The Sunset of Darwinism

tfp ^ | 06.04.08 | Julio Loredo

[Coleus]

Praised until recently as dogma, Darwin’s theory of evolution is now fading away, discredited by the same science that bore its poisoned fruit. Instead, the Christian vision of a supernatural design is being increasingly affirmed. “Evolution is now a datum proven beyond any reasonable doubt and no longer a theory, it’s not even worth taking the trouble to discuss it.” This is what a spokesman proclaimed at the Festival of Science held in Genoa in November 2005, thereby neglecting a very important aspect of modern science—the need to be open to new perspectives. Instead, the truth is quite the opposite. Paradoxically, evolutionists are taking an ever greater distance from empirical science and are wrapping themselves up in a dogmatism that borders on ideological fanaticism.

Unprovable Hypothesis
“What is left, then, in evolutionism, that is valid according to the scientific method? Nothing, actually nothing!” This is the conclusion of journalist Marco Respinti in his recent book Processo a Darwin (Darwin on Trial, Piemme, 2007). He continues: "Not one of his postulates can be verified or certified based on the method proper to the physical sciences. His whole claim escapes verification. Based on what, therefore, other than on strong prejudices of an ideological nature, can anyone affirm or continue to affirm that the evolutionist hypothesis is true?"  Indeed, the consistency of a scientific theory is founded on its capacity to be verified empirically, be it through observation of the phenomenon in nature or by reproducing it in the laboratory. The evolutionist hypothesis fails on both counts. “Thus,” Respinti shows, “Darwinism remains simply an hypothesis devoid of empirical or demonstrable foundation, besides being unproven. . . . The evolutionist hypothesis is completely unfounded for it does not master the very domain in which it launches its challenge.”

Respinti reaches this “verdict” after a rigorous “trial of Darwin” in which he analyzes the main arguments that debunk the notorious theory, ranging from nonexistent fossil records to the conflict of Darwinism with genetic science and the flimsiness of the “synthetic theory” of neo-Darwinism, without forgetting the countless frauds that have stained notable evolutionists in their insane quest to fabricate the “proofs” that science tenaciously denied them.  Respinti concludes by denouncing the ideological drift of the evolutionist school: “To categorically affirm the absolute validity of the theories of Darwinian and neo-Darwinian evolution based on the claim that discussing them would be unscientific by definition, is the worst proof that human reason can give of itself.”

A Long Sunset
The sunset of the Darwinist hypothesis has picked up speed over the last two decades. For example, consider the work carried out by the Osaka Group for the Study of Dynamic Structures, founded in 1987, in the wake of an international interdisciplinary meeting convened “to present and discuss some opinions opposed to the dominant neo-Darwinist paradigm.” Scientists from all over the world participated, including the outstanding geneticist Giuseppe Sermonti, then a professor at the University of Perugia, Italy. In 1980, together with Roberto Fondi, now a professor at the University of Siena, Sermonti wrote Dopo Darwin—Critica all’evoluzionismo (After Darwin—A Critique of Evolutionism, Rusconi, 1980). “Biology,” Sermonti explains, “has no proof at all of the spontaneous origin of life, or rather biology has proved its impossibility. There is no such thing as a gradation of life from elementary to complex. From a bacterium to a butterfly to man the biochemical complexity is substantially the same.”   For his part, Fondi shows that from the first appearance of fossils to this day, the variety and riches of living beings have not increased. New groups have replaced older ones, but the intermediate forms that the evolutionists have so frantically searched for do not exist. “The theory of evolution,” Sermonti and Fondi conclude, “has been contradicted as have few other scientific theories in the past.”

