Action at a Distance = Fiction

[Lloyd]

Web said: I am of the view that the field causes the motion, not motion causing the field.

* What do your fields consist of?
* I like Mathis' view that they consist of moving photons. That way we don't need more than one object existing in the universe. All matter, charges and fields consist of photons.

[sjw40364]

I don't believe photons are single particles, nor are they the force carriers of the EM spectrum.

[webolife]

Web said: I am of the view that the field causes the motion, not motion causing the field.

* What do your fields consist of?
* I like Mathis' view that they consist of moving photons. That way we don't need more than one object existing in the universe. All matter, charges and fields consist of photons.

I appreciate Mathis for his unification of photons, however I [like sjw] do not believe in particle light carriers, either photons or electromagnetic wavefronts. So what mediates the pressure? Two paradigms are required for this answer:
1. The universe is an interconnected finite entity, inferring that every object is joined to every other object by some tangibly observable and possibly measurable agency. So-called "Gravitation" is one candidate for this agent of connection, "Electricity" or "Magnetism" being another; or G-force, or T-Force [my late mentor Robert Archer Smith referred to it as Time] or "whatever"... Gaede/Hare call it ropes, others formulate various "aethers"...
2. "Whatever" holds the universe together is everywhere present in the universe, and is non-material, by which I mean that it is not an intrinsic characteristic of material. I often describe thus, that pressure gives rise to "mass", not "mass" giving rise to pressure. That stuff is pervasively "held together" versus being ripped apart gives birth to the term "Centropy" which unifies all forces in the universe as being quantitatively directed toward a system centroid, whether an atom nucleus, a solar system's Sol, a galactic core, the centroid of a supercluster, or at whatever scale you wish to investigate.

The omnipresent centropic pressure de-necessitates a medium of transfer. Any shift or change in the field structure produces an effect everywhere in the structure. Blaise Pascal described this in a self-named pressure law. To see light pressure one only needs to align a detector [your retina] in the direction of the shift. In the case of "light" pressure, the shift happens at an atomic scale as electrons "jump" down, producing a vector directed toward that source center centroid locus. At first one wants to think "tug" because we're used to the paradigm of light being emitted toward us, but this is a system wide push toward the direction of that shifting locus. No carrier is needed, because the force is everywhere present and possibly felt. "Everywhere felt" of course limited to wherever a resonant detector is aligned toward that source. Speaking of resonant detectors, our retina is particularly amazing yet elegant in it's design, with the sensitive photoreceptors found on the back, not front, of the retinal surface.

Based on these two paradigms, the answer is:
The unified field consists of centropic pressure vectors, or simplistically... rays.
Vectors from "what"? If the "what" is expected to be matter, the answer must elude us, because the pressure causes the "what", not the other way around... if one's science is limited strictly to materialism and determinism, then one must conclude that the answer is not determinable by science.

However, I find that EVERYONE's science is comprised of
a) the material evidence, entwined with...
b)"imagination"...
To make this tenuous connection, one needs to apply the glue of belief, call it assumption, presumption, presupposition, philosophy, or religion... I simply refer to it as your "faith base." Yes, YOU, whoever reads this statement, are inescapably driven in your "scientific" analysis by an unprovable set of premises. To deny this denies the fallibility of human perception and intuition. More honest to admit than to pretend otherwise.

To the thread title allegation I say, "AAAD is the material evidence; all other explanations are imagination."

[Lloyd]

* Web, I can understand Mathis extremely well for the most part. What you said I almost entirely don't understand. If you're talking about string theory, that seems plainly nonsensical and seems to require gobs of ad hoc imagining.

[sjw40364]

* Web, I can understand Mathis extremely well for the most part. What you said I almost entirely don't understand. If you're talking about string theory, that seems plainly nonsensical and seems to require gobs of ad hoc imagining.

Not that I agree with Web or against him, but doesn't every theory require gobs of ad hoc imagining?

