Exposing Maxwell by German physicist Karl Schreber in 1899.

    Электрическая дуга и магнит -

    Электрическая дуга и магнит
    Исследуем реакцию электрической дуги на магнит.
    www.youtube.com


    My comment on this video -

    “Let's calmly understand the dear author of the experiment! To do this, let's start reading the tutorial - https://my.mail.ru/mail/owt2012/photo/1429/1431.html

    Have you read it? Let us state that you think that between the needles you have an electrostatic field or an electric field, which is the same ... So be it. This means that one "stationary" charge acts on another "stationary charge" ... This is how it is written in the textbook, and this is how physicists interpret the concept of an electric field ... It turns out that there are stationary charges on one and the other needle in your experiment .... According to nuclear physics, in order to "make" an electron free - it is he - a free electron symbolizes an "electric current", an energy of several eV is needed ... This is ionization ... We open Wikipedia - the element tungsten - and look - the ionization energy of the first electron is only 7.98 eV ... But to knock a proton out of a tungsten nucleus requires a million times more energy 5 ÷ 6 MeV ... But even if you succeed, instead of tungsten you will get another substance - tantalum, which has one proton less in the nucleus ... Thus, there are no protons on the anode ... Let's leave the anode alone ... And what about the cathode? There are free electrons at the cathode ... But according to your version - there is an electric field, therefore, free electrons there are "stationary" !!! The physicists who created THIS FUCK did not suspect that they set a "trap" for themselves ... It turns out that once free electrons are motionless, they cannot create any magnetic field !!!

    And it is written about this in the textbook - paragraph 22.2 - https://my.mail.ru/mail/owt2012/photo/1429/1433.html

    "... the magnetic field is created by moving charges" ...

    It turns out that free electrons do not move at the cathode, but where the arc shines do they move ??? This is a contradiction ... Only electrons can emit photons ... Consequently, there are electrons in the arc ... Which ones? There must be free electrons and they must move ... Why move? And because if they do not move, then there will be no magnetic field, and since there is no magnetic field, then there will be no interaction between the arc and the permanent magnet ... All the electrons in the arc have moved to the anode ... There is a "+" ... And where do they come from new free electrons? After all, if free electrons begin to move at the cathode, then there will be a magnetic field ... So the question arises - what field determines the physics of processes? Physicists fall into a stupor ... If free electrons drain from the cathode - and there is nothing else to drain there, then how do small magnets - free electrons behave? They all as one have their own magnetic moment, they rotate in space and therefore have their own magnetic poles - just as physics explains it to us - since the rotation of the electron's body is a circular current - we read - https: //my.mail. ru / mail / owt2012 / photo / 1423 / 1425.html

    It turns out that we have a magnetic field on a tungsten needle, we have a magnetic field formed by a cluster of free electrons that emit an "arc", we have the Earth's magnetic field in this place and we have a permanent magnet magnetic field ...

    Now about the compass arrows ... It is very important to have a compass in which the arrow is not a steel strip, but a full-fledged permanent magnet! This is for the future ... Now the next thing - do not forget - the north magnetic pole is at the south geographic pole, and the south magnetic pole is at the north geographic pole (towards !!!) ...

    The author is mistaken at 1 minute 6 seconds ... The red arrow points to the "south" - there is the north magnetic pole of the Earth.

    I do not know what arrows in the author's compass ... Let's say that there is a permanent magnet ... Then where there is a blue circle on permanent magnets there is a south magnetic pole ... because on the "white" part of the arrow there is a "north magnetic pole" of the compass needle !!!

    2 minutes 10 seconds -

    Электрическая дуга и магнит -

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EbgrobKzbDM -


    the author brings the "south magnetic pole" of a permanent magnet and we see how a temporary magnet of free electrons was attracted to this magnet by its "north magnetic pole" ... 2 minutes 18 seconds - it is clearly seen how the permanent magnet interferes with the "movement" of the free electrons to the anode, forming a characteristic "hump" ...

    2 minutes 41 seconds - the author brings up the "north magnetic pole" - "red spot" ... And we see the mutual repulsion of the "temporary" magnet - a cluster of electrons in an arc, and a permanent magnet ...

    Replacing "+" with "-" did not change anything ... Almost the same picture ...

    What is IMPORTANT here ??? The important thing here is that there is no visualization of the "electric field" in this experiment and cannot be!

