Exposing Maxwell by German physicist Karl Schreber in 1899.

Today I worked hard and for those who are too lazy to do it myself, I made a translation of an article by Karl Schreber, which he wrote in 1899. If physicists all over the world then paid their close attention to this article, and then analyzed what Maxwell did, they would certainly have found in Maxwell the very mistakes that I discovered in him in January 2021 ... Read ... Explore ... Analyze ...

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 Cydonia

Не могли бы вы в нескольких строках рассказать об основных ошибках Максвелла?

Quote from Cydonia

In few lines could you tell us the main mistakes from maxwell ?

Of course, I can do it ... But the question arises - why then did I write the articles that I am sending you? After all, there all these errors are sorted out by the "bones".

I have to repeat myself ...

First, Maxwell made a mistake, which is based on the mistake of Charles Coulomb - he, like Coulomb, used the operation of multiplying two quantities with the same dimension ... Maxwell writes -

"Then it turns out that if the bodies are placed at a fixed distance from each other and have charges equal to, respectively, e and e' of our time units of electricity, then they will mutually repel with a force proportional to the product of e and e' ." … «product» - «multiply»…

Here is Coulomb's formula -

, in which he multiplies «the density of electricity D by the density of electricity δ» ... In Charles Coulomb's treatise "TROISIEME MEMOIRE", 1785, the symbol "D" refers to the density of electricity at point M and the symbol "δ" refers to the density of electricity at point P.

A question to all physicists, how do you understand this absurdity and this gibberish - "the product of the density D by the density δ"?

I suspect that many of you have forgotten that mathematicians invented the "multiplication" operation or the so-called "product" in order to simplify the addition operation ... For example ...

You have 100 boxes, each of which contains 80 identical bolts ... What would you have to do if you did not know about the "multiply" operation? You would have to repeat the same thing 100 times -

80 bolts + 80 bolts + 80 bolts + 80 bolts + 80 bolts + ... + 80 bolts = 8000 bolts

By the way ... In an ordinary computer there is no multiplication operation - the computer adds values "in the old fashioned way" ...

People invented the operation of "multiplication" in order to simplify their life - then we have -

80 bolts / box x 100 boxes = 8000 bolts

It is easy to see that the "box" dimension is reduced and only the "bolt" dimension remains.

How is "naked mathematics" different from physics, which deals with "physical actions" and physical phenomena? The fact that mathematics may not use dimensions and use just bare numbers - this is "mathematical formalism". In physics, mathematical formalism is not allowed! In the above example with bolts, there is always a physical action of people - a person puts bolts into boxes and ends this physical action always at the same value - 80 bolts ... I emphasize he does not end his action on the number "80" - this is formally, and he ends his physical action at "80 bolts" in one box, so the multiplication operation I wrote above is "80 bolts / box". Then the person performs the following physical action - he transfers, as an example, from different places 100 boxes, each of which contains 80 bolts, into one room ... To understand what is in this room or "some kind of compartment" in the warehouse he has a certain number of bolts, this person does not carry out the operation "add bolts", but he applies the multiplication operation - 80 bolts / box x 100 boxes = 8000 bolts

This is physics ... This is the simplest physics, which describes the simplest physical actions of a person ... Therefore, when you go to the physics of elementary particles, you should also remember that there should be no mathematical formalism in it and every action particles that you describe must have the appropriate dimension ... Back in 1972, while studying in the first year at MEPhI, a wonderful Soviet physicist, teacher of the Department of General Physics - Naum Ilyich Goldfarb taught me to check any mathematical manipulations in physics when solving physical problems for the correct representation " dimension ". If you check the dimension, then you can easily find your mistake when solving the problem.

What follows from all this? And the following follows - Charles Coulomb made a mistake, multiplying the density of electricity 1 by the density of electricity 2. This cannot be done! You cannot multiply 80 bolts by 50 bolts! Thus, Maxwell made a mistake and repeated the mistake of Charles Coulomb.

Second ...

