Cherepanov2020 what do you think about Magnitsky ether theory together with Baranov I Zaitsev?
Cherepanov2020 what do you think about Magnitsky ether theory together with Baranov I Zaitsev?
Today, the most difficult thing is to create a physical model, in which the ether should be presented as a "material substance", and not a mathematical one ... And on the basis of this model, mathematical formulas could be added ...
Cherepanov2020 wrote...
QuoteToday, the most difficult thing is to create a physical model, in which the ether should be presented as a "material substance", and not a mathematical one ... And on the basis of this model, mathematical formulas could be added ...
Difficult but far from the most difficult. You might care to check out STEM, which is a physical model that is the subject of the newly posted STEM: An Energy-Centric Model for Atomic Structure and the Nature of Electricity and Light stream.
As an added bonus, it makes reference to some of the physical models of Professor P M Kanarev, with whom I suspect you are familiar.
Today, the most difficult thing is to create a physical model, in which the ether should be presented as a "material substance", and not a mathematical one ... And on the basis of this model, mathematical formulas could be added ...
I think that unfairly strict demand for the theory. Do dark matter or bunch of exotic particles need to exist like 'material substance' before theory can use them? Also did you read recent Magnitsky book (2021) ?
Cherepanov2020 wrote...
Difficult but far from the most difficult. You might care to check out STEM, which is a physical model that is the subject of the newly posted STEM: An Energy-Centric Model for Atomic Structure and the Nature of Electricity and Light stream.
As an added bonus, it makes reference to some of the physical models of Professor P M Kanarev, with whom I suspect you are familiar.
I do not understand your desire ... For me you are a strange and inattentive person ... Why do I think so? This site is full of my articles, in which I convincingly prove that WHAT this author writes about in nature did not exist and does not exist ... For me, this is a passed stage ... In a telephone conversation with Kanarev, I pointed out to him his mistake - an obvious one error - on the one hand he proves that there is no "electric field", there are no "electric charges", and on the other hand he uses charge "e" in the formulas ... This is wrong ...
Here are some excerpts from the book ... None of this is in nature - Maxwell turned out to be a brilliant inventor and a trivial schoolboy, as he made gross mistakes in his mathematical manipulations - only a schoolboy can make mistakes, but not a "great" scientist ... But from you can't throw this out of history - what happened was ...
«Fundamental particles such as electrons, positrons and quarks are considered to carry a positive or a negative charge, and most have an antiparticle with the opposite charge. So, exactly what is electric charge and what causes it to have an associated electric field? Is positive and negative charge due to completely different energy types, or is it simply a variation of the same type of energy? Electric fields are similar to magnetic fields in terms of their like-pole repulsion and opposite pole attraction and, as the term ‘electromagnetic’ suggests, they are closely inter-related, but what exactly are the differences between them? These are some of the tantalising questions that this paper addresses.»
«The Duplicit Electron explores the possibility of there might be a positive charge carrier that is the equivalent of an electron, the acknowledged negative charge carrier. Could the positive and negative charge carriers simply be spin-up and spin-down electrons respectively, or are there more subtle differences between the two types of carriers? Certainly the positron, the electron’s antiparticle, would seem a likely candidate for a positive charge carrier, but the orbital nuclear model has no provision for positrons within electrical conductors and, because it is considered that they would mutually self-destruct via electron–positron annihilation, they are not considered to be a potential candidate.»
«More recently in 2015/2016, D Bowen and R Mulkern (references [12] and [13]) developed the toroidal-based Charged-Electromagnetic-Wave-Loop (CEWL) model that, unlike the TSE model, does not have a solenoidal spin around the torus. CEWL considers an electron to consist of a sinusoidal electromagnetic wave moving at the speed of light around a toroidal path to generate the electron’s charge and magnetic field. For a positron, the electromagnetic wave is considered to move around the toroid in the opposite direction to that of the electron: figure 2shows the magnetic field generated by the CEWL positron (the red wave-form)» - this model, from my point of view, is complete nonsense and my advice to the authors - "Read my exposing articles in which Maxwell's mistakes are covered."
