Yes, it is time that the repression of electromagnetics --as the Third theory of physics integrating the determinism of Einstein’s classical physics with the uncertainty of quantum mechanics --come into the open! https://wireilla.com/physics/ijrap/abstract/11322ijrap01.html
The power play here would be to code up some computer models which can demonstrate the behavior of the mainstream theory and the Weber theory, with the emphasis on highlighting the differences in an intuitive display and behavior.
The most beautiful models are written in shader language and run in parallel on a GPU right hand n a browser.
See shadertoy.com for one example, there are many others like it that use shaders and GPU in the browser for simplicity to work and show the world the same.
In that website, the GPU computer program, or shader code window is right on the same webpage for each respective demo. The visual impact of GPU animation, affords mathematical subtleties to be beautifully rendered in smooth real-time. animations.
Parallel programming with shader language is a bit inverted from serial execution, instead of setting pixel color values in a nested loop, shaders assume (with some exceptions) that every pixel runs your program simultaneously, so all the variables are relative to the pixel, for each pixel, by default; so no need to loop through each pixel.
Also note that learning how to program formulas into a machine, helps you learn the math much faster, because it gives you a way to iterate via trial and error cycles, by playing in a live environment versus deciphering static formulas. Step by step, the formulas are brought to life by you!
Also, you can build-up incrementally from very basic concepts following various tutorials, and you can chase down particulars and integrate them Into the model.
Another animation system is called Processing, based on Java, and it’s excellent for quick animation experimentation, the idea is low friction dealing with implementation, many common building blocks help keep one abstracted above the details of graphics, and just get stuff on the screen much more easily.
One recommended work cycle is to use processing as your sandbox for developing ideas, and then, when you have some good stuff and you want to speed it up, you move to shader language, so it can run on the GPU in all its parallel glory.
Processing has tons of tutorials on YouTube, and it’s a great way to display streaming sensor data as well, like for plotting live data streams to the screen in real-time. That could be useful if you have a physical experiment running and you want to display streaming data values from sensors as a chart or meter panel, etc. I have used processing in conjunction with micro processors like “Teensy”, to form comprehensive sensor systems with signal processing, etc. I really juiced it up, with spectrum waterfall displays, etc.
I guess the larger point is you need to combine these two worlds; you need a programming enthusiast to get with the physics enthusiast and make music together! This is how Weber‘s work would come to life in the most impressive way, and many others for that matter.
I have heard some suggest that existence of a charge necessarily requires curvature of spacetime or some aspect of it. I would assume the same for a magnet, perhaps in an orthogonal manner.
This would preclude Weber’s idea of straight lines between point locations, as all lines and points would be subsumed within the curved medium, a kind of relativity for electromagnetic fields. His arguments might be valid anyway but for the wrong reasons, like we witnessed with contending models of the solar system and many others.
If there is a pump driving the universe, or at least the solar or galactic system, or both, then that would explain the speed of light issue, like a kind of Nyquest upper frequency limit of crossing the universal pump wavelength field faster than the pump frequency, would present a barrier or boundary similar to undersampling an audio waveform when recording. The particle would experience aliasing, maybe becoming anti-particles, etc.
This kind of stuff is all in my head and I’m totally out of my league because I don’t have a grasp of the math. I understand that you’re pointing to acceleration as being the crucial element that was removed by the Maxwell model and that smells right. Someone say one that in nature and the important parts of discovery, all the good stuff is typically contained or centered around the 2nd derivative. I keep finding examples of that downstream, including this work by Weber.
The principle of the 2nd derivative holding all the cards is, it’s not objects that are interesting, and it’s not change that’s the most interesting, it’s the “change of change” where things get interesting. It’s highest on the causal tree. The only thing above that is a nested series of like changes with a harmonic or golden ratio ordering binding them to each other as a fractal kind of meta-ordering principle.
I’m leaning towards the idea that atoms are not perpetual motion resonators, but are pumped or maintained from the environment somehow.
This Weber topic is really deep and I admire anyone who’s willing to chase it down like that, most impressive. It’s gonna take a lot more work on my part to suss out the precise differences in the methods you are trying to highlight, and how they might be proven. It’s gonna take about 10 years just to warm up, lol. It’s very interesting though and I’m dabbling.
The electric universe case is very compelling. Why do you think gravity and the strong atomic force were so important to the status quo setting scientists? Was it a simple case of wanting to stay famous and waiting for them out to die like most of science?