Maxwell further writes -

“If e is positive and e' is negative, i.e. one of the charges is glassy, and the other is resinous, then the bodies will attract, but if both e and e' are negative, then the bodies will repel again. "

Undoubtedly, Maxwell was forgiven for reasoning in this way in 1873 ... Philip Mikhailovich Kanarev corrected Maxwell's mistake and wrote in his textbook "Theoretical Foundations of the Physical Chemistry of the Microworld" -

"In addition, it has already been established that all electrostatics is based on the interaction not of positive and negative charges, but of the north and south magnetic poles of electron clusters in electrostatic phenomena."

those. on the surface of electrified bodies, free electrons either form the north magnetic pole or the south magnetic pole. Thus, if opposite magnetic poles are formed on the surface of bodies by free electrons, then the bodies are attracted, if on the surface of bodies the same magnetic poles are formed by free electrons, then the body is repelled.

“We can assume that the first body A is charged with m units of positive and n units of negative electricity, which can be considered separately placed on the body, as in Experiment V.

Let the second body B be charged with m' units of positive electricity and n' units of negative electricity. "

It remains a mystery for Kanarev and me - why physicists and, first of all, nuclear physicists did not pay Maxwell to this blatant nonsense ... Let's figure it out ... If physicists admitted that the proton has a "positive charge", then how can the body A be charged with m units of protons - positively charged - positive electricity? This cannot be done in any way for the simple reason that in order to pull out a proton from the nucleus, it is necessary to spend 5-7 MeV ... Is it possible, by rubbing an ebonite stick, as an example, to pull out a proton from its structure and then "transfer it to some object" ? No, you can't ... And the other side of this question - a proton in a free state lives for 10^-8 seconds, and maybe even less ... And experiments on electrostatics last minutes ... It turns out the following - teachers of general physics say that this is possible, and teachers of nuclear physics say that this cannot be done. Thus, this is Maxwell's second mistake, which can and should be called not his mistake, but his delusion in 1873 due to his lack of a level of knowledge in physics that corresponds to the present day.

Next, we will analyze Maxwell's logic and his next error, which I analyzed above - he writes -

“Let the second body B be charged with m' units of positive electricity and n' units of negative electricity.

Then each of the m positive units in the body A will repel each of the m' positive units in the body B with a certain force, say, f, which gives the total force mm' f . "

Let us fix this phrase of Maxwell - "gives the total force."

Maxwell further writes -

“Since the action of negative electricity is exactly equal and opposite to the action of positive, then each of the m positive units of electricity in body A will attract each of the n' negative units in body B with the same force f , which gives the total force mn'f.

Likewise, n negative units in body A attract m' positive units of body B with force nm'f and repulse n' negative units of body B with force nn'f .

So the total repulsion is (mm' + nn') f , and the total attraction is (mn' + m'n) f . "

In order for the English-speaking reader to understand me correctly, I will explain for you the concept of "piece" or "piece", which I apply further in the text ... In Russian there is a kind of formalism ... For example, they ask me - "How many spoons did you take with you on a hike? " I answer - "7 pieces" and any Russian person understands this as the fact that I took "7 spoons" ... If they ask me - "How many apples are in the basket?" I answer - "11 pieces", i.e. it means that there are 11 apples ... And so on ...

Maxwell writes about "units of electricity" ... Thus, his dimension in this case is "pieces" ... In the modern sense, it is m pieces of protons or n pieces of electrons. Looking ahead, I note that Maxwell miraculously passes through mathematical manipulations from multiplying "pieces" by "pieces" or "number of units" by "number of units" to the product of «e» by «e'», and at the same time he received a strange dimension "е" -

Once again, I draw your attention to the fact that the product - "pieces" on "pieces" or "number of units" on "number of units" cannot be done, as it turns out gibberish - you are forced to add "m pieces" "m' pieces" - times ... or to add "m units" "m' units" - times ... but this means the following - you are forced to add "m units of electricity" "m' units of electricity" - times - this is a product and it has no physical meaning ... Do you understand THIS ???

Above, I explained to you that any product or multiplication is essentially a simplified operation of "addition" or "addition" of identical units for the example N-times.

Do you understand that this work «mm' f» cannot give you any "full power", because under this work, which is the addition of something so many times - and this is a real physical body - any body, i.e. .e. you can add the "number of units of electricity" "N" times, but you cannot add, you cannot add the "number of units of electricity" - times !!!

And even more so, one cannot deal with describing a physical action with such a mathematical formalism - that is, put “f” out of brackets and add two “gibberish” – «m • m' » and «n • n'» or «m • n'» and «m' • n»!

All four given "products" or "multiplication of quantities with the same dimension" are meaningless in their content, that is, you cannot multiply apples by apples or "units of electricity" by "units of electricity".

