I think the 1st guy seems to allude to the prospect of an experiment, so something might happen. Don't know about superconductors.
Not superconductors, but real experiment
Atm I am not sure the superconduction demand makes much of a difference.
nice. But i’m not sure about his omission of inductance. Seems like that’ll be in part 2 though.
Just by reading this, not looking stuff up or rewatching vid, I don't really know what you are talking about here. But didn't he say that something like that will come in part 2?
Yes. He didn’t mention inductance except to admit he didn’t mention it. He implied he would give fuller explanations in part 2.
So what is your problem with him not (yet) talking properly about inductance? Do you see a problem with his experiment or arguments that this will address?
Maybe it’s me who’s wrong. But current in 1 wire inducing opposite current in a parallel wire is well understood. To discuss the phenomenon yet not name it seems strange.
Maybe a better experiment might have the switch and bulb on separate but parallel circuits. dunno.
I am but a humble layman in such matters and suspect you know more than me, but i still don't see how either model ultimately predicts a fundamentally different outcome.
I may not be humble but I am definitely nothing more than a layman. Anyway, I thought there was some disagreement, but the first vid, some time since I watched it, remember few details
I also suspect all involved know this and are playing the 'scientific controversy' angle for clicks.
