Electric current is an immaterial swirling wind through the electrical conductor. The immaterial magnetic wind through it is also helical-shaped (i.e., it is not perpendicular to the conductor as the contemporary physics asserts). During the flow of direct current, both winds blow from the plus- to the minus-pole of the battery, the electric wind in counter-clockwise direction, whereas the magnetic wind in clockwise direction. These two fluxes are at angle of 90 degrees.
I will introduce a new explanation of the electric current which I call “dynamic” because it speaks of forces (δύναμις = force), in contrast to the contemporary explanation which is materialistic, because it speaks of material particles, called electrons, supposedly moving through the metal wires. I call the new explanation “dynamic” because in its basis lies vibration of electromagnetic forces (EM-forces). These forces are not material. What was just said is well documented when we recall that the magnetic and the electric forces cannot be blocked by material bodies that are placed between the source of the force and the bodies they act on. For example, if we put a piece of iron near a magnet, the magnet will attract it even if we place a plastic, wooden or metal board between them. Likewise, radio waves penetrate walls without perforating them. This can be done only by something that is not of material nature. But even though they are immaterial, a material body is needed as their source. And in order to manifest themselves, they also need a suitable object to act upon; otherwise we would not be aware of their existence.
Other terms necessary to understand the new explanation are “order” and “orientation”. We can get a notion of these terms from several things: from magnetism, thread, wood, etc. When a magnet is brought in the vicinity of iron powder, the particles of the powder will adhere to the magnet with strictly oriented order. If we think of such a particle as a very small line segment, then it aligns itself not only in the same direction with the other particles, but also has a strict orientation of its plus and minus poles. We can imagine the particle as the smallest possible line segment and yet its properties will remain as described. In the thread we also have an ordered multiplicity of tiny little plant or animal fibers in the same spiral direction, except that there is no orientation here, that is, the fibers have no poles.
Now I will introduce the electromagnetic force element, which is the basis of the explanation. It has the following form:
The EM-force element has three segments. In the middle is the magnetic segment with its two poles, M(+) and M(–), and at its ends are the electrical plus (E+) and minus (E−) segments, arranged at an angle of 90° to the magnetic segment. We have to imagine this element in a huge multiplicity, evoked by the power source.
[ In relation to this new explanation, we could also visualize a new notion of the matter: if we, so to say, descend ever deeper and deeper in the matter, at the end we come to nothing. But this “nothing” is actually not nothing. It is invisible, intangible, immaterial forces: electromagnetic forces, light forces etc. The matter at the end, so to say, “dissolves” in immaterial forces.
So, we could say that the matter is a kind of condensation of immaterial forces. ]
Let’s say the power source is an electrochemical cell, i.e., a battery. What is a battery? If two plates of two different metals (say copper and zinc) are partly immersed in a dissolved agent (acid, base, salt), then the part of the copper plate outside the liquid is polarized in one sense (plus), the immersed part in the opposite sense (minus). For the zinc plate applies the opposite. Plus means blowing, minus means suctioning (please see Is positive and negative electricity nomenclature arbitrary?). The two metal plates of the battery can be imagined as two fans. The one that blows outside the liquid (positive electrode = copper), that suctions inside the liquid; the one that suctions outside the liquid (negative electrode = zinc), that blows inside it. When the electrodes are connected with a metal wire, a closed flux is created. The plus is the strongest near the positive pole and, as we move away from it through the wire, its strength continuously decreases. The same applies to the minus, but starting from the other pole. Figuratively, we can represent it this way:
So, the current that emanates from the copper plate is a plus current, because we usually speak of the current through the connecting wire. The current from the zinc plate is a minus current.
Just as the air wind from a fan is a swirling motion, so it is the electric wind through the conducting path. And just as the air swirl is more extended when the air current is stronger, so it is the electricity’s swirl when the electric current is stronger.
( I am sorry I didn’t draw real helices. )
But as the electricity’s swirl is becoming more extended with increased electric current, so the magnetic swirl, or rather, the magnetic helix is becoming more compact (i.e. less extended). When the current is stronger, then the magnetic helix is so tight, that it is practically at an angle of 90° with respect to the conductor’s line; but, of course, never ideally. At the same time the electricity’s swirl is practically at an angle of 0° with respect to the conductor’s line.
Here we have something very similar to the water swirl and its cavitation. When a propeller is turning underwater, then the motion of the water is to one direction, while the motion of the cavities is at angle of 90° with respect to that of the water (drawing below). The faster the propeller is turning, the more extended is the water swirl and the more compacted is the cavities’ helix.
The motion of the water corresponds to the motion of the electric wind; the motion of the cavities corresponds to the magnetic wind.
Although the electromagnetic element is represented by straight lines, it is only a symbolic representation. Each line represents a flux, and the many elementary fluxes unify themselves in a single electromagnetic flux (principle of self-similarity).
The E and M-segments could be imagined as helical gears.
Probably it seems inconsistent that we draw the EM-force element so that the arrows of both E-segments point from their sources outwards on the one hand, while on the other hand we say that the one force has a suctioning effect. Hence, its arrow should have been drawn in the opposite direction. However, the direction of the arrows does not refer to whether the force acts from the source outwards or inwards, but rather to the effect of the action of both E-segments on the M-segment, that is, on its righting with respect to the wire line.
