Overlapping Fields

[webolife]

Chan...
I'm afraid there may be just a semantic argument here leading to more disagreement.
I appreciate everything you're trying to say, but am still confused by your conclusions. I want to try again to challenge you with some questions:
1. If "force" can be measured, eg. a spring scale, and vectors are used to described it, having both direction and magnitude, and if it can be shown that a force acts upon objects causing them to move across space [from which the concept of "energy" is derived], how can these not be fundamentals of your physical reality.
2. Our sensation of time is that of a continuum of events, and you define it as simply motions being compared to a standard motion... how does that rank time as being in your physical reality?
3. How can you say measurable "voltage" is not a physical reality, yet charge [the "carrier" unit of voltage] is.
4. You said space and time are physical realities, but not mass [the primary property of matter]?
I don't get it...
Of course, I have my own views on these things, I just want to understand yours better.

[seasmith]

3 magnets:

Magnetic Field Vecotrs - Three Out.png (46.57 KiB) Viewed 8580 times

Magnetic Field Vecotrs - Two Out One In.png (47 KiB) Viewed 8580 times

2 magnets:

2 mag 4 fields.jpg (37.38 KiB) Viewed 8580 times

https://physicsgivesyouwings.wikispaces ... nteractive!

[Chan Rasjid]

Hello webo,

Chan...
I'm afraid there may be just a semantic argument here leading to more disagreement. I appreciate everything you're trying to say, but am still confused by your conclusions. I want to try again to challenge you with some questions:
1. If "force" can be measured, eg. a spring scale, and vectors are used to described it, having both direction and magnitude, and if it can be shown that a force acts upon objects causing them to move across space [from which the concept of "energy" is derived], how can these not be fundamentals of your physical reality.
2. Our sensation of time is that of a continuum of events, and you define it as simply motions being compared to a standard motion... how does that rank time as being in your physical reality?
3. How can you say measurable "voltage" is not a physical reality, yet charge [the "carrier" unit of voltage] is.
4. You said space and time are physical realities, but not mass [the primary property of matter]?
I don't get it...
Of course, I have my own views on these things, I just want to understand yours better.

A misunderstanding; surely mass has physical reality.

I could have inducted the word "reality" into physics with a usage that is non-conventional. So, it seems I have just defined what physical reality should mean - not what "is". I think what I have done is to say that only the fundamental dimensions have physical reality; i.e. mass, length, time, charge, temperature + aether. Maybe it is still best to leave things alone and say physical dimensions when that is the quantity. Nevertheless, I still think that, in physics, we should be more specific when we say something has physical reality, not just because it is associated with what it relates to closely in our everyday world.

When we talk about reality and physical reality, we usually mean the physical world and the happenings that human beings perceive and understand - distinct from other beings and animals. Knowledge is always that of sentient human with his human faculties. Usually, the question of what is real, unreal, reality, physical belong more to philosophy. So the question of physical reality involves knowing what things are real and what are not real. Is light real? It is so only in the everyday world. But light is real only because we are born with eyes. So reality has a lot to do with our consciousness, the mind and our senses. It may be helpful in physics if we could narrow down the criterion to define physical reality.

Space - It has physical reality. It is the domain in which we live. The basic dimension is the length.

Time - Time is one of the greatest of mystery. The only thing I can say of time is that only the moment of present is real; the past and the future are only within the mind of man. Time is the natural unfolding of the present. Time is real - but only metaphysically so; it would always remain a mystery to man. What we do in physics is only to measure time, not to know the absolute reality of time; we use gadgets call clocks to measure time. So in physics, we only compare general motions to the motion of standard clocks and we call it the "arrow of time". Although time is metaphysical in itself, we may still say it has physical reality by convention - time is as real as we can measure it with a Cesium clock.

Mass - it surely has reality. We could hold a stone in our palm and feel its weight; we cannot move a mountain - only Mao Tze Tung holds the secret to moving a mountain.

Electric charge - surely it has physical reality; every electrical engineer would attest to it. But of course the physical reality of charge has some difficulty to understand. The only electrical phenomenon that the ancients commonly experience is lighting; to them, they are the work of gods. So man does not have a specific sensory organ that can detect electric influences directly. It is only the pass 200 years that we learn about electricity. But we need sophisticated instruments to detect and quantify charge. Still, we do not know much about the nature of the electric charge. We still cannot find any free and pure electric charge; but that we cannot currently find pure electric charge does not mean we will never find them. Who knows? The aether may be pure electric charge with 3 states: neutral, -ve, +ve.

Force - It is obvious that force in the ordinary sense has physical reality. But can we just carry over the notion of force in the everyday sense to force in physics and just say the same about the physical reality of force in physics.

There is a simple argument from Newtonian mechanics. It is said that classical mechanics could be formulated through Hamilton's principle that does not need Newton's second law and the concept of force. What is needed is only a concept of kinetic and potential energy. With the Hamiltonian formulation, force may entirely be eliminated from classical dynamics. So if the concept of force could even be eliminated, I am not too sure it is right to insist force has physical reality.

We "know" that the planets orbit the sun because of the gravitational force founded on the inverse square law. So the force of gravity explains the characteristic orbits of the planets. But again, the concept of gravity is not needed. Kepler's law about the area swept by a planet is sufficient. So again, we need not know that the sun pulls the planets with a physical force.

Electric potential and field, gravitational field, magnetic field - I know they are "physically real" as we could use instruments to detect electricity and magnetism. What it means is nothing other than electric and magnetic phenomena do exist in nature; but it is not a statement in physics. If we say the magnetic field has physical reality, it seems to me to be a very strong statement without any ambiguity. A field start to be physical only when it is pair with a test charge or a test current.

Sound and light - It is very interesting - or it may even be critical in physics - to know if sound and light have physical reality. If we are not born with ears, we may have to detect sound with sophisticated instruments in the same manner that we detect electric charge or the existence of the electron. We know sound cannot be produced in vacuum; so it is produced and transmitted only through matter. If we take the wave theory of light, then light is a wave just as sound is a wave. The waving in light is supposed to be the E and B fields. In an aether theory, we may assume that the aether somehow carries the energy of the source (of vibration) to a detector (causing detector to response). Here, there is some difficulty to say light has no physical reality. But then, light cannot transmit without a medium (in an aether theory). So what is the physicality in light propagation? Or do we say all waves in physics have physicality. Then, what about the complex waves in QM?

It may be this that differentiate if a quantity in physics has physical reality : A physical quantity has physical reality if the concept has physicality in itself. Current is physical - it is a count of charge per time. Magnetic field by itself has no physicality. Light is transmission of energy, but I am not too sure. Force has no physicality until it acts, but the result is only acceleration of mass. If energy has no physical reality, then light has no physicality... then E ≠ mc² - something without physical reality cannot be equal to something with physical reality.

Best regards,
Chan Rasjid.

[webolife]

Well, that is as clear as mud to me, sorry Chan...
Perhaps there is a language barrier. Perhaps, as I implied, all the barriers are linguistic.
I do hear loud and clear that you agree with me that space has physical reality.
For now, because I can observe and measure the effects of actions across space [analogous to the endpoints of a line segment], and not in between, then I am content with a theory that involves phenomenal space, of which vectors are the agents. As soon as I introduce a detector into the intervening space, I cut the intervening space short [ie. shorten the line segment], and am no longer measuring some alleged "between" action. I fully understand the geometric concept of betweenness [given A,B,C are colinear, B is between A and C if AB + BC = AC], but we are talking about an action transmitted from eg. A to B that traverses the space represented by the segment AB]
Maybe there is some kind of physical aether. If so, it has no effect on my view currently.
"I fein no hypotheses." -- Sir Isaac

[Webbman]

e=mc squared

c squared= speed of electric force
m= total mass/ concentration of force strands ( includes protons (force strand sphere), electrons(force strand ring), neutrons (proton and electron combined), EM and wild strands)
E= total potential for wave propagation.

light is not the fastest thing in the universe. It is however related to it.

so the total concentration of force strands times the speed of the electric force( the maximum rate which waves can travel along the force strands) is the total potential energy(or potential wave propagation) of a system.

[webolife]

I'm lost in your dimensions...
Speed of electric force is c-squared? Why? what observations?
Mass as concentration of force strands... pressure? density? could you mean vector density?
That would be a scalar (or are you counting it in atomic units?), then multiplied by what amounts to what exactly? How "fast" is c-squared?
What waves are propagating? E-field, as in EM theory? do you have a B-field too? Total potential of the system?
How do you justify your conglomeration of ideas? Do you have some examples?

[Webbman]

I'm lost in your dimensions...
Speed of electric force is c-squared? Why? what observations?
Mass as concentration of force strands... pressure? density? could you mean vector density?
That would be a scalar (or are you counting it in atomic units?), then multiplied by what amounts to what exactly? How "fast" is c-squared?
What waves are propagating? E-field, as in EM theory? do you have a B-field too? Total potential of the system?
How do you justify your conglomeration of ideas? Do you have some examples?

c2 is an approximation for near instant. The sun cannot know where the earth is at light speed. The galaxy cannot know where the sun is at light speed. Its just a really big number. Could be even bigger I suppose.

since a force strand is a basic aether unit if you want to know how much possible energy you might have you just need to know how many force strands you have. If you look any pictures of the universe you will notice that it is quite stranded in its nature, and most of the suns are along these strands. Even the best electrical wires are fine stranded. Since I believe in the aether, the space between does have something it in it. Can you find me some place in the solar system that exists naturally at 0 Kelvin? Even space is a few degrees above this to my knowledge.

at a fundamental level of the force strand there is no field. Only disturbances or waves of the strands knocking against eachother. If you align them it can make a field. The waves translate longditudally along the length of the strands but most are jumbled like a plate of spaghetti so it often appears that the waves propagate in all directions. However when they are aligned in circuits, such as in the case of magnetism and electricity, then you can much better control the waves.


if you look at conventional thought on this level they never describe the source of the energy. I'm describing that. Fundamentally you can only have one structure upon which everything else is built. Otherwise it isn't fundamental. I believe this structure is the only one that can fit.

Energy is the motion of the aether and mass is the concentration of the aether, where the aether is force strands.

[webolife]

Ok, before I get too far out of hand here, Webbman, have you looked into fermions and bosons?
I know few of us around here take much stock in quantum mechanical explanations of the universe, but we all skirt on the edge of probability to some extent. Your force strands behave fermion-like, whereas light is usually described as boson-ish. More about your strands:
1. How long are they?
2. How many fit into a space, ie. is there a maximum density?
3. How does it work for them to have to "go around" each other?
4. Is space a solid with respect to force strands?
5. Superfluid, like a Bose-Einstein condensate?
6. Is a force strand material, or non-material?

[Webbman]

Ok, before I get too far out of hand here, Webbman, have you looked into fermions and bosons?
I know few of us around here take much stock in quantum mechanical explanations of the universe, but we all skirt on the edge of probability to some extent. Your force strands behave fermion-like, whereas light is usually described as boson-ish. More about your strands:
1. How long are they?
2. How many fit into a space, ie. is there a maximum density?
3. How does it work for them to have to "go around" each other?
4. Is space a solid with respect to force strands?
5. Superfluid, like a Bose-Einstein condensate?
6. Is a force strand material, or non-material?

1. Don't know. I believe they can stretch and tend to coil to a equilibrium resembling a wavelength somewhere in or near the infrared range (the middle of the spectrum).

2. Force cant go through force. There are exceptions to this where they connect to each other but generally they don't go through each other so instead they twist around each other. Most of the time this is a spaghetti type configuration but also leads to all other things in the case of conventional matter and light.

3. Empty space would have few that would resemble the strandiness you see in the plasma configurations of space. places like the sun would represent high concentration. High concentration leads to conventional matter formation and EM. It clumps and agglutinates in neat and interesting ways: beads and cob webs.

4. Force strands are a solid with respect to each other but not solid with respect to anything else. They go though everything except themselves. We can see this better when we align them in magnets.

5. Neat things happen at temperature extremes.

6. Neither. It is force, the aether. It is made out of the same stuff as a magnetic field. If I bang it around enough I can feel it as heat. If I direct its motion properly I can use it as electricity.


well have to take this thread home now to the mad ideas section.

[webolife]

Ok, before I get too far out of hand here, Webbman, have you looked into fermions and bosons?
I know few of us around here take much stock in quantum mechanical explanations of the universe, but we all skirt on the edge of probability to some extent. Your force strands behave fermion-like, whereas light is usually described as boson-ish. More about your strands:
1. How long are they?
2. How many fit into a space, ie. is there a maximum density?
3. How does it work for them to have to "go around" each other?
4. Is space a solid with respect to force strands?
5. Superfluid, like a Bose-Einstein condensate?
6. Is a force strand material, or non-material?

1. Don't know. I believe they can stretch and tend to coil to a equilibrium resembling a wavelength somewhere in or near the infrared range (the middle of the spectrum).

2. Force cant go through force. There are exceptions to this where they connect to each other but generally they don't go through each other so instead they twist around each other. Most of the time this is a spaghetti type configuration but also leads to all other things in the case of conventional matter and light.

3. Empty space would have few that would resemble the strandiness you see in the plasma configurations of space. places like the sun would represent high concentration. High concentration leads to conventional matter formation and EM. It clumps and agglutinates in neat and interesting ways: beads and cob webs.

4. Force strands are a solid with respect to each other but not solid with respect to anything else. They go though everything except themselves. We can see this better when we align them in magnets.

5. Neat things happen at temperature extremes.

6. Neither. It is force, the aether. It is made out of the same stuff as a magnetic field. If I bang it around enough I can feel it as heat. If I direct its motion properly I can use it as electricity.


well have to take this thread home now to the mad ideas section.

To the NIAMI we go then. Hopefully you will further try to expound on phrases such as:
1. "equilibrium resembling a wavelength" ????
2. "forces twisting around each other" -- forces are describable as vectors and they most certainly DO "GO" THROUGH each other... a magnet below a table, an indoor radio antenna, or light seen through glass are obvious examples... the resistant, opaque, or resonant materials also apply "normal" force opposite to the action...
3. "it clumps and agglutinates" -- this "it" is your force "strands" right? what would possibly cause them to "agglutinate"??
4. "strands go through everything accept themselves" -- why, what observation, rationale, or examples have you?
5. "neither" [non-material nor material] -- that would make them non existent then, right?

Please understand, I think you have a good fundamental concept, it just needs to be explained more sensibly.

[Webbman]

Ok, before I get too far out of hand here, Webbman, have you looked into fermions and bosons?
I know few of us around here take much stock in quantum mechanical explanations of the universe, but we all skirt on the edge of probability to some extent. Your force strands behave fermion-like, whereas light is usually described as boson-ish. More about your strands:
1. How long are they?
2. How many fit into a space, ie. is there a maximum density?
3. How does it work for them to have to "go around" each other?
4. Is space a solid with respect to force strands?
5. Superfluid, like a Bose-Einstein condensate?
6. Is a force strand material, or non-material?

1. Don't know. I believe they can stretch and tend to coil to a equilibrium resembling a wavelength somewhere in or near the infrared range (the middle of the spectrum).

2. Force cant go through force. There are exceptions to this where they connect to each other but generally they don't go through each other so instead they twist around each other. Most of the time this is a spaghetti type configuration but also leads to all other things in the case of conventional matter and light.

3. Empty space would have few that would resemble the strandiness you see in the plasma configurations of space. places like the sun would represent high concentration. High concentration leads to conventional matter formation and EM. It clumps and agglutinates in neat and interesting ways: beads and cob webs.

4. Force strands are a solid with respect to each other but not solid with respect to anything else. They go though everything except themselves. We can see this better when we align them in magnets.

5. Neat things happen at temperature extremes.

6. Neither. It is force, the aether. It is made out of the same stuff as a magnetic field. If I bang it around enough I can feel it as heat. If I direct its motion properly I can use it as electricity.


well have to take this thread home now to the mad ideas section.

To the NIAMI we go then. Hopefully you will further try to expound on phrases such as:
1. "equilibrium resembling a wavelength" ????
2. "forces twisting around each other" -- forces are describable as vectors and they most certainly DO "GO" THROUGH each other... a magnet below a table, an indoor radio antenna, or light seen through glass are obvious examples... the resistant, opaque, or resonant materials also apply "normal" force opposite to the action...
3. "it clumps and agglutinates" -- this "it" is your force "strands" right? what would possibly cause them to "agglutinate"??
4. "strands go through everything accept themselves" -- why, what observation, rationale, or examples have you?
5. "neither" [non-material nor material] -- that would make them non existent then, right?

Please understand, I think you have a good fundamental concept, it just needs to be explained more sensibly.

1. If you consider the aether to be the medium and raw material then there is likely to be a preferred shape of a force strand. I suspect that they like to curl like curly hair and are not naturally a straight line. The middle of the spectrum would be a good place for a "pool" of material to draw from. The diameter of the curl. I suspect its in the infrared range.

2. you forget the structure of anything is mostly space. If all that's really standing in your way is an electron then I can push it out of the way. Doing so will cause a ripple on the electron as the force moves by. Keep in mind that when generating electricity from a generator that the position of the wire in relation to the magnetic field does matter. If it is out of alignment you wont generate much electricity. It only matters where the wave originates. you can bend the wire all you want after that.

And of course two magnets of the same polarity end will repel each other. They cannot move through. The only thing they can do is cause a realignment and we see this when we turn the magnet around. They still haven't gone through.

3. Not to say that its not everywhere but I suspect the density of strands is not equally distributed. Otherwise there would be no structures at all. Matter (protons, electrons, neutrons, elements, compounds, materials) is the ultimate expression of this unequal distribution.

4. I believe magnetism, which I see as an alignment of force strands easily demonstrates that they don't go through each other. That is not to say they wont realign if there is a reason to do so. My theory is that an individual strand will not go through another strand. Its the basis for all waves (energy) and matter.

5. They are what they are. I suppose you could call them the matter of the universe where their motion is the energy of the universe if you wanted. I would not use matter per say because that is reserved for higher order structures. is light matter? Is an electron matter? what if both are the same thing with a different shape? A strand of force is exactly that.

[webolife]

I want to understand.
We might have some important things in common.
I just can't tell.
Probably others reading this are amused because what I say may sound as incomprehensible.

I'm holding the end of a ruler in the palm of my hand and push the other end of it against the wall.
What is happening to the "force strands"? Where are they and how are they behaving?
I shine a flashlight against the wall. What is happening to the "force strands"?

[Webbman]

I want to understand.
We might have some important things in common.
I just can't tell.
Probably others reading this are amused because what I say may sound as incomprehensible.

I'm holding the end of a ruler in the palm of my hand and push the other end of it against the wall.
What is happening to the "force strands"? Where are they and how are they behaving?
I shine a flashlight against the wall. What is happening to the "force strands"?

what your getting at is the transference of wave energy from one place to another. The ruler example is through kinetic energy through the material of the ruler and the second is light energy through the flashlight. Both are the same transmission of waves along force strands using different methods to hit the wall.

[kodybatill]

Hello all!!!! I admit, I did not read all of this, but I would like to ask some things:


There is hydrogen in the sun. The sun creates sound and light as a product of the hydrogen and other elements burning, or breaking apart and then dividing their own force. This sound and light flies through space, and even carries some physical particles with it. Now when this sound and light and particles from the hydrogen reaches earth, how does it change?

Thank you, bringing it back to the base line,

Kody Tillotson!

[Webbman]

well charged particles like electrons and protons would be ensnared by the earths magnetic field. Light would just travel until it hit something and bounce around. They only change when they transfer their energy.

Around here most people believe that the sun is electrical in nature and doesn't burn hydrogen fuel in its core. Rather fusion takes place on the surface where its hottest and that is where the elements form.

I like to believe that the sun is powered externally from the galaxy through an induction process which is aided by forming planets with their own induction processes that act as magnets in a generator and assist the sun in creating additional electrical energy to keep it going (and grow). The sun also creates all matter and electromagnetic radiation through utilization of the aether ( force strands). An endless supply of force is directed to the sun from the galaxy. So a long story short the galaxy produces suns in an effort to grow larger.

other people have different ideas of course.