The first 8 are issues of definitional logic. From those, I created a program in a small PC from which I could witness the rest of them as consequences, although the PC was too small to have flows of electrons circling such as to get a clear picture of the magnetics effects toward the end of that list.
My first display mechanism was merely the numerical readout from an Excel program showing a single plane slice through a cubic metaspace and looked something like this;
Then I cleaned it up a bit so that I could more clearly see the “clumps” that were forming and added a tracker program (the circles) to follow the formed particles;
Then cleaned it up more where I could watch interaction between particles yielding a series of frames. I only took snapshots of the following three frames out of about 35. The upper blue curve is a graph of the distance between the identical changed-particles as the one on the right was thrown toward the other (center), in a 3D space.
The motion within the metaspace was actually 3D, so all you see in those snapshots is the degree of affectance associated with the one plane cutting through the center of the space. The center particle ended up moving slightly forward and down while the upper right particle (thrown at the center particle) swerved across the top of the center particle and veered upward and back. Those shots weren’t supposed to be proof of anything in themselves. I had watched very many sequences. I wasn’t concerned at that time about public display, but rather seeing if the original logic actually lead to our known physical laws, which they did.
Later I got inspired to create a program for people to play with the whole thing and prove it all for themselves, but the display turned out to be an issue. I started to develop a program showing the affectance, not as numbers but as small colored specs, “afflates” (usually 100,000 or so “Affectance Oblates”, “afflates” for short).
I built the following program as a platform (showing over 1,000,000 “afflates”) and was thinking that I could build onto it in order to get a public tool where people could play with the variable, see the programming, and prove it all as well as many other things for themselves (rather than everyone having to take someone else’s word).
But that turned out to be just too much for a small PC unless you are a serious expert programmer with the right support files (which I didn’t have). So I tried for a while to see if there was a way to get the program to make video files where you could see the actual video motion, but without the video support files, the whole thing became just way, way to convoluted and slow to be of any realistic good.
The following are a few shots as I was playing with different video methods (displaying the cloud of affectance within the chamber);
And I made this little clip just as a morphed series of snapshots (not having the video support files necessary) showing a particle forming from a cloud by itself. It forms and stabilizing pretty quickly;
But I finally gave up on that effort simply because it was getting way to impractical to serve its purpose. And more recently finally figured out a way to make that same program better, but it is still a monumental task and I still don’t have the proper computer support. So I have just been making short animation clips for sake of explanation a few things online. They are strictly for explanation purposes. None of them show the reality of it as it could be seen.
The fundamental program isn’t that complicated. It just takes a whole lot of memory and processing time and then seriously needs a good video display mechanism so that the relevant results can be easily identified and seen without having to analyze data.
I feel like Einstein having to invent and prove the oscilloscope merely to explain his relativity theory.