Dear Cherepanov, you should understand that this is a formal multiplication of masses (charges), but in fact you multiply the test mass (charge) by acceleration (electric field strength) and get the force (Newton's second law). At the same time, I like your statement that charges are essentially current rings, but with one clarification - the ring is located in an additional dimension rolled into a circle.
Exposing Maxwell by German physicist Karl Schreber in 1899.
-
-
Before correcting me, you should take a look at Wikipedia or a textbook and see the "definition of a derivative" in mathematics -
"Derivative of a function is a concept of differential calculus that characterizes the rate of change of a function at a given point."
The main thing here is the "rate of change" ... So acceleration is a change in the speed function, i.e. it is the rate of change of speed. And you and I are right ... You made me laugh. Thanks.
dV/dt ... dV = V-V0 and dt = t = 1 sec
Not understand what you have to laugh.
V-V0 and dt=1 sec you wrote, it's not a complete definition. Acceleration is a vector, acceleration has a direction and an orientation, it's not simply a number.
The general form is ΔV/Δt where V is a vector. Istantaneous acceleration refers to dV/dt as derivate in time of the velocity vector.
(V-V0)/t (where t is set to 1 sec) is just a magnitude, the mean value of the acceleration calculated in a time period of a second.
-
Not understand what you have to laugh.
V-V0 and dt=1 sec you wrote, it's not a complete definition. Acceleration is a vector, acceleration has a direction and an orientation, it's not simply a number.
The general form is ΔV/Δt where V is a vector. Istantaneous acceleration refers to dV/dt as derivate in time of the velocity vector.
(V-V0)/t (where t is set to 1 sec) is just a magnitude, the mean value of the acceleration calculated in a time period of a second.
You write - "Acceleration is a vector, acceleration has a direction and an orientation, it's not simply a number." Am I against this? I don't mind that acceleration is a vector ... Force is a vector. There is a force only then there is also a movement of the body. The velocity vector is a consequence of the action of the force - therefore the velocity vector is directed in the same direction as the FORCE vector ... And since acceleration is a change in velocity in time, the acceleration vector is directed in the same direction as the velocity vector and the FORCE vector ...
What is not clear to you here?
-
Not understand what you have to laugh.
V-V0 and dt=1 sec you wrote, it's not a complete definition. Acceleration is a vector, acceleration has a direction and an orientation, it's not simply a number.
The general form is ΔV/Δt where V is a vector. Istantaneous acceleration refers to dV/dt as derivate in time of the velocity vector.
(V-V0)/t (where t is set to 1 sec) is just a magnitude, the mean value of the acceleration calculated in a time period of a second.
Once again dV = V-V0 and dt = t = 1 sec !!! Explain to me what exactly does not suit you? Both left and right are vectors in the formula dV = V-V0 .... We are writing about the same thing! We understand this in the same way ... Why are you looking for any difference between us and you?
-
@Cherp, it seems to me your primary argument against Maxwell /Coulombs law is that charges can't be multiplied because things with units can't be multiplied (ex meters * meters). Forget for a minute the incredibly predictive utility of these equations and the fact that they led to relativity being discovered. Does this make acceleration also fake, since the units contain seconds squared?
You write - "Forget for a minute the incredibly predictive utility of these equations" ... "Curious physicist", you do not understand the meaning of what you have written! Thousands of physicists around the world have seen, studying the results of the LENR installations, that Maxwell's formula - "Coulomb's Law" does not work! Here is a slide from the results of Japanese experimenters -
The Coulomb barrier is only 0.04 eV ... Is that clear? And if we use Maxwell's formula, then we get the value in MeV.
For two protons -
U = e2 / 4πε0r,
ε0 is the electric constant, and e is the value of the elementary electric charge, r is the distance between two protons ~ 10-15 meters or 1 Fermi.
e • e ≈ 1.4 MeV • fm
If the distance is 0.1 Fermi, then the barrier will be 14 MeV
It's clear ???
-
Display More
The Coulomb barrier is only 0.04 eV ... Is that clear? And if we use Maxwell's formula, then we get the value in MeV.
