Say a word about "poor" Charles Coulomb... How the name of the great French scientist was denigrated...

The pattern of Charles Coulomb from 1785 is just that. -

It is impossible to call this Coulomb's law, since the physical meaning in this work is

D•δ , is not and cannot be, since these quantities have the dimension - “electricity density”, and thus Coulomb conditionally multiplied “behemoths by hippos” or “apples by apples”, but this cannot be done categorically ... What was he guided by? Logic ... And his logic led to the fact that FORCE is proportional to density ... But ... But the question arises - “Why wasn’t this formula written in this way

m • (D + δ)/a² ???”

Agree proportionality with both D and δ is preserved ...

Now the important point in this story... It concerns the coefficient "m" in Charles Coulomb's formula - he writes - "m is a constant coefficient depending on the surface of the balls,.."

Here is the formula from the textbook of Indrikson F.N. from 1915 - there is no coefficient "m" in it ...

Why don't we see any "m" factor...??? What role does the coefficient play in such formulas?

Its role is to respect the finite dimension that follows from the calculations...

We read paragraph 264 on page 297 of the textbook by Indrikson F.N. -

As we see in the textbook, Coulomb's Law is reflected almost correctly - it is said about the product of "electric masses" ... But ... The author missed the coefficient "m" ... And the author defames us - comprehend this phrase - "directly proportional to the product of electrical masses or charges ..." ... Further With charges, the author will designate something in the form of “q” and get the dimension “q” [g^1/2 cm^3/2 sec^-1] ... The question is - how can one equate the product of electrical masses and the product of charges in the above presented phrase? Why am I asking you this? And because the mass is measured in grams and Charles Coulomb obviously used the density of electricity with the dimension "g / cm²" ... How could the phrase "or" be used if the product of electrical masses has the dimension "g² ", and the product of charges "q" is - [ g^1/2 cm^3/2 sec^-1] • [g^1/2 cm^3/2 sec^-1] = [g cm³ sec^-2]…

If we follow Charles Coulomb, then we have the following −

F [dyne unit = g • cm/sec²] = m [cm⁷/(g• sec²)] • (D[g/cm²] • δ [g/cm²]/a²[cm²])

As we can see, the formula “saves” the dimension of the coefficient “m” - [cm⁷ / (g • sec²)]

If, however, we act in accordance with paragraph 264 and do not put the coefficient "m", then we will get an absurd dimension of force -

F [dimension = g²/cm⁶] = (D[g/cm²] • δ [g/cm²]/a²[cm²])

That is why the further manipulations of the author, who followed Maxwell, led him to the absurd dimension of the charge "q" -

It is easy to understand that Indrikson in this equation q = r √f omits and does not use the coefficient "m" with the dimension [cm⁷/(g• sec²)] - the same coefficient that was in Charles Coulomb's regularity.

This is how Indrickson perverted Charles Coulomb and all this perversion was started by none other than James Clerk Maxwell, who received this absurd dimension - [g^1/2 cm^3/2 sec^-1]

Interestingly ? Further, at the same time, the coefficient is found ..., but the dimension "q" remained, and the defamation continued - we read -

A naive reader cannot understand where he was fooled, as he looks at the Charles Coulomb formula and the Indrikson-Maxwell formula and it seems to him that they are very similar and even identical –

And some fools even believe that m = l / k ... This trick is simple - to begin with, we removed the "m" coefficient, got the "q" dimension, and then entered another coefficient into the formula in which the "q" parameter was used with its found dimension - [g^1/2 cm^3/2 sec^-1], which, as it were, was similar to the "m" coefficient.

Do you understand the mathematical trick that Maxwell did by replacing the dimension of "charge" -

[g/cm²] according to Charles Coulomb to an absurd dimension [g^1/2 cm^3/2 sec^-1] ???

Do you understand the whole tragedy and drama of all mankind, which was "led" to this mathematical trick of Maxwell, to these fatal mathematical manipulations.

