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

[adx]

The point i was trying to make re IS/AINT & AINT/IS  is that a wet antenna can cause problems, but that these problems are worse if the transmitting antenna is wet & the receiving antenna is dry (IS/AINT) & if the transmitting antenna is dry & the receiving antenna is wet (AINT/IS).

It was a peripheral side issue, of no great moment re my electons, nor re the Veritasium gedanken. I only brought it up koz someone said that wetness or insulation acted on both the transmitting antenna & the receiving antenna, & i showed that there were four combinations not two, & that two of these were not a "both" scenario.

Yes I know, but you explained it in the most perplexing way possible. Two of your "differences" between wet and dry antennas were wet and dry behaving the same. You also advanced a troll-like argument that a fundamental difference between Tx and Rx is a physical distance in km. It shows you're thinking, I'll grant you that.

[aetherist]

By the way, Rutherford used alpha particles emitted from a radium source, with a kinetic energy of approximately 4.6 MeV.  Since the rest mass of an alpha particle (helium nucleus) is about 3.7 GeV/c², 800 times higher, the kinematics of his experiment are non-relativistic (kinetic energy much less than rest mass), so classical mechanics and Coulomb forces suffice to describe the results, including the famous back-scattering that shows the small dimensions of the scattering center (nucleus), compared with the "plum pudding" model (negative electrons embedded in a cloud of positive charge) postulated by Thomson.

I dont remember ever looking into that stuff, but i should. I suppose that an equivalent % backscatter could be got if the plumpuddings were small & had lots of space tween puddings. Anyhow all of that is well over my head.

Over the years i usually only spent time on stuff if it looked like it affected my precious aether. A sort of aether profiling.
Or today i guess i can add electon profiling.

[Alex Eisenhut]

Do you have any PCB design guidelines using your theory that could be useful?

[aetherist]

Do you have any PCB design guidelines using your theory that could be useful?

No i had to google to find out what a PCB was a few weeks ago. And now i am an expert.
All i know is that Catt reckons that in critical areas both sides of the "wire" should be covered to reduce diffusion.
And i have watched lots of Eric Bogatin's stuff. He talks about an evergrowing spike of crosstalk current on the parallel secondary trace following opposite the leading edge of the current on the primary trace, & a diffused pulse on the secondary trace going the other way. I think that Eric might reckon that the currents on the secondary trace was radio crosstalk (cant remember).
But as i explained earlier in this thread i see that that there crosstalk as being due to surface electrons being squeezed out along the surface of the secondary trace in both directions, by induction from my electons hugging the primary trace (& the leading edge of the primary current duznt have a major role)(i mean compared to the role of the leading edge if indeed the crosstalk is due to radio, which i dont think it is).
And my electons propagate at the speed of light in the plastic (touching the trace). And the squeezed electrons flow at c/100 or c/1000 or c/10000 or somesuch, in the plastic (touching the trace)(but all of that is a work in progress)(thats why i am here)(getting ideas).

[penfold]

By the way, Rutherford used alpha particles emitted from a radium source, with a kinetic energy of approximately 4.6 MeV.  Since the rest mass of an alpha particle (helium nucleus) is about 3.7 GeV/c², 800 times higher, the kinematics of his experiment are non-relativistic (kinetic energy much less than rest mass), so classical mechanics and Coulomb forces suffice to describe the results, including the famous back-scattering that shows the small dimensions of the scattering center (nucleus), compared with the "plum pudding" model (negative electrons embedded in a cloud of positive charge) postulated by Thomson.

I dont remember ever looking into that stuff, but i should. I suppose that an equivalent % backscatter could be got if the plumpuddings were small & had lots of space tween puddings. Anyhow all of that is well over my head.

Over the years i usually only spent time on stuff if it looked like it affected my precious aether. A sort of aether profiling.
Or today i guess i can add electon profiling.

The equivalent backscatter is met only by an arrangement with similar properties of a Bohr model. An aether that could support enough of a force between 'externally neutral' plum-puddings, enough to hold matter together, wouldn't be susceptible to aetherwind. Maybe that explains why conventional science has disproven aetherwind on so many counts.

Interestingly with atomic structure, the 'new electricity' cannot explain the electron microscopy results of an energised circuit. I'm still intrigued by your process of 'profiling' or cherry-picking results that confirm your theory, without a quantified version of your theory, how is it possible to make a fair comparison between 'fringe' and 'conventional' physics?