For two protons -
U = e2 / 4πε0r,
ε0 is the electric constant, and e is the value of the elementary electric charge, r is the distance between two protons ~ 10-15 meters or 1 Fermi.
e • e ≈ 1.4 MeV • fm
If the distance is 0.1 Fermi, then the barrier will be 14 MeV
It's clear ???
Alexey Ivanovich, please take a look at the text that you quoted, and make sure that in the approximation of three protons, 0.3 eV is obtained.
-
Alexey Ivanovich, please take a look at the text that you quoted, and make sure that in the approximation of three protons, 0.3 eV is obtained.
Why would I do this? This is a fake formula !!! This law does not exist in nature.
-
Why would I do this? This is a fake formula !!! This law does not exist in nature.
However, on the basis of the false Coulomb law, 0.3 eV was obtained, and besides, no one has canceled the superposition of forces yet.
-
However, no one has canceled the superposition of forces yet.
The superposition of forces is an invention of mathematicians - there is nothing of this in physics ... WHY so. And because none of the physicists knows how to add two FORCES that are applied to different centers of mass of different particles ... Physics knows how to add forces that are applied to one center of mass or to one particle ...
-
The superposition of forces is an invention of mathematicians - there is nothing of this in physics ... WHY so. And because none of the physicists knows how to add two FORCES that are applied to different centers of mass of different particles ... Physics knows how to add forces that are applied to one center of mass or to one particle ...
It seems that you also consider the material point to be an invention of mathematicians.
-
It seems that you also consider the material point to be an invention of mathematicians.
Yes. This is exactly how it is. All Maxwell's physics is a reasoning about a material point ... Therefore, for me, Maxwell is primarily a mathematician, not a physicist ... An electron is not a "point" ... An electron has a structure, mass, geometry ... his physics is an argument about material points ... But that was 150 years ago, and there is nothing so surprising in this and should not be. It's just that level of knowledge - knowledge of the 19th century ...
Mathematicians of the 19th century brought a lot to physics of something that modern physics will slowly but surely get rid of ... Modern researchers are not puzzled by the source of FORCE generation - they are at the mercy of 19th century dogmas, the main of which is the "energetic approach" to physical phenomena in physics elementary particles is the wrong approach. The concept of energy is a mathematical parameter, and physicists use it as a physical parameter ... This is a theoretical virus in physics ... There is no conservation law in nature precisely because humanity is unable to control photons that freely come and go from the system - from any system, i.e. there are no closed systems on Earth and there cannot be ... And what laws are there then? There are two of them - they are fundamental - the Law of conservation of angular momentum and the Law of conservation of mass.
-
You write - "Acceleration is a vector, acceleration has a direction and an orientation, it's not simply a number." Am I against this? I don't mind that acceleration is a vector ... Force is a vector. There is a force only then there is also a movement of the body. The velocity vector is a consequence of the action of the force - therefore the velocity vector is directed in the same direction as the FORCE vector ... And since acceleration is a change in velocity in time, the acceleration vector is directed in the same direction as the velocity vector and the FORCE vector ...
What is not clear to you here?
"And since acceleration is a change in velocity in time, the acceleration vector is directed in the same direction as the velocity vector"
It's not clear because in general what you wrote it is not true.
For example considering the uniform circular motion, acceleration (the only that exists) is not directed in the same direction as the velocity vector but it is pointing toward the center.
See MIT video:
External Content www.youtube.comContent 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. -
Display More
"And since acceleration is a change in velocity in time, the acceleration vector is directed in the same direction as the velocity vector"
It's not clear because in general what you wrote it is not true.
For example considering the uniform circular motion, acceleration (the only that exists) is not directed in the same direction as the velocity vector but it is pointing toward the center.
