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” [g1/2 cm3/2 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 - [ g1/2 cm3/2 sec-1] • [g1/2 cm3/2 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 - [g1/2 cm3/2 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 - [g1/2 cm3/2 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 [g1/2 cm3/2 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 -
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