On Sat, 19 Apr 2008 22:42:11 +0200, "Paul B. Andersen"
wrote:

Dr. Henri Wilson skrev:
On Wed, 16 Apr 2008 12:24:40 +0200, "Paul B. Andersen"
wrote:

Have you ever considerd that there might be another type of 'matter' that is
transparent to both light and normal matter. There is no reason to rule out the
possibility that an electrostatic field is made of some kind of 'substance'
that is completely transparent to us in respect of both light and inertia.
The traditional name of this "type of 'matter' that is transparent
to both light and normal matter" is "the luminiferous aether".

So you are an etherist.
But didn't you use to advocate Ritz's emission theory? :-)

Now don't be silly Paul. Surely you can do better than this.

The 'field medium' that makes space containing a field different from
'completely empty space' is in no way related to the concept of one absolute
spatial medium.
I'm suggesting that 'something' must exist in space to identify the field
there. There is no reason why we should be able to 'see' or 'feel' it.

So you confirm to believe in the luminiferous ether.
Isn't that heresy for a believer in the emission theory, Henri? :-)

Paul, classical aether cannot explain action at a distance.
My statements are not related to an absolute aether.


force on a charge or a lump of matter.
Physics is still very much in its infancy.
It's rather you that still are stuck in the clockwork universe
of the 19. century, when EM-fields were stress in "another type
of 'matter' that is transparent to both light and normal matter",
called the luminiferous aether.
Physics has grown out of this infantile world view.
Your clockwork models simply don't work.

That's not my model at all, although some aspects may not be as silly as they
sound.

Have you ever wondered why we see and feel sold objects when in reality they
are 99.9999999999999999% empty space. Why doesn't a bullet go straight through?
Of course we have some clues, EM emission explains why we see type 1 matter.,,
molecular bonds, dielectric properties, RI, etc. explain why we feel it.
...but what if there is another type of 'substance' that we do not sense????
(hereby known as 'Wilson, type 2 matter' or 'Watter')

I don't think your new name for the ether will catch on. :-)

Unlike Einstein's....

I have previously suggested that there might be three subdimensions of space,
time and MASS. I stick by that statement.
Nothing is too stupid ...

You obviously work according to the principle, "if you cannot see it, it
doesn't exist"

We cannot see or feel Watter...but it can make our hair stand on end......

Quite.
That's what the etherists claim.

Paul, you are not even trying to use your brain. Even Draper is making more
sense than you....how does that make you feel?


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

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

On Fri, 18 Apr 2008 15:47:14 -0700 (PDT), PD wrote:

On Apr 18, 5:37*pm, HW@....(Dr. Henri Wilson) wrote:
On Fri, 18 Apr 2008 06:22:36 -0700 (PDT), PD wrote:


Mathematically speaking, fields are very well understood. their behavior is
very predictable.
But Draper, all our experiments involve 3D space.
Every known physical
phenomenon is explainable in terms of that 3D space and time.

That's right. That's what spacetime is. 3D space and time.

Maybe YOU believe in magic and fairies, like all relativists...but I don't. I
know that space containing a field is physically different from space carrying
NO fields.

Of course it's different. They have different measurable effects.
Doesn't mean there's some *stuff* in that space.

I think so.


That's not to say that Wilson type 2 matter is ruled out.
It's just that Wilson type 2 matter isn't even far enough along as a
model to make the comparison. It is a tiny gnome model -- and gnomes
have got a cute name too.

Nevertheless, Watter is what makes space carrying a field different from
complete emptiness.

OK, if you say so. Nevertheless, until you can make qualitative and
quantitative predictions from Watter, then it's as useless as a screen
door on a submarine.

All the predictions are known.

Work through one quantitative prediction of Watter. Just one.

How about: F = K.q1.q2/d^2

What is required is a physical model of Watter.