See MIT video:
External Content www.youtube.comContent 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.The force of inertia ... The mysterious FORCE of inertia ... What is its nature? So far no one knows ... But nevertheless it is ... What rotates a proton or an electron? The force of inertia ... What force rolls a small car on wheels, which you pushed ... You removed your hand, but some force nevertheless moves the car ... And the question ... And if there were no forces of resistance to this movement , then the machine would move infinitely long ... Rotation in a circle ... And how does it differ from movement in a straight line? How does it differ in the sense that both there and there there is a force of inertia ... The force of inertia and the linear velocity of a body that moves in a circle always have one direction in an instant ... The earth moves in a circle (or along an ellipsoid) due to forces of inertia ... What is its nature? My hypothesis is that the inertial force is magnetic in nature ...
-
Display More
"And since acceleration is a change in velocity in time, the acceleration vector is directed in the same direction as the velocity vector"
It's not clear because in general what you wrote it is not true.
For example considering the uniform circular motion, acceleration (the only that exists) is not directed in the same direction as the velocity vector but it is pointing toward the center.
See MIT video:
External Content www.youtube.comContent 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. -
At the end of the process the cathode is coated by a uniform and well adhered layer of iron (and/or iron compounds?), that is quite strongly magnetic.
Thank you for this information! I advise all researchers to quickly forget about the "electric charge" on an electron and pay more attention to the magnetic properties of clusters of free electrons, which in this experiment formed increased magnetism at the cathode ... Why is this? And because the magnetism of an individual free electron increases with the absorption of mass - magnetic mass - mass of photons - mass of ether ... This is not taught at school and institute. This is a new physics ... Here is a screenshot from the video that I found while watching the video at a speed of 0.25 - several "streamers" are clearly visible - these are groups of clusters of free electrons -
Дуга в магнитном поле - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c9Qruu5-Dsw
Дуга в магнитном поле – https://cloud.mail.ru/public/5FpG/9W35GptWC
Дуга в магнитном поле – https://drive.google.com/file/…aqcei7NE/view?usp=sharing
Magnetic Arc -
External Content www.youtube.comContent 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.Arc in a magnetic field - https://cloud.mail.ru/public/5FpG/9W35GptWC
Arc in a magnetic field - https://drive.google.com/file/…aqcei7NE/view?usp=sharing
Today we should talk about "increasing the magnetic potential of a free electron" - this is what changes magnetism in experiments - and this is associated with the absorption of mass by the electron.
-
I have moved the post above from the Frank Gordon/LEC thread as it was off-topic for there. Please respect the thread structure of the forum and post in threads where they are 'on topic'.
-
You wrote -
I offer for you consideration a paper which I believe offers a system that is a power source and is related to LEC. Magnetic Control of Magneto-Electrochemical Cell and Electric Double Layer Transistor | Scientific Reports (nature.com)
I read the article ... The magnet, which was used, initiated the formation of clusters of free electrons, since they thus show their magnetic properties ...
Ken Shoulder and others (Bringing 4 H together - YouTube) have said that clusters of electrons can cause transmutation. Is that your thought?
-
Ken Shoulder and others (Bringing 4 H together - YouTube) have said that clusters of electrons can cause transmutation. Is that your thought?
Exactly ! I want to confirm this idea and can substantiate it. Why is that ? I proved in January of this year that Maxwell was wrong - there are no electric fields and electric charges in nature ... All electrostatics is explained by the magnetic properties of free electrons ... Since free electrons have their own magnetic moments, they are able to create clusters from a huge amount free electrons, connecting with opposite poles ... Since a cluster of free electrons is a temporary magnet, and the nuclear reactions themselves are magnetic in nature due to the fact that a proton has the same magnetic properties as an electron, a cluster of free electrons is able to influence the passage of certain reactions ... There are still many white spots, nevertheless ... We, perhaps, misunderstand the "magnetic moment" of a proton and an electron ... I wrote about this on the site and here - https: // www. researchgate.net/publication/355982268_Another_explanation_to_physicists_of_Maxwell's_mistakes
I correspond with Bob Grigner, but he doesn't want to hear me ... He has a lot of misconceptions ... But at the same time, a lot of interesting information
-
Please Cherepanov2020 Drgenek and @all, you can quote the posts of any other thread into this one as much as you feel it is related to Maxwell Equations challenge, so please keep that discussion in this thread, in order to not derail the other threads.
