What Is Electric Current?

[MitkoGorgiev]

Electric current is an immaterial swirling wind through the electrical conductor. The immaterial magnetic wind through it is also spiral-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. 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.

But as the electricity’s swirl is becoming more extended with increased electric current, so the magnetic swirl, or rather, the magnetic spiral is becoming more compact (i.e. lesser extended). When the current is stronger, then the magnetic spiral 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 spiral 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’ spiral.

The motion of the water corresponds to the motion of the electric wind; the motion of the cavities corresponds to the magnetic wind.

Please watch these two short YouTube videos:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DDsPag56GQE  (from 2:22)

and this:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y7k7p1RirkI

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.”

Many more details you can read here https://newtheories.info

Added 13-Jan-2021: 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”. (please see The Bernoulli's principle can be found in the electric current, too)

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.

Edited January 13, 2021 by MitkoGorgiev
New text added

[exchemist]

[MitkoGorgiev]

Is that supposed to mean something? I am too stupid, I don't understand. But since I see very clever people here, I am sure I will learn something.

[OceanBreeze]

 

That made me laugh! And it can be used in so many threads . . . . . .

[MitkoGorgiev]

There is a saying "Who laughs last, laughs best".

[exchemist]

That made me laugh! And it can be used in so many threads . . . . . .

On this forum, well over 70% of them 

[MitkoGorgiev]

On this forum, well over 70% of them 

You can be sure that this is not in those 'over 70%'. 

Edited February 15, 2020 by MitkoGorgiev

[devin553344]

electrons as particles is well established. We have TV tubes, x-ray machines and mass spectrometers that prove their existence.

 

I read thru only part of the OP as it appeared to be an analogy that can be disproved.

[MitkoGorgiev]

electrons as particles is well established. We have TV tubes, x-ray machines and mass spectrometers that prove their existence.

 

I read thru only part of the OP as it appeared to be an analogy that can be disproved.

The foundation of the electron theory is the cathode ray tube(CRT). Here is what the truth is about the CRT.

http://www.scienceforums.com/topic/36462-cathode-rays-are-actually-not-cathode-rays/

 

Please elaborate how you would disprove the analogy?

 

I have experimental evidence that the magnetic field in and around a current carrying wire is not like many rings around the wire at an angle of 90 degrees, but it is spiral-shaped. 

Even when one thinks merely logically, it doesn't make sense, the magnetic field to be like many rings closed in themselves. The magnetic field has to be a continuous flow, just as the electricity flow. And that is only possible if the magnetic field is spiral-shaped.

[devin553344]

The foundation of the electron theory is the cathode ray tube(CRT). Here is what the truth is about the CRT.

http://www.scienceforums.com/topic/36462-cathode-rays-are-actually-not-cathode-rays/

 

Please elaborate how you would disprove the analogy?

 

I have experimental evidence that the magnetic field in and around a current carrying wire is not like many rings around the wire at an angle of 90 degrees, but it is spiral-shaped. 

Even when one thinks merely logically, it doesn't make sense, the magnetic field to be like many rings closed in themselves. The magnetic field has to be a continuous flow, just as the electricity flow. And that is only possible if the magnetic field is spiral-shaped.

A mass spectrometer disproves other ideas. The electron is a point particle with mass. There have been other experiments that show that electrons exist as point particles.

[MitkoGorgiev]

A mass spectrometer disproves other ideas. The electron is a point particle with mass. There have been other experiments that show that electrons exist as point particles.

A mass spectrometer is also a kind of Cathode ray tube and what happens in CRT is disproved by the work of mine. I am aware that you can't get used to this, but believe me, in 50 years the people will laugh at the theory of this time. 

Now you and the others laugh at me. I have no problem with that, but in 50 years the ones which will be laughed at will be you.

[devin553344]

A mass spectrometer is also a kind of Cathode ray tube and what happens in CRT is disproved by the work of mine. I am aware that you can't get used to this, but believe me, in 50 years the people will laugh at the theory of this time. 

Now you and the others laugh at me. I have no problem with that, but in 50 years the ones which will be laughed at will be you.

There have been experiments that shoot electrons at film and the film shows tiny dots from the electrons point fields. So how would you explain that?

[MitkoGorgiev]

There have been experiments that shoot electrons at film and the film shows tiny dots from the electrons point fields. So how would you explain that?

All the instruments, where one speaks of shooting electrons, are some kind of CRT. So, you can also say that the bright dot on the oscilloscope's screen is also an evidence that there are electrons hitting the screen. But I assert that the bright dot is the top, or the "eye" of the electromagnetic tornado. Electricity is a fluid. Just as other fluids (water and air) can make a tornado, so the electricity can make a tornado, too. 

The difference from the other fluids is that the electricity is an immaterial fluid. For example, when one speaks of EM-waves, nobody says that these waves are moving particles. Just as the EM-waves are immaterial, so it is the electric current through the metal wires and through all other media.

There is no essential difference between an EM-wave and electric current.

 

http://www.scienceforums.com/topic/36462-cathode-rays-are-actually-not-cathode-rays/

[marcospolo]

A mass spectrometer disproves other ideas. The electron is a point particle with mass. There have been other experiments that show that electrons exist as point particles.

Define a "Point Particle" please.

[marcospolo]

All the instruments, where one speaks of shooting electrons, are some kind of CRT. So, you can also say that the bright dot on the oscilloscope's screen is also an evidence that there are electrons hitting the screen. But I assert that the bright dot is the top, or the "eye" of the electromagnetic tornado. Electricity is a fluid. Just as other fluids (water and air) can make a tornado, so the electricity can make a tornado, too. 

The difference from the other fluids is that the electricity is an immaterial fluid. For example, when one speaks of EM-waves, nobody says that these waves are moving particles. Just as the EM-waves are immaterial, so it is the electric current through the metal wires and through all other media.

There is no essential difference between an EM-wave and electric current.

 

http://www.scienceforums.com/topic/36462-cathode-rays-are-actually-not-cathode-rays/

What you re saying makes more sense than tiny projectiles racing around hitting things.

[MitkoGorgiev]

What you re saying makes more sense than tiny projectiles racing around hitting things.

Yes, It makes very much sense and it is also supported by experimental evidence. But it will take some time for the people to get used to the paradigm shift. 

I am not a prophet, but I can say for sure that the people in hundred years will look at the contemporary theory as one of the biggest misconceptions in the history of physics.

I am very glad that there are people like you who want to think and question the postulates of the contemporary science.

[OceanBreeze]

Birds of a feather . . . . . .moving this to silly claims