Weber Electrodynamics

Plasma and electricity in space. Failure of gravity-only cosmology. Exposing the myths of dark matter, dark energy, black holes, neutron stars, and other mathematical constructs. The electric model of stars. Predictions and confirmations of the electric comet.

Moderators: MGmirkin, bboyer

Re: Weber Electrodynamics

Unread postby Aardwolf » Wed Jul 11, 2018 3:50 am

Higgsy wrote:And if you don't understand the maths, then you can't understand the description.
Then you are in direct conflict with Einstein’s understanding of knowledge.

…all knowledge of reality starts from experience and ends in it. (Albert Einstein, 1954)

No math needed.

Higgsy wrote: I ask you again: Can you point to any reasonably accurate and universal theories or descriptions of the behaviour of the physical world that do not require mathematics to describe them quantitatively and accurately? Just one?
I don’t feel I need to answer as I’ve never stated that math doesn’t describe physical phenomena. I just appreciate it’s unimportant when it comes to understanding the real world. Just like Einstein realised. In fact it can mislead hence the ridiculous situation we now find in science with various types of dark xxxx, i.e. mathematical desperation to explain errors in theories, when the theories ordinarily would and should be abandoned. We can thank maths for that.
Aardwolf
 
Posts: 1277
Joined: Tue Jul 28, 2009 7:56 am

Re: Weber Electrodynamics

Unread postby Higgsy » Wed Jul 11, 2018 6:37 am

Aardwolf wrote:
Higgsy wrote:And if you don't understand the maths, then you can't understand the description.
Then you are in direct conflict with Einstein’s understanding of knowledge.

…all knowledge of reality starts from experience and ends in it. (Albert Einstein, 1954)

No math needed.

So your contention is that Einstein believed there is no maths needed to develop theories in physics (descriptions of the physical world)? Idiotic!

Einstein believed that "No math needed"? Ridiculous! I suppose that's why both Special and General Relativity cannot be understood without an understanding of the mathematics in which they are couched. Einstein believed that "No math needed"? Stupid! I suppose that's why he struggled between 1912 and 1915 to learn Riemannian geometry and tensor analysis, and that it was only when he had mastered those that he was able to develop a consistent generally covariant description of Relativity that reduced to classical physics in the low-field low-speed limit.

You can't hope to understand anything about either Special or General Relativity without knowledge of the appropriate mathematical framework.

Have you read the 1933 Herbert Spencer lecture at Oxford from which your mined quote was taken? I doubt it, seeing as you can't even get the year right. Einstein also said in that lecture: "Our experience up to date justifies us in feeling sure that in Nature is actualized the ideal of mathematical simplicity. It is my conviction that pure mathematical construction enables us to discover the concepts and the laws connecting them which give us the key to the understanding of the phenomena of Nature. Experience can of course guide us in our choice of serviceable mathematical concepts; it cannot possibly be the source from which they are derived; experience of course remains the sole criterion of the serviceability of a mathematical construction for physics, but the truly creative principle resides in mathematics. In a certain sense, therefore, I hold it to be true that pure thought is competent to comprehend the real, as the ancients dreamed." (Einstein 1933 Herbert Spencer lecture at Oxford, published 1934 in Philosophy of Science, Vol 1, No 2, p 163 - 169.) So it is clar that by quote mining you are misrepresenting Einstein's views on the importance of maths in physics, which are diametrically opposed to how you misrepresent them.

Higgsy wrote: I ask you again: Can you point to any reasonably accurate and universal theories or descriptions of the behaviour of the physical world that do not require mathematics to describe them quantitatively and accurately? Just one?
I don’t feel I need to answer as I’ve never stated that math doesn’t describe physical phenomena.
That's not the crux of the matter. The question is whether physical phenomena can be described in physics without maths. And of course they can't or you wouldn't be dodging the question. You'd be providing examples of reasonably accurate and universal theories or descriptions of the behaviour of the physical world that do not require mathematics to describe them quantitatively and accurately. Wouldn't you? And you can't. The point is that your contention that maths is not needed is silly and utterly untenable.

