The mass of a photon is of central importance in physics

Quote from RobertBryant

Maxwell's "Repulsion....will be" is equivalent in algebra to

"F="

..Maxwell has used the letter "f" to denote a constant

so the left/right equation can be written algebraically as

F=fee'r^{-2 _{which does have a left and a right side.}}

Robert ! I'm not stupid enough not to understand what Maxwell writes. And I ask you - "For what purpose did you distort the text of Maxwell himself?" Why did you write something that is not in the text?

For you, Maxwell wrote the following -

…so that if f is the repulsion between two units at it distance, …

And you slip me your lies - "Maxwell has used the letter "f" to denote a constant"

Further in paragraph 41, Maxwell writes -

….this unit may belong to a general system we define it so that f may be unity,…

We have the right to write this phrase in the form of the following formula -

  f = 1

The question is - "How did such a smart physicist as Maxwell lose sight of the fact that the number "1" has the dimension [F] ?

f [F] = 1[F]

Maxwell had to keep in mind that his formula takes the following form -

Taking into account the dimensions of the quantities, we obtain the following form of this formula -

F [F] = 1[F] e [Q] e’[Q] r^–2[L^–2]

It is easy to understand that the dimensions on the right and on the left do not coincide, and this is Maxwell's absolute omission - this is his gross mistake.

F [F] ≠ 1[F] e [Q] e’[Q] r^–2[L^–2]

But the fatal mistakes of the "great scientist" Maxwell do not end there...

Quote from PhysicsForDummies

This Maxwell hatred must have some deeper seated origin. Did he do something to your grandmother? Or is it "weird beard phobia"? Or something about kilts?

Yes, everything is in order with your humor... There is no one to protect Charles Coulomb and therefore you are mocking his good name together with your favorite Maxwell... But... But I note that this will not help you understand the LENR.

I have no hatred for Maxwell... I find it funny when I read his stupid mistakes...

Quote from RobertBryant

I think you do not know the difference between general form and simple form..

although you may know right from left

Comrade...

In this formula, I did not distort Maxwell's text - no need to distort me.

Quote from RobertBryant

Ага!

Я понимаю, почему наш товарищ сбит с толку

и может видеть направо и налево, когда нет стороны

Максвелл записывает общий закон электрического действия в виде

"сила отталкивания будет " fee'r -2

_{без левой и правой стороны}

Display More

In the text, the phrase - "will be" plays the role of an "equality" sign in the formula I have given ... Do you understand this?

Quote from RobertBryant

so where is the left and right side?

in fee'r^-2

in the general expression

YOu have confused small f with a general 'Force

What does " will be" mean

It means "equals" to me

Maybe it is too subtle for you Comrade?

lenr-forum.com/attachment/23521/

Display More

I didn't mix anything up! You are trying to fool me! Read carefully Maxwell!

Here is the original text to help you -

Quote from RobertBryant

Сбавь тон, товарищ

" И ты подсовываешь мне свою ложь"

Ложь????

Возможно, эту тему нужно удалить..

Where in Maxwell's text does it say that f is the constant you wrote to me about? Show me the original text of Maxwell!

Quote from RobertBryant

Y

it doesn;t say "F"

It says

""repulsion will be" fee'r-2"

with no left or right side

so what do you think "f" is

" f is the repulsion between two units at unit distance"

It's too subtle for you?

Display More

This is how I understood it - "f" is a constant force, and Maxwell equated this constant force with "1", but this is a force equal to "1" and it has the dimension [F]. Is this clear?

The difference is clear - just "constant" or "constant force"?

Quote from RobertBryant

So no 'lies' and no "fooling" on my part

it depends on your POV

Comrade..

but for sure I believe Maxwell was no fool or blunderer..
and neither was he a bombast

"How the learned fool would wonder

Were he now to see his blunder,
When he put his reason under
The control of worldly Pride."

"A Vision Of a Wrangler, of a University, of Pedantry, and of Philosophy. " (November 10, 1852)

Display More

Maxwell was ruined by his mathematical formalism and simple human inattention .... Any person can make a mistake - even Maxwell ...

It's just that no one paid attention to these mistakes, including me ... I read paragraph 40 twenty times and did not suspect anything ... This is human gullibility and confidence that people like Maxwell are not capable of making such stupid mistakes. ..

There is another problem...

And no one also paid attention to the fact that when in paragraph 42 Maxwell unexpectedly introduces the dimension for e and e', he changes the meaning of what he wrote in paragraphs 39, 40 and 41.

For example, while "e" does not have the dimension that he set in paragraph 42, then the parameters m , m ' , n , n ' also did not have a dimension ... As soon as the dimension was entered, the parameters m , m ' , n , n ' automatically received the dimension . And this changed the physical meaning of the formula:

m - n = e - this algebraic formula has moved from the category of "mathematical" to the category of physical ... For this reason, it is no longer possible to subtract negative units from positive units ... Just like you cannot take pears from apples - you can take apples from apples, or subtract some of the positive units from positive units... Relatively speaking, you have a "mountain" of positive units in front of you. There are no negative units in this mountain. How will you take away something that is not in this "mountain"? This is by no means impossible! This is nonsense.

But in schools, Maxwell's treatise is not forced to be taught. Examinations for the knowledge of Maxwell's treatise no one takes. In Russian institutions, no one is forcing you to read Maxwell's treatise...

Teachers do not see the point in this ... Therefore, for 150 years no one noticed Maxwell's mistakes ...

Here is an example of such a formalism -

Maxwell wrote -

What is he missing here as a mathematician?

He omits the writing of the two "1" which are formally obtained from the formula e = 1 and e' = 1.

To be precise, one should write -

1•1•f • r^-2

But as a mathematician, he logically omits the writing of these numbers and gets what he is looking for –

While you are reading paragraphs 40 and 41, you have no complaints about Maxwell and your reading is not overshadowed by anything ...

But as soon as you read paragraph 42, then an attentive physicist immediately raises a question for Maxwell - "Sir Maxwell! You unexpectedly changed the rules of the game during the game! But we did not agree on this, since your changes change the meaning of what you wrote in paragraphs 39, 40 and 41! Why did you do this dishonestly?"

1[Q] •1[Q] •f [F] • r^-2 [L^-2]

If Maxwell had been more attentive, then he received the following expression in paragraph 42 -