Existence of electricity questioned

Discussion in 'Off-Topic' started by Ratch, Oct 13, 2008.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. Ratch

    Thread Starter New Member

    Mar 20, 2007
    1,068
    3
  2. beenthere

    Retired Moderator

    Apr 20, 2004
    15,815
    282
    I'm really put off by this crud. I got as far as this heading - "
    ELECTRICITY IS ENERGY? WRONG. ACTUALLY ELECTRICITY DOES NOT EXIST!"


    and moved this post.

    It may be fun to hold contrarian opinions, but airing them disguised as serious fact will not fly. If someone want to discuss this in this forum, then fine. Please do not place this stuff out as established fact.
     
  3. Papabravo

    Expert

    Feb 24, 2006
    10,142
    1,790
    I think it may be better to keep your mouth shut and let people think you a fool, than to open it and remove all doubt.
     
  4. Ratch

    Thread Starter New Member

    Mar 20, 2007
    1,068
    3
    beenthere,

    It appears you did not read the site very closely and overreacted. What Bill Beaty says is that "electricity" is a very general ambiguous term that could mean a lot of different things depending on the context. You would not call "physics" an energy, would you. Even though a great deal of it involves energy. Same with electricity. Now if he said that electrical energy did not exist, then you would have justification to call him crazy.

    Papabravo,

    Your reference to "your" is ambiguous. Which one of us did you have in mind?

    Ratch
     
  5. Mark44

    Well-Known Member

    Nov 26, 2007
    626
    1
    It wasn't in the slightest ambiguous from where I'm sitting.
     
  6. Ratch

    Thread Starter New Member

    Mar 20, 2007
    1,068
    3
    Mark44,

    Clue me in.

    Ratch
     
  7. Dave

    Retired Moderator

    Nov 17, 2003
    6,960
    144
    That article is terrible - you get 1000s of words of near incomprehensible waffle debunking the mysteries and misunderstandings of the black-art of "static electricity" and then at the bottom in a couple of hundred words we actually find out what the author thinks static electricity is, note number 1: "Static electricity is a field of science" - not by any measure I have ever looked at, it is a phenomenon, it can be ascribed to a physical entity and scenario, but I have never in my life heard it referred to in the abstract sense as "a field".

    Dave
     
  8. scubasteve_911

    Senior Member

    Dec 27, 2007
    1,202
    1
    This isn't the first or last time the OP has posted non-sense.

    Steve
     
  9. thingmaker3

    Retired Moderator

    May 16, 2005
    5,072
    6
    While there appears to be ambiguity with Papabravo's comment, I am confident Papabravo understands our forum policies. Deduction therefore suggests the ad-hominem comment was directed at Beatty.

    Although Beatty is technically a member here, he has posted only once and long ago. The Prophet's message fell upon deaf ears. Seeing that he had cast his pearls before swine, he shook the dirt from his feet as he departed.

    His priests keep tossing us pearls, of course. Oink, oink! :p
     
  10. Ratch

    Thread Starter New Member

    Mar 20, 2007
    1,068
    3
    Dave,

    You are right about the roundabout way the author tries to make his points. Also his writing style tends to be too dramatic. So you have a legitimate gripe about the way the messenger delivers his message. He basically says that "static electricity" is a generic catchall word like "electricity", that can mean a lot of different things depending on the context in which it is used. That is what I agree with, and the point I wanted to make also. The author finally gets around to saying that static electricity as a field of science is defined as electrostatics, which I think you would agree is a field or subfield of "electricity".

    Ratch
     
  11. Ratch

    Thread Starter New Member

    Mar 20, 2007
    1,068
    3
    scubasteve_911,

    Could you post an example and defend it against my challenges?

    Ratch
     
  12. Ratch

    Thread Starter New Member

    Mar 20, 2007
    1,068
    3
    thingmaker3,

    Thank you for your elucidation.

    Ratch
     
  13. Dave

    Retired Moderator

    Nov 17, 2003
    6,960
    144
    I think we agree on the writing style. Although I think saying static electricity and electrostatics are one and the same thing is potentially confusing to the reader, and particularly ironic considering the author is driven by debunking and making things clearer. Electrostatics is a field, that is it is an abstraction of a collection of phenomena and concepts. Static electricity describes the phenomena and can be ascribed to physical entities and scenarios - something the author does acknowledge in the article referenced in the OP. Electrostatics is the science of static electricity.

