verpies
I have heard may of these non-explanations in physics.
The people using this language could not seem to understand they were not answering the questions only raising more.
Yes, my answer raises more questions but it does answer the one at hand. It also supports my objection to the statement that "electric field is volume".
In any kind of reasoning, complex concepts are defined in terms of simpler ones. This forms a pyramid of concepts. The ones at its apex are called axioms. Axioms cannot be explained in terms of other concepts.
Thus, it always comes down to saying "grant me that and I will boot up an entire universe for you". If you cannot accept that then show me a better way which does not involve turtles all the way down. ...or we will not be able to communicate
For example, you claim an "Electric field is a set of electric-force vectors". Now we have to ask what is an electric force?, where does it come from and why?. What are the electric force vectors?, where are the points?, why are they there?, where did they come from?.
These are good questions, but they do not invalidate my argument against "electric field is a volume", although it involves a volume.
You might be elated to read, that the mainstream physics does not have answers to these questions because it treats the
4 fundamental forces as axioms and attempts to feebly explain them with virtual particles or not at all. This does not mean that mainstream science does not have a
good empirical description of these forces such as the Coulomb's and Maxwell's equations, which only tell us how these forces behave quantitatively.
However, I do have a conceptual grasp of the origin of these forces but it is far out stuff and I am not sure this is the proper venue to discuss them nor whether your mind is sufficiently elastic to comprehend my explanations conceptually.
Out of the questions you posed above, I can answer two of them right away without going outside of mainstream science.
What are the electric force vectors?
They are symbols representing the magnitude and direction of electric force at points in 3d space. Yes, this does not explain the origin of the electric force but it defines it quantitatively at that point.
, where are the points?
All around you. Point is a primitive notion that models an exact location in 3d space, 2d area or 1d line, and has no length, width, or thickness.
A "primitive notion" or an "axiom" is a concept that is not defined in terms of previously-defined concepts.
why are they there?, where did they come from?.
This is the subject of the far out stuff, that I'd like to avoid discussing in this venue.
Notice that by asking why the points are here/there and where they come from, you are effectively asking about the origin/nature of the 3d Euclidean reference system that we call space.
It is a very important question which is removed from, what I consider top axioms, by 1 level only.
I am just not sure whether you are ready to comprehend the answer to this question. Most people who I attempted to explain this to were never able to get their mind out of what I call the "aquarium paradigm", which is an idea that we are like fish swimming in an aquarium, where water is an analogy to space. This paradigm is probably the reason why people cling so frantically to imaginary concepts like aether, which sooth their primitive need to have a medium to swim in.
Then you claim this also relates to Coulomb forces which act on a supposed test charge. Now we have matter interacting with supposed fields complicating things even further.
But you cannot detect an electric field without it, so I am justified to propose that electric fields do not exist without material observers ...or exist only to them.
In Engineering we call this physics double-speak. Much like politics or religion it's a repetitive drone meant to wear the listener down using circular reasoning.
I know what you mean, but I am not like that. I just refrain from going too deep because I find that almost no one can understand it anyway. People are just stuck in their aquarium of space.
Do we really need to make up more and more imaginary things to not explain what a field is?
Without analyzing deeply what causes the spatial reference system to emerge, there is no other choice.
An aether is one of such "imaginary things" btw.
I mean, you have already not explained what a field is, why not just leave it at that?.
No, I explained what an electric field is in terms of an electric force, enough to invalidate the assertion that "field is volume".
I just did not explain the origin of spatial reference system and the origin of the electric force (forces are the cause of accelerations, btw) because this is the wrong venue for it and most people cannot comprehend it anyway.
Author
Topic: Nikola Tesla free energy concepts (Read 4636 times)