I just appreciate it’s unimportant when it comes to understanding the real world.
Then you're not doing physics. You are telling stories round the campfire. You are unable to point to a single physical theory or universal description of the way the physical world works that can be expressed without maths. And you think it's unimportant? No wonder no-one takes you guys seriously.
Just like Einstein realised.
But we have seen that you have egregiously misrepresented Einstein's views. In fact, you have ignored the overwhelming importance of maths in Einstein's own work.
"Every single ion is going to start cooling off instantly as far as I know…If you're mixing kinetic energy in there somehow, you'll need to explain exactly how you're defining 'temperature'" - Mozina
Higgsy
 
Posts: 217
Joined: Wed Mar 08, 2017 3:32 pm

Re: Weber Electrodynamics

Unread postby Researcher720 » Wed Jul 11, 2018 6:54 am

Higgsy wrote:However, everything I read about the reason Maxwell's theory superseded Weber's in the 1870s states that Weber's was shown not to predict the speed of light correctly, and moreover to violate energy conservation.

You are correct that these, and other arguments, were used to favor Maxwell over Weber. However, the arguments were mistaken. And once a mistaken point of view is "out there" in the literature it is hard to correct. Fortunately, Prof. Assis's book "Weber's Electrodynamics", Springer, 1994 took another look at the original documents, published papers, etc. and found errors in these arguments against Weber. It is a nice book. And freely available on the web.

Higgsy wrote:Maybe you have corrected those defects...
Not I. Prof. Assis and others have corrected the mistaken information on Weber. I simply found a way to express Weber in terms of E and B and Phi and A that makes it look like Maxwell.

Higgsy wrote:... but you'll excuse me if I remain skeptical that such fundamental flaws can be corrected.
Remaining skeptical is always good. I don't think the flaws were fundamental. They were more like the people reading the original papers misunderstood some aspects, and some math, and then dismissed Weber.

Higgsy wrote:Furthermore, I see no motivation to spend the time learning and studying an alternative theory of electromagnetism, when Maxwell's has been shown to be accurate after more than 150 years of experiment, and also, I remind you, falls out of QED, the most accurate physical theory ever, in the classical limit.
The reason **I** spend the time is because I think the mathematical description of electrodynamics, in the non-special relativity regime, and for discrete charges, should be demonstrably consistent. Maxwell isn't. Then, after you have such a mathematical theory, expand **that** theory into the special relativity regime, and into the quantum regime. If you start with "garbage in" you get "garbage out". So, I prefer to start with mathematical consistency and see where that leads. But that's just me. No one says everyone must take that point of view.

Higgsy wrote:The original form of Gauss's law was derived to express the form of the electric field and the static charges that cause it, and so is valid in the Coulomb gauge.
Note that Gauss's law is valid **in general** if you use the coulomb field EC = - grad Phi, always. No need to **fix** a gauge. I thought "gauge freedom" meant you don't need to fix a gauge, that you have the freedom to use any gauge you want and it doesn't change the fields, and so doesn't change Maxwell's equations. But in Maxwell, apparently, selecting a gauge does change the validity of the Maxwell equations.... I don't call that "gauge freedom".

Higgsy wrote:But you haven't shown that a dynamic version of Gauss's law, the electric field resulting from electric charges in motion, doesn't follow correctly from the potentials, in other gauges. As far as I can see there is no inconsistency in the Maxwell description using the potential definitions of the fields.
I think I have shown this, here on this forum and on the webpages
http://www.weberelectrodynamics.com/Max ... xwell.html
Take E = -grad Phi -@A/@t and put it in div E, where (SI units)
Phi = 1/(4 pi epsilon_0) iiint rho/r dV,
A = mu_0/(4 pi) iiint J/r dV,
(whatever you call **that** gauge) and you get
div E = 1/epsilon_0 rho_f - @ (div A)/@t which does not equal (in this gauge) Gauss's Law
div E = 1/epsilon_0 rho_f .
So, Maxwell's equation known as Gauss's law doesn't hold in this gauge. Hence the need to fix the gauge to make this Maxwell equation hold. And there goes "gauge freedom" out the window....

Higgsy wrote:Furthermore, you claim that the fact that classical electromagnetism is a gauge theory and has gauge freedom (which you agree with) now holds for Weber electrodynamics. Don't you see that that directly contradicts your earlier claim that there is no need to fix a gauge when working with the potential definition of fields in Weber? Either the potential definitions of the fields have that degree of freedom or they don't.

