I bet there could be some juicy ones.
You're viewing a single comment thread. View all comments, or full comment thread.
Comments (46)
sorted by:
OK.
I have spent no small part of my life doing actual experiments to show the validity (and failings) of the mathematical models called "physics." They are incredibly well verified. I have spent decades in that endeavor in various fields. I do not think physics is truth, but it is incredibly accurate as presented within the domains it is intended. The specific models that you say "are all wrong" are actually incredibly good at predicting the outcome of events, i.e. the theory fits the facts.
If you think I haven't spent any time looking for facts that don't fit those theories, then you don't understand what physics research is. Physics research is nothing but trying to find flaws in the theories. I have spent far more time than you in that endeavor, I guarantee it.
I have even spent a fair bit of time (years) looking at evidence in the more fringe areas, the ones you espouse. Some I agree with (cold fusion has massive evidential support e.g.). For others, I present counter arguments to their "evidences" all the time and I invariably hear crickets in response. At best I get the response, "Your education is a fraud." That is not a direct address of the argument, but an ad hominem attack. And that's the best I get in response to my reasoned arguments.
To suggest I must be wrong because I don't share your beliefs is the ultimate hubris. I am willing to engage in earnest debate, but you are not. There is nothing wrong with your decision, but please recognize what is going on. You are unwilling to engage in direct debate, I am willing.
Which one of us cares more about pursuing a deeper understanding of the Truth?
The only assumption I have that I think is likely true, is that all of my other assumptions are wrong. The only question is how wrong.
My study is far broader than you imagine I think. Nevertheless, I stated I was willing to engage in earnest debate, and I am. The Truth is all that matters. I have no beliefs (as most people define the term).
First I want to say, I have no idea what you mean by "electron theory." I've never heard the term before, nor can I imagine what it means, since it seems a non-sensible term to me. Electrons are, according to physics, like all other particles, measurements of perturbations of a field. They don't have any independent existence per se, but when we measure perturbations of the electric field (waves) we get discrete measurements with a minimum possible value. That minimum value is what we call the electric charge of an electron, but that's a phrase for convenience, not what the math itself (QED) says. In addition the wave that was measured loses its coherence, and as far as future measurements on the field is concerned, it is as if that particular wave is completely gone (i.e. we measured the value of the wave, then it disappeared). That is why we say that "the electron existed in only one place." We won't measure that same wave anywhere else (the wave form collapses).
This gives the idea of some particle, but that's not what physics says it is. It's really only a field measurement. The "particleness" of matter is illusory according to physics.
Second, I watched the video you linked, and I watched Lewin's presentation. Lewin is suggesting that their is a charge build up on the dielectric. This is exactly the same as what happens when you rub glass with wool. It builds up a charge on the surface of the dielectric by transferring electrons (minimum discrete value of electric charge).
In the first video (a very well presented video, even though I think his ultimate conclusion was wrong because of his misunderstanding), where he provides his evidence against "electron theory" (I'm still trying to wrap my head around what he means by that phrase), he suggests that Lewin is saying you can't store energy in the dielectric. But Lewin is saying that charge is being stored on the dielectric. The "spraying of electrons" could be thought of as depositing charge (you can call that charge "electrons" for convenience) on the dielectric. Thus it is storing charge (not energy, but charge). Energy is released when that charge goes back into the wires when they are connected because there is a potential difference between the glass (or plastic, or water) that is storing the charge, and the wire, which is at ground.
The energy released is 1/2 the charge stored up times the potential difference between the glass and the wires (ground). You can think of "charge" as being the strength of the field (like "mass" is to gravity), and "potential" as being the difference of that field strength (in this case the difference in the field strength between the dielectric, which is storing "extra" charge, and the wire/ground, which is not).
The video that claimed he was disproving this event actually proved it with his last experiment. He stated that because water is such a great insulator that it can't be a dielectric (or something like that). But a dielectric IS an insulator. That's what the jar is (an insulator aka a dielectric) and that's what the water is (an insulator aka a dielectric). They are two words for the same thing. In addition it looked to me that he put the wire on the plastic itself (not just immersed in water, but in contact with the jar) which would put the jar as the only dielectric. I don't think that would actually make a difference in the overall effect except by amount of stored charge, so not a big deal.
In other words, the "proof' was a misconception of what a dielectric is. Perhaps also what an "electron" is according to physics. This is very common in my experience. The word "particle" is such an unfortunate word, left over from Plato's "Atomic" theory of matter where he imagined an indivisible substance. He imagined a "real" physical universe, but physics does not imagine such a universe.
Current physics has, at least for those actually working on it, almost completely discarded the idea of anything physical existing at all. It's all fields, and perturbations of those fields. I.e. it's all waves in physics. No particles allowed.
If you have flat earth stuff you want to show me I would be happy to go through it. So far, every experiment I have seen has not been what people think it is, or rather, it has a perfectly consistent explanation within current global physics. And I've done a fair bit of looking, because my mind is open to anything. But I also have a lot of knowledge, so it takes really good evidence to convince me that there is anything there.
Even saying that though, that doesn't mean that just because current physics can explain something that means it's right. But it does mean that alternate explanations that rely on it being wrong lose credibility when they themselves can't come up with a better explanation of experimental observation, and, so far, always fall far short in one area or another.