Can I create static electricity efficiently?

Discussion in 'General Science & Technology' started by Bob-a-builder, Jun 11, 2019.

  1. Bob-a-builder Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    122
    It was trying to figure out the question that brought me here that made me watch the video.

    The entire "alternate theory" thread was based on ONE youtube video that seemed logical to anyone with such a sense.

    I thought it a FUN IDEA. Now it has made me realize the kind of idiocy that this forum represents (I apologize to anyone with a brain cell here).

    That said.

    This forum seems to be filled with childish less than smart people. I was giving kudos for some answers above but after several weeks I can see no difference between copper plates and a electric field generated by a microwave oven or a vacuum.

    Perhaps that is wrong. I will never know because when I have posted legitimate topics here you guys jump on every word to obfuscate and strawman.

    The physics question I posed in physics. "How would a light flat rectangular lid on a rectangular pot faced with inceasing pressure react" should be child level science. There is nothing unscientific in that question, and yet it took FOUR(4) pages before someone actually bothered with an answer.
    (see that thread if you think you can explain it, and I will buy a meatloaf pan and film how a thin piece of sheet-metal will react as a lid if you wish to keep saying it would remain on the bloody boiling pot of water - At this point I think you need the education).

    The only other thread is in response to conspiracy theories that computers can do anything more than compare values. If you buy into the woo that computers can do more simply because your PlayStation enemies seem clever, that is understandable. Its a common movie theme. Just pretty daft.

    So... You are accusing me of asking the above question for no reasons.

    It was because this forum left me with more questions than answers that I even watched the video below.

    NOTE: This post and video are off topic. I am only responding to the previous poster who is pushing his religious woo on history and who has no evidence to back up his claims that these were as the video suggests (at least first half of video).

    "History is a set of lies agreed upon" - Napoleon. Just because your mommy teaches you the world is only 5000 years old does not make it so.


    "the Egypt Exploration Fund, was established in Britain in 1891, and on the very first page of its Memorandum and Articles of Association, it is stated that the Fund's objective is to promote excavation work 'for the purpose of elucidating or illustrating the Old Testament narrative'. In short, this meant that if something was found which could be used to support the scriptural teaching, then the public would be informed. Anything which did not support the Church interpretation of the Bible was not destined to see the light in the public domain."

    So sad that you lot buy into the woo proposed by religions.

    Now! Doesn't this forum have any sanity or reasning regarding carrying disputes across threads. Seems not.

    The hypothesis presented in this video (which does NOT belong in this thread) has some sanity to it (at least first half).

    It is contrary to religious doctrine though so it may offend your christian history.

    YOU are the conspiracy theorists is what I'm suggesting. There is NO evidence to support your claims that these were "sarcophagi"

    This is just ONE VIDEO. Those who see it (and have things like common sense and scientific curiosity) may see these containers make more sense as lemonade containers. Than for bull burials (hogwash). Keep their nice cold lemonade on tap!

    So... please move your christian comments to the "Alternative Theories" thread but I had whatever answers this group was capable of on the topic of magnetic fields last week. This thread was finished.. done... and likely filled with the same crap answers I see elsewhere on sciforums.




    That Hypothesis will not vanish as it seems to have much truth. You can pick a side and ridicule it, but if you plan on being alive in a few years you may see this topic become more mainstream.

    I thought it a FUN idea. I placed it in "ALTERNATIVE THEORIES". You are moving it into the mainstream sections.. not me.

    I did not INVENT this Hypothesis. I just don't buy into all your Christian bull (get it.. "BULL" (narf).. They buried "bulls" is Christian thinking)

    (I predict the next posting will be Dwyddyr copying this post and disagreeing with every single line)
     
    Last edited: Jun 17, 2019
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. exchemist Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    9,539
    So you were lying, then, about the "insects" etc.

    Good to have cleared that up.
     
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. Bob-a-builder Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    122
    You obviously misinterpreted the first statement from the quote you just gave from me.

    I had said "It was trying to figure out the question that brought me here that made me watch the video."

    I had joined sciforums to get an answer about an experiment we are doing at home. The first post on this thread was my first post on sciforums. I assumed "sciforums" folk might know something of science. This appears to be a false notion.

    If you followed this thread you will see I was still confused about the answers given and decided (as one would) to educate myself more on the topic by watching many youtube videos on electrical fields etc.

    The video I linked in my last post was not meant for this section. It was placed in Alternative theories because it seemed fun and to make much of egyptology make more common sense (something lacking in this sciforums).

    But yeah. If you wish to think my life revolves solely around "Alternative Theory" then go ahead. I just do not see how you glean such nonsense from the re-quote you just posted from me. I'm questioning your grasp of English I suppose.

    RE-READ WHAT I SAID (from your quote of me in last comment.. first sentence).
    It was trying to figure out the question that brought me here [aka the Opening Post and my first comment on this forum] that made me watch the video.

    I could also translate that into French if that would make it easier to read or comprehend for you.

    If you read this thread in its entirety. You would see I left with more confusion than answers. Even now I see no difference between an electric field from two copper plates or the elctrical fields from a microwave. Perhaps I am very wrong, but I certainly cannot trust the opinions of many whom I deem "unsmart" in this forum as a whole. (no offense to people who have given real answers).

    I did not just watch this video. I watched a few dozen. This hypothesis presented by many now. Is clear on this channel. His is the best presentation of this non-christian thinking.

    You have no evidence to support your claims that the pyramids were a tomb except christian dogma. I would suggest that is the least scientific viewpoint possible. Assumptions.. based on christian notions we are only 5000 years old as a species.

    I am HAPPY I got confused by this thread. I may never have watched this video otherwise and it has converted me to view this as seemingly obvious. To any who watch (not the last bits about earthquake lights). If you wish to maintain my entire reason for being is that alternative theory then feel free. I also have low opinions of your "intelligence".

    Here it is again.


     
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. exchemist Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    9,539
    I've learned there's no point trying to explain science to you. I tried, with your original piezoelectric hypothesis, but you simply ignored it, presumably because it was not the answer you wanted to hear. That sort of attitude to science dooms you to perpetual ignorance.

    I can certainly explain how you create an electric field inside a container (Billvon's explanation is spot-on by the way, so I would just be putting that into my own words), but I am not inclined to risk wasting my time on someone who obviously does not care, at all, whether his ideas are scientifically workable or not.
     
  8. billvon Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    18,084
    The difference is the difference between electrostatics and electrodynamics. At my college they devoted an entire course to statics and a second to dynamics.

    Examples of static fields - permanent magnets, static electricity, storage of electricity in capacitors, MRI field magnets.
    Examples of dynamic fields - transformers, light, radio waves, microwaves, gamma radiation.
    I suspect you would not do well in a college EM course, taught by physics professors whom you think are low intelligence compared to yourself.
     
  9. Bob-a-builder Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    122

    Thank you. I did not mean to be overly harsh about the helpfulness of this thread. This thread has had me learn a lot from outside research and tools like "electroscope", etc. I certainly looked at every link. Some of which was too advanced. I thought you were a programmer? Oh well. Not important. I guess you can know both.

    I do consider some here dense, but that is more because of their failure to look at facts and rely instead on unsubstantiated dogma.
     
  10. billvon Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    18,084
    Cool, then it's served its purpose.
    My degree was in 6-1, electrical engineering and computer science. I concentrated on the hardware side - electrical engineering.
     
    Bob-a-builder likes this.

Share This Page