moving vs. stationary fields

[AntonioLao]

Since 1936, few physicists believed the existence of field duality: moving and stationary. Furthermore, it is also believed that only the moving fields could be quantized and since then researches have been exclusively studying the quantum theory of moving fields, specially the moving electromagnetic fields with a maximum light-speed. However, modern field classifications include the following: matter fields, energy fields, Higgs field, meson fields, gravity field, weak fields, strong fields, electromagnetic field, fermions fields, and bosons fields. Fundamentally, only two categories exist: scalar and vector field. Most of the vector fields have now been discovered with the exception of graviton field, while the one and only scalar field needed to be discovered is the Higgs field.

The stationary field, whether scalar or vector, maybe just scalar, was the 19th century ether field. But it is now long forgotten and which nobody cares to investigate anymore. Nonetheless, the reality of quantum vacuum fluctuations carries a very strongly implication that stationary field of the true vacuum does exist. The problem is finding ways to interact with it, for example by harnessing its limitless supply of energy.

[mkirkpatrick]

Excellent thread starter Antonio,you are absolutely right there ,it is the etheric field in
which all universal manifestation has its being,this "etheric field" is stationary for one very
good reason,it is ubiquitous by nature,thereby have no use for motion?But it provides
the medium for all transactions and interactions of universal energy motioning.


The main difficulty in detecting this etheric universal field,is in the fact that it is ever so
slightly "out of phase" with the continuum as we understand it.



regards michael.

[AntonioLao]

the fact that it is ever so slightly "out of phase" with the continuum as we understand it.

To me it makes more sense if quantized space is completely out of phase with respect to waves theory.

[RascalPuff]

Re: moving vs. stationary fields - 01-08-2007, 06:23 PM


"Excellent thread starter Antonio,you are absolutely right there ,it is the etheric field in
which all universal manifestation has its being,this "etheric field" is stationary for one very
good reason,it is ubiquitous by nature,thereby have no use for motion?But it provides
the medium for all transactions and interactions of universal energy motioning.


The main difficulty in detecting this etheric universal field,is in the fact that it is ever so
slightly "out of phase" with the continuum as we understand it."
________________________________________

It seems that you gentlemen have resolved - if not rekindled - what, in view of your considerations, may or not be paradoxical. Namely, Locke's statement that 'Two or more things cannot occupy the same space simutaneously' (paraphrased).

Your mutual approach to the issues and its focus on field phenomena may indeed be the exception to that proclamation, insofar as, field phenomena - as applied to the universe en toto - may rightfully be interpreted as a continuous interconnection of all 'things' apparent.

Please express your thoughts on this consideration.
Thank you for the thought provoking posts.

Best regards,
- RP

[mkirkpatrick]

Re: moving vs. stationary fields - 01-08-2007, 06:23 PM


"Excellent thread starter Antonio,you are absolutely right there ,it is the etheric field in
which all universal manifestation has its being,this "etheric field" is stationary for one very
good reason,it is ubiquitous by nature,thereby have no use for motion?But it provides
the medium for all transactions and interactions of universal energy motioning.


The main difficulty in detecting this etheric universal field,is in the fact that it is ever so
slightly "out of phase" with the continuum as we understand it."
________________________________________

It seems that you gentlemen have resolved - if not rekindled - what, in view of your considerations, may or not be paradoxical. Namely, Locke's statement that 'Two or more things cannot occupy the same space simutaneously' (paraphrased).

Your mutual approach to the issues and its focus on field phenomena may indeed be the exception to that proclamation, insofar as, field phenomena - as applied to the universe en toto - may rightfully be interpreted as a continuous interconnection of all 'things' apparent.

Please express your thoughts on this consideration.
Thank you for the thought provoking posts.

Best regards,


- RP

Thanks for your comments here RP,without this "background" field,the universe could
not exist and "function"?

regards michael.