In Le forme della vita (The Forms of Life, Armando, 1981), Sermonti unveils other obstacles to Darwinism. According to the renowned geneticist, the “random” origin of life and the gradual transformation of the species through “selective change” are no longer sustainable because the most elementary life is incredibly complex and because it is now proven that replacement of living groups takes place “by leaps” rather than “by degrees.”  Putting together forty years of experience, in 1999 he wrote Dimenticare Darwin—Ombre sull’evoluzione (Forgetting Darwin—Shadows on Evolution, Rusconi, 1999). With rigorous argumentation, the author demolishes the three pillars of Darwinism: natural selection, sexual mixing and genetic “change.” According to him, history will remember the theory of evolution as the “Big Joke.”

Not Just Creationists
Sermonti has been often accused of being a “creationist” or a “religious fundamentalist” even though he has always said he does not fit his scientific vision into a Christian perspective, and this yet one more aspect to note in the polemic against Darwinism, which many people other than Christians also contest it.  In this sense, it is interesting to note the recent editorial in Il Cerchio, “Seppellire Darwin? Dalla critica del darwinismo agli albori d’una scienza nuova,” ("Bury Darwin? From a Critique of Darwinism to the Dawn of a New Science") containing essays by seven specialists including Sermonti, Fondi and Giovanni Monastra, director of Italy’s National Institute for Food and Nutrition Research. The title refers to the famous phrase by Chandra Wickramasinghe, a professor of applied mathematics of the University College of Cardiff, “The probability that life was formed from inanimate matter is equal to 1 followed by 40,000 zeros . . . . It is large enough to bury Darwin and the whole theory of evolution.”

From Dimenticare Darwin—Ombre sull’evoluzione’s introduction: For the first time in Italy, a critique of Darwinism is presented in all its complexity thanks to the interdisciplinary contribution of scholars of several orientations—[b]eyond the polemic between neo-Darwinian fundamentalists and religious integralists, the essay demonstrates how the critique of the now old neo-Darwinist paradigm opens the doors to a new science.

A Crisis of the Positivist Paradigm
Francis Crick, who together with Watson discovered the structure of DNA, openly declared, “An honest man, armed only with the knowledge available to us, could affirm only that, in a certain sense, the origin of life at the moment appears to be rather a miracle,” In the same wavelength, Harold Hurey, a disciple of Stanley Miller who made history with his failed attempt to recreate life in the laboratory from a so-called primordial broth, said, “All of us who studied the origins of life uphold that the more we get into it, the more we feel it is too complex to have evolved in any way.” Indeed, a lot of faith is required to believe in evolutionism, and it is precisely that faith, of a clearly positivist^[1] mold, that is now beginning to weaken.

In Darwinismo: le ragioni di una crisi (Darwinism: The Reasons of a Crisis), Gianluca Marletta sticks his finger in the wound by observing that “The crisis of Darwinism is above all a crisis of the philosophical paradigms that allowed its success.”  “One cannot understand the origin of this doctrine,” Marletta explains, “without going back to the cultural climate of ‘triumphant positivism’ straddling the nineteenth and twentieth centuries.” According to Marletta, Darwinism constituted a wonderful occasion to strengthen the positivistic view of the world being affirmed at that time. Darwinism represented the perfect tool to transplant, into the biological field, the mechanic and materialist paradigms already imposed on the social sciences. This is the true motive of this theory’s success. A motive that now begins to subside with the crisis of the positivist paradigm. This explains the almost fanatical tenacity with which evolutionists are defending their convictions. “Many fear,” concludes Marletta, “that the fall of Darwinism can bring down with it the whole positivist vision of the world.”

