>>12115130I don't see your postulation as antithesis to the dunning-kruger-effect. here is why.
>It's possible to just go in a linear slope, this is reflected in the graph from 0 to mount stupid. This is education, reading a textbook, reciting the assumptions and summarizing the chapter. The point where a student thinks they understand magnets because they can compute the divergence and curl of surfaces and volumes. You will get A's here. But, sometimes one asks themselves, yes, I know the maths, but what, really, are magnets? That is where the realization happens, you challenge an assumption, you stick a magnetic field in the double slit experiment.
Your work now raises more questions than answers, you find the literature your combing isn't going forwards in time, but backwards, you start challenging Maxwell, Heaviside, Steinmetz, Hertz, you start asking who Tesla is. Eventually the electron doesn't even make sense, one is in the realm of despair. However, the model still somehow survives worthiness, the rabbit hole starts leveling out, like how dna makes proteins, different pieces of the puzzle are weighed and made together, old data perhaps irrelevant becomes interesting again, inductively sampling the mosaic. what really is the magnetic vector potential, is our calculus truncating small order effects behind measurement noise, is the poynting theorem actually salvagable? New models emerge as one proceeds up the slope of enlightenment, raising new possibilities from a fundamental perspective, what do gravatars have to say about magnetism, is charge density always perfectly constant, what is conjugate geometry.
