0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
Quote from: mad aetherist on 21/10/2018 03:12:26I dont know much about fields & electricity, but i am thinking that u cannot get very far here if u dont read what Ivor Catt has to say (articles)(& youtube)(& google the Catt question).Is there a link to the articles?
I dont know much about fields & electricity, but i am thinking that u cannot get very far here if u dont read what Ivor Catt has to say (articles)(& youtube)(& google the Catt question).
Quote from: myuncle on 25/10/2018 13:58:17I find it very difficult to think that you are against science if you write in this forum.We get quite a lot of anti science posters. Some don’t understand it; some talk about ‘science’, usually hurt because no one will agree with their pet theory; some have religious reasons and disagree with heliocentrism, tectonics, evolution, etc.Quote from: myuncle on 25/10/2018 13:58:17if someone attempts to disagree with Einstein, his thread is moved to new theories. Not strictly true, we have had quite a few discussions around Einstein's views, understanding has moved on since he originally put forward his ideas so there are areas of debate. Nor are we anti aether, just agnostic, because we don’t see clear evidence that it exists - you will find discussion here on LET (Lorentz Ether Theory) which gives the same experimental results as relativity, but a different explanation. However, most aetherists are putting forward posts which contradict the results of verified experiments and observations, so they are offering new theories. We (as a forum) are not saying they are wrong, just that we organise the forum with a separate category for new or alternative ideas. As long as folks are polite and don’t troll we are happy to debate, but time is limited and we give priority to the mainstream sections. All who answer questions here do so in their spare time, unpaid, but they have day jobs, projects etc so time is limited. So we can’t debate everything and we can't leave mainstream questions/statements unanswered because people wrongly assume no response = agreement. We would have a real problem of credibility if a schoolchild goes and tells teacher that tides are not due to the moon, but to giant whirlpools, they saw it on a TNS site, so it must be true.PS - you don’t see many trolls because we weed them out asap, but we do get quite a few.Quote from: Paradigmer on 25/10/2018 09:41:33Appreciate if you let me know your findings on the odd post.This one caught my eye as I skimmed through this thread:Quote from: mad aetherist on 21/10/2018 07:25:51Re censorship here is a copy of some wordage that i just posted on another thread re The Catt Question some of which details the suppression of Ivor Catt & his ideas.http://www.ptep-online.com/2016/PP-44-13.PDF//www.youtube.com/watch?v=_fqqXQPgCKoI was puzzled by the way this question is presented. If you look at the first document in the list, which I’ve separated out from the rest, the question presented is as shown in the screenshot of the video further down and asks where the current in the bottom wire comes from.He shows a battery on the left and describes the voltage on the bottom line as 0v. This would probably make any layman go ‘Ooo, good point, no voltage, no current’, but as anyone who has worked with electricity knows, voltage is relative so we could easily describe the top line as 0v and the bottom line as showing a voltage and ask where does the current in the top line come from.The answer is simple, they both come from the same place. If you connect a battery across a circuit you will provide a push of electrons at one end of the battery and a pull at the other end. There is another odd comment about source of charge ‘not from somewhere to the left because such charge would have to travel at the speed of light’. This is based on the old idea that charge in a wire was carried by physical movement of electrons from one end of the wire to the other. Invoking Heavyside doesn’t help because he didn’t know what we now know about the atomic structure of conductive metals and electron drift. A better way to envisage what happens is to imagine a tube full of marbles, push a marble in at one end and another one immediately falls out the other. No marbles travelled from end to end but a ‘unit of marble’ did - at very high speed. The whole ‘problem’ here is based on a misunderstanding. It would appear that this is being passed around the internet as an example of a conspiracy of science mafia suppressing alternative views. Catt is not being suppressed, it’s just that he makes wrong assumptions and draws incorrect conclusions from them, so he is ignored. Example of bad science.
I find it very difficult to think that you are against science if you write in this forum.
if someone attempts to disagree with Einstein, his thread is moved to new theories.
Appreciate if you let me know your findings on the odd post.
Re censorship here is a copy of some wordage that i just posted on another thread re The Catt Question some of which details the suppression of Ivor Catt & his ideas.http://www.ptep-online.com/2016/PP-44-13.PDF//www.youtube.com/watch?v=_fqqXQPgCKo
Catt's question is re a switch being turned on to let current flow from a battery at the west end of a circuit to a load at the east end along 2 parallel wires, an electric field etc develops tween the top wire & bottom wire, & the field advances west to east at the speed of light in air -- the question being where does the new charge on the bottom wire come from?
Wow, thats a short list .
Electrical signals in wires don't travel at c.They typically travel at about 2/3c; the exact speed depends on the geometry, construction and materials of the wire and its insulation.
Is this a question about watching "lightning", like in the sky, seeing how it arcs out?It really depends on the impedance in the medium, right?
............There is another odd comment about source of charge ‘not from somewhere to the left because such charge would have to travel at the speed of light’. This is based on the old idea that charge in a wire was carried by physical movement of electrons from one end of the wire to the other. Invoking Heaviside doesn’t help because he didn’t know what we now know about the atomic structure of conductive metals and electron drift. A better way to envisage what happens is to imagine a tube full of marbles, push a marble in at one end and another one immediately falls out the other. No marbles travelled from end to end but a ‘unit of marble’ did - at very high speed.....................