WEll, a wire carrying a current always deflects a compass needle when I try it. Maybe you have a different kind of electricity in Russia?
Alan! You are inattentive... In the video presented above, the experimenter shows a zone above the wire in which this deviation is absent - in this zone, for the same reason, the cylindrical magnet does not rotate.
Ну, провод, по которому течет ток, всегда отклоняет стрелку компаса, когда я пытаюсь это сделать. Может у вас в России другое электричество?
The author of another video at 1 minute 55 seconds shows us "zero instrument readings" ... Thus, there is a point or line above the wire in which there is no magnetic field
another Maxwell error article..
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/331939278_MAXWELL'S_ERROR_AND_ITS_CONSEQUENCES_FOR_PHYSICS
author Chubykalo (ex Spetznatz Belarussia, emigre to Mexico)
is not solitary and has a few more reads... still no citations
These posts rightfully belong on E-Cat world, where the great physics minds like Axil can explain them with the Hexagonal fields generated by EVO's and their resulting room temperature superconducting tachyonic Bose-Einstein condensates.
These posts rightfully belong on E-Cat world,
ICCF23 is only 3 months away..
another Maxwell error article..
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/331939278_MAXWELL'S_ERROR_AND_ITS_CONSEQUENCES_FOR_PHYSICS
author Chubykalo (ex Spetznatz Belarussia, emigre to Mexico)
is not solitary and has a few more reads... still no citations
With the co-author of this article - Kuligin Viktor Arkadyevich, we have known each other since October 2018 ...
Back in 2015 on this site - http://www.trinitas.ru/rus/doc/0016/001d/00162413.htm
he posted his article - Maxwell's Error - http://www.trinitas.ru/rus/doc/0016/001d/2413-kl.pdf
In September 2020, another article was published - "Maxwell's brilliant mistake and the crisis of physics" - http://www.trinitas.ru/rus/doc/0001/005d/2507-kl.pdf
In fact, our independent studies complement each other and reveal the essence of Maxwell's errors.
From my point of view, Kuligin and his associates have very good research, they draw, from my point of view, the right conclusions ...
Why again do I get sarcasm from you regarding this kind of research? None of you present your own arguments other than ridicule towards the authors ...
You laughed .... And so what? We have a Russian proverb for this case - "Pug yapping, and the caravan goes on ..."
You laughed
Your interpretation only.. Cherepanov is mistaken
look forward to Cherepanovian LENR in Stettin
this is a laugh
Display More
When you say nested topological effects I hear the word 'Magic'. There's no relation to reality. Are we supposed to believe that all the Mobius strips get together to create a charge? If you really have a way to do that convincingly then you also have a way to create gravity (anti gravity). That's where the action would be. Let us see that solution.
I down loaded a paper of yours. You said your theory is based on the 'Biot Savart Law'. I don't believe there is such a law. There is a Biot Savart Equation, but it doesn't rise to the level of a physical law. At best it is an approximate equation that applies to some situations but not all.
Consider a rotating charge. The Biot Savart Equation requires a current element, a charge moving through space. Is a rotating charge moving through space? No. Rotation is not that.
Now your theory claims to be four dimensional or higher and the magnetic field in three dimensions to be a projection. Then the magnetic moment of the electron, for instance, could be created in a higher dimension so the electron does not need to spln.
And again about the law of Biot-Savart ... Watch this video and analyze the information posted in it - 20. The magnetic field of coils with current. Notes on magnetostatics. h 20. -
My conclusion is that the Biot-Savart Law does not reflect real physics...
Is it now impossible to present explanations of experiments andresults in written form?
there are a variety of written forms which allude to Maxwell's sins
Here is third Maxwell critic re:
"vicious electric magnetism ...Sisov
"As the result the true sources of the magnetic field - real magnetic poles (magnetic charges) which are the structural components of atoms and substance, were “buried alive”.
It is Maxwell’s vicious electric magnetism that suppressed the interest of scientists in the search for and detection of real magnetic charges in atoms and substance and pushed of the physical theory into the “swamp” of relativism.
The author’s experimental and theoretical studies have shown that a main reason for ignoring magnetic charges and, and therefore, the emergence of a vicious concept of electric magnetism, is the radically different physics of the confinement of electrons and magnetic charges in the structures of Physical mass (in atoms, nucleons, substance and others)
3 citations =selfcitations
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/338922857_Great_Mistake_of_Great_J_C_Maxwell/citations
more here if one has the stamina..