God’s Comeback
The crumbling of positivism is bringing back to the limelight issues that a certain conventional wisdom thought to have definitively eliminated. Shaken from the sudden crumbling of old certainties, worried about the chaos that increasingly marks this postmodern age, many people are once again asking the fundamental questions: Does my life have a transcendental meaning? Is there an intelligent project in nature? In short, does God exist?   Sociologist Rosa Alberoni wrote about this in her book, Il Dio di Michelangelo e la barba di Darwin (The God of Michelangelo and Darwin’s Beard), published last November by Rizzoli with a preface by Cardinal Renato Martino, president of the Pontifical Council Justice and Peace. The onslaught of “Darwin’s worshippers,” Alberoni explains, is carried out by the “usual destructive atheists obsessed with the goal of stamping out Christ and destroying the Judeo-Christian civilization after having sucked its blood and essence.” This sullen assault, however, in the deeply changed ambience of post-modernity, risks being counterproductive: The monkey myth is what really shook ordinary people. Like soldiers woken up by an alarm in the middle of the night, Christian believers and [O]rthodox Jews prepared for the defense. Or rather for the war, because that is what it has become . . . [o]n the symbolic level, the bone of contention is the ancestor of man: God or a monkey? Should one believe in God or in Darwin? This is the substantial nature of the ongoing clash in our civilization.

In other words, a real war of religion looms in the dawn of the Third Millennium. Precisely that which secularists have tried to avoid at all cost.

Footnote:

1. Positivism is the philosophical system created by August Comte (1798–1857), which only accepts the truths that we can reach by direct observation or by experimentation. Thus it denies classical philosophy, theology and all supernatural religion.

[LeGrande]

I too had the same impression -- that you were saying that Stern-Gerlach experiment supported "Waves of nothing."

No, I was just putting in another concept to think about, with regards to the claim that something can't come from nothing. I also at the time made the pair anti pair creation and destruction comment. It was merely tangential to the mention of the experiments.

So "waves of nothing" -- is that a matter of faith for you, or how can I demonstrate it for myself? You seem to be using as a foundation for many of your arguments this idea that all matter is waves of nothing, if I understand correctly. (Or at least that's what it always seems to boil down to.)

It boils down to what is a field. Just what is a gravitational field composed of? What is an electrical field composed of? What is a magnetic field composed of?

[LeGrande]

I'm not sure why you disagree with this--it's merely common-sense to note that, with respect to theories, "verified", "refuted", and "demonstrated" are things which are decided at the the level of intellect. Your eyes do not make theoretical decisions for your brain. In seeing a rock fall, your eyes do not decide something about the theory of gravity and inform your brain about it. Rather, it's your reason-enabled brain that makes those decisions. If it were not so, a monkey would be able to "verify" Newton's theory of gravity, because a monkey can observe a rock falling just as well as you can.

First of all my only disagreement is with pure reasoning alone and no observation to back it up. That is what you seemed to say a couple of posts back. That is Aristotelian logic, which I disagree with. Pure reasoning and logic can be seductive, as evidence may I present string theory : )

You have also clearly stated that you agree that observation is necessary too. I don't think that we are in any kind of disagreement at all. Sometimes it is simply hard to put everything we want to say in a paragraph or two.

[LeGrande]

Here you have explained how to demonstrate that light is waves and how to demonstrate that particles are also waves, but my question was how does the double-slit experiment demonstrate light as a particle -- and the reason I asked is because you said "..if the double slit experiment doesn't convince you that light is both a wave and a particle.." -- but I'm still trying to understand how the double slit experiment might even begin to convince me that light is a particle.

Ahh, I misunderstood and my statements made the situation worse : ( I should not have used the term light, I was in error. Your question is in regards to photons alone not particles in general. You are correct in that the double slit experiment merely verifies that photons are waves. It doesn't show the quantization of photons.

To begin with I don't know of a good experiment that demonstrates that photons are point like objects. They may not be, they are probably a quantized wave packet. Being massless we are not dealing with normal particles, like electrons.

The whole point of the double slit experiment is to show that normal particles that aren't generally thought of as waves, like electrons, atoms and even molecules have wavelike characteristics too. Shooting a single electron at a time through the double slit produces an interference pattern, just like shooting a photon through it.

I apologize again for being sloppy : ( I should have been more precise.

[mrjesse]

Said mrjesse: So "waves of nothing" -- is that a matter of faith for you, or how can I demonstrate it for myself? You seem to be using as a foundation for many of your arguments this idea that all matter is waves of nothing, if I understand correctly. (Or at least that's what it always seems to boil down to.)

