What Do We Know For Certain?

[mjv1121]

Aardwolf, Sparky,

Crystal formation is indeed amazing. Even though that damn snowflake won't stay still, you can make out that every single "petal" is slightly different, so actually it is not truly uniform or symmetrical, just approximately.

You might also consider that every atom of hydrogen and every atom of oxygen and every molecule of water in the universe must be just about precisely the same or else water would not be...water. Of course, you've got a snowflake's in hell chance of taking a photonic photograph of the internals of atoms.

Michael

[altonhare]

altonhare,

5) Anything that can affect the physical universe must be considered to be physical. This might also be stated as anything physical constitutes a form of matter.

Yes, but my purpose was to point out that objects/particles/phenomena that are considered by some people to be immaterial (i.e. light, gravity, electromagnetism), should also be considered as physical matter.

Everyone's just talking past each other until they all at least agree on one definition of "physical" and "matter" for the purposes of discussion.

1) There is no "rest" or "uniform motion." However, I agree with the idea of causality. Objects cannot behave in all conceivable ways because they cannot self-contradict. Therefore, their behaviour is restricted and they must behave particularly.

Whether or not physical (see above) particles/bodies/objects are "allowed" to behave such that they may be at absolute rest or in continuous unaffected uniform motion, both concepts are still legitimate and logically definable.

While uniform motion and rest are definable and conceivable, they are impossible characteristics for any object in our universe.

2) Wording is a bit too vague. Changes of one orientation (designated positive, or rightward, or w/e) must be accompanied by changes of the opposite orientation (designated negative, leftward) because motion must be conserved. So the best interpretation I can come up with is "conservation of motion" which is also often termed "conservation of energy." i.e. if something starts moving faster, something(s) must then move more slowly.

3) Agree. Motion is conserved.

2) All actions have an equal and opposite vectorial reaction.

I am not an fan of "energy" and I think the term "motion" to be a bit vague.

It isn't vague if we give it a noncircular definition. Two locations of an object.

This is to do with the concept of mass that I have adopted. After much consideration I have come to the conclusion that mass is exactly equivalent to matter. Many do not agree with this view as they see mass as an emergent property associated with resistance to motion in various ways. Granted there is an inherent problem with all measurements and mass is no exception. However, I have taken as a personal premise (hello webolife) that the universe is entirely mechanical and logical and that every phenomena, both visible and invisible, is caused by mechanical interactions. A crucial element of this conceptual picture is the notion that force is the process of the transfer of momentum. in order to reduce the problem to its simplest components I have selected (through careful consideration, not arbitrarily) mass (which is the amount of matter) and motion (which is velocity and is fundamentally distance) as the building blocks of understanding, that is, mass in motion. Mass in motion is momentum. It is possible that during collision (i.e. contact) either mass or velocity are transferred. In either case momentum is always conserved - velocity is not always conserved and the term "motion" hints too much at velocity. Momentum is always conserved and the term is unambiguous. Energy is simply a mathematical extension of momentum, as it refers to mass, velocity and a potential for force, E=1/2mv^2 (E=mc^2 is an invention derived from poor logic and misunderstanding).

Michael

There are two common usages of the word "mass." One is dynamic, and is just an operational definition that gives a name to measurements. You measure changes in velocity and find that different pairs of objects have different proportionality constants between their changes in velocity, and you call these proportionalities "mass." THe other definition is more fundamental, it is simply the number of fundamental entities that comprise an aggregate entity. The latter is what we really want to know in understanding the universe, but the former is what we're stuck with, at least for now.

[altonhare]

However even Gaede's ropes are held to act in a way physical ropes cannot.

Excellent vids. But I disagree with this statement. Physical is a synonym for shape/boundedness. The ropes have a boundary. There is no problem here.

[mjv1121]

webolife,

the pervasive "holding" force may be "immaterial"

Can you tell me the which, what and how of this "pervasive holding force". Is it something that others may be aware of?

Should I assume that "immaterial" has no further definition?....or has it?

The intensity of the flux of particles is assumed to be the same in all directions, so an isolated object

Obviously, and I am sure you do really understand, the term "object" is this context refers to what is commonly called "matter", i.e. electrons, protons and neutrons and the atomic structures that consist of them. So, in these terms, the particles that are posited to cause the effect of gravity are much smaller than, and are not, atomic/subatomic matter.
Matter is never isolated from the field, but matter can be "isolated" (a significant distance away) from other matter.

ALL OBSERVED MOTION IS CURVED.

