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

[penfold]

This thread has gone so far south that it fell off the border of flat earth.

Physicists sometimes mention pure energy.  What is pure energy?
[...]

OK, one last try.

Like all of the invisible scales of the world, pure energy is a philosophical concept. Pure energy has properties and attributes, but the difficulty in its concept is that it is defined by an absense of all the properties that separate any more specific form of energy from oneanother, and retains only those that make it 'energy'.

The word 'particle' can be quite misleading since it connotes certain properties by association with 'dust particles' etc. Rather than "an electron is...", think "an electron has properties of...". Theories such as QM, QED etc serve to complete the sentense "an electron behaves...". Disagreement between theories does not necesarily invalidate them, not unless they directly contradict oneanother in a specific situation.

The consequence of saying that an electron itself has sub-particles is a trickier subject. It is really just short-hand for "predicted by the standard model are a number of further elementary building blocks which satisfy a number of rules, from those rules a number of experiments have been defined and the results of experiments have confirmed the attributes and the defined model according to which they can interract" - it is just much fewer words to say "an electron is".

Now, space-time! Its existance is undenyable... it just is... it is a mathematical construct much like a coordinate system, it exists only on paper. The way in which numbers and calculations on paper relate to nature/reality/etc is a bit more of a touchy subject. It can appear that when modelling physical phenomina in 'n' dimensions that there is a direct implication that there are indeed 'n' physical dimemsnsions - maybe there are, maybe not, but neither is mandated by the algebra. The structure of the algebra, metric signature etc define how it relates to reality... that is still not concretely defined in a universal single throery and that lack of definition does open it to wild speculation. LIGO for instance, success or failure in detecting gravity waves is a moot point, there are important conclusions to be drawn from either case. There are no conspiracies in any of the big experiments, but there is a difference between the scientific and "press release" motives behind experiments.

[aetherist]

This thread has gone so far south that it fell off the border of flat earth.

Physicists sometimes mention pure energy.  What is pure energy?[...]

OK, one last try.

Like all of the invisible scales of the world, pure energy is a philosophical concept. Pure energy has properties and attributes, but the difficulty in its concept is that it is defined by an absense of all the properties that separate any more specific form of energy from oneanother, and retains only those that make it 'energy'.

The word 'particle' can be quite misleading since it connotes certain properties by association with 'dust particles' etc. Rather than "an electron is...", think "an electron has properties of...". Theories such as QM, QED etc serve to complete the sentense "an electron behaves...". Disagreement between theories does not necesarily invalidate them, not unless they directly contradict oneanother in a specific situation.

The consequence of saying that an electron itself has sub-particles is a trickier subject. It is really just short-hand for "predicted by the standard model are a number of further elementary building blocks which satisfy a number of rules, from those rules a number of experiments have been defined and the results of experiments have confirmed the attributes and the defined model according to which they can interract" - it is just much fewer words to say "an electron is".

Now, space-time! Its existance is undenyable... it just is... it is a mathematical construct much like a coordinate system, it exists only on paper. The way in which numbers and calculations on paper relate to nature/reality/etc is a bit more of a touchy subject. It can appear that when modelling physical phenomina in 'n' dimensions that there is a direct implication that there are indeed 'n' physical dimemsnsions - maybe there are, maybe not, but neither is mandated by the algebra. The structure of the algebra, metric signature etc define how it relates to reality... that is still not concretely defined in a universal single throery and that lack of definition does open it to wild speculation. LIGO for instance, success or failure in detecting gravity waves is a moot point, there are important conclusions to be drawn from either case. There are no conspiracies in any of the big experiments, but there is a difference between the scientific and "press release" motives behind experiments.

Spacetime, time dilation, STR & GTR, the bigbang, dark matter, gravity waves, gravity waves that propagated at the speed of light, cosmic microwave background radiation, constant speed of light, pure energy, E=mcc, singularity blackholes, dark energy, expansion of the universe, Higgs, gluons, gravitons etc -- all are rubbish.

I am fairly sure that Einstein did not believe in spacetime.

Spacetime might exist on paper, but that existence is flawed. If it gave good numbers then its existence on paper, as a model, would be ok, but, it aint a good model, & it duznt exist in reality. Length contraction does exist of course, but here again the Einsteinian version is wrong, or it is based on wrong reasoning (relative velocity)(complete krapp). The FitzGerald version  might be ok. Anyhow, the time in spacetime is wrong, & the length contraction in the space part is wrong, & 2 wrongs don’t make a right.

Ticking dilation does exist, & it is explained by my own version of relativity, ticking dilation is based mainly on length contraction. In a sense all of this affects electricity, especially the measurement of electricity, hence it is not wildly off topic re the Veritasium gedanken.

[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.

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.

Oh ok, there is no known speed, because it is empirical. My bad. Possibly arose because of the original assertion that gravity propagates at a speed, and the assumption of a theory.

Yes Mach's principle. Tricky.

[SandyCox]

[...]
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.

Seriously, there are Nobels waiting here. A 2 page paper getting a Nobel. We would share the money. And SandyCox would be happy to nominate us.

That's never going to happen. Your theory is nonsense! It's garbage! Let it go and do something meaningful with your time!

