0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
Space is occupied by matter !
Quote from: Black hole on 16/10/2021 00:23:15Space is occupied by matter !Unless it's empty.
Where is there any empty unoccupied space in our visual universe ?
field matter
Quote from: Black hole on 16/10/2021 00:33:45Where is there any empty unoccupied space in our visual universe ?Between the few hydrogen atoms in outer space, for one.Quote from: Black hole on 16/10/2021 00:33:45field matterFields, EMR and CMBR aren't made of matter.
That is not true , between the dispersed hydrogen atoms is space that is occupied by quantum fields
A field can push a field because it has materialistic properties and physicality .
Citation needed.
why can't we just define space by a single definition and define that space is independent of matter but can be occupied by matter ?
Quote from: Black hole on 16/10/2021 01:03:37why can't we just define space by a single definition and define that space is independent of matter but can be occupied by matter ?That sounds rather like the conventional definition to me.
You mentioned matter and replied that CBMR , EMR and quantum fields are not matter .
After explaining the magnet don't you think that quantum fields do demonstrate materialistic properties ?
To me this demonstrates the possibility of field solidity ?
I consider in defining matter to be precise we should define matter as any substance that occupies space that has materialistic properties ?
Quote from: Black hole on 16/10/2021 01:16:27You mentioned matter and replied that CBMR , EMR and quantum fields are not matter .They're not.Quote from: Black hole on 16/10/2021 01:16:27After explaining the magnet don't you think that quantum fields do demonstrate materialistic properties ?Fields still aren't matter.Quote from: Black hole on 16/10/2021 01:16:27To me this demonstrates the possibility of field solidity ?Fields aren't solid.Quote from: Black hole on 16/10/2021 01:16:27I consider in defining matter to be precise we should define matter as any substance that occupies space that has materialistic properties ?Quote How about we just use the one that already exists?How about using great English language as opposed to incorrect explanations that can create diversity in the information a reader is trying to gain ? I never said fields were a solid , I said don't you think that the bar magnets example shows the possibility of field solidity ? You are thinking this is in the context that you can easily slide an object into the field space rather than considering the relativity between the two magnets . Relative to magnet 1 and magnet 2 the field space has solidity and physicality or the magnet would not overcome the inertia of the earth and move. There is some considerable density between the two fields in pushing a magnet this way relatively .
How about we just use the one that already exists?
incorrect explanations
I never said fields were a solid , I said don't you think that the bar magnets example shows the possibility of field solidity ?
No, because fields don't exhibit solidity. The word you are probably looking for is tangibility.
inertia .
An English Professor whom understood Einsteins space-time curvature
Quote from: Black hole on 16/10/2021 03:57:51inertia .You would do well to review the definition of that word. Or learn some physics.
And don't accuse Peter Higgs of being an English professor. His chair is at the University of Edinburgh. The ability to read what you have written and reproduce it correctly is essential if you are going to pretend to be a scientist.
An objects resistance to move or change direction ?Why would I need to look up such a basic subject ?
Quote from: Black hole on 16/10/2021 16:17:52An objects resistance to move or change direction ?Why would I need to look up such a basic subject ?Because the way you used it in your sentence was nonsensical. The Earth's inertia doesn't have anything to do with magnetic fields.