This is probably not as well known or understood as you may believe. Is there any possibility of explanation please.

Nothing in the universe is unaffected by an outside force; therefore, as an abstract and ideal assertion, Newton's first law simply isn't observed anywhere.

Although, I am suggesting that an aethereal field(s) is responsible for mediating momentum transfer (i.e.transmitting force), without the presence of other "matter" an objects motion is not subject to any net external force. Also, we might envisage an ideal situation, where Newton's first law is valid and in this respect observation is not required.

We may bat criticisms of each other's philosophical foundations back and forth for as long as we are able and willing.

Bearing in mind all the bleeding obvious caveats regarding the nature and uncertainty of existence, the nature and uncertainty of observation, the nature and uncertainty of consciousness and thought, only then, if I choose to regard the following premises to be true and accurate:
I exist and I can be certain that I do actually exist
The universe exists
Motion is real

Then, and only then, I am able to say that the following are self-evident:

1) Space and time are infinite.
2) All effects must have a cause.
3) Anything that can affect the physical universe, and thus is capable of motion, must be considered to be physical (this is really just a statement of definition so as to include light and fields and aethers in a broader definition of physicality, although it may conflict with some people's semantic ).
4) Fundamentally all existence is particulate.
5) A body will remain at rest or in uniform motion unless acted upon by an external force.
6) All actions have an equal and opposite reaction.
7) Momentum cannot be created or destroyed, it can only be transferred.
8) Momentum can only be transferred by contact, that is, by collision (i.e. contact = collision).
9) Force can only be generated by collision. This might also be stated as force is the act of collision.
10) Action at a distance is impossible. This is in an absolute sense as opposed to a mediated sense.
11) F = ma, thus force can only be generated by mass and a change of velocity. This could also be stated that force is a transfer of momentum.

Michael

[webolife]

I don't get the 45-deg argument. The trajectory of an object under the influence of a gravitational force is not a semi-circle, or any circular arc, but is either a parabola [eg. a cannonball], an ellipse [eg. an orbit], or a hyperbola [eg. a NEAR asteroid, or extra solar comet], or some cylcoidal combination of these, but always curved. Its absolute location along the trajectory, incl. the point[s] of contact/departure/landing is determined by a complex set of ephemerides. If, as I believe and I think MJV also, motions are manifestations of a single force field with several "aspects" [gravity, electricity-magnetism, light, atomic-nuclear], then the complexity of motions must be governed by a single set of rules, a model .

MJV's approach to this is to establish a set of "for sures" to ferret out the details of that geometry or model, but has done so in a simplistic and concrete manner by stating that all interactions are collisional, without specifying how high speed contacts of chaotically moving particles can account for any of the actions we actually observe in the universe. This is my challenge to Michael and any other takers: What causes [or mediates, if you prefer] these random collisions in such a way as to result in anything ever sticking together? This question cannot be dodged by "ignoring", presupposing the presence of "isolated" larger objects, or simplistically imagining that somehow the quantum ether responds differently when encountering an "object" [eg. randomly condensing at some locus, while diffusing Brownian-like elsewhere], as though the ether were not composed of objects requiring the same sort of "mediation"; nor by presupposing that such ethereal quantums exist, can we thus make more "certain" the premise that all actions are comprised of collisions of them. So I...
1. Agree with statements #1-3 in their current wording.
2. Disagree with #4,5 -- these belong in your premises.
3. Take exception to #6, based on your ignoring of entropy.
4. Accept #7 as a limited definition.
5. Disagree with #8, until you can further explain "collision" at a fundamental level.
6. Disagree with #9,10, because they presuppose #4,8,9 -- would accept the statement as a proposition, if "mediated" included consiserations of the "non-particulate"...
7. Disagree with #11's use of an idealized mathematical proportion to prove physical reality in this manner. The equations presuppose an understanding of force, mass and acceleration, therefore cannot be used as proofs of a physical reality.

It's nice to see Plasmatic and Alton back in the discussion... there are several things about Gaede/Hare's ropes-chains that greatly intrigue me, as well as with MJV's quantums... though I disagree with the "materialistic" premises of the three of you, and agree with Plasmatic's objection to Gaede's ropes, all of us actually agree that the current physics does not adequately explain fundamental micro and macro phenomena, and often emphasize the same reasons for that disagreement. This to me bodes well for the future of our mutual understanding, and of science.

[Plasmatic]

However even Gaede's ropes are held to act in a way physical ropes cannot.

