Conceptual Evolution of Action-at-a-Distance and Related Issues Pt. I
----------------------
TOTAL FIELD THEORY
Relevant: Excerpts, notes & correspondence.
Quotations, paraphrasations or parallels to K.B. Robertson's ('Puff's/'Kaidus') works are permitted, with the qualification that the author's name is noted and duely accompanys cogent references, applications or other relevant information, and that the information is used for non-commercial purposes. The following email exchange is posted with permission from 'infamous steadfast' (James) and Truly Yours (K. B. Robertson, aka 'RascalPuff').
__________________
Cogent Correspondence:
This message is not flagged. [ Flag Message - Mark as Unread ] Date:Sat, 21 Jan 2006 21:13:22 -0800 (PST)From:
"Ben MacColley" (K.B. Robertson)
kraziequus@yahoo.com
Subject:Re: Action at a distance (through 'functional space')
(Extension of power. A biological; existential imperative.)
To: James (----------------- )
'InfamouSteadfast' (James)
wrote - to, That Rascal Puff:
Dear sir:
I've been interested in asking a question of you ever since we made our aquaintance. I believe this question has a relevance bearing upon your theory; 'Gravity is the 4th dimension'.
Ever since I became interested in Physics, from about the age of 21, I've had this nagging question which, to date, nobody has given a sufficient answer to. The concept of action at a distance has been one which I cannot rationalize in a way that is consistent with the authorized contemporary conceptualization. Scientists will tell you that action at a distance is carried either by the photon, "Electromagnetism", the weak force, "W & Z bosons", and the strong force, "gluons". This explanation sounds good until one begans to try and understand how this information is past from one electron to another, one WorZ boson to another, or from one gluon to another.
The reasoning is of course, the notion of field and, the action of a wave propagating thru it. Now what puzzles me is this; A wave must by defination propagate thru a medium and the medium is empty space if one is discribing the intervening area between the particles mentioned in the forgoing paragraph. If one chooses to hold to current theory, the space between particles is distorting and this distortion causes the passing of information onto the next particle.
If this is so, then space itself has substance and what the character of this substance is, is what intrigues me. Years ago, I became interested in Aether theories, by and large because of my respect and admiration for Tesla. Understanding that standard theory, mainly because of the Michelson-Morley experiment, has disqualified the possibility of an Aether, I have begrudgingly abandoned the concept. However, I still question the rationale given for action at a distance.
My question: If space has substance, which it must have for information to be passed at a distance, "What is the character of this substance"?
With humble regards................................James Pugh...... .... 'Infamous, steadfast'
___________________
Dear Mr. James (---------------) Infamous Steadfast, Sir:
Good to hear from you.
Copyright Kent Benjamin Robertson, 1975 - 2006, All rights reserved.
(I encourage your communication and discussion of the following information to and with whomever you wish, with the respectful reminder that you cite your source of information and its copyright. With that qualification, I hope you help me tell the world what either or both of us think of the following information, with whatever contributions, disqualifications, corrections and/or augmentations and confirmations may be made, by however many others, per individual <certainly and especially including yourself - a question may be as vauable as an answer>, as regards accredation for cogent - additional - information.)
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<
Without levity, condescension or overconfidence, in mutual consideration of your perhaps endlessly important question (paraphrased): 'What is space?'
Tantamount to any subjection of 'Action at a distance' : perplexed the heck out a lot of thoughtful people we happen to (have the opportunity to) know of. Galileo, Kepler, Newton and Einstein in particular.
Questions have a way of reinforcing one another when they're on the same wavelength, as it were - with or without intended puns tailored to this occasion. I'll add more questions with a few possible progressions resembling answers, many of which you may well have already considered, in which case we can together consider a review and assemblage of how many Angstrom units there may be to whatever frequency we're seeking to understand more about.
'Action at a distance' has some derivational roots and connotations that are often overlooked by even the most avid students of existential physics...
Consider 'Extension of self'. It proves out as a category of biological imperative; directly if unexpectedly related to 'Action-at a-distance'.
We find primates extending their arm and leg length by improvisation of a 'tool' - a 'stick' to increase extension (action at a a greater distance than the unassisted simian or human body can achieve without the improvisation of something other than the inherent physical abilities and limitations of the body).
The - former - definition for homosapien use to be 'he or she who improvises, utilizes and otherwise employs tools' (A formal definition of 'human', included 'the toolmaker and user'). Since Jane Goodall and several others have documented simians improvising leaves as spoons and ladles, and sticks as further extensions of the body, anthropology has been obliged to, either, categorize simians as humans, or find some other definition for the human animal...
Moreover, simians are likely as the genus 'hominid' to have begun to 'throw' sticks and stones with deliberation, to even further effect: 'action at a distance'.
The incentive for this creativity was probably and firstly related to acquirement of food. Knocking fruit from a tree; with an extension of self - an augmentation of power, via the employment of a 'stick' for example. The throwing of that stick. The throwing of a rock or what have you (what you have).