"
3.6 The Physical Nature of “Dark Energy” (Sizov, 2011/2012; Sizov, 2016c)
According to the Physical Triad Concept all forces direct action on the particles and masses, which are
implemented in the real World are the forces of the so-called "Dark energy" (“DE”) which are determined by
non-equilibrium states in the "Energo-phase" in the form of oblasts of local pressures 𝑃 created by energions
(ε). The formation of “Dark Energy” in Energo-phase is induced by spinor fields, i.e. fields of charged particles.
All of spinor fields, including gravitational fields, do not have essential forces importance. They only play the
role of the intermediaries exerting influence on state of Energo-phase and inducing formation of “Dark Energy”
in it. Namely “Dark Energy” is real forces factor, performing the dynamics and the so-called interactions of
masses and charged particles as in the scale of the Universe (the movement of galaxies, stars, planets and other
objects) so and in the microcosm, for example, the dynamics of the spinor particles within a Physical masses of
such as atoms, nucleons, etc."
I am not interested in the Biot-Savart treatment applied to long (ideally infinite) current carrying wires. Now if you know of superconducting current loops interacting with each other I might be interested.
"As the result the true sources of the magnetic field - real magnetic poles (magnetic charges) which are the structural components of atoms and substance, were “buried alive”.
Very compelling! All magnetic sources are the teeth of good....
There are no and never will be magnetic sources as EM flux moves at light speed - at least...
Разве теперь нельзя представить объяснения экспериментов и результатов в письменной форме?
Display Morethere are a variety of written forms which allude to Maxwell's sins
Here is third Maxwell critic re:
"vicious electric magnetism ...Sisov
"As the result the true sources of the magnetic field - real magnetic poles (magnetic charges) which are the structural components of atoms and substance, were “buried alive”.
It is Maxwell’s vicious electric magnetism that suppressed the interest of scientists in the search for and detection of real magnetic charges in atoms and substance and pushed of the physical theory into the “swamp” of relativism.
Austrian researcher Felix Ehrenhaft was engaged in "magnetic charges"...
Felix Ehrenhaft's experiments on the interaction of particles with magnetic and electric fields, 1947 -
Observations: - https://www.biosensor-physik.de/biosensor/ehrenhaft.htm
But... But he, just like Millikan, was mistaken when he applied voltage to the plates, thinking that an "electric field" was formed between the plates. Electrons formed magnetic poles on the plates, due to their magnetic properties - where the wire with the "+" sign was connected, the south magnetic pole was formed on the surface of the plate, and where the wire with the "-" sign was connected, the north magnetic pole was formed on the surface of the plate. But there was no "electric field" between the plates.
Rice. 03: Forces in electric and magnetic fields and under the influence of gravity
A theory must exactly match actual data and that's what it does.
QM is way off since 50 years but was exact around 1950...latest 1970...
A soon as you rotate a field you induce charge also inside the magnet. Charge always attracts a B field. The whole action then becomes classic pegtop action where the rotation is the B field inside the magnet is not directly visible.
I tend to agree with you about us being stuck in the 1960s as far as our physics go. This probably has a lot to do with the impasses of the standard model and General Relativity. QM makes predictions from observations and uses calculations to normalize complex systems. It's just a way we interpret electrodynamic systems using mathematics, but it doesn't mean its all correct. I try not to look at science in absolute terms but rather a continuum of expanding our awareness on natural patterns.
Display MoreHow important it is for us, modern physicists, to study and understand the source of the delusions of physicists of the past.
Here, for example, the well-known law of Biot-Savarra ...
We read the story ... "Jean-Baptiste Biot, together with Savard, conducted in 1820 a study of magnetic fields flowing through thin wires of various shapes. The experimental data they obtained formed the basis of the formula derived by Laplace for the magnetic induction of the field created by a current element of length dl This formula is called the Biot-Savart-Laplace law.”
1820 ... In fact, these people did not know physics in its modern volume, but you are their followers blindly - like kittens, use their delusions ...
These physicists brought a magnetic needle into a current-carrying conductor and observed its deflection...
Now think what a gulf lies between their knowledge in 1820 and your knowledge in 1923!!!
This is the first!
Secondly... I present to your attention modern experiments with modern measuring equipment, and in these experiments the Biot-Savart Law does not work at all. The Efimenko equation does not work in this case either. The Heaviside-Feynman formula does not work. Think about it ... So let's look at the experiments -
Lorentz Force - World Deception!!! -
External Content www.youtube.comContent 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.