Your theory is the definition of nonsense. It is one billion units of nonsense!

[penfold]

[...]
Spacetime, time dilation, STR & GTR, the bigbang, dark matter, gravity waves, gravity waves that propagated at the speed of light, cosmic microwave background radiation, constant speed of light, pure energy, E=mcc, singularity blackholes, dark energy, expansion of the universe, Higgs, gluons, gravitons etc -- all are rubbish.
[...]

Except... you're wrong. All of those maters you listed have experimental evidence and they all have an axiomatic basis. They have all stood up to peer review and indipendent validation. That is quite litterally the definition of "not rubbish".

Your theory of electrons doesn't have any basis beyond your belief, absolutely zero experimental evidence, it cannot form predictions and it self contradicts. At least with those fringe-physics theories that break causality there is an amusing arithmatic blunder to find: but what you present here is just sad and it is quite literally the definition of "rubbish".

[adx]

Trying to catch up but there is no future search function - perhaps one could be added. It doesn't make sense that in the future it will work, whereas right at the moment I can't access the info easily. It's missing half. For example the stuff about Leonard Szilard (sic). No, it's being suppressed by the gatekeepers of SQL to omit the query as an intentional design decision. I guess I'll have to do it the old fashioned way. Hardly an ideal solution though, dream internet is patchy at best and there is always the risk that the computer might turn into a field of carrots.

[adx]

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.

Aha, the ole (yet novel) solid core delay line. A nice close clearance to the shield conductor for some confirmation which might be inconvenient for those who wish to conspire for a null result. Such as me. I am prepared to close my mind to new theories if I can find a way of nullifying them through experiment. Which is the opposite of what I'm saying here.

It's very hard to have a 1-person conspiracy theory though. I'd have to split into a minimum of 3 people; 2 to conspire and 1 to be incensed.

[TimFox]

The fundamental experimental evidence for the equivalence of rest mass and energy commonly written in an equation (without hand waving) E = mc² can be found in comparing the masses of the nuclei before and after a fission reaction, where the difference goes into the energy release.  The measurements are not off by a factor of 2. 
see  https://www.dummies.com/article/academics-the-arts/science/physics/nuclear-fission-basics-200956
Careful measurements of atomic mass predate experimental fission.  See "History" section of
https://www.newworldencyclopedia.org/entry/Atomic_mass

I am not allergic to E=mcc. I am allergic to the Einstein derivation.
But if tests lean towards E=mcc rather than E=mcc/2 then i am happy with that. There is a slight chance of having a circular argument on both sides of the equation, but i can accept that that can be ruled out with good tests. But the Einstein derivation is a circular argument, as shown by Ives.

The real problem is of course that no-one knows what E=mcc really means. Einstein changed his mind on this as the years went by, as of course u will be aware. But skoolkids are still taught that mass increases with speed.

If you are going to disagree with a standard equation, you should quote it correctly instead of attacking a straw man.
In special relativity, the equation for the energy of a mass in motion is

E = (m_oc²) / [1 - (v²/c²)]^1/2

When the velocity is 0, this reduces to the famous E = m_oc² .
The rest mass m_o is the mass of the object at rest, and is invariant.
At low velocity, v << c, freshman mathematics shows that the equation is a close approximation to

E = (m_oc²) + (m_ov²/2)

where the first term is the mass-energy and the second term is the classical (non-relativistic) kinetic energy.

[adx]

...
Aether theory says that relative velocity can be almost 2c (ie we can go at almost 1c in opposite directions). Aetherists say that the energy of a grain of sand is E=mVV/2. And, V can be almost 2c. So, E can be 2mcc. Which would have a smallish finite value (not a nearly infinite value).
A 2.1 mm grain of sand weighing 13 mg, with a relative speed of 2c, would have a KE of 2.34*10^12 J.
This is equivalent to 1 kg moving at c/139. Earth is safe(ish), at least today. Thanx to aetherists (no thanx to CERN).

It is equivalent to 28 atomic bombs (ea being 20,000 tonnes of TNT).

Aether theory is strange. And you never stop to question it with a critical mind? I thought the 2c claim at least showed you're thinking about something original(ish), but sounds like you're just slurping from the cup of your particular school of thought's convention to me.

1/ What limits the grain's energy to this hard limit as theorised? It can be pushed up to the speed of light (or twice), then all attempts to push it fail - it can exert no more force in that the opposite direction. It can simply travel no faster and no force (like, say, a photon) can travel fast enough to push it, an attempt to push it sideways would have to slow it down in the direction of travel. You seem to have no problem mulling over it getting almost to 2c, so approaching this limit appears to be no problem.

2/ How does the particle know it is travelling above 1c relative to some other object? Your grain of sand is travelling at 2c towards the Earth, on the assumption the Earth could be travelling at 1c towards it. You have given the KE of the grain of sand.

