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....

"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.

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

On Apr 13, 3:39*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.

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 of
anything, and you have previously posted false credentials on this
newsgroup.

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

[snip]

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.

Oi.

Infinity is not an actual point, Ralph.

The concept of the field "fragmenting" or "merging" not only has zero
mathematical description from you, despite using it as a crutch for
years, but is inconsistent with Maxwell's equations.


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

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

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

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

"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.


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....

"Eric Gisse" wrote in message
...
On Apr 13, 3:39 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.

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 of
anything, and you have previously posted false credentials on this
newsgroup.

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

Absolutely Correct.. Physical modles can never give Causation only
effect on matter in relitive motion to other matter. When driven to
define a single aspect of anything independent of any other physical
construct , including the observer, it fails ..

[snip]

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.

Oi.

Infinity is not an actual point, Ralph.

The concept of the field "fragmenting" or "merging" not only has zero
mathematical description from you, despite using it as a crutch for
years, but is inconsistent with Maxwell's equations.


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

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

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?


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.

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.
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?

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.

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.


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?


Henri Wilson.

Liar.

ASTC,BSc,DSc(T)

Pathological liar.

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

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

And a bad liar to boot.

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).

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

"Jan Panteltje" wrote in message
...

[Snip pathetic Schwartz crap].

| "Dr. Henri Wilson" wrote:
|
| Let's be honest. Nothing physics has produced so far has given any
insight into
| what makes a 'field'.
|

| He addresses a good point, 'field' is just a concept,

Then so is mass, length and time.

| you can replace it whith 'ghost' in many occasions.

Why would you do that?

| 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

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. 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.




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

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

On Apr 13, 7:39*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.

A field is a mathematical abstraction.

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.


A field is independent of the test charge.


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).

There doesn't actually appear to be any negative mass. Why would
there need to be? I bet next you'll be insisting that there must be
three types of electric charge, just like in quantum chromodynamics.


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.


Indeed. The background geometry corresponding to an electrostatic
field can be globally Lorentzian. We can't say the same thing about
gravitation.


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.

Maxwell already understood this in the nineteenth century.

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.

And there never will be, since they are mutually exclusive. You need
a changing electric field to generate a magnetic field.


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.

You tell me. I already know the answer.