 4 classes of photon. Free photons (light), semi-confined photons (electons), confined photons (electron etc).
The 4th kind is neutrinos, which are paired photons sharing the same helical axis.

Psychological tension, as in a kind of nervousness? I don't get it. What slows this radiation down to a known speed? Or is it particles, travelling at this 20E9*3E8 m^2/s^2? That seems to be incompatible with the idea of an aether under constant tension.

The speed of gravity is at least 20 billion c. There is no known upper speed, ie no reason for one -- what we have is a fairly logical lower speed, based i think mainly on the stability of planetary etc orbits.
Aether has no mass, but what it does is it transfers force tween stuff that has mass, eg stars. Which in effect supports Mach's idea that gravity is due to the mass of the universe.
I am happy to talk about gravity, & aether, koz the aetherwind will be found to have an influence in lots of things that happen in a laboratory, including electricity.

[penfold]

[...]
I would have thort that a dozen 8ft threaded steel rods simply  connected end to end in the form of a circle to get back within probe distance at the scope  would do.
Then same thing with plain rod. Both would be galvanised. The roughness of the gal would be the same on both.
If one had a fast scope one could use just one length of threaded rod. Then it would be good to gradually grind away the thread & see how much dispersion happens. Until there is no thread & no dispersion.

Having the receive and transmit ends of the rod would allow the fields from one to couple with the other, the (much shorter than circumference of the circle) length of the scope leads would also add a means of direct coupling between transmit and receive end. So, perhaps you take measures to limit their effect, but why intentionally construct an experiment knowing full well that the effect you intend to measure will be swamped by similar effects of a different mechanism? Why not remove the effects by design?

Galvanised finish is not a well controlled process, the surface is very "complex", maybe over 100 feet it will average out to a 'mean' effect, but that would be relying on a linear effect - it won't be linear. Gradually grinding away the thread (assuming you're not re-galvanising each time)... same problem, it isn't a very controlled process, affecting lots of things at once.

How would you control the effects of 'ground' with your circular experiment? Would there be something continuous and metalic beneath?

[aetherist]

[...]
I would have thort that a dozen 8ft threaded steel rods simply  connected end to end in the form of a circle to get back within probe distance at the scope  would do.
Then same thing with plain rod. Both would be galvanised. The roughness of the gal would be the same on both.
If one had a fast scope one could use just one length of threaded rod. Then it would be good to gradually grind away the thread & see how much dispersion happens. Until there is no thread & no dispersion.

Having the receive and transmit ends of the rod would allow the fields from one to couple with the other, the (much shorter than circumference of the circle) length of the scope leads would also add a means of direct coupling between transmit and receive end. So, perhaps you take measures to limit their effect, but why intentionally construct an experiment knowing full well that the effect you intend to measure will be swamped by similar effects of a different mechanism? Why not remove the effects by design?

Galvanised finish is not a well controlled process, the surface is very "complex", maybe over 100 feet it will average out to a 'mean' effect, but that would be relying on a linear effect - it won't be linear. Gradually grinding away the thread (assuming you're not re-galvanising each time)... same problem, it isn't a very controlled process, affecting lots of things at once.

How would you control the effects of 'ground' with your circular experiment? Would there be something continuous and metalic beneath?

I suppose that the rods would need to be suspended or supported somehow so no shorts.
And well away from ground.
But, electricity is primarily due to electons that propagate at the speed of light. And induction happens at the speed of light. But as long as there was a clear signal that can be timed, any noise & crosstalk & coupling & radio would are unlikely to be a problem (unless u are like alphaphoenix & have a heavy steel frame under your table top experiment) .
Like adx says, dont worry too much, just do it.

[SandyCox]

Since the electon is a "surface hugging photon" it will follow the thread of rod. This thread forms a spiral. So the finer the thread, the longer the electon will take.

[penfold]

I suppose that the rods would need to be suspended or supported somehow so no shorts.
And well away from ground.
But, electricity is primarily due to electons that propagate at the speed of light. And induction happens at the speed of light. But as long as there was a clear signal that can be timed, any noise & crosstalk & coupling & radio would are unlikely to be a problem (unless u are like alphaphoenix & have a heavy steel frame under your table top experiment) .
Like adx says, dont worry too much, just do it.

