The most difficult subjects can be explained to the most
slow-witted man if he has not formed any idea of them already; but
the simplest thing cannot be made clear to the most intelligent man
if he is firmly persuaded that he knows already, without a shadow of
doubt, what is laid before him. - Leo Tolstoy
Nature and Definition of Fields in EU Thinking
Given that we live in a material world–material referring
to matter–and that the basic units of matter are what we call
particles, physical science always includes dealing with matter,
with units of matter or particles.
transmitted through chains of particles
I think the great mistake that is being consistently made is the
failure to recognize the existence of dipolar aether particles and
their role in physical phenomena. IMO, we need more clarity, which
starts with better conceptions and more useful definitions. Is not a
field a certain volume of dipolar aether particles that are effected
electrically to stand ready to transmit one of the two forces–attraction
or repulsion–upon any object that makes contact with them?
A question that should have been asked long ago: If there is no
particle medium that supports a field, what is the material or
concrete explanation–not just the mathematical description–for
the drop off of the “field intensity” in a field where the
distance from the surface of the field generator is increasing? If
THERE IS NOTHING BETWEEN the field generator and the affected
object, why would there be any diminishment? In our definition of a
field above, the number of particles that distribute the diminishing
effect or force in the field is increasing by the distance, or in
each type of case, the square of the distance, or the square root of the distance.
Therefore, in the EU thinking a field is not just a mystical or
mathematical construct but is really a description of a specific
volume of matter, of neutrinos “carrying the field”, that has a
force effect upon other material objects or particles of matter that
make CONTACT. This should be very simple and
straightforward, and easy to visualize or imagine.
Another question is this: Given that physical science deals with
material, hasn’t there been far to much phenomenological or mystical
thinking that has crept in the back door of physics theory? Without
a medium of aether to carry the field, some theoreticians get so
discouraged that they want to do away with the whole concept of a
field! In the basic science of physics there is way too much
inconsistency. I am reminded, “Consistency, Thou art a gem.”
Wal Thornhill claims, "...that the æther, in the form of
normal matter (neutrinos) can be regarded as the polarizable
dielectric substrate that transfers the direct electric force (which
includes magnetism and gravity) and also the slower transverse
electrical disturbance of electromagnetic waves."
Just consider the two cases whereby the field intensity falls off
by the distance or the square of the distance in a radial field.
This is simply because the number or aether particles carrying the
force gets increased and the intensity gets spread out or diluted by
the increasing number of the particles carrying the field out to
that distance. Nothing mystical here at all.
These two formulas are mathematically simplified or idealized, and
the true formula for any specific case in the real world of even just two bodies would
be hopelessly complicated. In my opinion it would have to include other
factors, such as the charge differential of the two objects, the
size or surface area of the two bodies, or at least the conical
section between them defined by the spheroid profiles of their
surfaces and the increase of ether particles carrying the field
intensity over distance within that conical section, and the density
of the plasma in the region.
For more than two bodies in the real world of outer space, the
effect of the other bodies would have to be included. For experiments and measurements in the
laboratory, these other factors can essentially be set to zero.
Therefore, practically, a field consists of a certain volume and
somewhat quantifiable number of neutrino/aether/matter particles
surrounding the field generator where the force of the field is
still detectable by contact with the remote particles..