Jump to content
Science Forums


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


Reputation Activity

  1. Like
    MitkoGorgiev reacted to OceanBreeze in Coronavirus Is Fake News   
    I have seen some estimates that the infection rate might be tens times higher than we know but I think these are also not based on any real evidence so I don't know how the number is arrived at. But experts are saying the vast majority of people who do get infected will only experience mild symptoms. I don't think we will know how many people are really infected unless we test everyone, which is really not practical or useful. This isn't a big killer like ebola so maybe just let it run its course? But flattening the curve a bit, with hand washing and common sense measures, so emergency rooms are not over loaded is a good idea.
  2. Like
    MitkoGorgiev reacted to marcospolo in Marcospolos Obsession With Einstein Being Wrong   
    Its yet another paradox in an endless series of paradoxes about Einsteins irrational ideas and conclusions.
    The explanation is simply that Einsteins is wrong, Special Relativity is a fantasy, and nothing weird goes on with objects that move, also any ad-hoc pretend "frame of reference" is likewise not going to cause any changes in Physical reality. Because they are imaginary constructs.
    You Relativists need to grow up and smell the roses, Einsteins is wrong, his theories are wrong, and there is a better, simpler and more elegant approach to  Physics (classical)  to study than Einstein's tripe.
    Classical Physics can and has explained Muons, Mercury, Starlight behind the Sun and GPS.  But you prefer to pretend that only weird nonsense of Einsteins is able to uncover or explain these things.
    Modern Physics is squarely based on the idea that the weirder and more mysterious the hypothesis, the more attractive it is to students.
    But as no one here cares for Scientific Honesty or Truth, please go on with your stupidity. Not everyone is buying it however.
  3. Like
    MitkoGorgiev reacted to marcospolo in What Is Electric Current?   
    Yes, of course a 3d spiral will be displayed as a circle in 2d.  That's an Archimedes spiral in your image, with varying radius,  not a helical spiral with fixed radius, which does make concentric circles when viewed straight on. 
    And even if MitkoGorgiev was talking about a varying radius spiral, then STILL it can make a circular cross section. How you may ask?  Well, consider one object moving along a varying radius spiral.  A transverse slice of that objects path would make a single spot, not a whole varying radius spiral.  You can only get that full 2d varying radius spiral by transposing every position that the object passes through, in the entire journey, onto some imaginary background screen, hence creating that Archimedes spiral. But if there were millions of objects all moving along a series of varying radius spiral paths, and they were all at the same diameter at any one time, then a slice of that helix would create a ring of dots in a circular shape.  
    And how on earth can you post images here?  When I try, it just says I'm not allowed to post that type of image.. jpg, gif... ????
  4. Like
    MitkoGorgiev reacted to marcospolo in Spacetime And Sr. Are Interesting But Unsupported Viewpoints.   
    This is the Strange claims forum, where we can discuss ideas that are :outside the bounds of real science: and can consist of unsupported irrational claims"
    Special Relativity, Spacetime, Minkowski, Expanding Universe, 13 billion year old universe, Evolution, General Relativity, Particle Physics, are all prime examples of weird unscientific claims, that are chock a block full of contradictory claims.
    To accept these ideas as if they could possibly be correct, would make one a "Reality Denier". (the worst type of Denier, according to the irrational claim that "to deny something" is some sort of crime anyway)
    This means that its correct to say that universities are teaching errors, not Physics.
    Its not hard to imagine this being possible.
    Yes, and even people who are supposed to be "brilliant" can be easily fooled by fantasy.
    Because all these concepts are just one big fantasy story, like Harry Potter stories.
    The real "crime" is to push bizarre, irrational  ideas with the power of trusted authority, claiming that "this is REAL Science, and anyone who disagrees is therefore a crank, because we say so, not because of any sensible hypothesis"
  5. Like
    MitkoGorgiev got a reaction from marcospolo in What Is Electric Current?   
    Consider these experiments:
    let us take two pieces of wire of equal thickness, but of different metals, which have a great difference in their resistivities – let's say, a copper wire and a kanthal wire. If we connect the two wires in series and position this “one” wire in north-south direction, under each piece we place a compass (the two compasses are identical) and then connect the ends to a battery, we will see that the deflections of the two needles are different. The needle under the copper wire deflects more than the needle under the kanthal wire.
    On the other hand, when we connect in series two pieces of kanthal wire of different cross sections and then place a compass under each one, we notice again that the needles make different deflections. Under the thinner piece we see a greater deflection than under the thicker one.