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

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

On Fri, 18 Apr 2008 19:24:33 -0700 (PDT), Darwin123
wrote:

On Apr 17, 4:59 pm, HW@....(Dr. Henri Wilson) wrote:
On Tue, 15 Apr 2008 17:43:02 -0700 (PDT), Darwin123
wrote:

On Apr 13, 7:39 pm, HW@....(Dr. Henri Wilson) wrote:

The question remains. What makes space containing a field different from
'complete emptiness'.
The space isn't empty. It contains a field. This is no more
arbitrary the concept of particle.

....and do you really think that is a satisfactory answer?

Wilson: why is there lightning?
Darwin123: because the god's are angry.

Whatever it is has the ability to exert a force on a
charged particle.
Okay, here is a question analogous in every way to your question
about fields.
Given Newton's Laws of physics, as state in Principia or any other
formalism, the quest remains. What makes a point containing a particle
different from a completely empty point?

good question.

I can match you one for one. A field has mass an energy, a
particle has mass and energy. A particle can give momentum to the
field at another particle according to Principia. A charged particle
can give momentum to an electromagnetic field according to Maxwell.
This labeling of empty space as having something in it is a common
starting step for all physical theories. Usually, the question of what
is "different" about that space is confined to metaphysics.

Like the lightning god, eh?

Every
physical theory contains certain fundamental entities that are
represented by labels we give to points, whether its field or particle
or whatever.
Philosophy can be a lot of fun, and sometimes a useful hypothesis
comes out of it. However, you spoiled it by saying "words, words,
words." If you don't take words seriously, then us engineers and
mathematicians will have to look to you for something more than words.
If you don't have anything more than words, goodbye.

Philosophers indentify questions. Physicists often answer them.

THINGS WE CURRENTLY KNOW NOTHING ABOUT LIE IN THE REALMS OF PHYSICS.


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

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

On a sunny day (Sun, 20 Apr 2008 06:43:50 +1000) it happened "Timo A.
Nieminen" wrote in
:

Hell, I am beginning to believe that you physicks guys have been so brainwashed
as to no longer see the difference.
Here we go again:
Once Ohm's law was derived as I = U / R, and current was found to flow
in a vacuum tube. a 'model' or 'mechanism' was needed to explain that.
THAT CURRENT CANNOT BE DERIVED FROM I = U / R, as when R is infinite (vacuum),
as then I is zero. So enter the electron, and modern electronics.

Calling something "electron" isn't a "mechanism". Or do you think it is?
Given that we don't know what an electron _is_, beyond its measured
properties, all we have is a name and a mathematical model.

It is a step beyond playing just with the basic math that has no physical
way or model, or mechanism, of HOW things happen, what does it.
As in Newton's gravity, as in relativity, where avid mathematicians play endlessly
with some formulas to make time machines, warp drives, what not.
You need a mechanism, for reality, if not only to avoid insane constructs.



Newton called (using my own words) gravity's action at a distance without something
transferring the forces 'insane'.

But it works.

Yes, his EQUATIONS work, but he ALSO wanted to know WHAT was relaying the forces.

Again you avoid the substance of the discussion. You are allowed to have
an opinion, even if others disagree! You are allowed to say that your
original statement was hasty and incomplete.

Well, I cannot point out better then this, where the problem is.
I take the liberty of saying you fail to comprehend.



Did physics progress, based on Newton's mathematical model of gravity,
despite Newton's lack of mechanism?

In the area of what gravity IS, the mechanism, NO.
We have no anti gravity, we cannot manipulate gravity, or inertia, it
is still a black box.

If you could show a machine that changed gravity, or the weight of an object,
then yes we would have progressed.


Again, your insistence on the "mechanism" behind observable phenomena
would divorce theory from observation and experiment, which in the past,
has by-and-large led to useless crap, not advances.

No, you are cheating here, I propose experiments, but the cheaters are soo afraid to
repeat the experiments that falsify their believes (like that ESA experiment).
I do NOT suggest to fiddle with incomplete questionable formulas endlessly,
(like a hundred years with Einstein's).


