Re: rotating magnetic field

On Apr 19, 8:52 pm, Salmon Egg <Salmon...@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

The bottom line is that our very lives depend upon mathematical models
and theories giving accurate descriptions of nature.

Bill

Has anyone said that abstract mathematical models are not useful? Has
anyone suggested that they often (but not always) produce results that
closely predict actual physical phenomena? Has anyone suggested that
mathematical models should be abandoned because they are abstract?
Has anyone suggested that mathematical predictions are not useful for
making various devices safe (so long as you don't trust the math too
much and add a sufficient margin of safety)? No, they have not.

Bill, you are answering your own question but not one that anyone
(especially me) is asking here. If you want to put words in my mouth
and then assert I'm saying stooopid things have at it. But you are
really only fooling yourself.

The point is that mathematical models are abstract things. They are
not objects that exist. Behavior without an actual object of which the
behavior is describing is what? It's nonsense. Behavior can't exist
all by itself. An abstract model is not more real than reality. It is
an abstraction. It has no physical existence at all! I can't believe
that this is really that hard to understand? Cripes! You "educated"
clowns are dense.

I know what your problem is, though. I've questioned your faith. I've
challenged your "belief". I've proposed "heresy" in the religion
you've unquestioningly believed your whole lives. And you find it VERY
uncomfortable. Well GOOD! I WANT you all to be uncomfortable with
your comfy beliefs. It's good for you. Shall I tack a few more
"mostly useless" ideas on the church door?

OK, here's one: Pete says that fields exist and are real and even
exist even when there are no charges to create them such as in an EM
"wave". That's his dogma. But wait. Do EM waves actually exist? I
suggest they don't. Establishment physics (and as Pete would say, no
physicist (who wants to keep his job) would ever say otherwise) holds
that there is an electromagnetic spectrum. And that this spectrum goes
from the lowest radio waves to the highest cosmic rays. Light is in
the middle. Light as is well known is made up of photons. Particles.
This means that ALL EM radiation is also made up of photons, does it
not? Hence there are no "waves" at all in EM radiation! We do admit
that the TRAJECTORIES of the photons are determined by mechanisms that
demonstrate wave-like effects. But the EM radiation itself is a
PARTICLE! Hence there can be NO "field" of any type there! Oh, but I
hear you cry, what about Schroedinger waves? Well what about them?
You tell me? These are abstract PROBABILITY waves! Do these waves
exist because of some "probability fields"? What in hell is a
"probability field"? Talk about an unreal abstraction! How easy it is
to take all these widely accepted statements of establishment physics
such as EM "fields" exist and show they make no sense at all? They
aren't even CLOSE to being what is known to be "correct"! So how can
you all keep insisting that they are correct? Faith, I guess.

Here, I'll make it easy for you. Just copy the line below:

<snip uneducated Benj useless idiot nonsense>

.

Relevant Pages