And now let's return to the formula I proposed - "Cherepanov's pattern" -

F = m • (D + δ)/a2 , then we get the following:

F [dyne unit = g • cm/sec²] = m [cm⁴ • cm/sec²] • (D[g/cm²] + δ [g/cm²]/a²[cm²])

We got that the dimension of the coefficient "m" is more than strange... In fact, this example shows that we will not be able to save the regularity of Charles Coulomb in any way... We will need a lot of additional formulas that we do not have in order to describe the real physical interaction of such objects as protons, electrons and neutrons, which will eventually correspond to the measured force in Charles Coulomb's experiment... While this is unrealistic...

What is the physical meaning of the density of electricity in the light of the fact that we now understand that there are free electrons on the surface of electrified bodies?

Care must be taken with this topic ... In the first approximation, this is a dynamically changing mass of given free electrons that are on the surface of interacting objects ...

But it should be remembered that they carry out their interaction through their "brothers" of electrons - these are free electrons in the air, and the bound electrons of air molecules and this interaction of bound electrons with their protons ... So, apparently, we should not talk about the mass of free electrons itself , but about the increment in the mass of free electrons or the increment in the density of the mass of free electrons ... In a word, we are only at the beginning of the path, and we are not completing this ill-fated path ...

Textbook of physics Indrikson F.N. Part 2, 1915 – https://cloud.mail.ru/public/4pFc/oewzz4mBc

Another explanation to physicists of Maxwell's mistakes, 19.01.2021-01.11.2021 -

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/355982268_Another_explanation_to_physicists_of_Maxwell%27s_mistakes

DEUXIÈME MÉMOIRE. – «Вторая Памятка Кулона», 1785 год – https://drive.google.com/file/d/1dyFOHCGL5Oyz1wF2REMBUNeXWBiu0I_k/view?usp=sharing

DEUXIÈME MÉMOIRE. – «Вторая Памятка Кулона», 1785 год - https://cloud.mail.ru/public/5BjX/53n16KZqW

DEUXIÈME MÉMOIRE. – http://cnum.cnam.fr/CGI/fpage.cgi?8CA121-1/126/90/416/0079/0316

«3-я Памятка» Кулона – «TROISIEMEMEMOIRE», 1785 год - https://cloud.mail.ru/public/2PQR/ZmiskSvXh

«3-я Памятка» Кулона – «TROISIEMEMEMOIRE», 1785 год - https://drive.google.com/file/d/1f1of_Pth97A3WLdlmfJUt0DFPQAcr0IV/view?usp=sharing

The remarkable academician of the Russian Academy of Sciences Dmitry Semenovich Strebkov left us in 2021 ...

It was he who, in 2018, uttered the words that were sacred to me - "... mass density gradient ..."

27 minutes 40 seconds -

The triumph and collapse of Soviet science - How to steal and what to do ?! Academician of the Russian Academy of Sciences - Strebkov D.S. -

ПОВЕРХНОСТЬ ДВУХ ЭЛЕКТРОПРОВОДЯЩИХ СФЕР – https://drive.google.com/file/d/1LVdV5oSFwrPxFCq5zG7qCMdaLa-Nz2Gj/view?usp=sharing

ПОВЕРХНОСТЬ ДВУХ ЭЛЕКТРОПРОВОДЯЩИХ СФЕР - https://cloud.mail.ru/public/36jS/5fWpDQ6Ta

SUBFACE DE DEUX SPHÈRES CONDUCTRICES ÉLECTRISÉES –

http://cnum.cnam.fr/CGI/fpage.cgi?8CA121-1/381/90/416/0079/0316

Fatal delusions of Kanarev Philip Mikhailovich - Ring model of the electron, October 16, 2022 – https://cloud.mail.ru/public/Wact/g2LgTfCyF

Fatal delusions of Kanarev Philip Mikhailovich - Ring model of the electron, October 16, 2022 – https://docs.google.com/file/d…NMyebbCw/edit?usp=sharing

Why was this KNOWLEDGE hidden from us for 150 years in a row?