They use electromagnets to pulse charged particles, push them in such
a sequence that they speed up.
Of course you can use many waves to try to speed up the surfer, but if those
waves (the EM field here) themselves move at c, and grab on to the charged particles via
EM forces, then you cannot move those particles faster then the waves, even if you pulse
faster, or use a stronger EM field.

"Electromagnetics to pulse charged particles" is a very bad description of
how accelerators work.

Electromagnets. Look dude I have worked there, have detailed knowledge about some of the
electronics that drives those electromagnets, beam positioners, and designed some stuff myself.
It is no hocus pocus, all very real, take a hint.


"EM wave" is not EM field. You can start with a DC field everywhere. Why
should an electron being accelerated by a DC field have to wait for the
field to "move"?

Ask yourself the question, basically 'what is a field'.
Then we are back to the OP.
IF a field is something that moves between say a positive and negative terminal
(as in electrostatic field), how long does it take for the particle in the middle to notice the
forces have changed if you say make the negative pole more negative?
c.


And again, why not try it with an EM wave with phase velocity c? Such is
trivially achieved, so if you think the phase velocity of EM waves is the
limiting factor, then superluminal particle velocities should be trivially
achieved.

You came up with phase velocity.
Describe your experimental setup, then we will talk.




Also, production of particles in collisions/decays.

I'd say Bull, but will be careful.
As you specify nothing.
If charged particles are moving and interact with space who knows....
As the situation is now, if a FTL particle was observed, Einstein's relativity would be
applied immediately to get the experimenter / observer / student of the hook of
having his / her career ended prematurely or immediately.
Observation - apply relativity - do some calculus - undo relativity - result.
Everybody happy + Einstein in his grave not rolling over.
DO YOU REMEMBER EPICYCLES?
It is the same 100%.

Epicycles were "mechanism". Crystal spheres and all that. That's what
happens when people like Aristotle go beyond observation/experiment and
theorise about the mechanisms behind the phenomena

It is OK to theorise, but he got it wrong.
Much later somebody got it right, all planets orbit the sun.
Simplified things a lot, as relativity one day will be simplified.

On Apr 13, 4:39*pm, HW@....(Dr. Henri Wilson) wrote:
Let's be honest. Nothing physics has produced so far has given any insight into
what makes a 'field'. Apart from the fact that the maths describing the forces
are well known, action-at-a-distance is as much a mystery as ever.

Consider a completely isolated negative charge in remote space. The question
is, does its 'field' exist in the absence of another charge. If so, how is the
surrounding space modified in such a way that if another charge is introduced
at any distance , a force immediately exists between the two. That force can be
attractive or repulsive depending whether the charges are unlike or like.

The gravitational field associated with unit mass is fundamentally different in
that like masses ATTRACT each other. There is no information about the nature
of forces between positive and 'negative' mass (presumeably anti-matter).
It can be deduced from this that the properties of space that account for an
electrostatic field must be fundamentally different from those that are
associated with gravity.
It is also apparent that the relative movement of a charge or charges somehow
alters their combined surrounding fields to create what is called a magnetic
field. Again, although the maths of magnetism are well documented, there is no
actual physical model that describes the relationship between electrostatic and
magnetic force fields.

A second question asks whether the effect of the field of an individual source
truly extends to infinity according to the inverse square law or it
disintegrates, becomes fragmented and eventually merges with other fields.

