History of the Coulomb Force.

  • Maxwell's Greatest Fallacy - "Therefore, if the two parts of the conductor have different potentials, then positive electricity moves from the area of higher potential to the area of lower potential as long as this potential difference exists."

    Unfortunately, in modern textbooks this is relayed to both schoolchildren and students. But those who write in the Chebniks "these nonsense" generated by the Maxwells do not realize that protons are "positive electricity" and cannot move inside the conductors in any way, since any nuclear physicist has long known that in order to snatch a proton from nucleus and "make" it a "free proton" requires colossal energy - 5-7 MeV ...

    I have presented my Maxwell disclosures in a more convenient form -

    Exposing Maxwell - A Treatise on Electricity and Magnetism, 19.01.2021 - https://cloud.mail.ru/public/pT8k/rWHqs5FsT


    Exposing Maxwell - A Treatise on Electricity and Magnetism, 19.01.2021 - https://drive.google.com/file/…sdj6pm6G/view?usp=sharing

    If you have a version of Maxwell's treatise in English, then let's compare ... I translated into English Maxwell's treatise in Russian, which was made in 1989.

  • I translated into English Maxwell's treatise in Russian, which was made in 1989.

    your grasp of English and French is rather idiosyncratic.. Cherepanov..??

    best of luck with rearranging Maxwell's bones.

    perhaps JJ Thomson 's Nobel prize should be rearranged..

    to realign with the Cherepanovian revisionism.

    According to this revisionism Thomson was a dupe and obviously defrauded by Maxwell

    "

    This constant value, when we measure e/m in the c.g.s. system of magnetic
    units, is equal to about 1.7 x 107
    . If we compare this with the value of

    the ratio of the mass to the charge of electricity carried by any system previously
    known, we find that it is of quite a different order of magnitude..

    https://www.nobelprize.org/upl…18/06/thomson-lecture.pdf

    What Thomson should have written is

    " the ratio of the mass to the masse d'electricite'"

    and the idea of charge should be banned from physics.

    and we should replace it with masse d'electricite.....................................................


    Moving on from dead bones to the living.. in 2021

    there are a whole bunch of physicists at CERN and esteemed institutions

    who still scratch their collective heads about what mass is?


    What is mass What generates mass.. Where is the equation in fundamental constants

    As for ' mass d'electricite.. MDE? ( charge)

    What is charge? What generates the 1.6x10-19 Coulomb...or the socalled quark charges?


    These are the questions that interest me in 2021 rather than the bones of 1872..1740...

    I fear that Cherepanov revisionism will yield no answers in physics.. but the political style reminds me of the stuff I read when I was at primary school.

    Perhaps I am a dupe of Maxwellism.

    "“The wretched squabbling systematically provoked by Lenin, that old hand at the game, that professional exploiter of all that is backward in the Russian labour movement, seems like a senseless obsession…. The entire edifice of Leninism Is built on lies and falsification and bears within itself the poisonous elements of its own decay.” 1913 Trotsky





  • Взаимодействие с другими людьми

    Robert! Finally, get engaged in physics, and do not involve politics in this forum! Study Thomson's treatise ... 1848 ... What is it for? In order to understand THAT that Maxwell led nuclear physics into the "abyss" ... Because of this, Maxwell's physics does not make it possible to understand the LENR mechanism. In the experiments of Charles Coulomb, Cavendish, Harris, Thomson and Maxwell himself, there were free electrons on the surface of "charged bodies", which, due to their magnetic properties, determined the FORCES that these researchers measured - these were magnetic forces ... But none of them then I knew nothing about free electrons ... And now we can say that the "mass of electricity" in the modern sense is the mass of free electrons ...

    And we now know, thanks to the «physical chemistry of the microworld» by FM Kanarev, that free electrons absorb mass is the mass of photons, and thus free electrons increase their magnetic potential.



    Of course, Thomson was mistaken in 1848 when he wrote this - «…and therefor m’ is equal to –m .». Mass with a minus is a mathematical formalism that has nothing to do with physics ... Thomson could not know that a cluster of free electrons on the surface of the first body creates, as an example, the south magnetic pole, and the cluster of free electrons of the second body forms the north magnetic pole on the surface, and therefore the bodies "attract", and if the south magnetic pole is formed on the second body by free electrons, the bodies will repel.

  • Взаимодействие с другими людьми

    Can you give an example of the Biot Savart interaction? Not necessarily as it relates to your particular theory (which is complex) but something that in very simple terms illustrates how it works in 4 dimensions.

    Attention should be paid to the opinion of G.P. Shpenkov -

    Georgy Shpenkov at 49 minutes 25 seconds outlines his understanding of "mass" in great detail - 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.

    "We have made the assumption that the concept of the charge of particles, apparently, hides a characteristic parameter associated with mass, reflecting the behavior of particles and their interaction with each other through the exchange of elementary quanta of mass."

