John Cuthber Posted March 22, 2021 Share Posted March 22, 2021 10 minutes ago, Mitko Gorgiev said: If you all are so sure in your "proper scientific methodology", then what is the problem? The problem is that, thus far, you have refused to accept that you are wrong (on this forum and others), even though the evidence is clear. So it's fair to assume that you would never admit that you had lost. So, since you would never pay, why take the bet with you? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mitko Gorgiev Posted March 22, 2021 Author Share Posted March 22, 2021 2 minutes ago, John Cuthber said: The problem is that, thus far, you have refused to accept that you are wrong (on this forum and others), even though the evidence is clear. So it's fair to assume that you would never admit that you had lost. So, since you would never pay, why take the bet with you? What ....... evidence did you show? LOL. My stomach will burst! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ghideon Posted March 22, 2021 Share Posted March 22, 2021 (edited) 2 hours ago, Mitko Gorgiev said: So, let us bet. If I am wrong, then I will go to live on a desert island for the rest of my life and will not say a word of physics anymore. If I am right, then you will have to go to the Swedish Royal Academy of Sciences and tell the highest authorities there that there is a man in North Macedonia who deserves a Nobel Prize (you are from Sweden, aren't you?). What theoretical model and experimental results would you like me to present as motivation? It seems reasonable to assume some motivation is required (those invited to propose nominees are sent confidential nomination forms* so full insight is not available to me at this point). Also note that the rules for the Nobel Prize in Physics require that the significance of achievements being recognised has been "tested by time"; "deserving a Nobel prize" means my trip will take place approximately 2041 or later. *)https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nobel_Prize_in_Physics#Nomination_and_selection Edited March 22, 2021 by Ghideon grammar, reference Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
beecee Posted March 22, 2021 Share Posted March 22, 2021 (edited) 32 minutes ago, Mitko Gorgiev said: Why don't you answer my question instead of analyzing my psychology? Would YOU bet? If you all are so sure in your "proper scientific methodology", then what is the problem? OK, I'll bet a $1000 Aust. But who am I betting with? Someone on the internet, on a remote forum, who could be anyone or anything? And how are you going to pay me? Do you expect me to give my banking details to you? Are you really serious? Surely someone of your great intelligence and awareness [😉] can see the fruitlessness of your having a bet idea? Or is this simply another way to support your failing ego? Edited March 22, 2021 by beecee Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mitko Gorgiev Posted March 22, 2021 Author Share Posted March 22, 2021 12 minutes ago, beecee said: OK, I'll bet a $1000 Aust. But who am I betting with? Someone on the internet, on a remote forum, who could be anyone or anything? And how are you going to pay me? Do you expect me to give my banking details to you? Are you really serious? Surely someone of your great intelligence and awareness [😉] can see the fruitlessness of your having a bet idea? Or is this simply another way to support your failing ego? LOL! 1000 Australian dollars!!! It tells very well how sure you are in your "science"! I raise the bet to 10,000 American dollars. If you want more, I agree. About the procedure of payment and the other things, we well find the way how to do it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Phi for All Posted March 23, 2021 Share Posted March 23, 2021 3 hours ago, Mitko Gorgiev said: I don't answer to questions which don't make any sense. Read your questions again and think a little. ! Moderator Note This is unacceptable. If you don't understand the question, like studiot, you can ask for clarification. I'm sure you'll get a more reasonable treatment. If you can't explain your idea and answer questions about it in a civil manner, we're done here. It's all up to YOU, Mitko Gorgiev. Do better or I'll close this. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
beecee Posted March 23, 2021 Share Posted March 23, 2021 8 hours ago, Mitko Gorgiev said: LOL! 1000 Australian dollars!!! It tells very well how sure you are in your "science"! I raise the bet to 10,000 American dollars. If you want more, I agree. About the procedure of payment and the other things, we well find the way how to do it. For someone with an ego as big as what you have, you seem to fail to understand what I'm getting at. You don't know me....I don't know you...you don't know anyone else on this forum presumably, and they don't know you...How do you know I won't do a runner? How do I know you won't do a runner? How do I know anything of your honesty? How do you know anything of my honesty? You getting my drift now? OK, now stop side stepping the issue with silly bravado talk, and answer the reasonable questions others have put to you. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Cuthber Posted March 23, 2021 Share Posted March 23, 2021 (edited) 10 hours ago, Mitko Gorgiev said: What ....... evidence did you show? LOL. My stomach will burst! It isn't me who provides the evidence that you are wrong. You have already done that. Edited March 23, 2021 by John Cuthber Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mitko Gorgiev Posted March 23, 2021 Author Share Posted March 23, 2021 8 hours ago, Phi for All said: If you can't explain your idea and answer questions about it in a civil manner, we're done here. It's all up to YOU, Mitko Gorgiev. Do better or I'll close this. I have explained my assertion very well, but obviously some guys here pretend to be idiots. Especially the "expert" John Cuthber who wants only to confuse the readers by posting a diagram from my original post, thereby implying that something is wrong with it without saying a word, what that is. What were the other questions? 