No contradiction at all. In Weber, Gauss's law is written as
div EC = 1/epsilon_0 rho_f
where EC = -grad PhiC. (PhiC is Maxwell's Phi above.) And E = -grad Phi -@A/@t, where Phi in Weber is
Phi = (1 + t1 + t2)PhiC where t1 and t2 are speed and acceleration dependent terms. See http://www.weberelectrodynamics.com/Dis ... eCase.html
Now, here in Weber, we have gauge freedom. Freedom to pick any gauge and the fields E and B still remain unchanged. Gauge freedom says nothing about the EC field.... Only that E and B remain the same.

Higgsy wrote:So how are the potentials defined in Weber?

See: http://www.weberelectrodynamics.com/Dis ... eCase.html

Higgsy wrote:I haven't worked through your claim here in detail, but Maxwell adds the displacement current to the original definition of Ampere's law, so you have to work with retarded time.

Why do you "have to work with retarded time"? So, are you saying that Maxwell's equations are not valid in the non-special relativity regime in the limit that time retardation can be ignored? This is one of my problems with Maxwell, as presented in textbooks: They don't summarize Maxwell making such restrictions explicit. Weber doesn't have such a restriction. And it is mathematically valid for discrete sources as well as continuous sources.

Higgsy wrote:Gauge freedom means that you pick a gauge to match the physical problem.
O.k., but I thought that picking a gauge does not change the E and B fields. Then it shouldn't change Gauss's law because
div E shouldn't change, because E doesn't change when a gauge is selected.....

Higgsy wrote:Fine - can you show that those equations are empirically accurate where Maxwell's theory is not or vice versa?
I am showing that Weber is mathematically correct (consistent) while Maxwell is not.


Higgsy wrote:I'm sorry - you mean the law that describes the force between two current carrying wires? Not in textbooks?
I am saying Ampere developed his force equation based on his experimentation. And the Ampere force equation is not in the textbooks. Ampere force equation predicts that in a single, straight segment of a current carrying (charge neutral) wire, that there is a longitudinal force. Experiments show (see the references I've provided) that if the current is large enough that the wire is ripped apart (*not* melted). But in this case, Lorentz force equation F = qvxB (the qE term is dropped because the wire segment is charge neutral) only gives a transverse force, not a longitudinal force. So the Lorentz force equation is lacking. (If you can find Ampere's force equation in Jackson, or Griffiths, or other standard textbooks, *please* let me know. If been looking for a long time for a "standard" textbook presents it and the experiments it is based on. I've only found the non-standard books I've previously mentioned.)

Higgsy wrote:Lorentz force law applies to force on a charged particle moving in a magnetic field. The Ampere forvce law refers to the force between two current carrying wires, and of course there can be "longitudinal" forces depending on whether the wires are parallel or not.
More specifically, I am taking about a single, straight portion of a wire, not two separate wires. That portion of a wire will go into tension as described by Ampere's force equation, not Lorentz force equation.

Higgsy wrote:You have to fix a gauge, because gauge freedom is an inevitable consequence of the potential definitions of the fields.
As soon as you say "you have to fix a gauge" then I think "no more gauge freedom". **Requiring** that you fix a gauge, to me, is the opposite of gauge freedom.

Higgsy wrote:And in this post you say that Weber electrodynamics has gauge freedom, so the same thing must apply.
By saying Weber has gauge freedom, I mean that you can change the Weber scalar and vector potential functions, in the usual way of gauge freedom of Maxwell, and you don't change the Weber E and B fields. And since Weber's differential equations for EC, E and B start out being mathematically consistent, and E and B do not change in any gauge selection, Weber has gauge freedom, meaning the Weber differential equations don't change.

Higgsy wrote:Furthermore you haven't convinced me that there is any inconsistency. In the Coulomb gauge, Gauss's law can be recovered trivially. And in other gauges - well, if you are working in the Lorenz gauge then I think you have a mathematical error in your derivation since you have to take care of retarded time.
What about the no gauge selection case shown above? We could call that a specific gauge choice too. (I don't know if it has a name or not.) Why do you **have** to specify, and fix, Coulomb gauge for Maxwell's equations to be mathematically consistent? And why must I specify any retarded time? Isn't Maxwell's equation in the non-special relativity regime and in the no time retardation approximation mathematically valid? I've shown it is not.