Quotation from Hans Christian Oersted (21 July, 1821): “All the effects on the north pole above-mentioned are easily understood by supposing that negative electricity moves in a spiral line bent towards the right, and propels the north pole, but does not act on the south pole. The effects on the south pole are explained in a similar manner, if we ascribe to positive electricity a contrary motion and power of acting on the south pole, but not upon the north. The agreement of this law with nature will be better seen by a repetition of the experiments than by a long explanation. The mode of judging of the experiments will be much facilitated if the course of the electricities in the uniting wire be pointed out by marks or figures.”
Quotation from Michael Faraday (1822): “The theory of M.Oersted, therefore, seems to require that there be two electric fluids; that they be not either combined or separate, but in the act of combining so as to produce an electric conflict; that they move nevertheless separate from each other, and in opposite spiral directions, through and round the wire; and that they have entirely distinct and different magnetical powers; the one electricity (negative) propelling the north pole of a magnet, but having no action at all on the south pole; the other electricity (positive) propelling the south pole, but having no power over the north pole.
I have before said, that I am not able to comprehend the whole of the Professor's statement, and, perhaps, therefore, ought not to send you any account of it. It is to be hoped, however, that this celebrated philosopher will shortly develope the principles more at large, which have already led him to the results he has published; and there can be no doubt that in pursuing them he will arrive at other results as new to the world, as important to science, and as honourable to himself, as those he has already made known.”
P.S. When a body moves through space filled with air, then higher pressure is created in front of it, while lower pressure/depressure behind it. The higher pressure is plus, the lower pressure is minus. I use to call this a ‘principle of an arrow’ (− >—> +).
The greater the velocity of the body is, the stronger is the Plus in front of it as well as the Minus behind it. This principle can be found in many things, among others also in the so-called “Bernoulli’s principle”.
The cavitation of the underwater propeller is actually the Minus - the Negative of the water motion. Similarly, the magnetic current is the Negative of the electric current. In other words, the electricity is Plus, the magneticity is Minus. This is a polarity of first order. There is further once more a Plus and a Minus both in electricity and in magneticity. It is a polarity of second order.
You've espoused a lot of BS theories here. Tell us one thing you've been able to actually accomplish with them. Have you been able to build any machine which had original aspects? Have you even had a paper published in a peer reviewed journal?
Brandon's point is that if your idea is correct, you should be able to show it in application, in a critical experiment that separates your idea from commonly accepted theory. Have you conducted that experiment or conceived of what it would look like?
Mon 11 Apr, 2022 08:14 pm
Mitko Gorgiev wrote:
"But those who have ears, they will hear".
Obviously my articles are not for your limited mind.
Translation: No, you have not been able to build any machine which had original aspects or had a paper published in a peer reviewed journal.
I presume that if you can invent all of these physics theories, then you could solve simple, high school level physics problems, correct?
Sun 14 Aug, 2022 03:47 pm
I have to make a little correction regarding the EM-force element. It should have been presented like this:
Consequently, the next diagram after this in the original post (OP) should be also changed accordingly.
The passage below should be deleted from the OP: "Probably it seems inconsistent that we draw the EM-force element so that the arrows of both E-segments point from their sources outwards on the one hand, while on the other hand we say that the one force has a suctioning effect. Hence, its arrow should have been drawn in the opposite direction. However, the direction of the arrows does not refer to whether the force acts from the source outwards or inwards, but rather to the effect of the action of both E-segments on the M-segment, that is, on its righting with respect to the wire line."
And I would add this passages to the OP:
" The analogy with the water swirling motion and its cavitation refers only to the form. What does that mean?
No analogy is perfect. The water current and the cavitation current are really moving. However, in the case of electricity and magneticity nothing is moving in that sense. The helical magnetic current you should imagine as follows.
Look please at this helix made from a wire:
Let’s say you are turning this helix to the right holding it on the near end (where the red arrow is). Is something moving from right to left? You can say “yes”, but you can also say “no”, because the helix is turning in place. It is so because the electro-magnetic current is just a vibration.
P.S. It is not allowed to edit the OP, so I have to make the correction as a reply to it.
Piggy is reluctant to say something in physics forum, because piggy feels physics now is that thing = “standard” (dead) model + miscellaneous fringe ideas / theories.
Many guys are trying to abstract / illusionize physics.
The movement of charge(s) is a physics phenomenon. The method to describe such movement is the concept of current. I = nqv. It’s that simple. However there is really an obscure problem in the contemporary “authentic” concept of current. Whether it should be charge moves relative to any reference frame or should be charge moves relative to charge? This is something deserves serious research.
Further step research would be the “effect of current”.
Whether a “new” idea is worthy is to see how many problems it can help solve (or as Mr. engineer said “show it in application”), rather than how many “?” it can create.
Piggy has unified the traditional conception of four fundamental natural forces, Relativity and QM in one physics model. But piggy doesn’t think many people have listened with their “ears”, but with their “teeth”.
Piggy really has no enough time to turn the pig ear as a radar to detect everything around.
Fri 28 Oct, 2022 07:21 pm
It's a great pity that our discussions of physics have, in general, been taken over by kooks.