Overlapping Fields

[seasmith]

Webbman » Thu Jan 07, 2016 3:51 pm

not really. the reason why its force strands is because of their ability to be aligned, attached end to end, twisted, and can translate waves along their length. Critically they cannot pass through each other and have to go around or bump it out of the way. Configuration and strand length then determines the other properties.

all a vector can do is point me in a direction.

The secret to the universe is a rubber band

Hi Webbman,
One question:
what is it that you posit between these "strands"; is there some sort of fascia ?
thanks, s

[Webbman]

i imagine they just bump off of eachother but in the few materials and processes that can align them (iron/ electricity etc) they align in such a way that they have no choice but to follow the pattern and once they connect in a circuit the wave persists until its disrupted ( too much heat will disrupt a magnet).

[Corpuscles]

Hi Webo

Hey Corp,
And, comingfrom, the universe doesn't suck... nothing sucks... this is pressure from outside pushing toward the center!

It will tke some deliberate sober meditation to discifer your post . But thanks.

It seems your position has moved ? Where is the "center"? (speld "centre" to others)

Oh, the memories JungleLord and Alton Harp.... fortunately those debates are still recorded here!

I never "got" the ropes idea , but see it as an attempt to link into the vague "EU" hotch potch "electric" (whatever that is?) position. It can't be a centre sorry "center" of pressure. Where is that?

What I really meant, was instead of ,but taking value from, posting disjointed posts here than rather put it into a well framed paper or book. I truly think it has immense value!!! (truly), even if along the way you finding yourself challenging your position on a few things. You might want to watch how your biblically 'enlightened' but therefore narrow perspective could influence the or any bias? But that is great if it is your path.

Where can I buy a copy?

Yes GEOMETRY! Vale dear Dean Ward (JL)!

Cheers

[comingfrom]

Thank you, Webbman, you do explain well. and patiently.

Your ideas are beginning to make sense. I like what you said about geometric matrix. I was going to try to contend your ideas, but I thought on them longer, and it was doing my head in. It goes against my conception of light. Then I could only manage a feeble joke.

I do already have [a form of] centropic gravity and electric force, but still see light working separately to force. That remark from Tesla is also difficult for me to grasp. But I am willing to concede I probably still have left over misconceptions, so I am all ears.
~Paul

[Chan Rasjid]

Hello all,

The basic quantities currently know in classical physics are length, time (space-time), mass, charge, temperature, etc...All other quantities in physics have dimensions expressible in the fundamental quantities. In practical system of units like our SI unit, we define current to be fundamental rather then charge; but physically we know that fundamental particles have charge which are quantized by the fundamental electron charge. The word physical applies only to the fundamental quantities of space, time, mass, charge, etc... there is no magnetic charge. Maybe, temperature may not be considered physical. Energy, too, may not be considered physical.

The fields of physics as in gravitational, electric, magnetic fields are not physical entities. Fields are nothing but vectors - vector functions of space. A vector is a mathematical construct which exists only in the mind and has nothing physical. In gravity, the only physical entity is the mass - fundamental particles with measurable mass. The gravitational field is a mathematical language to make calculations easier.

It is similar in the case of electromagnetism where the only physical entities are the positive and negative electric charge; electric field has no physicality. Even magnetism is based on charge. The Biot-Savart law is about magnetism being caused by electric charges in motion. The magnetic field may only be detected through moving charges. It is said that the electric field possesses energy - like in the poynting vector - and therefore it is physical. I don't think so. We know that a single positive charge has a spherical radial field going to infinity. The field in itself is nothing until there is another charge placed somewhere before we may say a "force" acting exists - it needs two to tango. What is the field around the original charge becomes useful only by the introduction of a test charge. In reality, all fields in physics are just vectors - a mathematical construct more suitable for quantitative analysis.

Energy, too has no physical reality. It is basically force x distance - dimension of [M][L²]/[T²]; So energy too is only a non-physical physics concept - changes in energy may be measured through the physics that we have developed, but what is measured is the concept of energy that we are able to express quantitatively.

So it seems the only physical entities in physics are space (the length of the foot), time (motion, a galloping horse, ticking of a clock), mass, charge... the rest are concepts in physics which exist only in the mind.

Best regards,
Chan Rasjid.

[SDK]

... where did the idea that magnetic field lines can move, touch, break, disconnect, explode, reconnect, etc. come from?

Hello Great Dog. I would not be so fast. When one looks at the phenomenon of an E bomb, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electromagnetic_pulse , which is a practical military device, one can notice that prevention of a collapse of a magnetic field of an electromagnet by a conventional explosion of the gismo produces EM wave of a very peculiar character, which is extremely difficult to shield. That would mean to me, that the magnetic field can be not only exploded, but that following such an explosion it changes into some other electrical phenomenon by structure, meaning from closed magnetic field into an open one and traveling along straight paths, for it behaves more like light, rather than EM radiation produced by lets say radio transmitters, which is fairly easily shielded by a Faraday cage, contrary to light. Which of course opens another can of worms, and that is: "What is the difference between light EM and radio EM, that one can be shielded by a Faraday cage while the other can't? As far as I can tell, the two are different phenomena, although both can result in induction of electric currents in conductors. IMHO, the broken up magnetic field is of the light nature, while radio signal is strictly a vibration of, OK, I will call it a vacuum, or whatever preferable term, as there are tens of them.

[seasmith]

SDK,
Good to see not everyone has been sucked into the semantic dogma prevalent in some circles. Thunderbolts fora, imo, should be about open discourse, not a blindly taking of sides.

From page 1, this thread:


What happens to the flux "field", when one magnet is removed ?


If one is interested in probably the best integration currently extant of concepts from Faraday, Maxwell, Heaviside, Tesla, Steinmetz and that lot, With the Algebra; the thirty-years work of Eric P Dollard is highly recommended.
The E and the M are merely the Transverse propagation of the same source,
and the properly tuned circuit can force nearly all of the energy into one mode,
or the other.

http://www.gestaltreality.com/energy-sy ... c-dollard/

[Webbman]

thanks for the link.

[Webbman]

SDK,
Good to see not everyone has been sucked into the semantic dogma prevalent in some circles. Thunderbolts fora, imo, should be about open discourse, not a blindly taking of sides.

From page 1, this thread:


What happens to the flux "field", when one magnet is removed ?

you lose containment. I suppose the original poles of the magnets would be restored on the side where the magnet was removed. Assuming the magnets were fixed in place. Or perhaps there would be a complete breakdown into discrete dipoles.

[webolife]

Comingfrom,
You are getting me and Webbman mixed up, so if you'd like to re-post your comments or questions more distinctly I'll be able to keep up our dialogue.
I am the one with centropic pressure vectors.
Webbman's the one with rubber bands.

[I doesn't help matters that my last name is also Webb]

[webolife]

Chan,
I'm a bit confused by your previous post...
In one place you say that space and time are both fundamental physical entities. Yet, a vector has much more specificity about how the space/field is behaving. And I would say that time is also a vectoral agent, in that periodicity is always returning an entity to its [relative] original position, and apt describer of centropy as well.
How can space be a fundamental entity, but the vectoral behavior of space not be? I appreciate that there are material entities, and also believe that there are non-material entities, as well as mental constructs or models of reality which are themselves not the same as physical material reality. Are you saying that the non-material entities of space and time are in fact physical? Are they phenomenal, ie. agents of change in nature?
Clarify for me if you would, please.

[comingfrom]

Sorry Webolife, and Webbman, I did get you two confused.

I'm still trying light energy as another field.

Chan Rasjid wrote

The field in itself is nothing until there is another charge placed somewhere before we may say a "force" acting exists - it needs two to tango.

Something basic, which I think most people would agree with.

But this made me think. How can the voltage (force) of that no-thing vary. Near the Cathode (or the Sun), the voltage of the field is even higher than the input current, then it drops off, gains again (at the positive column), drops off again, and gains near the anode. A charged particle being carried by the field (a particle in the Solar wind, for instance) experiences accelerations, slowdowns, and even blockages.

So the force of E fields does not diminish by the inverse square law.
(I never read that stated anywhere yet.)
~Paul

[SDK]

What happens to the flux "field", when one magnet is removed ?

you lose containment.

Hi gents. Well, being a rather practical man with little expert education, I am not much into respective mathematical theories. For all i know, an arrangement of odd number of magnets, i have only one second hand experience from a friend of mine from some time past, who liked to play with magnets ever since she was a child and has been some inspiration to me.

She took a circular array of even count magnets and laid it on the floor in her basement. She took another circular array of odd number of magnets fixed to some thin, round plywood, hung it by its center on a thread above the first one an spun it to see, what may happen. The hanging one spun for a bit and then wobbled and spun back and forth for quite some time before coming to a rest. She tried a few times and when she had enough, left the basement and went to do something on her comp, only to find out, that her monitor was shot (that would be the cathode ray tube monitor). You may interpret the story any way you wish, but for me, I very much like Webman's answer. I do not believe much in coincidences.

With kind regards, Slavek.

[Chan Rasjid]

Hello webo,

Chan,
I'm a bit confused by your previous post...
In one place you say that space and time are both fundamental physical entities. Yet, a vector has much more specificity about how the space/field is behaving. And I would say that time is also a vectoral agent, in that periodicity is always returning an entity to its [relative] original position, and apt describer of centropy as well.
How can space be a fundamental entity, but the vectoral behavior of space not be? I appreciate that there are material entities, and also believe that there are non-material entities, as well as mental constructs or models of reality which are themselves not the same as physical material reality. Are you saying that the non-material entities of space and time are in fact physical? Are they phenomenal, ie. agents of change in nature?
Clarify for me if you would, please.

