Exposing Maxwell by German physicist Karl Schreber in 1899.
-
Photons have no mass, but they do have momentum.
The resulting inertial force acting on the center of mass of the photon will be equal to
-
Photons have no mass, but they do have momentum.
In addition ... It is important to understand the following - a photon has a "emitter" ... For photons of the infrared range, light range, ultraviolet range and for the "soft" X-ray range, the "emitter" is an electron - an electron emits part of its mass - these are 6 magnetic fields that Kanarev presented to us ...
For me, Kanarev's model is quite acceptable ... But ... But nevertheless, I believe that it will be improved in the future ...
Photon, according to Kanarev, starts its movement at zero speed. The photon accelerates with acceleration and reaches the speed of light C. Further, the photon has uniform motion ... In this model, not everything is so good ..., nevertheless ... I have some doubts ... This is normal. This is how this complex physics should develop ...
Electron energy -
Ее = h• ωе = mе • rе• ωе • rе• ωе ,
where h is Planck's constant, which the electron obeys ... But at the same time it obeys the law of localization of the electron, which forces it to fulfill the following -
k0 = mе • rе = const
As soon as the electron has absorbed the photon, then its mass increased by the mass of the photon, and so that the localization constant k0 = const the electron decreases its size re and moves away from the proton - a secondary magnetic field acts ...
This is a hypothesis ... It requires confirmation ... In Kanarev's model, Planck's constant is a vector ...
-
Display More
Guys, this may be relevant to the discussion, posted today (4 Dec.) on BrLP site:
"FREE ELECTRON PHOTON ABSORPTION MECHANISM"
https://brilliantlightpower.co…ton-absorption-mechanism/
A key part in this post is this:
"The photon in free space comprises a partial two-dimensional covering of a spherical shell by great circle electric (E) field lines and orthogonal great circle magnetic (B) field lines wherein the sphere has the size of the photon wavelength. The photon field lines move as an ensemble at light speed and appear in the sub-light speed laboratory frame as one of linear or right or left-handed circularly polarized E and B fields that vary harmonically in time and space over the period corresponding to the wavelength as the photon propagates past an observer.
The free electron comprises a two-dimensional planar membrane disc having a maximum charge density at the origin and transitioning to zero density at the disc radius given by de Broglie wavelength divided by 2Pi wherein the linear velocity of the free electron determines the be Broglie wavelength and radius. The photon carrying h bar of angular momentum in its E and B field lines impacts the supercurrent of free electron causing a reaction current that in turn causes the photon to be captured on the inner surface of the electron current as it forms a transient spherical bound state.
The resulting two-dimensional covering of a spherical shell by great circle current loops comprises the uniform current density pattern that gives rise to electron spin as well as a standing wave being the superposition of a Fourier series of time and spherical harmonic surface charge density waves.
The current pattern of the transient electronic state is formed in the same manner as the free electron current when it binds to a nucleus to form a bound atomic electron (https://brilliantlightpower.co…nd-ionization-simulation/) wherein the transiently bound photon is the source of the central field as in the case of an atomic electronic excited state (https://brilliantlightpower.com/photon-absorption-mechanism/).
The spherical radius of the bound transient decreases causing the spherical current and the linear current to increase as the transient bound state electron ionizes to a free electron with an increased velocity and decreased radius and de Broglie wavelength wherein the energy of the absorbed photon is conserved in the corresponding increased rotational and translational kinetic energies."
This is a delusion of the authors - "The current pattern of the transient electronic state is formed in the same manner as the free electron current when it binds to a nucleus to form a bound atomic electron". Electric current is not the movement of electrons ... Those who write about this in textbooks "dense savages" ... Electric current is THAT that free electrons pump through themselves - is it an etheric mass or is it a mass of photons - the essence is the same.
Another misconception of the authors - "The photon in free space comprises a partial two-dimensional covering of a spherical shell by great circle electric (E) field lines and orthogonal great circle magnetic (B) field lines ..." there is no electric field (since the "electric field" is Maxwell's invention and mistake, there is no such thing as "... great circle electric (E) field lines ...". Physics of the authors is really funny and childish ...
-
All physics presented here -
You cannot fight an incomplete model with some good new ideas with fake ideas. Bad choice to do so...
-
...
I am asked the question - "How is it that physics is wrong, but it agrees with the experiment ..." Experimenters measure amperes and mistakenly believe that AMPERES are associated with "electric charges" ... Millikan was mistaken ... Now it is clear to me that ampere is associated with mass - etheric mass, which is pumped by free electrons in conductors ... Therefore, today the designation "I" - electric current, should be replaced by "M" - the mass of photons or the mass of ether ..
