History of the Coulomb Force.

1st Official Post
    Quote from Wyttenbach

    You talk nonsense!


    Bruce! You are well done ! You are absolutely correct in asking the questions! You are answered by a storyteller and a dreamer ... who pretends to be a physics, but there is NO physics - there are his fantasies ... But he is not to blame! The physical community taught him to these fantasies ... You are an outcast of THIS COMMUNITY, as you ask THEM very uncomfortable questions ... I will delight you! There is no "electric charge" in nature and there never was ... To understand this I had to pant for 4 years ... In January of this year, I finally found Maxwell's treatise and read it carefully ... It turned out that Maxwell had committed a "mathematical forgery ", his action is akin to cheating ... Read my revelations in this article - Exposing Maxwell - A Treatise on Electricity and Magnetism, Part 1, 4.02.2021 - https://cloud.mail.ru/public/1RW8/UmRBsBtPp

    Exposing Maxwell - A Treatise on Electricity and Magnetism, Part 1, 4.02.2021 - https://drive.google.com/file/…NP6FzqAd/view?usp=sharing

    But I will please you that I am not the first physicist who exposed Maxwell - the first physicist was the German scientist Karl Schreber - here is his article from 1899 -

    Die Jfaasse der elektrischen Grössen, May 1899 - https://cloud.mail.ru/public/5gF4/3va7SkJYn

    Die Jfaasse der elektrischen Grössen, May 1899 - https://drive.google.com/file/…ShRlLsMX/view?usp=sharing


    Dimensions of Electrical Quantities, Karl Schreber, 1899 - https://cloud.mail.ru/public/rZpb/fzFv6ttNv


    Dimensions of Electrical Quantities, Karl Schreber, 1899 - https://docs.google.com/docume…ueQn-mTE/edit?usp=sharing

    Quote from Cherepanov2020

    n January of this year, I finally found Maxwell's treatise and read it carefully ... It turned out that Maxwell had committed a "mathematical forgery ", his action is akin to cheating


    Quote from Cherepanov2020

    It turned out that Maxwell had committed a "mathematical forgery

    This is a highly idiosyncratic view of Maxwell..

    I think Maxwell may have well been influenced strongly by Henry Cavendish..


    who used the word "charged" 'fluids' 'electrical field' 'positive' 'negative..

    fifty years before Maxwell was born..


    and NEVER 'mass'..

    when takling about the causative agent of the electrical effect.


    Perhaps Cherepanov needs to expand his literature search..

    from a rather narrow base.

    https://books.google.com.au/bo…esc=y#v=onepage&q&f=false


    https://stwww1.weizmann.ac.il/…-Force-of-Electricity.pdf

    https://www.researchgate.net/p…00000/Henry-Cavendish.pdf

    Взаимодействие с другими людьми

    It so happened that just today I discovered this wonderful video by Georgy Shpenkov - here is his exposure of Maxwell and critic of Maxwell - with this video he buried the "Maxwellian electrical charge" in April 2018 - Georgy Shpenkov - watch everyone -

    Electric Charge -

    External Content www.youtube.com
    Content embedded from external sources will not be displayed without your consent.
    Through the activation of external content, you agree that personal data may be transferred to third party platforms. We have provided more information on this in our privacy policy.


    There was no "electric charge" on the electron and on the proton, and there is not! When you realize this, you will understand why in 2012 Filimonenko said that there is no "Coulomb barrier", and then you will realize the results of the Japanese in determining the "Coulomb barrier", which turned out to be 8 orders of magnitude less than it should have been, and then you begin to understand the "magnetic nature" of nuclear reactions in LENR.





    Quote from Cherepanov2020

    On page 387, Thomson gave a definition of charges -

    "Charges. - En vertu des theorems fondamentaux, on devra distribuer sur la surface de la sphere A une masse qaa = ∑An d’electricite, et sur B une masse de signe contraire qab = ∑Bn pour produire les memes potentiels sur ces spheres. "

    Thomson NEVER wrote "une masse d'electricite".. not in 1872 .. not at any time

    Cherepanov appears not to know that he is using a French translation of the original Thomson's English work.

    When properly back translated into English "une masse d'electricite" means " a quantity of electricity".

    The word 'mass' was never used by the leading English speaking scientists of the 18th and 19th centuries

    such as H.Cavendish M Faraday W. Thomson JJ Thomson.. to refer to electricity.

    although Faraday did at times used the word "corpuscle"..

