It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
originally posted by: moebius
originally posted by: BASSPLYR
Also if whales are mammals where are their nipples?
Too lazy to google it?
www.discoverwildlife.com...
I don't really follow this, because it's not like Newton gave us a physical model of gravitation other than the math. He said he didn't know how gravity worked, so other than the obvious inverse-square geometry in the math, I'm not seeing the physical model of gravity from Newton, even before Einstein.
originally posted by: delbertlarson
a reply to: Arbitrageur
In the quote you give, note Mach again. That is the departure point of Einstein. No more physical models, just principles, followed by math, leading to experimental tests.
Hume and Mach’s analyses of space and time address many aspects of the notions of space and time. But they pass over the specific aspect that was the entirety of Einstein’s conceptual breakthrough of 1905: an analysis of the simultaneity of distant events that shows that observers in relative motion need not agree on which events are simultaneous. That is not to be found in Hume and Mach’s writing. What is to be found, however, is an account of the nature of concepts in general: concepts are dependent entirely on our sense impressions or sensations; they are inapplicable as representations of reality, that is, fictional, in so far as they extend beyond our sense experience.
Neither Hume nor Mach saw this fictional character as a tool that could be used in theory construction; fictional concepts were false representations to be eliminated from one's account of nature or at best tolerated if, as Hume held of causation, the elimination was unachievable. Here Einstein differed. One does not have to eliminate a fictional concept. Its presence indicated an arbitrariness in our physical theorizing. It could be retained as long as its arbitrary character was recognized and it was accommodated in such a way as to preclude unwitting introduction of false presumptions. At the decisive moment in his discovery of special relativity, Einstein did just this. He recognized that the traditional concept of the simultaneity of distant events was not fixed by experience; and that its use had tacitly committed us to a false presumption, the absoluteness of simultaneity—its independence from the state of motion of the observer. So he replaced it with a new concept of simultaneity. It was introduced by a freely chosen definition that exploited the arbitrariness of the concept. That definition brought no tacit commitment to the absoluteness of simultaneity. In the context of the postulates of his new theory, it led to the relativity of simultaneity, the dependence of judgments of simultaneity of distant events on the state of motion of the observer.
What part don't you agree with and who said it had anything to do with relativity? The whole context of this discussion started with Daniel trying so hard to figure out the solution to the action at a distance "problem" where we can't see how one body influences another without touching, and now we know that's the norm rather than the exception since nothing really "touches".
Also, when you say things don't touch in the old sense of things I partially agree. But I don't think it is relativity and its insistence of point-like interactions that is the main culprit - rather it is quantum mechanics.
Where we thought two surfaces were touching each other, yes the Pauli exclusion principle plays an important role but it's a "pseudo-force", it's not a real force as there's no real force carrier, and the coulomb forces still play an important role.
We now know that when two atoms nestle inside an ionic solid that they aren't solid balls touching in a classical sense. Rather, it is a Pauli exclusion of the electron wave functions that keeps them a certain distance apart even though their opposite charges continue to provide a force of attraction. So yes, its certainly different than the old thoughts of touch!
You can post the video of your experiment if you want, so we can see if you're doing anything differently than the experiment below.
originally posted by: BASSPLYR
a reply to: moebius
It works for me.
originally posted by: Arbitrageur
The point was the concept of action at a distance bothered Newton because he had a primitive understanding of science, but since then our understanding has grown and turned many ideas upside-down.
because on small scales there is no touch, it's really another form of "action-at-a-distance". When you sit in a chair, it holds you up by "action-at-a-distance" albeit a short distance but still we now know that what we thought of as "touch" doesn't really happen like we used to think.
Yet you're still using the word "nothing" as if it has a meaningful definition in science.
originally posted by: Arbitrageur
I think it's probably best to consider limiting the usage of the word "nothing" because in science it seems that "nothing" isn't a very good descriptor of even "empty space" or a "vacuum" which has properties so if it has properties, it's not "nothing" in that sense.
An electric field has properties. Can absolutely nothing have properties?
Is the electric field absolutely nothing?
A magnetic field has properties. Can absolutely nothing have properties?
Is the magnetic field absolutely nothing?
No, one could say the air molecules were creating the "action" so that is not an example of old physics idea of "action at a distance" which applied primarily to things like electric, magnetic, and gravitational fields.
Noone is arguing that action at a distance is impossible, I can take a ping pong ball tilt my head up and blow and keep the ball suspended, at the very least move the ball, and the body of my mouth and the body of the ball do not touch, this is action at a distance.