Except if you're looking at 'dispersion', you're not simply looking for a simple signal arrival time. If the signal were made up of many photons taking many paths, the result would be a spread, you would need to study much more than a time delay and would need to resolve a fair amount of detail.

So... another test, if I had an air-gap between a conductor and insulator, your electrons would still be able to travel as if unaffeted by the insulation... because there's an air-gap? What about if I had a wire with bands of insulation spaced periodically along its length, I could form bunches of electricity because it travels much faster in the uninsulated sections and get congested in the insulated?

[HuronKing]

[...]
Dont forget light propagates at c throo the aether.
Actually Einstein said that light is slowed by the presence of mass. Which everyone ignores. So, light always propagates at less than c, koz there is nowhere in the universe that is not near mass.
[...]

When did Einstein say that? Experimental evidence has shown that speed of light is constant with relative distance to massive objects, but time and space dilation happens.

Aetherist has to focus on Einstein because
1) it's a hallmark of crackpots to attack Einstein (see previous articles on this) and use his evolving opinions to highlight some kind of contradiction or hypocrisy (as if Einstein didn't learn new things between 1905 and 1916 or even 1950...)
2) it makes relativity seem like the mad ravings of a crackpot like themselves. "If Einstein could be wrong, I could be right!!!"

It is a deliberative attempt to ignore the contributions of the whole scientific community to devising, refining, and perfecting relativity.

Let's not forget that Einstein wrote that in 1905, relativity was "ripe for discovery" (if he didn't find it, someone else was going to) and the following individuals contributed to the formulation (list not even exhaustive):

Max Planck
Hermann Minkowski
Arnold Sommerfeld
Max Born
Paul Ehrenfest
Wilhelm Wien
Wolfgang Pauli
Pascual Jordan
Paul Dirac

The last one is important because the Dirac equation, a relativistic formulation of quantum mechanics, predicted antimatter.

And of course, the whole body of physics that's been done since the 1950s which has predicted a whole host of phenomena implemented into engineering technology.

I wonder if aetherist will start talking about phlogiston, Lamarckianism, and miasma.

[aetherist]

Since the electon is a "surface hugging photon" it will follow the thread of rod. This thread forms a spiral. So the finer the thread, the longer the electon will take.

I think that electons propagate in straight lines.
Except that they are negative, hence can be influenced  (mainly by other electons fighting for a share of the surface area.
I doubt that there is much randomness in their direction (except very very early on).
Hence i doubt that they would prefer to follow a thread.
And i suspect that all whitworth threads increase the lineal distance by the same proportion no matter how coarse or fine.

[aetherist]

I suppose that the rods would need to be suspended or supported somehow so no shorts. And well away from ground. But, electricity is primarily due to electons that propagate at the speed of light. And induction happens at the speed of light. But as long as there was a clear signal that can be timed, any noise & crosstalk & coupling & radio would are unlikely to be a problem (unless u are like alphaphoenix & have a heavy steel frame under your table top experiment) . Like adx says, dont worry too much, just do it.

Except if you're looking at 'dispersion', you're not simply looking for a simple signal arrival time. If the signal were made up of many photons taking many paths, the result would be a spread, you would need to study much more than a time delay and would need to resolve a fair amount of detail.
So... another test, if I had an air-gap between a conductor and insulator, your electrons would still be able to travel as if unaffected by the insulation... because there's an air-gap? What about if I had a wire with bands of insulation spaced periodically along its length, I could form bunches of electricity because it travels much faster in the uninsulated sections and get congested in the insulated?