Another explanation to physicists of Maxwell's mistakes, 19.01.2021-01.11.2021 – https://cloud.mail.ru/public/8wdJ/3MSKr2FtR

Another explanation to physicists of Maxwell's mistakes, 19.01.2021-01.11.2021 – https://docs.google.com/document/d/19u6KTyYc8pKMaw866kb44KsGfVt7BF94/edit?usp=sharing

Another explanation to physicists of Maxwell's mistakes, 19.01.2021-01.11.2021 -

https://www.researchgate.net/p…s_of_Maxwell%27s_mistakes

Answer by A.I. Cherepanov. Avsharov E.M. August 7, 2021 – https://cloud.mail.ru/public/oTJv/zi4J1HPjb

Answer by A.I. Cherepanov. Avsharov E.M. August 7, 2021 – https://docs.google.com/document/d/1PGx3kT6uSBET5WloNR1cqffRLF8YXqpl/edit?usp=sharing

Answer by A.I. Cherepanov. Avsharov E.M. August 7, 2021 – https://www.researchgate.net/p…Avsharov_EM_August_7_2021

Errors of Enrico Fermi, who relied on Maxwell's erroneous ideas, 20.11.2021 – https://cloud.mail.ru/public/tCLa/8nbS6KEJr

Errors of Enrico Fermi, who relied on Maxwell's erroneous ideas, 20.11.2021 – https://docs.google.com/document/d/1lFbFb2FyT_qYdnNO84GekxVrXD4LjYvZ/edit?usp=sharing

Answer by A.I. Cherepanov. To Robert Bryant, May 6, 2021 – https://cloud.mail.ru/public/dYoU/64VqGLVJj

Answer by A.I. Cherepanov. To Robert Bryant, May 6, 2021 – https://docs.google.com/document/d/1bebDN2g5m_62IkuUsT0ijdtENgoSjkJP/edit?usp=sharing

Answer by A.I. Cherepanov. To Robert Bryant, May 6, 2021 – https://www.researchgate.net/p…_Robert_Bryant_May_6_2021

Exposing Maxwell - A Treatise on Electricity and Magnetism, 19.01.2021 – https://cloud.mail.ru/public/pT8k/rWHqs5FsT

Exposing Maxwell - A Treatise on Electricity and Magnetism, 19.01.2021 – https://drive.google.com/file/d/1brS8FUw1gfvSZMvqVf3oR46Vsdj6pm6G/view?usp=sharing

18 different models of the hydrogen atom and all have their experimental confirmation - https://cloud.mail.ru/public/fzXC/4A1G5fdJT

18 different models of the hydrogen atom and all have their experimental confirmation - https://docs.google.com/document/d/12IhOZc3O-9NxFf73o5Ob7zr0bnJGHrdI/edit?usp=sharing

Photon Wave Revisited, December 7, 2018 - https://cloud.mail.ru/public/8f6r/PTHbe9oGB

Photon Wave Revisited, December 7, 2018 –

https://docs.google.com/document/d/1tavoNWGwa2u5iQqPUGjLYW-AZLGIBHiz/edit?usp=sharing

Correspondence with Igor Nikolaevich Stepanov dated June 22, 2020 – https://cloud.mail.ru/public/1mSx/2ti91GWkP

Correspondence with Igor Nikolaevich Stepanov dated June 22, 2020 – https://drive.google.com/file/d/1g2vLhzFADkW1Va1AqE24SLrq5ADwlehP/view?usp=sharing

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/document/d/1zRAN9j6adD6Q9CYqq84E_mKQueQn-mTE/edit?usp=sharing

In the wake of the notes of Alexei Ivanovich Laptukhov. January 28, 2020 - https://cloud.mail.ru/public/5icV/59Li8u4k8

In the wake of the notes of Alexei Ivanovich Laptukhov. January 28, 2020 - https://drive.google.com/file/…OdOEc5Or/view?usp=sharing

The LENR Null Results Laboratory (with comments by Cherepanov A.I.), 9.02.2020 – https://cloud.mail.ru/public/4Y7a/5zmJDugdg