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

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

The following dialogue illustrates the value of open discussion in
newsgroups, such as this one. In trying to clarify the 'field'
concept in the moderated, so-called 'research' newsgroup, Igor
exploited his power as 'moderator' to suppress once again a viewpoint
he fundamentally disagreed with. Since this happens all the time with
'refereed' professional physics journals, it is obvious why physics is
making little progress - particularly when theorists (read
mathematicians) are almost universally obsessed with 'field theory'.
Once again, Igor, philosophy defeats you. But we can always rely on you
using political power to suppress alternative viewpoints.
On 4/19/08 3:51 PM, "Igor Khavkine" wrote:
Unfortunately, the article you posted to sci.physics.research is
inappropriate for the newsgroup because it is too vague.
Proponents of continuum mathematics love to
confuse the issue of point particles (confirmed by experiment) versus
fields (confirmed by mathematicians, like Igor). Even Fred Hoyle, who
authored books on action-at-a-distance, still wanted to call the
functions on the particle's worldline: 'fields'. As a mathematician
he should have known that mathematical fields are defined everywhere
through space, not just along time-based trajectories. But the
discrete nature of reality keeps sticking its fingers up the noses of
the continuists, who have never accepted the reality of particles;
metaphysically they need to keep the 'plenum' so they can retain 'the
magic of the infinite'. They even have to perform somersaults with
artifacts like the Dirac delta 'function' so that can keep their
differential calculus and match it to the point nature of electrons.
All the great physicists (Newton, Dirac, Feynman) preferred the
particle model to DesCartes' action-filled void.

I repeat: Tajmar's work was never published. Stop quoting it as if it
proves a point
..
I could show you the exact relation between those terms of electric charge,
rotation of supercooled bodies and gravitation. I don't think you would
trust me, but maybe you try to understand.
In relativity gravity is not modelled as a field, it is geometry of
spacetime. The aspect to look at is the direction of a timelike path. Those
accelerometers measure the accelaration due to not following the free-fall
path in respect to their own worldlines. The installation blocks the
free-fall, hence they are accelarated.
How come they want to follow free-fall? Imagine space as having a kind of
direction, this is the direction of a timelike path. Any body is now in
connection to space in a certain way. Think of a body as in tiny rotation.
The rotation axis is inherent to the body and space has its own but
different. Those continuous interactions between body and space make the
body a part of space, it can't be anywhere else than in space. In a
spacetime-view it can have some angle to direction of time but can't leave
space.
Space is somehow the 'outside' of expanding spacetime and the body is a part
of that. Imagine the space itself to have a feature of rotation. You can't
see, because the amplitude is zero, but it's still there. It has this
feature of spin. And all those spin together form a new sheet of spacetime
in a tiny timestep. This sheet has a kind of form.
If you mark some points over all those sheets and connect them with a line,
you get a worldline of the object marked. But the worldlines don't build the
sheets. Those sheets are build by rotating elements. Those add up in a
timelike step.
If now you let something spin, you could mimik the generation of those
timelike steps (only a tiny bit). Usually you do not see this, because in
hot material, the worldlines in the lattice of an object do not alligne. But
if you get that object very cold, you get an effect, because a kind of
energy can pass right through that body and now could interact with
neighbouring space.
Gravity is in general a slowing of something. You can't make light faster,
but you can make its way longer. Spin in general make the way of this energy
flow longer, so the sheet build gets a bias to one side. Since you can't
speed it up, you can't add speed to light, but can slow it down. Since in
our world allmost everything is lefthanded, this works only in one
direction.

Thomas Heger

"Dr. Henri Wilson" HW@.... wrote in message
...
On Sat, 19 Apr 2008 22:42:11 +0200, "Paul B. Andersen"
wrote:

Dr. Henri Wilson skrev:
On Wed, 16 Apr 2008 12:24:40 +0200, "Paul B. Andersen"
wrote:

Have you ever considerd that there might be another type of 'matter'
that is
transparent to both light and normal matter. There is no reason to
rule out the
possibility that an electrostatic field is made of some kind of
'substance'
that is completely transparent to us in respect of both light and
inertia.
The traditional name of this "type of 'matter' that is transparent
to both light and normal matter" is "the luminiferous aether".

So you are an etherist.
But didn't you use to advocate Ritz's emission theory? :-)

Now don't be silly Paul. Surely you can do better than this.

The 'field medium' that makes space containing a field different from
'completely empty space' is in no way related to the concept of one
absolute
spatial medium.
I'm suggesting that 'something' must exist in space to identify the
field
there. There is no reason why we should be able to 'see' or 'feel' it.

