From the post "Wrong, Wrong, Wrong" dated 25 May 2015,
F=∫Fρdx
where Fρ=i√2mc2G.tanh(G√2mc2(x−xz))
F=2mc2.ln(cosh(G√2mc2(x−xz))
within the boundary of ψ where 0≤x≤aψ. For, x≥aψ, we use Gaussian flux,
F=FG14πr2
at r=aψ
FG14πa2ψ=q4πεoa2ψ=2mc2.ln(cosh(π))
for a point mass xz=0 (in retrospect xz was not necessary, xz was to prevent the function Fρ from blowing up at x=0).
FG=8mc2πa2ψ.ln(cosh(π))
where ln(cosh(π))=2.4503.
Also,
qεo=4πa2ψm.2c2ln(cosh(π))
where m is a point mass/inertia in the respective field. Which suggests,
εo=12c2ln(cosh(π))=12∗2997924582∗ln(cosh(π))
εo=2.2704e−18
when
q=4πa2ψm
That q is the distribution of m on the surface of a sphere of radius aψ. Which seems to solve the problem of extending a point mass of mass density m to a mass of finite extent aψ.
But, the quoted value of εo is 8.8542e−12 from the definition,
εo=1μoc2
where μo=4π×10−7
we have 4π≈12.5664 vs 2ln(cosh(π))≈4.9006 and a scaling factor of 10−7.
The derived εo and defined value do not match.