    “The electric charge of a particle q, which follows from equation (29), is determined by the product of the added exchange mass of the particle m and the fundamental frequency of the atomic and subatomic levels (equal to the pulsation frequency of the spherical wave shell of particles), at which the exchange interaction of particles with each other and with the surrounding field takes place. "









    It is easy to understand that Georgy Petrovich Shpenkov brings us back to the physics of William Thomson, Charles Coulomb, Poisson, Weber, Harris, and "Shpenkov's physics" agrees with the physics of the microworld of FM Kanarev.

  • the physics of the microworld of FM Kanarev.

    I notice that Kanarev uses the word charge in his world.. at least in English translation...??


    One query..


    the magnetic moment of the electron is measured as ~ 9.28 x 10(-24) J/T..


    The magnetic moment Mm of a uniformly charged rotating ring of Radius R is calculated as

    Mm= ( 1/2) x q x w x R2

    where Q is 1.6 x 10(-19) Coulombs

    w is the frequency of rotation.. Kanarev gives w= 1.236 x 10(20) per second

    R is the radius , Kanarev gives R = 2.426 x 10(-12) m


    Calculation yields Mm = 58.2 x 10(-24) J/T..

    this is about 6 x larger than the measured value of 9.28 x 10(-24.).


    A uniformly rotating annulus with minor radius = 0 ( a disc) would calculate as ~ 3 x larger..

    http://www.phys.uri.edu/gerhard/PHY204/tsl199.pdf


    Kanarev did mention something about the magnetic moment.. in the image below line (149)

    Maybe he did attempt to calculate it by this method..

    But this this method ignores the magnetic moment (axial moment) due to the rotations around the

    axis of the torus which are orthogonal to the rotation around the ring.

    The magnitude of this is expected to be 1/6 of the ring moment

    but how this rotating moment interacts with the much larger stationary ring moment I do not know.


    Perhaps someone could find the Mm formula for a torus with minor radius 1/6 that of R...

    it might calculate closer to 9.28 x 10(-24.).???



  • In college I performed a version of the Rutherford scattering experiment, with alpha particles scattering off gold nuclei. I came up with the same results and was able to calculate the size of the gold nucleus. The Coulomb force calculations seemed accurate. Similarly I have seen no experimental data which invalidates Maxwell's equations. Until I see a clear experiment which suggests these are not valid for calculations I think this discussion on the nomenclature of "charge" vs. "mass" is esoteric.

  • Until I see a clear experiment which suggests these are not valid for calculations

    They seem to be valid at lower energy levels..but Bernard Schaeffer suggests since ~2015 that a magnetic correction is better than just pure Coulomb..

    This has been mentioned several times on LF.. but it is not well known by many physicists..

    https://www.researchgate.net/p…f_the_Nuclear_Interaction

    11277-screenshot-2020-02-03-at-21-19-36-png

  • Взаимодействие с другими людьми

    You have touched on the most difficult and difficult part of nuclear physics. I myself constantly reflect on these questions. On May 3, 2021, I spoke on the phone with Philip Mikhailovich ... Unfortunately, his age is 85 years old, does not allow us to conduct a conversation so that we understand each other ... For example, he forgot that 3 years ago I called him and he then agreed with the fact that there is no electric field in nature ... I had to remind him of this ... But he did not remember this ... And then we agreed that he would look at my article - "Exposing Maxwell - Treatise on Electricity and Magnetism, Part 1" - this article I I am sending him for the 3rd time. What is the problem ? For health reasons, he himself cannot receive e-mail, tk. because of an eye disease he cannot stay at the computer for a long time ..., and therefore his assistant accepts the mail ... By the way, I asked him a question about the magnetic moments that you write about and about which I myself am thinking ... But he answered evasively ... I am preparing an answer for you ...


    Unfortunately, Kanarev is unable to correct his books. He proved that the electron has no orbital motion, but at the same time writes -


    The orbital magnetic moment of the electron is called Bohr's magneton . It is determined by the formula [3]


    . (8)


    Проверим формулу (8) –


    μВ = eh/4πmе = 1,6021766•10-19 Кл •6,62607•10-34 Дж•сек/(4 • 3,141593• 9,1093837•10-31 кг) = 9,2740086 •10-24 Дж/Тл


    Пересчитаем МР


    МР = - eh/4πmP = 1,6021766•10-19 Кл •6,62607•10-34 Дж•сек/(4 • 3,141593• 1,6726485•10-27 кг) = -0,5050702 •10-26 Дж/Тл











  • Unfortunately, Kanarev is unable to correct his books. He proved that the electron has no orbital motion, but at the same time writes -


    The orbital magnetic moment of the electron is called Bohr's magneton .

    There is no contradiction. I depends on the reference frame you sit on. There is no electron motion around a proton for states below n=2. But nevertheless there is charge in its classical terms, what allows to formulate an equivalence relation mainly because charge has been defined that way.

