faith based science?

There are various levels of answers to this question, depending on how accurately you want the phenomena described or what principles you would prefer to understand it in terms of.However, basically, electric and magnetic fields never exert a force on an object they are not in contact with, the must first reach the object they are going to influence. They do so by travelling at the speed of light from the source object which creates them.

There are no other categories when talking about nouns. Since no-one really understands what you are saying, it stands to reason that the problem lies with you.The only knowledge that can be gleaned from your repeated posts of "It is not ME!! It is everyone else!!" is that you are both mad by name and mad by nature. Do you not know?
Are you unable to tell how bad your English is?Well, then let me help you: your English is dreadful. I repeat: you should be embarrassed.
Perhaps there is someone at your care-home that can confirm this.

I'd express this a little differently. A field is the force that would be fellt on a particle at points in space. When we describe a field, we have said nothing about how the force itself is generated or propagated.I take your post to be the equivalent of saying that you do not agree that fields (electric, magnetic, or gravity) can actually be formed in empty space. What medium do you believe is used to establish a gravity field?ABE:What would the properties of such a medium be?Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.

That is correct. You cannot form an electric or magnetic field without a medium. The medium is the vacuum of space. The difference between me and you is that I view the vacuum of space as having physical properties and is as much a medium as a wall of concrete, albeit much thinner. I have read some things by people you would consider quacks about the exact nature of the vacuum of space itself.

Being internally consistant doesn't tell us anything about whether or not its true. The Matrix and The Lord of the Rings are internally consistant. Bullshit, that's a lie. That's because you're employing faith instead of science. You declare it wrong by fiat. You never test anything. That's the epitome of faith and science is the opposite of that. I don't know what you're talking about and that's not what internal consistancy has to do with. Do you even know what "internally consistent" means? False. The Big Bang Theory doesn't have the Universe popping out of nothing. But as you've admitted, you decided that before you even began any testing. You're taking a faith based position. Its not really something that science can argue against if all you're going to do is close you eyes, stick your fingers in your ear, and yell "la la la la la". Stop behaving like a child and learn something already.

And how did you reach the conclusion that those "things by people [I] would consider quacks" were correct? Contrary to your belief that I am merely "indoctrinated", I reached my conclusions regarding the explanation because the non-quack explanations result in predictions that work.This is actually the part of the discussion that is on topic. Faith based science. Again, what are those physical properties and how do they allow the transmission of light/gravity in a way consistent with observation? One such observation is that the speed of light is the same as measured in any inertial reference frame.

That is a faith based statement.The actual experiments demonstrate that there is no medium:Michelson—Morley experiment - WikipediaIf you think I am wrong, then cite a single experiment that has detected this ether. Where did you show that? All we have is your empty assertions.

Since the Earth is moving through space in addition to its rotation as well as the movement of our solar system around the galactic core we should observe differences in the speed of light depending on the travel of the photon with respect to the ether. We don't observe this. That is what the Michelson-Morley experiment sought to measure, and it failed spectacularly. This website has a very nice applet that lets you run the experiment yourself:http://galileoandeinstein.physics.virginia.edu/...mexpt6.htmNo experiment has ever measured an ether. That's because it isn't there. The medium isn't there.Edited by Taq, : No reason given.

Can they make a coherent and cogent argument? If they could they wouldn't be thought of as quacks.Present the arguments. Lets see if they are coherent and cogent.

We don't observe any changes in the speed of light as long as it is going through the vacuum of space no matter where that might happen to be. The quality of the vacuum of space is everywhere constant even in the presence of massive bodies.

We are MOVING through space, are we not? We are moving through the medium. If the speed of light is constant in the medium this would indicate that we should observe a slower speed of light in the direction of our movement and a faster speed of light behind us. Is this the case? No. Therefore, there is no medium.

That kinda would debunk the idea of some sort of medium wouldn't it. Unless of course this medium is miraculously consistent throughout the universe.

Taq's question is the same as the question I ask you in message 156. Feel free to respond only to Taq. Your predicted observation fails to explain a number of observed phenomena.It also raises the question of what quality of space is involved in supporting gravitational fields. How does a light ray bend in a gravitational field if the quality of space does not change in a gravitational field.Further, there is the problem that the velocity of light is often not constant when viewed from an accelerating reference frame. How does this vacuum property of space accommodate all of these issues? Surely you have thought of all of these things.

So what is it exactly travelling in your hypothesis, Son? You sound like it's the speeding fields.

Whereas Tacky is talking about travelling photons. Your descriptions clash, Son. The judge is smelling something fishy.