[aetherist]

The fundamental experimental evidence for the equivalence of rest mass and energy commonly written in an equation (without hand waving) E = mc² can be found in comparing the masses of the nuclei before and after a fission reaction, where the difference goes into the energy release.  The measurements are not off by a factor of 2. 
see  https://www.dummies.com/article/academics-the-arts/science/physics/nuclear-fission-basics-200956
Careful measurements of atomic mass predate experimental fission.  See "History" section of
https://www.newworldencyclopedia.org/entry/Atomic_mass

I am not allergic to E=mcc. I am allergic to the Einstein derivation.
But if tests lean towards E=mcc rather than E=mcc/2 then i am happy with that. There is a slight chance of having a circular argument on both sides of the equation, but i can accept that that can be ruled out with good tests. But the Einstein derivation is a circular argument, as shown by Ives. The real problem is of course that no-one knows what E=mcc really means. Einstein changed his mind on this as the years went by, as of course u will be aware. But skoolkids are still taught that mass increases with speed.

If you are going to disagree with a standard equation, you should quote it correctly instead of attacking a straw man.
In special relativity, the equation for the energy of a mass in motion is
E = (m_oc²) / [1 - (v²/c²)]^1/2
When the velocity is 0, this reduces to the famous E = m_oc² .
The rest mass m_o is the mass of the object at rest, and is invariant.
At low velocity, v << c, freshman mathematics shows that the equation is a close approximation to
E = (m_oc²) + (m_ov²/2)
where the first term is the mass-energy and the second term is the classical (non-relativistic) kinetic energy.

Dividing mcc by gamma is equivalent to (smells like) invoking mass increase. Its also equivalent to other things.
Aetheric relativity (my version at least) also uses gamma in strange ways.

I said that aetheric relativity says that   E=mVV/2.  And that V  has a possible limit of  2c. That is correct, in the absolute aetheric reference frame. This means that an observer (Stan) who is stationary in the aether (ie the aetherwind blowing through him is zero km/s) could use that equation. But, Roxanne, on the rocket, looking out of a window, might feel/see a different speed, & she might need a different equation.

Roxanne's route has (static) km markers, & she counts  260,000 in 1.0 second, so she reckons that her V is 260,000 km/s (ie 0.8660c).  And she calculates that her  E is  mVV/2.  But, she is using her on-board atomic clock, & the aetherwind blowing through her rocket & clock is 0.8660c.  We assume that the ticking of an atomic clock is slowed due to the length contraction that it suffers as the aetherwind increases, & that the slowing is in accordance with the standard Lorentz gamma, which for ticking is actually the Larmor gamma (Larmor was the first to invent the equation)(which he based on an electron's atomic orbit), where the V is the aetherwind. So, her clock ticks slower than Stan's atomic clock. Gamma is (1 – VV/cc)^0.5,  which is (1-0.8660*0.8660)^0.5, which is (1-3/4)^0.5, which is (1/4)^0.5, which is ½. So, her true speed was not 260,000 km/s, it was  130,000 km/s. This is the speed that Stan would have measured, ie the true speed (ie the absolute speed)(ie in the absolute reference frame). So, her naïve calculation of her E would in this instance overestimate her E (kinetic energy) by a factor of  4. But, Roxanne is not naïve, & she would correct her V' to true V.

In addition to the aetherwind suffered by Roxanne's rocket, Roxanne knows that the aetherwind blows into the very large planet where she is carrying out her tests, koz aether is annihilated in mass. Aetherists assume that the aetherwind inflow is equal to the escape velocity for the planet, which for this very large planet happens to be 260,000 km/s. Earth's escape velocity is 11.2 km/s (not important). Stan knows that the inflow aetherwind slows the ticking of his clock, & he knows that his clock ticks at a half of the true ticking, & he knows that Roxanne's speed was actually  65,000 km/s. Earlier i said that the aetherwind blowing through Stan was zero km/s, but i lied so as not to complicate things for u fellows too early.

Now, Roxanne too knows that there is an inflow aetherwind. Her clock has an aetherwind of 260,000 km/s due to her speed  V, & an aetherwind of 260,000 km/s due to the inflow v. So, her aetherwind is the vector sum which is  368,000 km/s, & so the gamma for her atomic clock should be based on that V.  Unfortunately for Roxanne  368,000 km/s is faster than c, & aetherists know that a particle can't achieve the speed of light (relative to the aether)(ie sort of in agreement with Einsteinist's here). So, i should have picked a slower (non-impossible) speed for Roxanne's rocket in the first instance. But i wont bother to go back & fix things, everyone here gets the drift.  The point is that the true ticking of her atomic clock will depend on her true aetherwind. And, she knows all of that, & she knows that she needs the 2 corrections.

