return to updates

We Watch Maxwell Finesse an Equation

by Miles Mathis
I have shown all the other big names finessing equations, so here I will pick on Maxwell. In previous papers I have used one of Maxwell's simple formulations to help me discover the role of G in Newton's equations, so I am eternall grateful to him for that. !owever, I do not wish an one to think that Maxwell is above reproach. !e finessed equations with the best of them, and this is clear even before we get to this present anal sis of mine. "e should have known he continued the finesses before him# even if he hadn't added to them#since if he had not, the finesses would have ended with him. !e would have fixed them all, or most of them. Instead, he continued the centuries' old trend before him of refudging the old fudges, continuing to prop them up and to set them in even harder stone. "e see this here with his derivation of the equation a$v%&r. I take his math from his famous Matter and Motion, 'rticle ((). !e even provides a diagram, one different than an I have seen from other ph sicists.

Maxwell begins with a particle at M moving in a circle about *. +ather than draw the velocit of M as a tangent at M, he draws it as a parallel line ,*, so that he can have the velocit intersect the origin, as ou see. -his makes the angle ,*M ./ degrees. 0or the same reason, he lets the velocit #now 1existing2 at the point ,#have a motion or velocit . -his velocit of the velocit would again be at a tangent, but he moves the tangent to the origin, making it the line '*. -hat line is a vector that now stands for the acceleration of the point at M, ou see. In this wa , Maxwell is able to make the acceleration vector point at the center, supposedl explaining both the direction and magnitude of that acceleration. 's for the magnitude, he sa s that ' is a 1third proportional to the radius of the circle and the velocit of the bod .2 "hat that means is that those three circles are drawn as a triune, so that ' is to , as , is to M. In that case, the math works out to '*$,*%&M*, which is our old friend a$v%&r. -hat is supposed to be some sort of proof, I guess, but it is circular, since he is assuming what he is supposed to be proving. !e 34- the numbers in triune. In other words, he said 54- '* be a third proportional. !e needed the numbers to be in truine, so he 6ust fixed them that wa . 3o his proof is proof of nothing. It is circular. If ou don't see what I mean, ask ourself wh he drew ,* that length. "hat if he drew ,* equal to or greater than the radius7 -hat would ruin his proof, wouldn't it7 Is there some reason ,* cannot be equal to or greater than the radius7 No, and this means the equation has a limit in it that we don't find in Nature. "hich means it is false. 8ou will sa , 1!aven't ou corrected the orbital equation, 6ust adding a % to it7 "ell, that equation must have a similar limit in it, right72 8es, but I have assigned and applied that equation to a so9called orbital velocit , and we are stud ing a tangential velocit here. -hat is wh Maxwell is doing tangents, ou see. In other words, in m equation a$v%&%r, the v stands for orbital velocit , which I have shown is not even a velocit . It is an acceleration to start with, and that equation can be broken down further. 3o I would never appl m orbital v equation to this problem or this diagram. -he equation I would use to explain the relationship of M to ' here is this equation: a $ ; vo% < r%= 9 r

In that equation, the velocit is the tangential velocit , so it matches Maxwell's initial assignments here. >ut there is no limit when v$r, and in that case a does not equal r. No, if v$r in m equation, then a$.?(?r. 8ou will sa that the old equation has a solution when v$r, since in that case a also equals r. >ut that is not the problem. -he problem is that Maxwell's triune breaks down when v$r, killing his 1proof.2 -his is even clearer if we let v be greater than r. In this case, a is also greater than v. 3o what, ou sa . -he equations still works. >ut Maxwell's proof doesn't work, because '* is no longer pointing at *. If Maxwell follows his earlier manipulations, an acceleration vector that is larger than the radius must point awa from the circle. >ut of course his original manipulations to make '* point at * were also finessed. !e started b moving the tangent at M down to its present position at ,*. >ut wh is it pointing at *7 Not for an mechanical reason, but simpl because Maxwell chose to do it that wa . Moving the vector to that position has no mechanical or ph sical significance@ or it it has, Maxwell certainl does not tell us what it is. !e simpl moves it there as a sort of trick. !e sa , 1"hat if we move this here, and then move that there7 ,oila, we get the current equation.2 >ut according to current mechanics, the velocit does not point at *. If the fake positioning that Maxwell has done doesn't appl to the velocit vector, wh should it appl to the acceleration vector7 Notice he simpl does the same thing to his acceleration vector that he did to his velocit vector. !e moves it to suit himself. >ut with the velocit vector, the fact that it is pointing at * means nothing. 3o wh does the fact that '* points at * mean an thing7 -ruth is, it doesn't. It is 6ust an outcome of his manipulations, which are ph sicall meaningless. -he are a mathematical trick and nothing more. Notice that in m equation above, a$r when vo% $ )r%, or when vo$ ;)r. 3o there is no triune. Maxwell manufactured the triune to match the current equation. I will be asked how I can question this equation. Ma be I can question Maxwell's derivation, but we know the equation is right, don't we7 No. In fact, we know the equation is wrong. I have shown how these false equations have alread compromised orbital mechanics for centuries, and rocketr for decades. 3ince we can't directl measure either orbital velocit or tangential velocit , we have used %Ar&t for the velocit and tried to force the equations to work, but the don't. 0or one thing, %Ar&t is not a velocit . ' curve over a time is not a velocit . 0or another thing, A isn't applicable here, since we are in a kinematic situation. I have shown that the transform between diameter and circumference is not A in kinematic situations, but ?. 3o the equation is compromised in several wa s. It is then pushed b engineers to match data, and we are told the equation works when it doesn't. "hat this means is that the published numbers for velocit of the planets are wrong, for a start. -he published numbers match the current equations, but the aren't correct. -he seem to work onl because the are consistent: the are all wrong b the same amount, so the problem doesn't come up in most situations. "hen it does come up, the equations fail, and the failure has to be hidden. 0or a critique of other proofs of the equation a$v%&r, ou ma go here, here and here. In the first link, I go line b line through the proofs of Newton and 0e nman, as well as through a current textbook proof. In the second link, I expand on this earlier critique. In the third I deconstruct a proof posted on outube.