«Another non-solenoidal toroidal model that is quite similar to the CEWL model is the energy-centric Spin Torus Energy Model (STEM). Both are toroidal models that are fundamentally different from ONAM and the other toroidal models in that they contend that electrons and positrons consist of the same type of energy, with negative charge electrons and positive charge electrons (positrons) being due to the different spin direction of energy around a torus. Whereas the other models assume that both positive and negative charge is intrinsic, which implies that they are fundamentally different kinds of energy, STEM and CEWL consider that positive and negative charge to be due to the same type of energy but with different energy-flow patterns. However, there are quite subtle differences between the STEM and CEWL models. The CEWL model considers that the energy of the electron and positron is derived from an electromagnetic wave or pulse, whereas the STEM model considers that in a concentrated form, energy displays physical properties more analogous to those of a viscousliquid or a semi-solid gel; and that it transitions into a more gas-like form as it becomes less concentrated.A hypothetical energy particle will be used to build up the structure of the STEM electron. The hypothetical energy particle consists of a small amount of concentrated energy, which reduces in concentration radially outwards. In figure 3a, the innermost sphere, labelled the core-energy, represents a central small amount of concentrated energy, surrounded by a gas-like atmosphere of less concentrated energy called the field-energy. The concentric dashed lines represent the energy concentration isoclines: they represent equipotential surfaces of the hypothetical energy particle.»
The question is - "Why should I read all this nonsense, in which over and over again different authors use the concept of" electric charge ", which never existed in nature?"
Why do you force to do this? Do your own analysis of Maxwell's errors ... And then you will throw in the trash all those articles in which the authors use "electric field" and "electric charge" ... Unfortunately, today there will be 99.9% of such articles ... But science is developing ... German physicists, according to my information, are actively discussing my little discoveries ... Over time, all physicists will admit that I am right, since there is nothing complicated in my discovery - this is pure arithmetic ... This is the level of knowledge of an ordinary student ... Of course, everyone is offended that for 148 years, physicists were mistaken, thanks to the magician Maxwell ...
Read my articles and do not offend me with your comments ... Do not load me with any nonsense in which there is the concept of "electric charge" - all this is scientific rubbish ... Write to the author of the book and invite him to study my articles and figure out Maxwell's mistakes on his own - it's simple.
I think that unfairly strict demand for the theory. Do dark matter or bunch of exotic particles need to exist like 'material substance' before theory can use them? Also did you read recent Magnitsky book (2021) ?
Two facts ... I only need two facts in order to throw this book into the trash bin ... Of course Nikolai Alexandrovich will be offended to hear such arguments ... He tried ... He pondered ... He created ... He I wanted the best ... But it's not my fault that I'm so strict with him and his creation ... The truth is dearer to me ... his first mistake is that he uses the concept of "electric field" and "electric charge" ... I am offended ... I sent him so many of my articles that should have forced him to reconsider his views ... But he continues to be delusional ...
The second mistake is a very gross mistake, and this mistake was also made by Maxwell - in their mathematical formulas Magnitsky and Maxwell "divorced" the coordinate and time in corners, that is, they considered that this could be done - stop time and consider only the coordinate ... For example , function
Magnitsky still respects my opinion and below he attributed r = r(t)
But this postscript under the formula does not save him in essence - in fact, his coordinate and time are independent ... And you don't see this anywhere in nature ...
And nevertheless, Magnitsky argues in the right direction - "The effect of changing the density of the ether dр (t, r) / dt in the equation of motion plays an extremely important role in the existence of the material world, in particular, it determines the presence of an electric charge, a magnetic moment and the mass of elementary particles, ... "
From this phrase, Magnitsky should delete only two words "electric charge" and I will immediately be his full supporter! Having the surname "Magnitsky" and being so absurd to be mistaken is ridiculous for me ... There are only magnetic interactions ... But we still do not know what a "magnetic field" is !!!
