On Mon, 14 Apr 2008 03:26:47 -0400, "Paul Mays" wrote:


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

thats because all of physics only applies to matter in motion relitive to
other
matter in motion. Because of this Causation is missed. I contend that action
at a distance
is due to all matter being connected by the Quantum State ( left over
indefinable
energy after some matter was converted out of the Quantum Point of the BB)
this
Quantum State acts as an inverse tensor between all Physical Particles no
matter
the seperation distance of the particles. This is observed as Gravitational
Wells around
massive objects.

Meaningless drivel....take up preaching....





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 21:12:48 +0200, "Thomas Heger" wrote:


"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.

Right. Sound and temperature involve the dynamics of a medium. We know how and
why they occur.
How does that relate to electrostatics of gravity? Where's the 'medium'?

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...?

However, since all our physical experiments are carried out in the familiar 3D
space, 1D time, whatever makes one region of that space electrically different
from another should be physically as well as mathematically identifiable.


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 00:37:51 -0700 (PDT), PD wrote:

On Apr 13, 6:39*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.

Well, they're actually not much of a mystery. What do you find
mysterious about fields?

They exist.

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.

The force is equal to the field at that location where the second
charge appears, times the charge placed there. The force is created by
the local field.

babbletalk

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.

So you are saying that when a force acts on anti matter, it accelerates TOWARD
the origin of the force. Maybe...but I don't think anyone knows the real
answer.

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.

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.

Well, duh. Consider the difference in strength is some 30 orders of
magnitude.

30! how about the rest?

but you are missing the point.

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.

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 'Henri' is the name. Rabbo unfortunately died.

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.

Why would it disintegrate? Disintegrate into what? What other fields
would it merge with? You've just said the electric and gravitational
fields are dramatically different? What would you call the merged
field and what are its properties?

Draper, I know that understanding this stuff requires a brain and you do seem
to be making a genuinely effort....so I will try to help you.

What I'm getting at is that magnetism might not involve a separate type of
field. It is just some kind of distortion/rotation of the stuff that accounts
for electrostatic field.



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 22:57:47 +0100, "Androcles"
wrote:



--
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.

If they can't find the answer in a book, their only escape is to plead
lunacy...


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 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....

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:
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.

Well, they're actually not much of a mystery. What do you find
mysterious about fields?

They exist.

Well, then I suppose zebras and crescent wrenches, which also exist,
are also a great mystery to you.


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.

The force is equal to the field at that location where the second
charge appears, times the charge placed there. The force is created by
the local field.

babbletalk

Freshman physics. I realize that anything at the freshman physics
level must seem like magic to you.


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.


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.


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.

Well, duh. Consider the difference in strength is some 30 orders of
magnitude.

30! how about the rest?

but you are missing the point.

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.

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.

...and 'Henri' is the name.

Liar.

*Rabbo unfortunately died.

Who's Rabbo?


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.

Why would it disintegrate? Disintegrate into what? What other fields
would it merge with? You've just said the electric and gravitational
fields are dramatically different? What would you call the merged
field and what are its properties?

Draper, I know that understanding this stuff requires a brain and you do seem
to be making a genuinely effort....so I will try to help you.

What I'm getting at is that magnetism might not involve a separate type of
field. It is just some kind of distortion/rotation of the stuff that accounts
for electrostatic field.

Durrr. That's why it's called the electromagnetic field, Ralph.
Because they aren't two separate phenomena. You want to see some
documentation where this has been known and documented for a century,
Ralph?


Henri Wilson.

Liar.

ASTC,BSc,DSc(T)

Filthy liar.

www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/index.htm

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

Deluded filthy liar.

"Dr." Henri Wilson 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]

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?

He bothers because it's fun. Plus it's little bother really;
you make it so easy, "Dr." Wilson.


--
--Bryan

"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.


--
--Bryan

"Dr." Henri Wilson wrote:
"Robert J. Kolker" wrote:
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?

Where, "Dr." Wilson, did you get that idea? Certainly not from the
post to why you are replying, which so carefully stated that what
physics cannot provide is the *final* causation of things.

I assume you still believe in the thunder god?

Yeah, you assume lot's of stuff that is not true.


--
--Bryan'

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.

Alen