The mass of a photon is of central importance in physics

    Quote from Cherepanov2020

    . Any person can make a mistake - even Maxwell ...

    even Cherepanov

    Quote from Cherepanov2020

    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?

    as clear as windmills..

    You are tilting your lance at f=1.

    which Maxwell had every right to write

    in his equation F= f. e. e.' r-2

    Who in 1870 knew what the "electrical unit" for "e " was?

    40 years before Millikan's oil drops

    showed quantised charge 1.6x10-19Coulombs.


    the sad thing is that Cherepanov is real..

    Don Quixote is fictional

    External Content youtu.be
    Content embedded from external sources will not be displayed without your consent.
    Through the activation of external content, you agree that personal data may be transferred to third party platforms. We have provided more information on this in our privacy policy.

    Cheropanov's mistake is that the '1's have dimension. That dimension cancels out the dimension of r. What is left is the charge squared term. He is wrong about the lower case f. It is a constant and must have units to cancel out the charge squared term. He should do a dimensional analysis of the epsilon zero term.


    Maxwell was at the cutting edge of science. The unit distance was not established. It could be anything: 1 meter, 1 centimeter, 1 millimeter, or even 1 angstrom. In the MKS system the unit distance is 1 meter.

    The issue of the cause of the force effect needed to be settled too. Today it's called a coulomb and is defined as that charge when falling through one volt of electrical potential gains one joule of energy, so it's consistent with the MKS system. Turns out the charge on an electron is 1.6 X10 ^(-19) coulombs. The electron volt is then defined as the energy gained when an electron falls through one volt.


    Note that charge is really defined in terms of electrical potential, which drives Maxwell's experiment.

    Back in Maxwell's day, there was no such thing as errata.

    Every historical paper was perfect.

    Every single historical equation must be scrutinized with a magnifying glass and criticized, and it does not matter if a coherent extremely predictive and extensible theory comes out of the work. We must abandon everything with no replacement theory. Just stop calculating anything.

    G.R.Mattson! Be careful ! Don't follow me - follow Maxwell's logical reasoning.



    In paragraph 42, Maxwell wrote for you that force has a dimension, length has a dimension, a charge has a dimension - this is what he has in square brackets. If Maxwell writes about "unit force", i.e. its force is equal to one, this does not mean that automatically this "unit force" loses dimension. It's clear ?

    F = 1

    Hence it should be written like this -

    F[F] = 1[F]


    There is no and cannot be a physical meaning of the formula -

    F[F] = 1

    You introduce a unit force. Am I to infer that he held the force constant and varied the voltage and distance? And this discussion is about his effort to interpret the results? And you found some errors? Well, that lower case 'f', if it is to be a force needs to be inverted. Then the expression is a constant, specifically, in the MKS system, equal to 4π times epsilon zero. Hats of to him if he determined that constant.


    I just looked at your post of may 23, section 40. The expression is correct and the 'f' is a constant with the dimension or unit of force If you don't believe me set it up in the MKS system. The constant 'f' is determined by making the charges one coulomb each and the separation one meter each The rest follows. He was a clever man.

    Quote from GRMattson

    You introduce a unit force. Am I to infer that he held the force constant and varied the voltage and distance? And this discussion is about his effort to interpret the results? And you found some errors? Well, that lower case 'f', if it is to be a force needs to be inverted. Then the expression is a constant, specifically, in the MKS system, equal to 4π times epsilon zero. Hats of to him if he determined that constant.


    I just looked at your post of may 23, section 40. The expression is correct and the 'f' is a constant with the dimension or unit of force If you don't believe me set it up in the MKS system. The constant 'f' is determined by making the charges one coulomb each and the separation one meter each The rest follows. He was a clever man.

    G.R.Mattson! Be careful ! Follow not me and not those who, deluded by Maxwell's mistakes, created in 1881 after Maxwell's death (1879) - follow Maxwell's logical reasoning.


