On Mon, 14 Apr 2008 11:40:20 +0100, "Androcles"
wrote:

"Jan Panteltje" wrote in message
...

[Snip pathetic Schwartz crap].

| "Dr. Henri Wilson" wrote:

| There is no mechanism.

Ok.

| What he says is: In case of 2 electrons, what is happeing between them,
| _other_ then writing down some equation that describes the forces we
observe.

Uh huh. That's ok too.

| Does something flow?

Absolutely not. Fields can be static, or they move with the associated
body, they can grow and shrink.

| MECHANISM is what we need, and until that day physics
| will not advance

This is very true...my point entirely. The physics world is so bogged down with
Einsteiniana that the real issues are being totally ignored.

Of the three GEM fields known, gravitational, electrostatic and magnetic,
it is changes in the magnetic (be it movement or growth), that produce
the electrostatic, and vice versa. Yet the magnetic and the electrostatic
can and do exist in the absence of the other.

Not true. An electrostatic field has no associated magnetic field only in its
own frame. It creates a magnetic field in a moving frame.
A bar magnet operates because of the alignment and movement of its internal
charges.
I say a magnetic 'field' is made of the same stuff as the associated
electrostatic one.

The gravitational field's
existence appears to rely solely on the presence of matter. Thus the
study of the nature of electrostatic fields in also the study of the
nature of matter, one cannot treat one in isolation of the other. Yet
throughout history we have done just that, examining matter without
regard to its surrounding field. Matter is as much a mystery as
action at a distance; our familiarity with it has made us contemptuous.
We describe it as atoms, but the atoms we think of as being made of
"stuff", having mass, whereas they are better described as the focus
of forces.

Very true.
But there is an obvious difference between the accumulated matter that makes up
a planet and the associated gravitation field that extends far into what we
regard as pure vacuum. Why the sudden boundary?
Ask yourself this. What physically different attributes of two regions of space
might account for their electrostatic field strengths of say, X and 2X?

| , just like your diamonds (hey got it out).

And rubbed it in, which in Schwartz's case is applaudable.

Schwartz is the sci.physics leader of the relativist papal guard....a
professional irritant..



Henri Wilson. ASTC,BSc,DSc(T)
www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/index.htm

.....specialising in teaching physics to engineers and mathematicians....