Naked Science Forum
On the Lighter Side => New Theories => Topic started by: Mitko Gorgiev on 28/05/2020 20:03:38
-
When a body moves through the air, then higher pressure is created in front of it, while lower pressure behind it. The higher pressure is Plus, the lower pressure is Minus. I use to call this a ‘principle of an arrow’ (− >—> +).
[ Invalid Attachment ]
This very principle can be seen wherever light produces colors. The archetype of this pattern is the flame of a candle or a cigarette lighter. A violet-blue Minus appears on the back and a yellow-red Plus on the front of this fiery arrow.
Look at the picture below:
[ Invalid Attachment ]
The left picture is a real photograph of an opalite stone illuminated from below with a white LED lamp. Do you see the striking similarity between them?
Look at this picture:
[ Invalid Attachment ]
These colored "arrows" are obtained from a light source (it is in the middle) with the help of a diffraction grating [ image borrowed from http://www.except.nl. The arrows are added by me.].
I consider this as my greatest discovery, which, I am sure, will change the science about many things in the next decades.
But in the moment, I am pretty positive that the most of the people are too short-sighted to foresee its significance.
P.S. Opalites are very cheap stones and easy to find.
-
Why don't you just learn some actual science?
Then you would know why (some) flames look like that, and about the light scattering which explains the colours of the rock, and even about diffraction.
And when you understood, you wouldn't post silly ideas like those.
-
Why don't you just learn some actual science?
Then you would know why (some) flames look like that, and about the light scattering which explains the colours of the rock, and even about diffraction.
And when you understood, you wouldn't post silly ideas like those.
As I already said, some people are too short-sighted to see its significance.
"But he who has ears, he will hear."
-
Why don't you just learn some actual science?
Then you would know why (some) flames look like that, and about the light scattering which explains the colours of the rock, and even about diffraction.
And when you understood, you wouldn't post silly ideas like those.
As I already said, some people are too short-sighted to see its significance.
"But he who has ears, he will hear."
Have you noticed that you keep coming here and posting what you claim are "new breakthrough" ideas, and then someone points out that they don't work.
Then you stop answering questions about them and go away for a while.
Then you come back and do it all again.
Every single time, your ideas get shown to be pointless or wrong.
Why do you keep doing it?
Why not actually learn some real science?
Do you enjoy being made to look a fool?
-
I'm pretty sure this is just because of temperature differences in different parts of the flame. As the flame rises, it becomes cooler and thus the peak wavelengths emitted by it become longer (redder).
-
Part of the difference is also due to soot in the flame.
It's all very well understood and it has been for a long time
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Chemical_History_of_a_Candle
But that's not going to stop the OP posting dross.
-
(https://live.mrf.io/statics/i/ps/cdn.zmescience.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/01/fire-zerogravity.jpg)
The arrow-like shape is due to gravity.
(https://flamingoappliance.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/06/P160255_44z.jpeg)
The color yellow-red don't always show up in flame.
-
The color yellow-red don't always show up in flame.
Yes, it is true, just as it is true that the blue part doesn't show up at big fires.
Please read:
https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/index.php?topic=78830.0
-
I consider this as my greatest discovery, which, I am sure, will change the science about many things in the next decades.
So, what is the discovery, precisely?
What do you expect to change in the next decades as the result of your discovery?
-
The color yellow-red don't always show up in flame.
Yes, it is true, just as it is true that the blue part doesn't show up at big fires.
Please read:
https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/index.php?topic=78830.0
I read this far
MODERATOR WARNING:
THIS POST AND OTHERS BY THE SAME POSTER APPEAR TO BE EDUCATIONAL IN NATURE, HOWEVER THEY CONTAIN SERIOUS ERRORS AND SHOULD NOT BE TAKEN AS SCIENTIFIC PRINCIPLES.
-
So, what is the discovery, precisely?
My discovery is a principle. If you know the principle, you have a compass. Otherwise you are lost in the ocean of billions of data.
What do you expect to change in the next decades as the result of your discovery?
Many things will change, but if you can't foresee it on your own, my help will be not of much value.
