| Topic: |
Science > Physics |
| User: |
"RP" |
| Date: |
20 Oct 2006 11:11:17 PM |
| Object: |
Weber's and Ampere's Electrodynamics |
Although I derived this theory of electromagnetism independently,
having at the time of that derivation no knowledge of Weber's or
Ampere's work in this area, upon searching several papers on the
subject I'm finding an intense agreement on several basic premises that
they used to build the theory upon, if not however upon the final
result. Many of the statements made by authors of papers on or about
the subject appear to be almost verbatim repetitions of statements that
I've posted in the sci groups for several years now. The following is
a link to one person's personal rendition of Weber's theory, with many
references to the historical record regarding that theory. It is the
latter type of information that makes this article worth researching,
because the work itself contains no testable predictions that might
differentiate it from Maxwell's theory. The author is apparently not
completely fluent in English, but does a fair job of explaining the
essentials of the theory.
http://www.andrijar.com/rwoteewdm/index.htm
I urge all readers to research and develop this approach to its fullest
extent. In order to illustrate the massive explanatory power of this
approach I offer myself as the first exhibit. My only real background
in physics is in my independent derivation of this theory, and yet for
lack of the advantage of much higher learning I have managed, by simple
reference to the theory, to derive from virtual scratch various
predicted behaviors that most readers have taken years of study to
understand, and moreover have found that my understanding of some
subjects is actually superior to the understanding of those who
obtained theirs by rote. What most impressed me about the particular
article linked above was a reference to the fact that "all else follows
from it [the fundamental interaction of Weber's], " which is a
statement that I've made at least 100 times since first beginning to
argue the theory here. It is because all else follows from it, that
I'm typically able to hold my own in arguments that would otherwise
have been, not only over my head, but completely counter-intuitive to
me. In the recent discussion of the Hall effect, I had not devoted
serious time studying that particular subject, I simply let the theory
lead me to the inevitable expected conclusions, that I knew must have
resulted in advance because of the correctness of the premises. It did
not fail me. The gravitational interaction is likewise easily derived
from the theory, though I'm holding off on that subject until such time
as there is more support available for me in the form of others who
also understand the importance of Weber's work. At present I would be
content to simply see people beginning to understand the
electromagnetic interaction in these alternate terms. But really they
aren't the alternate terms, it is instead Maxwell that presented the
alternate view.
Regards,
Richard Perry
.
|
|
|
Related Articles |
Weber's and Ampere's Electrodynamics
Precursors to Weber Bar
Ampere Turn in Electromagnet
Question about Ampere's Law
SI GiORGi (MKSA) units are meter, kilogram, second and Ampere, duh.!! SI GUESS iSS units are meter, kilogram, second, Ampere, Kelvin & Mol. There are NO arbitrary fundamental physical constants of NATURE, now. The cgs ..or MKS units are no longer con
Ampere's law proves reality of magnetic field
Ampere Turn in Electromagnet
NucleiWires the geometrical cause for Superconductivity; Meissner Effecta Ampere law
| Ampere's law with a long solenoid.....
AMPERE TURN FORMULA
Ampere could be defined one electron at a time
New Paper: Magnetic Monopoles and Duality Symmetry Breaking in Maxwell's Electrodynamics
Re: Relativity and electrodynamics
New Paper: General Relativity, Maxwell's Electrodynamics, and the Foundations of the Quantum Theory of Gravitation and Matter (gr-qc/0511050)
Re: New Paper: Magnetic Monopoles and Duality Symmetry Breaking in Maxwell's Electrodynamics
|
|
|
