I write like I talk I guess so a lot is lost if we aren't in the same room together. I have said numerous times that these guys were wrong, wrong, wrong in their conclusions and definitions. My assertion is that they may not have been in the right ballpark, but they were in the right league. The...
Your question has already been answered by the posts above, however, I thought I would put it in simpler terms, as far as why higher voltage means lower amperage.
Basically, power in = power out. Now, power is potential times current, or volts x amps.
So, if you have a 1000 VA transformer...
I think you have said what I have been trying to say. That is beautiful, for I cannot seem to boil my thoughts down to such a compact statement. Thanks, yogi.
That is a good point, and has caused me to think. I think that the difference between that ancient Greek and the aetherists is that the aetherists were actually making observations. They could detect and map a magnetic field or lines of force from an electrophorous or pick up Hertzian waves at a...
You are just picking at me now. You know full well that "fluid" doesn't mean any real fluid, classical or quantum. It is just a picture for the mind's eye. Even Dirac called the vacuum a "sea".
I am not trying to make any statements about physics, I'm making a statement about physicists. I am not now, nor have I previously, attempted to state any new postulates about modern quantum mechanics or classical electrodynamics. I simply believe that the men that called the thing "aether" were...
I'm saying that the difference between the the aether and the quantum vacuum is precisely the name. Sure the word "aether" makes one think of a classical (that is, non-quantum) fluid. But it was classical (that is, non-quantum) men who named such things. I do not wish to discuss what frame the...
Thank you CesiumFrog. I used caps to try to emphasis that I am not speaking of the aether in the sense of an absolute frame of reference. That seems to be a point which keeps popping up, which I keep refuting, on the grounds of SR.
I am trying to convey my thoughts on the subject as clearly...
That is a very good way of describing it. I like that point of view. I'm not as sure as you are that there is no "new physics" to be found by repondering old questions, though. I think it an interesting idea that old experiments should be conducted in the same manner as they were, and from a...
Thanks, Eugene. But referring to my last post, you will see that I am not arguing the aether as an absolute frame of reference. That, I believe, is incorrect.
Why do most people automatically associate "aether" with only that specific usage? Just because SR doesn't require it and refutes its...
No, perhaps a unicorn as a rhinoceros. I think what I mean is aren't they the same? Just because they called it "aether" and ascribed the properties of a massless gas to it makes it less real? I think these 19th C scientists were aware of the vacuum of modern theory. Just lacking the proper...
A faster object has more kinetic energy than a slower object of the same mass due to more momentum, that is mass times velocity.
Pressure is force per unit area, so yes there is a practical difference. You have a force of 1 Newton acting on a surface of 1 square centimeter, or one square...
I have been reading a few old texts from around the turn of the 20th C. and have noticed that in at least two there is mention of the aether in connection with electromagnetic phenomena. In these texts a statement to the effect of "the space around the coil is altered in some way by the passage...