Remembering some say you have to have change/ movement to have time, well the field existed without movement before the disturbance/particle.
So what are you suggesting ?
Remembering some say you have to have change/ movement to have time, well the field existed without movement before the disturbance/particle.
Remember you asked. The point I'm thinking of...So what are you suggesting ?
It seems to have a time duration and then the disturbance/particle is 'introduced' to the math model of that field so to speak. So, take the view...field exists first.So this field has no dynamics ?
Remember you asked. The point I'm thinking of...
What happens to that idea of change and movement are needed to have time, if a field can exist first of all without those things.
Simple... A math model. You need to start somewhere. Notice: It's not starting from nothing. i suppose where the particle is not, the values of the field there are zero ( my guess).Then I ask , where did the field come from ; or what was the essence of the field ; in the first place ?
Simple... A math model. You need to start somewhere. Notice: It's not starting from nothing.
And yet you accept that Aliens have conducted nuclear war on Mars because you read it in a book!!!No its not starting from nothing . Mathematical model does not convince me , though.
Well, to me, in some ways it's like the geometrical theory of a spacetime manifold. But instead of dealing with space and time your dealing with charge, mass and energy and how those things interact. Did you notice my late add-on to post #586No its not starting from nothing . Mathematical model does not convince me , though.
I need to picture the logic. So what is the essence of the field ?
I suppose where the particle is not, the values of the field there are zero ( my guess)These fields will be on/in a manifold of space and time, so the spacetime manifold alters as the field disturbances interact.
And yet you accept that Aliens have conducted nuclear war on Mars because you read it in a book!!!
Bye river, really I must go.
Well, to me, in some ways it's like the geometrical theory of a spacetime manifold. But instead of dealing with space and time your dealing with charge, mass and energy and how those things interact. Did you notice my late add-on to post #586
I suppose where the particle is not, the values of the field there are zero ( my guess)These fields will be on/in a manifold of space and time, so the spacetime manifold alters as the field disturbances interact.
Not where the field values are zero, yet, in theory the fieldstill exists there. Back to square one. Define dynamic without the concept of duration of existence in the first place?Of course
The field its self is dynamic .
The field on its own is dynamic . The field is because of energy/matter .
Not where the values are zero.
Define dynamic without the concept of duration of existence in the first place? will be back...Not possible that the field is zero dynamic.
Tell me how that is possible ?
Define dynamic without the concept of duration of existence in the first place?
What moved in ' no duration' and did it exist? Been here beforeMovement
Been here before...What moved in ' no duration' and did it exist?
What moved in no duration and did it exist?
The time something exists or the period of action.But first something got to exist and move to be dynamic and it can't do them things with out the duration of time.Define duration
river said: ↑
Define duration
the time something exists