Yes, it is time that the repression of electromagnetics --as the Third theory of physics integrating the determinism of Einstein’s classical physics with the uncertainty of quantum mechanics --come into the open! https://wireilla.com/physics/ijrap/abstract/11322ijrap01.html
The power play here would be to code up some computer models which can demonstrate the behavior of the mainstream theory and the Weber theory, with the emphasis on highlighting the differences in an intuitive display and behavior.
The most beautiful models are written in shader language and run in parallel on a GPU right hand n a browser.
See shadertoy.com for one example, there are many others like it that use shaders and GPU in the browser for simplicity to work and show the world the same.
In that website, the GPU computer program, or shader code window is right on the same webpage for each respective demo. The visual impact of GPU animation, affords mathematical subtleties to be beautifully rendered in smooth real-time. animations.
Parallel programming with shader language is a bit inverted from serial execution, instead of setting pixel color values in a nested loop, shaders assume (with some exceptions) that every pixel runs your program simultaneously, so all the variables are relative to the pixel, for each pixel, by default; so no need to loop through each pixel.
Also note that learning how to program formulas into a machine, helps you learn the math much faster, because it gives you a way to iterate via trial and error cycles, by playing in a live environment versus deciphering static formulas. Step by step, the formulas are brought to life by you!
Also, you can build-up incrementally from very basic concepts following various tutorials, and you can chase down particulars and integrate them Into the model.
Another animation system is called Processing, based on Java, and it’s excellent for quick animation experimentation, the idea is low friction dealing with implementation, many common building blocks help keep one abstracted above the details of graphics, and just get stuff on the screen much more easily.
One recommended work cycle is to use processing as your sandbox for developing ideas, and then, when you have some good stuff and you want to speed it up, you move to shader language, so it can run on the GPU in all its parallel glory.
Processing has tons of tutorials on YouTube, and it’s a great way to display streaming sensor data as well, like for plotting live data streams to the screen in real-time. That could be useful if you have a physical experiment running and you want to display streaming data values from sensors as a chart or meter panel, etc. I have used processing in conjunction with micro processors like “Teensy”, to form comprehensive sensor systems with signal processing, etc. I really juiced it up, with spectrum waterfall displays, etc.
I guess the larger point is you need to combine these two worlds; you need a programming enthusiast to get with the physics enthusiast and make music together! This is how Weber‘s work would come to life in the most impressive way, and many others for that matter.
I have heard some suggest that existence of a charge necessarily requires curvature of spacetime or some aspect of it. I would assume the same for a magnet, perhaps in an orthogonal manner.
This would preclude Weber’s idea of straight lines between point locations, as all lines and points would be subsumed within the curved medium, a kind of relativity for electromagnetic fields. His arguments might be valid anyway but for the wrong reasons, like we witnessed with contending models of the solar system and many others.
If there is a pump driving the universe, or at least the solar or galactic system, or both, then that would explain the speed of light issue, like a kind of Nyquest upper frequency limit of crossing the universal pump wavelength field faster than the pump frequency, would present a barrier or boundary similar to undersampling an audio waveform when recording. The particle would experience aliasing, maybe becoming anti-particles, etc.
This kind of stuff is all in my head and I’m totally out of my league because I don’t have a grasp of the math. I understand that you’re pointing to acceleration as being the crucial element that was removed by the Maxwell model and that smells right. Someone say one that in nature and the important parts of discovery, all the good stuff is typically contained or centered around the 2nd derivative. I keep finding examples of that downstream, including this work by Weber.
The principle of the 2nd derivative holding all the cards is, it’s not objects that are interesting, and it’s not change that’s the most interesting, it’s the “change of change” where things get interesting. It’s highest on the causal tree. The only thing above that is a nested series of like changes with a harmonic or golden ratio ordering binding them to each other as a fractal kind of meta-ordering principle.
I’m leaning towards the idea that atoms are not perpetual motion resonators, but are pumped or maintained from the environment somehow.
This Weber topic is really deep and I admire anyone who’s willing to chase it down like that, most impressive. It’s gonna take a lot more work on my part to suss out the precise differences in the methods you are trying to highlight, and how they might be proven. It’s gonna take about 10 years just to warm up, lol. It’s very interesting though and I’m dabbling.
The electric universe case is very compelling. Why do you think gravity and the strong atomic force were so important to the status quo setting scientists? Was it a simple case of wanting to stay famous and waiting for them out to die like most of science?