Eric Gisse wrote:
On Apr 13, 3:39 pm, HW@....(Dr. Henri Wilson) wrote:
Let's be honest. Nothing physics has produced so far [...]

Speaking of honesty, let us not forget that Henri Wilson is not a real
person - your real name is Ralph Rabbidge. You are not a doctor [...]

Can you tell me: Who figured out his identity, and how strong is
the case? I had gathered the "Dr." bit is bogus, but I was not able
to find out anything real about him.


--
--Bryan

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?

Yes. At last somebody else here is capable of talking sense.
Is space just a 'graphical consequence' of fields...or maybe even a
psychological consequence...?


Its a bit difficult to explain. I'll try:
I start with GR and use a certain model for spacetime, that is based on a
generalization of intervals. Think of elements of spacetime as something
small and with 'volume'. That has four dimensions like spacetime itself, but
in small. Those 'points' are the constituents of worldlines if piled up in a
timelike manner. But you can arrange them in a spacelike manner too. Than
this is something like distance.
Now think of those elements as active part in the game and our real world as
observation of that. (This is the tricky part, but important.)
If you put some energy into those tiny elements you get a lot of different
patterns or interactions of them. I use quaternions for that purpouse and
let them rotate. In fact thats all. But its not easy to see the consequenses
of this picture.
You can see space as kind of paradigm shift. It is based on an observer, but
spacetime isn't . So if spacetime-elements are active, our view of that is
quite different to spacetime itself. If you want to understand space, you
might see it as a 'cut' or as a projection of something imaginary into the
realm of our observations. By squeezing the imaginary into three dimensions
we distort it in a certain way that we call fields.

Thomas Heger

PD wrote in message

On Apr 14, 6:59 pm, HW@....(Dr. Henri Wilson) wrote:

[snip]

...and 'Henri' is the name.

Liar.

Rabbo unfortunately died.

Who's Rabbo?

Ralph Rabbidge.
In order for people to stop saying "Ralph" to "Wilson", at a
certain point he dressed up as his daughter to announce that
Ralph had "sadly passed away".

Dirk Vdm

On Apr 14, 9:05*pm, Bryan Olson wrote:
Eric Gisse wrote:
On Apr 13, 3:39 pm, HW@....(Dr. Henri Wilson) wrote:
Let's be honest. Nothing physics has produced so far [...]

Speaking of honesty, let us not forget that Henri Wilson is not a real
person - your real name is Ralph Rabbidge. You are not a doctor [...]

Can you tell me: Who figured out his identity, and how strong is
the case? I had gathered the "Dr." bit is bogus, but I was not able
to find out anything real about him.

Team effort.

Henri's web page used to be hosted on Ralph's site, everyone noticed
that. IIRC Jerry pointed out that Henri's book - which he claimed was
his - had Ralph's name in the document metainfo. Plus there was
Henri's posting about how he and Ralph went to school together and had
the exact same degrees in subjects he obviously knows nothing about...


--
--Bryan

On a sunny day (Tue, 15 Apr 2008 06:35:46 +1000) it happened "Timo A.
Nieminen" wrote in
:

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.

OK


Given the various recent advances in physics (especially applied physics),
I wouldn't say that mechanism is _needed_.

That is not completely correct.
Things are measured (physical things), math is applied, some thing does
not fit the current 'model' (where model is sort of our picture of what we think
is happening), a new particle is proposed (for example neutrino).
What I say here is: 'you cannot separate math from that model, from the mechanism'.

When you do that you get those time travel tales, multiple universes stuff,
common sense is often lost.



Nice to have perhaps.

Must have :-)


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?

You will probably never know, our models get refined again and again.
But those models are important for our understanding.

It is nice to know Newton's equations, but the question of what makes
up gravity (or inertia) is still a big puzzle.

One example I like is this:
When the vacuum diode was discovered, current was flowing through a vacuum.
To understand WHY, we needed a model for the current, and when understanding
of 'electron' came about, we could really play with that idea and propose other
experiments with those, electronics was born, your cellphone etc.
In the vacuum triode it is fun to control the current with a grid, but WHAT
is controlling what, that, when found out, allowed the next step.