1) Ghideon asked me to give a reference that the force on the wire is a result of an interaction between the two magnetic fields: the one of the permanent magnet(s) and the other of the direct current-carrying wire. My answer is: No, I won't give a reference for something that is so obvious even to a 12-years old kid. 2) Studiot asked: What force is there if there is a wire but no current + the external field ? What force is there is there is a current but no wire + an external field ? The Fleming's left hand rule applies to the force which a stationary wire experience in an external magnetic field when a direct current begins to flow through it. So, what force could a stationary wire, through which no current flows, experience in a magnetic field? Should I answer to this? LOL! OK, I will answer it. NO FORCE. The second Studiot's question I didn't understand because it was not clear. Probably he thinks, let's say, on a cathode ray tube (CRT). Then my answer is: there is no difference in the direction of the force which a beam in a CRT and a current-carrying wire experience in an external magnetic field. For more detail, see my thread Cathode rays are not cathode rays!. My answer to the Beecee's last post: So much for your confidence in the ruling science. This time, great executive chief, I urge YOU to close this thread because I don't have the intention to lose my time with empty objections. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ghideon Posted March 23, 2021 Share Posted March 23, 2021 (edited) 13 hours ago, Mitko Gorgiev said: If I am wrong, then I will go to live on a desert island for the rest of my life and will not say a word of physics anymore. You are wrong and you have stopped to say anything about physics so its just the relocation left. Which island have you selected? 18 minutes ago, Mitko Gorgiev said: Ghideon asked me to give a reference that the force on the wire is a result of an interaction between the two magnetic fields: the one of the permanent magnet(s) and the other of the direct current-carrying wire. My answer is: No, I won't give a reference for something that is so obvious even to a 12-years old kid. I asked for something supporting your claims or clarifying possible misunderstandings. The formulas and laws of physics in my books on electromechanical engineering seems to disagree with your statements and pictures. Edited March 23, 2021 by Ghideon grammar Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mitko Gorgiev Posted March 23, 2021 Author Share Posted March 23, 2021 6 minutes ago, Ghideon said: You are wrong and you have stopped to say anything about physics so its just the relocation left. Which island have you selected? I asked for something supporting your claims or clarifying possible misunderstandings. The formulas and laws of physics in my books on electromechanical engineering seems to disagree with your statements and pictures. As I said, I don't have the intention to reply to people who pretend to be idiots. I am done. -2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ghideon Posted March 23, 2021 Share Posted March 23, 2021 (edited) 13 minutes ago, Mitko Gorgiev said: As I said, I don't have the intention to reply to people who pretend to be idiots. It seems like I do not share that view. I was curious about the posted idea and how someone would draw such conclusions about electromagnetism and as expected this thread contains no support for new scientific progress. But it was a good excuse to return to some books I have not touched for a while. (edit: I just found out that Bill Hayt and John Buck's Engineering Electromagnetics is updated and still in print) Edited March 23, 2021 by Ghideon book reference Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
studiot Posted March 23, 2021 Share Posted March 23, 2021 (edited) 1 hour ago, Mitko Gorgiev said: As I said, I don't have the intention to reply to people who pretend to be idiots. I am done. The really sad thing about this is that I only posted my questions in order try to help here. When I first read this thread my impression was the Mitko made a number of true or valid observations which were sadly and incorrectly rejected because the English was not clear. He also drew some unfortunate conclusions from those correct observations making some even more unfortunate remarks in the process. Thanks to John Cuthber whose posts informed me that Mitko has posted elsewhere and I found his site this morning. Mitko clearly wants to try things out for himself and I applaud that. This has resulted in some keen observations posted there, not least his description of an electrical earth. Again unfortunately he has also drawn some inappropriate (electrical) conclusions. I would like to end by saying that the theory of electricity and magnetism developed took many brilliant workers about a century from the mid 1700s to the mid 1800 to arrive at. There were many theories tried and rejected in favour of better ones during that time. A further century of more effort and brilliant men was taken to the mid 1900s to reach a similar state of understanding in electromagnetism. I don't know why anyone would think they could single handedly replicate and replace two centuries of development on their own. Today is is essential to cut this process short by offering a carefully selected path through the detail. Unfortunately sometimes the material is oversimplified to the point of being incorrect. In this thread I would agree with Mitko's observation the the resultant magnetic field is the combination of two magnetic fields, as should any competent person. But it is not laid plain that the left hand rule and other modern formulae does not work this way, hence the confusion or conflict to self directed amateurs. Swansont did hint at this, though was not explicit perhaps because it is second nature to those 'in the know'. Good textbooks however, do clearly show this as in the attachment. So, Miko, are you quite sure you want to pass up the opportunity to improve your work ? Edited March 23, 2021 by studiot Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
swansont Posted March 23, 2021 Share Posted March 23, 2021 ! Moderator Note You can present an idea and defend it, but what you can't do is assert something and call everyone idiots who show flaws in your idea. I think you have mistaken us for the "Credulous of Crackpottery" discussion forum. That's not us. We require models and evidence for non-mainstream proposals. Since you have decided not to engage in a constructive manner, you've declared you're done, I will close this. Don't bring it up again, in any form. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts