"Jan Panteltje" wrote in message
...
On a sunny day (Sun, 13 Apr 2008 17:36:20 -0700) it happened Uncle Al
wrote in :

"Dr. Henri Wilson" wrote:

Let's be honest. Nothing physics has produced so far has given any
insight into
what makes a 'field'.
[snip rest of crap]

0) a distribution of observable(s) at points in space;
1) intensity
2) gradient
3) divergence
4) curl;
5) idiot.


Al, what gotten in to you.
He addresses a good point, 'field' is just a concept,
you can replace it whith 'ghost' in many occasions.
There is no mechanism.
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.
Does something flow? MECHANISM is what we need, and until that day physics
will not advance, just like your diamonds (hey got it out).

I Think I know.. But no body seems to agree with me

Eric Gisse wrote:
..

Ralph Rabbidge does not understand that physics does not explain
'why', it just models.

The "why" in physics, is really "how". Physics provides the formal
(laws), material (entities and objects) and efficient causes (events and
interactions) of things. It never provides purpose, end or final
causation of things.

Bob Kolker

Dr. Henri Wilson HW@.... wrote in message

Let's be honest.

Yes, let's be:
http://users.telenet.be/vdmoortel/di...gedDegree.html
http://users.telenet.be/vdmoortel/di...alFumbles.html

Dirk Vdm

"Dr. Henri Wilson" wrote:

On Sun, 13 Apr 2008 17:36:20 -0700, Uncle Al wrote:

"Dr. Henri Wilson" wrote:

Let's be honest. Nothing physics has produced so far has given any insight into
what makes a 'field'.
[snip rest of crap]

0) a distribution of observable(s) at points in space;
1) intensity
2) gradient
3) divergence
4) curl;
5) idiot.

**** off cretin. Why do you bother?

Henri Wilson. ASTC,BSc,DSc(T)

Nice string of letters. Invent a few more.

An idiot is not half way to being an idiot-savant. Uncle Al is
intolerant of stupidity and those who are proud of it. Ignorance is
not a form of knowing things.

Crack a textbook, schmuck.

--
Uncle Al
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/
(Toxic URL! Unsafe for children and most mammals)
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/lajos.htm#a2

"Dr. Henri Wilson" HW@.... schrieb im Newsbeitrag
...
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.

a field is something distributing in space. It could be anything:
temperature, sound, magnetism. So field is a concept to describe how that
something distributes.
What you seemingly want to know, how magnetism i.e. manage to distribute.
The right question is not : what is a field? but : what is space?

Thomas Heger

On Mon, 14 Apr 2008, Jan Panteltje wrote:

Uncle Al wrote:
"Dr. Henri Wilson" wrote:

Let's be honest. Nothing physics has produced so far has given any insight into
what makes a 'field'.
[snip rest of crap]

Al, what gotten in to you.
He addresses a good point, 'field' is just a concept,
you can replace it whith 'ghost' in many occasions.
There is no mechanism.
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.
Does something flow? MECHANISM is what we need, and until that day physics
will not advance, just like your diamonds (hey got it out).

Decartes proposed mechanisms, Newton just wrote down some equations
describing the forces we observe. Cartesian physics is now just a quaint
episode in the history of wrong turns in physics, Newtonianism led to
remarkable and dramatic advances in physics. Note that one of the biggest
early advances in electromagnetic theory was the direct result of the
adoption of Newtonianism by Aepinus.

Given the various recent advances in physics (especially applied physics),
I wouldn't say that mechanism is _needed_. Nice to have perhaps. One
problem: all you'll ever know is that you have a mechanism that is
described by a mathematical model that also describes observed phenomena.
How will you know your proposed mechanism is correct?

--
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

Dr. Henri Wilson skrev:
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.

You mean a "physical model" like a clockwork?
Blame it on the fairies.
They connect the fields "physically" with invisible cogs and wheels.

--
Paul

http://home.c2i.net/pb_andersen/

--
This message is brought to you by Androcles
http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/

"Paul B. Andersen" wrote in message
...
| Dr. Henri Wilson skrev:
| 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.
|
| You mean a "physical model" like a clockwork?
| Blame it on the fairies.
| They connect the fields "physically" with invisible cogs and wheels.
|

Time-dilated clockwork, Tusseladd.
The invisible cogs between Earth and Moon slip 6 hours every
million years, remember. Blame it on lunacy - yours.

On Mon, 14 Apr 2008 09:11:36 GMT, Jan Panteltje
wrote:

On a sunny day (Sun, 13 Apr 2008 17:36:20 -0700) it happened Uncle Al
wrote in :

"Dr. Henri Wilson" wrote:

Let's be honest. Nothing physics has produced so far has given any insight into
what makes a 'field'.
[snip rest of crap]

0) a distribution of observable(s) at points in space;
1) intensity
2) gradient
3) divergence
4) curl;
5) idiot.


Al, what gotten in to you.
He addresses a good point, 'field' is just a concept,
you can replace it whith 'ghost' in many occasions.
There is no mechanism.
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.
Does something flow? MECHANISM is what we need, and until that day physics
will not advance, just like your diamonds (hey got it out).

Just feel sorry for the poor bugger. He can't even understand the question....


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

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

On Mon, 14 Apr 2008 12:26:18 -0400, "Robert J. Kolker"
wrote:

Eric Gisse wrote:
.

Ralph Rabbidge does not understand that physics does not explain
'why', it just models.

The "why" in physics, is really "how". Physics provides the formal
(laws), material (entities and objects) and efficient causes (events and
interactions) of things. It never provides purpose, end or final
causation of things.

So physics doesn't explain WHY thunder follows lightning?

I assume you still believe in the thunder god?

Bob Kolker



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

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