Nature and Definition of Fields in EU Thinking
The most difficult subjects can be explained to the most slow-witted man if he has not formed any idea of them already; but the simplest thing cannot be made clear to the most intelligent man if he is firmly persuaded that he knows already, without a shadow of doubt, what is laid before him. - Leo Tolstoy
Given that we live in a material world—material referring to matter—and that the basic units of matter are what we call particles, physical science always includes dealing with matter, with units of matter or particles.
I think the great mistake that is being consistently made is the failure to recognize the existence of dipolar aether particles and their role in physical phenomena. IMO, we need more clarity, which starts with better conceptions and more useful definitions. Is not a field a certain volume of dipolar aether particles that are effected electrically to stand ready to transmit one of the two forces—attraction or repulsion—upon any object that makes contact with them?
A question that should have been asked long ago: If there is no particle medium that supports a field, what is the material or concrete explanation—not just the mathematical description—for the drop off of the “field intensity” in a field where the distance from the surface of the field generator is increasing? If THERE IS NOTHING BETWEEN the field generator and the affected object, why would there be any diminishment? In our definition of a field above, the number of particles that distribute the diminishing effect or force in the field is increasing by the distance, or in each type of case, the square of the distance, or the square root of the distance.
In the EU we try to start with basics or fundamentals, those include particles, charge and force. The current thinking is that there are two kinds of particles or matter containers that can be filled to various degrees with mass/energy, two types of charge, positive and negative, and two kinds of force, attraction and repulsion. The various developments that we find in the physical universe are built on this tripartite foundation, and along with motion, spatial dimension, size, shape, and structure account for what we see or find in the material realm.
Magnetism and gravity are secondary aspects or phenomena, and are always associated with a “field”. Simply, particles can carry mass/energy, charge and dipolarity. A magnetic field is always produced by charged particles in motion, even in permanent magnets. An electric current is always charged particles flowing or moving. OTOH, the gravitational field is produced by the particles having dipolarity.
Therefore, in the EU thinking a field is not just a mystical or mathematical construct but is really a description of a specific volume of matter, of neutrinos “carrying the field”, that has a force effect upon other material objects or particles of matter that make CONTACT. This should be very simple and straightforward, and easy to visualize or imagine.
Another question is this: Given that physical science deals with material, hasn’t there been far to much phenomenological or mystical thinking that has crept in the back door of physics theory? Without a medium of aether to carry the field, some theoreticians get so discouraged that they want to do away with the whole concept of a field! In the basic science of physics there is way too much inconsistency. I am reminded, “Consistency, Thou art a gem.”
Wal Thornhill claims, "...that the æther, in the form of normal matter (neutrinos) can be regarded as the polarizable dielectric substrate that transfers the direct electric force (which includes magnetism and gravity) and also the slower transverse electrical disturbance of electromagnetic waves."
Just consider the two cases whereby the field intensity falls off by the distance or the square of the distance in a radial field. This is simply because the number or aether particles carrying the force gets increased and the intensity gets spread out or diluted by the increasing number of the particles carrying the field out to that distance. Nothing mystical here at all.
These two formulas are mathematically simplified or idealized, and the true formula for any specific case in the real world of even just two bodies would be hopelessly complicated. In my opinion it would have to include other factors, such as the charge differential of the two objects, the size or surface area of the two bodies, or at least the conical section between them defined by the spheroid profiles of their surfaces and the increase of ether particles carrying the field intensity over distance within that conical section, and the density of the plasma in the region.
For more than two bodies in the real world of outer space, the effect of the other bodies would have to be included. For experiments and measurements in the laboratory, these other factors can essentially be set to zero.
Therefore, practically, a field consists of a certain volume and somewhat quantifiable number of neutrino/aether/matter particles surrounding the field generator where the force of the field is still detectable by contact with the remote particles.