With the maths, why not start with a high-dimension quasi-space-time algebra and develop from there, you can still have a 3D+time system within that structure and if that's genuinely all that's needed, the higher dimensions will just vanish through normalisation and in your choice of metric. Start with something simple like the motion of an electron beam in E and B fields and progress from there. At least from that point, you can begin to set constraints due to observations and effects without 'forcing': i.e. not mandating that because an electron is affected by an E-field that it produces one. Your concept will remain forever useless unless you can somehow find a practical use for it.

[aetherist]

By the way, Rutherford used alpha particles emitted from a radium source, with a kinetic energy of approximately 4.6 MeV.  Since the rest mass of an alpha particle (helium nucleus) is about 3.7 GeV/c², 800 times higher, the kinematics of his experiment are non-relativistic (kinetic energy much less than rest mass), so classical mechanics and Coulomb forces suffice to describe the results, including the famous back-scattering that shows the small dimensions of the scattering center (nucleus), compared with the "plum pudding" model (negative electrons embedded in a cloud of positive charge) postulated by Thomson.

I dont remember ever looking into that stuff, but i should. I suppose that an equivalent % backscatter could be got if the plumpuddings were small & had lots of space tween puddings. Anyhow all of that is well over my head.

Over the years i usually only spent time on stuff if it looked like it affected my precious aether. A sort of aether profiling.
Or today i guess i can add electon profiling.

The equivalent backscatter is met only by an arrangement with similar properties of a Bohr model. An aether that could support enough of a force between 'externally neutral' plum-puddings, enough to hold matter together, wouldn't be susceptible to aetherwind. Maybe that explains why conventional science has disproven aetherwind on so many counts.

Aetherwind has been found in every proper aetherwind test.
If electrons were mostly on the outside of molecular atoms then the em repulsion could keep atoms apart, & give lots of space tween atoms.
If spinning electrons & spinning protons & spinning atoms produced a centrifuging of aether, which i reckon that they do, then the circulation of the centrifuged aether (in at the equators of each electron proton neutron atom)(out at the pairs of poles) could contribute (in addition to the em) to sustaining an atomic lattice. The centrifuging of aether produces what i call a faux-gravity (true gravity being due to the annihilation of aether in matter)(centrifuging does not involve any annihilation of aether).

Interestingly with atomic structure, the 'new electricity' cannot explain the electron microscopy results of an energised circuit. I'm still intrigued by your process of 'profiling' or cherry-picking results that confirm your theory, without a quantified version of your theory, how is it possible to make a fair comparison between 'fringe' and 'conventional' physics?

I doubt that electons play a part in what electrons do in electron microscopy. But electons must be involved in the electricity on the wires & traces of the electric circuitry.

A quantified version of new (electon) electricity might be possible, one day. But i don’t see any need, except perhaps for cutting edge stuff, eg focusing & timing of electricity for fusion power, eg understanding of the true discharge characteristics of capacitors for fusion power, eg better design of solar cells, eg better design of batteries. Its more of a qualitative thing.

With the maths, why not start with a high-dimension quasi-space-time algebra and develop from there, you can still have a 3D+time system within that structure and if that's genuinely all that's needed, the higher dimensions will just vanish through normalisation and in your choice of metric. Start with something simple like the motion of an electron beam in E and B fields and progress from there. At least from that point, you can begin to set constraints due to observations and effects without 'forcing': i.e. not mandating that because an electron is affected by an E-field that it produces one. Your concept will remain forever useless unless you can somehow find a practical use for it.

I am ok with free electrons & with electron beams, but electons wont have much to do with that, except of course that electons must be involved in the electricity behind the scenes.

How can we make efficient progress with advanced solar energy, advanced battery storage, fusion, etc, if designers try to invoke the old electricity made by drifting internal electrons, when electricity is actually primarily due to electons hugging the surfaces at the speed of light, & secondarily due to free (conduction) electrons flowing (comparatively slowly) on surfaces (mainly due to the influence of electons). Drifting electrons might be true, but the electricity will be insignificant.

