>>13491572>"Amount of something" is not something specific.Why would it be when your question wasn't specific? How many times are you going to whine about the inadequacy of your own question?
>So a field is nothing specific according to the definition you gave me.It's not nothing specific, it's something general.
>"It's a [description], how could you not understand this"Not a response. If I'm explaining something to you, it's going to be a description of that thing. Get over it.
Let's try again: electrons absolutely exist, they are an elementary particle, not the result of some field you can't even name. Your response is...?
>The only field unless there's more than one?What? There are many different fields. Do you have any idea what you're talking about?
>How?The magnet moving changes the magnetic field which moves the electrons.
>Then what is it you're calling an "Electron" other than a field pressure mediation created by the magnet?I don't even know what "field pressure mediation" is let alone saying anything about it. Try not to make up your own terminology in a scientific discussion. Again, the electrons are already in the wire, they aren't being created by the magnet. You're spouting nonsense.
>How?How not? That is what the most successful models say.
>One is a measurement. Neither are measurements. Is a chess board a measurement?
>It's like saying an inch is curvedNo, it's like saying space is curved, which it is. An inch is just a unit of measurement of distance, which is a metric of space.
>Isolate space in a vacuumSpace isn't "in" anything, a vacuum is in space.
>that you may perform a scientific test on it.There are many tests of curved space if that's what you want:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tests_of_general_relativity>Or show how it's the output of a scientific test.What does that mean? The output of a scientific test is to refute or confirm a theory. What theory do you want tested?
