RE: sounding like a philosopher... Yep, since I'm an INTP personality type, I tend to focus on the forest...
RE: our models... I guess what prompted my intial question to the Collective (re; perpendicular E and B fields) was that, although we do have some good models, they were done over hundreds of years and lack universality... And they fail to explain some of the simplest observations which we just take for granted. I think a much better theoretical foundation could be developed nowadays if we were to trash all theories and start over from basic observational facts. If you have time, please explain a bit more about your insights into (nonexistent) torque... -Mark -----Original Message----- From: Terry Blanton [mailto:hohlr...@gmail.com] Sent: Wednesday, May 25, 2011 12:37 PM To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: [Vo]: Why are the electric and magnetic fields perpendicular? On Wed, May 25, 2011 at 2:36 PM, Mark Iverson <zeropo...@charter.net> wrote: > I think any theory should have to explain the simple observations > first before delving down into more difficult and esoteric aspects of physics. You sound more like a philosopher now. I know it's cliché but, the more I learn, the more I see how little I know. It took me two years to grasp the meaning of mechanical torque only to find out that it really does not exist. All of our explanations are based on models and our models are not perfect. Can you imagine a body that must go through 720 degrees of rotation to return to its starting orientation? I'm beginning to come close. The real answer to your questions is "We don't really know." But, we have useful tools with our models! Terry