    Dave
     
  14. loosewire

    AAC Fanatic!

    Apr 25, 2008
    1,584
    435
    Is electricity and electronic still A theory,so like Ben Franklin the
    first time you experience Static electricity with out your education,
    you were unaware excited maybe bewildered.When gasoline tankers
    started to burn,they became aware of static electricity.I wonder who get credit for that one. I.B.M. was able to see bucky balls with powerful microscopes. Is static electricity still theory, like lightning it can flow
    around until it is grounded,then you get results. The hair standing up
    on arms up is natures way saying theory rules.
    LOOSEWIRE- ALL RIGHTS DESERVED
     
  15. thingmaker3

    Retired Moderator

    May 16, 2005
    5,072
    6
    Obviously, one cannot provide example of something you've yet to say. I'll stick to examples from the past... How about your assertion that inability to detect something means it does not exist? How about your assertion that "perfect" objects exist in practical reality? (page 10 of this past May's "Treatise about Voltage.")
     
  16. Ratch

    Thread Starter New Member

    Mar 20, 2007
    1,068
    3
    thingmaker3,

    By all means.

    How about a reference so that I can see what the context was. I believe it had to do with specifing meaningless precision that could not be determined.

    Yes, how about it? You quit discussing it, so you cannot claim that you are correct and I was wrong. Do you want to continue to explain why I am wrong and you are right? http://forum.allaboutcircuits.com/showthread.php?t=11579&highlight=Treatise+Voltage&page=10

    Ratch
     
  17. thingmaker3

    Retired Moderator

    May 16, 2005
    5,072
    6
    Page ten of the famous May thread
    I believe it had to do with your off-hand dismissal of fact and logic counter to your weak argument. Shall we discuss the gods as well?

    What I quit doing was wasting my time. What I claimed ws "argumentum ad ignoratium."

    I have already explained it. "Argumentum ad ignoratium." You simply chose to ignore the explanation. I predict you will continue to do so. (Wow! Got in an example from the future after all!:p)
     
  18. Ratch

    Thread Starter New Member

    Mar 20, 2007
    1,068
    3
    thingmaker3,

    I looked over "page 10" again, and I cannot find anything that justifies what you claim. Especially your first assertion. In order for this argument to have any meaning or relevance, you need to specify a specific post number, the exact quote, and your analysis of why it is wrong. Throwing Latin at it without backing it up is an accusation, not a cogent refutation of a misstatement. Are you up to the challenge?

    Ratch
     
  19. thingmaker3

    Retired Moderator

    May 16, 2005
    5,072
    6
    First off, I apologize for the delay of my response. I've been spending my discretionary hours moving heavy objects.

    Your words do not surprise me in the least. It is the nature of perception that we most often see only what we want to see. You wanted to see nothing, so that is what your mind interpreted.

    Permit me to expand your mind. (This may pinch just a tad...)

    I refer to posts #92 and #99. You assert that "perfect" insulators exist. You claim an unmeasurable value is an infinite value. I could easily use your own "reasoning" to "prove" that you yourself do not exist. (Per inferential argument, I cannot prove anything to exist other than myself. Since I cannot prove you exist, you do not exist. What was that loud pop? It was the air rushing in where Ratch was.[/i] Alas! Poor Ratch! I knew, him, Horatio - a man of infinite pedantry.[/i]) If you look up the Latin phrase on your favorite search engine, you will find the error of your ways.

    And, oh! the irony! You even went so far as to insist you showed me a perfect insulator insofar as perfection can be achieved. Shoot, by re-defining terms on the fly, one could make a case for any position. No wonder you enjoy argument so much! You get to re-define reality itself to fit your minority paradigm! And the hugely funny thing is that you yourself claimed on page 7 in post 66 "a perfect capacitor without leakage does not exist." You continue on " But if it did..." and then fall into the logical fallacy of Hypothesis contrary to fact. (That one is not in Latin, by the way.)

    So, as all can clearly see, ScubaSteve911 is entirely correct in his assertion.