    And therefore, if you study the treatises of Coulomb, Poisson, Thomson, then you come to the conclusion that in any experiment you are dealing with magnetic fields and their complex interactions ...

    3 hours 18 minutes of a seminar at RUDN (Peoples' Friendship University of Russia) - Samsonenko is asked a question - "What is an electric charge?"

    The answer of Nikolai Vladimirovich Samsonenko, Associate Professor of the Department of Theoretical Physics of the RUDN University, who was a student of Louis de Broglie - "Nobody knows what a charge is!"

    Cold Nuclear Fusion and Ball Lightning: Seminar at RUDN University, February 27, 2020 -

    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.

    It is very important to understand the following idea - in the streamers that we see the electrons do not "fly" anywhere, that is, there is no movement of free electrons from the cathode to the anode - they "stand" there and precess, and also emit mass in the form of light photons and photons that we we do not see - it can be both ultraviolet photons and infrared photons ... So it should be understood that free electrons somehow interact with the bound electrons of those molecules that are in the air - it is these bound electrons that emit most of the infrared photons.

    Cherepanov2020 have you not read Leif Holmlid's work? He proposes that with the essential catalysts FeKO2 and a suitable mass of Cu, Ag or Au we can design a cold fusion reactor purely to generate heat. Whilst thermonuclear reactions in stars are constrained in place by intense gravitational fields his work suggests the same can be achieved by obtaining a critical mass of reactants within a LEN reactor working on AC. We have a convenient source of mains AC 240V in the UK. So our most recent experiment is along the lines of attempting to convert Cu/Ag/Au to Ni/Pd/Pt by ensuring sufficient atomic collisions between reactants involving the generation of positive muons within the reactor according to the breakdown reaction chain UDH - Kaons-pions-positive and negative muons. With a sufficient critical mass of reactants this reaction should become self-regenerating ie in a positive feedback loop even at room temperature, so once initiated the input AC voltage can gradually be turned down whilst the reactor will continue generating heat by converting any other radiation (except gamma of course) into infra-red. The same effect was observed in Fleischmann and Pons work but they did not possess the basic scientific rationale for either using AC or how to simply generate positive muons to allow cold fusion to proceed in a controlled manner. :)

    Quote from Cherepanov2020

    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 ...

    Typically in physical system when disturbances are small you get close to linear systems and the superposition from that. But almost always there are non linear effects as well breaking all that fine superposition when you stress the system. The strange thing with electromagnetism is that the law looks fundamentally linear and I have not heard much about any feature that breaks the law that could be attributed to a non linear effect. However I view charges as actually being those missing non linear effects.


    Maxwell's electromagnetism is very well working and people at my company use this theory every day with good results, that includes modelling charges. To say that Maxwell is wrong would imply that our products should not work, which they do. Perhaps your objection is how Maxwell's theory works in micro cosmos, sure that can be.

    Quote from stefan

    Typically in physical system when disturbances are small you get close to linear systems and the superposition from that. But almost always there are non linear effects as well breaking all that fine superposition when you stress the system. The strange thing with electromagnetism is that the law looks fundamentally linear and I have not heard much about any feature that breaks the law that could be attributed to a non linear effect. However I view charges as actually being those missing non linear effects.


    Maxwell's electromagnetism is very well working and people at my company use this theory every day with good results, that includes modelling charges. To say that Maxwell is wrong would imply that our products should not work, which they do. Perhaps your objection is how Maxwell's theory works in micro cosmos, sure that can be.

    I see a typical delusion of many physicists in your reasoning ... You do not understand what it is about ... You do not understand what exactly you use in your practice ... Therefore, I ask you a very simple question - "How many times a day in your organizations Are you using the Maxwell Coulomb's Law formula? "

    Why my instinct tells me the following - in the last 10 years you have never done calculations using this formula ... Answer honestly ...

    Quote from stefan

    Typically in physical system when disturbances are small you get close to linear systems and the superposition from that. But almost always there are non linear effects as well breaking all that fine superposition when you stress the system. The strange thing with electromagnetism is that the law looks fundamentally linear and I have not heard much about any feature that breaks the law that could be attributed to a non linear effect. However I view charges as actually being those missing non linear effects.