Yet, ALL you see laid out before you (modern day electronics and comms systems, in all its forms) was calculated, modeled, designed, then fabricated and produced by the thousands unto millions, __all using wrong physics__? One is pressed to us the singular word "preposterous" to that proposal. I have 'practiced' (actually, endeavored, with much fruitful results over the decades now) using those 'incorrect physics' to test and design all manner of electrical apparatus and even elementary devices, like discrete GaAs FETs. But, to take this 'tack' is to veer off course from the direction this thread should take, which in the immediate are the posts by stefan and his presented calculations.
I think the simple 'balloon' experiment (balloon rubbed on wool sweater) wherein electric 'charges' are moved from one to the other and wherein said balloon will now 'stick' to a wall or ceiling is enough to show Cherepanov2020 and his theory to be in error. Let's move back to stefan's work now ...
-
Yet, ALL you see laid out before you (modern day electronics and comms systems, in all its forms) was calculated, modeled, designed, then fabricated and produced by the thousands unto millions, __all using wrong physics__? One is pressed to us the singular word "preposterous" to that proposal. I have 'practiced' (actually, endeavored, with much fruitful results over the decades now) using those 'incorrect physics' to test and design all manner of electrical apparatus and even elementary devices, like discrete GaAs FETs. But, to take this 'tack' is to veer off course from the direction this thread should take, which in the immediate are the posts by stefan and his presented calculations.
I think the simple 'balloon' experiment (balloon rubbed on wool sweater) wherein electric 'charges' are moved from one to the other and wherein said balloon will now 'stick' to a wall or ceiling is enough to show Cherepanov2020 and his theory to be in error. Let's move back to stefan's work now ...
You wrote - "However, EVERYTHING that you see in front of you (modern electronics and communication systems, in all its forms) was calculated, modeled, designed, then manufactured and produced in thousands and millions, __ all using the wrong physics__? They impose on us the only word "absurd" in relation to this proposal ... "Like you, I answered hundreds of times ... But ... you do not want to reach the truth ... You repeat and repeat the delusions of other physicists ... Humanity For the last 150 years, it has been quite satisfying that technology is created using ammeters and voltmeters ... Everything was fine as long as mankind wanted to master new technologies associated with LENR ... And what did physicists discover? They found that Maxwell's formula, which he mocked as "Coulomb's Law", does not work ... Physicists do not observe the Coulomb barrier in experiments! It's clear ? You finally understand the following - in order to create a microcircuit or a mobile phone, physicists and engineers do not measure the amount of charges, but they take readings from an ammeter, which shows them microamperes, milli amperes or amperes ... And the essence of my discovery is what I found Maxwell's mistake is a mathematical mistake ... I have a question for you - "Have you personally verified what Maxwell did?" Before writing your commentary, take the trouble not to refer to someone else's opinion, to someone else's publications, but simply open Maxwell's treatise "Electricity and Magnetism", read carefully the places I point to you, and do your analysis if you have my own mind is enough for this ... Then read again what I wrote in my article -
Another explanation to physicists of Maxwell's mistakes, 19.01.2021-01.11.2021 - https://cloud.mail.ru/public/8wdJ/3MSKr2FtR
Another explanation to physicists of Maxwell's mistakes, 01.19.2021-01.11.2021 - https://docs.google.com/docume…fVt7BF94/edit?usp=sharing
and give answers to the questions posed and decide for yourself - "Was Maxwell's mistake or was it not? Did Maxwell have the right to do what he did or not?" Then I will be able to listen to your objections ... And while I hear only - "Blah, blah, blah ..."
If you are not able to do such an analysis, then step aside and smoke or get some fresh air, but do not write any nonsense ...
-
It seems like every thread is now disrupted by a single crackpot with the same tired diatribe. Very sad. These posts need to be kept on one thread at the very least.
-
Cherepanov2020 started this thread, so on this basis is entitled to express his ideas.
However if the intention here is disinformation and disruption of good ongoing discussions and research, this is not appropriate, and may be more about geopolitics not science.
Most of us are aware that there are some issues with existing theory which require careful critique to resolve. I’m not yet convinced this dialogue is adding to a resolution of this.
-
Cherepanov2020 started this thread, so on this basis is entitled to express his ideas.
However if the intention here is disinformation and disruption of good ongoing discussions and research, this is not appropriate, and may be more about geopolitics not science.
Most of us are aware that there are some issues with existing theory which require careful critique to resolve. I’m not yet convinced this dialogue is adding to a resolution of this.
To be fair, this thread was started by Cherepanov but all the last comments were moved from another thread where they were off topic. No one here wants to disrupt discussion, just enhance it and keep it in the proper space. I have asked Cherepanov to not derail other threads with his objections to other people’s ideas.
