>On May 26, 6:02 am, Paul Holbach
>wrote:

>> I follow Einstein in regarding fields as physical states of space.
>> Generally, a field is a spatial distribution of energy that varies
>> with time.

>
>But here we are again... there is no such "thing" as energy. Energy
>is a non-material property of matter. Energy is merely the
>measurement of a quantity of work.

>The only way you can create a
>field of energy is through poetry. You might as well be creating a
>field of yellow, or a field of velocity.
>

>> I think that space itself is the substratum of fields, i.e. it's space
>> itself that has energetic states.

>
>I can agree with that. The Aether is quantifiable as a fabric of
>quantum rotating magnetic fields. These quantum rotating magnetic
>fields possess the property of energy.

>

>>> People have the preconception that physical matter exists first, and
>>> then non-material things arise from it (mind, for example).  But it is
>>> the other way around.  Non-material reality came first and physical
>>> existence evolved from it.

>>
>> Some physicists think that our universe popped into existence out of
>> an energetic vacuum field. If fields are states of space, then space
>> (or spacetime) must have existed before our universe.
>> Space (or spacetime) does certainly not consist of discrete particles
>> such as quarks, but I think that is nevertheless some "ethereal" kind
>> of stuff.
>> So I venture to speculate that, in a sense, even space (as a plenum,
>> not as a vacuum) may be called "material".

>
>It is the poetic use of terminology that has doomed modern physics.

>We need a more precise language in order to avoid ambiguity.

>There
>has to be a word that specifically identifies the state of matter
>(electrons, protons, and neutrons). It makes sense to limit the word
>"material" to those things which are matter. Those things which are
>not matter are "non-material."

>
>Dave