Maybe math has taken over a large part of physics, staring with Einstein's
'space time'.
Sure, math needs no physical world (apart from the mathematicians neural net
with all its limitations), math is alike a language, you can tell true stories AND
fairy tales with it :-)
You can lie and falsify thins, read this for example:
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/04/15/sc...ce&oref=slogin
I shows how math can manipulate things.
Quoting:
'Lord, grant that my work increase knowledge and help other men.

Failing that, Lord, grant that it will not lead to man's destruction.

Failing that, Lord, grant that my article in Brain be published before the destruction takes place.'

Have fun :-)

On Tue, 15 Apr 2008 04:32:46 GMT, Bryan Olson wrote:

"Dr." Henri Wilson wrote:
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....

He's got it on a level you will never know. Perhaps that's too harsh.
A level you will probably never know.

**** off, Roger.



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 19:02:54 -0700 (PDT), PD wrote:

On Apr 14, 6:59*pm, HW@....(Dr. Henri Wilson) wrote:
On Mon, 14 Apr 2008 00:37:51 -0700 (PDT), PD wrote:
On Apr 13, 6:39*pm, HW@....(Dr. Henri Wilson) wrote:

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).

Well, it's actually not to be presumed that antimatter has negative
mass. If it did, would it matter? Consider:
Start with F=ma.
Now let the mass m be acted on by the field from another mass M, GM/
r^2, so that the force on the left-hand side is GMm/r^2.
Then we have
GMm/r^2 = ma.

It is usually written as F= -GMm/r^2, with r positive going away from the
centre.

If you like. The way I had it written the positive signs point to the
center.


So you are saying that when a force acts on anti matter, it accelerates TOWARD
the origin of the force.

Well, that's what F=ma would say.

Maybe...but I don't think anyone knows the real
answer.

Maybe. Perhaps you want to say that F=-ma for antimatter.

My statement was that nobody knows. I should imagine there are problms with
energy if f = -ma.
But I suppose one could say that is where all the energy can from originally.
THe total energy in the universe is actually zero because negaive matter has
negative energy.

Now, suppose the mass m is a bit of antimatter and suppose that
antimatter mass m is negative. That is m = -|m|.
Then we have
-GM|m|/r^2 = -|m|a
and you can see the negative signs cancel out, and we're left with the
very same acceleration you'd expect from a positive mass m. So what's
observably different?

Hahaha!
You are claiming that if my car was made of anti-matter, it would go forward
when I put it in reverse.

Only if the mass of antimatter is negative (which you said is
presumably the case). Of course, I was pointing out that there is no
point in presuming that, and then you confirmed that just now.

I made no claims. I said nobody knows.


Oh, BS. Please pick up a second year electrodynamics book, and you'll
see there is a very well understood relationship between electric and
magnetic fields. Geez, Ralph, just because YOU are ignorant of the
answer doesn't mean you should pronounce in public that the answer
doesn't exist.

Can't you read, idiot. I pointed out that the mathematical relationship was
well known .

And the physical relationship as well, which is quantitatively
described with some algebra.

Algebra isn't a physical moel.

...and 'Henri' is the name.

Liar.

*Rabbo unfortunately died.

Who's Rabbo?

An old mate of mine who used to contribute here too.

Idiot!!!!!!!!!!!!!!1


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

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

On Tue, 15 Apr 2008 08:21:49 +0200, "Thomas Heger" wrote:


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?

Yes. At last somebody else here is capable of talking sense.
Is space just a 'graphical consequence' of fields...or maybe even a
psychological consequence...?


Its a bit difficult to explain. I'll try:
I start with GR and use a certain model for spacetime, that is based on a
generalization of intervals. Think of elements of spacetime as something
small and with 'volume'. That has four dimensions like spacetime itself, but
in small. Those 'points' are the constituents of worldlines if piled up in a
timelike manner. But you can arrange them in a spacelike manner too. Than
this is something like distance.
Now think of those elements as active part in the game and our real world as
observation of that. (This is the tricky part, but important.)
If you put some energy into those tiny elements you get a lot of different
patterns or interactions of them. I use quaternions for that purpouse and
let them rotate. In fact thats all. But its not easy to see the consequenses
of this picture.
You can see space as kind of paradigm shift. It is based on an observer, but
spacetime isn't . So if spacetime-elements are active, our view of that is
quite different to spacetime itself. If you want to understand space, you
might see it as a 'cut' or as a projection of something imaginary into the
realm of our observations. By squeezing the imaginary into three dimensions
we distort it in a certain way that we call fields.