[penfold]

[...]
How can we make efficient progress with advanced solar energy, advanced battery storage, fusion, etc, if designers try to invoke the old electricity made by drifting internal electrons, when electricity is actually primarily due to electons hugging the surfaces at the speed of light, & secondarily due to free (conduction) electrons flowing (comparatively slowly) on surfaces (mainly due to the influence of electons). Drifting electrons might be true, but the electricity will be insignificant.

What is your current intention to prevent designers from invoking old electricity? Designers, generally, at least need some means of predicting the behaviour. At present, it is possible to design something using 'old electricity' that will perform exceedingly close to the models and predictions (within predicted uncertainly).

If aetherwind appears in aetherwind tests and doesn't in every other test, then surely, the simple option is to just stop doing aetherwind tests, aetherwind is then no-longer a problem - if it showed up in non-aetherwind tests, then yes, it would highlight a weakness of the models... but it doesn't. As you just said, it appears only in aetherwind tests.

Hypothetically then, if electrons do not play a part in electron microscopy, then we do definately have some form of cathode-ray, both it and its effects are observeable with the right low-pressure gas. Decreasing the gas pressure further removes the visible trace that shows the path of the cathode-ray but its effects remain otherwise observeable. The cathode-ray is found to have an electric and magnetic field associated with it, it can transport finite quanta of charge to an object that can be observed to only have the properties of electric field when static and those 'charged' objects when in motion have magnetic field. This is pure observation and not totally out of reach for an amateur. It can be seen that the process of 'charging' which happens when the beam imparts the property we call charge to an object, that the beam is deflected by the buildup of charge. Charge can be transferred to an object in a beam of electrons when in free-fall, so wires non essential. You would have to start imparting inteligence to these 'new electrons' for them to be able to know whether or not they are in motion, within a crystal lattice, free-space, aether, whether the aetherwind is blowing and whether or not they are near another 'new electron'.

So, centrifuging of aether, now that is just stupid. I'll let you re-think that one, if you need a hint... remember that you are trying to discredit special relativity.

[aetherist]

[...]
How can we make efficient progress with advanced solar energy, advanced battery storage, fusion, etc, if designers try to invoke the old electricity made by drifting internal electrons, when electricity is actually primarily due to electons hugging the surfaces at the speed of light, & secondarily due to free (conduction) electrons flowing (comparatively slowly) on surfaces (mainly due to the influence of electons). Drifting electrons might be true, but the electricity will be insignificant.

What is your current intention to prevent designers from invoking old electricity? Designers, generally, at least need some means of predicting the behaviour. At present, it is possible to design something using 'old electricity' that will perform exceedingly close to the models and predictions (within predicted uncertainly).

If aetherwind appears in aetherwind tests and doesn't in every other test, then surely, the simple option is to just stop doing aetherwind tests, aetherwind is then no-longer a problem - if it showed up in non-aetherwind tests, then yes, it would highlight a weakness of the models... but it doesn't. As you just said, it appears only in aetherwind tests.

Hypothetically then, if electrons do not play a part in electron microscopy, then we do definately have some form of cathode-ray, both it and its effects are observeable with the right low-pressure gas. Decreasing the gas pressure further removes the visible trace that shows the path of the cathode-ray but its effects remain otherwise observeable. The cathode-ray is found to have an electric and magnetic field associated with it, it can transport finite quanta of charge to an object that can be observed to only have the properties of electric field when static and those 'charged' objects when in motion have magnetic field. This is pure observation and not totally out of reach for an amateur. It can be seen that the process of 'charging' which happens when the beam imparts the property we call charge to an object, that the beam is deflected by the buildup of charge. Charge can be transferred to an object in a beam of electrons when in free-fall, so wires non essential. You would have to start imparting inteligence to these 'new electrons' for them to be able to know whether or not they are in motion, within a crystal lattice, free-space, aether, whether the aetherwind is blowing and whether or not they are near another 'new electron'.

So, centrifuging of aether, now that is just stupid. I'll let you re-think that one, if you need a hint... remember that you are trying to discredit special relativity.

I am happy with electron beams, i said that my electons dont play a central role, i didnt say electrons.

I think that i am the only fellow on Earth to talk of the centrifuging of aether. Actually one other fellow mentioned it, but strangely he got the directions wrong, he spoke of out at equator, in at poles.
No hold on. I forgot. Krafft was the first. He invoked it at the sub-atomic & atomic level. In about 1942 or something. But i did not know about that.  Ok here is something i wrote re Krafft years ago. I cant be bothered editing it so i will plonk it below in full. I might edit tomorrow.