The LENR Null Results Laboratory (with comments by Cherepanov A.I.), 9.02.2020 – https://docs.google.com/docume…KHSpdEHo/edit?usp=sharing

X-ray from tape tape, February 17, 2019 –

https://drive.google.com/file/d/1KjqxnIeF3YqSY2xDIaEwNp2E-HwU1m0r/view?usp=sharing

X-ray from tape tape, February 17, 2019 – https://cloud.mail.ru/public/4vTP/2mTFtWQ7c

The use of the hydro wave method for the purification of aqueous solutions and thermonuclear reactions, December 7, 2017 – https://drive.google.com/file/…12BxqdNU/view?usp=sharing

The use of the hydro wave method for the purification of aqueous solutions and thermonuclear reactions, December 7, 2017 – https://cloud.mail.ru/public/27Ad/4bDGJ92rH

The pattern of Charles Coulomb from 1785 is exactly this, on October 17, 2022 – https://cloud.mail.ru/public/T6Ca/pGqyanpRZ

The pattern of Charles Coulomb from 1785 is exactly this, on October 17, 2022 – https://docs.google.com/file/d…rgs7pmLI/edit?usp=sharing

There was just an explosion of viewer interest in my video -

9066 views in 15 days -

Ostretsov Igor Nikolaevich humiliated Ph.D. Zaitsev Fedor Sergeevich, PFUR, June 27, 2019 -

It is not my fault that I forced all academicians of the Russian Academy of Sciences, all university professors, all doctors of physics and mathematics. Sciences and Candidates of Physics and Mathematics. sciences to sit down at a school desk and explain to them that at school and institute they were taught false physics ...

I ask myself the same question over and over again – “How? How could Maxwell make such monstrous mistakes? How could he afford to treat the legacy of Charles Coulomb so carelessly? What prevented him?"

And then I came across Maxwell's speech and report from 1870 - this happened 3 years before the publication of his treatise "Electricity and Magnetism" and that very ill-fated section of "Electrostatics". Here is the link -

Speeches and articles, James Clark Maxwell, 1940 translation -

Maxwell's magnificent speech, even by today's standards ... How much reasonable and correct he said ... And then fate played a cruel joke on this man - the devil whispered something in his ear and he did exactly what he said in his speech - see the screenshot below ...

And I wonder - “How could one ignore and miss something important that Charles Coulomb wrote about in 1785 -

“If we pay attention to this, we will see that if during a certain time the density decreases in proportion to its intensity, the result of the experiment is a necessary continuation of the theory; since the action of two balls whose sizes and densities are different and are represented as , where m is a constant coefficient depending on the surface of the balls, where D and δ represent the densities on the surface of the balls at a distance α, the change in the repulsive force divided by this force will be measured

quantity, which will always be a constant value, regardless of the values of δ, D and m, provided that at the same time dt, dD/D = dδ/δ = constant. »

This expression "density on the surface of the balls" is the density of electricity, i.e. Coulomb argues using the concept of "mass" - the mass of electricity ...

You will be interested to know that Georgy Shpenkov expressed the following opinion in his article - the electric charge, apparently, is a mass velocity - an exchange (interaction) at the micro level. - [3] G. P. Shpenkov, What the electric charge is; http://shpenkov.com/pdf/Elec-Charge.pdf .

In this sense, our views are similar, since I believe that electric current should be understood as "the flow of mass - ethereal mass or photon mass". This mass transfer is carried out by free electrons due to their magnetodynamic properties... What is important? Shpenkov sent this material to me on October 14, 2022, and it was written 10 years before I exposed Maxwell - in January 2021...

Therefore, I began to respect this person, although I have questions for him.

His article - "A few words about the fundamental problems of physics, 2011" - https://cloud.mail.ru/public/ZyCd/ueDyfiCiQ

My letter to Mr. Jacques Ruer - Président SFSNMC

Dear Mr. Jacques Ruer !

Time has shrunk to moments... We are experiencing the most exciting events in the world of science...

