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 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....

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

"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.

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....

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....

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 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.

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.

On a sunny day (Sun, 13 Apr 2008 17:36:20 -0700) it happened Uncle Al
UncleAl0@hate.spam.net> wrote in <4802A704.A5927914@hate.spam.net>:

"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).

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

Let's be honest.

On Sun, 13 Apr 2008 17:36:20 -0700, Uncle Al <UncleAl0@hate.spam.net> 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.

Piss off cretin. Why do you bother?

Henri Wilson. ASTC,BSc,DSc(T)

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.