Language: 
To browser these website, it's necessary to store cookies on your computer.
The cookies contain no personal information, they are required for program control.
  the storage of cookies while browsing this website, on Login and Register.

GDPR and DSGVO law

Storing Cookies (See : http://ec.europa.eu/ipg/basics/legal/cookies/index_en.htm ) help us to bring you our services at overunity.com . If you use this website and our services you declare yourself okay with using cookies .More Infos here:
https://overunity.com/5553/privacy-policy/
If you do not agree with storing cookies, please LEAVE this website now. From the 25th of May 2018, every existing user has to accept the GDPR agreement at first login. If a user is unwilling to accept the GDPR, he should email us and request to erase his account. Many thanks for your understanding

User Menu

Google Search

Custom Search

Author Topic: Rosemary Ainslie COP>17 Circuit / A First Application on a Hot Water Cylinder  (Read 282279 times)

Offline fritznien

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 293
ms shruggedatlas how nice to see you back. loved your old pic huba huba. :-)
fritznien

Offline Pirate88179

  • elite_member
  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 8366
Shrugged Atlas is a guy....trust me on this.

Bill

Offline Paul-R

  • without_ads
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2037

Lastly, if electricity is not the flow of electrons, what is it?
Don't forget that current (allegedly electron flow) and magnetism are
opposite sides of the same coin.

Offline Rosemary Ainslie

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3968
Hi, Rosemary!
Either bozons, zipons,  or fuckons.... OOops, sorry.
Why don't you read at least a basic books about "whatever" you're preaching here?
Is this charade really necessary?
Of course, Stefan made you an Admin (lol)...  Why do you insist to spread all this nonsence of yours, without any kind of a proof?

BTW, why did you abandoned the knitting?

For some reason I'm not getting email notification from OU.com.  I'll need to find out why.  Which is why I haven't been back here for a while.

Spinn - I've always enjoyed the occassional troll - but they must - at the very least - be witty.  Try and up the level of your contributions and I'll tolerate them.  But at this level they'll bore both me and the readers here. 

Offline Rosemary Ainslie

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3968
Just for the record:  Michael Faraday  22 September 1791 – 25 August 1867

Just checked this.  I stand corrected Bubba.  Apologies.
 ;D

Regards,
Rosemary

Offline Rosemary Ainslie

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3968
"a battery is a collection of multiple electrochemical cells, but in popular usage battery often refers to a single cell.[1] The first electrochemical cell was developed by by the Italian physicist Alessandro Volta in 1792,"
i stand corrected 218 years
 from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battery_(electricity)

You were quite right fritznien.  Referenced above.  Apologies. 

Kindest regards,
Rosemary

Offline Rosemary Ainslie

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3968
First of all, electrons share shell paths in atoms, so there is an example of sharing a path.  Second, why can't they flow as current?  Since electrons do not want to be near other electrons, they can push each other forward?

Furthermore, there has been a ton of science about this.  Think about microelectronics, like the microprocessor. These are designed to conduct the flow of electrons through many very tiny paths, and with as much science and progress as has been done here, and as complex as microelectronics are, do you really think microchip manufacturers got it wrong, and their devices work for reasons completely unknown to them?

Lastly, if electricity is not the flow of electrons, what is it?

Hi shruggedatlas.  Yes.  I do think they work on principles that have NOTHING to do with a flow of electrons.  But I am absolutely not that anxious to convert anyone at all to my thinking.  I've simply explained why I think what I do.  No-one's under any pressure or obligation to 'buy in'.  And you're right.  I reference it everywhere.  No single branch of physics is better developed or advanced than that related to quantum electromagnetics.  And - to date - there is no substitute for the electron as the 'carrier' of this energy.  It's just a badly flawed concept that is nonetheless - very effective as a concept.  It works - and it's used.  It's just wrong - is all. 

You must remember that dark energy and dark matter are now entirely proven - yet there are renowned academics who absolutely reject that proof.  Michio Kaku is on record.  He says words to the effect "All the text books that have ever been written.  They're all wrong."  It's just that the 'change over' to new concepts is having a harder time of it than ever before precisely because so many really clever people have bought into ideas that will be entirely outdated within the very near future. 

