Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > sci.physics.relativity > #479238 > unrolled thread
| Started by | kenseto <setoken@att.net> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2018-12-07 06:08 -0800 |
| Last post | 2018-12-15 19:51 -0800 |
| Articles | 20 on this page of 158 — 14 participants |
Back to article view | Back to sci.physics.relativity
What is a field? kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2018-12-07 06:08 -0800
Re: What is a field? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-12-07 16:58 +0000
Re: What is a field? paulcardinale0@gmail.com - 2018-12-07 11:58 -0800
Re: What is a field? kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2018-12-08 06:05 -0800
Re: What is a field? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-12-08 14:13 +0000
Re: What is a field? JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2018-12-07 11:39 -0800
Re: What is a field? kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2018-12-08 06:28 -0800
Re: What is a field? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-12-08 15:35 +0000
Re: What is a field? kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2018-12-08 10:33 -0800
Re: What is a field? JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2018-12-08 10:43 -0800
Re: What is a field? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-12-08 19:15 +0000
Re: What is a field? moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2018-12-08 17:52 +0000
Re: What is a field? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-12-08 18:21 +0000
Re: What is a field? kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2018-12-08 10:26 -0800
Re: What is a field? moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2018-12-08 18:37 +0000
Re: What is a field? Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2018-12-08 20:18 +0100
Re: What is a field? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-12-08 19:56 +0000
Re: What is a field? JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2018-12-08 21:51 -0800
Re: What is a field? kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2018-12-09 08:20 -0800
Re: What is a field? JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2018-12-09 12:44 -0800
Re: What is a field? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-12-09 22:20 +0000
Re: What is a field? kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2018-12-10 08:04 -0800
Re: What is a field? JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2018-12-10 10:31 -0800
Re: What is a field? kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2018-12-10 13:33 -0800
Re: What is a field? JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2018-12-10 13:53 -0800
Re: What is a field? kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2018-12-11 06:16 -0800
Re: What is a field? moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2018-12-11 14:41 +0000
Re: What is a field? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-12-10 22:00 +0000
Re: What is a field? JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2018-12-10 14:13 -0800
Re: What is a field? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-12-10 23:03 +0000
Re: What is a field? JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2018-12-10 15:46 -0800
Re: What is a field? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-12-11 01:37 +0000
Re: What is a field? Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2018-12-10 16:26 -0800
Re: What is a field? kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2018-12-11 07:32 -0800
Re: What is a field? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-12-12 13:53 +0000
Re: What is a field? kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2018-12-13 07:27 -0800
Re: What is a field? kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2018-12-11 07:27 -0800
Re: What is a field? moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2018-12-11 16:00 +0000
Re: What is a field? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-12-10 21:56 +0000
Re: What is a field? kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2018-12-11 06:51 -0800
Re: What is a field? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-12-11 18:42 +0000
Re: What is a field? kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2018-12-11 18:09 -0800
Re: What is a field? JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2018-12-11 20:18 -0800
Re: What is a field? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-12-12 13:53 +0000
Re: What is a field? kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2018-12-13 07:21 -0800
Re: What is a field? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-12-13 18:32 +0000
Re: What is a field? kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2018-12-13 13:20 -0800
Re: What is a field? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-12-13 21:46 +0000
Re: What is a field? JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2018-12-13 10:47 -0800
Re: What is a field? moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2018-12-14 05:35 +0000
Re: What is a field? kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2018-12-14 15:13 -0800
Re: What is a field? JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2018-12-14 15:22 -0800
Re: What is a field? kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2018-12-15 14:05 -0800
Re: What is a field? JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2018-12-15 23:27 -0800
Re: What is a field? benj <benj.fake@gmail.com> - 2018-12-12 13:04 -0500
Re: What is a field? benj <benj.fake@gmail.com> - 2018-12-08 23:30 -0500
Re: What is a field? kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2018-12-09 08:12 -0800
Re: What is a field? Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2018-12-09 17:19 +0100
Re: What is a field? Rich Carpenter <lcug@kigcohc.pa> - 2018-12-09 00:32 +0000
Re: What is a field? JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2018-12-08 10:42 -0800
Re: What is a field? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-12-08 19:15 +0000
Re: What is a field? benj <benj.fake@gmail.com> - 2018-12-08 23:29 -0500
Re: What is a field? kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2018-12-10 06:18 -0800
Re: What is a field? JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2018-12-10 07:26 -0800
Re: What is a field? kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2018-12-10 08:11 -0800
Re: What is a field? moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2018-12-10 17:07 +0000
Re: What is a field? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-12-10 22:00 +0000
Re: What is a field? kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2018-12-11 07:14 -0800
Re: What is a field? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-12-11 18:42 +0000
Re: What is a field? kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2018-12-12 04:56 -0800
Re: What is a field? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-12-12 13:53 +0000
Re: What is a field? kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2018-12-09 07:54 -0800
Re: What is a field? kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2018-12-09 07:58 -0800
Re: What is a field? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-12-09 22:20 +0000
Re: What is a field? benj <benj.fake@gmail.com> - 2018-12-12 13:00 -0500
Re: What is a field? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-12-12 18:14 +0000
Re: What is a field? benj <benj.fake@gmail.com> - 2018-12-13 10:59 -0500
Re: What is a field? kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2018-12-13 08:51 -0800
Re: What is a field? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-12-13 18:32 +0000
Re: What is a field? kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2018-12-13 13:23 -0800
Re: What is a field? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-12-13 21:46 +0000
Re: What is a field? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-12-13 23:36 +0000
Re: What is a field? benj <benj.fake@gmail.com> - 2018-12-13 20:06 -0500
Re: What is a field? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-12-14 12:21 +0000
Re: What is a field? kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2018-12-14 15:16 -0800
Re: What is a field? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-12-15 02:14 +0000
Re: What is a field? benj <benj.fake@gmail.com> - 2018-12-13 19:53 -0500
Re: What is a field? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-12-14 12:21 +0000
Re: What is a field? JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2018-12-12 10:38 -0800
Re: What is a field? mitchrae3323@gmail.com - 2018-12-07 12:48 -0800
Re: What is a field? JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2018-12-07 12:51 -0800
Re: What is a field? "Ross A. Finlayson" <ross.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2018-12-08 12:22 -0800
Re: What is a field? Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2018-12-08 22:05 +0100
Re: What is a field? "Ross A. Finlayson" <ross.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2018-12-08 16:24 -0800
Re: What is a field? benj <benj.fake@gmail.com> - 2018-12-08 23:46 -0500
Re: What is a field? "Ross A. Finlayson" <ross.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2018-12-08 22:41 -0800
Re: What is a field? "Ross A. Finlayson" <ross.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2018-12-09 14:08 -0800
Re: What is a field? "Ross A. Finlayson" <ross.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2018-12-09 14:44 -0800
Re: What is a field? benj <benj.fake@gmail.com> - 2018-12-12 13:36 -0500
Re: What is a field? JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2018-12-08 21:56 -0800
Re: What is a field? "Ross A. Finlayson" <ross.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2018-12-08 22:54 -0800
Re: What is a field? "Ross A. Finlayson" <ross.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2018-12-08 23:22 -0800
Re: What is a field? "Ross A. Finlayson" <ross.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2018-12-09 12:35 -0800
Re: What is a field? Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2018-12-07 22:01 +0100
Re: What is a field? kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2018-12-08 06:42 -0800
Re: What is a field? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-12-08 15:35 +0000
Re: What is a field? kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2018-12-08 10:21 -0800
Re: What is a field? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-12-08 19:15 +0000
Re: What is a field? kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2018-12-08 14:17 -0800
Re: What is a field? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-12-08 22:42 +0000
Re: What is a field? kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2018-12-08 14:58 -0800
Re: What is a field? moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2018-12-09 01:22 +0000
Re: What is a field? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-12-09 13:07 +0000
Re: What is a field? benj <benj.fake@gmail.com> - 2018-12-08 23:26 -0500
Re: What is a field? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-12-09 13:07 +0000
Re: What is a field? kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2018-12-08 10:27 -0800
Re: What is a field? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-12-08 19:15 +0000
Re: What is a field? benj <benj.fake@gmail.com> - 2018-12-08 23:23 -0500
Re: What is a field? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-12-09 13:07 +0000
Re: What is a field? kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2018-12-09 14:19 -0800
Re: What is a field? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-12-09 22:25 +0000
Re: What is a field? kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2018-12-10 07:54 -0800
Re: What is a field? moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2018-12-10 17:15 +0000
Re: What is a field? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-12-10 21:41 +0000
Re: What is a field? benj <benj.fake@gmail.com> - 2018-12-12 13:14 -0500
Re: What is a field? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-12-12 18:18 +0000
Re: What is a field? Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2018-12-08 20:09 +0100
Re: What is a field? kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2018-12-08 14:28 -0800
Re: What is a field? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-12-08 22:42 +0000
Re: What is a field? kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2018-12-08 14:56 -0800
Re: What is a field? Dirk Van de moortel <dirkvandemoortel@notmail.com> - 2018-12-09 00:06 +0100
Re: What is a field? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-12-09 00:13 +0000
Re: What is a field? benj <benj.fake@gmail.com> - 2018-12-08 23:44 -0500
Re: What is a field? kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2018-12-09 09:19 -0800
Re: What is a field? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-12-09 22:22 +0000
Re: What is a field? kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2018-12-10 07:50 -0800
Re: What is a field? moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2018-12-10 17:09 +0000
Re: What is a field? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-12-10 21:41 +0000
Re: What is a field? benj <benj.fake@gmail.com> - 2018-12-08 23:37 -0500
Re: What is a field? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-12-09 13:07 +0000
Re: What is a field? kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2018-12-09 08:40 -0800
Re: What is a field? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-12-09 22:22 +0000
Re: What is a field? kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2018-12-10 08:07 -0800
Re: What is a field? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-12-10 21:56 +0000
Re: What is a field? kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2018-12-11 07:07 -0800
Re: What is a field? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-12-11 18:42 +0000
Re: What is a field? kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2018-12-11 18:19 -0800
Re: What is a field? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-12-12 13:53 +0000
Re: What is a field? kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2018-12-13 07:54 -0800
Re: What is a field? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-12-13 18:32 +0000
Re: What is a field? Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2018-12-09 01:24 +0100
Re: What is a field? benj <benj.fake@gmail.com> - 2018-12-08 23:42 -0500
Re: What is a field? kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2018-12-09 10:08 -0800
Re: What is a field? Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2018-12-09 19:36 +0100
Re: What is a field? kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2018-12-08 14:43 -0800
Re: What is a field? Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2018-12-09 11:51 +0100
Re: What is a field? carleto4157990662@gmail.com - 2018-12-07 13:42 -0800
Re: What is a field? "Chris M. Thomasson" <invalid_chris_thomasson@invalid.invalid> - 2018-12-15 19:51 -0800
Page 6 of 8 — ← Prev page 1 2 3 4 5 [6] 7 8 Next page →
| From | "Ross A. Finlayson" <ross.finlayson@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-12-08 22:54 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <f50269e7-ab63-4316-b214-cd6a33b142eb@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #479434 |
On Saturday, December 8, 2018 at 9:56:58 PM UTC-8, JanPB wrote:
> On Saturday, December 8, 2018 at 12:22:30 PM UTC-8, Ross A. Finlayson wrote:
> > On Friday, December 7, 2018 at 12:51:33 PM UTC-8, JanPB wrote:
> > > On Friday, December 7, 2018 at 12:48:40 PM UTC-8, mitchr...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > > On Friday, December 7, 2018 at 6:08:50 AM UTC-8, kenseto wrote:
> > > > > According to Steven Weinberg: A field is a sort of stress in space, something like the various sorts of stress that are possible within a solid body.
> > > > >
> > > > > This suggests that space is some sort of solid body--the aether?
> > > > >
> > > > > Based on this, I developed a structured and elastic aether called the E-Matrix that fits Weinberg’s definition of the field. The E-Matrix leads to the development of a theory of everything called Model Mechanics. The main features of Mode lMechanics are as follows:
> > > > >
> > > > > It offers realistic processes for the origin of all visible matters.
> > > > > It explains the cell division and the consciousness processes.
> > > > > It provides a mechanism to amalgamate all the forces of nature.
> > > > > It can be validated experimentally.
> > > > > It gives rise to an Improved Relativity Theory (IRT).
> > > > > It gives rise to a new theory of gravity called Doppler Theory of Gravity (DTG)
> > > > > It includes Special Theory of Relativity and General Theory of Relativity as subsets.
> > > > > It provides physical models for all the math of Quantum Mechanics.
> > > > > It postulates a new repulsive fifth force identified as the CRE force.
> > > > > It gives a physical explanation for the charge of a particle.
> > > > > It gives physical explanations all the weird results of all quantum experiments.
> > > > > It explains the structures of atoms.
> > > > >
> > > > > A book on Model Mechanics is available in the following link:
> > > > > http://www.modelmechanics.org/2016ibook.pdf
> > > >
> > > > Fields are the mathematical like.
> > >
> > > Basically, yes. To read anything MORE into them is only justified on a
> > > case by case basis.
> > >
> > > --
> > > Jan
> >
> > Fields are mathematical vector spaces with usually
> > but not necessarily continuous (i.e. smooth)
> > gradiations in values associated with each point
> > of the vector space.
>
> Well, "continuous" and "smooth" are different things (although the latter
> implies the former). And fields don't have to be continuous, see e.g. the
> classical case of the E field across a surface charge.
>
> > Eg: "Higgs field", not a field, "Higgs classical
> > field", a field.
> >
> > I.e., a physics' "field" is not a mathematics' "field",
> > (though a mathematics' field is a trivial and zero-ed
> > out physics' field).
> >
> > A physics' field basically reflect quantities as
> > throughout a continuous (smooth) manifold, and
> > for some inclusive definition of "continuous",
> > "continuous" suffices (for smooth).
>
> Too garbled to comment in detail...
>
> --
> Jan
It's not much comment.
A scalar field basically defines regions by
their connectedness.
Of course, all of physics scalar fields: are
not having any be everywhere discontinuous,
that exist, where most of "mathematics' scalar
fields" are mostly everywhere discontinuous
(the manifold defined by the scalar part),
i.e., they're without "example in the physical
interpretation".
You need not excuse me, this isn't particularly
strident and not any particular claim, i.e. this
is simple enough bread-and-butter, but then about
Higgs as the interface of the high-energy particle
experiment that otherwise is no different than the
standard particles having mass themselves as their
state as why they have mass, except in the high
energy that they would split, the Higgs boson as
"the last particle in the Standard Model" is also
the first one outside.
It would seem more relevant to have that as a manner
of speaking than "bigger and bigger bosons forever":
"the Standard Model is dead, long live the Standard Model".
It's kind of like talking about "Gravity" in "GR":
what gravity? The standard model ("of particle physics")
is the particle physicists', then for notions like these
days' supergravity (a particle theory) for quantum gravity
to be explaining what Einstein referred to as the
"total field" or what some might call Mach-ian.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Ross A. Finlayson" <ross.finlayson@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-12-08 23:22 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <80b2627d-69b6-4564-b571-18539df27eb7@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #479437 |
On Saturday, December 8, 2018 at 10:54:54 PM UTC-8, Ross A. Finlayson wrote:
> On Saturday, December 8, 2018 at 9:56:58 PM UTC-8, JanPB wrote:
> > On Saturday, December 8, 2018 at 12:22:30 PM UTC-8, Ross A. Finlayson wrote:
> > > On Friday, December 7, 2018 at 12:51:33 PM UTC-8, JanPB wrote:
> > > > On Friday, December 7, 2018 at 12:48:40 PM UTC-8, mitchr...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > > > On Friday, December 7, 2018 at 6:08:50 AM UTC-8, kenseto wrote:
> > > > > > According to Steven Weinberg: A field is a sort of stress in space, something like the various sorts of stress that are possible within a solid body.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > This suggests that space is some sort of solid body--the aether?
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Based on this, I developed a structured and elastic aether called the E-Matrix that fits Weinberg’s definition of the field. The E-Matrix leads to the development of a theory of everything called Model Mechanics. The main features of Mode lMechanics are as follows:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > It offers realistic processes for the origin of all visible matters.
> > > > > > It explains the cell division and the consciousness processes.
> > > > > > It provides a mechanism to amalgamate all the forces of nature.
> > > > > > It can be validated experimentally.
> > > > > > It gives rise to an Improved Relativity Theory (IRT).
> > > > > > It gives rise to a new theory of gravity called Doppler Theory of Gravity (DTG)
> > > > > > It includes Special Theory of Relativity and General Theory of Relativity as subsets.
> > > > > > It provides physical models for all the math of Quantum Mechanics.
> > > > > > It postulates a new repulsive fifth force identified as the CRE force.
> > > > > > It gives a physical explanation for the charge of a particle.
> > > > > > It gives physical explanations all the weird results of all quantum experiments.
> > > > > > It explains the structures of atoms.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > A book on Model Mechanics is available in the following link:
> > > > > > http://www.modelmechanics.org/2016ibook.pdf
> > > > >
> > > > > Fields are the mathematical like.
> > > >
> > > > Basically, yes. To read anything MORE into them is only justified on a
> > > > case by case basis.
> > > >
> > > > --
> > > > Jan
> > >
> > > Fields are mathematical vector spaces with usually
> > > but not necessarily continuous (i.e. smooth)
> > > gradiations in values associated with each point
> > > of the vector space.
> >
> > Well, "continuous" and "smooth" are different things (although the latter
> > implies the former). And fields don't have to be continuous, see e.g. the
> > classical case of the E field across a surface charge.
> >
> > > Eg: "Higgs field", not a field, "Higgs classical
> > > field", a field.
> > >
> > > I.e., a physics' "field" is not a mathematics' "field",
> > > (though a mathematics' field is a trivial and zero-ed
> > > out physics' field).
> > >
> > > A physics' field basically reflect quantities as
> > > throughout a continuous (smooth) manifold, and
> > > for some inclusive definition of "continuous",
> > > "continuous" suffices (for smooth).
> >
> > Too garbled to comment in detail...
> >
> > --
> > Jan
>
> It's not much comment.
>
> A scalar field basically defines regions by
> their connectedness.
>
> Of course, all of physics scalar fields: are
> not having any be everywhere discontinuous,
> that exist, where most of "mathematics' scalar
> fields" are mostly everywhere discontinuous
> (the manifold defined by the scalar part),
> i.e., they're without "example in the physical
> interpretation".
>
> You need not excuse me, this isn't particularly
> strident and not any particular claim, i.e. this
> is simple enough bread-and-butter, but then about
> Higgs as the interface of the high-energy particle
> experiment that otherwise is no different than the
> standard particles having mass themselves as their
> state as why they have mass, except in the high
> energy that they would split, the Higgs boson as
> "the last particle in the Standard Model" is also
> the first one outside.
>
> It would seem more relevant to have that as a manner
> of speaking than "bigger and bigger bosons forever":
> "the Standard Model is dead, long live the Standard Model".
>
> It's kind of like talking about "Gravity" in "GR":
> what gravity? The standard model ("of particle physics")
> is the particle physicists', then for notions like these
> days' supergravity (a particle theory) for quantum gravity
> to be explaining what Einstein referred to as the
> "total field" or what some might call Mach-ian.
Here is some reading from Kevin Brown's "Reflections on Relativity",
"The Field of All Fields": https://www.mathpages.com/rr/s4-06/4-06.htm .
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Ross A. Finlayson" <ross.finlayson@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-12-09 12:35 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <8eceb9f3-ad07-4a1f-a611-b10b7b930c10@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #479443 |
On Saturday, December 8, 2018 at 11:42:08 PM UTC-8, Ross A. Finlayson wrote:
> On Saturday, December 8, 2018 at 10:54:54 PM UTC-8, Ross A. Finlayson wrote:
> > On Saturday, December 8, 2018 at 9:56:58 PM UTC-8, JanPB wrote:
> > > On Saturday, December 8, 2018 at 12:22:30 PM UTC-8, Ross A. Finlayson wrote:
> > > > On Friday, December 7, 2018 at 12:51:33 PM UTC-8, JanPB wrote:
> > > > > On Friday, December 7, 2018 at 12:48:40 PM UTC-8, mitchr...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > > > > On Friday, December 7, 2018 at 6:08:50 AM UTC-8, kenseto wrote:
> > > > > > > According to Steven Weinberg: A field is a sort of stress in space, something like the various sorts of stress that are possible within a solid body.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > This suggests that space is some sort of solid body--the aether?
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Based on this, I developed a structured and elastic aether called the E-Matrix that fits Weinberg’s definition of the field. The E-Matrix leads to the development of a theory of everything called Model Mechanics. The main features of Mode lMechanics are as follows:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > It offers realistic processes for the origin of all visible matters.
> > > > > > > It explains the cell division and the consciousness processes.
> > > > > > > It provides a mechanism to amalgamate all the forces of nature.
> > > > > > > It can be validated experimentally.
> > > > > > > It gives rise to an Improved Relativity Theory (IRT).
> > > > > > > It gives rise to a new theory of gravity called Doppler Theory of Gravity (DTG)
> > > > > > > It includes Special Theory of Relativity and General Theory of Relativity as subsets.
> > > > > > > It provides physical models for all the math of Quantum Mechanics.
> > > > > > > It postulates a new repulsive fifth force identified as the CRE force.
> > > > > > > It gives a physical explanation for the charge of a particle.
> > > > > > > It gives physical explanations all the weird results of all quantum experiments.
> > > > > > > It explains the structures of atoms.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > A book on Model Mechanics is available in the following link:
> > > > > > > http://www.modelmechanics.org/2016ibook.pdf
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Fields are the mathematical like.
> > > > >
> > > > > Basically, yes. To read anything MORE into them is only justified on a
> > > > > case by case basis.
> > > > >
> > > > > --
> > > > > Jan
> > > >
> > > > Fields are mathematical vector spaces with usually
> > > > but not necessarily continuous (i.e. smooth)
> > > > gradiations in values associated with each point
> > > > of the vector space.
> > >
> > > Well, "continuous" and "smooth" are different things (although the latter
> > > implies the former). And fields don't have to be continuous, see e.g. the
> > > classical case of the E field across a surface charge.
> > >
> > > > Eg: "Higgs field", not a field, "Higgs classical
> > > > field", a field.
> > > >
> > > > I.e., a physics' "field" is not a mathematics' "field",
> > > > (though a mathematics' field is a trivial and zero-ed
> > > > out physics' field).
> > > >
> > > > A physics' field basically reflect quantities as
> > > > throughout a continuous (smooth) manifold, and
> > > > for some inclusive definition of "continuous",
> > > > "continuous" suffices (for smooth).
> > >
> > > Too garbled to comment in detail...
> > >
> > > --
> > > Jan
> >
> > It's not much comment.
> >
> > A scalar field basically defines regions by
> > their connectedness.
> >
> > Of course, all of physics scalar fields: are
> > not having any be everywhere discontinuous,
> > that exist, where most of "mathematics' scalar
> > fields" are mostly everywhere discontinuous
> > (the manifold defined by the scalar part),
> > i.e., they're without "example in the physical
> > interpretation".
> >
> > You need not excuse me, this isn't particularly
> > strident and not any particular claim, i.e. this
> > is simple enough bread-and-butter, but then about
> > Higgs as the interface of the high-energy particle
> > experiment that otherwise is no different than the
> > standard particles having mass themselves as their
> > state as why they have mass, except in the high
> > energy that they would split, the Higgs boson as
> > "the last particle in the Standard Model" is also
> > the first one outside.
> >
> > It would seem more relevant to have that as a manner
> > of speaking than "bigger and bigger bosons forever":
> > "the Standard Model is dead, long live the Standard Model".
> >
> > It's kind of like talking about "Gravity" in "GR":
> > what gravity? The standard model ("of particle physics")
> > is the particle physicists', then for notions like these
> > days' supergravity (a particle theory) for quantum gravity
> > to be explaining what Einstein referred to as the
> > "total field" or what some might call Mach-ian.
>
> Here is some reading from Kevin Brown's "Reflections on Relativity",
> "The Field of All Fields": https://www.mathpages.com/rr/s4-06/4-06.htm .
One might readily find this from searching for "Einstein
total field", Einstein's article in Science, "Considerations
Concerning the Fundaments of Theoretical Physics", 1940
https://static1.squarespace.com/static/532a9587e4b085a89f267c62/t/551f70a3e4b085a7c1ba05a7/1428123811506/Einstein+commentary+in+Science+1940+.pdf
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-12-07 22:01 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <a8def99f-cc96-c6c3-0c12-a0c59a35aa39@PointedEars.de> |
| In reply to | #479238 |
kenseto wrote:
> According to Steven Weinberg: A field is a sort of stress in space, something like the various sorts of stress that are possible within a solid body.
Where and when did he write/say this?
IIRC, we have been over this here.
A field in physics is simply an object in models where every point in a
mathematical space is assigned a value:
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Field_(physics)>
For example, there can be a temperature field that describes the temperature
in a room in every point in the room. If it describes the temperature at a
particular time, it is a 3-dimension scalar field (since temperature is a
scalar quantity). [I mention this particularly because we did calculations
on and plots of such a field in freshman physics.[1]]
Other fields that should be well-known are the electric field and the
magnetic field. These are vector fields (E⃗ and B⃗, respectively) because
not only do they have a strength (which is a scalar); the field lines, along
which a charged particle would move freely as it is accelerated by the
forces of the fields, have a direction. [E.g. for the electric field
between two capacitor plates only from one particular plate to the other
(with direct current). Again, you do calculations on these fields in
freshman physics.]
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capacitor>
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electromagnetic_coil>
There can also be a field describing the gravitational potential (V or Φ),
force (F⃗), or acceleration (g⃗) in every point in 3-dimensional space: the
gravitational field. The (gravitational) potential is a scalar (no arrow
above the symbol), so a field based on it would be a 3-dimensional scalar
field. Force and acceleration are both vectors (arrow above the symbol, or
bold font; they have a magnitude and a direction), so a gravitational field
based on either of those quantities would be a (3-dimensional) vector field
instead. [dito]
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravitational_field>
In general relativity, the gravitational field is a 4 (1+3 or
3+1)-dimensional *tensor* field, defined by the Einstein *tensor* which
describes the curvature of spacetime corresponding to the density of energy
and momentum. Hence “Einstein *Field* Equations (for gravitation)”.
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Einstein_field_equations>
[Hopefully I do not have to remind you of this *again* next year.]
[1] <https://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=plot+exp(-sqrt(x%5E2+%2B+y%5E2))>
(the greater the elevation, the higher the temperature; you can imagine
a heat source in the center of a room)
--
PointedEars
Twitter: @PointedEars2
Please do not cc me. / Bitte keine Kopien per E-Mail.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | kenseto <setoken@att.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-12-08 06:42 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <b4b4ec75-31f3-4ba9-b992-64d4101ee2c5@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #479271 |
On Friday, December 7, 2018 at 4:01:34 PM UTC-5, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote: > kenseto wrote: > > According to Steven Weinberg: A field is a sort of stress in space, something like the various sorts of stress that are possible within a solid body. > > Where and when did he write/say this? > > IIRC, we have been over this here. > > A field in physics is simply an object in models where every point in a > mathematical space is assigned a value: So Weinberg’s description that a field is the stress exists at every point in a solid body is very close to the correct description. In any case what is mathematical space? Is it not a solid body? If it is not a solid body how can material objects interact with the stresses exist within it? > > <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Field_(physics)> > > For example, there can be a temperature field that describes the temperature > in a room in every point in the room. If it describes the temperature at a > particular time, it is a 3-dimension scalar field (since temperature is a > scalar quantity). [I mention this particularly because we did calculations > on and plots of such a field in freshman physics.[1]] > > Other fields that should be well-known are the electric field and the > magnetic field. These are vector fields (E⃗ and B⃗, respectively) because > not only do they have a strength (which is a scalar); the field lines, along > which a charged particle would move freely as it is accelerated by the > forces of the fields, have a direction. [E.g. for the electric field > between two capacitor plates only from one particular plate to the other > (with direct current). Again, you do calculations on these fields in > freshman physics.] > > <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capacitor> > <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electromagnetic_coil> > > There can also be a field describing the gravitational potential (V or Φ), > force (F⃗), or acceleration (g⃗) in every point in 3-dimensional space: the > gravitational field. The (gravitational) potential is a scalar (no arrow > above the symbol), so a field based on it would be a 3-dimensional scalar > field. Force and acceleration are both vectors (arrow above the symbol, or > bold font; they have a magnitude and a direction), so a gravitational field > based on either of those quantities would be a (3-dimensional) vector field > instead. [dito] > > <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravitational_field> > > In general relativity, the gravitational field is a 4 (1+3 or > 3+1)-dimensional *tensor* field, defined by the Einstein *tensor* which > describes the curvature of spacetime corresponding to the density of energy > and momentum. Hence “Einstein *Field* Equations (for gravitation)”. > > <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Einstein_field_equations> > > [Hopefully I do not have to remind you of this *again* next year.] > > [1] <https://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=plot+exp(-sqrt(x%5E2+%2B+y%5E2))> > (the greater the elevation, the higher the temperature; you can imagine > a heat source in the center of a room) > -- > PointedEars > > Twitter: @PointedEars2 > Please do not cc me. / Bitte keine Kopien per E-Mail.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-12-08 15:35 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <pugobg$1c8p$2@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #479331 |
kenseto <setoken@att.net> wrote: > On Friday, December 7, 2018 at 4:01:34 PM UTC-5, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote: >> kenseto wrote: >>> According to Steven Weinberg: A field is a sort of stress in space, >>> something like the various sorts of stress that are possible within a solid body. >> >> Where and when did he write/say this? >> >> IIRC, we have been over this here. >> >> A field in physics is simply an object in models where every point in a >> mathematical space is assigned a value: > > So Weinberg’s description that a field is the stress exists at every > point in a solid body is very close to the correct description. In any > case what is mathematical space? Is it not a solid body? If it is not a > solid body how can material objects interact with the stresses exist within it? Material objects interact with more things than other material objects. > >> >> <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Field_(physics)> >> >> For example, there can be a temperature field that describes the temperature >> in a room in every point in the room. If it describes the temperature at a >> particular time, it is a 3-dimension scalar field (since temperature is a >> scalar quantity). [I mention this particularly because we did calculations >> on and plots of such a field in freshman physics.[1]] >> >> Other fields that should be well-known are the electric field and the >> magnetic field. These are vector fields (E⃗ and B⃗, respectively) because >> not only do they have a strength (which is a scalar); the field lines, along >> which a charged particle would move freely as it is accelerated by the >> forces of the fields, have a direction. [E.g. for the electric field >> between two capacitor plates only from one particular plate to the other >> (with direct current). Again, you do calculations on these fields in >> freshman physics.] >> >> <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capacitor> >> <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electromagnetic_coil> >> >> There can also be a field describing the gravitational potential (V or Φ), >> force (F⃗), or acceleration (g⃗) in every point in 3-dimensional space: the >> gravitational field. The (gravitational) potential is a scalar (no arrow >> above the symbol), so a field based on it would be a 3-dimensional scalar >> field. Force and acceleration are both vectors (arrow above the symbol, or >> bold font; they have a magnitude and a direction), so a gravitational field >> based on either of those quantities would be a (3-dimensional) vector field >> instead. [dito] >> >> <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravitational_field> >> >> In general relativity, the gravitational field is a 4 (1+3 or >> 3+1)-dimensional *tensor* field, defined by the Einstein *tensor* which >> describes the curvature of spacetime corresponding to the density of energy >> and momentum. Hence “Einstein *Field* Equations (for gravitation)”. >> >> <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Einstein_field_equations> >> >> [Hopefully I do not have to remind you of this *again* next year.] >> >> [1] <https://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=plot+exp(-sqrt(x%5E2+%2B+y%5E2))> >> (the greater the elevation, the higher the temperature; you can imagine >> a heat source in the center of a room) >> -- >> PointedEars >> >> Twitter: @PointedEars2 >> Please do not cc me. / Bitte keine Kopien per E-Mail. > -- Odd Bodkin — Maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | kenseto <setoken@att.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-12-08 10:21 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <aac77cb2-8aec-4671-8bbd-8af3998a5db9@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #479335 |
On Saturday, December 8, 2018 at 10:35:16 AM UTC-5, Odd Bodkin wrote: > kenseto <setoken@att.net> wrote: > > On Friday, December 7, 2018 at 4:01:34 PM UTC-5, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote: > >> kenseto wrote: > >>> According to Steven Weinberg: A field is a sort of stress in space, > >>> something like the various sorts of stress that are possible within a solid body. > >> > >> Where and when did he write/say this? > >> > >> IIRC, we have been over this here. > >> > >> A field in physics is simply an object in models where every point in a > >> mathematical space is assigned a value: > > > > So Weinberg’s description that a field is the stress exists at every > > point in a solid body is very close to the correct description. In any > > case what is mathematical space? Is it not a solid body? If it is not a > > solid body how can material objects interact with the stresses exist within it? > > Material objects interact with more things than other material objects. Yeah, in my theory, material objects react to the distorted geometries (stresses in Weinberg’s term) exist within the E-Matrix due to confinement. And the distortions in the E-matrix are due to the absolute motions of the interacting objects in the E-Matrix. This explanation is much more simpler than the current explanation that the interacting material objects are reacting with the virtual particles pop in and out of space and that these virtual particles are financed by the Uncertainty Principle. > > > > >> > >> <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Field_(physics)> > >> > >> For example, there can be a temperature field that describes the temperature > >> in a room in every point in the room. If it describes the temperature at a > >> particular time, it is a 3-dimension scalar field (since temperature is a > >> scalar quantity). [I mention this particularly because we did calculations > >> on and plots of such a field in freshman physics.[1]] > >> > >> Other fields that should be well-known are the electric field and the > >> magnetic field. These are vector fields (E⃗ and B⃗, respectively) because > >> not only do they have a strength (which is a scalar); the field lines, along > >> which a charged particle would move freely as it is accelerated by the > >> forces of the fields, have a direction. [E.g. for the electric field > >> between two capacitor plates only from one particular plate to the other > >> (with direct current). Again, you do calculations on these fields in > >> freshman physics.] > >> > >> <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capacitor> > >> <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electromagnetic_coil> > >> > >> There can also be a field describing the gravitational potential (V or Φ), > >> force (F⃗), or acceleration (g⃗) in every point in 3-dimensional space: the > >> gravitational field. The (gravitational) potential is a scalar (no arrow > >> above the symbol), so a field based on it would be a 3-dimensional scalar > >> field. Force and acceleration are both vectors (arrow above the symbol, or > >> bold font; they have a magnitude and a direction), so a gravitational field > >> based on either of those quantities would be a (3-dimensional) vector field > >> instead. [dito] > >> > >> <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravitational_field> > >> > >> In general relativity, the gravitational field is a 4 (1+3 or > >> 3+1)-dimensional *tensor* field, defined by the Einstein *tensor* which > >> describes the curvature of spacetime corresponding to the density of energy > >> and momentum. Hence “Einstein *Field* Equations (for gravitation)”. > >> > >> <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Einstein_field_equations> > >> > >> [Hopefully I do not have to remind you of this *again* next year.] > >> > >> [1] <https://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=plot+exp(-sqrt(x%5E2+%2B+y%5E2))> > >> (the greater the elevation, the higher the temperature; you can imagine > >> a heat source in the center of a room) > >> -- > >> PointedEars > >> > >> Twitter: @PointedEars2 > >> Please do not cc me. / Bitte keine Kopien per E-Mail. > > > > > > -- > Odd Bodkin — Maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-12-08 19:15 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <puh58g$39v$3@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #479356 |
kenseto <setoken@att.net> wrote: > On Saturday, December 8, 2018 at 10:35:16 AM UTC-5, Odd Bodkin wrote: >> kenseto <setoken@att.net> wrote: >>> On Friday, December 7, 2018 at 4:01:34 PM UTC-5, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote: >>>> kenseto wrote: >>>>> According to Steven Weinberg: A field is a sort of stress in space, >>>>> something like the various sorts of stress that are possible within a solid body. >>>> >>>> Where and when did he write/say this? >>>> >>>> IIRC, we have been over this here. >>>> >>>> A field in physics is simply an object in models where every point in a >>>> mathematical space is assigned a value: >>> >>> So Weinberg’s description that a field is the stress exists at every >>> point in a solid body is very close to the correct description. In any >>> case what is mathematical space? Is it not a solid body? If it is not a >>> solid body how can material objects interact with the stresses exist within it? >> >> Material objects interact with more things than other material objects. > > Yeah, in my theory, material objects react to the distorted geometries > (stresses in Weinberg’s term) exist within the E-Matrix due to > confinement. And the distortions in the E-matrix are due to the absolute > motions of the interacting objects in the E-Matrix. > This explanation is much more simpler than the current explanation that > the interacting material objects are reacting with the virtual particles > pop in and out of space and that these virtual particles are financed by > the Uncertainty Principle. What on earth makes you think that if an idea is simpler, then it’s more correct? >> >>> >>>> >>>> <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Field_(physics)> >>>> >>>> For example, there can be a temperature field that describes the temperature >>>> in a room in every point in the room. If it describes the temperature at a >>>> particular time, it is a 3-dimension scalar field (since temperature is a >>>> scalar quantity). [I mention this particularly because we did calculations >>>> on and plots of such a field in freshman physics.[1]] >>>> >>>> Other fields that should be well-known are the electric field and the >>>> magnetic field. These are vector fields (E⃗ and B⃗, respectively) because >>>> not only do they have a strength (which is a scalar); the field lines, along >>>> which a charged particle would move freely as it is accelerated by the >>>> forces of the fields, have a direction. [E.g. for the electric field >>>> between two capacitor plates only from one particular plate to the other >>>> (with direct current). Again, you do calculations on these fields in >>>> freshman physics.] >>>> >>>> <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capacitor> >>>> <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electromagnetic_coil> >>>> >>>> There can also be a field describing the gravitational potential (V or Φ), >>>> force (F⃗), or acceleration (g⃗) in every point in 3-dimensional space: the >>>> gravitational field. The (gravitational) potential is a scalar (no arrow >>>> above the symbol), so a field based on it would be a 3-dimensional scalar >>>> field. Force and acceleration are both vectors (arrow above the symbol, or >>>> bold font; they have a magnitude and a direction), so a gravitational field >>>> based on either of those quantities would be a (3-dimensional) vector field >>>> instead. [dito] >>>> >>>> <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravitational_field> >>>> >>>> In general relativity, the gravitational field is a 4 (1+3 or >>>> 3+1)-dimensional *tensor* field, defined by the Einstein *tensor* which >>>> describes the curvature of spacetime corresponding to the density of energy >>>> and momentum. Hence “Einstein *Field* Equations (for gravitation)”. >>>> >>>> <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Einstein_field_equations> >>>> >>>> [Hopefully I do not have to remind you of this *again* next year.] >>>> >>>> [1] <https://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=plot+exp(-sqrt(x%5E2+%2B+y%5E2))> >>>> (the greater the elevation, the higher the temperature; you can imagine >>>> a heat source in the center of a room) >>>> -- >>>> PointedEars >>>> >>>> Twitter: @PointedEars2 >>>> Please do not cc me. / Bitte keine Kopien per E-Mail. >>> >> >> >> >> -- >> Odd Bodkin — Maker of fine toys, tools, tables > -- Odd Bodkin — Maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | kenseto <setoken@att.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-12-08 14:17 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <6c4c0f85-ac75-4159-ab0f-bd8bf28c3999@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #479377 |
On Saturday, December 8, 2018 at 2:15:32 PM UTC-5, Odd Bodkin wrote: > kenseto <setoken@att.net> wrote: > > On Saturday, December 8, 2018 at 10:35:16 AM UTC-5, Odd Bodkin wrote: > >> kenseto <setoken@att.net> wrote: > >>> On Friday, December 7, 2018 at 4:01:34 PM UTC-5, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote: > >>>> kenseto wrote: > >>>>> According to Steven Weinberg: A field is a sort of stress in space, > >>>>> something like the various sorts of stress that are possible within a solid body. > >>>> > >>>> Where and when did he write/say this? > >>>> > >>>> IIRC, we have been over this here. > >>>> > >>>> A field in physics is simply an object in models where every point in a > >>>> mathematical space is assigned a value: > >>> > >>> So Weinberg’s description that a field is the stress exists at every > >>> point in a solid body is very close to the correct description. In any > >>> case what is mathematical space? Is it not a solid body? If it is not a > >>> solid body how can material objects interact with the stresses exist within it? > >> > >> Material objects interact with more things than other material objects. > > > > Yeah, in my theory, material objects react to the distorted geometries > > (stresses in Weinberg’s term) exist within the E-Matrix due to > > confinement. And the distortions in the E-matrix are due to the absolute > > motions of the interacting objects in the E-Matrix. > > This explanation is much more simpler than the current explanation that > > the interacting material objects are reacting with the virtual particles > > pop in and out of space and that these virtual particles are financed by > > the Uncertainty Principle. > > What on earth makes you think that if an idea is simpler, then it’s more > correct? That is being expounded by Philosophers physicists throughout the centuries. You allowed the mathematicians led you into a fantasy mathematical dead end of non-existing mathematical objects such as extra dimensions, virtual-particles, force messengers....etc. > > >> > >>> > >>>> > >>>> <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Field_(physics)> > >>>> > >>>> For example, there can be a temperature field that describes the temperature > >>>> in a room in every point in the room. If it describes the temperature at a > >>>> particular time, it is a 3-dimension scalar field (since temperature is a > >>>> scalar quantity). [I mention this particularly because we did calculations > >>>> on and plots of such a field in freshman physics.[1]] > >>>> > >>>> Other fields that should be well-known are the electric field and the > >>>> magnetic field. These are vector fields (E⃗ and B⃗, respectively) because > >>>> not only do they have a strength (which is a scalar); the field lines, along > >>>> which a charged particle would move freely as it is accelerated by the > >>>> forces of the fields, have a direction. [E.g. for the electric field > >>>> between two capacitor plates only from one particular plate to the other > >>>> (with direct current). Again, you do calculations on these fields in > >>>> freshman physics.] > >>>> > >>>> <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capacitor> > >>>> <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electromagnetic_coil> > >>>> > >>>> There can also be a field describing the gravitational potential (V or Φ), > >>>> force (F⃗), or acceleration (g⃗) in every point in 3-dimensional space: the > >>>> gravitational field. The (gravitational) potential is a scalar (no arrow > >>>> above the symbol), so a field based on it would be a 3-dimensional scalar > >>>> field. Force and acceleration are both vectors (arrow above the symbol, or > >>>> bold font; they have a magnitude and a direction), so a gravitational field > >>>> based on either of those quantities would be a (3-dimensional) vector field > >>>> instead. [dito] > >>>> > >>>> <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravitational_field> > >>>> > >>>> In general relativity, the gravitational field is a 4 (1+3 or > >>>> 3+1)-dimensional *tensor* field, defined by the Einstein *tensor* which > >>>> describes the curvature of spacetime corresponding to the density of energy > >>>> and momentum. Hence “Einstein *Field* Equations (for gravitation)”. > >>>> > >>>> <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Einstein_field_equations> > >>>> > >>>> [Hopefully I do not have to remind you of this *again* next year.] > >>>> > >>>> [1] <https://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=plot+exp(-sqrt(x%5E2+%2B+y%5E2))> > >>>> (the greater the elevation, the higher the temperature; you can imagine > >>>> a heat source in the center of a room) > >>>> -- > >>>> PointedEars > >>>> > >>>> Twitter: @PointedEars2 > >>>> Please do not cc me. / Bitte keine Kopien per E-Mail. > >>> > >> > >> > >> > >> -- > >> Odd Bodkin — Maker of fine toys, tools, tables > > > > > > -- > Odd Bodkin — Maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-12-08 22:42 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <puhhc6$oa5$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #479395 |
kenseto <setoken@att.net> wrote: > On Saturday, December 8, 2018 at 2:15:32 PM UTC-5, Odd Bodkin wrote: >> kenseto <setoken@att.net> wrote: >>> On Saturday, December 8, 2018 at 10:35:16 AM UTC-5, Odd Bodkin wrote: >>>> kenseto <setoken@att.net> wrote: >>>>> On Friday, December 7, 2018 at 4:01:34 PM UTC-5, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote: >>>>>> kenseto wrote: >>>>>>> According to Steven Weinberg: A field is a sort of stress in space, >>>>>>> something like the various sorts of stress that are possible within a solid body. >>>>>> >>>>>> Where and when did he write/say this? >>>>>> >>>>>> IIRC, we have been over this here. >>>>>> >>>>>> A field in physics is simply an object in models where every point in a >>>>>> mathematical space is assigned a value: >>>>> >>>>> So Weinberg’s description that a field is the stress exists at every >>>>> point in a solid body is very close to the correct description. In any >>>>> case what is mathematical space? Is it not a solid body? If it is not a >>>>> solid body how can material objects interact with the stresses exist within it? >>>> >>>> Material objects interact with more things than other material objects. >>> >>> Yeah, in my theory, material objects react to the distorted geometries >>> (stresses in Weinberg’s term) exist within the E-Matrix due to >>> confinement. And the distortions in the E-matrix are due to the absolute >>> motions of the interacting objects in the E-Matrix. >>> This explanation is much more simpler than the current explanation that >>> the interacting material objects are reacting with the virtual particles >>> pop in and out of space and that these virtual particles are financed by >>> the Uncertainty Principle. >> >> What on earth makes you think that if an idea is simpler, then it’s more >> correct? > > That is being expounded by Philosophers physicists throughout the centuries. No it is not. Once again, you have vastly oversimplified what these “Philosophers physicists” have actually said, to the point where it is wrong. > You allowed the mathematicians led you into a fantasy mathematical dead > end of non-existing mathematical objects such as extra dimensions, > virtual-particles, force messengers....etc. > > >> >>>> >>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Field_(physics)> >>>>>> >>>>>> For example, there can be a temperature field that describes the temperature >>>>>> in a room in every point in the room. If it describes the temperature at a >>>>>> particular time, it is a 3-dimension scalar field (since temperature is a >>>>>> scalar quantity). [I mention this particularly because we did calculations >>>>>> on and plots of such a field in freshman physics.[1]] >>>>>> >>>>>> Other fields that should be well-known are the electric field and the >>>>>> magnetic field. These are vector fields (E⃗ and B⃗, respectively) because >>>>>> not only do they have a strength (which is a scalar); the field lines, along >>>>>> which a charged particle would move freely as it is accelerated by the >>>>>> forces of the fields, have a direction. [E.g. for the electric field >>>>>> between two capacitor plates only from one particular plate to the other >>>>>> (with direct current). Again, you do calculations on these fields in >>>>>> freshman physics.] >>>>>> >>>>>> <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capacitor> >>>>>> <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electromagnetic_coil> >>>>>> >>>>>> There can also be a field describing the gravitational potential (V or Φ), >>>>>> force (F⃗), or acceleration (g⃗) in every point in 3-dimensional space: the >>>>>> gravitational field. The (gravitational) potential is a scalar (no arrow >>>>>> above the symbol), so a field based on it would be a 3-dimensional scalar >>>>>> field. Force and acceleration are both vectors (arrow above the symbol, or >>>>>> bold font; they have a magnitude and a direction), so a gravitational field >>>>>> based on either of those quantities would be a (3-dimensional) vector field >>>>>> instead. [dito] >>>>>> >>>>>> <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravitational_field> >>>>>> >>>>>> In general relativity, the gravitational field is a 4 (1+3 or >>>>>> 3+1)-dimensional *tensor* field, defined by the Einstein *tensor* which >>>>>> describes the curvature of spacetime corresponding to the density of energy >>>>>> and momentum. Hence “Einstein *Field* Equations (for gravitation)”. >>>>>> >>>>>> <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Einstein_field_equations> >>>>>> >>>>>> [Hopefully I do not have to remind you of this *again* next year.] >>>>>> >>>>>> [1] <https://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=plot+exp(-sqrt(x%5E2+%2B+y%5E2))> >>>>>> (the greater the elevation, the higher the temperature; you can imagine >>>>>> a heat source in the center of a room) >>>>>> -- >>>>>> PointedEars >>>>>> >>>>>> Twitter: @PointedEars2 >>>>>> Please do not cc me. / Bitte keine Kopien per E-Mail. >>>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> -- >>>> Odd Bodkin — Maker of fine toys, tools, tables >>> >> >> >> >> -- >> Odd Bodkin — Maker of fine toys, tools, tables > -- Odd Bodkin — Maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | kenseto <setoken@att.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-12-08 14:58 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <61342560-217e-42e0-bcba-d4706615ccca@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #479398 |
On Saturday, December 8, 2018 at 5:42:19 PM UTC-5, Odd Bodkin wrote: > kenseto <setoken@att.net> wrote: > > On Saturday, December 8, 2018 at 2:15:32 PM UTC-5, Odd Bodkin wrote: > >> kenseto <setoken@att.net> wrote: > >>> On Saturday, December 8, 2018 at 10:35:16 AM UTC-5, Odd Bodkin wrote: > >>>> kenseto <setoken@att.net> wrote: > >>>>> On Friday, December 7, 2018 at 4:01:34 PM UTC-5, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote: > >>>>>> kenseto wrote: > >>>>>>> According to Steven Weinberg: A field is a sort of stress in space, > >>>>>>> something like the various sorts of stress that are possible within a solid body. > >>>>>> > >>>>>> Where and when did he write/say this? > >>>>>> > >>>>>> IIRC, we have been over this here. > >>>>>> > >>>>>> A field in physics is simply an object in models where every point in a > >>>>>> mathematical space is assigned a value: > >>>>> > >>>>> So Weinberg’s description that a field is the stress exists at every > >>>>> point in a solid body is very close to the correct description. In any > >>>>> case what is mathematical space? Is it not a solid body? If it is not a > >>>>> solid body how can material objects interact with the stresses exist within it? > >>>> > >>>> Material objects interact with more things than other material objects. > >>> > >>> Yeah, in my theory, material objects react to the distorted geometries > >>> (stresses in Weinberg’s term) exist within the E-Matrix due to > >>> confinement. And the distortions in the E-matrix are due to the absolute > >>> motions of the interacting objects in the E-Matrix. > >>> This explanation is much more simpler than the current explanation that > >>> the interacting material objects are reacting with the virtual particles > >>> pop in and out of space and that these virtual particles are financed by > >>> the Uncertainty Principle. > >> > >> What on earth makes you think that if an idea is simpler, then it’s more > >> correct? > > > > That is being expounded by Philosophers physicists throughout the centuries. > > No it is not. Once again, you have vastly oversimplified what these > “Philosophers physicists” have actually said, to the point where it is > wrong. No Sir! It is you who is wrong. You have no idea what they said. > > > You allowed the mathematicians led you into a fantasy mathematical dead > > end of non-existing mathematical objects such as extra dimensions, > > virtual-particles, force messengers....etc. > > > > > >> > >>>> > >>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>>> <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Field_(physics)> > >>>>>> > >>>>>> For example, there can be a temperature field that describes the temperature > >>>>>> in a room in every point in the room. If it describes the temperature at a > >>>>>> particular time, it is a 3-dimension scalar field (since temperature is a > >>>>>> scalar quantity). [I mention this particularly because we did calculations > >>>>>> on and plots of such a field in freshman physics.[1]] > >>>>>> > >>>>>> Other fields that should be well-known are the electric field and the > >>>>>> magnetic field. These are vector fields (E⃗ and B⃗, respectively) because > >>>>>> not only do they have a strength (which is a scalar); the field lines, along > >>>>>> which a charged particle would move freely as it is accelerated by the > >>>>>> forces of the fields, have a direction. [E.g. for the electric field > >>>>>> between two capacitor plates only from one particular plate to the other > >>>>>> (with direct current). Again, you do calculations on these fields in > >>>>>> freshman physics.] > >>>>>> > >>>>>> <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capacitor> > >>>>>> <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electromagnetic_coil> > >>>>>> > >>>>>> There can also be a field describing the gravitational potential (V or Φ), > >>>>>> force (F⃗), or acceleration (g⃗) in every point in 3-dimensional space: the > >>>>>> gravitational field. The (gravitational) potential is a scalar (no arrow > >>>>>> above the symbol), so a field based on it would be a 3-dimensional scalar > >>>>>> field. Force and acceleration are both vectors (arrow above the symbol, or > >>>>>> bold font; they have a magnitude and a direction), so a gravitational field > >>>>>> based on either of those quantities would be a (3-dimensional) vector field > >>>>>> instead. [dito] > >>>>>> > >>>>>> <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravitational_field> > >>>>>> > >>>>>> In general relativity, the gravitational field is a 4 (1+3 or > >>>>>> 3+1)-dimensional *tensor* field, defined by the Einstein *tensor* which > >>>>>> describes the curvature of spacetime corresponding to the density of energy > >>>>>> and momentum. Hence “Einstein *Field* Equations (for gravitation)”. > >>>>>> > >>>>>> <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Einstein_field_equations> > >>>>>> > >>>>>> [Hopefully I do not have to remind you of this *again* next year.] > >>>>>> > >>>>>> [1] <https://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=plot+exp(-sqrt(x%5E2+%2B+y%5E2))> > >>>>>> (the greater the elevation, the higher the temperature; you can imagine > >>>>>> a heat source in the center of a room) > >>>>>> -- > >>>>>> PointedEars > >>>>>> > >>>>>> Twitter: @PointedEars2 > >>>>>> Please do not cc me. / Bitte keine Kopien per E-Mail. > >>>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> -- > >>>> Odd Bodkin — Maker of fine toys, tools, tables > >>> > >> > >> > >> > >> -- > >> Odd Bodkin — Maker of fine toys, tools, tables > > > > > > -- > Odd Bodkin — Maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-12-09 01:22 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <puhqob$9r4$2@pcls7.std.com> |
| In reply to | #479402 |
kenseto <setoken@att.net> writes: >On Saturday, December 8, 2018 at 5:42:19 PM UTC-5, Odd Bodkin wrote: >> No it is not. Once again, you have vastly oversimplified what these >> "Philosophers physicists" have actually said, to the point where it is >> wrong. >No Sir! It is you who is wrong. You have no idea what they said. Your repeated assertions are not a valid argument.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-12-09 13:07 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <puj41r$1erv$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #479402 |
kenseto <setoken@att.net> wrote: > On Saturday, December 8, 2018 at 5:42:19 PM UTC-5, Odd Bodkin wrote: >> kenseto <setoken@att.net> wrote: >>> On Saturday, December 8, 2018 at 2:15:32 PM UTC-5, Odd Bodkin wrote: >>>> kenseto <setoken@att.net> wrote: >>>>> On Saturday, December 8, 2018 at 10:35:16 AM UTC-5, Odd Bodkin wrote: >>>>>> kenseto <setoken@att.net> wrote: >>>>>>> On Friday, December 7, 2018 at 4:01:34 PM UTC-5, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote: >>>>>>>> kenseto wrote: >>>>>>>>> According to Steven Weinberg: A field is a sort of stress in space, >>>>>>>>> something like the various sorts of stress that are possible within a solid body. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Where and when did he write/say this? >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> IIRC, we have been over this here. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> A field in physics is simply an object in models where every point in a >>>>>>>> mathematical space is assigned a value: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> So Weinberg’s description that a field is the stress exists at every >>>>>>> point in a solid body is very close to the correct description. In any >>>>>>> case what is mathematical space? Is it not a solid body? If it is not a >>>>>>> solid body how can material objects interact with the stresses exist within it? >>>>>> >>>>>> Material objects interact with more things than other material objects. >>>>> >>>>> Yeah, in my theory, material objects react to the distorted geometries >>>>> (stresses in Weinberg’s term) exist within the E-Matrix due to >>>>> confinement. And the distortions in the E-matrix are due to the absolute >>>>> motions of the interacting objects in the E-Matrix. >>>>> This explanation is much more simpler than the current explanation that >>>>> the interacting material objects are reacting with the virtual particles >>>>> pop in and out of space and that these virtual particles are financed by >>>>> the Uncertainty Principle. >>>> >>>> What on earth makes you think that if an idea is simpler, then it’s more >>>> correct? >>> >>> That is being expounded by Philosophers physicists throughout the centuries. >> >> No it is not. Once again, you have vastly oversimplified what these >> “Philosophers physicists” have actually said, to the point where it is >> wrong. > > No Sir! It is you who is wrong. You have no idea what they said. William of Okkam, Newton, R.B. Lindsay, Einstein, Feynman. I know what they said. “Hypotheses should not be multiplied unnecessarily.” Which one said that? > >> >>> You allowed the mathematicians led you into a fantasy mathematical dead >>> end of non-existing mathematical objects such as extra dimensions, >>> virtual-particles, force messengers....etc. >>> >>> >>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Field_(physics)> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> For example, there can be a temperature field that describes the temperature >>>>>>>> in a room in every point in the room. If it describes the temperature at a >>>>>>>> particular time, it is a 3-dimension scalar field (since temperature is a >>>>>>>> scalar quantity). [I mention this particularly because we did calculations >>>>>>>> on and plots of such a field in freshman physics.[1]] >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Other fields that should be well-known are the electric field and the >>>>>>>> magnetic field. These are vector fields (E⃗ and B⃗, respectively) because >>>>>>>> not only do they have a strength (which is a scalar); the field lines, along >>>>>>>> which a charged particle would move freely as it is accelerated by the >>>>>>>> forces of the fields, have a direction. [E.g. for the electric field >>>>>>>> between two capacitor plates only from one particular plate to the other >>>>>>>> (with direct current). Again, you do calculations on these fields in >>>>>>>> freshman physics.] >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capacitor> >>>>>>>> <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electromagnetic_coil> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> There can also be a field describing the gravitational potential (V or Φ), >>>>>>>> force (F⃗), or acceleration (g⃗) in every point in 3-dimensional space: the >>>>>>>> gravitational field. The (gravitational) potential is a scalar (no arrow >>>>>>>> above the symbol), so a field based on it would be a 3-dimensional scalar >>>>>>>> field. Force and acceleration are both vectors (arrow above the symbol, or >>>>>>>> bold font; they have a magnitude and a direction), so a gravitational field >>>>>>>> based on either of those quantities would be a (3-dimensional) vector field >>>>>>>> instead. [dito] >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravitational_field> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> In general relativity, the gravitational field is a 4 (1+3 or >>>>>>>> 3+1)-dimensional *tensor* field, defined by the Einstein *tensor* which >>>>>>>> describes the curvature of spacetime corresponding to the density of energy >>>>>>>> and momentum. Hence “Einstein *Field* Equations (for gravitation)”. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Einstein_field_equations> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> [Hopefully I do not have to remind you of this *again* next year.] >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> [1] <https://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=plot+exp(-sqrt(x%5E2+%2B+y%5E2))> >>>>>>>> (the greater the elevation, the higher the temperature; you can imagine >>>>>>>> a heat source in the center of a room) >>>>>>>> -- >>>>>>>> PointedEars >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Twitter: @PointedEars2 >>>>>>>> Please do not cc me. / Bitte keine Kopien per E-Mail. >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> -- >>>>>> Odd Bodkin — Maker of fine toys, tools, tables >>>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> -- >>>> Odd Bodkin — Maker of fine toys, tools, tables >>> >> >> >> >> -- >> Odd Bodkin — Maker of fine toys, tools, tables > > -- Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | benj <benj.fake@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-12-08 23:26 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <pui5i7$1o74$2@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #479377 |
On 12/8/2018 2:15 PM, Odd Bodkin wrote: > kenseto <setoken@att.net> wrote: >> On Saturday, December 8, 2018 at 10:35:16 AM UTC-5, Odd Bodkin wrote: >>> kenseto <setoken@att.net> wrote: >>>> On Friday, December 7, 2018 at 4:01:34 PM UTC-5, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote: >>>>> kenseto wrote: >>>>>> According to Steven Weinberg: A field is a sort of stress in space, >>>>>> something like the various sorts of stress that are possible within a solid body. >>>>> >>>>> Where and when did he write/say this? >>>>> >>>>> IIRC, we have been over this here. >>>>> >>>>> A field in physics is simply an object in models where every point in a >>>>> mathematical space is assigned a value: >>>> >>>> So Weinberg’s description that a field is the stress exists at every >>>> point in a solid body is very close to the correct description. In any >>>> case what is mathematical space? Is it not a solid body? If it is not a >>>> solid body how can material objects interact with the stresses exist within it? >>> >>> Material objects interact with more things than other material objects. >> >> Yeah, in my theory, material objects react to the distorted geometries >> (stresses in Weinberg’s term) exist within the E-Matrix due to >> confinement. And the distortions in the E-matrix are due to the absolute >> motions of the interacting objects in the E-Matrix. >> This explanation is much more simpler than the current explanation that >> the interacting material objects are reacting with the virtual particles >> pop in and out of space and that these virtual particles are financed by >> the Uncertainty Principle. > > What on earth makes you think that if an idea is simpler, then it’s more > correct? Occam's razor! Every Lib here pretending to know science always uses it as a hard and fast proof of all their theories. >>> >>>> >>>>> >>>>> <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Field_(physics)> >>>>> >>>>> For example, there can be a temperature field that describes the temperature >>>>> in a room in every point in the room. If it describes the temperature at a >>>>> particular time, it is a 3-dimension scalar field (since temperature is a >>>>> scalar quantity). [I mention this particularly because we did calculations >>>>> on and plots of such a field in freshman physics.[1]] >>>>> >>>>> Other fields that should be well-known are the electric field and the >>>>> magnetic field. These are vector fields (E⃗ and B⃗, respectively) because >>>>> not only do they have a strength (which is a scalar); the field lines, along >>>>> which a charged particle would move freely as it is accelerated by the >>>>> forces of the fields, have a direction. [E.g. for the electric field >>>>> between two capacitor plates only from one particular plate to the other >>>>> (with direct current). Again, you do calculations on these fields in >>>>> freshman physics.] >>>>> >>>>> <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capacitor> >>>>> <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electromagnetic_coil> >>>>> >>>>> There can also be a field describing the gravitational potential (V or Φ), >>>>> force (F⃗), or acceleration (g⃗) in every point in 3-dimensional space: the >>>>> gravitational field. The (gravitational) potential is a scalar (no arrow >>>>> above the symbol), so a field based on it would be a 3-dimensional scalar >>>>> field. Force and acceleration are both vectors (arrow above the symbol, or >>>>> bold font; they have a magnitude and a direction), so a gravitational field >>>>> based on either of those quantities would be a (3-dimensional) vector field >>>>> instead. [dito] >>>>> >>>>> <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravitational_field> >>>>> >>>>> In general relativity, the gravitational field is a 4 (1+3 or >>>>> 3+1)-dimensional *tensor* field, defined by the Einstein *tensor* which >>>>> describes the curvature of spacetime corresponding to the density of energy >>>>> and momentum. Hence “Einstein *Field* Equations (for gravitation)”. >>>>> >>>>> <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Einstein_field_equations> >>>>> >>>>> [Hopefully I do not have to remind you of this *again* next year.] >>>>> >>>>> [1] <https://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=plot+exp(-sqrt(x%5E2+%2B+y%5E2))> >>>>> (the greater the elevation, the higher the temperature; you can imagine >>>>> a heat source in the center of a room) >>>>> -- >>>>> PointedEars >>>>> >>>>> Twitter: @PointedEars2 >>>>> Please do not cc me. / Bitte keine Kopien per E-Mail. >>>> >>> >>> >>> >>> -- >>> Odd Bodkin — Maker of fine toys, tools, tables >> > > >
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-12-09 13:07 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <puj41v$1erv$3@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #479422 |
benj <benj.fake@gmail.com> wrote: > On 12/8/2018 2:15 PM, Odd Bodkin wrote: >> kenseto <setoken@att.net> wrote: >>> On Saturday, December 8, 2018 at 10:35:16 AM UTC-5, Odd Bodkin wrote: >>>> kenseto <setoken@att.net> wrote: >>>>> On Friday, December 7, 2018 at 4:01:34 PM UTC-5, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote: >>>>>> kenseto wrote: >>>>>>> According to Steven Weinberg: A field is a sort of stress in space, >>>>>>> something like the various sorts of stress that are possible within a solid body. >>>>>> >>>>>> Where and when did he write/say this? >>>>>> >>>>>> IIRC, we have been over this here. >>>>>> >>>>>> A field in physics is simply an object in models where every point in a >>>>>> mathematical space is assigned a value: >>>>> >>>>> So Weinberg’s description that a field is the stress exists at every >>>>> point in a solid body is very close to the correct description. In any >>>>> case what is mathematical space? Is it not a solid body? If it is not a >>>>> solid body how can material objects interact with the stresses exist within it? >>>> >>>> Material objects interact with more things than other material objects. >>> >>> Yeah, in my theory, material objects react to the distorted geometries >>> (stresses in Weinberg’s term) exist within the E-Matrix due to >>> confinement. And the distortions in the E-matrix are due to the absolute >>> motions of the interacting objects in the E-Matrix. >>> This explanation is much more simpler than the current explanation that >>> the interacting material objects are reacting with the virtual particles >>> pop in and out of space and that these virtual particles are financed by >>> the Uncertainty Principle. >> >> What on earth makes you think that if an idea is simpler, then it’s more >> correct? > > Occam's razor! Which says what, exactly? Go ahead. It’s not what Ken said. > Every Lib here pretending to know science always uses it > as a hard and fast proof of all their theories. > >>>> >>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Field_(physics)> >>>>>> >>>>>> For example, there can be a temperature field that describes the temperature >>>>>> in a room in every point in the room. If it describes the temperature at a >>>>>> particular time, it is a 3-dimension scalar field (since temperature is a >>>>>> scalar quantity). [I mention this particularly because we did calculations >>>>>> on and plots of such a field in freshman physics.[1]] >>>>>> >>>>>> Other fields that should be well-known are the electric field and the >>>>>> magnetic field. These are vector fields (E⃗ and B⃗, respectively) because >>>>>> not only do they have a strength (which is a scalar); the field lines, along >>>>>> which a charged particle would move freely as it is accelerated by the >>>>>> forces of the fields, have a direction. [E.g. for the electric field >>>>>> between two capacitor plates only from one particular plate to the other >>>>>> (with direct current). Again, you do calculations on these fields in >>>>>> freshman physics.] >>>>>> >>>>>> <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capacitor> >>>>>> <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electromagnetic_coil> >>>>>> >>>>>> There can also be a field describing the gravitational potential (V or Φ), >>>>>> force (F⃗), or acceleration (g⃗) in every point in 3-dimensional space: the >>>>>> gravitational field. The (gravitational) potential is a scalar (no arrow >>>>>> above the symbol), so a field based on it would be a 3-dimensional scalar >>>>>> field. Force and acceleration are both vectors (arrow above the symbol, or >>>>>> bold font; they have a magnitude and a direction), so a gravitational field >>>>>> based on either of those quantities would be a (3-dimensional) vector field >>>>>> instead. [dito] >>>>>> >>>>>> <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravitational_field> >>>>>> >>>>>> In general relativity, the gravitational field is a 4 (1+3 or >>>>>> 3+1)-dimensional *tensor* field, defined by the Einstein *tensor* which >>>>>> describes the curvature of spacetime corresponding to the density of energy >>>>>> and momentum. Hence “Einstein *Field* Equations (for gravitation)”. >>>>>> >>>>>> <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Einstein_field_equations> >>>>>> >>>>>> [Hopefully I do not have to remind you of this *again* next year.] >>>>>> >>>>>> [1] <https://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=plot+exp(-sqrt(x%5E2+%2B+y%5E2))> >>>>>> (the greater the elevation, the higher the temperature; you can imagine >>>>>> a heat source in the center of a room) >>>>>> -- >>>>>> PointedEars >>>>>> >>>>>> Twitter: @PointedEars2 >>>>>> Please do not cc me. / Bitte keine Kopien per E-Mail. >>>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> -- >>>> Odd Bodkin — Maker of fine toys, tools, tables >>> >> >> >> > > -- Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | kenseto <setoken@att.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-12-08 10:27 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <d29e668b-089e-49e9-9751-7016880fcf1e@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #479335 |
On Saturday, December 8, 2018 at 10:35:16 AM UTC-5, Odd Bodkin wrote: > kenseto <setoken@att.net> wrote: > > On Friday, December 7, 2018 at 4:01:34 PM UTC-5, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote: > >> kenseto wrote: > >>> According to Steven Weinberg: A field is a sort of stress in space, > >>> something like the various sorts of stress that are possible within a solid body. > >> > >> Where and when did he write/say this? > >> > >> IIRC, we have been over this here. > >> > >> A field in physics is simply an object in models where every point in a > >> mathematical space is assigned a value: > > > > So Weinberg’s description that a field is the stress exists at every > > point in a solid body is very close to the correct description. In any > > case what is mathematical space? Is it not a solid body? If it is not a > > solid body how can material objects interact with the stresses exist within it? > > Material objects interact with more things than other material objects. Nope. > > > > >> > >> <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Field_(physics)> > >> > >> For example, there can be a temperature field that describes the temperature > >> in a room in every point in the room. If it describes the temperature at a > >> particular time, it is a 3-dimension scalar field (since temperature is a > >> scalar quantity). [I mention this particularly because we did calculations > >> on and plots of such a field in freshman physics.[1]] > >> > >> Other fields that should be well-known are the electric field and the > >> magnetic field. These are vector fields (E⃗ and B⃗, respectively) because > >> not only do they have a strength (which is a scalar); the field lines, along > >> which a charged particle would move freely as it is accelerated by the > >> forces of the fields, have a direction. [E.g. for the electric field > >> between two capacitor plates only from one particular plate to the other > >> (with direct current). Again, you do calculations on these fields in > >> freshman physics.] > >> > >> <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capacitor> > >> <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electromagnetic_coil> > >> > >> There can also be a field describing the gravitational potential (V or Φ), > >> force (F⃗), or acceleration (g⃗) in every point in 3-dimensional space: the > >> gravitational field. The (gravitational) potential is a scalar (no arrow > >> above the symbol), so a field based on it would be a 3-dimensional scalar > >> field. Force and acceleration are both vectors (arrow above the symbol, or > >> bold font; they have a magnitude and a direction), so a gravitational field > >> based on either of those quantities would be a (3-dimensional) vector field > >> instead. [dito] > >> > >> <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravitational_field> > >> > >> In general relativity, the gravitational field is a 4 (1+3 or > >> 3+1)-dimensional *tensor* field, defined by the Einstein *tensor* which > >> describes the curvature of spacetime corresponding to the density of energy > >> and momentum. Hence “Einstein *Field* Equations (for gravitation)”. > >> > >> <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Einstein_field_equations> > >> > >> [Hopefully I do not have to remind you of this *again* next year.] > >> > >> [1] <https://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=plot+exp(-sqrt(x%5E2+%2B+y%5E2))> > >> (the greater the elevation, the higher the temperature; you can imagine > >> a heat source in the center of a room) > >> -- > >> PointedEars > >> > >> Twitter: @PointedEars2 > >> Please do not cc me. / Bitte keine Kopien per E-Mail. > > > > > > -- > Odd Bodkin — Maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-12-08 19:15 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <puh58h$39v$4@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #479359 |
kenseto <setoken@att.net> wrote: > On Saturday, December 8, 2018 at 10:35:16 AM UTC-5, Odd Bodkin wrote: >> kenseto <setoken@att.net> wrote: >>> On Friday, December 7, 2018 at 4:01:34 PM UTC-5, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote: >>>> kenseto wrote: >>>>> According to Steven Weinberg: A field is a sort of stress in space, >>>>> something like the various sorts of stress that are possible within a solid body. >>>> >>>> Where and when did he write/say this? >>>> >>>> IIRC, we have been over this here. >>>> >>>> A field in physics is simply an object in models where every point in a >>>> mathematical space is assigned a value: >>> >>> So Weinberg’s description that a field is the stress exists at every >>> point in a solid body is very close to the correct description. In any >>> case what is mathematical space? Is it not a solid body? If it is not a >>> solid body how can material objects interact with the stresses exist within it? >> >> Material objects interact with more things than other material objects. > > Nope. If this is what you believe, then you are four hundred years behind. > >> >>> >>>> >>>> <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Field_(physics)> >>>> >>>> For example, there can be a temperature field that describes the temperature >>>> in a room in every point in the room. If it describes the temperature at a >>>> particular time, it is a 3-dimension scalar field (since temperature is a >>>> scalar quantity). [I mention this particularly because we did calculations >>>> on and plots of such a field in freshman physics.[1]] >>>> >>>> Other fields that should be well-known are the electric field and the >>>> magnetic field. These are vector fields (E⃗ and B⃗, respectively) because >>>> not only do they have a strength (which is a scalar); the field lines, along >>>> which a charged particle would move freely as it is accelerated by the >>>> forces of the fields, have a direction. [E.g. for the electric field >>>> between two capacitor plates only from one particular plate to the other >>>> (with direct current). Again, you do calculations on these fields in >>>> freshman physics.] >>>> >>>> <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capacitor> >>>> <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electromagnetic_coil> >>>> >>>> There can also be a field describing the gravitational potential (V or Φ), >>>> force (F⃗), or acceleration (g⃗) in every point in 3-dimensional space: the >>>> gravitational field. The (gravitational) potential is a scalar (no arrow >>>> above the symbol), so a field based on it would be a 3-dimensional scalar >>>> field. Force and acceleration are both vectors (arrow above the symbol, or >>>> bold font; they have a magnitude and a direction), so a gravitational field >>>> based on either of those quantities would be a (3-dimensional) vector field >>>> instead. [dito] >>>> >>>> <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravitational_field> >>>> >>>> In general relativity, the gravitational field is a 4 (1+3 or >>>> 3+1)-dimensional *tensor* field, defined by the Einstein *tensor* which >>>> describes the curvature of spacetime corresponding to the density of energy >>>> and momentum. Hence “Einstein *Field* Equations (for gravitation)”. >>>> >>>> <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Einstein_field_equations> >>>> >>>> [Hopefully I do not have to remind you of this *again* next year.] >>>> >>>> [1] <https://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=plot+exp(-sqrt(x%5E2+%2B+y%5E2))> >>>> (the greater the elevation, the higher the temperature; you can imagine >>>> a heat source in the center of a room) >>>> -- >>>> PointedEars >>>> >>>> Twitter: @PointedEars2 >>>> Please do not cc me. / Bitte keine Kopien per E-Mail. >>> >> >> >> >> -- >> Odd Bodkin — Maker of fine toys, tools, tables > > -- Odd Bodkin — Maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | benj <benj.fake@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-12-08 23:23 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <pui5cj$1o74$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #479359 |
On 12/8/2018 1:27 PM, kenseto wrote: > On Saturday, December 8, 2018 at 10:35:16 AM UTC-5, Odd Bodkin wrote: >> kenseto <setoken@att.net> wrote: >>> On Friday, December 7, 2018 at 4:01:34 PM UTC-5, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote: >>>> kenseto wrote: >>>>> According to Steven Weinberg: A field is a sort of stress in space, >>>>> something like the various sorts of stress that are possible within a solid body. >>>> >>>> Where and when did he write/say this? >>>> >>>> IIRC, we have been over this here. >>>> >>>> A field in physics is simply an object in models where every point in a >>>> mathematical space is assigned a value: >>> >>> So Weinberg’s description that a field is the stress exists at every >>> point in a solid body is very close to the correct description. In any >>> case what is mathematical space? Is it not a solid body? If it is not a >>> solid body how can material objects interact with the stresses exist within it? >> >> Material objects interact with more things than other material objects. > > Nope. Think about this for a second, Kenseto (something which Odd never does) What are the basic interactions of the universe? Well, as pointed out by Maxwell if we regard transmission of energy as THE basic interaction of the universe, there are only TWO known ways that this can occur: One is matter-matter interactions which is to say particles of matter with kinetic energy smacking into other bits of matter. Hence this is clearly a matter-matter interaction. The other way is the transmission of energy by waves in a medium. Clearly matter can be a medium, that is known. Thus all those interactions also can be said to be matter-matter interactions. Say a particle smacks into a material object causing energy waves transmitted throughout it. But what if Odd is right and there exist media that are NOT material? What if a particle of matter smacks into something non-material like say a ghost or Tinkerbell? If waves of energy are propagated through that non-material object then Odd would be correct that material objects can interact with non-material things. In this case that interaction can still be described by a mathematical field. Of course the field is not some kind of actual thing as Odd believes, but it is a description of what might be observed. So Who is "right" here? Well, clearly if aether is fundamentally a material (no matter how thin, light and fine) with mass then all interaction are material as you propose. And there is some evidence that matter does not interact with Ghosts or Tinkerbell. Yet one cannot prove a negative so one cannot say that matter does not interact with non-material objects until all laws of such interactions are known. Which they are not at present no matter what Odd says. >>>> <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Field_(physics)> >>>> >>>> For example, there can be a temperature field that describes the temperature >>>> in a room in every point in the room. If it describes the temperature at a >>>> particular time, it is a 3-dimension scalar field (since temperature is a >>>> scalar quantity). [I mention this particularly because we did calculations >>>> on and plots of such a field in freshman physics.[1]] >>>> >>>> Other fields that should be well-known are the electric field and the >>>> magnetic field. These are vector fields (E⃗ and B⃗, respectively) because >>>> not only do they have a strength (which is a scalar); the field lines, along >>>> which a charged particle would move freely as it is accelerated by the >>>> forces of the fields, have a direction. [E.g. for the electric field >>>> between two capacitor plates only from one particular plate to the other >>>> (with direct current). Again, you do calculations on these fields in >>>> freshman physics.] >>>> >>>> <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capacitor> >>>> <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electromagnetic_coil> >>>> >>>> There can also be a field describing the gravitational potential (V or Φ), >>>> force (F⃗), or acceleration (g⃗) in every point in 3-dimensional space: the >>>> gravitational field. The (gravitational) potential is a scalar (no arrow >>>> above the symbol), so a field based on it would be a 3-dimensional scalar >>>> field. Force and acceleration are both vectors (arrow above the symbol, or >>>> bold font; they have a magnitude and a direction), so a gravitational field >>>> based on either of those quantities would be a (3-dimensional) vector field >>>> instead. [dito] >>>> >>>> <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravitational_field> >>>> >>>> In general relativity, the gravitational field is a 4 (1+3 or >>>> 3+1)-dimensional *tensor* field, defined by the Einstein *tensor* which >>>> describes the curvature of spacetime corresponding to the density of energy >>>> and momentum. Hence “Einstein *Field* Equations (for gravitation)”. >>>> >>>> <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Einstein_field_equations> >>>> >>>> [Hopefully I do not have to remind you of this *again* next year.] >>>> >>>> [1] <https://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=plot+exp(-sqrt(x%5E2+%2B+y%5E2))> >>>> (the greater the elevation, the higher the temperature; you can imagine >>>> a heat source in the center of a room) >>>> -- >>>> PointedEars >>>> >>>> Twitter: @PointedEars2 >>>> Please do not cc me. / Bitte keine Kopien per E-Mail. >>> >> >> >> >> -- >> Odd Bodkin — Maker of fine toys, tools, tables >
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-12-09 13:07 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <puj41t$1erv$2@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #479421 |
benj <benj.fake@gmail.com> wrote: > On 12/8/2018 1:27 PM, kenseto wrote: >> On Saturday, December 8, 2018 at 10:35:16 AM UTC-5, Odd Bodkin wrote: >>> kenseto <setoken@att.net> wrote: >>>> On Friday, December 7, 2018 at 4:01:34 PM UTC-5, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote: >>>>> kenseto wrote: >>>>>> According to Steven Weinberg: A field is a sort of stress in space, >>>>>> something like the various sorts of stress that are possible within a solid body. >>>>> >>>>> Where and when did he write/say this? >>>>> >>>>> IIRC, we have been over this here. >>>>> >>>>> A field in physics is simply an object in models where every point in a >>>>> mathematical space is assigned a value: >>>> >>>> So Weinberg’s description that a field is the stress exists at every >>>> point in a solid body is very close to the correct description. In any >>>> case what is mathematical space? Is it not a solid body? If it is not a >>>> solid body how can material objects interact with the stresses exist within it? >>> >>> Material objects interact with more things than other material objects. >> >> Nope. > > Think about this for a second, Kenseto (something which Odd never does) > > What are the basic interactions of the universe? Well, as pointed out by > Maxwell if we regard transmission of energy as THE basic interaction of > the universe, there are only TWO known ways that this can occur: Wrong > One is > matter-matter interactions which is to say particles of matter with > kinetic energy smacking into other bits of matter. Hence this is clearly > a matter-matter interaction. > > The other way is the transmission of energy by waves in a medium. > Clearly matter can be a medium, that is known. Thus all those > interactions also can be said to be matter-matter interactions. Say a > particle smacks into a material object causing energy waves transmitted > throughout it. > > But what if Odd is right and there exist media that are NOT material? > What if a particle of matter smacks into something non-material like say > a ghost or Tinkerbell? If waves of energy are propagated through that > non-material object then Odd would be correct that material objects can > interact with non-material things. In this case that interaction can > still be described by a mathematical field. Of course the field is not > some kind of actual thing as Odd believes, but it is a description of > what might be observed. > > So Who is "right" here? Well, clearly if aether is fundamentally a > material (no matter how thin, light and fine) with mass then all > interaction are material as you propose. And there is some evidence that > matter does not interact with Ghosts or Tinkerbell. Yet one cannot prove > a negative so one cannot say that matter does not interact with > non-material objects until all laws of such interactions are known. > Which they are not at present no matter what Odd says. > > > >>>>> <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Field_(physics)> >>>>> >>>>> For example, there can be a temperature field that describes the temperature >>>>> in a room in every point in the room. If it describes the temperature at a >>>>> particular time, it is a 3-dimension scalar field (since temperature is a >>>>> scalar quantity). [I mention this particularly because we did calculations >>>>> on and plots of such a field in freshman physics.[1]] >>>>> >>>>> Other fields that should be well-known are the electric field and the >>>>> magnetic field. These are vector fields (E⃗ and B⃗, respectively) because >>>>> not only do they have a strength (which is a scalar); the field lines, along >>>>> which a charged particle would move freely as it is accelerated by the >>>>> forces of the fields, have a direction. [E.g. for the electric field >>>>> between two capacitor plates only from one particular plate to the other >>>>> (with direct current). Again, you do calculations on these fields in >>>>> freshman physics.] >>>>> >>>>> <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capacitor> >>>>> <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electromagnetic_coil> >>>>> >>>>> There can also be a field describing the gravitational potential (V or Φ), >>>>> force (F⃗), or acceleration (g⃗) in every point in 3-dimensional space: the >>>>> gravitational field. The (gravitational) potential is a scalar (no arrow >>>>> above the symbol), so a field based on it would be a 3-dimensional scalar >>>>> field. Force and acceleration are both vectors (arrow above the symbol, or >>>>> bold font; they have a magnitude and a direction), so a gravitational field >>>>> based on either of those quantities would be a (3-dimensional) vector field >>>>> instead. [dito] >>>>> >>>>> <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravitational_field> >>>>> >>>>> In general relativity, the gravitational field is a 4 (1+3 or >>>>> 3+1)-dimensional *tensor* field, defined by the Einstein *tensor* which >>>>> describes the curvature of spacetime corresponding to the density of energy >>>>> and momentum. Hence “Einstein *Field* Equations (for gravitation)”. >>>>> >>>>> <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Einstein_field_equations> >>>>> >>>>> [Hopefully I do not have to remind you of this *again* next year.] >>>>> >>>>> [1] <https://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=plot+exp(-sqrt(x%5E2+%2B+y%5E2))> >>>>> (the greater the elevation, the higher the temperature; you can imagine >>>>> a heat source in the center of a room) >>>>> -- >>>>> PointedEars >>>>> >>>>> Twitter: @PointedEars2 >>>>> Please do not cc me. / Bitte keine Kopien per E-Mail. >>>> >>> >>> >>> >>> -- >>> Odd Bodkin — Maker of fine toys, tools, tables >> > > -- Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | kenseto <setoken@att.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-12-09 14:19 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <a6ea7da8-2dd8-47d6-8830-ab08b63d6805@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #479421 |
On Saturday, December 8, 2018 at 11:23:50 PM UTC-5, benj wrote: > On 12/8/2018 1:27 PM, kenseto wrote: > > On Saturday, December 8, 2018 at 10:35:16 AM UTC-5, Odd Bodkin wrote: > >> kenseto <setoken@att.net> wrote: > >>> On Friday, December 7, 2018 at 4:01:34 PM UTC-5, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote: > >>>> kenseto wrote: > >>>>> According to Steven Weinberg: A field is a sort of stress in space, > >>>>> something like the various sorts of stress that are possible within a solid body. > >>>> > >>>> Where and when did he write/say this? > >>>> > >>>> IIRC, we have been over this here. > >>>> > >>>> A field in physics is simply an object in models where every point in a > >>>> mathematical space is assigned a value: > >>> > >>> So Weinberg’s description that a field is the stress exists at every > >>> point in a solid body is very close to the correct description. In any > >>> case what is mathematical space? Is it not a solid body? If it is not a > >>> solid body how can material objects interact with the stresses exist within it? > >> > >> Material objects interact with more things than other material objects. > > > > Nope. > > Think about this for a second, Kenseto (something which Odd never does) > > What are the basic interactions of the universe? Well, as pointed out by > Maxwell if we regard transmission of energy as THE basic interaction of > the universe, there are only TWO known ways that this can occur: One is > matter-matter interactions which is to say particles of matter with > kinetic energy smacking into other bits of matter. Hence this is clearly > a matter-matter interaction. > The other way is the transmission of energy by waves in a medium. > Clearly matter can be a medium, that is known. Thus all those > interactions also can be said to be matter-matter interactions. Say a > particle smacks into a material object causing energy waves transmitted > throughout it. In my theory: 1. Interacting objects moving in the same direction in the E-Matrix, they will converge to each other... an attractive force. Although this force is EM in nature but it is much weaker than the normal EM force because objects moving in the E-Matrix in the same direction are also experiencing a repulsive effect between them. This repulsive effect between the interacting objects is due to the confinement of the same objects to the divergent structure of the E-Matrix. Therefore, the total attractive force between them is the sum of the attractive EM force less the repulsive effect between them. 2. Interacting objects moving in the opposite directions in the E-Matrix, they will diverge from each other.....a repulsive effect between them. > > But what if Odd is right and there exist media that are NOT material? Everything that has properties is material. Odd has different meaning for the word material. > What if a particle of matter smacks into something non-material like say > a ghost or Tinkerbell? If waves of energy are propagated through that > non-material object then Odd would be correct that material objects can > interact with non-material things. In this case that interaction can > still be described by a mathematical field. Of course the field is not > some kind of actual thing as Odd believes, but it is a description of > what might be observed. > > So Who is "right" here? Well, clearly if aether is fundamentally a > material (no matter how thin, light and fine) with mass then all > interaction are material as you propose. And there is some evidence that > matter does not interact with Ghosts or Tinkerbell. Yet one cannot prove > a negative so one cannot say that matter does not interact with > non-material objects until all laws of such interactions are known. > Which they are not at present no matter what Odd says. > > > > >>>> <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Field_(physics)> > >>>> > >>>> For example, there can be a temperature field that describes the temperature > >>>> in a room in every point in the room. If it describes the temperature at a > >>>> particular time, it is a 3-dimension scalar field (since temperature is a > >>>> scalar quantity). [I mention this particularly because we did calculations > >>>> on and plots of such a field in freshman physics.[1]] > >>>> > >>>> Other fields that should be well-known are the electric field and the > >>>> magnetic field. These are vector fields (E⃗ and B⃗, respectively) because > >>>> not only do they have a strength (which is a scalar); the field lines, along > >>>> which a charged particle would move freely as it is accelerated by the > >>>> forces of the fields, have a direction. [E.g. for the electric field > >>>> between two capacitor plates only from one particular plate to the other > >>>> (with direct current). Again, you do calculations on these fields in > >>>> freshman physics.] > >>>> > >>>> <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capacitor> > >>>> <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electromagnetic_coil> > >>>> > >>>> There can also be a field describing the gravitational potential (V or Φ), > >>>> force (F⃗), or acceleration (g⃗) in every point in 3-dimensional space: the > >>>> gravitational field. The (gravitational) potential is a scalar (no arrow > >>>> above the symbol), so a field based on it would be a 3-dimensional scalar > >>>> field. Force and acceleration are both vectors (arrow above the symbol, or > >>>> bold font; they have a magnitude and a direction), so a gravitational field > >>>> based on either of those quantities would be a (3-dimensional) vector field > >>>> instead. [dito] > >>>> > >>>> <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravitational_field> > >>>> > >>>> In general relativity, the gravitational field is a 4 (1+3 or > >>>> 3+1)-dimensional *tensor* field, defined by the Einstein *tensor* which > >>>> describes the curvature of spacetime corresponding to the density of energy > >>>> and momentum. Hence “Einstein *Field* Equations (for gravitation)”. > >>>> > >>>> <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Einstein_field_equations> > >>>> > >>>> [Hopefully I do not have to remind you of this *again* next year.] > >>>> > >>>> [1] <https://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=plot+exp(-sqrt(x%5E2+%2B+y%5E2))> > >>>> (the greater the elevation, the higher the temperature; you can imagine > >>>> a heat source in the center of a room) > >>>> -- > >>>> PointedEars > >>>> > >>>> Twitter: @PointedEars2 > >>>> Please do not cc me. / Bitte keine Kopien per E-Mail. > >>> > >> > >> > >> > >> -- > >> Odd Bodkin — Maker of fine toys, tools, tables > >
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 6 of 8 — ← Prev page 1 2 3 4 5 [6] 7 8 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | sci.physics.relativity
csiph-web