Thanx for alerting me to Hilgenberg & Krafft.  Today i have been googling & reading their stuff.  Some pages of their books are available online.

https://www.scribd.com/document/239479092/the-Structure-of-the-Atom-by-Carl-Frederick-Krafft
(1) On page 8 Krafft's cause of redshift is similar to your own. Krafft says ..........
............. It appears that the red shift can be accounted for in a more reasonable manner by assuming that each train of light waves during its journey through space will undergo a slight expansion......... ............. it would require only an extremely small difference of velocity between the waves at the front and rear ends of the train to produce the observed red shift. (Popular Astronomy, Vol 39, No. 7, p.428.)

(2) And Krafft's non-nuclear atom is similar to Miles Mathis's atom, altho MM doesn't mention Krafft's ether, MM's glue is the spin-flow of charge (MM's charge being a kind of slow photon i think).

(3) On page 31 Krafft says.......
..........The reason why it is the protons rather than the electrons that act gravitationally is because the ether which flows throo a proton follows a converging path, entering at the equatorial periphery and leaving at the poles, where it will have maximum velocity...........
That micro subatomic theory is very similar to my macro centrifuging of aether theory where aether is inertially drawn in near the Equator of a spinning (or orbiting) object & then the aether is spat out axially at the two poles (ie driven out by the entering aether).  The acceleration of this aether inflow outside the object must have a 1/R relationship (because the streamlines converge in 2 dimensions), & must give a  1/R pseudo gravity effect (whereas proper gravity is  1/RR)(the inflow streamlines converging in 3 dimensions). 
The axial outflow is unlikely to have much acceleration or produce much pseudo gravity outside the object, but there must be an internal acceleration (& some pseudo gravity) due to the bent trajectory of the veering aether.

(4) Podkletnov, on youtube & in papers, mentions experiments re spinning discs & gravity-shielding & gravity-beams, including three results that appear to relate to centrifuging of aether. 
Wt-loss …………………… An object sitting above the (vertical) spin-axis lost wt  (i don’t believe this).
Time-loss ………………… An accurate wrist-watch sitting above the spin-axis lost time  (ok).
Smoke-movement ….... Tobacco smoke was whisked axially upwards  (ok).

DePalma too mentioned a loss of time, near a spinning wheel i think.

(5) It would i think be an easy University project to test for time dilation effects near the axle of a spinning disc.  The axle should be aligned north-south parallel to Earth's axis, or even better if aligned exactly parallel to the 500 kmps aetherwind (allowing for time of day & season of the year)(RA 4:30 hr i think on average).  Ticking should slow at the north end (wind=V+v) & fast at the south end (wind=V-v) compared to ticking elsewhere in the lab (wind=V).

(6) Ticking would in theory show the V kmps of the local aetherwind & the v kmps of the centrifuged aether exiting the poles, by a clever use of the Lorentz equation for gamma.

However the Lorentz equation for ticking dilation might be ok for atomic clocks, but i dont believe that it applies to macro clocks (eg the quartz wristwatch used by Podkletnov).  I believe that the quartz crystal suffers length contraction & that this then affects the ticking by virtue of the standard vibrational equation for a tuning fork.  Here for a spinning disc experiment the watch should best be orientated so that the LC affects the length of the tuning fork. 
I have used Excel to calculate the affect of LC on the length & width & thickness of a tuning fork crystal (ie for the 3 possible major orientations), & i used Excel to calculate the change in ticking for each of these 3 modes. 

Modern better watches now use a solid crystal, & are much more accurate, but might not be as sensitive to LC, ie an old fashioned tuning fork crystal might give better (bigger) results.

(7) Note that Einstein said that any balance clock will be affected by his time dilation equation.  But Einstein was wrong.  As we all know the Lorentz equation appears identical to Einstein's but the V is the aetherwind whereas Einstein's V  is the relative velocity (or relative speed actually, if talking about TD)(velocity only applying to LC).