    The strength of the current is the same through both pieces since they are connected in series. But still, the deflections of the magnetic needles are not the same.
    This happens because the pitch of the magnetic spiral is not the same through all the wire pieces connected in series. 
    In the first variant of the experiment the magnetic spiral is more compacted in the copper piece.
    In the second variant the magnetic spiral is more compacted in the thinner kanthal piece.
    The magnetic spirals are not static. It is a magnetic current, just as the underwater spiral cavitation is a kind of current.
    I see that some people like mathematics very much. For them, here is the formula for the magnitude of the angle of the magnetic spiral:
    α = 90° (1-e^(-k*I/ρ*S))
    e - Euler's number
    k -  constant
    I - current strength
    ρ - resistivity of the metal
    S - cross sectional area of the wire piece
    When the current (I) is stronger, the angle (α) exponentially approaches to 90 degrees.
    P.S. Do you really believe that the iron filings circles is enough proof that the magnetic field of a current-carrying conductor is ideally at 90 degrees with respect to the wire line? Wouldn't you get the same circles also in the case of spiral-shaped field?
    The sheet of paper is two dimensional, isn't it?
  6. Like
    MitkoGorgiev got a reaction from marcospolo in What Is Electric Current?   
    Why do you comment on a topic which according to you is silly?
    I will tell you why. Because it is not silly at all, and something deeper inside you tells you that. But your biased mind is not able to comprehend that.
    The future will tell which theory is silly.
    P.S. I will answer you soon to your objection about the magnetic field.
  7. Like
  8. Like
    MitkoGorgiev reacted to marcospolo in Is Faraday's Law Of Induction True?   
    This is exactly the response you always get from religious extremists. Which these guys are. I've run into their lack of logic and refusal to THINK critically, when discussing the massive errors on Einsteins theory of Relativity.
    They just refuse to respond to questions, and jump to personal insults as if that can fix the problems.
    The more I look into Physics, the more clashes of sound logic I find. There is a issue of reifying concepts, of pretending that metaphors are actual real objects or forces, and they skip over the hard questions.
  9. Like
    MitkoGorgiev got a reaction from marcospolo in Is Faraday's Law Of Induction True?   
    Instead of trolling, why don't you try to answer my question about the picture from the German textbook? 
    What is it in the human nature, when one has no arguments, immediately to begin with insults? Are there psychologists in this forum to answer this question?
  10. Like
    MitkoGorgiev reacted to marcospolo in Cathode Rays Are Actually Not Cathode Rays   
    I'm dubious, very skeptical of Rutherford's assumptions about what he imagined was inside an atom.
    Just more layers of smaller and smaller particles. All his ideas have been accepted as if there was no possible other options. Electrons, Protons, Neutrons, then down to quarks, etc.. particles all the way down.
    I'm very interested in what is behind the tracks and traces seen in a cloud chamber. The official explanation is sub atomic particles again.
    But the tracks involve massive particles of vapor, tracks are mm wide, and are caused by a sub atomic particle that is similar in size differential  of a drop of water striking the ocean and making a 50 mile wide wake?
    Same with those photo plates that are supposed to be recording the striking of a single Photon Yet the "spot" is billions of atoms in area.  (how big was a photon anyway? )
    So is it possible to come up with another non particle explanation for those cloud chamber tracks? 
  11. Like
    MitkoGorgiev reacted to marcospolo in What Is Electric Current?   
    What you re saying makes more sense than tiny projectiles racing around hitting things.
  12. Like
    MitkoGorgiev got a reaction from marcospolo in Cathode Rays Are Actually Not Cathode Rays   
    In the case of CRT, I don't have a theory, but a true fact. And that is: the beam in any CRT is an electromagnetic vortex whose direction is from the positive to the negative electrode.
    By the way, mathematics proves nothing. Even if I give you a whole bunch of maths, at the end you'll say: OK, that's nice. Now show me something real. Show me how it functions in reality.
    What should I show you? Experiments, nothing else.
  13. Like
    MitkoGorgiev reacted to marcospolo in Cathode Rays Are Actually Not Cathode Rays   
    That's one way of defining science. But its not necessarily correct.
    Math cant prove anything.
    Many completely opposing hypothesis all come with lots of equations and math, yet they all can't be correct. And maybe none are.
    So conclusion is that math in a hypothesis explaining how something works is not as important as they make out, Its a Kabbalistic, numerological invention of ancient mystical religions. Magic numbers...
  14. Like
    MitkoGorgiev got a reaction from marcospolo in Cathode Rays Are Actually Not Cathode Rays   
    Contrary to everything you have learned about the so called “cathode rays”, I assert something completely different about them.
    Please look at this drawing:

    This is a kind of cathode ray tube (CRT), also called Braun tube, which can be found in every CRT TV, monitor or oscilloscope. On the left side of the tube is the negative electrode (the cathode) and a little to the right is the positive (the anode), which is in the form of a metal disk with a small hole in the middle. To the right of the anode there are two additional electrodes which, when connected to a high DC voltage, deflect the beam from its straight line upwards to the positive electrode. The beam itself is actually invisible, but is made visible by adding a small amount of some inert gas into the tube (neon, argon etc.).
    The contemporary physics asserts that this is a beam of negative particles, called electrons, traveling from the cathode through the anode and then hitting the opposite wall of the tube.
    I assert that this so-called “beam” is actually an electromagnetic vortex (EM-tornado).

    (a real image of a CRT taken from the Youtube video Magnetic Forces and Magnetic Fields.)
    What the author of this answer regards as contradictory in the assertion of moving negative electricity from the cathode through the anode to the opposite wall are two things. The first is of principle nature: one of the basic principles of nature is that the movement is always from the positive to the negative and not contrariwise (please see https://www.quora.com/Is-positive-and-negative-electricity-nomenclature-arbitrary). The second is a matter of fact. Let us examine the nature of electricity around the right part of the tube in the drawing above, in other words, let us examine it in front of the screen of a CRT television, monitor, or oscilloscope - we will always find that the detector shows intense positive electricity.
    That it is impossible, negative electricity to travel towards the screen and on its other side to appear positive electricity, shows the following experiment: we electrify a vinyl (gramophone) plate by rubbing it (as we know it is negatively electrified) and place it behind a big glass window. Then we test the nature of the electricity on the other side of the window. The detector shows presence of negative electricity just as it would have indicated without the glass. Glass does not change the nature of electricity on the other side.
    Before we present our explanation of this phenomenon, let us consider a few more experiments. We place a stiff copper wire on a table. Parts of its length don’t touch the table. Above a wire section that does not touch the table we hold a strong cylindrical magnet with its positive pole down, so that the wire lies exactly under the middle of the magnet. Then we connect a new battery to the ends of the wire so that the positive pole is closer to us and the negative pole further away from us. At the moment of connection we will notice that the wire makes a strong deflection to the left and up. As soon as we turn the magnet over and repeat the same, the wire will make a strong deflection to the right and up. If we hold the magnet again with the positive pole down, now not directly over the wire, but left over it, however still close to it, we will notice that the wire after connecting to the battery makes a jerky movement to the right and down. How is this explained? In the first variant, the permanent magnet “blows” down; the magnetic wind in and around the wire blows clockwise spirally from the plus to the minus pole of the battery; it blows down on the right of the wire, up on the left of it; on the right of the wire both magnetic winds coincide (the effect intensifies), and on the left of the wire they collide (the effect weakens); the wire moves to where the effect only intensifies, namely to the maximum, and that is to the left and up. In the third variant, in which both winds only collide, the wire deflects to where the adverse effect is maximally attenuated or quite ceased, namely to the right and down.