Do you understand that there is no physical sense in adding these "gibberish" and Maxwell misled millions of physicists?

Third.

Based on one "gibberish", Maxwell gets the next gibberish and writes the following nonsense and note - what kind of "terry" mathematical formalism he uses, which is absolutely divorced from physics, i.e. his mathematics has nothing to do with the real physics of physical phenomena -

«The resulting repulsion is -

But m - n = e is the algebraic value of the charge in the body A, and m' - n' = e' is the algebraic value of the charge in the body B, so that the resulting repulsion can be written in the form e•e'•f , where the quantities e and e' are always meant to be taken with the appropriate signs. »

Someone before me asked the question - "Is such a subtraction « m - n » or « m' - n'» competent in the physical sense of THIS action?" Indeed, in fact, these subtractions mean in the physical sense the following - a part of the units of electricity, which is designated as "n", as if leaves the body A and instead of the amount of electricity "m" remains its part – «m - n» ... But this is how simple-minded physicists can reason, who are essentially not physicists, but they are "mathematical formalists"!

Why has nobody noticed - or wanted to notice during these 148 years? - Maxwell's forgery ! And it consists in the fact that from the amount of "positive electricity" - "m", the amount of "negative electricity" - "n" is subtracted !!!

Think about it - there are "m" red chips on the table in front of you ... Can you subtract from these red chips in the physical sense, and not in the mathematical sense, "n" of blue chips? No you can not ! This is in the physical sense gibberish! Understand THIS! After all, you cannot subtract a certain amount of pears from the number of apples!

Also, you cannot multiply, for example, m apples by m' apples ..., because you cannot add m apples "m' apples-times" ... This is Maxwell's forgery!

So, we already have three mathematical forgeries or three mathematical errors of Maxwell ...

Fourth.

«40. Having established the law of action of force at a fixed distance, we can now measure the force between bodies with a constant charge at different distances. Direct measurements have shown that this force, both during repulsion and attraction, changes inversely proportional to the square of the distance, so that if f is the repulsion of two unit charges at a unit distance, then the repulsion at a distance r is equal to f•r^-2, and the general expression for the repulsion of charges in e and e' units at a distance r has the form f•e•e'•r^-2.»

Thus, «e» is not the value of the charge in body A, and «e'» is not the value of the charge in body B.

The following error is based on the previous two and Maxwell wrote -

"The resulting repulsion can be written in the form e•e'•f" ...

And again the work is slipped to us ..., i.e. some kind of "abracadabra" – «e•e'» , multiplied by «f», ie. we are forced to abracadabra - «e•e'» fold «f» - times ... But «f» is force! How can you add up the "force" - times? No way ... Let's look at this work from the other side ... I'll try to cling to Maxwell at least for some physical meaning ..., but as you will see, I will still fail ... Let Maxwell be mistaken and for him we will introduce the dimensionless value «e» and «e'» ... Then one could consider that the product "ef" is the addition of the forces «f» "e" - times ... Let's say ... We got the resulting force «ef» ... From the point of view of physics, everything is fine here, since it could be represented as the impact on some particle "x" by other particles, the number of which is "e" pieces. If this resulting force is «ef», I try to multiply by «e'», then this will mean that I will add the resulting force «ef» since under the phrase – «e'» - times ", there is a quite definite physical meaning - namely, there is an «e'» - a piece of particles of the "x" type, each of which is influenced – «by other particles, the number of which is "е" pieces ... », ie. for each of the particles of type "x" I will get the same resulting «ef» and each of them will be applied to different centers of mass of each of the particles of type "x", but since there is no rule for adding forces applied to different centers of mass, then I have no right to "add up the resulting force «e'f» «e'»- times"! It's clear ? Thus, whatever one may say, but this Maxwell mathematics does not have any physical meaning under it!