Higgsy wrote:Have you looked at the relativistic formulations of Maxwell in tensor calculus which also fall exactly out of QED in the classical limit?
Yes! Isn't that fascinating! But I haven't had time to go through it all and see how Weber's electrodynamics fits, or not. Great research topic. Anyone interested in following this up?
Researcher720
 
Posts: 15
Joined: Mon Jun 18, 2018 12:29 pm

Re: Weber Electrodynamics

Unread postby Aardwolf » Thu Jul 12, 2018 10:05 am

Higgsy wrote:
Aardwolf wrote:
Higgsy wrote:And if you don't understand the maths, then you can't understand the description.
Then you are in direct conflict with Einstein’s understanding of knowledge.

…all knowledge of reality starts from experience and ends in it. (Albert Einstein, 1954)

No math needed.

So your contention is that Einstein believed there is no maths needed to develop theories in physics (descriptions of the physical world)? Idiotic!
Nope. Never said a word about “developing theories”. You just introduced that as a strawman. And continued with the ad-hom I see.

Higgsy wrote:Einstein believed that "No math needed"? Ridiculous! I suppose that's why both Special and General Relativity cannot be understood without an understanding of the mathematics in which they are couched. Einstein believed that "No math needed"? Stupid! I suppose that's why he struggled between 1912 and 1915 to learn Riemannian geometry and tensor analysis, and that it was only when he had mastered those that he was able to develop a consistent generally covariant description of Relativity that reduced to classical physics in the low-field low-speed limit.

You can't hope to understand anything about either Special or General Relativity without knowledge of the appropriate mathematical framework.
Not according to Einstein. He specifically stated that “all knowledge of reality starts from experience and ends in it”. Unlike you, Einstein was fully aware of the limitations of maths.

Higgsy wrote:Have you read the 1933 Herbert Spencer lecture at Oxford from which your mined quote was taken? I doubt it, seeing as you can't even get the year right. Einstein also said in that lecture: "Our experience up to date justifies us in feeling sure that in Nature is actualized the ideal of mathematical simplicity. It is my conviction that pure mathematical construction enables us to discover the concepts and the laws connecting them which give us the key to the understanding of the phenomena of Nature. Experience can of course guide us in our choice of serviceable mathematical concepts; it cannot possibly be the source from which they are derived; experience of course remains the sole criterion of the serviceability of a mathematical construction for physics, but the truly creative principle resides in mathematics. In a certain sense, therefore, I hold it to be true that pure thought is competent to comprehend the real, as the ancients dreamed." (Einstein 1933 Herbert Spencer lecture at Oxford, published 1934 in Philosophy of Science, Vol 1, No 2, p 163 - 169.) So it is clar that by quote mining you are misrepresenting Einstein's views on the importance of maths in physics, which are diametrically opposed to how you misrepresent them.
But you can quote mine and that proves your point? I don’t think so. And nothing in those other quotes changes or even disputes the one I selected.

Higgsy wrote:
Higgsy wrote: I ask you again: Can you point to any reasonably accurate and universal theories or descriptions of the behaviour of the physical world that do not require mathematics to describe them quantitatively and accurately? Just one?
I don’t feel I need to answer as I’ve never stated that math doesn’t describe physical phenomena.
That's not the crux of the matter. The question is whether physical phenomena can be described in physics without maths. And of course they can't or you wouldn't be dodging the question. You'd be providing examples of reasonably accurate and universal theories or descriptions of the behaviour of the physical world that do not require mathematics to describe them quantitatively and accurately. Wouldn't you? And you can't. The point is that your contention that maths is not needed is silly and utterly untenable.
So another strawman as I never said math wasn't needed in relation to detailed/accurate/quantitative descriptions. However, my point is and always has been that you don’t need a description to be quantitative or accurate to understand it.

I can comprehend and understand that an ojbect will fall towards the Earth if I release it from my hand above the ground because they are attracted to each other. I have absolutely no need for any data about the weight of either the object or Earth nor do I need to know the speed of attraction. Does it puzzle you why objects fall until you have calculated and know all those parameters? By the way you’ll never know accurately because the mass and density of Earth is an estimate so you should be perpetually puzzled why it happens.

Higgsy wrote:
I just appreciate it’s unimportant when it comes to understanding the real world.
Then you're not doing physics. You are telling stories round the campfire. You are unable to point to a single physical theory or universal description of the way the physical world works that can be expressed without maths. And you think it's unimportant? No wonder no-one takes you guys seriously.
I just did above. And clearly you take the EU seriously enough to frequent here.