Responded LeGrande: It boils down to what is a field. Just what is a gravitational field composed of? What is an electrical field composed of? What is a magnetic field composed of?

Hmm. Usually when one answers a question with a question they also utilizes a non-question statement to make their point. Are you saying that because we don't know just what gravity is made of it therefor must be nothing? I don't get it. Perhaps you could elaborate a little, using more then vague questions, on how you came to know or believe that all matter is waves of nothing.

Thanks,

-Jesse

[mrjesse]

What are those fields composed of? In the second part of your statement you seemed to contradict the first part of your statement by implying that the waves "carry" a field.

Could you please elaborate a little?

I don't see the contradiction. Could you lay out my two contradicting statements and explain how they contradict each other, please? I work hard to not be afraid of the truth. Thanks.

I would be glad to explain what I know about radio waves, but perhaps you could help me out by telling me about your background and understanding as it relates to radiowaves, please?

But here's a fact: When the voltage on a wire strewn in space changes, it produces a radiowave that travels off in the radiating directions. Whether in air or space, it can be detected either by the voltage it induces in or on a wire or by the magnetic field it induces into an iron rod (or any other magnetism detector.

Radiowaves exhibit all the wave properties one would expect of a wave, including interference patterns and redshift/blueshift and polarization.

Does that make sense? Does that contradict anything?

By way of background, I've been fascinated with radio waves since I was a child, and have read and experimented with them as a hobby for years. I even got me a ham license a few years ago. I have created small low-power transmitters from different electronic components, and have built simple radios, and have taken apart all sorts of radios and studied how they work.

While I may not be able to tell you what kind of fabric holds together a radiowave I have at least a minimally working intuitive understanding of how radio waves behave and what they are good for and how to create and detect them. Of course I could be wrong, so don't hesitate to point out such if you think it be the case.

Thanks,

-Jesse

[LeGrande]

Hmm. Usually when one answers a question with a question they also utilizes a non-question statement to make their point. Are you saying that because we don't know just what gravity is made of it therefor must be nothing? I don't get it. Perhaps you could elaborate a little, using more then vague questions, on how you came to know or believe that all matter is waves of nothing.

LOL You know exactly where I am guiding you. That is why you are resisting answering the question. I would love it if you could come up with a better answer than I am ultimately expecting.

[Fichori]

"LOL You know exactly where I am guiding you. That is why you are resisting answering the question. I would love it if you could come up with a better answer than I am ultimately expecting."

Well LeGrande, You leave me with the impression that your just a philosophical 'card shark' masquerading as a scientist.

Real scientists don't feel the need to hide behind the emperor and his new clothes.

If your going to discuss science, I suggest that you make your statements and ask your questions like a real man, and quit all this ridiculous pussyfooting around.

[LeGrande]

I don't see the contradiction. Could you lay out my two contradicting statements and explain how they contradict each other, please? I work hard to not be afraid of the truth. Thanks.

Here is your statement.

"Radio waves, on the other hand, are generated by oscilating electric fields, and radiowaves do themselves carry an electric field as well as a current field."

You are basically using circular logic by saying that oscillating electric fields create radio waves and radio waves carry an electric field (or in other words radio waves create the field). An analogy here will help. Does water (the field) create waves or do waves (radio waves) create water (the field)? Waves are not the field.

That leads to my question. What is the field made of?

Here is your answer. "While I may not be able to tell you what kind of fabric holds together a radiowave", the reason you can't tell me what the fabric is is because the fabric (field) doesn't exist, it is a theoretical construct.

Hence my statement, waves of nothing.

[LeGrande]

If your going to discuss science, I suggest that you make your statements and ask your questions like a real man, and quit all this ridiculous pussyfooting around.

OK, Fields are nothing more than a theoretical construct. Do you disagree?

[mrjesse]

LOL You know exactly where I am guiding you. That is why you are resisting answering the question. I would love it if you could come up with a better answer than I am ultimately expecting.