But, there's more. There needs to be a 3rd correction.  Einstein's GTR predicted that light is slowed near mass. And that the slowing is equivalent to having a gamma where u insert the escape velocity (say v") for the V in the  VV/cc in the equation for gamma, in which case gamma contains  v"v"/cc.  Aetherists assume that this slowing of light also applies to the slowing of em forces acting in & tween atoms, & that it affects electron orbit, & that it slows the ticking of atomic clocks.  Aetherists also assume that Einstein's equation for his gamma here has the correct form, even though Einstein used faulty reasoning for the derivation. Aetherists are happy to call this the Einstein's atomic ticking gamma. Stan knows that Shapiro confirmed Einstein's slowing of light near mass idea, now called Shapiro Delay. And Stan knows that all of this accords with the Larmor gamma for atomic ticking (alltho Larmor based his gamma on the aetherwind, not the nearness of mass). So, Stan knows that his atomic clock has to have an initial correction, using 260,000 km/s in the Einstein's (atomic ticking) gamma. So, Stan's clock's true ticking is double the actual ticking. One second on Stan's clock  is actually 2 seconds of true time. True time being the rate of his clock when not near mass & when the aetherwind is zero km/s.  The first correction for an atomic clock is (should be) the correction for the nearness of mass, & this has nothing to do with aetherwind, & it has nothing to do with gravity, it is due to the nearness of mass (i wont explain the cause of this stuff today). Earlier i said that this was a 3rd correction, in fact it should be the first correction, after which we can add the corrections (2 ovem) for the aetherwind. 

So, Stan's calculation for Roxanne's speed tells him that she is moving at  32,500 km/s. Stan used 2 corrections, one for the nearness of mass, & one for the aetherwind inflow into the planet.  Funnily enuff both corrections are identical (in this instance)(but not in some other instances that could come up)(which i could explain)(but not today), so we can simply apply the gamma twice. We can't take the shortcut of adding the escape velocity to the escape velocity & using the equation once. That duznt work. In fact that would not be a shortcut anyhow, the proper procedure is simpler anyhow. 

Roxanne had to use the same 2 corrections that Stan used, but her correction for her aetherwind was complicated koz she had to allow for her speed (Stan's speed is zero km/s), in effect a 3rd correction for her.

Einsteinists don’t correct for any of these proper corrections.  They in effect correct very crudely for Roxanne's speed by using her relative velocity relative to Stan, & if Stan is indeed static in the aether then this can in some cases give a result similar to the true number.  The Einsteinian numbers are however starting to be seen to fail, in the modern super accurate era of science, & aetheric relativity is now needed, or soon will be.

Anyhow, i apologise for attacking a strawman.

[aetherist]

... Aether theory says that relative velocity can be almost 2c (ie we can go at almost 1c in opposite directions). Aetherists say that the energy of a grain of sand is E=mVV/2. And, V can be almost 2c. So, E can be 2mcc. Which would have a smallish finite value (not a nearly infinite value).
A 2.1 mm grain of sand weighing 13 mg, with a relative speed of 2c, would have a KE of 2.34*10^12 J.
This is equivalent to 1 kg moving at c/139. Earth is safe(ish), at least today. Thanx to aetherists (no thanx to CERN).

It is equivalent to 28 atomic bombs (ea being 20,000 tonnes of TNT).

Aether theory is strange. And you never stop to question it with a critical mind? I thought the 2c claim at least showed you're thinking about something original(ish), but sounds like you're just slurping from the cup of your particular school of thought's convention to me.

I keep referring to aether theory & aetherists, but actually i usually use my own version of aether theory, ie my own version of neoLorentz Relativity. My version is far more advanced, ie closer to the truth.

1/ What limits the grain's energy to this hard limit as theorised? It can be pushed up to the speed of light (or twice), then all attempts to push it fail - it can exert no more force in that direction. It can simply travel no faster and no force (like, say, a photon) can travel fast enough to push it, an attempt to push it sideways would have to slow it down in the direction of travel. You seem to have no problem mulling over it getting almost to 2c, so approaching this limit appears to be no problem.

The grain can't go as fast as light in/through the aether. But if another identical grain is going at almost c in the opposite direction then their relative speed is almost 2c. And the kinetic energy of the collision would be mcc/2  plus  mcc/2 which is  mcc. This is in a static observer's frame. But from any one grain's point of view the closing speed is 2c, hence the kinetic energy of the other grain will be m2c2c/2 which is 2mcc.
No, i am wrong, koz the 2 grains would say smash & the remnants would have the same momentum in a grain's original frame. So the KE of the other grain is 2mcc, but that will not be released in the collision koz the other grain will looz only a half of its speed in the collision. I think that my analysis might have been ok when the target was Earth, but not when the target is another grain. I will have to have more of a think.

2/ How does the particle know it is travelling above 1c relative to some other object? Your grain of sand is travelling at 2c towards the Earth, on the assumption the Earth could be travelling at 1c towards it. You have given the KE of the grain of sand.

The grain's speed (almost +c ) is measured by a static observer,  & so is the Earth's speed (almost -c). The observer is static in the aether, ie the aether speed/wind is zero km/s.  She sees the relative speed tween Earth & grain to be almost 2c.

The grain of sand will have a lot of trouble knowing what its true (absolute) speed is, & re knowing what the Earth's speed is, & re knowing what their relative speed is. That problem is a separate problem. The grain of sand can measure its own speed & Earth's speed etc, if the grain is given enough information & suitable rods & clocks. But that is a separate & very complicated problem. I might come back & explain later. I will see. See my other previous reply.

[bsfeechannel]

This thread has gone so far south that it fell off the border of flat earth.

The EEVBlog forum is becoming fast the harbor of pseudo-scientific ideas. First it was the "KVL always hold", sponsored by the king of pseudo-science, prince of half-assed engineering and enemy of physicists, Mehdi Sadaghdar. Then we had the in-the-wire-energy-flow and now the "aether".