Higgsy wrote:
Aardwolf wrote:Just like Einstein realised.
But we have seen that you have egregiously misrepresented Einstein's views. In fact, you have ignored the overwhelming importance of maths in Einstein's own work.
I offered a quote which is very clear about the relationship between knowledge and experience. And yet again you introduce a strawman as I never said it wasn’t important in his work. I said it was unimportant for understanding the real world. Just like he said.
Aardwolf
 
Posts: 1277
Joined: Tue Jul 28, 2009 7:56 am

Re: Weber Electrodynamics

Unread postby Chan Rasjid » Fri Jul 13, 2018 9:56 am

Researcher720 wrote:...
As for my comment that Griffiths and Jackson don't define the magnetic induction field, B, for discrete charged particles, I am wrong. Jackson, 3rd ed., p. 176, eq. 5.5 is for B and a single charged particle. Still, I am not seeing Griffiths nor Jackson defining Maxwell equations for discrete charges.

I have some vague idea of your concern that there are inconsistencies in Maxwell's equations - I am not surprised you may be spot on. Personally, I don't consider the present Maxwell's theory to be correct; my argument (from articles in my website) is simply because the real world physics must be Galilean invariant and Maxwell's theory fails - it is only suitable to go with special relativity which is not a physical theory, but mathematics only. Others have pointed out why Coulomb's E cannot be mixed with motional E of Faraday's; their physical cause are independent. I'll say it is cheating to simply things to have just one E.

Also note that what you say Jackson, etc has defined B from a point charge. Jackson probably is the same as Purcell - their's is not classical magnetism, but relativistic magnetism. Present classical magnetism has only two laws, 1) Biot-Savart 2) Lorentz force law. Jackson may define anything, but is it verified to be correct experimentally. Even the Lorentz force law : F=q(E + vXB) has not been verified to be correct as a mathematical expression. Others' have verified Coulomb's electrostatic force to 1 part per 10⁹ ? Show me in what precision have they verified the Lorentz force law (see my paper "Is Mass Spectrometry Accurate").

Also, the classical magnetism of Maxwell in 1860's is the "true" classical magnetism based on magnetic poles of N/S and it was assumed the "poles" obey the same inverse square law of force. This is how a magnetic field is measured in the old days using the oscillation of a magnetized needle - the only way then to measure field B.

Best regards,
Chan Rasjid.
"Is Mass Spectrometry Accurate"
website: http://www.emc2fails.com
Chan Rasjid
 
Posts: 105
Joined: Mon Aug 18, 2014 5:39 pm
Location: Singapore

Re: Weber Electrodynamics

Unread postby Jetson63 » Thu Jan 17, 2019 5:37 pm

Maxwell's equations are much more functional than Heaviside's crippled formulas.

You can download a PDF of Maxwell's original 20 equations from this forum.

http://projectavalon.net/forum4/showthr ... -Equations

Maxwell's equations also enable energy to flow into this dimension from alternative dimensions, which Heaviside and others didn't understand. They removed those formula from the standard "Maxwell's equations."
Jetson63
 
Posts: 8
Joined: Thu May 24, 2018 4:42 pm

Re: Weber Electrodynamics

Unread postby Cargo » Thu Jan 17, 2019 10:52 pm

Of course, you have another dimension, you don't need to obey any laws of physics. You can make up whatever you want with infinity and zero at your side.
interstellar filaments conducted electricity having currents as high as 10 thousand billion amperes
Cargo
 
Posts: 248
Joined: Thu Sep 16, 2010 7:02 pm

Re: Weber Electrodynamics

Unread postby Researcher720 » Sun Jan 20, 2019 7:13 am

The mathematics of Maxwell included writing the equations in x,y,z-component form. These are the original "20 equations." These 20 equations can be compactly written in quaternion form. So what? They are still the same 20 equations in x, y, z. Later, Heaviside used Gibbs' vector notation. In doing this, he dropped the velocity of the medium and tried to put it back in as an "impressed force". See Bruce Hunt's book The Maxwellians, p. 245.


In any case, Weber's electrodynamics corrects what we today call Maxwell's electrodynamics. But still, I wouldn't claim that Weber electrodynamics is the final word in electrodynamics. It is just more complete and mathematically consistent whereas Maxwell is not.

Also, Maxwell's 20 equations may be wrong. The definition of the velocities need to be clarified. A velocity is always with respect to something else. I don't see this clearly stated in Maxwell's 20 equations. He has a velocity, but with respect to what?