I want to present to you my article, which I posted on the website of the "LENR-forum" with the theme - "Say a word about "poor" Charles Coulomb... How the name of the great French scientist was denigrated..." –

«The pattern of Charles Coulomb from 1785 is exactly this, on October 17, 2022» – https://cloud.mail.ru/public/T6Ca/pGqyanpRZ

«The pattern of Charles Coulomb from 1785 is exactly this, on October 17, 2022» – https://docs.google.com/file/d…rgs7pmLI/edit?usp=sharing

It is very important for me to know what a respected Frenchman like Jacques Ruer - Président SFSNMC thinks about this. I would like to know you opinion about my article and work in this direction ... From my point of view, it makes no sense to invent such tricks as "tunneling" and "shielding of protons", since there are no "electric forces according to Maxwell" in nature, there is no "electric charges according to Maxwell", there is no "electric field according to Maxwell", and therefore there is no Coulomb barrier in nature ... My task is to remove this sin from Charles Coulomb - this barrier never existed in nature and therefore those who attributed or stuck to it to a non-existent barrier, the name of Charles Coulomb was very much mistaken and mistaken in this regard.

On November 19, 2022, you are holding a conference. I think it would be right to mention Charles Coulomb in your opening remarks and inform physicists that from now on there is no "Coulomb barrier" in nature, that there are no "Coulomb forces according to Maxwell" in nature either ... I think that Charles Coulomb deserved it! And we, his followers, must return to his paradigm and abandon the paradigm that Maxwell imposed on us 149 years ago ... He did it treacherously! And because of him, physicists puzzle over their experiments.

And another nasty story... Maxwell in one fell swoop crossed out everything that William Thomson wrote a year before Maxwell wrote his treatise "Electricity and Magnetism". Below is a screenshot from Thomson's treatise and we see that Thomson reasoned in the paradigm of Charles Coulomb…

Justice must prevail! The good memory of Charles Coulomb should be cleared of the lies that Maxwell slipped into the physicists ... and treacherously called his "law" the "Coulomb's Law" ... I stand up for Charles Coulomb and demand justice!

Thanks to the Internet, my articles are distributed all over the world ... I will die, and people will now know the truth - there is no "Coulomb's law according to Maxwell" in nature.

W . Thomson, «Electrostatics and magnetism», 1872

- https://archive.org/details/reprintofpaperso00kelv

Why was this KNOWLEDGE hidden from us for 150 years in a row?

In more detail 6 fatal errors of Maxwell in the section "Electrostatics" of Maxwell's treatise of 1873 - "Electricity and Magnetism" are stated by me in the following article -

Another explanation to physicists of Maxwell's mistakes, 19.01.2021-01.11.2021 – https://cloud.mail.ru/public/8wdJ/3MSKr2FtR

Another explanation to physicists of Maxwell's mistakes, 19.01.2021-01.11.2021 – https://docs.google.com/document/d/19u6KTyYc8pKMaw866kb44KsGfVt7BF94/edit?usp=sharing

Another explanation to physicists of Maxwell's mistakes, 19.01.2021-01.11.2021 -https://www.researchgate.net/p…s_of_Maxwell%27s_mistakes

Cherepanov Alexey

Say a word about "poor" Charles Coulomb... How the name of the great French scientist was denigrated... -

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/364664772_Say_a_word_about_poor_Charles_Coulomb_How_the_name_of_the_great_French_scientist_was_denigrated

Answer Cherepanov A.I. Elena Arkhipova and Vladimir Yashkardin October 28, 2022 – https://docs.google.com/file/d…UNlwxkJz/edit?usp=sharing

Answer Cherepanov A.I. Elena Arkhipova and Vladimir Yashkardin October 28, 2022 – https://cloud.mail.ru/public/6Qw5/zdeQZX4q8

Скажи слово о бедном Чарльзе Кулоне, часть 1, 31 октября 2022 г. –

Замолвите словечко о бедном Чарльзе Кулоне, часть 2, 31 октября 2022 г. -