    Now, facing a CRT oscilloscope, we let its beam run slowly and uniformly from left to right (visible as a bright dot moving horizontally from left to right in the middle of the screen); then, exactly over the center of the screen, we place a magnet with its plus-pole down. We will notice that the dot moves no longer horizontally, but that it slopes downwards and passes through the center. When we turn the magnet upside down, the dot slopes upwards, passing through the center again. If we compare this observation with what we have just said about the experiment with the copper wire and the magnet, we find the same thing happening in both cases. We conclude that the rotational direction of the magnetic wind generated by the beam in the oscilloscope coincides with that of the wire, as long as the positive pole of the battery is closer to us. So it's also the oscilloscope's plus side closer to us when we stand in front of it.
    [ The (+)pole of the magnet points downwards, the beam of the oscilloscope approaches it from the left. On the right side of the beam its magnetic wind blows down, i.e. both winds match; so, the beam is shifted upwards. When it goes to the right side of the screen, also on the right side of the magnet, then their winds collide, so the beam is shifted downwards.]
    We explain this phenomenon as follows: the positive electricity radiating from the anode spreads to the right into the broader part of the Braun tube in the drawing above. Since the anode is a disc with a circular hole in the middle, this electricity, with the help of the suctioning minus cathode on the other side of the anode, forms a vortex which is directed to the opening of the anode and continues to the cathode. This electromagnetic tornado is actually the beam that is visible when a small amount of an inert gas is introduced into the tube.
    So when we stand in front of an oscilloscope and the bright dot lies still in the center of the screen, then it flows in the tube around the bright dot invisible positive swirling electricity towards us and from the very dot begins a vortex in the opposite direction towards the hole of the anode and onward to the cathode. The bright dot is actually the top of this EM-tornado. (Even with toys that cause a vortex in a water-filled container by means of a small electric motor located at the bottom, it can be noticed that the movement of the water around the vortex is directed upwards, but in the vortex downwards).
    The fact that the vortex is deflected to the positive of the two additional electrodes does not contradict this explanation, because I assert that this is not something that can be simply accommodated under the postulate “plus attracts minus”, but rather a positioning of a motion consistent with ambient influences whereby maximum effects are achieved (we could observe something similar in the previous experiment, where the wire was deflected to the left and up while the magnet with its plus pole was positioned over it). For the effect of the vortex to reach the maximum, it is deflected to the positive electrode when additional electrodes are inserted in the tube.
    In the above-mentioned toys, the water vortex is fully upright when the electric motor is positioned right in the middle of the bottom of a cylindrical or slightly conical vessel. However, when the motor is displaced to one side of the vessel, the vortex is curved towards the opposite side. In this way, it strives to achieve the maximum effect, in this case to capture the largest possible amount of water and make it spin (YouTube video).
    In our case the electromagnetic vortex makes a curve to the positive electrode; thus it seeks to capture and spin the largest possible amount of positive electricity.
    [ When an air-tornado inclines to one side, then it does it to the side where the air-pressure is higher. Higher air-pressure means more air, so it strives to capture more air, make it spin and thus stay alive. If we imagine the positive electricity as a higher pressure, the negative electricity as a lower pressure, then the EM-tornado inclines of course to the higher pressure, i.e., to the positive of the additional electrodes. ]
    It can also be assumed that a non-symmetrical conical glass tube would make the vortex curved even without the additional electrified electrodes (drawing below).

    [please see also (in slow motion, let’s say 0.25 of the normal speed) how the vortex gradually position itself in the middle of the bottle in this YouTube video from 2:03 to 2:05].
    Another detail indicating that this is a kind of vortex is the shape which the bright dot takes when turning off the oscilloscope. It “dissolves” circularly. Something similar is also notic­eable on the water surface of the mentioned toy after switching off the electric motor.
    [ With the air- or the water-tornado, the force of the gravity is pulling the vortex down. With the electricity the suctioning minus cathode takes the role of the gravity, that is, the role of pulling the EM-vortex “down”.]
    Edit 09-Mar-2020: I have come across a YouTube video where it is visible with naked eye that the “beam” is actually a vortex.
    From 1:30 to 1:50. Please watch the video on Full screen.
  • Create New...