What is a field

Ragnor

What is a field
«  »
 It has taken me a while to develop a sufficient answer to that question. A field is "Inertia" I heard today. I will add to that. A field is quantifiable coherent inertia.

 I just wanted to answer that, lol    I could see it, but I couldn't describe it without help.

~Russ

Re: What is a field
« Reply #1,  »
i can agree with that statement. so its kinetic energy... whats how i see it...

~Russ

Ragnor

Re: What is a field
« Reply #2,  »
I think one thing I am struggling with. Is a field really a force in motion? We can say there is a field strength of 500 milligause at location x,y,z. But what is it actually doing there when we are not looking? Is it like an Argus guard, sitting in it's booth playing mine sweeper while no one is looking (Static) or is like a Chinese traffic cop? In a constant state of motion , redirecting other forces? (Active)? In my mind I visualize it as kind of a fog or haze inhabiting a dimension of space. Static until it is acted upon and then behaving reactively to the applied force. It's like a force that is only active within it's own domain or something? I dunno, I been wracking my brain on it.   

Matt Watts

Re: What is a field
« Reply #3,  »
Smack!  Head-on into a definition.

The question I ask myself is what conditions are necessary for a field to no longer exist?

Does a field always exist?  Maybe they are similar to the half-life of a radioactive substance--decays, but never actually goes to zero.  So another question arises:  If a field cannot ever return to zero, why?  What is there about zero or "nothing at all" that prevents a field from going there?

sonnet

Re: What is a field
« Reply #4,  »
Quote
The question I ask myself is what conditions are necessary for a field to no longer exist?
A field no longer exists when a state of 'change' cannot happen, in our reality, universe this cannot be as time is analoge and directional so a absolute ' no change' cannot exist.

PeakPositive


sonnet

Re: What is a field
« Reply #6,  »Last edited
@peakpositive
good post,hopefully folks are watching it in it's entirety..
I have tried to explain much of this in Russ's threads on the Newman motor. When I have described the magnetic field from the copper wire in the coil.
This backs my theory up and supports the understanding of the Newman motor in that thread...
more of the same please...
Loved it when he describes how folks are taught wrongly or in his words little white lies....
thank you.

Matt Watts

Re: What is a field
« Reply #7,  »
Towards the end of that video David Tong selects proposition #3, going back to the drawing board.  I'm all for that and this go around it would be nice to see these fellows look at one other field I think they have totally bypassed, the Tempic Field as described by W.B. Smith.  Something tells me the quantum vacuum wouldn't look nearly so turbulent if they consider time as just another field and not the basis for their standard model.  To me it makes perfect sense that our sense of time isn't linear or flat.  It should have all the same fluctuations as any other field.  Tempic, Dielectric & Magnetic: three primordial fields living in three space geometry.  Four fabrics of three attributes each; everything in a quadrature relationship.  What's not to like about that?

sonnet

Re: What is a field
« Reply #8,  »
Quote
Something tells me the quantum vacuum wouldn't look nearly so turbulent if they consider time as just another field and not the basis for their standard model.  To me it makes perfect sense that our sense of time isn't linear or flat.  It should have all the same fluctuations as any other field.  Tempic, Dielectric & Magnetic: three primordial fields living in three space geometry.  Four fabrics of three attributes each; everything in a quadrature relationship.  What's not to like about that?
I agree with your time field postulation. and I see that quadrature relation. need to read this WB Smith

PeakPositive

Re: What is a field
« Reply #9,  »
Yes sonnet I try to watch that video about once a week just to drive what he is saying into my small brain.

I kind of see particles a lot different now. I like to think of them as like where two waves in water collide with each other and cause a little bump or node in the water. Kind of simple I know but it helps me see a little clearer.

Cycle

Re: What is a field
« Reply #10,  »Last edited by Cycle
Quote from PeakPositive on December 2nd, 2017, 05:49 PM
Yes sonnet I try to watch that video about once a week just to drive what he is saying into my small brain.

I kind of see particles a lot different now. I like to think of them as like where two waves in water collide with each other and cause a little bump or node in the water. Kind of simple I know but it helps me see a little clearer.
It's not simple at all, and it's the correct way of thinking. For instance, the "mass electron" we know is actually two waves (left-chiral electron field and right-chiral anti-positron field) trapped within a wave (Higgs field)... in short, a standing wave.

Does anyone else find it ironic that physics has gone from denying the existence of the quantum vacuum (ie: aether) to everything being composed of the quantum vacuum (ie: fields)?

http://open-source-energy.org/?topic=2962.msg43977#msg43977
Quote from http://open-source-energy.org/?topic=2962.msg43977#msg43977
The elementary particle known as an 'electron' is a spin 1/2 (the measure of its quantum spin, or its resistance to perturbation when interacting with other elementary particles), charge -1 lepton which is left-chiral. It has the symbol e-L.

But when e-L interacts with the Higgs bosonic field, it flips its chirality, turning into the chiral-doppelganger of the electron, the anti-positron, with symbol e-R, spin 1/2 and charge -1. That's known as quantum mixing.

Then it interacts with the Higgs bosonic field again, and flips back to e-L. That interaction is what gives the "mass electron" its mass, as the universe attempts to keep the "mass electron" from moving backward or forward in time beyond the current temporal frame. This quantum mixing happens about 100 trillion trillion (100,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000) times a second, according to theoretical physicist Matt Strassler.

You'll note that while the electron (e-L) and anti-positron (e-R) have the same charge and spin (and are thus otherwise indistinguishable), they have opposite chirality, which makes them different particles. This type of particle is known as a "Dirac Mass" particle.
This further implies that the "mass electron" (and all other invariant-mass matter) has a resonance which sustains its mass... if we could destructively interfere with that resonance, we could cause it to transform directly into energy, per Einstein's equation e2 = p2c2 + m2c4. But in order to do so, we'd have to be able to generate extremely high-frequency waves (at least ~50 trillion trillion Hz) with an extremely sharp gradient... anything longer-wavelength or more gradually-sloped, and the standing wave that is invariant mass matter will just 'ride' upon it like a ship on a large wave. Think in terms of how a high frequency wave and low frequency wave interact... the high frequency wave will 'ride' along the slope of the low frequency wave, making the low frequency wave appear to be 'bumpy'... but we're not really disrupting that high frequency wave at all. Now think how a high frequency wave interacts with another high frequency wave... you can get them to destructively interfere.

And of course, the above is the entire basis as to why there are 'quanta' of energy in the first place... only certain wavelengths in these fields of the quantum vacuum can interact constructively to create standing waves, which we sense as photons, the EM field's magnetism (which is quantized, but is so finely pixelated as to seem continuous) and invariant mass matter.