If the bands were across then there would not be much dispersion.
If the bands were longi then there might be lots of dispersion depending on % of insulated versus bare i suppose.
I think that a thinnish say 10 mm threaded bar would have less dispersion than a 12 mm.
One problem with speed is that all metals have corrosion which must slow the electons (i mean the oxide, not the roughness). But if the threaded bar & plain bar are the same material then that might not be a big worry.
Anyhow, i reckon that there will be a consistent strong direct signal, & the crosstalk noise will be weak & non-consistent, ie it will change every time u change the geometry of the circuit (which is made of say 12 rods each 8 ft long)(perched high up on tomato stakes).
We had better start learning to speak a little Swedish.

[aetherist]

[...]Dont forget light propagates at c throo the aether.
Actually Einstein said that light is slowed by the presence of mass. Which everyone ignores. So, light always propagates at less than c, koz there is nowhere in the universe that is not near mass.[...]

When did Einstein say that? Experimental evidence has shown that speed of light is constant with relative distance to massive objects, but time and space dilation happens.

Aetherist has to focus on Einstein because
1) it's a hallmark of crackpots to attack Einstein (see previous articles on this) and use his evolving opinions to highlight some kind of contradiction or hypocrisy (as if Einstein didn't learn new things between 1905 and 1916 or even 1950...)
2) it makes relativity seem like the mad ravings of a crackpot like themselves. "If Einstein could be wrong, I could be right!!!"
It is a deliberative attempt to ignore the contributions of the whole scientific community to devising, refining, and perfecting relativity.
Let's not forget that Einstein wrote that in 1905, relativity was "ripe for discovery" (if he didn't find it, someone else was going to) and the following individuals contributed to the formulation (list not even exhaustive):
Max Planck
Hermann Minkowski
Arnold Sommerfeld
Max Born
Paul Ehrenfest
Wilhelm Wien
Wolfgang Pauli
Pascual Jordan
Paul Dirac

The last one is important because the Dirac equation, a relativistic formulation of quantum mechanics, predicted antimatter.
And of course, the whole body of physics that's been done since the 1950s which has predicted a whole host of phenomena implemented into engineering technology.
I wonder if aetherist will start talking about phlogiston, Lamarckianism, and miasma.

Experimental evidence shows that light has a constant speed through the aether.
And, light has a speed of c+V or c-V depending on whether the aetherwind is a headwind or a tailwind
It is nearly impossible to have a conversation about Einsteinian Relativity because Einsteinists can't agree amongst themselves about anything about Einsteinian Relativity.
I have read about Einsteinian stuff for 11 years. U can't tell me anything i don’t already know about relativities.
I can tell that u don’t know much about Mr & Mrs Einstein.
I can tell that u don’t know much about the relativities of Voigt & Cohn & Larmor & Lorentz & Poincare, & Einstein.
And all of them are rubbish. Larmor's ticking dilation of atoms is okish. Lorentz's (FitzGerald's actually) length contraction is on the right track, but wrong.
Heaviside had a bit to do with relativity. His friend Searle might be called the father of length contraction actually.

U reckon that Einstein had evolving opinions. But did he ever retract anything about his 1905 STR – no.
He did make lots of corrections to his papers over the months & years, when his mistakes were pointed out.
His STR & GTR are sheer nonsense. Impossible. Belief in them has to be a form of madness.
His followers have dumped much of what he said, but they still say that this or that proves Einstein was correct. Piffle.

[HuronKing]

Experimental evidence shows that light has a constant speed through the aether.
And, light has a speed of c+V or c-V depending on whether the aetherwind is a headwind or a tailwind
It is nearly impossible to have a conversation about Einsteinian Relativity because Einsteinists can't agree amongst themselves about anything about Einsteinian Relativity.
I have read about Einsteinian stuff for 11 years. U can't tell me anything i don’t already know about relativities.
I can tell that u don’t know much about Mr & Mrs Einstein.
I can tell that u don’t know much about the relativities of Voigt & Cohn & Larmor & Lorentz & Poincare, & Einstein.
And all of them are rubbish. Larmor's ticking dilation of atoms is okish. Lorentz's (FitzGerald's actually) length contraction is on the right track, but wrong.
Heaviside had a bit to do with relativity. His friend Searle might be called the father of length contraction actually.

See. Your stuck in the 1920s, at best.