Excellent vids. But I disagree with this statement. Physical is a synonym for shape/boundedness. The ropes have a boundary. There is no problem here.

I was referring to the issue of the ropes passing through one another without bisecting etc. [Ala light not interacting with itself] Proposing a physical explanation to justify mediation through known architecture and attributes/behaviour and then adding abstracted qualities that don't correspond to how the physical entity is perceived to act or be. Not sure of the implications yet.....

[webolife]

EXACTLY my issue, as I often queried [er, cross-examined?] Alton about this. I think this is why he favored thinking of the ropes as chains... perhaps the "links" could pass through/by each other analogously to "magic rings". I was never clear how his torsioning light signals could navigate "chain links" better than Bill's rope-shaped carriers. Anyway, to stick with MJV's thread, you can't postulate collisions as "certain" without at least having the ability to describe those collisions at the elemental level. It's just the way it is ["self-evident" to Michael], I guess, but avoid the elementary question of "how?"

[Plasmatic]

Web said to Michael:

Your definiton does not suit me. But I stand by observations, recognizing that there are different theories [such as yours that require all actions to be collisional, and others like mine that recognize the possibility that the pervasive "holding" force may be "immaterial" , ie. not particulate] that try to explain our observations of AAAD.

Here's a third: We observe entity A affecting entity B without any perceivable mediary and we are able to pass another entity C through the gap between them as though no entities are present. What is the validity of simply accepting the proposition that A affects B without mediation, in order to avoid either 1. proposing physical mediaries that behave unlike physical entities behave ,or 2. proposing an abstracted "non physical" entity that affects physical entities somehow but is undetectable.

An example of 1. would be ropes that explain observations via structurally justifying tension, yet are able to pass through one another.

An example of 2. would be Webs "holding force".

An example of the third thing would be the actual observations say of magnets.

Three still holds entities as causal primaries but avoids the contradictions of 1. and 2. But is it any different than saying "It just does"?

Maybe theres a physical explanation that justifies the observations without the problems above yet is not being thought of ?

[webolife]

You said "undetectable" [not true, we SEE light along rectilinear [ray] lines of sight, attended by it's spectral field pressure gradient], and we can measure the gravitational force on our bathroom scale, but perhaps you meant something else? And I'm sure you know I believe light force and gravity are "physical", but perhaps you meant something else? Do you really think that my nearly cylindrical conic light beams acting instantaneously across space are more "abstract" than Gaede's mis-behaving rope entities? Or did you mean something else? Or perhaps you are playing lightly with my belief in a real God? Maybe there's a physical explanation that's not being thought of.

[Plasmatic]

You said "undetectable" [not true, we SEE light along rectilinear [ray] lines of sight, attended by it's spectral field pressure gradient], and we can measure the gravitational force on our bathroom scale, but perhaps you meant something else? And I'm sure you know I believe light force and gravity are "physical", but perhaps you meant something else? Do you really think that my nearly cylindrical conic light beams acting instantaneously across space are more "abstract" than Gaede's mis-behaving rope entities? Or did you mean something else? Or perhaps you are playing lightly with my belief in a real God? Maybe there's a physical explanation we haven't thought of.

No, not my intended message.Truthfully I'm not very familiar with the particulars of your theory other than your usage of action words as non"material"or non "particulate" entities. We see the effect of our body upon the scale and we refer to this effect as gravity. But we do not see a "force". Force [like "energy"] is the concept describing the observation of one entity affecting another. I meant " "immaterial" , ie. not particulate" by "non physical". Both are physical properties after all.

Do you really think that my nearly cylindrical conic light beams acting instantaneously across space are more "abstract" than Gaede's mis-behaving rope entities?

Didn't say that.

Edit:

Bengt,
I am intrigued by your use of the word "material" [in the post before your previous one] as opposed to "energy", and generally agree with this dichotomy. Both are considered "physical" as I see it. I use "force" or "pressure" instead of energy because it seems to more simply describe the effect of "energetic" action. Do you follow my thinking here

Here is an example of what I was referring to.

[webolife]

In that case, thanks for the nod!

I guess I would substitute/interchange the words for see, observe, detect, measure, collect info about... depending upon which best fit the context. But you're absolutely right, and I often use the two magnets visualization myself, that just because something can't be seen, doesn't mean that it's not "real." But in science we must content ourselves with describing the causes and effects of the detectable material universe, and leave the "other" stuff for the metaphysicists to figure out. I openly avow wearing both hats. Hence my signature line. Hope that doesn't make me sound schizophrenic...