Like my grandfather could have said, but probably didn't, if a man can't make his own point he probably doesn't have one :-)

But seriously, I can't figure out where you're trying to guide me. Why not just show me the way? Be brave! Be daring! Lead the way. Not only would it show me that you're not trying to make me go someplace you won't yourself go, it'd show me where to go!

The sad part is that I've also observed human tendencies - and one of them is to try to pull the wool over someone's eyes by trying to get them to believe something without actually telling them what it is - and the reason they wish to avoid explicitly spelling it out is because if put to direct words its absurdity would be glaring.

Is that the case here?

-Jesse

[Fichori]

"OK, Fields are nothing more than a theoretical construct. Do you disagree?"

[LeGrande]

But seriously, I can't figure out where you're trying to guide me. Why not just show me the way? Be brave! Be daring! Lead the way. Not only would it show me that you're not trying to make me go someplace you won't yourself go, it'd show me where to go!

OK I will spell it out s l o w l y : ) Waves travel in a field, if the field is a theoretical construct it is essentially nothing. Hence, Waves of Nothing.

Now can you honestly say that I was trying to hide that from you?

[LeGrande]

Very funny : )

[mrjesse]

OK, Fields are nothing more than a theoretical construct. Do you disagree?

Aren't all theories theoretical constructs? Are you then saying that since all things are described by theoretical constructs, and that theoretical constructs aren't material, that therefore whatever we describe with a theoretical construct then ceases to exist, and therefore everything is nothing?

That sure looks like it to me, and that also sure sounds absurd to me.

-Jesse

[mrjesse]

Here is your statement.

"Radio waves, on the other hand, are generated by oscilating electric fields, and radiowaves do themselves carry an electric field as well as a current field."

I've personally generated radio waves using oscillating electric fields and detected them by the electric field that they delivered to a wire. EMF, meet LeGrande. LeGrande, meet Electro Magnetic Fields. Please get acquainted. It'll make things easier.

You are basically using circular logic by saying that oscillating electric fields create radio waves and radio waves carry an electric field (or in other words radio waves create the field).

You try it! See if they don't do the same thing for you! measure the voltage with a high-frequency capable volt meter on a transmitting radio antenna, there will be voltage. If you hold up a wire a hundred feet away and connect up the same volt meter, there will be voltage at the same frequency! It doesn't matter whether air or space is between the transmitter and the receiver. This is not circular reasoning but rather the conservation of energy. The oscillating voltage on the transmitting antenna create radiowaves which in turn induce voltage and/or current and magnetism into objects through or around which they pass. This is like basic radio 101.

An analogy here will help. Does water (the field) create waves or do waves (radio waves) create water (the field)? Waves are not the field.

Analogies don't prove a thing - they are only useful as a conceptual learning aid demonstration - and they are only useful to the degree that they are accurate.

You're confusing the medium of water with energy. Water is the medium, energy creates the waves, then the waves give back that energy when they strike something which absorbs it.

Water is a liquid with mass. Waves on or in water are kinetic energy. And this is an entirely different realm then EMF! Now using water and waves as an analogy when discussing interference patterns is just fine - because the important part of both is the phase relationship and the summing and canceling of energy. But to try and do comparisons between water as a medium and radiowaves is absurd because waves in water is the kinetic energy of the actual moving (i.e. not static) particles of mass in a real mechano-kinetic system, whereas radiowaves are not even in the very least dependent on a medium with mass!

That leads to my question. What is the field made of?

I think you might not know what the word "field" means. A field is an expanse of area. An electric field is just voltage across an area. A magnetic field is just a magnetic force across an area. A wheat field (Thanks, Fichori!!!!) is just wheat across a area. "Field" and "Medium" are two totally separate things.