This category of thought fairly leads to a realm of the progression of improvising and otherwise creating various means of extension of self through space: 'action at a distance'. Even when it doesn't involve us, it becomes something we have begun to think about, personally as well as existentially, the former preceding the latter...
The evolution of human thought - for better and worse - has been largely contributed to by all contingencies of action at a distance. Some more obvious than others. That rabbit stew I'm in search of gets easier to acquire if I extend myself, with a stick. The stick gets even more extended if I project it, and more efficient if I acquire a straighter stick and sharpen the end of it by rubbing it against the equivalent of #80 or so sandpaper I improvise in the surface of, say, an outcropping of granite or whatever mineral talus.
Rocks effect the same advantage when I throw them, and eventually get around to attaching several differntly shaped ones - rocks - to the end of a stick; forming a mace, or what will become known as a spear. These evolve to a sling to throw the rock, or a notched lever to further enhance the velocity of the thrown spear, by extending the arm and acquiring the leverage to impart that much more speed to the thrown spear. Then moving on to the bow and arrow. All of these inspirations relating directly to action at a distance, which is originally related to extension of self's power to act through space at a distance.
Again, much of the incentive for thinking about action at a distance at its rudimentary foundations is in pursuit of nutrition - the acquirement of sustenance, so basic as to be a biological imperative for survival.
On to warfare and the concept of projectiles. The evolution of increased innovations on acting at a distance, become, in hunting and warfare (however unfortunately in some applications): killing at a distance. Again, another form of the biological imperative for survival - for the acquirement of food, self defense, or the capacity to plunder food, territory, livestock, foodstuffs and inevitably, the propertization of people to whichever person or group of persons first and best learns to overpower another person or group of persons.
Evolving from extended and thrown stick or rock, sharpened stick and beveled rock, slings, spear levers, bows & arrows, catapaults, combinations of sulpher, salt and carbon to form gunpowder generating pyrotechnically activated - ever swifter, more flatly trajectoried - projectile throwers by way of explosively driving a missile through a tube casing, evolving furthermore to the contemporary hi tech ability to deliver fissile, transcontinental multiple warheads, or carry peaceful people in to the final frontier, going where no person has gone before, to find new worlds, etceteras...
-------------------------------------------------
Conceptual Evolution of Action-At-A-Distance Pt II
Continued from Pt I (above)
All of these incentives originate in and contribute to our learning how to acquire food or information for ourselves or power over others, by way of improved methods and means of acting at greater distances. Again, much of the evolution of human thought has that goal as the incentive for what has now become our perhaps most important and unanswered question:
Pre & Post Graduate:
'What about action at a distance'? 102.
It's become an obsession long before it gets recognized in any classroom filled with people orbiting the same - only partially answered - question...
104 finds InfamouSteadFast asking RascalPuff:
What is the quality of the space that conducts F (force) acting at a distance (across 'space')?
'What IS space??'
'What is the quality of the space that conducts F (force) acting at a distance (across 'space')?'
And, what causes, propagates and/or conducts 'Action-at-a-distance'?
Maxwell called something that's got a lot to do with it, 'electromagnetism'. And showed everyone the structural qualities. We know it's not Gilbert's Magnetism, but we also know that in many ways it's very much like magnetism; then again, it's not. A whole bunch of scientific high rollers say it's closely related to - if not somehow the identity of - gravity; which does have the same speed - and structure - as electromagnetism ('light').
We're presently pondering this issue together via electromagentic action at a distance. No news here? (And new the nows?)
More ingenuous, thought provoking questions...
Why is it that sound travels faster through water than through air?
We kind'a figure it's because the conducting molecules are closer together and therefore are more conducive as a medium of conduction.
What about the fact that light slows down when it passes through a 'solid' conducting medium, such as water, or a prism, and then, after having passed through such medium, reclaims the speed it had before it was slowed down as it passed through the - whatever - solid, transparent medium?
Just what (why/how/when/where) is 'refraction', anyway?
Although the electromagnetic spectrum is, say, a yard wide, why is it that we can only see about two inches of that band width of frequencies?
Never mind the limitations of our sensory perception of sight. What is really going on here when refraction that we can see, divides light passing through a conducting medium - be it a mist of collective water droplets or a notably triangular shaped prism: that is actually a tetrahedron - a pyramid shaped, transparent solid mass...
Often thought of as *'having four sides', when the bottom of the pyramid is left out of the equation, which is *incorrect, until we acknowledge the bottom plane of the pyramid, which gives it five individually considered planes, forming a triangular shape effected by an orthogonal structure in three dimensions which are actually four, which conduct - while slowing down - projection of the fifth and sixth dimensions through it; resulting in a 'refraction' of the transient light, constituting its division in to 'the seven - visible - colors of the solar spectrum'.
When combined as light <not opaque coloring substances> originate in the colorless white light, efracted to seven colors - red, orange, yellow, green, blue, indigo and violet (ROYGBIV), then reconstituting itself back into the combination of all those colors resulting in its original state of white light, re-engaging the speed it lost as it passed through the conducting medium.
Might it be comparable to the so called 'curvature of space' so often if wearisomely employed as an unrewarding description of the 4-D space-time continuum?
Is the conducting - refracting - medium 4-dimensionally expanding? Resulting in the fact that, between the time a given frontal of a given beam of light enters the conducting medium, that medium continues to 4-dimensionally expand, as the fifth and sixth dimensions (of electromagnitism) pass through it, resulting in the apparent 'refraction' - displacement - of the 'geometrically straight' light beam, due to the fact that the point of exit isn't where a 'straight line' would actually exit, if the conducting medium (prism) was not 4-dimensionally expanding, ever faster, as the light beam passes through it?
Does the fact that, from the moment of the entry of a frontal of light into a conducting medium, that conducting medium has enlarged from the size it was at the space-time moment of entry - in the interim of transmission - to the space-time moment of exit?
Is 'refraction' a form of 'geodesic'?
Is the apparent division of the incoming, primary white light into the seven basic - solar spectral - colors, and the apparent shift from a straight line into seven individual course changes, actually a straight line 'geodesic', after all?
A so-called 'curvature of space-time'?
Due to the non acknowledgement and the non-recogniton of what the 4-D space time continuum keeps proving itself to be (the unrecognized over-all 4-D enlargement of the conducting prism or rain-drop, around what is actually an unaltered, unshifted beam of straight line traveling light)?
In the mix here, is the fact that 'refraction' doesn't happen when light passes through a transparent conducting medium, the surface planes of which are parallel, such as in a flat planed pane of plate glass. Meaning, we're dealing with a model of a completely horizontal beam of light striking a completely vertical conducting medium, passing through it, without being refracted; whereas:
when that same horizontally traveling beam of light strikes and enters the angled plane of, say, a prism (or a large or tiny drop or sphere of water), on it's way through and before and as it exits, it is refracted - divided into seven colors (ROYGBIV), in that order:
suggesting in this consistently patterned exit, that the different lengths of the correspondingly different colors are (or appear to be) somehow differently conducted and corroborately transformed (shifted, diverted from their straight line course), while slowing down in the conducting medium, and then, somehow - as previously noted - re-acquiring their entrance speed, upon exit...
(Note: the exit - in the case of a prism or a sphere - occurs at the converse angle of the angle of the conducting medium at the moment of the light beam's entrance...)
'What is the character of this(*conductive and/ortransient) substance?'
Darned if I know anything for sure about this, Sir.
But: a lot of previously unfurled flags are now down on the same question, the same question being many questions with as many answers...
Truly Yours can't tell you so much what it - light, gravity, inertia - is, but, I think I'm closer to telling you what it's doing and why it may be doing it (until further notice?)
Another potential if partial answer is that the search for a conducting medium seems, since Michelson & Morley gave us some elbow room with their very important (if null) experiment, is based on an assumption that such conducting medium is necessary. There is the consideration that such a conductor already exists, in a form - phenomenon - we don't recognize.
It keeps occuring to me that 'there is no space empty of field' ( - Einstein) .. And that 'the field' itself, is the ubiquitous, omnipresent panacea for 'conducting medium'.
Yes, fields do cross paths and flow through each other - we see that - dramatically - in the exemplary *slowing down of 5 & 6 D electromagnetism, *corresponding to and varying with the density of the exemplary 4-D conducting medium it's traveling through.
So what's to prevent the omnipresent 5th & 6th dimensions of electromagnetism themselves from furthermore conducting whatever transient field may project through it?
Does E really equal MC squared, or, is that just some sort of popularly patronized ethereal euphemism that has no conditional presence, effect or manifestation in space-time?
(The Big Bang advocates functionally ignore the 4th D, while simultaneously 'acknowledging it'.... <That is, the so called 'Big Bang' is prohibited from crutch or stool to stand or sit upon, in a 4-Dimensional universe. 'This is the way to do physics'. - Misner, Thorne & Wheeler, GRAVITATION> I'm not well versed in psychology or diagnosis, but, this may be a leak proof case of severe schizophrenia? Selective - multiple choice - reality?)
Never mind the extolled dictum of the hypnotically gesturing interpretation of *Lagrange space as being functionally non-existent, exclusively non-metric zero space ZPE & ZE <Zero Point Energy, or, Zero Energy> - 'no gravity here' (at certain points between earth and sun): such interpretation of *L-1 thru *L-5, etceteras, is patently bonkers.
Why? Consider this: in a tug-of war, where each opposing side is evenly matched and neither of the two sides overpowers the other while exerting a lot of force in opposite directions :
it is not true that there is 'ZE - Zero Energy' - at any point - Zero Point Energy [ZPE] at any point between the two opposing forces on either end of a given rope <conductor of force>. On the contrary, there's a lot of energy at all points in the taut and squeeking - perhaps strand twisting and frictionally smoking - rope between the two evenly matched tug of war makers. NASA can talk about placing a space platform at Lagrange Zero Point Energy to their hearts content, whereas Truly Yours respectfully submits that there ain't no such place in any so called 'empty' space...
Thank you very much for your letter, Sir James. RSVP. Please tell me what you think of my response(s).