I think when we talk about physics, it will always have an element of the metaphysical as well. I do remember that physicists would sometimes ask fundamental questions like what is reality or about if time has physicality, etc. Very often, words that have their everyday meaning are also used in physics; in such cases we may have to be clear how the words may have meaning more specific than as used in the everyday sense. Some examples that would give rise to a lot of arguments would be words as "reality", "physical" and its compound "physical reality".

We ask our early ancestors whether distance, height has "physical reality". Of course! If you tell them to jump off a high cliff and that they could flap their arms and fly like the birds, they would refuse - "reality" from experience is the mother of all teaching! So space has physical reality. But sometimes, there is a preference to restrict the use of reality to tangible material things - differentiating material and non-material. But I prefer to use as criterion for physical reality the human faculties - the mind as well as the physical senses. With this criterion, the human has an awareness of space. I would also consider time to have physical reality - time is a comparison of general motions to some standard motion as the swing of a pendulum.

Now about whether fields and vectors in physics have physical reality. I would consider the examples of vector space and affine space; they are related but different mathematical structures sometimes used to represent the space of the universe. But mathematics is just a language; it is the physical universe that a language tries to describe - the language itself does not have physical reality. In this sense, I would say the field theory approach in physics is just a mathematical approach and the field itself is only a concept - it is only the universe that we attempt to describe that has physical reality.

Take another concept - force. Does force have physical reality? The concept of force as understood by our early ancestors certainly is real. But now, we are into a rather academic treatment of force in physics: force = mass x acceleration with dimension [M][L]/[T²]. The physical underpinnings of force is again space, time and mass. I prefer to view force as a physical concept. It is only through association with everyday experience that we say force has physical reality.

One more thing that escaped me in my earlier post, a very interesting and controversial assertion - light has no physical reality! Let's first examine sound. Sound, or sound wave, does not have physical reality. If we take sound as what our ears can detect, then sound outside of our hearing range would be considered as not real - which is a contradiction. We now know that sound is a wave in a fluid - a transmission of energy of vibration of the particles constituting the fluid. The wave itself is mathematical; what is the real underpinning of sound is physical matter - sound and kinetic energy are only manifestations of matter in nature.

Now back to light. Our current view of light as a wave has light to be waves of the E and B fields. If I follow through the criterion that fields have no physical reality, then all mathematical waves have no physical reality. Then, what is the physical reality underpinning light; there is a strong need to treat light as "something" rather than just "nothing". The reality is the aether. It is the aether that has physical reality; light is only a physical manifestation of the aether. But the aether is not recognized by mainstream physics; nor do we know much of this physical aether.

So now, I would like to treat as fundamental physical reality to consists of space, time, mass, charge and the aether.

Best regards,
Chan Rasjid.

[Chan Rasjid]

Hello Paul,

Chan Rasjid wrote

The field in itself is nothing until there is another charge placed somewhere before we may say a "force" acting exists - it needs two to tango.

Something basic, which I think most people would agree with.

But this made me think. How can the voltage (force) of that no-thing vary. Near the Cathode (or the Sun), the voltage of the field is even higher than the input current, then it drops off, gains again (at the positive column), drops off again, and gains near the anode. A charged particle being carried by the field (a particle in the Solar wind, for instance) experiences accelerations, slowdowns, and even blockages.

So the force of E fields does not diminish by the inverse square law.
(I never read that stated anywhere yet.)
~Paul

I think your position and mine are different. You are talking about concepts and facts that the EU community have accepted but which are not yet in the textbooks. I am only following the elementary concepts from the textbooks.

The relation between electric field E and voltage V(scalar potential difference) comes from : E = - ∇V; so V is also a field, but a scalar field in space. I would say E and V are mathematical constructs in our models to describe nature and they have no physical reality. All electromagnetic phenomena comes finally from space, time, charge and the aether.

As to changes in voltage in space (scalar potential function in space), of course, there would be a unit of measurement of a physical concept whenever one is introduced into physics. In the simple case of a current flowing through a length of copper wire connected to a battery, we know there is a voltage drop along the wire; we need to use a voltmeter. But I am not sure that just because making use of a gadget to collect signals between two points along the wire would imply that voltage has physical reality.

Maybe, we may see things this way. The concept of voltage is a very recent thing after we discover electricity. It is formalized in what is now know as electromagnetism using mathematics as the language tool. But space, time, charge and the aether existed since the beginning of the universe - so this is the reason why voltage, and even energy, may not rank as having physical reality.

Best regards,
Chan Rasjid.