Adapted for the Internet from:Why God Doesn't Exist

1.0   The versatile field of Mathematical Physics

Researchers write about observing, [1] interacting with, [2] manipulating, [3] aligning, [4] and trapping [5]
fields. Foremost among its properties, the field has the ability to affect the behavior of physical objects. [6] A
field is alleged to impart acceleration to particles, [7] heat up the Sun’s atmosphere, [8] alter ferromagnetic
temperature, [9] induce crystallization, [10] and change the shape of structures. [11] In order for you to
understand what these theorists are talking about, you have no alternative but to come to terms with this
formidable word.

The all-encompassing field currently enjoys two definitions that at face value seem to be related to Physics:

“ an assignment of a quantity to every point in space.” [12]

“ a region of space” [13]

Here, I will refer to the former as the mathematical definition and to the latter as the physical definition. I
intend to show that neither of these definitions has anything to do with Science.

2.0   The mathematical definition of the word field

The mathematical definition of field differs from the 'physical' definition in that it is comprised of abstract
quantities. More objectively, the definition merely says that a field is an act: the act of assigning numbers
and magnitudes. A quantity is a number, [14] and a number is defined as an abstract entity: a symbol used
to describe a quantity. [15] Indeed, the fact that mathematicians characterize the field using adjectives such
as high [4] and zero [16] only reinforces the irrevocable quantitative nature of the mathematical field:

“ field: a mathematical entity which can be thought of as a collection of numbers” [17]

The word entity is really misleading because it insinuates that the mathematical field has a physical nature.
Mathematical ‘entities’ and ‘objects’ are without exception abstract concepts.  A concept differs from an
object in that it cannot be illustrated or visualized. Therefore, if the mathematical definition equates field with
quantities and numbers, this automatically places the word under the list of concepts. For the purposes of
Physics, a number is an abstraction. Like the spirit and angel of religion, a number lacks the muscle to move
physical objects around. The mathematical notion of field is divorced from Physics because, by its very
nature, it lacks the potential to explain a physical phenomenon. The mathematical field is a description of
what the mathematicians observe

3.0   The Physical notion of the word field

The 'physical' definition equates field with a region of space:

“ field: the space around a radiating body within which its electromagnetic oscillations
can exert force on another similar body not in contact with it” [18]

I refer to this as the 'physical' definition because it is the one the mathematicians invoke in the context of
particles moving through or being accelerated by a field. The notion the mathematicians have developed is
that a field is made of particles and that it has the ability to affect iron filings or to deviate a celestial or
charged body from its path. A field is a region that surrounds a charged particle, or it refers to the
gravitational aura that envelopes a celestial body. The mathematician attempts to pass the words space,
region, and field for physical objects and use them to explain an observation of the real world. The
insinuation is that a field is a halo that surrounds a body and which has the power to affect the behavior of
other objects.

Up front, we must reject this definition because it is circular. The words field, region, and space are
synonyms:

field: a region of space... region: a portion of space…space: the infinite extension of
field” [19]

As long as the mathematicians define these strategic words in terms of the others, they will never
understand what they are talking about.

But, assuming that the mathematicians somehow overcome this obstacle, they have an even steeper climb
attempting to convince a rational jury that they can ascribe any physicality to a region. It is absolutely
ludicrous for a mathematician to state that a region can interface with and move particles. It is even more
absurd to claim that a field can move abstract concepts such as 'charges' and 'masses'. The word field
should be placed in its proper context, which is outside of science. The word field was invented to refer to
those observations that the theoreticians didn't (and still don't) understand: why iron filings buzz around a
magnet like bees around a hive, or why an asteroid is deflected from its path when passing near the Earth.
To turn this on its head and say that the field affected the iron filings or deflected the asteroid is an irrational
interpretation of the phenomenon and a gross twisting of the language.

For instance, assume that suddenly and for no apparent reason the flowerpot sitting on your window sill
falls to the floor and breaks. You now describe this experience to your neighbor, but rather than stating the
facts objectively you color your narrative with a personal explanation. Instead of saying that the wind, or
that an earthquake, or that the window knocked the flower pot to the ground, or that you don't know what
happened, you say that a spirit touched it. Or assume that a pygmy from the jungles stands near a heater in
your apartment and explains to his son that an invisible halo emanates from the artifact and that this
magical aura has the power to hold a paper in the air and provide warmth. These are what we call Ptolemaic
explanations. The choice of words is crucial. It is not the same to say that a spirit or a halo surrounds the
fan than to say that the fan stirs up the invisible air around it.

This is the fundamental problem with the mathematical abstraction known as field. The word field cannot be
used as a noun for the purposes of science. It does not designate a standalone object that may itself be the
subject of the dissertation. The word field is itself a mystery, a question mark. Faraday invented it to refer to
an unknown, and 200 years later the word still remains undefined. All the mathematicians alive today have
forgotten this and treat the word field as a physical object. They don't say that the word field refers to a
mysterious behavior in which a particle magically accelerates through a region around a magnet. The idiots
say something stupid like that 'the field accelerates the particle' or that 'the particle accelerated through a
field'. Without realizing it, the numskulls are treating the word field as a physical object that possesses a
surface. They are saying that they can film how the surface of a field comes up against the surface of the
particle and pushes it forward.

Therefore, it is first absolutely necessary to destroy the idiotic notion of Mathematics that the word field
represents a physical object or medium. There is no such 'thing' as a field. A field is a concept, a word used
to refer to the entire process. The word field represents a verb; not a noun.

The Harvard Mathematics nods in agreement. "Of course! A field is a mathematical concept. I knew that!"

" The notion of a field is very useful in science as most theoretical descriptions of
the physical world are made in terms of fields. One talks of gravitational, electric,
and magnetic fields in physics. Here one is describing scalars and vectors whose
elements are real numbers and for which there are laws of addition and multiplica-
tion which cause these quantities to form not just groups, but fields. Thus all the
abstract mathematical knowledge of groups and fields is available to the scientist
to aid in understanding physical fields." [20]

No! He has yet not understood a thing. He cannot possibly have understood if he uses scalars and vectors,
talks about adding and multiplying fields, and is alluding to a physical field. So I continue attacking
Faraday's idiotic word field until the morons of Mathematics get the message: they cannot use the word
field at all! It is prohibited in science!  We cannot ascribe physical qualities to a field such as the ability to
touch or move. We cannot add and subtract physical fields. The mathematicians routinely discuss field
dynamics. They unquestioningly believe that a field has the ability to interface with a 'charge' or a 'mass'
and to move 'it' through itself. None of these words -- charge, mass, field -- can be used as physical objects
in science. None of these words represent 'things' that have shape and the ability to move.

Here, I present an analysis of different aspects of the word field to illustrate how it is used by 'scientists' and
to demonstrate why this formidable word cannot and should not be used in science. If, as I argue, a field is
not a physical object, every 'scientific' paper written since Faraday invented this magical word that treats
the field as an object is summarily declared null and void. It is irrational to treat a field as it has always been
treated: as a physical object. It is irrational to ascribe motion to a field. A field lacks the one thing that would
allow its usage in Physics: shape. A field is not and cannot be made of particles as the idiots of Mathematics
believe. It is not a standalone entity, it is not a medium, and it cannot affect the motion of particles. The word
field is a sign of ignorance and not of wisdom or knowledge. By invoking the explain-it-all word field, the
mathematicians haven't explained anything. Indeed, even their description is suspect because it is based
on an undefined word. I will go further and propose that anyone who uses the word field to explain a
phenomenon of nature should be kicked out of science. The word field belongs exclusively in religion. For
the purposes of Physics, a field is where the cows poop! It doesn't go beyond that.
 The mathematicians have no idea what a field is

________________________________________________________________________________________

The word field is not defined as a region. The word field is defined as a region where something happens.
Without the predicate, a field would just be a region and a mathematician has no use for a region. A field is
not a thing, but a process. A field is an interaction. It depends on two objects for its 'existence'. A field is
not a static concept such as a region, but a dynamic relation between at least two participants.

Therefore, whenever you see an article in front of the word field (e.g., a field, the field) you instantly know
that the author, the peer reviewer, and the editor of the journal are a group of idiots. A field or the field
imply that you can point to the 'shape' and name it. So what is the lamebrain going to point to? To the iron
filings around a magnet? To the empty space between the Moon and the Earth? The word field cannot be
used in this manner in a scientific context. It cannot be used consistently if we
The word charge is another word that does not depict a physical object. You point to a 'charge', but the
ET sees a tiny ball. Certainly a 'charge' is more than just an infinitesimal sphere. Mass is another word that
does not represent a physical object. Mass is worthless without motion. The mathematical physicists
have a charge and a mass moving through a field or accelerated by the field. These are Ptolemaic
explanations. They are irrational because we cannot conceive of moving that which is already in motion.
We cannot make the first frame of the movie because charge and mass are abstract concepts. We gain no
knowledge by explaining using the word field.

Henever we use an article in front of a word
concept versus object
the field a field In Physics we can only use true nouns (shapes) as the subject of a sentence.a field is not a
region. a field is a region where something happens. a field is not a thing but a process
 ...and up here we have the strawberry particles that make up the electric field, the vanilla corpuscles that comprise the magnetic field, and the chocolate-coated, 0D points that constitute the gravity field. And here at the bottom we have the veggie-green particles that constitute the wheat field. Any questions?