But Einstein & Lorentz are both wrong.  The ticking of macro clocks will/might depend on lots of things including .......
(i) the equation governing the ticking (eg pendulum)(eg tuning fork)(eg balance wheel), &
(ii) the effect of LC on the Length or Width or Thickness in that equation, &
(iii) the effect of LC on the density (mass does not change but the distribution of the mass might), &
(iv) the effect of LC & (iii) on the strength & stiffness (ie Young's Modulus), &
(v) the velocity of the aetherwind, not speed, because (ii)(iii)(iv) depend on direction.

(8 ) Re length contraction, i believe that the Lorentz equation for gamma needs upgrading.  I believe that the speed of light is slowed near mass, due to photaeno-drag.  I think that Einstein's GR equation might be correct or very nearly, ie the speed of light near mass is slowed by gamma, the  V in the equation for gamma being the escape velocity at that location.  Gamma approaches zero as the escape velocity approaches  c, ie as V/c  approaches  1 (c  being the maximum possible speed of light in vacuum)(if well away from any other mass including other photons & photaenos)(photaenos being em radiation).

Therefor the speed of light in the laboratory will be say c' (if in vacuum) which is less than c.  Therefore the equation for gamma for LC in the laboratory should involve  VV/c'c' not VV/cc.

And when calculating the value of  c' we need to use the escape velocity V in the V/c in gamma.  But in the case of a laboratory on Earth that escape velocity would need to be the sum of all escape velocities, ie including the Sun & Earth & Moon etc.  Not the nett escape velocity.  We need to use the total because photaeno-drag is due to the total photaeno flux fighting for the use of the aether, & this flux is additive. 
For example the nett gravity halfway tween two identical stars is zero, but the photaeno flux at that point is double the flux due to a solitary star.

[penfold]

So, you're happy with electron beams. Beams of particles that embody all the reasons why your theory fails, the fact that an entity that is observable as a quanta of charge and conveyor of momentum which behaves exactly like the conventional model predicts. The beam which has been demonstrated to penetrate beneath the surface of material whilst retaining all properties of electrons and simultaneously those of current carriers, additionally proving the drift model of conduction? The same beam if driven to higher energies behaves according to Einsteinian relativity. How can you possibly be happy with electron beams? no part of your theory would allow them to exist.

Skimmed the book by Krafft and I must say, he was a very clever person, but quite why he felt the need to continue writing his book after the phrase "Nuclear physicists will probably say that the writer is merely belabouring a man of straw--an extinct species, and the physicists of today are no longer dealing with planetary electrons." remains a mystery.

Good to see here that we have some good measurable properties of aether. Time dilation near a spinning disc. Would a 15cm diameter disc at 90,000 rpm produce any noticeable effects?

[Alex Eisenhut]

Do you have any PCB design guidelines using your theory that could be useful?

No i had to google to find out what a PCB was a few weeks ago. And now i am an expert.

I will build a statue of you in my living room.

[SiliconWizard]

This paper could give some insights: https://www.princeton.edu/~romalis/PHYS312/Coulomb%20Ref/Photonmasslimits.pdf

Mass is the property of annihilating aether. And photons annihilate aether. Everything (except gravity) annihilates aether.

What is aether? And whatever it is, why would gravity be an exception?

They mention that if a photon had mass then it could not move at the speed of light. What the.

Yes, that's a pretty basic principle rooted in the very definition of the speed of light as we define it, and that is supposed to be a constant.
You seem to have a completely alternative theory, but it's unclear (at least to me) what it exactly is.

[aetherist]

So, you're happy with electron beams. Beams of particles that embody all the reasons why your theory fails, the fact that an entity that is observable as a quanta of charge and conveyor of momentum which behaves exactly like the conventional model predicts. The beam which has been demonstrated to penetrate beneath the surface of material whilst retaining all properties of electrons and simultaneously those of current carriers, additionally proving the drift model of conduction? The same beam if driven to higher energies behaves according to Einsteinian relativity. How can you possibly be happy with electron beams? no part of your theory would allow them to exist.

Skimmed the book by Krafft and I must say, he was a very clever person, but quite why he felt the need to continue writing his book after the phrase "Nuclear physicists will probably say that the writer is merely belabouring a man of straw--an extinct species, and the physicists of today are no longer dealing with planetary electrons." remains a mystery.

Good to see here that we have some good measurable properties of aether. Time dilation near a spinning disc. Would a 15cm diameter disc at 90,000 rpm produce any noticeable effects?