    Maxwell's electromagnetism is very well working and people at my company use this theory every day with good results, that includes modelling charges. To say that Maxwell is wrong would imply that our products should not work, which they do. Perhaps your objection is how Maxwell's theory works in micro cosmos, sure that can be.

    You must admit that in your practice you do not deal with "electric charges" at all ... And what do you deal with? You use devices that measure AMPERES and VOLTS ... But at the same time, I am sure that you still do not know the nature of the operation of these devices ... This is so ... You work as an engineer and inventor when creating these devices, but not as a nuclear physicist ... Ammeters, voltmeters, oscillographs were not created by nuclear physicists !!! They are created by engineers who have not studied nuclear physics, atomic physics and neutron physics! It's clear ?

    Cherepanov, did I miss somewhere a paper you published showing the mathematics of your theory which replaces Maxwells Equations and which is as predictive or more predictive than these? I think it should be evident that proclaiming something completely wrong without a replacement approach is pretty much worthless in my opinion. The whole point of theories is to make testable predictions and allow engineering calculations, which Maxwell's Equations have done. Cherepanov's Equations have not done that yet, as far as I can tell.

    Quote from Cherepanov2020

    I see a typical delusion of many physicists in your reasoning ... You do not understand what it is about ... You do not understand what exactly you use in your practice ... Therefore, I ask you a very simple question - "How many times a day in your organizations Are you using the Maxwell Coulomb's Law formula? "

    Why my instinct tells me the following - in the last 10 years you have never done calculations using this formula ... Answer honestly ...

    Not my responsible to track the charged particles, and the company have split since a couple of years, but I'll tell you we have products for which researchers that developed them obviously need to track the electrons in order to avoid essentially a flash short circuiting the electrical devices. You simply cannot do that without the notion of electron densities. Now maybe they are using a secret formula, but then that a darn well kept secret and if the coulomb law is wrong they should definitely know about that. Now what I have been involved in is MHD research in a project e.g. a magnetic break for steel casting. This is fluid flow with charged particles. This would not work if the Coulomb's law would be totally wrong and it is really strange if a company put millions of dollars into something that cannot work when other part of the company should very well know this since ages.

    Quote from Cherepanov2020

    You must admit that in your practice you do not deal with "electric charges" at all ... And what do you deal with? You use devices that measure AMPERES and VOLTS ... But at the same time, I am sure that you still do not know the nature of the operation of these devices ... This is so ... You work as an engineer and inventor when creating these devices, but not as a nuclear physicist ... Ammeters, voltmeters, oscillographs were not created by nuclear physicists !!! They are created by engineers who have not studied nuclear physics, atomic physics and neutron physics! It's clear ?

    As I said, what happens in micro cosmos is obviously virgin land, but when it comes to features at the scale of the common man I think Maxwell's equations are fine. We still use Newton although we now that Einstein is right.

    Quote from stefan

    As I said, what happens in micro cosmos is obviously virgin land, but when it comes to features at the scale of the common man I think Maxwell's equations are fine. We still use Newton although we now that Einstein is right.

    You ask yourself another question - "Why, when solving certain problems, Maxwell's equations give you a solution that agrees with experiment?" and try to find the answer in this situation - Maxwell was wrong - there is no electric field in nature ... And when you start analyzing his mathematics, in which, by the way, Maxwell took an electron for a point, but we know that this cannot be done, since an electron has dimensions, geometry, mass ..., then you will find that all his mathematics was subsequently tied to "ampere" ... And you measure "amperes", not "electric charges" ... When calculating modern radars, Maxwell's lance which describes the "electromagnetic wave" does not work! And this is understandable - there is no electromagnetic wave in nature, but there is a photon wave in which photons that have mass are grouped ... This is a new physics ... Read the textbooks of Kanarev Philip Mikhailovich ...