I'm sorry but this "Daniel's eternally correct statement" is not a law of nature, it's a false dichotomy. It's still talking about "touch" and the point you seem to be missing is that the idea of "touch" is now an antiquated concept in science to which this statement still attempts to cling. It also implies if there's no "medium" whatever that is, that the projectile bodies would be creating the "action", again presumably by "touching" somehow, and we now know that such touching doesn't normally occur. So it seems to me the entire foundation for your "eternally correct" statement of "touch" has been an obsolete idea for the better part of a century. If we were both living 150 years ago and you said that it might make sense to me, but it doesn't today, because now we know things that we didn't know 150 years ago.
"Back to my eternally correct statement:
The only conceivable way for a body to effect a body without its body touching the other, is a medium existing between them, or for the body to contain or posses other bodies which it can projectile."
originally posted by: Arbitrageur
I did answer in my previous reply but it seems to me that it's you ignoring my answer. Again:
I think it's probably best to consider limiting the usage of the word "nothing" because in science it seems that "nothing" isn't a very good descriptor of even "empty space" or a "vacuum" which has properties so if it has properties, it's not "nothing" in that sense.
Yet you're still using the word "nothing" as if it has a meaningful definition in science.
No, one could say the air molecules were creating the "action" so that is not an example of old physics idea of "action at a distance" which applied primarily to things like electric, magnetic, and gravitational fields.
It's still talking about "touch" and the point you seem to be missing is that the idea of "touch" is now an antiquated concept in science to which this statement still attempts to cling.
I don't really follow this, because it's not like Newton gave us a physical model of gravitation other than the math. He said he didn't know how gravity worked, so other than the obvious inverse-square geometry in the math, I'm not seeing the physical model of gravity from Newton, even before Einstein.
Also Einstein departed from their way of thinking with regard to how our sense impressions may be fictional and whether such fictional perceptions needed to be eliminated from our accounts of nature.
What part don't you agree with and who said it had anything to do with relativity? The whole context of this discussion started with Daniel trying so hard to figure out the solution to the action at a distance "problem" where we can't see how one body influences another without touching, and now we know that's the norm rather than the exception since nothing really "touches".
originally posted by: delbertlarson
Arbitrageur is merely trying to present some rather radical ideas to you.
Why are you assuming I haven't heard many times and don't know and understand those ideas equally or better than him? I know the 'radical ideas' very well and understand how and why they exist as ideas, which is precisely why I am able to successfully argue against their existence.
originally posted by: ErosA433
Is because you originally came here and asked questions and made statements that show a huge level of ignorance of fundamental physics.
Of course anybody who studies physics seriously thinks a great deal about how things actually work.
originally posted by: DanielKoenig
Arb has not thought much about this problem (or he is a troll) this situation, so he has concluded the answer is 'magic'. So he has concluded noone can possible work towards reaching a comprehension of the possible solutions of this problem.
He's not so arrogant to say this is any kind of ultimate truth, in fact he posits great rewards for the person who can better explain experimental results than the current mainstream:
we've built these things out of different materials, using different technologies, using electrons, using neutrons, using bucky-balls, C60, seriously, it's been done. We've done this experiment, and this property does not change. It is persistent. And the thing that's most upsetting to me is that not only do we get the same results independent of what objects we use to run the experiment, we cannot change the probability away from 50-50 at all.
Within experimental tolerances, we cannot change, no matter how we build the boxes, we cannot change the probability by part in 100. 50-50. And to anyone who grew up with determinism from Newton, this should hurt. This should feel wrong. But it's a property of the real world. And our job is going to be to deal with it. Rather, your job is going to be to deal with it, because I went through this already.
He's talking about quantum mechanics but I'd say that statement applies equally to aether, if you can demonstrate its existence in experiments in a way that hasn't yet been done there's surely great fame awaiting you, and I don't rule out the possibility of someone doing that, though probably not you since I am not aware of you conducting any actual experiments, but maybe you could propose some.
If anyone found such a property, fame, notoriety, subverting quantum mechanics, Nobel Prize. People have looked. And there is none that anyone's been able to find.
That's a leading question if I ever saw one.
originally posted by: LiberateEarth
Is this thread a contest between mainstream, official physics as taught in universities and the real world of physics as demonstrated by obviously suppressed science that shows itself in "unidentified flying objects"?