[ifrean]

brilliant web, thank you for posting my imaginings in such a clear and concise manner

[sjw40364]

Clearly those that think photons are the force carrier for the EM spectrum are incorrect. We know that only charges traveling in closed loops within magnetic fields generate charge, yet photons interact with those same charges when they travel in straight lines. So photons can not be the source of the charge generation. So I strongly disagree with MM and any who believe photons are the force carriers. The data does not support such a conclussion.

[Lloyd]

SJW: We know that only charges traveling in closed loops within magnetic fields generate charge
LK: Charges generate charge? What generates the charges that generate charge? (Tentative answer:) Spinning photons do.
SJW: yet photons interact with those same [former?] charges when they travel in straight lines. So photons can not be the source of the charge generation.
LK: What interaction between photons and charges are you referring to? And why cannot photons generate charges, if they interact?

[Michael V]

webolife,

The universe is an interconnected finite entity, inferring that every object is joined to every other object by some tangibly observable and possibly measurable agency.

We can quite comfortably and with absolute certainty file this as a zero possibility.

The omnipresent centropic pressure de-necessitates a medium of transfer

This is self-contradictory. An omnipresent centropic pressure relies upon and absolutely demands a medium of transfer. Indeed, "a pressure field" is defined as a "medium of transfer".

Any shift or change in the field structure produces an effect everywhere in the structure.

This is spooky magic replacing science. Previously you define a "finite entity", which for any realistic purposes must be measured as a bare minimum of tens of billions of light-years across. You then abandon all sense and logic by allowing all points to be aware of all other points at all times, presumably in the hope of avoiding physical analysis and mechanical motion. I don't see any point in considering the fundamental nature of the universe only to come to a conclusion that "it all works by magic". The premise of instantaneous universal connection is another absolute certainty of zero possibility.

However, I find that EVERYONE's science is comprised of
a) the material evidence, entwined with...
b)"imagination"...

I do not agree and I would amend you list as:
a) logical certainties of what absolutely must be true and what absolutely cannot be true
b) interpretation of physical evidence
c) "imagination"

AAAD is the material evidence; all other explanations are imagination.

I entirely disagree with this too. The "material evidence" is that we are incapable of directly accessing the mediating agent by measurement or sensory ability and thus that explanation and proof can only come by logical argument and interpretation of sensorially available physical evidence. The presence of a mediating agent is an absolute certainty.

I very deliberately use the words "absolute" and "certainty", as any contradictory viewpoint immediately renders the entire endeavour as pointless. If we are unable to rely on our ability to function logically as existing entities then we are unable to construct any arguments relating to either ourselves or the wider universe. If on the other hand we are willing to admit that we are capable of attempting a valid analysis, then above all else and before any other considerations we must assume that our intellect is valid. As such we can at least limit the parameters of possibility with absolute certainty.

"Everywhere felt" of course limited to wherever a resonant detector is aligned toward that source.

If every single point of the universe is connected to every other point with an instantaneous link, then why is there any need for alignment?

Speaking of resonant detectors, our retina is particularly amazing yet elegant in it's design, with the sensitive photoreceptors found on the back, not front, of the retinal surface.

Your repeated reference to retina design as some sort of demonstration of the nature of "light" fails at all sorts of levels. The most important, which is also ignored by pretty much everyone else, is that we have absolutely no access to light except via one single interface. The "retina" does not detect light, nor does any other sort of photo-receptor or photo-detector. The ONLY method of detecting light is via electrons. The "imaginings" of fools has attributed the "light-wave" to the light signal, whilst ignoring completely that the only method of interception available to residents of this universe is via electron activity.


Michael

[Sparky]

SJW: We know that only charges traveling in closed loops within magnetic fields generate charge
LK: Charges generate charge? What generates the charges that generate charge? (Tentative answer:) Spinning photons do.
SJW: yet photons interact with those same [former?] charges when they travel in straight lines. So photons can not be the source of the charge generation.
LK: What interaction between photons and charges are you referring to? And why cannot photons generate charges, if they interact?

Okay, which one of you is really Clint Eastwood?!

[sjw40364]

SJW: We know that only charges traveling in closed loops within magnetic fields generate charge
LK: Charges generate charge? What generates the charges that generate charge? (Tentative answer:) Spinning photons do.
SJW: yet photons interact with those same [former?] charges when they travel in straight lines. So photons can not be the source of the charge generation.
LK: What interaction between photons and charges are you referring to? And why cannot photons generate charges, if they interact?

Charges moved in closed loops require no energy to complete that loop according to mainstream, while charges moved in straight paths require x amount of energy.

Now, if the same photons are transferring force to both charges being moved along their respective path, then why do only charges moving in closed loops supposedly use no energy to traverse it's path? I say supposedly because the law of magnetic induction says conductors (i.e. things containing charge) generate current when moving in orbits (i.e. closed loops) through a magnetic field.

So it is interaction with the magnetic field that induces current, not photons striking things. Photons are waste by-product of current generation, plain and simple. Excess charge ejected to maintain system balance, just as all EM radiation is. ALL objects traveling in orbits in magnetic fields generate current, which is why orbits are defined as accelerations along a vector towards the center. Without acceleration you can have no orbit. There is no math to describe orbits as free-fall, or stationary, or drifting, only acceleration, and acceleration requires energy expenditure.

I use the word charge mostly because both current and electricity are unexplainable as defined and encompass several phenomenon all rolled together.

[webolife]

Michael V,
What continually amazes me and clearly eludes you is how similar our views of the universe actually are!! Where you imagine immeasurable small undetectable particles ["quantums'"], I simply say there are none. I stand corrected regarding my mis-use of the word "medium". I think I meant instead "media" as in intervening collided particles transferring momentum from source to detector. I most certainly do "imagine" a medium that is geometrically describable, scaleless [or Thornhill says "scalable"], and visible as far as we are able to detect widely disparate points of it by means of... light. Light is a sensation, purely and simply, so using the retina as a preferred tool for its description is not out of place. Yes, yes, yes, "electrons" are the transfer medium of that sensation at the atomic scale.

[webolife]

Lloyd,
I know my view is wildly distant from the materialistic paradigms we were all trained to perceive.
I hope you don't give up trying. I will continue to try to refine and clarify my framework, and all questions and challenges are welcome.

[saul]

Clearly those that think photons are the force carrier for the EM spectrum are incorrect. We know that only charges traveling in closed loops within magnetic fields generate charge, yet photons interact with those same charges when they travel in straight lines. So photons can not be the source of the charge generation. So I strongly disagree with MM and any who believe photons are the force carriers. The data does not support such a conclussion.

Don't forget the difficulty of explaining electrostatic -attraction- of two objects via an exchange of photons. The photons have to carry a "negative momentum". It might be a formulation which in some way is equivalent to a standard field theory but it's not clear to me where the advantage would lie.

[sjw40364]

Clearly those that think photons are the force carrier for the EM spectrum are incorrect. We know that only charges traveling in closed loops within magnetic fields generate charge, yet photons interact with those same charges when they travel in straight lines. So photons can not be the source of the charge generation. So I strongly disagree with MM and any who believe photons are the force carriers. The data does not support such a conclussion.

Don't forget the difficulty of explaining electrostatic -attraction- of two objects via an exchange of photons. The photons have to carry a "negative momentum". It might be a formulation which in some way is equivalent to a standard field theory but it's not clear to me where the advantage would lie.

Yah, I have never been fond of the idea as the photon as the force carrier, it just never seemed to fit. I think photon's travel at c, not because they are the ultimate particle, but because that is the speed they are limited to by the medium (some would say fabric or field) that they traverse through. Besides, a photons energy must come from somewhere, as must ALL the EM radiation being constantly emitted by all matter (as we define it).

I can lock it (a clump of matter) up in a near radiation proof box and any sensors inside will detect just as much EM being emitted as before it was placed in the box (- the smidgen it receives from external sources). So EM is not the source, but the effect of pure energy generation, excess charge being emitted to keep a system as close to balanced as possible. Then add in excess charge along the current paths and it is no wonder stars glow!!!

IMO every thing that orbits in another objects magnetic field generates charge, pure and simple, and that includes protons, neutrons and electrons orbiting around each other. I see no other viable explanation but a magical power source conveniently beyond our detection range. Which leads us back to energy conservation