    I quote him -

    Here is how F.M.Kanarev comments on Maxwell's delusions. -

    “… Ring magnetic fields around the wire (Fig. 147, a, b) is a strict experimental fact, and a wave with simultaneously and sinusoidally varying strengths of electric E and magnetic H fields (Fig. 7, 147, c) is an invention of theorists. Having accepted it, they are obliged to tell us: how a cylindrical magnetic field (Fig. 147, a, b), formed by electrons around any wire through which a current flows, turns into two mutually perpendicular sinusoids (Fig. 7, 147, c)? How are the amplitudes of mutually perpendicular sinusoids formed from a circular magnetic field and what are they equal to? But such questions do not bother theoretical physicists. Without blinking an eye, they unfoundedly assert that no representations are needed, mathematics perfectly manages without any representations in predicting the experimental result. "

    And further -

    "Information about a photon clarifies the reason for the convergence of the results of solutions of Maxwell's equations with a number of experimental data. The fact is that electrons of any antenna are excited by photons of the medium continuously, forming its temperature and background noise. A controlled effect on this process makes these electrons emit pulses of photons with others. radii in the form of waves (Fig. 8), which excite current pulses at the receiver antenna, are the same as those erroneously attributed to the action of the Maxwellian electromagnetic wave (Fig. 7). If the wave emitted by the antenna or any other source consists of photons (Fig. 8), then the magnitude of the generated current will depend on the number of photons hitting it and on their individual energy, but not on the intensity invented for this case of electric and magnetic fields. sensitivity 100 pico volts, it receives natural radiation with a frequency of 5 kHz and a wavelength

    λ = C / ν = 3 • 10 ^ 8/5 • 10 ^ 3 = 0.6 x 10 ^ 5 = 60 km for an antenna with a diameter of 30 mm. Maxwell's equations work only under conditions when the radiation wavelength is commensurate with the size of the receiver antenna. This is compelling evidence that Maxwell's electromagnetic waves (Fig. 7) are theoretical fiction. They are not carriers of radiation.

    When looking for an answer to the question: why Maxwell's equations in a number of cases give a result close to the experimental one, one must take into account that the numerical solution of these equations uses the procedure of expansion in a Fourier series. However, if we take into account that Maxwell's equations describe processes close to sinusoidal, then they can be replaced by the equation of a sinusoid with the corresponding parameters and the result of the experiment, expanded in a Fourier series, to the result described by a sinusoid with the same parameters as Maxwell's equations give. "

    Actually photons are much more mysterious as one would believe from studying physics. You cannot find a photon among the typical solutions to Maxwell's equations however electromagnetic radiation is well represented by those equations. I was surprised to discover this quite late in life. Anyhow Maxwell might contain the photons solutions as singular solutions, as described by Randell Mills in his GUTCP. I'm not sure about this, but there are some logic to it. Anyhow a discussion of Maxwell incorporating photons can of cause show that Maxwell's equation as typically solved is not enough to explain nature.


    The Maxwell wave theory, however, does not account for all properties of light.

    Quote from PhysicsForDummies

    Cherepanov, did I miss somewhere a paper you published showing the mathematics of your theory which replaces Maxwells Equations and which is as predictive or more predictive than these? I think it should be evident that proclaiming something completely wrong without a replacement approach is pretty much worthless in my opinion. The whole point of theories is to make testable predictions and allow engineering calculations, which Maxwell's Equations have done. Cherepanov's Equations have not done that yet, as far as I can tell.

    You are well done ! Look at the root! But ... But I am not a mathematician ... I am a physicist ...

    And I am convinced that before entering any mathematical formulas into physics, it is necessary to create a "physical model" for this ...

    And now there are big problems with this ...

    There is no physical model of the most fundamental atom in nature - the hydrogen atom!

    I have a model of the hydrogen atom, but I doubt that I am right ... This is the problem ... I am missing something in my opinion ... It takes time to comprehend ...

    In general, I am against physicists following the "solutions of mathematical equations" ... I started writing an article - Falsifications, distortions, misunderstanding of the methodology and results of the book - http://eth21.ru/Falsific.html

    I stopped on August 28, 2020 and gave up writing this article as I immersed myself in the study of the original treatises by Charles Coulomb, Poisson, Thomson, Harris, Ampere, and then James Clerk Maxwell.

    In the wake of the presentation of the book by Vladimir Lvovich Bychkov and Fedor Sergeevich Zaitsev, 3.10.2019 - https://drive.google.com/file/…bB8aGw1W/view?usp=sharing

    In the wake of the presentation of the book by Vladimir Lvovich Bychkov and Fedor Sergeevich Zaitsev, 3.10.2019 - https://cloud.mail.ru/public/5hYv/52WvUQhZX


    Quote from stefan

    Сейчас я занимаюсь МГД-исследованием в проекте, например, магнитный разрыв для стального литья. Это поток жидкости с заряженными частицами. Это не сработало бы, если бы закон Кулона был полностью неправильным, и это действительно странно, если бы компания вкладывала миллионы долларов в то, что не может работать, тогда как другая часть компании должна очень хорошо знать это с давних пор.