[mjv1121]

Plasmatic,

Here's a third: We observe entity A affecting entity B without any perceivable mediary and we are able to pass another entity C through the gap between them as though no entities are present. What is the validity of simply accepting the proposition that A affects B without mediation, in order to avoid either 1. proposing physical mediaries that behave unlike physical entities behave ,or 2. proposing an abstracted "non physical" entity that affects physical entities somehow but is undetectable.

This is entirely unnecessary. The entities that we are able to observe are largely transparent to the mediary entities. This effectively describes the observational/detectability problems that we face. I would risk the scorn of history and go so far as to say that there can be no technological solution to this obstacle. We are left with theoretical speculation that can only be proved by applying some sort of equational statistics (i.e. maths) to the theory to match with what we can actual observe/detect.

Michael

[Aardwolf]

Aardwolf,

I'm not convinced any structures at the atomic/molecular level are effected by gravity until they coalesce into much larger structures.

I take exactly the opposite stance.

Thats fair enough although the difference is I'm not using my stance to underpin statements of certainty. I accept I may be wrong. Maybe there is another non-matter/non-energy phenomena we are unable and maybe never will be able to even concieve yet alone describe.

The densest bodies in the universe are protons and neutrons. They are orders of magnitude more dense that the most massive stars. Atomic structures, by contrast are nearly all empty space:
Density of Earth : 5,515 kg/m^3
Density of the Sun: 1,408 kg/m^3
Density of a proton: 584,077,213,866,672,000 kg/m^3

Well I wasn't refeing to density I was talking about structures. My point is that at and around the single molecular level, gravity is virtually absent as per the phenomena I listed. Once these molecules join to create larger structures it is only then that gravity takes precedent. I would however be interested in how those densities were/are measured. I hope thet'ye not inferred from theory...

Why is G-naught 6.67x10^-11? Because for atomic structures of our macro world gravity has so little to act upon. Coulomb's constant will tell you something about the charge force between protons in an atomic nucleus separated by 10^-15 or so. If you choose to believe that the strong force is caused by gluons and maths you are free to do so. I choose to believe that gravity acts according to density and size. The most gravitationally intense place in the universe is not the core of collapsing super massive stars, it is around every proton and neutron in the universe. Furthermore, even under these extreme gravitational conditions, charge is still able to overcome the gravitational effect and separate nucleons. In a nucleus, gravity is balanced by charge and is 100 times stronger than Coulomb's force.

It's interesting to read the way you discuss this stuff as if it's absolute fact based on some empirical measurements. If your certainties are based on these foundations I can understand why most here object to the content of this thread. I think you should qualify all the statements as "based on the consensus of scientific knowledge as currently interpreted". And in my opinion we understand about 0.01% (rounded up) of the universe and its contents. We observe even less.

[mjv1121]

Aardwolf,

Well I wasn't referring to density I was talking about structures. My point is that at and around the single molecular level, gravity is virtually absent as per the phenomena I listed.

My point, is that the bolded phrase above is utterly utterly utterly WRONG!

Once these molecules join to create larger structures it is only then that gravity takes precedent.

Once atoms form structures, those atomic/molecular structures are almost entirely empty space, so gravity has relatively little of the overall structure to act upon. Gravity can only act upon physical matter, it cannot act upon the empty space in between.

Density of Earth : 5,515 kg/m^3 (from wiki)
Density of the Sun: 1,408 kg/m^3 (from wiki)
Density of a proton: 584,077,213,866,672,000 kg/m^3 (calculated by me, based on wiki data = 5.92x10^17)

G for atomic matter is 6.67x10^-11 (given by consensus)
G for electrons and protons = 1.22x10^7 (calculated)
G for nucleons is around 10^27 to 10^28 (estimated)

the consensus of scientific knowledge as currently interpreted

The consensus of scientific knowledge regarding gravity, especially subatomic gravity, is intellectual excrement.

wiki quote:"The force is powerfully attractive between nucleons at distances of about 1 femtometer (fm) between their centres, but rapidly decreases to insignificance at distances beyond about 2.5 fm. At very short distances less than 0.7 fm, it becomes repulsive"

The repulsive affect of charge at 0.7 fm defeats gravity, but at 1 fm charge and gravity are balanced, then at 2.5 fm proton charge is able to get past neutrons and gains dominance again.

Gravity is a function of density and size: mass/r^3 x r = mass/r^2

There is no strong force or weak force, there is only gravity and charge.

Michael

[webolife]

And gravity and charge aren't things, they're something that happens to things.