Here are my letters to Magnitsky, who has too much "pride" that hinders his scientific activity -
Размерность Электростатической Единицы Электричества по Максвеллу, 17 июня 2021 года – https://cloud.mail.ru/public/ie1g/y5k6rwhw9
Размерность Электростатической Единицы Электричества по Максвеллу, 17 июня 2021 года – https://drive.google.com/file/…sow0iw5x/view?usp=sharing
Write to Magnitsky on his mail - [email protected] , and ask him - "Why does he ignore the research of AI Cherepanov?"
I think that unfairly strict demand for the theory. Do dark matter or bunch of exotic particles need to exist like 'material substance' before theory can use them? Also did you read recent Magnitsky book (2021) ?
You write - "Do dark matter or bunch of exotic particles need to exist like 'material substance' before theory can use them?" I think definitely - ether or ether elements, has mass and has geometry and dimensions ... How can this be substantiated?
You must realize the following - on the Earth it is impossible to use the law of conservation of energy ... Why is it so? But because, in principle, there are no closed systems on Earth ... You are not even able to keep track of how millions of photons are introduced into your "supposedly closed system" within 10-17 seconds and, for example, thousands of photons leave it ... Leaving your system photons do not carry away energy ... The concept of "carry away energy" is a theoretical virus in physics - this jargon should be banned!
Only mass can be carried away or transferred ... Therefore, instead of the law of conservation of energy, we are obliged to use the law of conservation of mass ...
Two fundamental reactions in nuclear physics - the reaction of e-capture by a free proton and the decay of a neutron, show us that the ether has mass! Take a look at these formulas -
1р1 + е + {mass of ether, which is equal to 1.531 me} → 0n1
0n1 - {mass of ether, which is equal to 1.531 me } → 1р1 + е
Take a calculator, go into the Wikipedia reference books and check my calculations -
mn - (mp + me) = 1,531 me
Only an electron and only a proton are capable of emitting a part of their mass - these are photons ... Thus, analyzing all of the above, we must admit that the neutron, and the proton, and the electron, and the photon consist of ether - from the elements of ether .. ...
With the help of iterative calculations, I obtained the approximate parameters of the ether element, which I called "yoktomagnitik" -
Its approximate weight is 5,000 • 10^-69 kg.
This figure is correct for a "yoctomagnet" in the form of a cylinder with a height -
h = 71.7 • 10^-30 m and radius ρjocto = 3.907 • 10^-30 m
In this physics and in this "iron logic" a photon can and must have a mass, but in the old physics it has no mass - this is a delusion of the Nobel laureates. This prize itself is a complete profanation ... And this prize will never be given to me, since I do not belong to the "chosen people" ...
https://www.worldscientific.com/worldscibooks/10.1142/q0333
Contents:
Read - The opinion of the current employee of Moscow State University about modern physics, Ether and the New theory of the structure of the atomic nucleus -
«At the end of last year I was telling (A.I. Cherepanov - I do not know the author) about the Burtayev Readings at Moscow State University. This is an annual scientific conference, where the core theme is the achievements of Yuri Vasilyevich Burtayev in terms of the structure of elementary particles and the structure of atomic nuclei. There were many speakers at this conference besides Burtayev. But one of the most memorable speeches, in my opinion, is the report of Vladimir Vasilyevich Nizovtsev. He spoke about his views on modern physics, its problems and their causes, about the modern understanding of the ether (the material environment that fills the entire world space) and about his own model of elementary particles. It is this report that I propose to discuss. The report itself lasts almost an hour and a half, and I will try to tell you this in a three-minute text.
Vladimir Vasilievich at the beginning of his lecture bluntly says that many problems of modern physics are the result of errors in the very foundations and the absence of a banal physical model of the subject of study. I will reveal this thought: Instead of a physical model, we are offered a certain formula that has nothing to do with reality. And because of this, it is possible to fence all kinds of mathematical abstractions, which in some cases are really close to experimental data. But you shouldn't think about any valid forecasts and predictions. This is tantamount to guessing at random from an infinite number of options. But after the fact, such voluntarism makes it possible to explain any experimental data, because mathematicians are practically unlimited. (I support !!!)