Now it's kind of hard to plant wheat on nothing. But there is no reason whatsoever that you couldn't have two wires running parallel, and have voltage across them, even in a vacuum, and you would clearly have an electric field with no detectable medium. Magnetism also works inside of a vacuum. As it turns out, EM waves can also propagate inside of a vacuum - but they still carry energy and are detectable - so I don't see your problem.

Here is your answer. "While I may not be able to tell you what kind of fabric holds together a radiowave", the reason you can't tell me what the fabric is is because the fabric (field) doesn't exist, it is a theoretical construct.

I agree that the fabric doesn't exist - or at least it's it hasn't been demonstrated to exist. I just used the phrase "fabric" because that looked like what you were implying.

But if I understand correctly, you're saying that since an electric field can exist in vacuum, which is nothing, then an electric field does not exist...? But you see, the electric field does exist, even in a vacuum -- because as soon as you turn an electron loose in it, the electron will go racing towards the positive side.

Hence my statement, waves of nothing.

This statement seems absurd to me. Even if radio waves travel through nothing that does not make the waves themselves nothing. Neither does the fact that we use a theoretical construct to describe something mean that whatever we are describing does not exist.

Waves are at least energy (or they contain energy). Are you saying that energy is nothing? Wouldn't it be more accurate to describe them as waves of energy? I'm here to tell you so!

I'm coming to the conclusion that one of two things are happening here. My conclusion is that either you know that you're wrong and you're just trying to filibuster me and use up my time till I go away, or that you have no knowledge of the area of science we're discussing, and aren't honest enough to say so. I suspect the latter, because you heretofore refuse to indicate your experience with physics and the arguments you make aren't coherent or sensical and if you knew how bizarre they were you'd know that most people wouldn't buy them for a second. And it's not that I'm extra smart to be sure - I don't even have a GED or better. It shouldn't be at all hard for a real scientist to know more then I!

By all means tell me if I'm wrong - but I think it's one of those two.

You're a social studies teacher for the third grade, aren't you? [Ultra wide grin, constructed of a hypothetical construct]

-Jesse

[mrjesse]

OK I will spell it out s l o w l y : )

Thaaaaanks!

Waves travel in a field,

What do you mean here? A field is just an expanse of area. Doesn't everything exist inside an expanse of area, or a field?

if the field is a theoretical construct it is essentially nothing. Hence, Waves of Nothing.

The field isn't the theoretical construct, but rather our way of describing the field is the theoretical construct.

So even if our theoretical construct which describes a field (expanse of area) were "nothing," that wouldn't make what it described nothing!

And even if what it describes is nothing (for example, a pure vacuum) the fact that an energy wave can travel through the field of nothing does not mean that the energy wave is nothing!

Are you saying that because radio waves can travel through areas containing nothing [else] that the radiowaves themselves are therefore nothing? If so, then I can see why you didn't want to spell it out. It's absurd. Sounds to me like you're saying that if we put a feather inside a vacuum jar with nothing that the feather would be a piece of nothing.

Now can you honestly say that I was trying to hide that from you?

Thanks for spelling it out! But I can see why you didn't want to. What you seem to be saying does sound to me absurd!

Thanks,

-Jesse

[LeGrande]

Aren't all theories theoretical constructs?

Yes.

Are you then saying that since all things are described by theoretical constructs, and that theoretical constructs aren't material, that therefore whatever we describe with a theoretical construct then ceases to exist, and therefore everything is nothing?

No, what I am saying is that a field is a purely theoretical construct. Theoretical constructs generally represent something that actually exists.

[LeGrande]

You try it! See if they don't do the same thing for you! measure the voltage with a high-frequency capable volt meter on a transmitting radio antenna, there will be voltage. If you hold up a wire a hundred feet away and connect up the same volt meter, there will be voltage at the same frequency!

Tesla did this a long time ago : )

It doesn't matter whether air or space is between the transmitter and the receiver. This is not circular reasoning but rather the conservation of energy. The oscillating voltage on the transmitting antenna create radiowaves which in turn induce voltage and/or current and magnetism into objects through or around which they pass. This is like basic radio 101.

