Thanks for the reply. I seem to have been stuck in seeing reality, from my temperal point of view, as it changes rather than considering it as a static thing at some point of time and how it is at different points relative to other points at that time. That is only possible coneptually and not by any real set of measurements, which only can be done temporally, on a real body But analysis spacially by continuous means would imply that the reality is continuous so that the calculus can be used. That continuity may only exist in conceptual form while objective reality may be discrete enough for very accurate calculations .

I was using model very loosely with concept formation as a mental representation of objective reality and not as a dynamic-runable model. It in no way is reifiable in objective reality and only exists within a brain and most likely only in a brain capable of conceptual reasoning on mental content.

From the article in http://www.salem-news.com/articles/ma...

"Since the very same magnetic field current forces on the Sun create the most powerful explosions of the solar system, this is the only force capable of causing the incredible movement of land mass for many miles around the earthquake site. This concept can be proven when you align two magnets of like polarity. They will suddenly and violently flip to their common positive/negative polarity state even while you try holding them in position."

I am working with a student right now toward the development of a model for the aggregation of a set of colloidal magnetic spheres into larger structures (typically rods, then either random arrays of rods or parallel arrays of rods, and then condensation into bulk structures) in the presence of a charged fluid suspension. This not only is physically an approximation for nanoparticles, but also for celestial bodies as well.

Any questions, comments, and/or recommendations you might have on this topic are most welcome.

Change from place to place means different in one place in comparison with another. What each is in comparison with the others is fact, without regard to temporal processes at all under static conditions. There is no time dependence. The duration of existence is irrelevant to the comparison.

If you are thinking of the time in looking at or considering one, then the other, with a duration for each, that is the time inherent in any mental process, not the object of the knowledge in external reality. All concepts are only in our brains; without humans, concepts would not exist at all, but the facts that give rise to them do. The knowledge they provide is not fantasy, concepts refer to the reality "out there". That is not reification. They are knowledge of reality, a grasp of reality, not a "model" of it in parallel with reality.

Time is implicit in everything as long as there is some motion somewhere. So is every other non-essential feature of the referents of concepts implicit in the meaning of our concepts even though it is omitted as non-essential and left only implicit in the concept. This is the case for spatial derivatives; they pertain to measurements in space without regard to time. Mentioning that time is implicit in everything because everything endures to some degree does nothing to clarify the meaning of spatial derivatives. You could say the same for any concept and it would elucidate nothing other than the general principle that all concepts referring to the their units in reality includes everything about the units: existence is identity. The essence of spacial derivatives is change with respect to position with time irrelevant.

Each place at a different position may be changing from one moment to the next, but that is change with respect to what it was itself at that place, not the comparison between places. A beam may be in static equilibrium or moving, as in a vibration, but the displacement and stresses of a bent beam in one place are different than in another, which is what the change the (4th) derivative with respect to distance along the axis represents. The different positions are linked through the spacial derivatives of the displacement because the stresses depend on the rate of strain, which is the gradient of the displacement.

A static beam as an entity is itself not changing, it's just sitting there; the rate of change represented in the spacial derivative refers to positions along the axis describing the spacial variation in static characteristics within the entity, which is part of its identity.

If it's a partial derivative in dynamics, then it's the change with respect to position explicitly at the same time. But that is just the meaning of 'partial derivative' for functions of more than one variable. The time dependence is part of the meaning of the function, not the meaning of spacial derivative; the partial derivative is restricted to one kind of change in the function. The only time derivative, if the beam is moving by changing shape represented by time-varying displacement, is for each single position -- the 2nd derivative representing acceleration, which relates the change in shear and bending from one place to the next instead of a static load varying only by position. Likewise for all the classical equations for vibrating strings, membranes, diffusion, acoustics, Maxwell's equations, etc.

In the physical world, not the conceptual world of mathematics, time is at least implicit in any physical change or motion since change has a duration. Though the gradient, divergence, and curl are defined in partial derivatives of coordinates, change in a coordinate has an implicit time. Nabla f(x,y,z) = g(x,y,z) gives a rate of change in the real world due to change related to some standard process. There is no instant processes in nature. Thus g(x(t),y(t),z(t))

Correct in last sentence. I would say bad metaphors for 'in time', 'through time', 'flow of time', etc.

Just remember that concepts like mathematics occur only in brains and can not be reified. They just, in some sense, model reality or some imaginary reality.

The spacial gradient, divergence and curl are all spacial changes expressed in calculus, not change with respect to time. Differential equations often relate change in time to spacial change, such as the classic hyperbolic (waves) and parabolic (evolution) partial differential equations of physics.