    The MKS system was adopted by the physics community in 1881, i.e. after Maxwell's death. Those who accepted this system did not bother to check Maxwell's treatise for errors ... It was not Maxwell who introduced the constant in this way, but physicists introduced it after Maxwell's death ... It is they who are to blame for the fact that our physics followed the path of Maxwell's mistakes.


    I give you a link to a treatise - read Maxwell's treatise, not the physicists' interpretation of 1881 -

    A treatise on electricity and magnetism : Maxwell, James Clerk, 1831-1879 : Free Download, Borrow, and Streaming : Internet Archive
    2 v. : 23 cm
    archive.org


    78 pages on the site and 41 pages in the treatise - start reading and start your analysis from this page.

    On the next page, Maxwell wrote -



    Quote from GRMattson

    You introduce a unit force. Am I to infer that he held the force constant and varied the voltage and distance? And this discussion is about his effort to interpret the results? And you found some errors? Well, that lower case 'f', if it is to be a force needs to be inverted. Then the expression is a constant, specifically, in the MKS system, equal to 4π times epsilon zero. Hats of to him if he determined that constant.


    I just looked at your post of may 23, section 40. The expression is correct and the 'f' is a constant with the dimension or unit of force If you don't believe me set it up in the MKS system. The constant 'f' is determined by making the charges one coulomb each and the separation one meter each The rest follows. He was a clever man.

    G.R.Mattson!

    In fact, both you and Robert Bryant, talking about the constant that is in the modern formula, which is presented in textbooks as Coulomb's law, are moving from later historical events to earlier historical events ... It's like history is moving backwards ... But after all it is not right ! You need to start with what Maxwell did and then analyze what Maxwell's followers began to do after his death ...

    In addition ... I draw your attention to the fact that Maxwell in the treatise itself was engaged in the fact that in the course of the presentation he changed the "rules of the game" and simply violated LOGIC!

    I give everyone this example - when Maxwell distorts himself ...

    An algebraic formula in mathematics has no "dimension" - these are "bare" numbers ...

    In physics, all numbers must have a dimension. Maxwell himself in point 42 showed us how this should be presented.




    But in paragraph 39, an excerpt from which I showed above, he wrote about it - "the algebraical value", i.e. this is a mathematical expression from Maxwell, not a physical one ... You are reading this paragraph 39 and still do not suspect anything that later, with his actions, namely, "innovation" in paragraph 42, Maxwell will change this "algebraic, mathematical formula" - "m - n = e ”, to the physical formula - “m - n = e”, in which the parameters “m, n, e” unexpectedly get a “dimension” for you.

    Do you understand the difference between "the algebraical value" and "physical value"?

    Quote from GRMattson

    You introduce a unit force. Am I to infer that he held the force constant and varied the voltage and distance? And this discussion is about his effort to interpret the results? And you found some errors? Well, that lower case 'f', if it is to be a force needs to be inverted. Then the expression is a constant, specifically, in the MKS system, equal to 4π times epsilon zero. Hats of to him if he determined that constant.


    I just looked at your post of may 23, section 40. The expression is correct and the 'f' is a constant with the dimension or unit of force If you don't believe me set it up in the MKS system. The constant 'f' is determined by making the charges one coulomb each and the separation one meter each The rest follows. He was a clever man.

    G.R.Mattson!


    While you are thinking that you are dealing with an algebraic expression, i.e. in the formula "m - n = e" all parameters have no dimension , for you "the resultant repulsion" is represented as the following formula -


    "the resultant repulsion" - F res.rep. = e • e’ • f


    Since e, e’ do not have dimensions in this formula, you don’t see any catch here - you have the “dimension” of “force” on both the right and left -


    F res.rep. [F] = e • e’ • f[F]


    But as soon as you have reached reading 42 points, the situation changes and you, following Maxwell's reasoning, must change the formula you just wrote -


    F res.rep. [F] = e[Q] • e’[Q] • f[F] - and you immediately realize that equality in this formula is impossible ...