Maxwell wrote -

"Definition of the Electrostatic Unit of Electricity

41. Until now, we have used as a unit of electricity a completely arbitrary standard, namely the amount of electrification of a certain piece of glass, electrified at the beginning of our experiments. We are now in a position to choose a unit according to a certain principle; in order for this unit to be included in the general system of units, we will define it so that f is equal to one. "

«f = 1»

The most important moment in this whole story with Maxwell's revelation is coming ... How it happened to a man who treated dimensions so carefully in his work is incomprehensible to the mind ...??? But what he did 148 years ago with an ax cannot be knocked out ... Maxwell's fatal mistake was the fact that having equated the force f to one, Maxwell lost sight of the fact that the force has its own dimension and thus the "1", which stands in the given formula f = 1, also has a dimension and this dimension of the force is equal to "1" ... - (g • cm • sec^-2)

Let me remind the reader that according to Maxwell's text it was clearly indicated - "... the repulsive force ... has the form f•e•e'•r^-2"

Then Maxwellp writes -

"In other words, an electrostatic unit of electricity is such an amount of positive electricity that, being at a unit distance from an equal amount of electricity, is repelled from it with a unit force."

Amazingly he himself pointed out to us the "unit force", but when he carried out the transformations, Maxwell forgot about its dimension.

“This unit is called Electrostatic, in contrast to the Electromagnetic unit, which will be introduced later.

We can now write down the general law of electrical interaction in a simple form:

F = e • e’• r^-2

Or: the repulsion between two small bodies, charged respectively with e and e' units of electricity, is numerically equal to the product of charges divided by the square of the distance. "

Here is Maxwell's entry -

Further Maxwell writes -

"Dimension of the Electrostatic Unit of Electricity

42. Let [Q] be a certain electrostatic unit of electricity, e, e ', are the numerical values of certain amounts of electricity, [L] is a unit of length, and r is the numerical value of the distance, [F] is the unit of force, and F is the numerical value strength. Then our equation takes the form

F [F] = e•e'•r^-2 [Q2] [L-2],

whence [Q] = [LF1 / 2] = [L3 / 2T-1M1 / 2]. "

And now he is the apotheosis of this false theory and false inventions ... The charge that Coulomb had was "mass", that is, expressed as "amount of substance", miraculously turned into something "indigestible" -

cm^3/2 sec^-1 g^1/2 ... So what's the trick ??? And the trick is what I described above - this is the multiplication «m•m'•f», which in its essence is the addition of the FORCES that are applied to different centers of mass ...

How to get rid of this gibberish ??? And you noticed how “on the sly” Maxwell removed “f” from the formulas and impudently explained it to us as follows - “... in order for this unit to be included in the general system of units, we will define it so that f is equal to one.” ... But excuse me? Let "f be equal to one", but it also has a dimension !!! Above Maxwell wrote - "with a certain strength, say, f", i.e. its dimension (g • cm • sec-2) ... Then we have -

F [F] = 1 • e • e' • r^-2 [M • L • T^-2] [Q²] [L^-2], whence we have [Q] = [F^{1 / 2}] [M^-1/2 ] [L^-1/2] [T] = [M] [L] [T^-2] [M^-1/2] [L^-1/2] [T] = [M^{1 / 2}] [L^{1 / 2} ] [T^-1] is also an absurd result, and it tells us exactly that it is impossible to multiply "mm'f" ... "

The conclusion, therefore, is unambiguous - no "electric charge" according to Maxwell exists in nature! For this reason, all physics that has been built in the last 150 years on this deceitful physics is "pseudoscience"!

Strange and another ... For some reason, physicists did not react in any way to the paradigm change in physics that occurred through Maxwell's fault in 1873 ... If you carefully study the treatises of Charles Coulomb, Poisson, Thomson, you will immediately notice a completely different approach of these physicists.

For example, we open the site of the Association of French Physicists. See below.

On page 387, Thomson defined charges –

«Charges. – En vertu des theorems fondamentaux, on devra distribuer sur la surface de la sphere A une masse q_aa = ∑A_n d’electricite, et sur B une masse de signe contraire q_ab = ∑B_n pour produire les memes potentiels sur ces spheres.»

