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 168 — 16 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? kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2018-12-17 08:24 -0800
Re: What is a field? "David (Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2018-12-17 08:31 -0800
Re: What is a field? JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2018-12-17 09:51 -0800
Re: What is a field? mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2018-12-17 10:06 -0800
Re: What is a field? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-12-18 02:23 +0000
Re: What is a field? kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2018-12-18 07:41 -0800
Re: What is a field? JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2018-12-18 12:43 -0800
Re: What is a field? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-12-19 14:17 +0000
Re: What is a field? moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2018-12-19 15:46 +0000
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? "Ross A. Finlayson" <ross.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2019-01-13 12:16 -0800
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 7 of 9 — ← Prev page 1 2 3 4 5 6 [7] 8 9 Next page →
| 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]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-12-09 22:25 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <puk4oa$1lgd$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #479499 |
kenseto <setoken@att.net> wrote: > 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. Physicists have said otherwise for centuries. > Odd has different meaning for the word material. Material means having mass and occupying nonzero volume. What’s the definition you think you have? So here’s a question, does light have those properties that mean 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 | 2018-12-10 07:54 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <eb0e7b48-6925-46b8-9c36-f6dd1d136452@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #479505 |
On Sunday, December 9, 2018 at 5:25:19 PM UTC-5, Odd Bodkin wrote: > kenseto <setoken@att.net> wrote: > > 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. > > Physicists have said otherwise for centuries. > > > Odd has different meaning for the word material. > > Material means having mass and occupying nonzero volume. > What’s the definition you think you have? Anything that has properties is material. Light is not material because a photon is a wave-packet in a structured aether. > > So here’s a question, does light have those properties that mean 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 | moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-12-10 17:15 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <pum6vn$5cf$3@pcls7.std.com> |
| In reply to | #479528 |
kenseto <setoken@att.net> writes: >On Sunday, December 9, 2018 at 5:25:19 PM UTC-5, Odd Bodkin wrote: >> Material means having mass and occupying nonzero volume.=20 >> What's the definition you think you have? >Anything that has properties is material. Light is not material because a >photon is a wave-packet in a structured aether. What, light doesn't have properties? You said anything that has properties is material but light isn't material. You are very, very confused, Ken. It would help if you quit inventing your own meanings for words such as 'material'.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-12-10 21:41 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <pummig$vfv$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #479528 |
kenseto <setoken@att.net> wrote: > On Sunday, December 9, 2018 at 5:25:19 PM UTC-5, Odd Bodkin wrote: >> kenseto <setoken@att.net> wrote: >>> 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. >> >> Physicists have said otherwise for centuries. >> >>> Odd has different meaning for the word material. >> >> Material means having mass and occupying nonzero volume. >> What’s the definition you think you have? > > Anything that has properties is material. Light is not material because a > photon is a wave-packet in a structured aether. Light has properties. As I’ve said, physicists have known for centuries that more things have properties than material ones. You reject everything that has been done in physics for centuries, including high school basics. > >> >> So here’s a question, does light have those properties that mean 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 > > -- Odd Bodkin — Maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | benj <benj.fake@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-12-12 13:14 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <purj58$nun$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #479505 |
On 12/9/2018 5:25 PM, Odd Bodkin wrote: > kenseto <setoken@att.net> wrote: >> 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. > > Physicists have said otherwise for centuries. what physicists have said is that "probability waves" in "nothing at all" create all material reality! And if that makes sense to you, you need some help with your mental health. >> Odd has different meaning for the word material. > > Material means having mass and occupying nonzero volume. > What’s the definition you think you have? Oddly you believe electrons have mass and properties yet occupy no volume. Logically if something has no volume, it cannot exist unless it is infinite. There are no infinite objects in reality (except human stupidity). Yet, somehow you believe all this drooling dogma as if it were some kind of obvious truth. you are nuts. > So here’s a question, does light have those properties that mean material? Does light have mass? Does any wave have mass? >> >>> 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 | 2018-12-12 18:18 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <purjdi$p5a$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #479698 |
benj <benj.fake@gmail.com> wrote: > On 12/9/2018 5:25 PM, Odd Bodkin wrote: >> kenseto <setoken@att.net> wrote: >>> 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. >> >> Physicists have said otherwise for centuries. > > what physicists have said is that "probability waves" in "nothing at > all" create all material reality! You have repeated this bogus claim over and over. When pressed on what physicists have said this and where exactly they said it, you’ve repeatedly folded. Again, calling your pot-stirring bluff. > And if that makes sense to you, you > need some help with your mental health. > > >>> Odd has different meaning for the word material. >> >> Material means having mass and occupying nonzero volume. >> What’s the definition you think you have? > > Oddly you believe electrons have mass and properties yet occupy no > volume. Logically if something has no volume, it cannot exist unless it > is infinite. You call that “logically”. I see no logic in that. Matching your personal intuition is not logic. > There are no infinite objects in reality (except human > stupidity). Yet, somehow you believe all this drooling dogma as if it > were some kind of obvious truth. you are nuts. > >> So here’s a question, does light have those properties that mean material? > > Does light have mass? Does any wave have mass? > > >>> >>>> 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 | Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-12-08 20:09 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <d42c2e6f-218e-b6aa-e7fd-b703676902d6@PointedEars.de> |
| In reply to | #479331 |
kenseto wrote: > […] 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. No, it is not. And probably you misquoted or misunderstood him. > In any case what is mathematical space? *A* mathematical space is (put simply) *an* abstract entity in which (a) coordinate(s) is/are assigned to each point. And there are rules (operations) that define how you can get from one point to another, for example. (There is not *the* mathematical space.) The concept of a field uses this. You can assign a value to every point in a mathematical space as described by its coordinates. That value can be a number (scalar), perhaps with a unit; it can be a vector itself, or in general it can be a tensor. (See below.) If the value is that of a *physical* quantity (like temperature, force, acceleration, or stress), then you can use this field to describe physical reality mathematically. In the first example in my previous follow-up, the coordinate system was defined so that the heat source was in its origin because the temperature was highest there (note the peak); it became lower as the distance from the origin – given by √(x² + y²), according to the Pythagorean theorem – increased. > Is it not a solid body? Yes, a (mathematical) space is NOT a solid body. It is an *abstract* *concept* instead. It can be used, and is used, in physics, to describe Nature; but like other mathematical concepts, in mathematics it can also exist independently from Nature, and physics. A solid body can be described as being *in* a mathematical space. That is, some points of the space lie inside the body and some outside of it. It is often useful to place the origin of the coordinate system in the center of the body, or in its center of mass. <http://www.cornell.edu/video/richard-feynman-messenger-lecture-2-relation-mathematics-physics> > If it is not a solid body how can material objects interact with the > stresses exist within it? Stress is not something that a (whole) solid body interacts with; it just is, *for* the body, caused by the particles of the body interacting *with each other*. Please trim your quotes to the relevant minimum; that includes the attribution line. -- 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 14:28 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <24aaf065-a933-4995-bb21-3e51cff08d82@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #479374 |
On Saturday, December 8, 2018 at 2:09:37 PM UTC-5, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote: > kenseto wrote: > > […] 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. > > No, it is not. And probably you misquoted or misunderstood him. > > > In any case what is mathematical space? > > *A* mathematical space is (put simply) *an* abstract entity in which (a) > coordinate(s) is/are assigned to each point. And there are rules > (operations) that define how you can get from one point to another, for example. > > (There is not *the* mathematical space.) > > The concept of a field uses this. You can assign a value to every point in > a mathematical space as described by its coordinates. That value can be a > number (scalar), perhaps with a unit; it can be a vector itself, or in > general it can be a tensor. (See below.) > > If the value is that of a *physical* quantity (like temperature, force, > acceleration, or stress), then you can use this field to describe physical > reality mathematically. In the first example in my previous follow-up, the > coordinate system was defined so that the heat source was in its origin > because the temperature was highest there (note the peak); it became lower > as the distance from the origin – given by √(x² + y²), according to the > Pythagorean theorem – increased. This mathematical approach is devoting the physical explanation why material objects interacting with each other at a distance. For example, what is the physical cause of gravity....why object orbiting each other without falling into each other? > > > Is it not a solid body? > > Yes, a (mathematical) space is NOT a solid body. It is an *abstract* > *concept* instead. It can be used, and is used, in physics, to describe > Nature; but like other mathematical concepts, in mathematics it can also > exist independently from Nature, and physics. > > A solid body can be described as being *in* a mathematical space. That > is, some points of the space lie inside the body and some outside of it. > It is often useful to place the origin of the coordinate system in the > center of the body, or in its center of mass. > > <http://www.cornell.edu/video/richard-feynman-messenger-lecture-2-relation-mathematics-physics> > > > If it is not a solid body how can material objects interact with the > > stresses exist within it? > > Stress is not something that a (whole) solid body interacts with; it just > is, *for* the body, caused by the particles of the body interacting *with > each other*. > > Please trim your quotes to the relevant minimum; that includes the > attribution line. > > -- > 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 22:42 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <puhhc7$oa5$2@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #479397 |
kenseto <setoken@att.net> wrote: > On Saturday, December 8, 2018 at 2:09:37 PM UTC-5, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote: >> kenseto wrote: >>> […] 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. >> >> No, it is not. And probably you misquoted or misunderstood him. >> >>> In any case what is mathematical space? >> >> *A* mathematical space is (put simply) *an* abstract entity in which (a) >> coordinate(s) is/are assigned to each point. And there are rules >> (operations) that define how you can get from one point to another, for example. >> >> (There is not *the* mathematical space.) >> >> The concept of a field uses this. You can assign a value to every point in >> a mathematical space as described by its coordinates. That value can be a >> number (scalar), perhaps with a unit; it can be a vector itself, or in >> general it can be a tensor. (See below.) >> >> If the value is that of a *physical* quantity (like temperature, force, >> acceleration, or stress), then you can use this field to describe physical >> reality mathematically. In the first example in my previous follow-up, the >> coordinate system was defined so that the heat source was in its origin >> because the temperature was highest there (note the peak); it became lower >> as the distance from the origin – given by √(x² + y²), according to the >> Pythagorean theorem – increased. > > This mathematical approach is devoting the physical explanation why > material objects interacting with each other at a distance. For example, > what is the physical cause of gravity....why object orbiting each other > without falling into each other? This is where even the simple ideas elude you. To you, an attractive force could only conceivably result in the two attracting objects approaching each other. To you, the idea of a stable circular orbit with no decrease in distance is impossible with an attractive force — it’s just inconceivable to you. I’ll point out this is is not a modern physics idea. It is a centuries-old HIGH SCHOOL physics idea. And your reaction is that if it makes no sense to you, then it must be wrong. > > >> >>> Is it not a solid body? >> >> Yes, a (mathematical) space is NOT a solid body. It is an *abstract* >> *concept* instead. It can be used, and is used, in physics, to describe >> Nature; but like other mathematical concepts, in mathematics it can also >> exist independently from Nature, and physics. >> >> A solid body can be described as being *in* a mathematical space. That >> is, some points of the space lie inside the body and some outside of it. >> It is often useful to place the origin of the coordinate system in the >> center of the body, or in its center of mass. >> >> <http://www.cornell.edu/video/richard-feynman-messenger-lecture-2-relation-mathematics-physics> >> >>> If it is not a solid body how can material objects interact with the >>> stresses exist within it? >> >> Stress is not something that a (whole) solid body interacts with; it just >> is, *for* the body, caused by the particles of the body interacting *with >> each other*. >> >> Please trim your quotes to the relevant minimum; that includes the >> attribution line. >> >> -- >> 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 14:56 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <9623308e-4788-4bca-8bbf-504974f13980@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #479399 |
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 2:09:37 PM UTC-5, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote: > >> kenseto wrote: > >>> […] 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. > >> > >> No, it is not. And probably you misquoted or misunderstood him. > >> > >>> In any case what is mathematical space? > >> > >> *A* mathematical space is (put simply) *an* abstract entity in which (a) > >> coordinate(s) is/are assigned to each point. And there are rules > >> (operations) that define how you can get from one point to another, for example. > >> > >> (There is not *the* mathematical space.) > >> > >> The concept of a field uses this. You can assign a value to every point in > >> a mathematical space as described by its coordinates. That value can be a > >> number (scalar), perhaps with a unit; it can be a vector itself, or in > >> general it can be a tensor. (See below.) > >> > >> If the value is that of a *physical* quantity (like temperature, force, > >> acceleration, or stress), then you can use this field to describe physical > >> reality mathematically. In the first example in my previous follow-up, the > >> coordinate system was defined so that the heat source was in its origin > >> because the temperature was highest there (note the peak); it became lower > >> as the distance from the origin – given by √(x² + y²), according to the > >> Pythagorean theorem – increased. > > > > This mathematical approach is devoting the physical explanation why > > material objects interacting with each other at a distance. For example, > > what is the physical cause of gravity....why object orbiting each other > > without falling into each other? > > This is where even the simple ideas elude you. To you, an attractive force > could only conceivably result in the two attracting objects approaching > each other. To you, the idea of a stable circular orbit with no decrease in > distance is impossible with an attractive force — it’s just inconceivable > to you. Yes, a stable orbit with just an attractive force is not feasible....Newton’s formula includes centripetal acceleration and centrifugal acceleration. For that matter action at a distance is not possible without connection between the interacting objects. > > I’ll point out this is is not a modern physics idea. It is a centuries-old > HIGH SCHOOL physics idea. > > And your reaction is that if it makes no sense to you, then it must be > wrong. > > > > > > >> > >>> Is it not a solid body? > >> > >> Yes, a (mathematical) space is NOT a solid body. It is an *abstract* > >> *concept* instead. It can be used, and is used, in physics, to describe > >> Nature; but like other mathematical concepts, in mathematics it can also > >> exist independently from Nature, and physics. > >> > >> A solid body can be described as being *in* a mathematical space. That > >> is, some points of the space lie inside the body and some outside of it. > >> It is often useful to place the origin of the coordinate system in the > >> center of the body, or in its center of mass. > >> > >> <http://www.cornell.edu/video/richard-feynman-messenger-lecture-2-relation-mathematics-physics> > >> > >>> If it is not a solid body how can material objects interact with the > >>> stresses exist within it? > >> > >> Stress is not something that a (whole) solid body interacts with; it just > >> is, *for* the body, caused by the particles of the body interacting *with > >> each other*. > >> > >> Please trim your quotes to the relevant minimum; that includes the > >> attribution line. > >> > >> -- > >> 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 7 of 9 — ← Prev page 1 2 3 4 5 6 [7] 8 9 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | sci.physics.relativity
csiph-web