Oh, well...

[aetherist]

[...]Spacetime, time dilation, STR & GTR, the bigbang, dark matter, gravity waves, gravity waves that propagated at the speed of light, cosmic microwave background radiation, constant speed of light, pure energy, E=mcc, singularity blackholes, dark energy, expansion of the universe, Higgs, gluons, gravitons etc -- all are rubbish.[...]

Except... you're wrong. All of those matters you listed have experimental evidence and they all have an axiomatic basis. They have all stood up to peer review and independent validation. That is quite literally the definition of "not rubbish".

Your theory of electrons doesn't have any basis beyond your belief, absolutely zero experimental evidence, it cannot form predictions and it self contradicts. At least with those fringe-physics theories that break causality there is an amusing arithmetic blunder to find: but what you present here is just sad and it is quite literally the definition of "rubbish".

I mention all of that stuff & Einstein's stuff here koz basically all of it is based on there being no aether& no aetherwind. And aetherwind affects electricity. For example the answer to the Veritasium gedanken might be (e ) none of the above. Koz depending on the direction of the aetherwind blowing through his circuit his supposed correct answer (d) which is 1/c, becomes  1/(c+V) for a tailwind blowing from the switch to the bulb, to 1/(c-V) for a headwind.

If the aetherwind blowing through Earth is 500 km/s, which is c/600, then Veritasium's delay could be 1/(599c/600) or it could be 1/(601c/600). A difference of say -1/600 or +1/600, which is say a span of 1/300.
Hence the delay of 3,333 ps for Veristasium's em radiation crossing his say 1000 mm can be 16 ps less or 16 ps more.
In which case the delay could be 3,317 ps or 3,350 ps.

[adx]

...
If the aetherwind blowing through Earth is 500 km/s, which is c/600, then Veritasium's delay could be 1/(599c/600) or it could be 1/(601c/600). A difference of say -1/600 or +1/600, which is say a span of 1/300.
Hence the delay of 3,333 ps for Veristasium's em radiation crossing his say 1000 mm can be 16 ps less or 16 ps more.
In which case the delay could be 3,317 ps or 3,350 ps.

That's not impossible to measure. If you could arrange a reflection+timer apparatus to rotate into and out of the wind, then say for wind from N to S:

• apparatus N-S delay = 1/(599/600)+1/(601/600) = 2.000005556
• apparatus E-W delay = 1/(600/600)+1/(600/600) = 2
• apparatus S-N delay = 1/(601/600)+1/(599/600) = 2.000005556
• apparatus W-E delay = 1/(600/600)+1/(600/600) = 2

Didn't they do this? Even a low-tech timer with a repeatability of 1ppm would show this up?

[HuronKing]

That's not impossible to measure. If you could arrange a reflection+timer apparatus to rotate into and out of the wind, then say for wind from N to S:

• apparatus N-S delay = 1/(599/600)+1/(601/600) = 2.000005556
• apparatus E-W delay = 1/(600/600)+1/(600/600) = 2
• apparatus S-N delay = 1/(601/600)+1/(599/600) = 2.000005556
• apparatus W-E delay = 1/(600/600)+1/(600/600) = 2

Didn't they do this? Even a low-tech timer with a repeatability of 1ppm would show this up?

They have. Experimentalists since the 1880s tried desperately and with insanely sensitive equipment to try to find this aetherwind... and nada.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michelson%E2%80%93Morley_experiment

[penfold]

[...]
Didn't they do this? Even a low-tech timer with a repeatability of 1ppm would show this up?

I guess there'll always be a way the theory can be changed to call all experiments invalid.

Just thinking out loud, but I suppose there could be a way to justify a delay of zero seconds in th bulb lighting - an observer stood on the bulb side would see a very small difference in time between the light arriving from the switch (indicating closure) and the energy arriving at the bulb. The person closing the switch would have to wait for 2*(1/c) seconds to find out.

[aetherist]

...If the aetherwind blowing through Earth is 500 km/s, which is c/600, then Veritasium's delay could be 1/(599c/600) or it could be 1/(601c/600). A difference of say -1/600 or +1/600, which is say a span of 1/300.
Hence the delay of 3,333 ps for Veristasium's em radiation crossing his say 1000 mm can be 16 ps less or 16 ps more.
In which case the delay could be 3,317 ps or 3,350 ps.

That's not impossible to measure. If you could arrange a reflection+timer apparatus to rotate into and out of the wind, then say for wind from N to S:

• apparatus N-S delay = 1/(599/600)+1/(601/600) = 2.000005556
• apparatus E-W delay = 1/(600/600)+1/(600/600) = 2
• apparatus S-N delay = 1/(601/600)+1/(599/600) = 2.000005556
• apparatus W-E delay = 1/(600/600)+1/(600/600) = 2

Didn't they do this? Even a low-tech timer with a repeatability of 1ppm would show this up?

Lots of measurements of the aetherwind were done in the oldendays & in the modern era using free photons (light). And at least two experiments have been done in the modern era using electricity, ie using my electons (semi-confined photons). 