Spacetime doesn't exist.
There is SPACE and there is TIME....totally different dimensions.


Thomas Heger



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 21:50:05 -0700 (PDT), Alen wrote:

On Apr 14, 9:39*am, 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....

I think you are right, Henri. In spite of what physics has
been able to explain, there remains a good deal about
nature that remains as unexplained as ever.

Precisely. For instance, what are the properties of space account for different
strengths of the various 'fields'?

The annoying thing is that thes typical relativists here actually believe
Einstein provided a few answers.

Alen



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

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

On Apr 15, 6:00*am, HW@....(Dr. Henri Wilson) wrote:
On Mon, 14 Apr 2008 19:02:54 -0700 (PDT), PD wrote:
On Apr 14, 6:59*pm, HW@....(Dr. Henri Wilson) wrote:
On Mon, 14 Apr 2008 00:37:51 -0700 (PDT), PD wrote:
On Apr 13, 6:39*pm, HW@....(Dr. Henri Wilson) wrote:
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).

Well, it's actually not to be presumed that antimatter has negative
mass. If it did, would it matter? Consider:
Start with F=ma.
Now let the mass m be acted on by the field from another mass M, GM/
r^2, so that the force on the left-hand side is GMm/r^2.
Then we have
GMm/r^2 = ma.

It is usually written as F= -GMm/r^2, with r positive going away from the
centre.

If you like. The way I had it written the positive signs point to the
center.

So you are saying that when a force acts on anti matter, it accelerates TOWARD
the origin of the force.

Well, that's what F=ma would say.

Maybe...but I don't think anyone knows the real
answer.

Maybe. Perhaps you want to say that F=-ma for antimatter.

My statement was that nobody knows. I *should imagine there are problms with
energy if f = -ma.

Nobody knows anything for certain. However, there are a lot of people
who have thought about it more thoroughly than the six minutes you've
given to the subject.

But I suppose one could say that is where all the energy can from originally.
THe *total energy in the universe is actually zero because negaive matter has
negative energy.

Now, is that last statement something you KNOW?


Now, suppose the mass m is a bit of antimatter and suppose that
antimatter mass m is negative. That is m = -|m|.
Then we have
-GM|m|/r^2 = -|m|a
and you can see the negative signs cancel out, and we're left with the
very same acceleration you'd expect from a positive mass m. So what's
observably different?

Hahaha!
You are claiming that if my car was made of anti-matter, it would go forward
when I put it in reverse.

Only if the mass of antimatter is negative (which you said is
presumably the case). Of course, I was pointing out that there is no
point in presuming that, and then you confirmed that just now.

I made no claims. I said nobody knows.

Oh, BS. Please pick up a second year electrodynamics book, and you'll
see there is a very well understood relationship between electric and
magnetic fields. Geez, Ralph, just because YOU are ignorant of the
answer doesn't mean you should pronounce in public that the answer
doesn't exist.

Can't you read, idiot. I pointed out that the mathematical relationship was
well known .

And the physical relationship as well, which is quantitatively
described with some algebra.

Algebra isn't a physical moel.

I know that. I didn't say it was. There is a physical model, that can
be quantitatively described with some algebra. Economics is also not
algebra, but good economic models can be quantitatively described with
algebra. Genetics is not algebra, but a good genetic model can also be
quantitatively described with algebra.

Do not fear algebra. Algebra is a tool, and a very useful one.


...and 'Henri' is the name.

Liar.

*Rabbo unfortunately died.

Who's Rabbo?

An old mate of mine who used to contribute here too.

OK. Doesn't change the fact that "Henri Wilson" is not your name, and
those are fake degree credentials listed. And hence you are a liar.


Idiot!!!!!!!!!!!!!!1

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

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