Dirac predicted antimatter from relativistic theory. Can you?
Feynman predicted the fine structure constant from relativistic QED. Can you?

Physics has moved on from Einstein - but you need him to be wrong, so you can be right... even though physics is well beyond whatever Einstein thought. That's why I listed all the people who came AFTER him to refine the theory up to Dirac's Equation (and even Dirac himself got left behind when QED got published).

Who gives a shit about Einstein? Truly? He died in 1955. QED was published in 1948 and awarded the Nobel Prize in 1965.

And at some point we'll stop giving a shit about QED as QCD or whatever more fundamental theory takes hold.

The people who accelerate particles close to the speed of light at Fermilab and CERN have no use for c+v or c-v formulations and they never report observing them.

You should send them a strongly worded letter. 

[penfold]

[...]
One problem with speed is that all metals have corrosion which must slow the electons (i mean the oxide, not the roughness). But if the threaded bar & plain bar are the same material then that might not be a big worry.
[...]

Not all metals corrode at the same rate so some may even remain mostly oxide free for the duration of a test, a reasonably well controlled layer of oxide could even be incrimentally grown onto a test rod. Differrent oxides would have different properties, iron oxide is renowned for making things go slowly, so obviously thats the first candidate. Green copper oxide is a pretty fast colour, though not as fast as chrome oxide. Nickel is a wildcard.

Finally, I think I'm understanding this theory.

[aetherist]

Experimental evidence shows that light has a constant speed through the aether.
And, light has a speed of c+V or c-V depending on whether the aetherwind is a headwind or a tailwind
It is nearly impossible to have a conversation about Einsteinian Relativity because Einsteinists can't agree amongst themselves about anything about Einsteinian Relativity.
I have read about Einsteinian stuff for 11 years. U can't tell me anything i don’t already know about relativities.
I can tell that u don’t know much about Mr & Mrs Einstein.
I can tell that u don’t know much about the relativities of Voigt & Cohn & Larmor & Lorentz & Poincare, & Einstein.
And all of them are rubbish. Larmor's ticking dilation of atoms is okish. Lorentz's (FitzGerald's actually) length contraction is on the right track, but wrong.
Heaviside had a bit to do with relativity. His friend Searle might be called the father of length contraction actually.

See. Your stuck in the 1920s, at best.

Dirac predicted antimatter from relativistic theory. Can you?
Feynman predicted the fine structure constant from relativistic QED. Can you?

Physics has moved on from Einstein - but you need him to be wrong, so you can be right... even though physics is well beyond whatever Einstein thought. That's why I listed all the people who came AFTER him to refine the theory up to Dirac's Equation (and even Dirac himself got left behind when QED got published).

Who gives a shit about Einstein? Truly? He died in 1955. QED was published in 1948 and awarded the Nobel Prize in 1965.

And at some point we'll stop giving a shit about QED as QCD or whatever more fundamental theory takes hold.

The people who accelerate particles close to the speed of light at Fermilab and CERN have no use for c+v or c-v formulations and they never report observing them.

You should send them a strongly worded letter. 

Yes i steer clear from any quantum stuff. Hence i dont understand it. However i think that it uses aether. I am ok with models that give good numbers. But i cant argue re Q stuff. Does it use any kind of relativity? Does it use E=mcc?

Dirac predicted/discovered antimatter. I discovered electons, & i explained electricity in/on a wire.

But Einsteinian stuff in the modern super accurate era, & computer era, is failing.
I am not sure how aetherwind might affect CERN. If they did observe aetherwind they would of course never report it. They would invent some kind of excuse. In fact they are so clever that they would have no trouble finding a way to use that excuse  to once again prove Einstein. Why defend when u can attack. Oh, wait, i forgot, they could score 3 home runs with the one hit, they could throw in a Nobel nomination. Whether they were awarded the Nobel would be another matter, i mean there are so many faux-discoveries out there, its like having umpteen gangs trying to rob the same bank on the same day.

STR is krapp -- & GTR is mostly krapp.
We are presently in the Einsteinian Dark Age of science -- but the times they are a-changin'.
The aether will return -- it never left.