The 1-way measurement of the speed of light is supposedly impossible according to Einsteinists. That’s another tell-tale sign of an Einsteinist, they keep chanting – it is impossible to measure the 1-way speed of light – they even chant this in their sleep. However, i think that the 1-way speed of light has been successfully measured at least two times, & each shows that the 1-way speed of light varies depending on direction (ie due to the aetherwind), which once again, for the umpteenth time, falsifies STR.

Roland DeWitte did it in 1991, using two 1500 m long coaxial cables (in effect he had two 1-way experiments in one), using electric (RF) signals, ie using my electons. But he needed or at least used a set of 3 atomic clocks at each of two ends.
https://arxiv.org/pdf/physics/0608205v1.pdf
The Roland De Witte 1991 Detection of Absolute Motion and Gravitational Waves Reginald T. Cahill

The first one-way coaxial cable speed-of-propagation experiment was performed at the Utah University in 1981 by Torr and Kolen [8]. This involved two rubidium vapor clocks placed approximately 500m apart with a 5 MHz sinewave RF signal propagating between the clocks via a buried nitrogen filled coaxial cable maintained at a constant pressure of ∼2 psi.
http://mountainman.com.au/process_physics/hps13.pdf

[aetherist]

That's not impossible to measure. If you could arrange a reflection+timer apparatus to rotate into and out of the wind, then say for wind from N to S:

• apparatus N-S delay = 1/(599/600)+1/(601/600) = 2.000005556
• apparatus E-W delay = 1/(600/600)+1/(600/600) = 2
• apparatus S-N delay = 1/(601/600)+1/(599/600) = 2.000005556
• apparatus W-E delay = 1/(600/600)+1/(600/600) = 2

Didn't they do this? Even a low-tech timer with a repeatability of 1ppm would show this up?

They have. Experimentalists since the 1880s tried desperately and with insanely sensitive equipment to try to find this aetherwind... and nada.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michelson%E2%80%93Morley_experiment

Prof Reg Cahill disagrees.
http://mountainman.com.au/process_physics/hps13.pdf

[penfold]

That's not impossible to measure. If you could arrange a reflection+timer apparatus to rotate into and out of the wind, then say for wind from N to S:

• apparatus N-S delay = 1/(599/600)+1/(601/600) = 2.000005556
• apparatus E-W delay = 1/(600/600)+1/(600/600) = 2
• apparatus S-N delay = 1/(601/600)+1/(599/600) = 2.000005556
• apparatus W-E delay = 1/(600/600)+1/(600/600) = 2

Didn't they do this? Even a low-tech timer with a repeatability of 1ppm would show this up?

They have. Experimentalists since the 1880s tried desperately and with insanely sensitive equipment to try to find this aetherwind... and nada.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michelson%E2%80%93Morley_experiment

Prof Reg Cahill disagrees.
http://mountainman.com.au/process_physics/hps13.pdf

Science does not progress on the opinions of one person (or even the opinions of many). Science relies on rational conclusions drawn from well designed experiments. If multiple parties could verify any single experiment in a manner that suggests an 'aether' with consistant properties there'd be no discussion... aether would exist. At present, nobody can do that, experiments disagree and there is even an outright avoidance to repeating experiments consistanty: therefore aether does not exist with the properties you describe.

I'd guess you could latch on to the emerging possibility of an aether that explains some quantum entanglement studies... but that isn't the same aether you describe. So, specifically, your aether does not exist.

So, again, yes, some theories turn out to be wrong, some can neither be proven nor disproven and some are correct. Maybe we have it all wrong and maybe the foundations of human reasoning are wrong - but science is not what you think it is. Philosophy and maths begin with a set of axioms, rules and theorems from which aparently more complex topics are derived - science can be viewed as the study of how those apply to 'nature'. You can harbour whatever thoughts and opinions you like, as can any person, and you can believe them to be true, but on what grounds should any person to whom you tell them consider believing them?

Without any strong, peer reviewed and consistant experimental data, I personally couldn't accept your theory. I have, however, seen good data that correlates well with special relativity, on what grounds should I reject one over the other there?

[aetherist]

That's not impossible to measure. If you could arrange a reflection+timer apparatus to rotate into and out of the wind, then say for wind from N to S:

• apparatus N-S delay = 1/(599/600)+1/(601/600) = 2.000005556
• apparatus E-W delay = 1/(600/600)+1/(600/600) = 2
• apparatus S-N delay = 1/(601/600)+1/(599/600) = 2.000005556
• apparatus W-E delay = 1/(600/600)+1/(600/600) = 2

Didn't they do this? Even a low-tech timer with a repeatability of 1ppm would show this up?

They have. Experimentalists since the 1880s tried desperately and with insanely sensitive equipment to try to find this aetherwind... and nada.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michelson%E2%80%93Morley_experiment

Prof Reg Cahill disagrees.
http://mountainman.com.au/process_physics/hps13.pdf

Science does not progress on the opinions of one person (or even the opinions of many). Science relies on rational conclusions drawn from well designed experiments. If multiple parties could verify any single experiment in a manner that suggests an 'aether' with consistant properties there'd be no discussion... aether would exist. At present, nobody can do that, experiments disagree and there is even an outright avoidance to repeating experiments consistanty: therefore aether does not exist with the properties you describe.