So you confirm to believe in the luminiferous ether.
Isn't that heresy for a believer in the emission theory, Henri? :-)

Paul, classical aether cannot explain action at a distance.
My statements are not related to an absolute aether.


glad to see someone understand the difference as many do not.





force on a charge or a lump of matter.
Physics is still very much in its infancy.
It's rather you that still are stuck in the clockwork universe
of the 19. century, when EM-fields were stress in "another type
of 'matter' that is transparent to both light and normal matter",
called the luminiferous aether.
Physics has grown out of this infantile world view.
Your clockwork models simply don't work.

That's not my model at all, although some aspects may not be as silly
as they
sound.

Have you ever wondered why we see and feel sold objects when in reality
they
are 99.9999999999999999% empty space. Why doesn't a bullet go straight
through?
Of course we have some clues, EM emission explains why we see type 1
matter.,,
molecular bonds, dielectric properties, RI, etc. explain why we feel
it.
...but what if there is another type of 'substance' that we do not
sense????
(hereby known as 'Wilson, type 2 matter' or 'Watter')

I don't think your new name for the ether will catch on. :-)

Unlike Einstein's....

I have previously suggested that there might be three subdimensions
of space,
time and MASS. I stick by that statement.
Nothing is too stupid ...

You obviously work according to the principle, "if you cannot see it,
it
doesn't exist"

We cannot see or feel Watter...but it can make our hair stand on
end......

Quite.
That's what the etherists claim.

Paul, you are not even trying to use your brain. Even Draper is making
more
sense than you....how does that make you feel?


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

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

http://fast.filespace.org/PaulRMays/Postulate.pdf

Earlier in this thread the notion of the electron as conceived from
vacuum tube behaviors was spelled out but the spin of the electron was
left off from that early model of raw charge. What we see now is a
collage of construction with spin being imposed atop that old raw
charge. Maxwell's equations expose the interrelation of charge and
magnetism but the polysign theory suggests that these are features of
spacetime itself and so the electron and its spin may be unitary. By
shifting some of the informational complexity into spacetime a
simplistic particle model might be achieved. If we then allow for
relative reference frames per particle we can take those spin
orientations as reference frames.

Hi Tim
I would agree, but I guess that allmost nobody will follow. Thats because it
is difficult to understand what GR wants to tell. Our intuition, that stems
from medival believes, is against it.

Thomas Heger

On Apr 19, 6:12*pm, HW@....(Dr. Henri Wilson) wrote:
On Fri, 18 Apr 2008 15:47:14 -0700 (PDT), PD wrote:
On Apr 18, 5:37*pm, HW@....(Dr. Henri Wilson) wrote:
On Fri, 18 Apr 2008 06:22:36 -0700 (PDT), PD wrote:

Mathematically speaking, fields are very well understood. their behavior is
very predictable.
But Draper, all our experiments involve 3D space.
Every known physical
phenomenon is explainable in terms of that 3D space and time.

That's right. That's what spacetime is. 3D space and time.

Maybe YOU believe in magic and fairies, like all relativists...but I don't. I
know that space containing a field is physically different from space carrying
NO fields.

Of course it's different. They have different measurable effects.
Doesn't mean there's some *stuff* in that space.

I think so.

Yes, I know you think so. It would be good if you could bear out a
model that shows the distinction is due to "stuff" rather than just
having a different property.


That's not to say that Wilson type 2 matter is ruled out.
It's just that Wilson type 2 matter isn't even far enough along as a
model to make the comparison. It is a tiny gnome model -- and gnomes
have got a cute name too.

Nevertheless, Watter is what makes space carrying a field different from
complete emptiness.

OK, if you say so. Nevertheless, until you can make qualitative and
quantitative predictions from Watter, then it's as useless as a screen
door on a submarine.

All the predictions are known.

Work through one quantitative prediction of Watter. Just one.

