Adapted for the Internet from:

Why God Doesn't Exist

    1.0   A field is not a standalone object

    In science, if we wish to identify an object, we point and utter a single term to identify it. The prosecutor says
    tree and points to Exhibit A. No explanations are necessary or possible. The jury does not yet have an idea
    what a tree is made of, what it does, or whether it is alive, but for the remainder of the case they will identify
    the word tree with the object the prosecutor pointed to.

    We cannot do this with the word field. We cannot just utter the word field, point to a region in space or to the
    end of a magnet, and expect the extraterrestrial to understand what a field is. The word field does not
    represent a standalone object or a medium. The prosecutors cannot state 'what' a field 'is' because the
    word field represents a description: something happening in the vicinity of another object. A field is not
    something you can point to. A field is a phenomenon, a movie of something in motion for causes unknown.


    2.0   A field cannot be illustrated

    The devil's advocate may argue that we can readily illustrate a magnetic field after sprinkling iron filings in
    the vicinity of a magnet. A case in point is Jupiter's magnetosphere, which is proclaimed to be thoroughly
    mapped.

    However, the distribution of iron filings around a magnet actually says as much about the shape of a field
    as a banana-shaped scar says about the shape of heat. The proponent has yet to show what a field looks
    like in the absence of iron filings. Should we conclude that the field ends where the filings end? Where
    does a gravitational or an electric field end? Until the prosecutor can establish its boundaries, we cannot
    even talk about illustrating a field. I will discuss the mapping of Jupiter's magnetosphere here.


    3.0   You cannot visualize a field all by itself

    The only way to visualize an object is from a bird's-eye perspective: we cannot hope to see the external
    shape of the Sun from its center. Of course, this doesn't stop the proponent from imagining the external
    shape of a box in which we are trapped, in which case he is imagining it. There is nothing wrong with this
    except that, if you want me to imagine the same thing, you have no choice but to draw it. If you can imagine
    and visualize a field in your mind, nothing prevents you from putting your vision on paper. What does a
    lonely field look like if we take a picture of one after we removed the magnet and the 'charged particle'?
    What does a field look like without the source and the target?

    If the field is alleged to be infinite, then, we run into even greater trouble.

    " In practice magnetic field lines often go to infinity" [1]

    " Electric field lines always extend from a positively charged object to a negatively
       charged object, from a positively charged object to infinity, or from infinity to a
       negatively charged object" [2]

    By definition, it cannot have shape. In such cases even your imagination will reach a limit. Actually, the
    lines don't extend to infinity, wherever that is. Certainly, no one has gone to infinity to check whether the
    line ends there. In Mathematics, the idiots routinely use the word infinite or infinity when they don't know
    the answer to a question. In Physics and in Science, there is no such thing as infinity! If the magnetic or
    electric lines are physical, by definition of the word object they cannot be infinite. The mathematicians
    better check again!


    4.0   A field cannot be enclosed

    A flowing stream imparts acceleration to fish, and this would tempt a mathematician to liken a field to a
    river. Under this analogy, since the word river refers to a physical medium, by extrapolation a field is also
    structural.

    In fact, the word river is a good candidate to demonstrate just how different objects are from concepts.
    A river is molded by other physical objects and is irrevocably finite. A river is enclosed on all four corners
    (land) as well as from above (air) and from below (more land). Electric and gravitational fields, instead,
    are alleged to be infinite. If this is true, it summarily disqualifies these fields from the list of objects. An
    object is that which is finite. Therefore, a field cannot be infinite and also be a physical object.

    An infinite field is also irreconcilable with a universe still undergoing expansion (Fig. 1). [3]  If the prosecutor
    alleges that the universe is expanding, he has no choice but to show the edges of this object. We cannot
    visualize 'expansion' of that which has no edges. If we opt for a bird's-eye view, this implies that we are
    now visualizing a medium that serves as a backdrop. In order to see this backdrop, the alleged field must
    again be finite.
There is no
such thing as
'a' field in
Science
We've told you time and again, Bill. In
order to belong to the Relativity Circle,
you must wear your energy field to all
our seances. You're also behind on
your dues. So please pay up now!

    5.0   A field is not independent

    A river may have its origin in snow or rain. After it is manufactured, a river severs its umbilical cord and
    becomes an object in its own right. We do not have to invoke the words snow or rain to talk about a river,
    and we can illustrate a river without relation to the snow or rain that gave it birth. Like a butterfly that sheds
    its former life in a cocoon, the river flows independently even while the ice is melting on the mountain.

    A field, instead, is alleged to emanate from or to be an integral part of the surroundings of an object.
    A field never gains its independence from its source, but is permanently bound to it like a halo to an angel.
    This argument reinforces that a field will never qualify as a portion.


    6.0   A field is comprised of points

    A river is ultimately comprised of discrete physical particles called atoms. Irrespective of whether atoms
    really exist, an atom is conceived as an object. This means that each atom has a surface and is contoured
    by a medium. Before a prosecutor defines or explains an atom, he points to it and utters the word ‘atom’. T
    his enables the prosecutor to use the atom as a physical object in his theory.

    A field, on the other hand, is alleged at times to be comprised of physical particles [4] [5] and at others of
    abstract points. [6]  I analyze particles later; here, I continue with points.

    Theorists routinely use the point to study behavioral aspects of fields so as not to be distracted by
    architecture.

    " we simplify fluid-body calculations by approximating spinning compact objects
       as pointlike particles. We use the Bailey-Israel δ-function stress-energy tensor and
       the Hadamard finite-part regularization scheme for the gravitational field of a point
       source." [7]

    Unfortunately, this is unacceptable in Physics. This is a mathematical gimmick; there is no such thing
    as 0-D point or particle in Science.  The word point is an invalid hypothesis. The proponent is invoking
    the mathematical definition of the word point when he does this. He is talking about quantities and
    numbers and not about a region or an object. Under the right magnification every particle ever
    discovered must be three-dimensional and have shape, in which case we should talk about particles
    and not about points. The point belongs to Mathematics; the particle, to Physics. They should never be
    confused. The word point of Mathematics is formally defined as a non-dimensional or zero-dimensional
    ‘entity’:
      
    " Point: 'an undefined term described in Euclid's Elements as that which has no
       parts' " [8]

    Hence, the mathematical point is an abstraction by definition and by usage, quite a different animal than
    the structural atom conceived by Physics. The point is entirely a concept and cannot serve as the building
    block of material things. Indeed, if the point is defined as a dimensionless geometric ‘figure,’ it contains the
    seeds of its own contradiction as far as Physics is concerned. This oxymoron confines all discussion
    involving points as physical constituents of a supernatural world.


    7.0   A field requires two objects

    A  unicorn is a wholly independent standalone object. We do not need to include a bucket of alfalfa, a corral,
    or a jockey in the illustration to understand what a horned horse is. We merely need a background to
    visualize the unicorn’s shape. We can also see internal parts of the horse in front of us. We can distinguish
    his eyes and nose and mouth because something serves as a backdrop, either the horse himself or
    something else.

    A halo, on the other hand, requires a little more. Without the holy person, a halo is just a bright ring or disk.
    Therefore, the word halo embodies both, concepts and objects. The structural part is the disk. The
    conceptual part is the relation to the holy person. We absolutely must invoke a sacred individual to
    understand the 'concept' halo.

    With the word field we find an even higher degree of abstraction. To understand what ‘field’ means we
    need not only the source object from whence the field emanates (e.g., magnet), but the target object that
    it affects (e.g., a charged particle). A field is not defined in terms of what it is itself, but as a relation between
    two objects (the magnet and the particle). Without the magnet and the iron filings, there is no such concept
    – let alone ‘thing’ – as a magnetic field. A field is an intermediary between two objects and nothing without
    either. If field were strictly defined as the empty space surrounding a body, this definition would have no
    practical value in Physics or Mathematics. Conversely, defining a field in terms of the effect it has on other
    particles is like defining a horse as an animal that can be bitten by a dog. What have we learned? This
    definition may say more about the dog than about the horse.


    8.0   A field cannot interact with other objects

    If a field does not qualify as an object in itself, it cannot be said to interact with other objects such as iron
     filings and Earth, let alone with concepts such as charges, energy, and fields. In order to interact with
    objects, the word field would have to represent something that has shape. Only then can we make or watch
    a movie of 'field' coming in physical contact. Otherwise, the prosecutor has the burden of explaining or
    defining what he means by 'interaction.'

Fig. 1
If the Universe is finite, a field
cannot be infinite. If the Universe
is still expanding, a field cannot
extend beyond the boundaries
of the Universe. The only reason
the mathematicians say that
space-time is finite and that a
field is infinite is to merge these
irreconcilable notions into one.
They thus render their theories
unfalsifiable.

    ________________________________________________________________________________________


                                  Home                    Books                    Glossary            




        Copyright © by Nila Gaede 2008