I am ok with old (deep electron drift) electricity, but i say that it is insignificant, compared to my new (surface hugging electon) electricity, which includes my new (surface electron flow) electricity.

The problem with electron drift electricity is that the speed of light in Cu is about 10 m/s, ie c/30,000,000, badly below c/1. And, it duznt explain how the speed of electricity in an insulated wire is 2c/3. 

Electron beams are ok, they are compatible with my electons.

I think that Krafft is saying that no modern (1942) nuclear physicist believed in orbiting electrons.

I think that spinning discs would affect clocks. Either small discs spinning very fast, or large discs spinning not so fast. I suggested to a Prof that he should test accurate quartz clocks placed near the spinning discs of disc driven public buses (which might have a 1 tonne disc spinning at 3000 rpm)(just guessing). A simple test for a PhD student, which could lead to a Nobel. But he said it was a silly idea.

In some areas on Earth it might be good if the disc had a vertical axis. In other areas a horizontal axis might be good. However, it would be best if the axis was angled off horizontal to accord with the background aetherwind blowing through Earth (this blows at about 15 deg off Earth's axis)(RA4:30).
A clock should be placed close to one end of the axle, & close to the other end. And one or more clocks near the equator. And u would need a number of clocks nearby but well clear of the disc (these clocks would not be affected)(for comparison).
 
One problem is that quartz clocks would be sensitive to their own orientation. Another problem is that the modern quartz clocks are i think not very sensitive to ticking dilation (the crystals are cubic), the older version of quartz clock that used a tuning fork style of quartz would be much better. I forget which fork orientation would be best (i did work it out years ago). There are 3 obvious orientations of a tuning fork. I think that aligning the long axis with the background aetherwind was (in my theory) best.

Podkletnov said that he found that a quartz clock was affected (in about 1990). Likewise Depalma (in about 1980).

[TimFox]

Quartz crystals and older Accutron-type metal tuning forks are physical artifacts whose frequency is not a fundamental constant of nature, but depends on their dimensions.
Cesium beam clocks and other "atomic clocks" exploit frequencies that are natural features of atomic energy levels, etc.
"The second is defined by taking the fixed numerical value of the caesium frequency ∆Cs, the unperturbed ground-state hyperfine transition frequency of the caesium 133 atom, to be 9 192 631 770 when expressed in the unit Hz, which is equal to s^–1" from BIPM.
(I used to joke with my archaeology student friends that we physicists avoided artifacts, while they tried to find them.  The usage above is closer to the archaeology definition.)

[aetherist]

Mass is the property of annihilating aether. And photons annihilate aether. Everything (except gravity) annihilates aether.

What is aether? And whatever it is, why would gravity be an exception?

Aether is some kind of excitation of Praether. Praether is the fundamental essence that fills our universe. Photons (the fundamental building block of all of our elementary particles), are an excitation plus annihilation of aether. The acceleration of the bulk inflow of aether into photons that are annihilating aether gives us what we call gravity.

So, gravity is due to the annihilation of aether, but gravity does not itself annihilate aether (is what i say).
Except that some aetherists invoke a contractile aether, that does self annihilate due to gravity, or i should say as a part of the gravitation creation process. But i don’t understand why they say that aether needs to be contractile. Its something to do with their math.

They mention that if a photon had mass then it could not move at the speed of light. What the.

Yes, that's a pretty basic principle rooted in the very definition of the speed of light as we define it, and that is supposed to be a constant.
You seem to have a completely alternative theory, but it's unclear (at least to me) what it exactly is.

My theory is very foreign to standard science, koz it is based on skoolkid logic. 
Fact-1. Photons propagate at the speed of light. Koz photons are light. And that’s what photons must do. They can do no other.
Fact-2. It matters not whether photons have mass or zero mass, they propagate at the speed of light. They can do no other.
Fact-3. It is madness to say that photons propagate at the speed of light koz they have zero mass. Photons propagate at the speed of light koz they are light.

The speed of light is not constant. Firstly light is slowed near mass. Secondly the quasi-constant speed of light is quasi-constant relative to the aether, in which case the speed of light relative to an observer will depend on the aetherwind relative to the observer, aetherwind might be a tailwind or a headwind or a sidewind, & the speed of light will apparently be c+V or c-V or somesuch.