    Maxwell missed this... This is his mathematical formalism. Maxwell was ruined by the "mathematical approach"! He forgot to think about how his "innovation" would affect the "physical meaning" of his formulas.

    G. R. Mattson!


    But that's not all Sir Maxwell's troubles!


    As soon as Maxwell introduced the dimension for e and e with his innovation, he automatically introduced the dimension for m and n. In the formula "m - n = e" you now subtract n "negative objects" that also have the dimension [Q] from m "positive objects" having the dimension [Q], but such subtraction is absurd - you have the right to subtract some from the number of m "positive objects" part of these "positive objects" having the dimension [Q], but you do not have the right to subtract "negative" objects from the given amount, since there are no "negative objects" in this "heap". You have the right to take away some part of these "negative objects" having the dimension [Q] from the number n of "negative objects".


    This is another manifestation of Maxwell's "mathematical formalism" and it shows that Maxwell did not connect "his mathematics" with physical meaning.


    Subsequently, physics, following the mistakes of Maxwell, erroneously "planted" a "positive charge" on the proton, and they "planted" a "negative charge" on the electron.


    Thus in the formula "m - n = e" it turned out that m is the number of protons - m - positively charged particles, and n is the number of electrons - n - negatively charged particles.


    How can you take electrons from protons? This is absurd. Only protons can be taken away from protons, or a part of these positively charged particles - m' can be taken away from m - positively charged particles.

    You never do think about what people say. I was dealing with section 40 and section 40 alone. In order for that expression to give a valid force F (on the left side) the e's and the r's must be dimensionless, since f has units of force (N).

    We may then write the two e's as q1/(1 coulomb) and q2/(1coulomb) and the two r's per my suggestion of using the MKS system as r1/1m and r2/1m. If one wishes then the 1coulomb terms and 1 meter terms may be incorporated into the f with the proper change of the dimension (units) of f. This leads to the current expression for the force between two charges. Maxwell had succeeded in formulating the force law in general form without using any àctual numbers at all. If you don't like the MKS system you can develop your own by specifying the unit quantities as you see fit. I'm done with this discussion. Your unwillingness to consider what others say makes it pointless.

    Quote from GRMattson

    You never do think about what people say. I was dealing with section 40 and section 40 alone. In order for that expression to give a valid force F (on the left side) the e's and the r's must be dimensionless, since f has units of force (N).

    We may then write the two e's as q1/(1 coulomb) and q2/(1coulomb) and the two r's per my suggestion of using the MKS system as r1/1m and r2/1m. If one wishes then the 1coulomb terms and 1 meter terms may be incorporated into the f with the proper change of the dimension (units) of f. This leads to the current expression for the force between two charges. Maxwell had succeeded in formulating the force law in general form without using any àctual numbers at all. If you don't like the MKS system you can develop your own by specifying the unit quantities as you see fit. I'm done with this discussion. Your unwillingness to consider what others say makes it pointless.

    G. R. Mattson!

    You wrote - "I was dealing with section 40 and section 40 alone."....

    It's that you don't follow Maskwell, do just that - "I was dealing with section 40 and section 40 alone.", that leads you to misunderstand Maxwell's mistakes.

    To deal with Maxwell's mistakes, one must deal with points 39, 40, 41, 42 ...

    And do not involve the MKS system here. This system was adopted 8 years after the publication of Maxwell's treatise...

    This system is based on Maxwell's errors...

    And here the question is - "Do I like this system or not" ??? The question is stupid ... If Maxwell was wrong, then the system created on Maxwell's mistakes is also wrong! Is it really so difficult to understand this simple logic?


    It makes no sense to parse your phrase - "We may then write the two e's as q1/(1 coulomb) and q2/(1coulomb) and the two r's per my suggestion of using the MKS system as r1/1m and r2/1m. If one wishes then the 1coulomb terms and 1 meter terms may be incorporated into the f with the proper change of the dimension (units) of f." I discuss only Maxwell's treatise and his errors ...

