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:
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.
In what way? The dielectric is being charged (stores "electrons"/charge), just like when rubbing a dielectric (like glass) with wool. Whether you put in new or old plates, it will discharge the same, because the charge is stored on the dielectric. This is consistent with physics. If it required the old plates to discharge, now that would be concerning.
I don't trust science either. Most good scientists don't trust science. The entire purpose of the scientific method is to prove everything we have done so far as false. That is it's design goal. It is when we fail, through experiment, to prove ourselves wrong that we call it an advancement or verification, depending on if it is a new or old experiment. In other words, science never makes statements of "this is how it is." At best it says, "I tried to prove it wasn't this way, and failed."
Let me repeat, science never makes statements of truth, only statements of "couldn't prove it false." The media is the one that reports science as "truth." Scientists do not. That doesn't mean that some scientists don't, because scientists are people, and they drink their own kool-aid sometimes, but the actual science, the process of science, does not do that, and most scientists (all the good ones I know), are well aware of that and qualify their statements as "the evidence suggests" not "this is truth."
I have spent a lot of time in the past year looking to see if this has any validity. I am not adverse to it being possible, because I am not adverse to anything being possible. I know that I know nothing. So in my following responses please don't think my mind is closed to it. It is not.
I appreciate not relying on anyone else's experiments. That is a cornerstone of science, repeatability, AKA not relying on anyone else, i.e. critical thinking. However, both observation and "common sense" are foolish things to rely on. Of course you should observe, and you should think, but relying on your observation or thinking as being accurate means you have lost the ability to observe evidence, or think rationally to the contrary of what you are relying on. In other words, it is succumbing to your own bias, i.e. drinking your own kool-aid.
For example, I do not think I am right about physics. I do not think my observations or thinking on physics or my own experiments are right. In fact I am quite certain they are all wrong. The question is, "how wrong?" I do not in any way rely on my observations nor my thinking. If anything, I rely on them being wrong, though that really isn't the right way of putting it. In truth, I don't rely on anything. Every day is a completely unwritten page (or at least that is my attempt at life).
It sounds to me you are assuming the opposite. That may not be the case, but that is what it sounds like to me. I have gone through Dubay's work. I didn't go through all of it, because I was able, by my own experiments to find inherent flaws from the beginning to when I stopped, which wasn't far in. It is easy to show the issues with his claims, and I will be happy to debate them with you. Pick your favorite(s), I'd much prefer to not have to go through them all.
I have offered many objections to flat earth, and so far they have all stood up to debate. But let me give my personal favorite. There is a device called a Foucault's pendulum. It is a large hanging weight that is set to swing. If you have it trace out a path (or set up a frame of reference in some other way), you can measure the period of precession (the time it takes for the pendulum to make a full rotation). The math is easily (a relative term) derivable from what a pendulum would do if it were placed on the surface of a rotating sphere (any rotating sphere, it doesn’t have to be earth) where there was an attraction (any attractive force, it doesn’t have to be gravity) between the pendulum and the center of that sphere. The interesting thing about such a pendulum is, it can tell you what latitude the swinging pendulum is at on such a spinning sphere. The rate of precession will be different depending on the pendulum's latitude.
I have personally derived the math, having nothing to do with "the earth" but only using the above assumptions (a swinging pendulum on a spinning sphere with an attractive force (any attractive force) between them). I also have personally done such a pendulum experiment. Granted, I only did it at one latitude, but the precession predicted by the math, and the experimental observation matched. I have seen people do the experiment for their own latitude and they show latitude specific results (different from my own). I have zero reason to suspect they are all lying, or that I just “got lucky” that the math predicted my latitude (the math predicts very different values at different latitudes). Flat earth can’t even describe the precession at all, much less the latitude specific precession.
Never has anyone who espouses Flat Earth been able to explain those two phenomena (precession, and latitude specific precession). Until someone can, I can’t give any credence to the theory. Aside from this point of contention however, every single other point of debate always falls short similarly. People think they have discovered something new all the time, yet our current physics can describe it sufficiently. Generally far better than anything offered in opposition. That doesn’t make physics true, but it does say it isn’t wrong in the way people say it is.