    I disagree in the strongest possible terms. There is no possible way for this argument to have any meaning or relevance whatsoever. This is simply an exercise or a diversion for you and a few moments entertainment for me. Nothing will be proven to anyone. Nothing new will be learned. No student will be enlightened. The most we can hope for from threads like this one is a good laugh and a few moments relief from insomnia. We're lucky this thing hasn't already been shut down by one of the moderators as a waste of bandwidth.

    You made no misstatement, my good man. You made an error in logic. A misstatement would be to quote "E=I/R" instead of "E=I*R." An error in logic (specifically Argumentum ad Ignorantiam) would be to claim no current exists simply because my meter cannot detect such a small current. You have internet access, look up the Latin. Knowing about logical fallacies might be of interest to you. Such knowledge would certainly allow you to indulge less often in what ScubaSteve911 calls "nonsense."

    Once again, the burden of proof lies squarely and upon your own shoulders. It will sit there like an albatross regardless of how tightly you close your eyes or how far into your ears you push your fingers.
    What challenge? I see nothing challenging about any of this. Heck, I even won the bit about you being irrational in the future. I'll go even further: you'll be irrationon in the future yet again. It will be in the very post you make in reply to mine own humble offering.

    Getting back on topic:

    I have a co-worker who suggests Beaty do the following the following:
    1) Cut the appliance cord from an appliance at the appliance.
    2) Strip the insulation of the cut end.
    3) Plug in the cord.
    4) Stick the bare leads one to either side of his tongue.
    5) Decide only then whether "electricity does not exist."
     
  20. Ratch

    Thread Starter New Member

    Mar 20, 2007
    1,068
    3
    thingmaker3,

    But you are now going to show me what I missed, right?

    That's all right. I can take it.

    I assert that if something cannot be measured or determined to be lacking in what is considered perfect, then for practical purposes, it is perfect. If a value, not necessary infinity, cannot be determined to show any error either by direct measurement, or the effects an error would cause, then for practical purposes, the value has been determined perfectly.

    Sure you can. Someone named Ratch has to be answering and submitting these posts. Therefore you know I exist. You just don't know a lot of details about me. Other things you can determine by the effects they cause. I don't think Latin is not going to show errors to anybody.

    First of all, it was not redefining terms. I was making and sharing an observation. For instance, you hear about something being a perfect copy of another thing. Well, we know that it isn't so. If you get down into enough detail, you can always find some difference somewhere. But when the difference does not matter, we define it to be a perfect copy. I did not redefine perfection, I was just using the same definition that everyone uses.


    Yes, "hypotheses contrary to fact" is a very useful artifice and a very powerful tool for the theoretician. Galileo used it to determine that all objects fall at the same acceleration. He first assumed that heavier objects fall faster, which we know is contrary to fact. So he said that if he attached a heavy object to a much lighter object, the heavy object would speed up the lighter object and the lighter object would slow down the heavy object. So the acceleration would be some value in-between. But the combined objects are heavier than the heavy object, so it should fall faster than the heavy object alone. That is contrary to the first premise. So he concluded that the only way to solve that conundrum was to know that all uninhibited objects fall at the same rate of acceleration.

    So I have not redefined anything. I just used a commonly accepted definition that we all employ.

    Well, I sure can't see it. You sure did not prove it. Do you believe it yourself?

    Perhaps nothing will be proven, but the knowledge of what is perfection was presented.

    Nonsense, it is you who is saying that perfection exists even when you cannot determine whether it is there or not. I say it is a quantitative measurement and sometimes a qualitative assessment that is attained when deviation cannot be observed. I believe my way of looking at it is more in tune with what the majority of the folks think.

    Argumentum ad Ignorantiam=Argument from ignorance. Makes no sense to me in this discussion. I think I have a reasonable and defendable way at looking at something.

    Proof of what? Oh, the perfect insulator. This is not about proof. It is about definition. I would have thought you realized that by now. You don't prove perfection, you define it. I defined what I thought was perfection. Maybe you could define what you think it is.

    The challenge where you prove my definition of perfection is wrong.

    You did?

    You think so?

    Does your friend address the ambiguity that the word has? What does it mean to say that a wire is full of "electricity" when it is plugged into a wall outlet? One could just as well say the wire is full of "physics". What Beaty was trying to say is that the word "electricity" has multiple meanings and that a singular definition does not exist. Do you have any problem with agreeing with the last sentence? Too bad Beaty is so verbose and tries to be too dramatic.

    Ratch
     
Loading...
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.