[aetherist]

Quartz crystals and older Accutron-type metal tuning forks are physical artifacts whose frequency is not a fundamental constant of nature, but depends on their dimensions.
Cesium beam clocks and other "atomic clocks" exploit frequencies that are natural features of atomic energy levels, etc.
"The second is defined by taking the fixed numerical value of the caesium frequency ∆Cs, the unperturbed ground-state hyperfine transition frequency of the caesium 133 atom, to be 9 192 631 770 when expressed in the unit Hz, which is equal to s^–1" from BIPM.
(I used to joke with my archaeology student friends that we physicists avoided artifacts, while they tried to find them.  The usage above is closer to the archaeology definition.)

Yes, fork frequency depends on dimensions etc. And dimensions etc are affected by length contraction due to aetherwind. Thusly we have ticking dilation. There is no such thing as time dilation.

Time is not a fundamental constant of nature. Unless perhaps u are talking about the present instant, which is the present instant in the whole of our infinite eternal universe. But there is no such thing as time. What we have is the ticking of processes, at the subatomic, atomic & macro levels.

I don’t know much about atomic clocks. Some i think have a quartz crystal as a part of their circuitry. So i am not sure whether they are truly atomic.

Anyhow, Larmor derived an equation for the orbit of an electron in an atom, & as far as i am aware Larmor's gamma for the ticking dilation for an atom has been invoked in the modern era to help to predict the affect of elevation on the ticking of an atomic clock, & so far the gamma appears to be ok to within 50%, & it might do better than 50%  in the future when more accurate clocks are used.

But i have a theory re the ticking of atomic clocks with elevation. I reckon that Larmor's gamma wont work so well in the southern hemisphere, or at least near the south pole.

[adx]

(3) On page 31 Krafft says.......
... due to the bent trajectory of the veering aether.

(4) Podkletnov, on youtube & in papers ...
Smoke-movement ….... Tobacco smoke was whisked axially upwards  (ok).

DePalma too mentioned a loss of time, near a spinning wheel i think.

(5) It would i think be an easy University project to test for time dilation effects near the axle of a spinning disc. ... Ticking should slow at the north end (wind=V+v) & fast at the south end (wind=V-v) compared to ticking elsewhere in the lab (wind=V).

... I believe that the quartz crystal suffers length contraction & that this then affects the ticking ...

Modern better watches now use a solid crystal, & are much more accurate, but might not be as sensitive to LC, ie an old fashioned tuning fork crystal might give better (bigger) results.

... But in the case of a laboratory on Earth that escape velocity would need to be the sum of all escape velocities, ie including the Sun & Earth & Moon etc.  Not the nett escape velocity.  We need to use the total because photaeno-drag is due to the total photaeno flux fighting for the use of the aether, & this flux is additive. 
...

The main experimental prerequisite seems to be having eaten a whole box of LSD or something before venturing into the lab.

[aetherist]

(3) On page 31 Krafft says....... ... due to the bent trajectory of the veering aether.

(4) Podkletnov, on youtube & in papers ...
Smoke-movement ….... Tobacco smoke was whisked axially upwards  (ok).

DePalma too mentioned a loss of time, near a spinning wheel i think.

(5) It would i think be an easy University project to test for time dilation effects near the axle of a spinning disc. ... Ticking should slow at the north end (wind=V+v) & fast at the south end (wind=V-v) compared to ticking elsewhere in the lab (wind=V).

... I believe that the quartz crystal suffers length contraction & that this then affects the ticking ...

Modern better watches now use a solid crystal, & are much more accurate, but might not be as sensitive to LC, ie an old fashioned tuning fork crystal might give better (bigger) results.

... But in the case of a laboratory on Earth that escape velocity would need to be the sum of all escape velocities, ie including the Sun & Earth & Moon etc.  Not the nett escape velocity.  We need to use the total because photaeno-drag is due to the total photaeno flux fighting for the use of the aether, & this flux is additive. ...

The main experimental prerequisite seems to be having eaten a whole box of LSD or something before venturing into the lab.

I wonder whether it really was tobacco smoke.

[penfold]

[...]
I am ok with old (deep electron drift) electricity, but i say that it is insignificant, compared to my new (surface hugging electon) electricity, which includes my new (surface electron flow) electricity.

The problem with electron drift electricity is that the speed of light in Cu is about 10 m/s, ie c/30,000,000, badly below c/1. And, it duznt explain how the speed of electricity in an insulated wire is 2c/3. 