    The one who recognizes Maxwell's mistakes - and they are too noticeable not to see them, and they are too obvious not to understand the essence of these errors ...

    As for your phrase, it just shows the errors and mistakes of Maxwell's followers, who did not want to deal with them.

    The only person who did not want to agree with Makwell was the German physicist Karl Schreber, who in 1899 exposed Maxwell's electrodynamics and published his article -

    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



    Cherepanov2020 .


    Where is section 39? I can't find it. In section 41 I notice Maxwell introduces F on the left hand of the equation, which we have been saying all along.

    You indicated a problem with 'f' in the expression given in 40. I and others said it was a constant. You said it was a force. In section 40 Maxwell says it is a constant with units of force. So, we were right. Apparently, you will never admit some one else is right.

    As far setting 'f' to one, no problem. 'f' is defined in section 40. Simply adjust your definition of unit charge or distance to make 'f' one.

    Quote from GRMattson

    Cherepanov2020 .


    Where is section 39? I can't find it. In section 41 I notice Maxwell introduces F on the left hand of the equation, which we have been saying all along.

    You indicated a problem with 'f' in the expression given in 40. I and others said it was a constant. You said it was a force. In section 40 Maxwell says it is a constant with units of force. So, we were right. Apparently, you will never admit some one else is right.

    As far setting 'f' to one, no problem. 'f' is defined in section 40. Simply adjust your definition of unit charge or distance to make 'f' one.

    I gave you this link several times - Maxwell's Treatise "Electricity and Magnetism", 1873 - https://archive.org/details/el…n77/mode/2up?view=theater


    Well, it appears Maxwell did make a mistake. In the last complete sentence of the piece of section 39 that you showed he used f for the force where he should have used F. Then he reverted back to using f properly, but failed to complete the equation, by equating it to F placed on the left hand side. That kind of error might have been avoided by always writing the complete equation. Just goes to show it doesn't pay to cut corners.

    Quote from PhysicsForDummies

    Cherep, you never answered my main question. Is there any qualified individual (I mean with a solid physics background, not Axil for example) that believes you and will vouch for you?

    We have a strange communication... I live in Russia... I live in the city of Moscow... I'm not afraid to present myself on this forum with my last name.... Explain to me why on this forum you hide your true name from us? ?? Who are you afraid of in your country?

    Second...

    You are too infected with authoritarian thinking... Why do you need the opinion of some famous people? You don't know physics..? Are you unsure of your abilities? For example, I personally behave independently of certain authorities. I absolutely do not care what title a person has... I argue as a physicist who received an exhaustive amount of knowledge in physics at the National Research Nuclear University MEPhI in 1972-1978. From my point of view, there is no institute on earth that would give better knowledge in physics ...

    I respect my institute and I respect my teachers! I believe that they were at one time the best teachers in the world ... Answer me - do I have the right to think so? Or will you, a person with an assumed name, stick your vile questions in my nose and communicate with me in a humiliating tone? So know that I personally will not allow you to do this ... From my point of view, you are behaving extremely stupidly and you are not sure of your own knowledge of physics, and at the same time ask me to give you some authoritative names physicists...

    Wouldn't you like to think about the fact that your interlocutor, Alexei Ivanovich Cherepanov, is today the only physicist in the world who has surpassed all the physicists you know in terms of knowledge in physics, including laureates of all kinds of prizes, including Nobel laureates?

    Here's an example... A modest person with a nickname - GRMatson, wrote - "Well, it appears Maxwell did make a mistake." For me, this statement is authoritative...

Subscribe to our newsletter

It's sent once a month, you can unsubscribe at anytime!

View archive of previous newsletters

* indicates required

Your email address will be used to send you email newsletters only. See our Privacy Policy for more information.

Our Partners

Supporting researchers for over 20 years
Want to Advertise or Sponsor LENR Forum?
CLICK HERE to contact us.