>>12363025>So does that make the field just a concept then?Yes, in the sense that everything is a concept. A person is just a concept that we use to describe a sack of chemicals with a name. Chemical is just a concept that we use to describe molecules, molecule a concept to describe atoms and so on.
>If it IS the work then what is it that makes it confined to boundaries/particularization? Nothing. The strength of any field is directly proportional to where r is the distance from the "source" of the field. That equation gets very small very fast, but it never equals zero. Ergo, fields are infinite. One way to look at it is there is one electromagnetic field spanning the universe and magnets, charged particles and such create local distortions in that field.
>>12363065>That's a great description of magnets and how they have domains, regions and alignment. Now explain why it does that. Why it does what? Do you want an explanation of why ferromagnets form domains or how magnetism works?
>The stuff IN space has those properties, No. "Stuff" in space, if by space you mean the universe, interacts with the energy in space. Concentrating it, dispersing it, warping it, and so on, because the "stuff" is another property of the space, or rather a property of the energy within the space.
>The spacetime model is a description of two things that have no properties which is why they're described mathematically, invented because it produces a result in the physical world that works accurately. You were originally conflating "space" with "vacuum." Now you're using "space" to refer to the purely mathematical concept. Even a perfect vacuum is not "empty space." A vacuum is just a region with no matter, but there's still energy.