I will tell you here only the most important thing: the people will begin to think on their own, not merely parroting things, as it is nowadays.
-
My discovery is a principle.
You forgot to answer this
So, what is the discovery, precisely?
Also, given your past record of getting stuff wrong, what use is your compass likely to be?
-
I will tell you here only the most important thing: the people will begin to think on their own, not merely parroting things, as it is nowadays.
When someone posted tehgas flame and teh zero gravity flame they were thinking on their own and not parroting stuff.
So, it seems you have made the wrong assumption
.
-
You forgot to answer this
So, what is the discovery, precisely?
Based on the "compass", I have explained many things about light and colors, including how the colors appear after refraction on a prism.
As an attachment I give the whole text.
-
Does your idea predict the variation of scattering intensity vs wavelength correctly?
Does it predict diffraction patterns, the existence and design of lasers and opto-electronics?
Does it model all the otehr things that we actually know about light and the rest of the em spectrum?
Or.. is it just wrong?
As far as I can tell, you are offereing us a broken compass.
We already have a very detailed map, GPS and a good local guide.
-
Here is what you said in the file
P.S. The orthodox believers in the theory that light consists of colors often give as an argument
for their belief the example of RGB, that is, the mixing of the three colors, red, green and blueviolet
to get white. Regarding this I have to say the following:
1) Pure white is an equivalent to light. It reflects the maximum possible light. Pure black is an
equivalent to darkness. It reflects no light. Gray is a mixture of white and black and through
gradual darkening of the white, that is, through darker and darker shades of gray, the other
extreme, that is, the black is reached.
Just as any shade of gray is darker than white and lighter than black, so any color is darker than
white and lighter than black, too. To any color we can associate a corresponding gray shade, so
that in respect to the amount of reflected light, the two surfaces will be identical. In fact, every
color is also a kind of darkening of the white. Just as it is impossible to get white by mixing two
gray shades, so it is impossible to get white by mixing any other two or more colors.
2) Every light source in its core is white. In fact, there is no light other than white. If we look at,
let‟s say, a blue LED lamp, we can notice that in its core it is white. The blue color is an aura
around the core. It is so with any other "colored" light.
If three "colored" lights - red, green and blue-violet - are placed next to each other, from the
mixing of the green and the blue-violet we get cyan, which is complementary color to red, so this
leads to their cancellation. What is left is only the white.
Do you realize that color theory is based on the characteristics of human color receptors, which is an evolutionary accident? It is important for engineers to have an accurate theory, otherwise their products won't be well accepted by the consumers.
(https://qph.fs.quoracdn.net/main-qimg-31fd85ec6cf48399e2439aa4b6991db0)
(https://image.slidesharecdn.com/co-ordination-150430112150-conversion-gate01/95/human-receptors-25-638.jpg?cb=1430455036)
If the theory were invented by another species, the theory could be different. If most humans alive today are tetrachromat, the color theory would also be different.
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/e/e8/BirdVisualPigmentSensitivity.svg/1200px-BirdVisualPigmentSensitivity.svg.png)
BirdVisualPigmentSensitivity
(https://i1.wp.com/dot-color.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/08/anatomy-of-a-cie-diagram2x.png)
-
Here is a checker shadow illusion to show that our perception of greyscale is relative.
(https://twistedsifter.files.wordpress.com/2012/05/shaow-illusion-same-color-checkerboard-with-cylinder-1.jpg?w=800&h=311)
-
Every light source in its core is white.
No.
Just plain wrong.
What Mitko doesn't seem to understand is that he's trying to explain things with a "new" idea, but those things are already explained by the current one.
So, the fact that any light , if it is bright enough, will stimulate all the receptors in the eye and look "white" doesn't mean the light is white, it means that the eye is a bad choice for measuring light.
The "compass" he is offereing leads in teh obviously wrong direction- because it says things that we know are wrong.
-
As an answer to the question in the title, the chemical composition of the flame is a significant factor.
(https://i.pinimg.com/originals/2e/6a/72/2e6a72ecdbc17ef9eb7f9d715793454f.jpg)
Note that the picture doesn't show "color" outside of visible range.