The Lorentz force is a world scam .. -
External Content www.youtube.comContent 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.
Rotation of a permanent magnet around a wire with a current of 100A. Magnet Rotation near wire with current -
External Content www.youtube.comContent 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.
And now we are looking at the simplest experiment and trying to explain it with the help of those laws and formulas that are presented in our modern textbooks...
Pen and magnet, February 12, 2021 -
External Content www.youtube.comContent 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.
My analysis is as follows - only the paradigm of physical chemistry of the microworld today is able to explain these experiments.
It's very important in order for us to understand things already discovered. It's perhaps even more important to test them for oneself to see that the physics is based on reality. There are many scientists who contribute to the body of knowledge from all over the world. The mathematics is simply a means of communication and perhaps shouldn't be confused with the actual physics?
The paradigm issue you suggested in physical chemistry of the microcosm seems to not agree with our perceived paradigm of the macrocosm due to GR. Which is an extension of Newtonian physics. This seems to be a common impasse in a lot of the theoretical physics. It is my assertation that GR is partially wrong as it pertains to gravity. Unfortunately, the experiments I purpose are out of my financial reach for testing. It would require a space craft to be able test it. 
Perhaps there are many partial truths in the sciences our mothers and fathers have left behind? It would be unfortunate to disregard all the discoveries our ancestors left for us and not carry the flame of scientific knowledge wouldn't it?
Thank you for your response and I love the electrostatic tests of charge polarization with the dielectric pens. That experiment still fascinates me to this day 
. QM makes predictions from observations and uses calculations to normalize complex systems. It's just a way we interpret electrodynamic systems using mathematics, but it doesn't mean its all correct
Coulombs law can of course can be verified at macroscopic distances
but at femto distance it is beyond easy measurement..
QCD only has indirect measurements based on models..gluons quarks strangeness..
and high energy collisions.
the latest computations show a mass radius that is only 0.52 femtometers
a significantly less result than the 'charge radius' at 0.8+
Explanation..??
Its very difficult to make any conclusion based on QCD
but for sure at Femto distances
no one can be sure that Coulomb's Law holds
QCD cannot even model the proton magnetic moment after how many decades??
except using dubious extrapolation computation down from the 600 Mevs energy level..
although the derivation is straightforward using the ring current model..
https://arxiv.org/pdf/2207.05212
.
No forces other than gravity act on dark matter, so the authors appear to be wrong.
I gave a theory (in the BLP thread) for the creation of dark matter that has been ignored here as has also been my challenge as to the missing piece.
The theory is based on the assertion that the Cosmic Microwave Background has been stretched. Two questions then arise: What stretches the photons and where does the energy go? The theory asserts that the expansion of space stretches it and the energy becomes dark matter (pure mass).
I guess the authors would want negative energy to stretch the photons,
Wyttenbach is wrong. An incorrect theory can give correct results.
The important role of mathematics relative to a theory is that it is the scaffolding that supports the theory. In this regard Wyttenbach's complaint about the math failing relative to the coulomb law and distributed charge is wrong. The math is fine. It is the physics that causes the problem.
Let's say you got rid of the electric field. What about voltage? Maybe I can help you there.
Consider the relation: CV =q. Take the derivative of both sides:
d(CV)/dt = I
In the experiment I suggested I is constant, so we can integrate both sides:
CV = I x t + constant
CV can now be defined as a physical quantity having units of current times time. If CV is zero at time t =0 then the constant disappears.
There still is the issue of V in the expression for power: V x I =P
Well, you would be measuring force versus
distance and time. So, it should be possible to eliminate that V as well. I'll leave that up to you.
The theory is based on the assertion that the Cosmic Microwave Background has been stretched.
The explanation is simple and known since > 30 years. Space expands due to the repulsing force of photon emission. So all photons get relatively slowed down (red shifted) because the receiver did accelerate.
In this regard Wyttenbach's complaint about the math failing relative to the coulomb law and distributed charge is wrong.
Of course correct math is always correct. Just its use is wrong like in the 1/r fields where the classic solution ignores the source term..
To sum it up: Physics is far more complicated than points, point fields a 1:1 operator group matches...
Basically the standard model is a children fantasy. GR is not a proper model as the nobel committee already said 100 years ago. But mathematically its brilliant! But it has nothing to do with physics...