Check out: http://www.weberelectrodynamics.com/
Researcher720
 
Posts: 15
Joined: Mon Jun 18, 2018 12:29 pm

Re: Weber Electrodynamics

Unread postby Zyxzevn » Thu Jan 24, 2019 9:06 pm

The equations of maxwell are:
1. div E= q/e0
2. div B= 0
3. curl E= -dB/dt
4. curl B= u0*(J + e0*dE/dt)

These are differential equations that describe fields.
The fields have 3 dimensions each.
You can test these with experiments.
This video explains well how we can understand this:
Divergence and curl: The language of Maxwell's equations, fluid flow, and more

Because the differential equations form a cycle, we get a resonating system.
In this case these equations describe electromagnetic waves (=light).
If you look at the video above, you can see that maxwell equations are very similar
to fluid equations, but are also very different.
I think that maxwell tried to model a static aether with his equations.

It is there where I think we find inconsistencies.
It is hard to understand what a single charged particle does and how things react on a distance.
That is because the equations are abstractions..
Abstractions hide things. In this case single particles/objects and their dynamics.

With coulomb's law we get the force for single objects/ particles:
F= k* q1*q2 / r^2
where k= 1/(4*PI*e0*e1)
This is only for a static situation, but still works well
in our atomic models.

When moving we get Lorentz-force too
F= q*(E + v*B)
where E= electrical field and B= magnetic field.

These equations related to single charged particles are
equivalent with the above maxwell equations.

We can easily see that magnetic field and resulting force are the result of
charges moving relative to each other.

Both Einstein and Weber tried to put that into equations.

Einstein wanted to maintain the maxwell equations fully, and so derived special relativity.
In special relativity, each speed is related to a time-frames, which changes when the object
changes speed. The time-frame defines the speed of time and the stretches space in the frame
into the direction of movement. this also decouples light from existence, as light moves
with the speed of light and has no time or space.
To do this he added a time dimension, but in practice you also need dimensions to
express the length-contraction. So in practice you need both the vectors of
position and speed before you can do any calculation (6 variables).
Because most examples are in 1 dimension, this problem is usually ignored.
In general relativity there are even 16 variables related to space and time (=level 4 Tensor).

I do not understand Weber fully, but
Weber seems to try to replace the speed with some kind of relative speed immediately.
Then derives all equations from that concept.

But let's look at the Coulomb and Lorentz equations first.
I assume first that all electromagnetic fields distribute with the speed of light.
That is what we see in radios.
So if a particle/object moves, we can assume that its electric field distributes with the speed of light.
With 2 static particles/objects we get the coulomb force.
Q1
|
|
Q2
Now let's assume that 2 particles/objects move in parallel on distance R with speed V.
?---------Q1--------->
|
|
?---------Q2--------->
What will be the force between them?
Due to the speed of light, there will be a slight delay between the sending and receiving of the
electric force.

The electric force will come from behind partially, instead of sideways.
We can not have that happen, as this would cause 2 equal charged particles to run
off into infinity. It is like free energy.
So instead we must have a force that is only sideways.
This can be simply a property of the electric field: when it moves, it only gives force in a certain direction.

The field also needs a longer path from one charge to the other.
This also needs correction.
The new path distance r= sqrt( R*R + v*v/c*c)
This gives a force difference of: Fdiff= Q*Q/r*r - Q*Q/R*R
Fdiff= Q*Q/(R*R+..) - (Q*Q+v*c*v*c*Q*Q)/(R*R+..) (simplified)
Which with low speeds becomes:
Fdiff= Fmagnetic

So I can derive the Lorentz magnetic force with just assuming a delay cause by the speed of light,
and using Coulomb's equation.
If the speed v is very close to the speed of light, the force will disappear, as if the
electric field is no longer there. I think this is what we see in beams of electrons too.

Now let's look at how Veritasium explain's magnetism with Special Relativity.
How Special Relativity Makes Magnets Work
Here he explains how the length-contraction causes magnetism.
But why did Einstein not consider the delay that is caused by the speed of light?
Well, it would break with his idea of relative time and such.

In the video, why is there no force when only the electrons are moving?
(Youtube sadly blocked the video I looked for in the search)
According to SR, the electrons should now be closer together and cause attraction,
but it does not.
Do the electrons spread differently when moving to compensate for it?
If I follow my own theory, it seems they do.