I'd guess you could latch on to the emerging possibility of an aether that explains some quantum entanglement studies... but that isn't the same aether you describe. So, specifically, your aether does not exist.

So, again, yes, some theories turn out to be wrong, some can neither be proven nor disproven and some are correct. Maybe we have it all wrong and maybe the foundations of human reasoning are wrong - but science is not what you think it is. Philosophy and maths begin with a set of axioms, rules and theorems from which aparently more complex topics are derived - science can be viewed as the study of how those apply to 'nature'. You can harbour whatever thoughts and opinions you like, as can any person, and you can believe them to be true, but on what grounds should any person to whom you tell them consider believing them?

Without any strong, peer reviewed and consistant experimental data, I personally couldn't accept your theory. I have, however, seen good data that correlates well with special relativity, on what grounds should I reject one over the other there?

Science advances one funeral at a time.
Aether has been proven. STR has been disproven.
None of Einstein's stuff has ever been peer reviewed, at least not at the time of publishing.

[SandyCox]

You weren't able to spot the blatantly obvious mistake in Catt's paper. I assume that you are also unable to identify the mistakes in all these "papers".

When can we expect equations that describe "new electric"?

[adx]

That's not impossible to measure. If you could arrange a reflection+timer apparatus to rotate into and out of the wind, then say for wind from N to S:

• apparatus N-S delay = 1/(599/600)+1/(601/600) = 2.000005556
• apparatus E-W delay = 1/(600/600)+1/(600/600) = 2
• apparatus S-N delay = 1/(601/600)+1/(599/600) = 2.000005556
• apparatus W-E delay = 1/(600/600)+1/(600/600) = 2

Didn't they do this? Even a low-tech timer with a repeatability of 1ppm would show this up?

They have. Experimentalists since the 1880s tried desperately and with insanely sensitive equipment to try to find this aetherwind... and nada.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michelson%E2%80%93Morley_experiment

Prof Reg Cahill disagrees.
http://mountainman.com.au/process_physics/hps13.pdf

And there's my problem. Without commenting too much on the truth or intentions, coming at it from both sides are attempts to confirm a particular set of beliefs though canon and a chain of trust.

I'm not saying either is wrong or that there is anything unreasonable about the approach, and in the past I have whiled away time I probably should have spent on something more productive, reading about the Michelson–Morley experiment and pondering on the theoretical practicalities of moving and synchronising clocks. But that's not what I asked.

I posed an experimental test which should be able to confirm or deny a theory asserted as fact, in a straightforward manner without having to overly worry about experimental design and falsifiability etc. It's a bit like using a pre-validated sky colour tester to answer whether the sky is blue. It comes up black, and you know what is probably going on (never with complete certainty), but you can be fairly certain the sky isn't blue. My test is not far off a restatement of the claim, without additional baggage, or needing to worry about the precise vagaries of aether theories old and new. It's technically easy, not dungeon-size, fast, and although the expected 2-way slowdown disappears much quicker than the claimed difference in aether speed, timing is immensely good these days and can delve into the (non)existence of aetherwinds much slower than claimed (which is a pretty adamant claim, and doesn't permit things like length contraction in the time calculation).

If it fails to detect the effect claimed, then we start delving into whether the clocks and distances might change in accordance with some other theory which would produce a null 2-way slowdown. But then we're into shaky territory where we can expect the situation to collapse into farce once more, like it did with the Michelson–Morley experiment, for the same reasons it did, and for that theory to be indistinguishable from Einstein's relativistic aether. Which is not to prove it, but it will do your cause no good, if that should transpire. It doesn't do you any harm, it just says Mr and Mrs Einstein get to keep their original, non-3D-printed medal, because they got there first.

So I suggest we don't go there, and only answer what is easy to do on a bench top with 7 digit frequency counter and some bearings.

But I suggest we don't go there aither (oops understandable typo) because this is the sort of thing engineers do all day and don't see a thing. So in the end I'm just asking some questions, really around that point.

[aetherist]

You weren't able to spot the blatantly obvious mistake in Catt's paper. I assume that you are also unable to identify the mistakes in all these "papers".

When can we expect equations that describe "new electric"?

Which mistake. I think u mean Cahill's paper. What mistakes in the other papers.
I have read all of them & i dont remember any mistakes, but it was a long time ago.

Equations have given us Higgs gluons gravitons etc. These only exist in mathland.
Electons are not mathland.

[aetherist]

That's not impossible to measure. If you could arrange a reflection+timer apparatus to rotate into and out of the wind, then say for wind from N to S:

• apparatus N-S delay = 1/(599/600)+1/(601/600) = 2.000005556
• apparatus E-W delay = 1/(600/600)+1/(600/600) = 2
• apparatus S-N delay = 1/(601/600)+1/(599/600) = 2.000005556
• apparatus W-E delay = 1/(600/600)+1/(600/600) = 2

Didn't they do this? Even a low-tech timer with a repeatability of 1ppm would show this up?