How about: F = K.q1.q2/d^2

You haven't shown how your model of Watter produces this prediction.

It would be nice, by the way, if your Watter model produced a
prediction that distinguished itself from those already known for what
you call ordinary type 1 matter, especially since Watter is supposed
to be something different, some kind of type 2 matter that is
distinguishable from the other stuff.


What is required is a physical model of Watter.

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

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

On Sun, 20 Apr 2008, Jan Panteltje wrote:

On a sunny day (Sun, 20 Apr 2008 06:43:50 +1000) it happened "Timo A.
Nieminen" wrote in
:

Hell, I am beginning to believe that you physicks guys have been so brainwashed
as to no longer see the difference.
Here we go again:
Once Ohm's law was derived as I = U / R, and current was found to flow
in a vacuum tube. a 'model' or 'mechanism' was needed to explain that.
THAT CURRENT CANNOT BE DERIVED FROM I = U / R, as when R is infinite (vacuum),
as then I is zero. So enter the electron, and modern electronics.

Calling something "electron" isn't a "mechanism". Or do you think it is?
Given that we don't know what an electron _is_, beyond its measured
properties, all we have is a name and a mathematical model.

It is a step beyond playing just with the basic math that has no physical
way or model, or mechanism, of HOW things happen, what does it.

How is it a "step beyond"? All we have is a mathematical model of
observable effects of electrons. Where is there any hint of "mechanism"?

Note also the the mathematical model is mathematically-troubled
(renormalisation, in both classical and quantum theories).

As in Newton's gravity, as in relativity, where avid mathematicians play endlessly
with some formulas to make time machines, warp drives, what not.
You need a mechanism, for reality, if not only to avoid insane constructs.

No, you need to stay in touch with observation and experiment, basically
remain connected with reality as we measure it. Reality keeps it real, not
some theorised un-measurable "mechanism".

Newton called (using my own words) gravity's action at a distance without something
transferring the forces 'insane'.

But it works.

Yes, his EQUATIONS work, but he ALSO wanted to know WHAT was relaying the forces.

Again you avoid the substance of the discussion. You are allowed to have
an opinion, even if others disagree! You are allowed to say that your
original statement was hasty and incomplete.

Well, I cannot point out better then this, where the problem is.
I take the liberty of saying you fail to comprehend.

Did physics progress, based on Newton's mathematical model of gravity,
despite Newton's lack of mechanism?

In the area of what gravity IS, the mechanism, NO.

Why not just answer the question? I'm not asking about the area of "what
gravity IS, the mechanism", I'm asking about physics in general,
especially that part of it that makes use of Newtonian gravity. Did
physics progress, based on Newton's mathematical model of gravity, despite
the lack of mechanism?

If yes, then your original statement about mechanism being needed for
physics to advance was wrong.

If no, then the work of Galilei, Newton, Priestly, Aepinus, etc was not an
advance, and we may as well abandon Newtonianism and go back to mediaeval
physics or earlier.

Is this why you avoid answering it?

We have no anti gravity, we cannot manipulate gravity, or inertia, it
is still a black box.

If you could show a machine that changed gravity, or the weight of an object,
then yes we would have progressed.

We can change gravity and weight in the same way that we can change
electric fields, charges, and electric forces. We understand the effects.

Perhaps we have to live with black boxes? I've got nothing against people
trying to pry into, e.g., the black box of gravity, but to make it the
dominant research effort in physics would be a huge mistake. Firstly, it's
entirely possible that it would never produce any results. Secondly,
progress will happily go on without it.

Again, your insistence on the "mechanism" behind observable phenomena
would divorce theory from observation and experiment, which in the past,
has by-and-large led to useless crap, not advances.

No, you are cheating here, I propose experiments, but the cheaters are soo afraid to
repeat the experiments that falsify their believes (like that ESA experiment).
I do NOT suggest to fiddle with incomplete questionable formulas endlessly,
(like a hundred years with Einstein's).

What experiments? You've proposed none in this thread.