    These scientists were too aware of Newton's Laws and would not use the word, 'mass'

    which in English physics referred to gravitational or inertial "mass"


    Why would they?.. this electrostatic phenomenon of 'charge' was initially found only on pith balls and special substances

    .. not on 99% of masses.


    So Cherepanov's case of "Maxwell's fraud" is actually a case of "mistranslation"


    even today modern French uses the word more liberally than English..

    This "masse de gens" is measured not in kilograms or Coulombs but in Nihonjin.

    Masse De Gens Traversant La Rue à Tokyo Photo Premium

    https://fr.freepik.com/photos-…ant-rue-tokyo_7376700.htm

    .

    Взаимодействие с другими людьми

    Robert! If you have not fully studied the issue, then you do not need to crawl out in public - it looks ridiculous.

    Here is the site - W. Thomson, "Electrostatics and magnetism," 1872 - https://archive.org/details/reprintofpaperso00kelv

    See, for example, page 25. I underlined in red -




    Need more proof?

    Quote from Cherepanov2020

    Here is the site - W. Thomson, "Electrostatics and magnetism," 1872

    These are from Haris's memoirs presumably about Coulomb

    Where is page 387 ..

    where Thomson writes " we will have to distribute the mass qaa = ∑An of electricity on the surface of the sphere A, "

    according to Cherepanov?

    I cannot access this source readily,,


    the English original.. not the french back translation

    Merci beaucoup Cherepanov

    so there is no Thomson " mass of electricity"

    as expressed here..

    "

    "387, Thomson gave a definition of charges -

    "Charges. - En vertu des theorems fondamentaux, on devra distribuer sur la surface de la sphere A une masse qaa = ∑An d’electricite, et sur B une masse de signe contraire qab = ∑Bn pour produire les memes potentiels sur ces spheres. "

    “Charges. "According to fundamental theorems, we will have to distribute the mass qaa = ∑An of electricity on the surface of the sphere A, and the mass of electricity of the opposite sign qab = ∑Bn on B, in order to create the same potentials on these spheres." Thomson's symbol "q" denotes the mass of electricity ... In the same place he writes - "we can also notice that the distribution on A is the sum of distributions equivalent to each of the masses


    there is instead "quantity of electricity"

    as written here in English


    as I said the alleged "Maxwell fraud" of changing " mass" is actually a case of "mistranslation,"

    Page 155 - Charles Coulomb and his law -

    http://cnum.cnam.fr/CGI/fpage.…21-1/165/90/416/0079/0316



    Perhaps we need a fluent speaker of French... I only dd three years of it at high school.. longtemps.jadis

    I think the back translation to "mass of electricty ""is definitely in error.. Cest domage :(



    Thomson never wrote "mass of electricity" or "masse d'electricite" as Cherepanov wrote


    so there was no case for fraud by Maxwell... as alleged.. ;(

    Robert! No need to dodge! I give you the original texts - read it again -



    Robert! No need to dodge! I give you the original texts - read it again -

    So Thomson wrote -

    «directly as the product of the masses»...

    Maxwell the rogue...


    Quote from Cherepanov2020

    Robert! No need to dodge! I give you the original texts - read it again

    Cherepanov you are not a native English speaker!

    If you read properly you will observe

    Thomson was actually quoting Harris"

    "his results" when he referred to "mass"


    and then expressed his own thinking on the matter

    as"quantities of electricity" twice at least


    I said before no English speaking physicist would write "mass of electricity"

    perhaps Harris .. anyone heard of him? did?


    Sorry Cherepanov.. like Thomson... my French is limited...

    chacun a son poisson

    probably yours is better..

    but definitely the backtranslation to " mass of electricity" is not 'cricket' so to speak.

    that is where you got confused..


    I used to cycle past the Cavendish laboratory often in the years 74-77

    but I never knew who old Henry was.. thanks for opportunity to learn who he was..

    I think the English/Scottish/Irish physicists afterwards were strongly influenced by him..

    definitely that's why the lab is there.. but there is no Harris lab..

    Hopefully the Cavendish can update to LENR experiments one day..

    I'm sure Cavendish, Faraday, Clerk Maxwell ,Thomson W, Thomson JJ would like that.:)

    Взаимодействие с другими людьми

    Robert! You contradict yourself! And you confirm my statement - All these physicists - Harris, Thomson, Charles Coulomb, Poisson, Weber, Ampere, reasoned in the paradigm "amount of electricity", "mass of electricity", "mass of electrical fluid" ... But Maxwell came and introduced instead of mass - and the mass of electricity is a "charge", he introduced his own definition of charge - this Maxwellian charge has existed in physics for 148 years ... This is an artificial formation obtained by Maxwell, thanks to his cheating manipulations - mathematical manipulations.