They have. Experimentalists since the 1880s tried desperately and with insanely sensitive equipment to try to find this aetherwind... and nada.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michelson%E2%80%93Morley_experiment

Prof Reg Cahill disagrees.
http://mountainman.com.au/process_physics/hps13.pdf

And there's my problem. Without commenting too much on the truth or intentions, coming at it from both sides are attempts to confirm a particular set of beliefs though canon and a chain of trust.

I'm not saying either is wrong or that there is anything unreasonable about the approach, and in the past I have whiled away time I probably should have spent on something more productive, reading about the Michelson–Morley experiment and pondering on the theoretical practicalities of moving and synchronising clocks. But that's not what I asked.

I posed an experimental test which should be able to confirm or deny a theory asserted as fact, in a straightforward manner without having to overly worry about experimental design and falsifiability etc. It's a bit like using a pre-validated sky colour tester to answer whether the sky is blue. It comes up black, and you know what is probably going on (never with complete certainty), but you can be fairly certain the sky isn't blue. My test is not far off a restatement of the claim, without additional baggage, or needing to worry about the precise vagaries of aether theories old and new. It's technically easy, not dungeon-size, fast, and although the expected 2-way slowdown disappears much quicker than the claimed difference in aether speed, timing is immensely good these days and can delve into the (non)existence of aetherwinds much slower than claimed (which is a pretty adamant claim, and doesn't permit things like length contraction in the time calculation).

If it fails to detect the effect claimed, then we start delving into whether the clocks and distances might change in accordance with some other theory which would produce a null 2-way slowdown. But then we're into shaky territory where we can expect the situation to collapse into farce once more, like it did with the Michelson–Morley experiment, for the same reasons it did, and for that theory to be indistinguishable from Einstein's relativistic aether. Which is not to prove it, but it will do your cause no good, if that should transpire. It doesn't do you any harm, it just says Mr and Mrs Einstein get to keep their original, non-3D-printed medal, because they got there first.

So I suggest we don't go there, and only answer what is easy to do on a bench top with 7 digit frequency counter and some bearings.

But I suggest we don't go there aither (oops understandable typo) because this is the sort of thing engineers do all day and don't see a thing. So in the end I'm just asking some questions, really around that point.

I think we have been talking about 2 kinds of experiments.
(1) Experiments to test my new (electon) electricity. Mainly an X re the speed of electricity along a threaded bar.
(2) Experiments to test my idea that the speed of electon electricity along a wire is influenced by the aetherwind.
The (1) kind will be i think very easy to do.
The (2) kind of experiment would be tricky. And as i said two have already been done (DeWitte in 1991)(Torr & Kolen in 1981).

(3) I think that your X can be called a third kind, ie (3) here. U are talking about a reflexion at the end of the wire coming back to the scope. So, the signal has a tailwind in one direction, & a headwind in the other. So, we get the average speed. And then we compare that average speed to the average speed for the east-west orientation, where the electons will have a side-wind to fight against. So then we have to compare the slowing of the headwind/tailwind to the slowing of the sidewind/sidewind. And here we have to juggle lots of decimal places. But, it gets worse, the aetherwind causes length contraction, & this tends to reduce the difference in the numbers that we are comparing to almost zero. In fact in vacuum the difference is zero (at least it is for 2nd order effects), which is why most modern interferometer tests for invariance do indeed show an invariance, & all of the Einsteinists sleep soundly. But all such tests ever done in air have all shown an aetherwind signal, every time, no exceptions. And in the modern era the tests are now so accurate that a signal can be seen even when vacuum is used, ie they can see the very weak  3rd order or 4th order signals, which needs about 12 decimals. But the Einsteinists always find an excuse to remove these signals, they blame systematic effects, ignoring the fact that the aetherwind signals are systematic effects.

Anyhow, type (3) experiments have to be very clever, temperature is usually the main problem.

(4) The best way to do type (3) might be to do an electric version of Demjanov's twin media MMX. He used air & carbon disulphide, & his MMX was 1000 times as sensitive as the oldendays MMXs. In fact his was less than 500 mm by 500 mm, with 6 mirrors, while the oldendays MMXs were often  4200 mm by 4200 mm with 16 mirrors. An electric version might use the twin media of air (ie a bare wire) & plastic (ie an insulated wire). Yes, that might do it. In fact that might be my cleverest bit of thinking in 2022, the electon being my cleverest bit of thinking in 2021. No, the screw-thread X has to be my cleverest bit of thinking in 2022. So simple, yet so clever. Anyhow, a twin-media (air & plastic) electricity version (& using a scope) of the oldendays MMX (they used light & interferometry) might be brilliant.

[penfold]

[...]
Science advances one funeral at a time.
Aether has been proven. STR has been disproven.
None of Einstein's stuff has ever been peer reviewed, at least not at the time of publishing.

I can accept an inferred peer review from the enormous quantity of work over the years on the development of STR.

What definition of 'proven' and 'disproven' are you using? I assumed that the definition I go by was reasonably universal, but I may be wrong. The dictionary definition probably uses the word 'truth' but thats a bit connotative of 'absolute truth'; 'verified' or 'showing agreement with experiental data' is closer to what I'm considering proof here. In the stricter sense, proof would be a 'demonstration through rational argument of an agreement with a concrete truth', but, lets just stick some some valid evidence for the moment.