Who is disagreeing with you?

But to try and do comparisons between water as a medium and radiowaves is absurd because waves in water is the kinetic energy of the actual moving (i.e. not static) particles of mass in a real mechano-kinetic system, whereas radiowaves are not even in the very least dependent on a medium with mass!

Are they dependent on a medium at all? If they are, what is that medium.

But if I understand correctly, you're saying that since an electric field can exist in vacuum, which is nothing, then an electric field does not exist...? But you see, the electric field does exist, even in a vacuum -- because as soon as you turn an electron loose in it, the electron will go racing towards the positive side.

What is the electric field composed of?

I agree that the fabric doesn't exist - or at least it's it hasn't been demonstrated to exist. I just used the phrase "fabric" because that looked like what you were implying.

But if I understand correctly, you're saying that since an electric field can exist in vacuum, which is nothing, then an electric field does not exist...? But you see, the electric field does exist, even in a vacuum -- because as soon as you turn an electron loose in it, the electron will go racing towards the positive side.

What is the electric field? : ) You are simply describing an effect that you believe takes place in a physical field. Let me help you out here, what is a gravitational field? How does it work? And before you give me a hard time about asking leading questions, it is the best way I know to get you to understand the concept.

Waves are at least energy (or they contain energy). Are you saying that energy is nothing? Wouldn't it be more accurate to describe them as waves of energy? I'm here to tell you so!

Yes, Waves have energy but they are not energy. You are starting to head into a more interesting topic : )

I'm coming to the conclusion that one of two things are happening here. My conclusion is that either you know that you're wrong and you're just trying to filibuster me and use up my time till I go away, or that you have no knowledge of the area of science we're discussing, and aren't honest enough to say so. I suspect the latter, because you heretofore refuse to indicate your experience with physics and the arguments you make aren't coherent or sensical and if you knew how bizarre they were you'd know that most people wouldn't buy them for a second. And it's not that I'm extra smart to be sure - I don't even have a GED or better. It shouldn't be at all hard for a real scientist to know more then I!

I agree, this is probably a waste of time. May I suggest that you study, "The Feynman Lectures on Physics?" and "The New Quantum Universe," by Hey and Walters. After you wade through those four volumes, you will be able to determine for yourself if I am a Third Grade Social Studies Teacher : ) Do they teach social studies in grade school?

[mrjesse]

Do they teach social studies in grade school?

I don't know - I never went to school.

Can you please define "Field" for me? I don't think we're using the same definition.

What is the electric field? : )

An area in space across which there is an electrical potential.

Said mrjesse: But you see, the electric field does exist, even in a vacuum -- because as soon as you turn an electron loose in it, the electron will go racing towards the positive side.

You are simply describing an effect that you believe takes place in a physical field.

Well, I think the common cathode ray tube well demonstrates that an electron accelerates towards the positive side of an electric field in a vacuum.

Let me help you out here, what is a gravitational field?

An area in space where there is the force of gravity. (Hey, I didn't say it was empty space.)

How does it work?

Don't ask me why, but here is how it works:

F=(G*m*M)/(r*r)
where:
m = Mass of one mass
M = Mass of other mass
r = Distance between two masses
F = Gravitational force between two masses
G = Gravitational Constant

(Or so says some webpage I found.)

And before you give me a hard time about asking leading questions, it is the best way I know to get you to understand the concept.

What is that concept?

Are they [radio waves -Jes] dependent on a medium at all? If they are, what is that medium.

I don't believe radio waves are dependent on any medium. I mean, it could be that there is an as of yet undetected medium that they do depend on, but until it's proven I'll solidly stay with "No, radiowaves do not depend on a medium." Thus the question of what "is the medium" does not apply.

What is the electric field composed of?

I don't think "Composed" is an honest word to use when asking what an electric field is. What is Distance composed of? Nothing! Therefor, distance doesn't exist. Wrong! Couldn't you just as well argue that since radiowaves travel over distance, and distance is just a theoretical construct which doesn't actually exist, that therefore radiowaves are waves of nothing?

