The mass of a photon is of central importance in physics

• a misunderstanding?

Aha!

I can see why our comrade is confused

Maxwell writes the general law of electrical action as

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

with NO left and right side

and the simple form as

F= ee'r-2

with a left and right side..

• 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...

• Robert ! I'm not stupid enough

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

although you may know right from left

• 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...

• Aha!

I can see why our comrade is confused

and can see right and left when there is no side

Maxwell writes the general law of electrical action as

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

with NO left and right side

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

although you may know right from left

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

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

• 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/

• And you slip me your lies

"And you slip me your lies"

Lies????

Perhaps this thread needs to be delisted..

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

• You are trying to fool me!

"fool me" ??

• 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!

• Y

F is the constant

the GENERAL EXPRESSION 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?

• 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"?

• It's too subtle for you?

It looks like Maxwell was imitating Newton with the general expression F=fee'r-2

Compare the expression F=Gmm'r-2

Question?

What is the attraction" between two units at unit distance"?

Answer G= 6.6743 ± 0.00015) × 10−11 Newtons..a constant?

• - "f" is a constant force

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

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)

• Cherepanov, can you please answer one serious question. Do you ever meet anyone with a decent physics background that agrees with your theory that Maxwell was an idiot? Can you get this qualified individual to post here as a reference for you? Otherwise you are basically a crackpot.

Edited once, last by Shane D. ().

• 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 -

11f • r-2

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

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 -

• Maxwell was ruined by his mathematical formalism and simple human inattention ...

Cherapanov's misunderstanding...

there is actually a LEFT and RIGHT in Maxwell's general expression

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

The left side "repulsion will be" translates to" F="

The equation becomes

F= fee'r-2

which is an early form of the commonly known "Coulomb's" Law

F=KQqr-2

In Maxwell's day 1860/70 , and long after

no one had accurately measured "f" because of the difficulty of putting a known quantity of 'charge' on a pith ball and hence his workaround to define the" electrostatic unit."

using the simple form "F= ee'r-2

which apparently confused Cherepanov...

.

Nowadays it is standard practice to measure derive K

in physics labs, using a torsion balance

..this even happens in Russian universities?

And what do physics students measure?

They don't measure f or K using Coulombs

because they will die.

In addition the force btw two unit charges(Coulomb) at a unit length is HUGE

f=K = ~6 x1018 Newtons.

They use a current because of the difficulty of measuring charge..

• Cherepanov, can you please answer one serious question. Do you ever meet anyone with a decent physics background that agrees with your theory that Maxwell was an idiot? Can you get this qualified individual to post here as a reference for you? Otherwise you are basically a crackpot misunderstood genius.

There. FIFM