    And now let's turn to nuclear physics, which Maxwell could not have known ... In 2021, we are nuclear physicists, we know for sure that in order for a neutron to decay, it must first have rotation. A spinning neutron decays due to the generation of an internal force - these forces are formed by a secondary magnetic field. As a result of the rotation of the neutron, a part of it with a mass of 1/1836 of the mass of a proton is separated from it. The question should have been asked to Maxwell, but he is not with us, and therefore I ask it to you - "How does a" Maxwell charge "arise on an electron and a proton, if two substances of the same composition of a proton and an electron rotate, but at the same time in a proton rotates a mass 1836 times greater than an electron, and how, with such a difference in mass, there is "the same charge" on a proton and an electron ??? " This is bullshit! This Maxwell could not know! This is contrary to Maxwell's teachings! Why is that ? But because Maxwell was wrong! Maxwell made such assumptions in his logical reasoning that are not allowed in physics! These are the assumptions of a mathematician that contradict physics! It's clear ?

    Robert! Thomson quotes Harris and doesn't mind him! Why doesn't Thomson mind Harris? And because then they all reasoned according to the teachings of Charles Coulomb! I gave you a small example ... Read the entire treatise of Thomson - there is nothing close to what Maxwell invented!



    In German the term mass defines the grounding of a charge. At that time 1870 nothing was clear at all. No particles were known until 1869 where there was a first hint for a particle that carries charge.


    Maxwell originally defined the rotation of flux as vortices of the ether and correctly identified the generation of the charge effect as curl of a flux. What you know as Maxwell equations never has been written down by Maxwell. The name has been given to honor his work. The first stable version is from Heavyside.


    Of course in 1870 nobody did now the mass of the electron. So this discussion is not worth to follow as Maxwell was 100% correct as his charge never referenced the charge of an electron!

    1848: No clue about what charge is. No electron known at that time but great experiments.


    Today we have the opposite problem. Physicists believe they know everything based on a fringe model that uses fringe math and they waste money for useless experiments (CERN, ITER) without giving us any progress.


    So the history goes from hero's to scammers/deceivers. The same we see in Big pharma now. So cheating is one strategy of making a good live out of fools...

    Quote from Wyttenbach

    1848: No clue about what charge is. No electron known at that time but great experiments.


    Today we have the opposite problem. Physicists believe they know everything based on a fringe model that uses fringe math and they waste money for useless experiments (CERN, ITER) without giving us any progress.


    So the history goes from hero's to scammers/deceivers. The same we see in Big pharma now. So cheating is one strategy of making a good live out of fools...

    Understand the simple truth - "The fact that in 1873 Maxwell was mistaken and mistaken is nothing surprising ... This is normal! Another bad thing is that we are modern physicists, who are endowed with tremendous knowledge, do not correct Maxwell's mistakes! This is a problem! Maxwell personally" did not put "his electric charge" on the electron and proton - his followers did it for him ... They did it "thoughtlessly", irresponsibly! They did not bother to reread Maxwell and find mistakes in him! They did not follow the revelations of the outstanding German physicist Karl Schreber, who presented his article in 1899 with an analysis of the dimensions of the formulas of electrodynamics -

    Die Jfaasse der elektrischen Grössen, 1899 - https://cloud.mail.ru/public/2ZuE/6EhstsLjG

    Die Jfaasse der elektrischen Grössen, 1899 - https://drive.google.com/file/…GK-6KBIZ/view?usp=sharing

    All this led to disastrous results - physicists conduct LENR experiments and interpret them incorrectly. To achieve impressive results in LENR it is necessary to decisively get rid of the "Maxwell charge" on the electron and proton, get rid of the "electric forces", get rid of the "electric field" - there is nothing of THIS in nature. Therefore, there is no "Coulomb barrier" and therefore "tunneling of the Coulomb barrier" is a theoretical virus in physics!

Subscribe to our newsletter

It's sent once a month, you can unsubscribe at anytime!

View archive of previous newsletters

* indicates required

Your email address will be used to send you email newsletters only. See our Privacy Policy for more information.

Our Partners

Supporting researchers for over 20 years
Want to Advertise or Sponsor LENR Forum?
CLICK HERE to contact us.