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

Links to the website of the Association of French Physicists

First diploma thesis. - Construction and use of an electric balance based on the property of metal wires to have a torsional force proportional to the torsional angle (1785). (P.107) -

Premier Mémoire. - Construction et usage d'une balance électrique fondée sur la propriété qu'ont les fils de métal d'avoir une force de torsion proportionnelle à l'angle de torsion (1785). (p.107) -

CNUM - 8CA121-1 : p.107 - im.117

Second thesis. It is determined by which laws both the magnetic fluid and the electrical fluid act either by repulsion or by attraction (1785). (P.116) -

Deuxième Mémoire. - Où l'on détermine suivant quelles lois de fluide magnétique ainsi que le fluide électrique agissent soit par répulsion, soit par attraction (1785). (p.116)

- http://cnum.cnam.fr/CGI/fpage.…21-1/126/90/416/0079/0316

Third thesis. - The amount of electricity that an isolated body loses in a given time, either through contact with more or less humid air or along more or less idioelectric supports (1785). (P.147) -

Troisième Mémoire. - De la quantité d'électricité qu'un corps isolé perd dans un temps donné, soit par le contact de l'air plus ou moins humide, soit le long des soutiens plus ou moins idio-électriques (1785). (p.147) -

CNUM - 8CA121-1 : p.147 - im.157

Fourth thesis. - Where we demonstrate two main properties of the electric fluid: the first, that this fluid does not spread in any body by chemical affinity or by elective attraction, but that it is shared between different bodies that are brought into contact, only by their repulsive Effect; second, that in the case of conductive bodies, the liquid that has reached a state of stability is distributed over the surface of the body and does not penetrate into the interior (1786). (P.173) -

Quatrième Mémoire. - Où l'on démontre deux principales propriétés du fluide électrique: la première, que ce fluide ne se répand dans aucun corps par une affinité chimique, ou par une attraction élective, mais qu'il se partage entre différents corps mis en contact, uniquement par son action répulsive; la seconde, que dans les corps conducteurs le fluide parvenu à l'état de stabilité est répandu sur la surface du corps et ne pénètre pas dans l'intérieur (1786). (p.173) -

CNUM - 8CA121-1 : p.173 - im.183

Fifth memoir. - On the way in which the electrical fluid is divided between two conductive bodies in contact and on the distribution of this fluid over the different parts of the surface of these bodies (1787). (P.183) -

Cinquième Mémoire. - Sur la manière dont le fluide électrique se partage entre deux corps conducteurs mis en contact, et de la distribution de ce fluide sur les différentes parties de la surface de ces corps (1787). (p.183) -

CNUM - 8CA121-1 : p.183 - im.193

Sixth memoir. - Continuation of research on the distribution of electrical fluid between multiple conductors. Determination of the electrical density at the various points on the surface of these bodies (1788). (P.230) -

Sixième Mémoire. - Suite des recherches sur la distribution du fluide électrique entre plusieurs conducteurs. Détermination de la densité électrique dans les différents points de la surface de ces corps (1788). (p.230) -

CNUM - 8CA121-1 : p.230 - im.240

Seventh memoir. - Magnetism (1789). (Excerpt from the memoirs of the Royal Academy of Sciences.) (P.273) -

Septième Mémoire. - You magnétisme (1789). (Extrait des Mémoires de l'Académie royale des Sciences.) (P.273) -

CNUM - 8CA121-1 : p.273 - im.284

Theoretical and experimental determination of the forces that different needles, magnetized to saturation, bring on their magnetic meridian. [Extract from t. III of the memoirs of the institute, year IX (1801).] (P.320) -

Détermination théorique et expérimentale des forces qui ramènent différentes aiguilles, aimantées à saturation, à leur méridien magnétique. [Extrait you t. III of the Mémoires de l'Institut, to IX (1801).] (P.320) -

CNUM - 8CA121-1 : p.320 - im.331

Try to determine the consistency of liquids and the laws of their resistance to very slow movements. [Extract from t. III of the Institute's memoirs, year IX (1801).] (P.333) -

Experiences destinées à déterminer la cohérence des fluides et des lois de leur résistance dans les mouvements très lents. [Extrait you t. III of the Mémoires de l'Institut, to IX (1801).] (P.333) -

CNUM - 8CA121-1 : p.333 - im.340

Ergebnis der verschiedenen Methoden, die verwendet werden, um Stahlklingen und -stäben den höchsten Grad an Magnetismus zu verleihen. [Auszug aus t. VI der Memoiren des Instituts (1806).] (S.361) -

Result of the different methods used to give steel blades and bars the highest degree of magnetism. [Extract from t. VI of the Memoirs of the Institute (1806).] (P.361) -

CNUM - 8CA121-1 : p.361 - im.366

Влияние температуры на магнетизм стали. (Отрывок, по словам Био, из неопубликованного трактата (стр. 373) -

Влияние температуры на магнетизм стали. (Отрывок из неопубликованных мемуаров по Био (стр. 373) -

CNUM - 8CA121-1 : p.373 - im.376

ДОБАВКА. О распределении на поверхности двух электрически проводящих шаров и притяжении этих шаров соэрис сорис сонис Томсону (стр. 379) -

ДОБАВЛЕНИЕ. О распределении на поверхности двух наэлектризованных проводящих сфер и притяжении этих сфуелас, соглектризованных проводящих сфер и притяжении этих сфуелас. Томсону (стр. 379):

CNUM - 8CA121-1 : p.379 - im.380

Quote from Cydonia

Не могли бы вы в нескольких строках рассказать нам об основных ошибках Максвелла?