    Отличные новости ! В природе нет «электрических сил», нет «слабых и сильных взаимодействий» - в природе есть только магнитные взаимодействия! Я пришел к такому выводу год назад ... Но ... Но есть проблема ... И я не знаю, что такое магнитное поле! Что это ? Как понять магнитное поле? Согласитесь, это не та наука, которую Фарадей привнес в физику ... Все намного сложнее! Это уже на уровне взаимодействия элементов эфира, который я назвал «иктомагнетиком» ... Но возникает вопрос - что такое «йоктомагнетик»?


    Странное с моей точки зрения рассуждение -

    «Это не сработало бы, если бы закон Кулона был бы полностью неправильным, и это действительно странно»

    Вот отрывок из моей новой статьи -

    «§22.2. Магнитное поле как особый вид материи. Условимся называть поле, через которое осуществляется взаимодействие электрических токов, находящихся на расстоянии, магнитным полем. Опыт показал, что магнитное поле создается движущимися электрическими зарядами или переменным электрическим полем (§27.5) и действует только на движущиеся заряды.

    Итак, чтобы обнаружить магнитное поле в какой-либо области пространства, необходимо ввести в эту область проводник с током или другие движущиеся заряды. Впервые магнитное поле вокруг проводников с токами было экспериментально обнаружено датским физиком Г. Эрстедом в 1820 году ».

    Движутся ли «заряды» в конденсаторе? Ответ - нет!

    Так почему же стрелка компаса отклоняется в этом эксперименте?

    Компас внутри конденсатора 2015.10.28. - [медиа]

    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.
    [/ media]

    Еще одно видео на ту же тему -

    Магнитное поле внутри конденсатора -

    External Content
    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.
    [/ media]

    Проанализируйте мои эксперименты - всего 24 фильма -

    Физхимия микромира, Эксперимент 19 апреля 2021 года, ч. 23 - [медиа]
    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.
    [/ media]

    Физхимия микромира, Эксперимент 19 апреля 2021 года, ч. 24 - [медиа]
    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.
    [/ media]

    If you have a static field and move to a moving reference frame and look at the EM field you will get the magnetic fields.

    Quote from stefan

    Actually photons are much more mysterious as one would believe from studying physics. You cannot find a photon among the typical solutions to Maxwell's equations however electromagnetic radiation is well represented by those equations. I was surprised to discover this quite late in life. Anyhow Maxwell might contain the photons solutions as singular solutions, as described by Randell Mills in his GUTCP. I'm not sure about this, but there are some logic to it. Anyhow a discussion of Maxwell incorporating photons can of cause show that Maxwell's equation as typically solved is not enough to explain nature.


    The Maxwell wave theory, however, does not account for all properties of light.

    I read about a photon - "The photon (Greek: φῶς, phōs, light) is a type of elementary particle. It is the quantum of the electromagnetic field including electromagnetic radiation such as light and radio waves, and the force carrier for the electromagnetic force. Photons are massless, [a] so they always move at the speed of light in vacuum, 299792458 m / s (or about 186,282 mi / s). The photon belongs to the class of bosons. "


    There is no "electromagnetic force" in nature!

    "Photons are massless" is a lie! Photon has mass! The photon physics presented on Wikipedia is false and not true!


    Quote from Alan Smith

    У фотонов нет массы, но у них есть импульс.

    Спасибо, что дали мне возможность выступить ... Меня учили тому, что на самом деле изложено в учебниках и в Википедии -



    Импульс в моем понимании - это количество движения тела массой « m ».

    Если нет тела, значит, нет массы ... Если нет массы, значит, нет импульса, так как нет движения ...

    С другой стороны, нет СИЛЫ, которая приложена к центру масс тела, значит, нет импульса ... Понятно?

    Ниже я цитирую материал о фотоне из учебника Канарева - очень важно понимать следующее - фотон стартует с нулевой скорости в тот самый момент, как только начинает действовать сила, создаваемая магнитными полями, которая действует на центр. массы фотона.




    Продолжение в следующем комментарии.

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.