> David Thomson gmail.com> wrote:
>

>>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.

>
> Incorrect. Energy is work, and is equal to force times distance.
>

>>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.

>
> Have you heard of the Continuous Big Bang (CBB) of the Sub-Planck
> Energy Domain (SPED)?

>>

>>>> 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.

>
> Doomed? Poetic use of terminology? On what do you base these
> fantasies?
>

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

>
> Oh, the irony.
>

>>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."

>
> Well, like, duh-now.