Nizovtsev's root remark is the explanation of the Lorentz transformations, which all modern physicists pray for, through simple gas mechanics of a compressible medium. Those. everything that is at the heart of the theory of relativity turns out to be just a special case of more or less well-studied classical mechanics. And gravitational waves, for the detection of which it is required to accept the constancy of the speed of light, turn out not to be gravitational waves, but variations in the speed of light, which in reality is not absolutely constant.
Vladimir Vasilyevich also analyzes in detail the parameters of the broadcast. In this part, I do not completely agree with him. We discussed how confident he is about the meanings being voiced. And he confirms that the parameters can be moved depending on a number of reasons. But on the whole, the author reveals the idea that all questions of wave-particle duality can be considered precisely through the dynamics of this ether. He even refers to my report and the experiment with silicone drops, where all quantum effects in ordinary water were actually reproduced. Of course, he cited many other works of famous scientists as proof.
What is especially interesting, it was shown that Maxwell's equations, which are also absolute truth in modern science (???), turn out to be equations of hydromechanics. Those. mechanics of the same ether. Mention is made of an absolutely black body, the reasons for the interference and diffraction of light, the reasons for the randomness of many processes of the microworld, a description of the principles of the Sun, which are very different from the generally accepted ones, and much more. And these are not just hypotheses, but in one way or another, ideas worked out in scientific publications based on real observations and experiments.
In conclusion, a stunning visual demonstration of the division of elementary particles, which are toroidal vortices, was shown. This simple illustration (59th minute of the video) explicitly proves that the Burtayev's model of elementary particles and the ether-dynamic model can be different reflections of the same model. And it satisfies all the experimental data.
Summing up, I want to say that this rather short report shows everything that I talk about in many articles on this channel. All modern physics fits perfectly into gas mechanics. At the same time, it becomes clear and understandable how it all works. There is no need to introduce postulates, which are undoubtedly the weak point of modern natural science. There is a real possibility of building physical models, forecasting and real development of fundamental physics.
And, since such seminars, where it is possible to voice very bold hypotheses, exist, the development of science does not stop. And even if the editors of Vakov's magazines do not allow such works to be published, they see the light at least on my channel and on a few videos on YouTube.
Plato is my friend but the truth is dearer !
https://www.worldscientific.com/worldscibooks/10.1142/q0333
Contents:
- Preface
- Bibliography
- Mathematical Preliminaries
- Foundations: Electromagnetism, General Relativity, and Quantum Mechanics:
- Maxwell's Equations and Occam's Razor
- Electromagnetic and QM Waves Without Postulates
- The Electron and Occam's Razor
- The Aharonov-Bohm Effect, Proca Fields, and Flux Quantization
- Wave-Particle Duality
- Battle of Theories: Magnetic Moment and Lamb Shift Calculations
- Spinor Fields
- Electron Orbitals and Spacetime Curvature
- The Pauli Exclusion Principle
- Electron Dynamics in Metals
- Experimental Validation and Practical Applications:
- Superconductivity
- Compton-scale Electron-Proton Composite
- Electron Mediated Nuclear Fusion
- Nuclear Forces and Occam's Razor
- Transmutations by Evanescent Neutrinos
- Do Magnetic Monopoles Exist?
- Simple Experiments
If you want to throw £ 115 in the trash, then I cannot stop you ... I have given you enough arguments to finally realize that this book is just "scientific rubbish" ... But you persist ... you drive yourself myself to the abyss ... The only thing left for me is to ask God to stop you ...
Cherepanov2020 I do not have credentials to validate your counterarguments on Magnitskiy theory and I don't need to. What we want is to get professional scientist to converge on a single theoretical base. Not to read the book to the point you disagree and start arguing over it. Looks like everybody is waiting till next time somebody like Beria L.P. comes and makes everyone agree in a matte of days.
