Not to be troublesome, but if you're looking for a mathematical answer, but you don't want the one based on our best understanding (relativity and electrostatics) then I'm even more confused about what your question meant.
At least if you were asking for a philosophical metaphysical answer, your rejection of Cude's essay would make sense. Sent from my iPhone. On May 27, 2011, at 1:58, "Mark Iverson" <zeropo...@charter.net> wrote: > With all the interaction that JC has had on this discussion group, he should > be well aware that most contributors on this list are probably at least as > knowledgeable as he, and probably much more so. His statement about "the > language of physics is math" is obvious. And CH's suspicions are wrong... > "I suspect that the sort of answer that Mark seeks could not be written > mathematically." > Of course it could be written mathematically! > > Mathematics is an extremely diverse field, and much of it is abstract and/or > has absolutely NO relation to any real physical manifestations. It is my > contention that some critical aspects of mainstream physical theories contain > such abstract mathematical constructs... I think it would be quite fruitful > to re-examine theoretical concepts with a fresh approach based on rational > physical constructs. > -Mark > > > From: Charles Hope [mailto:lookslikeiwasri...@gmail.com] > Sent: Thursday, May 26, 2011 7:54 AM > To: vortex-l@eskimo.com > Subject: Re: [Vo]: Why are the electric and magnetic fields perpendicular? > > > On May 26, 2011, at 4:09, Joshua Cude <joshua.c...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> The language of physics is math. >> > > This is a deep statement, worth unpacking. It means that if an idea can't be > written mathematically, it is not physics. I suspect that the sort of answer > that Mark seeks could not be written mathematically.