And what happens when movement changes?
Let's assume that one object is stopped by block. Like an electron that hits a gold atom.
With the speed of light this change in speed is distributed to the other particle with a delay.
Now the force and field is suddenly more behind the particle/object that is still moving.
The field is also not correcting any more for the movement.
This means that the field will now push the moving object forward.
This is exactly like induction.

Now I used the simple logic of a delay caused by the speed of light.
Something that seems to be ignored by both Maxwell and Einstein.

Which makes it hard for me now to accept Einstein, as his solution is
far more complicated and does not seem logical at all.
There are many different ways to solve the problems.
Even my very simple solution works.
It would be interesting to find where the differences are,
and test different aspects of it.
More ** from zyxzevn at: Paradigm change and C@
User avatar
Zyxzevn
 
Posts: 901
Joined: Wed Dec 11, 2013 4:48 pm

Re: Weber Electrodynamics

Unread postby Zyxzevn » Fri Jan 25, 2019 6:41 am

Zyxzevn wrote:In general relativity there are even 16 variables related to space and time (=level 4 Tensor).

A matrix of dimension 4 has 16 variables.
Tensors have of course 4x4x4x4= 256 variables. :shock:
More ** from zyxzevn at: Paradigm change and C@
User avatar
Zyxzevn
 
Posts: 901
Joined: Wed Dec 11, 2013 4:48 pm

Re: Weber Electrodynamics

Unread postby seasmith » Fri Jan 25, 2019 10:30 pm

seasmith » Sat Jan 26, 2019 12:05 am

Zyxzevn wrote:
“”Now I used the simple logic of a delay caused by the speed of light.
Something that seems to be ignored by both Maxwell and Einstein.

Which makes it hard for me now to accept Einstein, as his solution is
far more complicated and does not seem logical at all.
There are many different ways to solve the problems.
Even my very simple solution works.


If your “solution” is that speed causes delay, it’s understandable that it took 20 paragraphs to arrive there. Starting with waves and particles you have already introduced distance (wavelength) and force (see derivation for charge (q and C).

With them comes an aetheric matrix/web, which determines Permittivity u (see derivation for k (Coulomb’s ‘constant’). This is the basic hexagonal space-lattice, providing your six-vector “variables”.
Electro-Magnetic waves span this common space with spin and direction i.e. Velocity, or, in their progression span some other more materially structured medium like matter; at a rate and torsion assessed by collective permittivities. Coulomb and Lorentz are orthogonal phases along the same axis.

At relatively moderate velocities, ‘light’ can spin off what we detect as ‘particles’.
At higher energies, it diffuses, for lack of a better term, off in to the aetheric volume of space; and for some seems to disappear into the black hole of Calcutta.
Sort of like epsilon0 and Coulomb’s k, the speed of light is a ratio and transform; in c’s case, between light and matter.

Ignored by Maxwell and Einstein, focus on Coulomb and Weber... Lorentz is always looking over your right-hand shoulder.
seasmith
 
Posts: 2792
Joined: Thu Mar 27, 2008 6:59 pm

Re: Weber Electrodynamics

Unread postby Zyxzevn » Sat Jan 26, 2019 2:27 pm

seasmith wrote:seasmith » Sat Jan 26, 2019 12:05 am

Zyxzevn wrote:
“”Now I used the simple logic of a delay caused by the speed of light.


If your “solution” is that speed causes delay, it’s understandable that it took 20 paragraphs to arrive there. Starting with waves and particles you have already introduced distance (wavelength) and force (see derivation for charge (q and C).

With them comes an aetheric matrix/web, which determines Permittivity u (see derivation for k (Coulomb’s ‘constant’). This is the basic hexagonal space-lattice, providing your six-vector “variables”.
Electro-Magnetic waves span this common space with spin and direction i.e. Velocity, or, in their progression span some other more materially structured medium like matter; at a rate and torsion assessed by collective permittivities. Coulomb and Lorentz are orthogonal phases along the same axis.


I came up with this solution, when I started designing a particle /plasma simulator.
This is the most simple model and very practical.

One can add "aether" or other things.
The model can be adapted/tuned to known and well tested observations.
So now I wonder what how relativistic particles will behave exactly.
More ** from zyxzevn at: Paradigm change and C@
User avatar
Zyxzevn
 
Posts: 901
Joined: Wed Dec 11, 2013 4:48 pm

Previous

Return to Electric Universe

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests