-KevinI have complete understanding of what I mean by FIELD, You, in YOUR opinion don't.
If your understanding is complete, then you can define it, rigorously and unambiguously in terms of concrete objects. You can make a picture or a movie of it. You can hand me the concrete objects involved or models of them and show me what happens. This is what it means to understand. It is a bare minimum of science. If this were not the minimum then we could just say that God does it and be done with the whole mess. Technology does not equal science. Building a better computer is not equivalent to understanding the Universe. Thank you for watching the EI videos, the voice is annoying, but they are very edifying. I hope you learned as much as I did.
No I have no conception of the word "field". It is a horribly mangled and abused word in modern physics. It is utterly meaningless, much like "energy". I have seen it used and abused every which way and I have given up on finding a single definition among people who use this poor, misused word.
-junglelordWhy don't you define field for all of us Alton?
I am not the one who proposes theories based on the word "field". I only ask that we define the strategic words we use in our theories. I never use the word "field" in the context of my own theory. Notice that when I use the word "field" I put it in quotes to indicate that it is vague, ambiguous, and undefined. The onus is on anyone who wishes to use the word "field" in the context of a scientific theory to define it. I do not. It is not my responsibility. If I came to you and said that the universe was pervaded by a "giglipook" and you asked me to define it, and I said it is unimaginable and inconceivable, you would scoff at me. Would it make sense for me to become indignant and ask YOU to define "giglipook"? "Giglipook" is MY theory, not yours!
-Grey CloudAnd could you define light for us too, please Alton?
Light is the torsion of an entwined dual-strand rope. My typing fingers are tired. Watch the video and then ask me more questions:
-SolarIf I remember correctly, according to the author "field" was simply a mathematical set of numbers (measurements) representative of a "region" of space. It's no different that when Maxwell used "lines of force" to represent a magnetic field and cautioned that the tendency would be to consider the "lines" as real. Though an 'area' or 'region' of space may be affected so as to present the existence of such an entity, the nomenclature doesn't define what that 'region' actually is. It's a relational 'tool' that's put forth instead when knowledge fails at adequately define a thing or condition or is trying to understand.
I'm not sure who "author" is. If you are referring to Bill Gaede you are misunderstanding HIS viewpoint. He says that MATHEMATICIANS attempt to define "field" as a set of numbers assigned to a "region" of space. This is incongruous and illogical in the extreme. A number is a concept, not a concrete. How can a concept have location in space? Can I pull love out from between my fiancee and I? Is it just sitting there? Can I assign love to the space between my crotch and hers? Perhaps in everyday speech I can say these things, but scientifically a concept absolutely has no physical presence. What you have said (assuming "author" is not BG) is all precisely correct. Neither Maxwell nor any other scientist to date has actually understood light, magnetism, or gravity. They have managed to quantify them and describe them mathematically. They have not been able to show us, physically, how a magnet works. They make up words and equations to refer to or quantify observations that they do not understand. Newton formulated the gravitational equation but confessed he had no idea how one body could influence another physically. Mathematical physics of today continues this trend of writing equations without ever tying them to a concrete. Quantitative descriptions are great but, in the end, there must be a PHYSICAL interpretation.
-SolarNow, it is obvious to me that there some who have an understanding of certain conditions without the necessity and/or skills to define that knowledge because the knowledge or understanding may well have such a capacity to render rigid definitions futile.
Knowledge and understanding render rigid definitions futile??? Are you sure you're saying what you think you are? An object cannot be two things at once. A concept cannot be two relationships among objects at once. Are you saying that we should let a ball be a block at the same time? Shall we build our theories from square circles and breakable fundamental constituents? Such a theory is no longer falsifiable. If I can assign as many definitions to an object or concept as I like I can explain anything and everything! Anything goes! If you cannot give each component of your theory a single identify how do you distinguish your theory from religion? Religion loves dualities and contradictions! Science is the opposite, it is rigorous and consistent. You may either choose to have faith in imagination and religion or use rationality and logic i.e. tie each component of your theory to one and only one concrete or relationship among concretes.
-SolarI get the impression with the theory that a certain (necessary) rigor is being put forth with regard to "science" simply defining it's terms. If "scientist" knew what, for example, magnetism was I think they would've long ago better defined it. It's obvious to me that this quality is not understood despite the fact that it can be worked with.
Precisely. If scientists had figured out what magnetism was they wouldn't have nebulous, ambiguous terms running around like "field". Because they have not understood it they have resorted to reification. Don't get me wrong. If you don't understand something it's okay to make up a word for it. However you must remain honest and confess that you have no idea what "giglipook" actually is, physically. You can proceed to write your equations and describe it, but you do not have a theory of physics. You have, at BEST, a mathematical description that may be technologically useful. Far more often you simply end up with nonsense. At worst your audience engages in reification of your made up words and runs around telling people about outrageous nonsense. If anyone here is a theoretician or knows theoreticians they are aware of the fact that there far, far, far and away more mathematical models that end up in the garbage bin than end up revolutionizing technology. This is because mathematical descriptions have nothing to do with physics.
Another way to put this, for the mathematically oriented, is in terms of the "degrees of freedom" of a problem. If a problem has zero degrees of freedom it is solvable. If it has more than zero it either has an arbitrarily large number of solutions or no solution. When you fail to tie your theory to concretes your theory ends up with an arbitrarily large number or degrees of freedom. You have bypassed a critical step that separates nonsensical solutions from physical solutions. You would never take a second order differential equation with one boundary condition and just pluck a solution out at random. You would also not simply pick the other boundary condition at random. This is effectively what you are doing when you brainstorm a theory that is not tied to concrete objects. A "boundary condition" of physical theories is that they be tied to concretes. There are an arbitrarily large number of nonphysical theories that may APPEAR to explain the universe if you simply toss concrete objects out the window. When you make your theory physical, i.e. tie it to concretes, you eliminate the nonphysical (nonsensical) solutions.
Thank you very much! I have not seen this simple observation elsewhere, and I have read Einstein's Relativity and his papers. Obviously nothing is "dilating", it's a matter of which reference standard you use.That is actually very interesting.