Electron beams are ok, they are compatible with my elections.
[...]

Is that all this 'theory' is resting on? Because, no, you're wrong, conventional EM theory predicts the speed of "electricity" in wires very well. In terms of voltage, current, dissipated energy and stored energy, conventional electricity explains it all, and the velocities at which they propagate, and it does it very well. Is that seriously the basis of your theory?

I'm actually disappointed, we were just getting to the good bit and we hadn't even got to causality where the real fun begins.

[aetherist]

[...]
I am ok with old (deep electron drift) electricity, but i say that it is insignificant, compared to my new (surface hugging electon) electricity, which includes my new (surface electron flow) electricity.

The problem with electron drift electricity is that the speed of light in Cu is about 10 m/s, ie c/30,000,000, badly below c/1. And, it duznt explain how the speed of electricity in an insulated wire is 2c/3. 

Electron beams are ok, they are compatible with my elections.
[...]

Is that all this 'theory' is resting on? Because, no, you're wrong, conventional EM theory predicts the speed of "electricity" in wires very well. In terms of voltage, current, dissipated energy and stored energy, conventional electricity explains it all, and the velocities at which they propagate, and it does it very well. Is that seriously the basis of your theory?

I'm actually disappointed, we were just getting to the good bit and we hadn't even got to causality where the real fun begins.

How do drifting electrons give c/1 for bare wire, & 2c/3 for insulated wire?

[HuronKing]

[...]
I am ok with old (deep electron drift) electricity, but i say that it is insignificant, compared to my new (surface hugging electon) electricity, which includes my new (surface electron flow) electricity.

The problem with electron drift electricity is that the speed of light in Cu is about 10 m/s, ie c/30,000,000, badly below c/1. And, it duznt explain how the speed of electricity in an insulated wire is 2c/3. 

Electron beams are ok, they are compatible with my elections.
[...]

Is that all this 'theory' is resting on? Because, no, you're wrong, conventional EM theory predicts the speed of "electricity" in wires very well. In terms of voltage, current, dissipated energy and stored energy, conventional electricity explains it all, and the velocities at which they propagate, and it does it very well. Is that seriously the basis of your theory?

I'm actually disappointed, we were just getting to the good bit and we hadn't even got to causality where the real fun begins.

How do drifting electrons give c/1 for bare wire, & 2c/3 for insulated wire?

Do you know what "permittivity" means?

[aetherist]

[...]
I am ok with old (deep electron drift) electricity, but i say that it is insignificant, compared to my new (surface hugging electon) electricity, which includes my new (surface electron flow) electricity.

The problem with electron drift electricity is that the speed of light in Cu is about 10 m/s, ie c/30,000,000, badly below c/1. And, it duznt explain how the speed of electricity in an insulated wire is 2c/3. 

Electron beams are ok, they are compatible with my elections.
[...]

Is that all this 'theory' is resting on? Because, no, you're wrong, conventional EM theory predicts the speed of "electricity" in wires very well. In terms of voltage, current, dissipated energy and stored energy, conventional electricity explains it all, and the velocities at which they propagate, and it does it very well. Is that seriously the basis of your theory?

I'm actually disappointed, we were just getting to the good bit and we hadn't even got to causality where the real fun begins.

How do drifting electrons give c/1 for bare wire, & 2c/3 for insulated wire?

Do you know what "permittivity" means?

No, but i doubt that anyone knows what permittivity means.
Firstly u would have to know what permittivity is.
In other words u would have to know what causes permittivity. Obviously it has to do with the aether.
But in a basic sense i think it is a non-constant constant for a material or a medium that can help u to calculate the electrostatic force tween static charges sitting in that medium.

In copper the permittivity is almost infinite.
What does that do to the speed of electricity in a copper wire. The speed of light in a copper wire is nearly zero m/s.
The poor old drifting electrons slowly drifting at 1 m/hr inside the wire where the permittivity is almost infinite can see their lucky siblings zipping around happily on the surface of the wire, where the permitivity of the air is nearnuff 1.0.
Depressing.

[Alex Eisenhut]

If you control the aether, can you manipulate electons to make 500mL of Aberlour 18 for me?

[SiliconWizard]

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

[adx]

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

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

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

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

Science.

[TimFox]

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