Change in time is one kind of change, and physical motion is one kind of change in time. But dynamic change of a process is always a measure of time and is the fact that gives rise to the concept time. Non temporal change is part of the broader idea of difference, which need not be a process. Space and time are both relational, not 'things' or 'stuff out there'.

I agree, the slam/joke was lame...but I recognized it as so right away.

You might want to visit http://suspicious0bservers.org...(youtube also) lots of free stuff to view on the sun, electromagnetism and it's effects upon earth...also you may enjoy Billy Yelverton's electrical experiments.

It makes no sense even as a joke. Since when have scientists literally said "what you see is what you get"? We knew about atoms long before we could see them. If not literally, then it is just the requirement for objective evidence.

Again, the effect of strong magnetic fields in a giant ball of super-hot plasma has nothing to do with the effect of weak magnetic fields on a ball of rock.

Laughing!!!...Reread between the Brackets:

[Many scientists believe in “what you see is what you get”. If they wait to see the Earth’s magnetic field current lines of force like they can now on the Sun before they recognize their importance,]
" it may take another billion years before the Earth becomes large enough and the magnetic field becomes intense enough to become visible to the naked eye." - I know, his humor is a bit obtuse.
Laughing my butt off...This is a slam against the scientists that believe "what you see is what you get".

Yes, the Earth has a magnetic field... not sure what this has to do with the linked article however, which claims that the Earth's magnetic field causes earthquakes and makes frankly bizarre statements like "it may take another billion years before the Earth becomes large enough and the magnetic field becomes intense enough to become visible to the naked eye."

That would be a good idea, I seem to find those corners even though I've no right to.
Understand also, I am not in "belief" mode, I just "see" that there is some value here...and laughing, hoping I am alive to judge some of it valuable...addressing your specificity concerns...(just teasing) Not picking on Lil' Abner...(still laughing).

PS. agree, it's a lousy title for the article...so many are these days.

Where in the article is there anything about "Scientists Change Their View on Space"?
Also, what is lamestream news or publications and where are those dark corners where it is spoken of softly these days. I must get out more and visit some of those dark corners.

To my mind, Just the mention of value implies life, but I guess, like so many writers fall trap to, me most of all, is that not everyone sees things the same way. Come to think about it, that's mostly a good thing, just tough to articulate for each thinker and seer.

Pleasures all mine.

Value is a conceptual existent and requires a conscious mind to do the valuing. Non-conceptual beings do not value, but a conceptual being can see that it is possible to that something might be considered as being of value to that life form. No non-living existent can value anything. Perhaps you should have specified that the value was to life, but there certainly is stuff that is not valued by any life, say internal to a black hole or an atom at the center of the Sun.
Without life there is no value.

Thanks OUC.

Well the satellites confirmed what this guy is saying and yes, it's not aligned with the lamestream...but as much work yet to do here, it does show the lamestream hasn't got it right...they still live in the gravitational model, which seems to us now days to be just as nonsensical...so it's nose to the grindstone in all directions while the Electric Universe model replaces current thinking.

I was reading an article last night that talked about the extreme magnetic fields needed to keep plasma energy suspended in a fusion reactor. That is the difference between Earths magnetic fields and the suns...certainly not in the same league.

But again...lot more work needs to be done here...this is only the beginning.

Hello, Old Ugly,
I read the article you are pointing out and to my mind it contains an unusual number of nonsensical statements.
Nothing personal, please.
Stay well.

I understand. I look at these things as potential to trigger a thought in the imagination of scientists specializing in the field that may lead to a real development or breakthrough. In and of themselves they may be flawed, but they might inspire. Certainly when "facts" contradict a theory it should be discarded or refined, if possible, to be congruent with the facts. That is good science.

No value to the universe...not sure I agree...what about energy and resources.

The fight for conscious human life, at authorhouse.com or any other download site.

Not agreeing with the article since it has too many things wrong about the natural world. It is more than being skeptical about it.

I treat it with mental question marks as I do with science fiction and TV programs and what others relate to me. I still have some room left for more question marked stuff. There is a time when a hypothesis should be discarded, when facts do not support it. Suppose that a hypothesis dealing with biology clearly points to something that should be observable but cannot be seen when looking for it. Do you just let it pass when the author, of what he now considers to be a theory, tries to get by with saying that the posited observable may not be seen all the time. No you don't. The theory should be sent back to a hypothetical state by making changes or discarded completely if not fixable.