    So it's a point of view. But obviously future physics needs to be reconstructed by defining more useful constants or at least to give them the meaning the really have. But for now we must use them.

  • Speech by Nikolai Alexandrovich Magnitsky at the Klimov-Zatelepin seminar on April 28, 2021.

    External Content youtu.be
    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.


    Magnitsky N.A. - “There is now a different approach to describing the structure of the energy levels of an electron in an atom and what is not in an atom - this is my point of view too - there are no orbitals, no psi-functions, everything is described by some mechanical equations ...Yes, the Coulomb barrier, by the way , also no. Of course, there is no tunnel effect either, there are no quantum numbers either ...(remark by A.I. Cherepanov - as for these enumerations, I constantly remind you of this in my articles, and therefore I support these enumerations by Magnitsky.) , and all experimental data are described up to tenths, up to hundredths of a percent even fall ...

    And at the same time, the electron itself is much larger than the proton by about 2000 times, because it has a lower rotation frequency and therefore has less energy, but at the same time its size is much larger. And therefore, what is the meaning of this work - it seems to me interesting in that if Gennady Vladimirovich is trying to explain all these processes by the merging of psi-functions, somewhere there is an interaction between them, but if you abandon the psi-functions and become to the correct point of view that there are no psi-functions in nature and nothing is described by them - these are just such large electrons in each atom ... This electron cloud is giant electrons, which wave structures revolving around protons and neutrons ... (remark by A. I. Cherepanov - up to this point, our positions with Magnitsky are very similar, but starting from this reasoning - "... wave structures revolving around protons and neutrons", our positions are fundamentally different - I stand on the positions of FM Kanarev and believe that electrons do not revolve around protons and neutrons - electrons interact linearly with protons.)


    And then the interaction of these structures, it is quite possible, will just explain these processes. So, from one point of view, it seems to me that you don't need to use quantum mechanics and this is all wrong, but on the other hand, the idea is still there, but it needs to be reworked in a different way, and then perhaps this will explain those processes that occur in those experiments that, in the opinion of Gennady Vladimirovich, exist and in the opinion of many experimenters exist - which, by the way, I'm not really sure about - whether these very processes exist in principle ... "

    Chizhov Vladimir - "Nikolai Alexandrovich, have you explained the light peaks of the spectrum?"

    Magnitsky N.A. - "I can't explain everything at once ... At least all electronic atoms ..., a lot of electronic atoms ..."

    Chizhov Vladimir - "The mechanics goes from there ... How many did not try to catch these peaks, they are not caught ... Hence the" h "..."

    Magnitsky N.A. - “I state my point of view ... By this very method, which I am talking about now, all 118 elements are explained and all binding energies, all nuclei are explained, and all electronic ones are found - not orbits, not orbitals are found, namely, electronic energy levels on which electrons exist. (remark by A.I. Cherepanov is a very correct remark by Magnitsky about orbitals and I strongly support him in this, but it is not clear to whom Magnitsky is "nodding" ... If he means FM Kanarev, then I support him in this sense ...) This is not the energy of electrons, as is commonly believed in quantum mechanics - this is another completely delusional idea - that this is, for example, the ionization energy of hydrogen is the energy of some kind of electron in the hydrogen atom. This is the binding energy of an electron with a proton (remark by A.I. Cherepanov - this statement has an author - this author is Philip Mikhailovich Kanarev. More about this here - THE FULL HISTORY of our compatriot, 2015, part 3 - https: //cloud.mail. ru / public / aN76 / YEc2Kk5uS), and the formula was found for all binding energies and everything is explained by the usual ... "

  • I spoke on the phone with Philip Mikhailovich ... Unfortunately, his age is 85 years old, does not allow us to conduct a conversation so that we understand each other ... For example, he forgot that 3 years ago I called him

    I am sorry to hear that.. God Bless Kanarev.. and his daughters.. and you .. we are only mortals with limited vision.. and none of us can see an electron..

  • Speech by V.L. Bychkov at the seminar on April 28, 2021 -

    External Content youtu.be
    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.


    G.V. Myshinsky "Then all the textbooks on quantum mechanics should be thrown away?"

    Bychkov V.L. “Yes, all textbooks on quantum mechanics… They lie! They lie! And you all teach the wrong students! Because electrons do not fly as you think ... And electrons are something else ... You cannot use information from 100 years ago ... "

    Cherepanov A.I. after watching the video of this seminar -

    “I support the speech of Vladimir Lvovich Bychkov on the whole ... But ... But I do not agree with Bychkov regarding electron pairing. It is the "magnetic attraction" of valence electrons, which Zatelepin and Baranov called "dark hydrogen", that ensures the bond between molecules ... The question is different - in my opinion, "magnetism" in the microworld differs from magnetism, which was described by Faraday 190 years ago - one cannot continue with this use to describe the connection between molecules and nuclear reactions, the nature of which is "magnetic" ... There are no electric charges in nature. "