Kindest regards,
Rosemary

Offline Omnibus

  • elite_member
  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 5330
Rosemary, just for the record, Michio Kaku is not a renowned academic. He's just a writer of books written to amuse readers at large who think science is that kind of amusement. Not that there are no renowned academics writing stupid things too.

Offline Rosemary Ainslie

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3968
Don't forget that current (allegedly electron flow) and magnetism are
opposite sides of the same coin.

Hi Paul.  One must bear in mind that changing electric fields induce magnetic fields and changing magnetic fields induce electric fields.  That concept was proved by Farraday and mathematically refined by Maxwell.  An electric field cannot be measured without a magnetic field associated with it.  But there is NO electric field that has EVER been measured in a magnet on magnet interaction.  It is ASSUMED to be extant within the material structure of those magnets.  It has NEVER been empirically proved.

This means, effectively, that electromagnetic force has been proved.  What has not been disproved is the existence of an independent magnetic force.  But it is not identified as an independent force in any definition of the forces.  There is only recognition of the electromagnetic force.  To my way of thinking - our greats - notwithstanding their extraordinary achievements - have missed out on at least 50% of the eletromagnetic interaction.  And, that they called it 'electricity' at all is based on their early understanding that it was due to electron flow.  That early concept is flawed. 

Kindest regards,
Rosemary 

EDITED

Offline Rosemary Ainslie

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3968
Rosemary, just for the record, Michio Kaku is not a renowned academic. He's just a writer of books written to amuse readers at large who think science is that kind of amusement. Not that there are no renowned academics writing stupid things too.

Hi Omnibus.  I can't comment on how well renowned is Michio Kaku.  I do know he enjoys his publicity.  But he's indeed highly respected amongst academics.  Very much so in fact.  Personally I think he's just so brave.  He speaks things exactly as he sees them.  I don't think he depends on an academic salary though.  Else perhaps he'd be less outspoken. 

Kindest regards,
Rosemary

Offline WilbyInebriated

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3141
just for the record, Michio Kaku is not a renowned academic.
ohhh!! so that is why he holds the henry semat chair... and that is why he published research articles on string theory for 30 years... and that is why he is the author of several doctoral textbooks (are those doctoral students the readers at large who think science is that kind of amusement?) on string theory and quantum field theory...  and that is why has published 170 articles in journals covering topics such as superstring theory, supergravity, supersymmetry, and hadronic physics... because he is not a renowned academic.

i would argue he is.

Offline Rosemary Ainslie

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3968
ohhh!! so that is why he holds the henry semat chair... and that is why he published research articles on string theory for 30 years... and that is why he is the author of several doctoral textbooks (are those doctoral students the readers at large who think science is that kind of amusement?) on string theory and quantum field theory...  and that is why has published 170 articles in journals covering topics such as superstring theory, supergravity, supersymmetry, and hadronic physics... because he is not a renowned academic.

i would argue he is.

Hi Wilby.  LOL.  I, for one, would not want to argue that much evidence.  Golly.

Kindest regards as ever,
R

Offline Omnibus

  • elite_member
  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 5330
ohhh!! so that is why he holds the henry semat chair... and that is why he published research articles on string theory for 30 years... and that is why he is the author of several doctoral textbooks (are those doctoral students the readers at large who think science is that kind of amusement?) on string theory and quantum field theory...  and that is why has published 170 articles in journals covering topics such as superstring theory, supergravity, supersymmetry, and hadronic physics... because he is not a renowned academic.

i would argue he is.

He is known for his amusement books and not for his string theory papers. There are others with string theory papers who aren't nearly as popular as that unfortunate person. Speaking of string theory, all that can be ignored out of hand because it is an outgrowth of another misconception, based on obvious internal contradictions. This isn't the place to discuss it, though.

Offline Omnibus

  • elite_member
  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 5330
Notice also that the

Quote
the henry semat chair...

is not in a university where renowned academics  are known to hold chairs.

Offline WilbyInebriated

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3141
Hi Wilby.  LOL.  I, for one, would not want to argue that much evidence.  Golly.

Kindest regards as ever,
R
hi rosemary. :D and who could forget he (kaku) is listed in who's who in science and engineering, AND american men and women of science... but they don't list people of renown now do they? ::)