Thus, the formula that Maxwell invented has nothing to do with Charles Coulomb -

Further. There are no "electrical forces" in nature, which are supposedly described by this Maxwell formula ...

All this is nothing more than "bullshit", speaking in Russian. This is what those who collide protons with protons in accelerators are hiding from you ... They are CERN researchers, are engaged in obscurantism and defame the public of the whole world ... This is similar to what is happening with Covid-19 ...

Let these researchers from CERN answer me and you - “Where do you get the very FORCES that are able to overcome this gigantic force - F = 2304000000000 N?

I have a simple answer - this force does not exist in nature ... But in their reports and articles they continue to use the concept of "electric charge" and continue to defame all of us ...

I am citing Ivanov Mikhail Yakovlevich from his speech on April 26, 2018 - 2 hours 7 minutes 35 seconds - "20180426 seminar at RUDN completely" - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dFEDyv1Gpe8

«I want to say that the theory by which the Higgs boson was obtained is based on the Lagrange formalism. She's not true! There is no Higgs boson in nature! And, unfortunately, they deceived us at CERN! Having built a graph there at a peak of 126 GeV ... When I was at CERN for the last time, I went skiing with them, they are CERN specialists, they gave me graphs that did not show this peak! »

Interesting information isn't it? In the media, they trumpeted that “there is a 126 GeV peak,” but in fact it is not on the graphs ... And this is clear to me today - this physics, which these researchers use, is completely false and incorrect.

I would also like to note the following ... Physicists use voluntarism in cases when they transfer what they see in experiments with "macro-objects" to the interaction of microparticles in the microworld ... Here lies a trap for all of us ... Thus, using the principle of similarity - when physicists assume that micro-objects interact in the same way as macro-objects, physicists have a chance to go down the wrong path in physics ... On the example of experiments with "electrified bodies" conducted by Charles Coulomb, we see that it was impossible "mechanically", using the principle similarities, to transfer these interactions of macro-objects to the interaction of micro-objects - protons and electrons ... As a result, physics went down the wrong path ... As a result - the bewilderment of physicists and researchers who conducted experiments and initiated D-D reactions about the fact that they did not have the Coulomb barrier ... And they did not understand and still do not understand that this - the Coulomb barrier is simply not in nature ...

A similar trap lies in the fact that physicists have transferred, using the principle of similarity, the magnetic moment of the frame with current to the structure of a proton and an electron ...

Today I am also at the mercy of this trap - I, like other researchers, believe that the electron and the proton have their own magnetic moment ... Let us think about this ... The discovery of the proton's own magnetic moment was carried out in 1933 ... The discovery of its own magnetic moment the moment of the electron was made in 1947 ... In those years, as well as today, researchers believed in the existence of "electric charge", "electric fields" and "electric forces", and therefore they interpreted their experiments on the basis of this false knowledge ... And they acted, in my opinion, too boldly and recklessly when they thought that the electron and the proton behave like a frame with a current ... Agree - this is just a hypothesis ... So I think about this problem and ask myself the question - "And which physicist has proved that this hypothesis is correct? " Doubts gnaw at me and I think that physicists simply misinterpreted the results of their experiments ...

I understand and realize that by my reasoning I further complicate and confuse the situation related to the physics of the proton and electron, but I am a physicist who, from the first year of MEPhI, was taught to doubt and distrust what is written in textbooks ... This is it is difficult to explain and understand - you are simultaneously taught from textbooks and at the same time they teach you not to trust what is written there ... But it was so - this is the Soviet education system of the 70s of the last century ...

