What Do We Know For Certain?

[mjv1121]

webolife and A Question For EVERYBODY,

You, not I, believe that a force is nothing [oh yes, you redefine it as transfer of momentum],

?

despite the fact that your smallest quantums still have something holding them together, quite densely as a matter of repeated assertion.

I have not asserted any such thing, and besides it's irrelevant.

TWO CONFLICTING VIEWS:

VIEW AAAD:

you may have to accept that your fundamental particles are interacting across space, that there is a dynamic field acting on particles, that is not itself composed of particles?

So, action at a distance is it?

VIEW NO-AAAD:
You may have to accept that at some point in the diminution of the universe there is a field of fundamental particles that act on larger particles and is itself made of particles.

Action at a distance is impossible.

In short, your objection to my "belief" that action at a distance is impossible, is based on your "belief" that action at a distance is possible.

Have I correctly highlighted the devil's details?

ACTION AT A DISTANCE:
There are two possible answers to the question, either yes or no, there is no maybe or kind of, either yes or no.
Do you think or believe or suspect that action at a distance is possible?

my answer is NO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!, what is your answer?

I would leave this question open to anybody and everybody: do you believe that action at a distance is possible?

Michael

[Sparky]

.......NO!
.
.
.
.
.well, not certainly.
.
.
.
.
maybe a small maybe...
.
.
.
.but, mostly, no....

[mharratsc]

If by 'action' you mean somehow expressing energy, and by 'at a distance' you mean objects separated by an actual vacuum, and not under the influence of a electromagnetic field, then I would say that 'action at a distance' is impossible under the hypothesis most strongly held here at the Thunderbolts site.

Wal Thornhill has stated a most plausible concept that energy and mass are both properties of matter, and therefore there cannot be any sort of energetic achievement of equilibrium through an actual vacuum. Field effects could convey a distance of some sort that might appear to be vacuous, but macroscopically speaking would not qualify as such.

[mjv1121]

Mike,

In this context, "action", is interchangeable with "force". That is to say a body/object/entity/particle/something that is at rest or is in uniform motion has a force applied upon it (i.e. an action) by another body without any contact whatsoever - no mediating particles or "force field", nothing at all.

Michael

[webolife]

But I do not ever say action at a distance in a vacuum, I always say force field... and now you are repeating that contact between your particles is mediated by smaller particles. What mediates the contact between your smallest particles, and if nothing, what holds them together to form atoms and such? And if after finally answering this question [I really hope you will ] you repeat your admission that you are uncertain about it, then how can you continue to be so certain about the numerous statements in your list that require this contact?

[mjv1121]

webolife,

But I do not ever say action at a distance in a vacuum, I always say force field... and now you are repeating that contact between your particles is mediated by smaller particles.

So what is your "force field" made of? Tissue paper? Water? Wishful thinking?, or is it made of very small particles?

What mediates the contact between your smallest particles, and if nothing, what holds them together to form atoms and such?

I would be inclined yo make the assumption that the "smallest" particles are the fundamental building blocks of everything physical, and as such are not mediated, but undergo direct, actual physical, contact.

And if after finally answering this question you repeat your admission that you are uncertain about it

This pertains to the structural integrity of larger particles. How do we envisage the interactions between large and small particles, whilst maintaining the structural integrity of the larger particles? Of this I am uncertain.

then how can you continue to be so certain about the numerous statements in your list that require this contact?

My list of certainties is based on self-evident logic, with the hope that an investigation into what we "know" may help to illuminate other uncertainties and perhaps even lead towards even more plausible theories. I am in no way attempting to reverse engineer a previous or even present theory with mechanical certainties. Quite the reverse, I wish to separate what we may hold as "certain" from what is clearly uncertain. The bridge between the two is called theory.

I wonder if I may entice you to commit yourself to answer a question:
ACTION AT A DISTANCE:
Do you think or believe or suspect that action at a distance is possible?

Michael

[Aardwolf]

Michael,

If all forces/fields are particulate in nature then what exaclty causes magnetic field lines to uniformly curve around the magnet? Why do they not exit the magnet in straight lines or a random walk?

[mjv1121]

Aardwolf,

I will assume that you are not asking me about magnetic field lines. Hopefully you are asking about curvature of the field density around a rectangular bar magnet.

Obviously the field is emitted by the bar magnet (at a sub-atomic level) and we may also say that it is centred parallel to a line between the poles and is strongest around the poles. It is also interesting to note that the field of the magnet is usually shown without the field(s) of the item(s) that were used to map the field - which begs the question, what shape really is the emitted field?

An implication of your question is that there is some alternative to a particulate existence. Would you like to kneel down and place your head on the block by suggesting what such an alternative might be - don't worry, Occam's Guillotine, I mean Razor, is always nice and sharp.

Michael

[Aardwolf]

Aardwolf,

I will assume that you are not asking me about magnetic field lines. Hopefully you are asking about curvature of the field density around a rectangular bar magnet.

Obviously the field is emitted by the bar magnet (at a sub-atomic level) and we may also say that it is centred parallel to a line between the poles and is strongest around the poles. It is also interesting to note that the field of the magnet is usually shown without the field(s) of the item(s) that were used to map the field - which begs the question, what shape really is the emitted field?

An implication of your question is that there is some alternative to a particulate existence. Would you like to kneel down and place your head on the block by suggesting what such an alternative might be - don't worry, Occam's Guillotine, I mean Razor, is always nice and sharp.

Michael

Whatever or however you descibe the magnetic field, what we know for certain is that they follow a curvature. Are you disputing that? If not, what particulate interaction causes the uniform curvature?

Your OP is about what we (you) know for certain so what I understand to be causing the curvature is entirely irrelevant to this thread. Indeed I may not even have an answer.

[Aardwolf]

How, for example, do you explain the curvature observed in this image of the surface of the sun?

The Sun.jpg (10.3 KiB) Viewed 6673 times

[Aardwolf]

Something else that occurs to me. In a particulate only action/reaction universe, attraction cannot exist. As you state a bar magnet emits its field, so how does it attact another magnet which is also only emitting its field?

[Sparky]

How, for example, do you explain the curvature observed in this image of the surface of the sun?

Streams of plasma in glow/arc mode, generating and interacting in magnetic and electric fields.

To explain that photo, without knowledge of that formation's evolution, is like explaining a photo of a herd of buffalo, without knowledge of their evolution and life process in their environment.

[mjv1121]

Oracle_911,

In the past i read a book about LASERs, there was a capitol about modulation of light by E fields.

Perhaps the author was referring to E-fields and B-fields simulating electrons to emit photons in the lasing material, but photons/light are not affected by EM fields. Photons (light) is emitted by electrons and so are EM fields, but photons (light) is in no sense whatsoever electromagnetic.

Michael

[Aardwolf]

How, for example, do you explain the curvature observed in this image of the surface of the sun?

Streams of plasma in glow/arc mode, generating and interacting in magnetic and electric fields.

To explain that photo, without knowledge of that formation's evolution, is like explaining a photo of a herd of buffalo, without knowledge of their evolution and life process in their environment.

But I'm curious why the magnetic/electric fields are curved. What are they interacting with/bombarded by to cause a curvature? Why are the not in random directions or straight lines?

[mjv1121]

Aardwolf,

Too many posts, not enough typing skills...

Whatever or however you describe the magnetic field, what we know for certain is that they follow a curvature.

What absolute nonsense. The only "known" thing about the distribution of the magnetic field is by the affect caused to other objects. So, first of all, and most obviously, the "field" IS NOT "curved". Mapping the affect on objects that react to the bar magnet's emissions (i.e. field) produces the impression of a curved field, but electron emissions travel through empty space and in straight lines. What we may deduce is that the emission from the magnet is non-uniform about its external physical shape. The entirety of the interaction between the magnet's emitted field and the emitted field of other objects is open to theoretical speculation.

Curving arcs on the surface of the Sun may well have a significant gravitational component. Throw a ball, point a jet of water from a garden hose - similar? It may also come as as bit of surprise to you that the water is made of particles. I suspect that if the Sun's gravity were not so strong the "plasma jets" would behave differently.

In a particulate only action/reaction universe, attraction cannot exist.

Of course there is no such thing as mechanical attraction, you would have to be a simpleton and a fool to believe otherwise. The effect of attraction is simply the result of a balance of opposing forces:

What force pushes objects together?..................GRAVITY

What force pushes objects apart?.......................CHARGE

What forces stop atoms from collapsing or flying apart?......................CHARGE and GRAVITY

What force causes magnetic attraction?....................................GRAVITY

What force causes magnetic repulsion?....................................CHARGE

Either:
- an object is collapsing into a smaller and smaller volume
- or, an object is expanding into a greater and greater volume
- or, there is a balance of forces

Electrons and protons are affected by charge and by gravity. Atoms, and any and all orbital systems, must be a balance of forces.

Your OP is about what we (you) know for certain so what I understand to be causing the curvature is entirely irrelevant to this thread. Indeed I may not even have an answer.

All of my statements above come under the heading of theoretical speculation, rather than certainty, although it's a good bet that I am right......oh yes I am.


Michael