The purpose of this article is to give the reader insight into a reinterpretation of Coulomb’s Law of attraction and repulsion of charged bodies, apply this law to magnetic monopoles as well, deduce the conceivable non-linearity of space and – foremost – support this reinterpretation by several examples. These concepts, at first, seem rather inconceivable, such as multidimensional analysis or vector analysis, but you have to allow your mind to dwell on these things, as they are really not hard to grasp and profoundly fundamental. What’s more important and what must be pursued are applications on the basis of what’s explained herein; this includes anti-gravity devices. Speech and explanations are kept short and to the point for clarity. All paragraphs set in square brackets can be omitted; they contain additional information as well as speculative comments.
The first two sections of this article are rather technical and mathematical. I would have liked to omit them; however, they are necessary for everything that follows. Please make sure you understand them.
The Fundamental Proportionality
Do you remember Coulomb’s law from school? I hope you do. It states that the force between to electrically charged bodies is proportional to the product of their charge and antiproportional to the square of their distance. Here’s the formula:
The factor k is nothing more than a proportionality factor dependent on the base units chosen.
We also know that the force exerted on a point charge is the product of this charge and the electric field intensity at that point (the Lorentz law). For the point charge we chose one of the charges of Coulomb’s law.
If we equate both formulae, then this charge cancels and a formula, which gives us the electric field intensity at any distance from a given point charge.
Now the established interpretation of this formula is that, because the charge must be a constant, the field intensity is a function of the distance, that is, the distance determines the field intensity.
However, for the sake of curiosity, let’s say that the distance is a function of the electric field intensity.
It might seem a little weird at first, but we will literally ‘see’ why this is immensely useful in the interpretation of certain phenomena in no time.
This rewritten law now interprets as follows: The distance of an arbitrary point from a point charge is a result of the electric field intensity in this point.
Right now we gain nothing from this ‘reverse’ interpretation, except for the fact that we have eliminated the variable of force from changes in distance; we have simply simplified.
From this equation a proportionality between field intensity and distance can be drawn, which I consider as fundamental, so I’m going to refer to it as the fundamental proportionality. Please keep it in mind – it’s of great importance.
An Extension (or Simplification) of the Lorentz Force
You should as well remember the Lorentz force from school. It states as follows.
The Lorentz force describes all forces acting on a charged body exposed to a magnetic and electric field. If you separate these individual forces, one for the electric and one for the magnetic results. If you’re dealing with a stationary charged body, both forces must be the same.
If we equate them, we see that the charge cancels.
The resulting equation is now to be interpreted. It states that the electric field intensity at any point is given by the cross product of the velocity and the magnetic field intensity at that point. The intensities are nothing new and easily imagined, but what is meant with velocity? We’re not dealing with a point charge anymore, as it canceled, so what is actually moving? All I can give you right now as an answer is: with a point of the field itself, that is, an infinitesimal small volume element of space.
Anyways, this formula is going to prove itself, as we can now describe the electric and the magnetic field, if we assume that there are magnetic monopoles, whereas the derivation is the same, as a function of the other, without having to deal with charge carriers.