I quote from a textbook, which reveals the essence of the magnetic moment of a frame with a current -

You read the quote from the textbook ... Agree with me - to transfer the data of the interaction of a macro-object, which is a complex structure of protons, neutrons and electrons, to separate micro-objects - a proton or an electron, is too bold and too vulgar - this is possible and there is another "trap "In which physicists and myself sit ... It makes no sense to reject this, since any unbiased look at a complex structure, for example, a copper conductor and a look at the structure of an electron, for example, allows you to feel the depth and difference between these objects ... Look, for example, on the structure of the core (molecule) of copper-65 ...

Is that why I should trust those physicists who worked in the 20th century and follow their delusions? I shouldn't do this! And you shouldn't do that! We must all together doubt their correctness! Otherwise, we will get lost once again just like we “got lost” among non-existent “electric charges” ...

You ask me - "Where is the way out of this situation?" So far I have no answer ... So far, one thing is clear to me - precisely because we use the "old physics" we are not able today to correctly interpret the reactions in the LENR installations ... And if this is so, then we are not able to correctly configure and design them ... are researchers doing? They are doing trial and error research, they are empirically looking for the correct design in order to get a COP of more than 10 or even 100

This is called the "trial and error method" ... And there are a lot of mistakes due to the fact that the wrong physics is used ...

In the next thread, Bayak continues to mock common sense, not noticing what I wrote for him in this thread ... -

Post

RE: About the Coulomb barrier in LENR

[…]


https://ibb.co/Xp6psZs

bayak

Nov 6th 2021

Ivanov Mikhail Yakovlevich on April 26, 2018 at a seminar at RUDN University at 2 hours 9 minutes 46 seconds says - "Stop manipulating the" scientific consciousness "!" - "20180426 seminar at RUDN completely" -

In essence, this statement of Ivanov could be disclosed as follows - “Stop lying to the public! Stop deceiving the part of the public that is not engaged in physics! Stop those physicists who are falsifying! Stop those physicists who are deceiving both physicists and non-physicists! Do not relay false knowledge to the masses! "

Quote from bayak

As a matter of fact, with my persistence I continue to insist that the question of the theoretical justification of cold fusion can be solved quite successfully within the framework of classical physical concepts. However, this does not mean that I am against new theories. Moreover, I have my own theory of everything.

Dear Bayak! You have not understood anything ... I am not talking about the "new theory" ... I am exposing the "old theory" on which you rely and therefore are mistaken together with millions of physicists ... How did this happen? Maxwell was wise ... He was wise and it is forgivable for him, since Maxwell worked 148 years ago ... But we are not forgiven for ignoring his mistakes and continuing to believe that the "electric charge" exists in nature ... But it does not exist in nature, this is the whole point ... And this is not a new theory - this is the destruction of "old delusions" ... Thank you for your understanding. Take some time and read my material carefully before submitting your LENR ideas to the community ...

I published an article on researchgate.net - "Another Explanation of Maxwell's Errors to Physicists" - https://www.researchgate.net/p…_to_physicists_of_Maxwell's_mistakes

Quote from PhysicsForDummies

@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 are a naive physicist ... You have forgotten the general physics course that you were taught at school ... Acceleration is a characteristic of an uneven movement - it shows how much the speed has changed in 1 second. V - final speed, V0 - initial speed, "a" - acceleration

(m / sec) you divide by (sec) and you get (m / sec2)

Quote from PhysicsForDummies

@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?

As for multiplication (meter * meter) - this is physics and this physical action is a fold in geometry ... To get the area, you fold small squares - for example, their size is 1 mm by 1 mm ... 1 mm You fold 0.001 mm squares by 0.001 mm ... and so on ad infinitum ... in any case, there is common sense in this and it came to physics from geometry ...

But if you want to multiply - as an example, the mass of the protons of one material by the mass of the protons of another material in order to get the force of attraction between them, then this is nonsense ... Geometry will not help you here ... Is that clear? Ask yourself - "What does it mean to multiply 7 apples by 3 apples? How do you understand folding 7 apples by" 3 apples "- times?" This is nonsense ... But if the number "3" did not have the dimension "apples", that is, it would be a dimensionless quantity, then you can easily multiply by 3 and get 21. Compare these two formulas -

7 apples • 3 = 21 apples

7 apples • 3 apples = ???

Quote from truth

Um not exactly, acceleration represents the variation of speed in time as derivative of speed over time, not the changing of speed in 1 second time period. Its measurement unit is m/s2.

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