Ahh, I may just have got a glimmer into your mindset. Does it go like this "Waves of water is when energy is moving through the water being carried by the kinetic motion of the water molecules and that is why we call it waves of water. Likewise, radio waves, which have a medium of nothing, are therefore waves of nothing just like water waves are waves of water?"

Am I close? The fallacy of course is that waves of water are a mechano-kinetic system while radiowaves are electromagnetic and as far as we know do not even need or use a medium.

I have read some of Feynman's stuff in the past - brilliant fellow he was - but I'm a little hesitant when you ask me to go read 4 volumes - sounds like elephant hurling to me.

Anyway, tell me what your definition of "field" is if you would be so kind and I'll re-read with that definition in mind and see if what you're saying makes any more sense.

By the way, to me, as I've mentioned before, you appear to be talking nonsense - that is to say the claims you make just don't line up with what I consider to be reality. But how do I look to you? Do I appear to have no understanding of the basic laws of physics whatsoever? or do I appear to have a reasonable understanding of simple physics? Is it just that you're trying to explain something so far advanced that I just don't know enough for it to even make sense? I would be very grateful to understand how I appear to you.

You see, when someone tells me an idea that seems to not make sense or seems to violate what I believe to be reality, it's usually one of 3 things: Misunderstanding, They don't know what they are talking about, or I just don't know enough to understand the valid idea they are presenting. Usually I can usually figure out which is the case by learning a little more about the experiences the other person has and reading a few short articles that the other person points me to. But so far, you are strangely silent about your experience in the field, and the only references you seem to give me are "Go wade through 4 volumes." Furthermore, you ask a lot more question then make statements. Questions are great, but they need statements as well!

Thanks,

-Jesse

[LeGrande]

or do I appear to have a reasonable understanding of simple physics? Is it just that you're trying to explain something so far advanced that I just don't know enough for it to even make sense? I would be very grateful to understand how I appear to you.

You seem to have a reasonable understanding of Classical Physics, which puts you head and shoulders above most people : ) As soon as I start to allude to QM or relativity I seem to hit a brick wall.

Ahh, I may just have got a glimmer into your mindset. Does it go like this "Waves of water is when energy is moving through the water being carried by the kinetic motion of the water molecules and that is why we call it waves of water. Likewise, radio waves, which have a medium of nothing, are therefore waves of nothing just like water waves are waves of water?"

Yes, that is it on a gross level : )

Don't ask me why, but here is how it works:

Your equation is Newtons equation of how it works. That is not how it works. Matter falls because it takes the shortest path in a curved space-time. There is no force that pulls you to earth.

By the way, to me, as I've mentioned before, you appear to be talking nonsense - that is to say the claims you make just don't line up with what I consider to be reality.

QM and Relativity do not make sense to a classical physicist and they do not relate to common experience. In your normal experience you expect to see casual relationships and you expect to be able to predict the path of a single bullet. That is not how it works in the Standard Model. The underlying reality is bizarre, where things like position and momentum do not exist at the same time for particles (the superposition principle). I know it sounds bizarre but that is the reality.

But so far, you are strangely silent about your experience in the field, and the only references you seem to give me are "Go wade through 4 volumes." Furthermore, you ask a lot more question then make statements. Questions are great, but they need statements as well!

I am purposely silent about my background, perhaps unnecessarily, but so be it : ) I have never been a believer in appeals to authority. My background is not QM or relativity, I am generally just referring to undergrad studies, although I have a couple of patents that utilize principles from those fields (there is that word again : ) )

The reason I suggested the reading material is that your background seems to be full of holes. It is important to have a broad familiarity with all of the areas because it makes understanding much easier. The Feynman material is the best, most comprehensive, material I have ever seen and he takes you seamlessly from classical physics to the present. One of the important concepts that is discussed in the very first section is electric fields : )