Why the obsession with Einstein? It's Newtonianism (i.e., mathematical
models, no "mechanism") that you're complaining about. Einstein's theories
of relativity are the closest we've gotten to any "mechanism" for, e.g.,
why light travels at c in free space, gravity, and more. You might not
like geometry as a mechanism, but it's certainly more explanation than,
e.g., Newton's law of universal gravitation.

They use electromagnets to pulse charged particles, push them in such
a sequence that they speed up.
Of course you can use many waves to try to speed up the surfer, but if those
waves (the EM field here) themselves move at c, and grab on to the charged particles via
EM forces, then you cannot move those particles faster then the waves, even if you pulse
faster, or use a stronger EM field.

"Electromagnetics to pulse charged particles" is a very bad description of
how accelerators work.

Electromagnets. Look dude I have worked there, have detailed knowledge about some of the
electronics that drives those electromagnets, beam positioners, and designed some stuff myself.
It is no hocus pocus, all very real, take a hint.

How much do the electromagnets accelerate the particles?

"EM wave" is not EM field. You can start with a DC field everywhere. Why
should an electron being accelerated by a DC field have to wait for the
field to "move"?

Ask yourself the question, basically 'what is a field'.
Then we are back to the OP.
IF a field is something that moves between say a positive and negative terminal
(as in electrostatic field), how long does it take for the particle in the middle to notice the
forces have changed if you say make the negative pole more negative?
c.

That isn't an answer. Why should an electron being accelerated by a DC
field have to wait for the field to "move"? The DC field is already there.
We don't have to change it at all. For a uniform field, the force is
constant. This has been used in real particle accelerators (and still is,
and in CRTs, too).

We're not back to the OP. It doesn't matter what a field "is". What
matters is what we can do with it, what force is exerted on a charged
particle. These are things we know. Not knowing what it "is" doesn't stop
us from building technology, and knowing how the technology works, and
modelling the working of it.

And again, why not try it with an EM wave with phase velocity c? Such is
trivially achieved, so if you think the phase velocity of EM waves is the
limiting factor, then superluminal particle velocities should be trivially
achieved.

You came up with phase velocity.
Describe your experimental setup, then we will talk.

You came up with the speed of EM waves as the thing that limits
performance of accelerators.

I wouldn't bother trying it this way - an electrostatic accelerator is all
you need, perhaps with a magnetic field to bring the particle back around
for a 2nd, 3rd, 4th, etc kick of acceleration.

But: waveguide.

As the situation is now, if a FTL particle was observed, Einstein's relativity would be
applied immediately to get the experimenter / observer / student of the hook of
having his / her career ended prematurely or immediately.
Observation - apply relativity - do some calculus - undo relativity - result.
Everybody happy + Einstein in his grave not rolling over.
DO YOU REMEMBER EPICYCLES?
It is the same 100%.

Epicycles were "mechanism". Crystal spheres and all that. That's what
happens when people like Aristotle go beyond observation/experiment and
theorise about the mechanisms behind the phenomena

It is OK to theorise, but he got it wrong.
Much later somebody got it right, all planets orbit the sun.
Simplified things a lot, as relativity one day will be simplified.

Ah! It's OK for Ptolemy to theorise, and get it wrong for 1,000 years, but
not OK for Einstein to theorise, or for "avid mathematicians" to theorise
about FTL space travel, time travel, etc (even though you've stated that
FTL space travel is a worthy goal)?

I smell a double standard here! Worse that that, the theorisers you
complain are working from a mathematical model that agrees with
observation and experiment. Crystal spheres were speculation about
"mechanism" that went beyond the observations, the phenomena. Crystal
spheres were idle philosophy, not physics.

--
Timo Nieminen - Home page: http://www.physics.uq.edu.au/people/nieminen/
E-prints: http://eprint.uq.edu.au/view/person/...,_Timo_A..html
Shrine to Spirits: http://www.users.bigpond.com/timo_nieminen/spirits.html