Those endless arguments are going on while at schools they keep teaching relativity and QM event though almost all agree they are at at the very least are poor approximation of reality.
Cherepanov2020 I do not have credentials to validate your counterarguments on Magnitskiy theory and I don't need to. What we want is to get professional scientist to converge on a single theoretical base. Not to read the book to the point you disagree and start arguing over it. Looks like everybody is waiting till next time somebody like Beria L.P. comes and makes everyone agree in a matte of days.
Those endless arguments are going on while at schools they keep teaching relativity and QM event though almost all agree they are at at the very least are poor approximation of reality.
You are unfair ... I read Magnitsky's book ... I have repeatedly listened to his reports on this topic ... We know each other by sight, as we attended a seminar at RUDN - "Cold nuclear fusion and ball lightning" ... But. .. But I have criteria and every scientist should have them, by which I determine the falsity or non-falsity of the presented material ... You must not forget the following - since 2016 I have reformatted my knowledge and switched to the basics of the physical chemistry of the microworld Kanarev Philip Mikhailovich , whom I criticize at the same time and thus develop the direction he started ... I wrote that Magnitsky has a lot of sound thoughts and I respect his opinion ... But at the same time I think that in some issues he is mistaken and is too fond of mathematics. .. I have my own opinion on this matter - physics will never correspond to mathematics and the solution of mathematical equations, if this mathematics does not have a physical model ... This is the main difference of our positions ... You may have your own for me in this regard ... So what should I do now? Convince me exactly what I'm wrong! Then this is constructive communication ... And what you wrote has nothing to do with physics - it's just literature ...
[user = '3491'] Cherepanov2020 [/ user] У меня нет учетных данных для подтверждения ваших контраргументов по теории Магнитского, и мне это не нужно. Мы хотим, чтобы профессиональные ученые пришли к единой теоретической базе. Не читать книгу до того момента, когда вы с ней не согласны, и не начинать спорить по этому поводу. Похоже, все ждут, когда в следующий раз придет кто-нибудь вроде Beria LP и заставит всех согласиться в суматохе дней.
Эти бесконечные споры продолжаются, в то время как в школах продолжают преподавать теорию относительности и КМ, хотя почти все согласны с тем, что они, по крайней мере, плохо соответствуют действительности.
Magnitsky, for example, writes in his book - "The meaning of the bond between a proton and an electron in a hydrogen atom is that when some r> r bonds the fields of the electron and the proton are mutually compensated (at rlinks → ∞ no connection) . Loss of energy Ebinding (binding energy) of the electron in this case should be compensated by the wave structure of the folded photon, which is the solution
systems of ether equations (4.1) in a stationary spherical coordinate system, i.e. a ball of radius re, the movement of the wave of compression - stretching of the density of the ether inside which occurs along an angle φ with a constant angular velocity ω constraints (linear speed ω constraints • rsinθ) in the direction opposite to the electron wave. "
Magnitsky encourages me to believe that elementary particles obey the solution of equation 4.1. We look at this system of equations ... But it does not correspond to physics - there is no physical model ... Although there is no - there are assumptions - it suggests considering particles as "spheres" ... But on what basis does he do this? He just wanted it so ... But this is not physics ... The model should be updated at least as Kanarev does it ... He does it step by step ... And every step he takes with something reinforces ...
Magnitsky has none of this ... He and Zaitsev have approximately the same approach and this approach is "mathematical" ... You cannot squeeze into it the physics of e-capture, the physics of neutron decay, the intrinsic magnetic moment of a proton and an electron ... Here you are, for example, you will be able to substantiate the presence of the electron's own magnetic moment, if, like Magnitsky, you consider that the electron is a sphere ... I think it will be difficult for you to do ... But this is not bad ... The question is how this rotating sphere emits a photon .. And this is not so bad ... And what is the physics of a photon in Magnitsky's mathematics ??? I can continue ... Magnitsky has no answers ... His approximations are incorrect from my point of view ...
Cherepanov2020 I do not have credentials to validate your counterarguments on Magnitskiy theory and I don't need to. What we want is to get professional scientist to converge on a single theoretical base. Not to read the book to the point you disagree and start arguing over it. Looks like everybody is waiting till next time somebody like Beria L.P. comes and makes everyone agree in a matte of days.
Those endless arguments are going on while at schools they keep teaching relativity and QM event though almost all agree they are at at the very least are poor approximation of reality.
You wrote - "Those endless arguments are going on while at schools they keep teaching relativity and QM event though almost all agree they are at at the very least are poor approximation of reality." In Russia, I am conducting systematic work in the direction you are writing about ... But my letters to the Russian Academy of Sciences remain unanswered ... conspiracy ? It's hard for me to judge this ... I only have suspicions ...
For the teaching community, we have created a website LESSON.RF. On this site I place my materials for physics teachers and help them understand these issues ... But they have a training program ... from which they are not allowed to deviate ... The only thing that they can give children is links to my material in order to self-development ... But only a few can learn the material ... It's not bad ... Units in physics move science ... I wrote to the Ministry of Education and Science, I wrote to the Ministry of Education ...
But you can't envy them either ... Whom should they listen to? You yourself wrote that there is NO SINGLE opinion! About 35-40 people attended the seminar at RUDN University, and each of them has his own individual opinion ... Physicists sometimes ignore very obvious things ... And this generation is over 50 years old ... We need to work with young people - they need to be involved in this process - it is easier for them to start from scratch ... Take at least my example ... I started reading Kanarev's textbook 5 times ... And I threw it away - I could not continue reading - I have a consciousness formed in 1978 of a physicist who graduated from NRNU MEPhI ... And only 6 times I finally understood Kanarev and found what I had been looking for since 1978 ... Those were happy moments - I realized for a start that the electron has no orbital motion ... Here is the story - she makes you wonder ...
Обращение Черепанова А.И. ректору НИЯУ МИФИ Шевченко В.Г. от 25 августа 2021 года – https://cloud.mail.ru/public/RhNP/576kPn3ah
Обращение Черепанова А.И. ректору НИЯУ МИФИ Шевченко В.Г. от 25 августа 2021 года - https://docs.google.com/docume…7U1f-qAa/edit?usp=sharing
I corresponded with your friends, but they are loners, the Internet does not help them, you have to put everything on the Internet ... And where did you get Shestopalov's films ...
Cherepanov2020 I do not have credentials to validate your counterarguments on Magnitskiy theory and I don't need to. What we want is to get professional scientist to converge on a single theoretical base. Not to read the book to the point you disagree and start arguing over it. Looks like everybody is waiting till next time somebody like Beria L.P. comes and makes everyone agree in a matte of days.
Those endless arguments are going on while at schools they keep teaching relativity and QM event though almost all agree they are at at the very least are poor approximation of reality.
Found an article in a parallel thread - https://www.lenr-forum.com/attachment/15861-jne1n4-pdf/
Here's an example for you - just like Magnitsky's - it is mathematically proved that electrons are obliged to form a toroid ... according to equation 55 ... That was in 1996 ...
Not only do they use an electric charge that is not in nature ... But ... But the most important thing is that I did not find in them a mention of the fact that each electron, which supposedly should be in the composition of this torus, has its own magnetic moment - this is physics of a free electron ... And how does this physics agree with what they calculated mathematically ... It's funny ...
And what you wrote has nothing to do with physics - it's just literature ..
since you guys are moving nowhere in physics we will have to do some literature in the meantime
Cherepanov2020 you claim that charge does not exists and then refer to the article titled
"CHARACTERISTICS OF HIGH-DENSITY CHARGE CLUSTERS:
A THEORETICAL MODEL
Shang-Xian Jin and Hal Fox"
Isn't that technically a cherry picking?
