What Do We Know For Certain?

[mjv1121]

Sparky,

I do not know who first coined the phrase, but the "argument" pre-dates Einstein by centuries.

Basically, to argue for action at a distance is to say that an object may act upon another object from a distance without any agent or mechanical medium of any sort whatsoever (not even at some deep quantum dimensional level).

This my favourite quote from my favourite famous science bloke:

"It is inconceivable that inanimate brute matter should, without the mediation of something else which is not material, operate upon and affect other matter, without mutual contact"...."That gravity should be innate, inherent, and essential to matter, so that one body may act upon another at a distance, through a vacuum, without the mediation of anything else, by and through which their action and force may be conveyed from one to another, is to me so great an absurdity, that I believe no man who has in philosophical matters a competent faculty of thinking can ever fall into it. Gravity must be caused by an agent acting constantly according to certain laws" Isaac Newton

Newton here refers to gravity, but we may easily apply the same sentiments to electric and magnetic fields. The bolded sentence is especially telling.

Action, or force, at a distance, without a *mechanical medium, is not possible.

Your interpretation is correct. I am at a loss to see how anyone (who has in philosophical matters a competent faculty of thinking) could ever take action at a distance as even remotely acceptable.

Michael

[mjv1121]

What we know with absolute, self-evident certainty:

1) All effects must have a cause.
2) Anything that can affect the physical universe must be considered to be physical (this is really just a statement of definition).
3) Everything that has or can have motion is physical (this is the natural implication of 2)
4) A body will remain at rest or in uniform motion unless acted upon by an external force.
5) All actions have an equal and opposite reaction.
6) Momentum cannot be created or destroyed, it can only be transferred.
7) 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.
8) Action at a distance is impossible.
9) Momentum can only be transferred by contact, that is, by collision.
10) Force can only be generated by collision. This might also be stated as force is the act of collision.


Michael

[webolife]

MJV,

I notice you have dropped entropy from your universal certainties, this despite it being the most pervasive observation of all of science. You've also given up trying to "prove" no action at a distance via circular reasoning, and are now simply stating this premise as a fact. You are now also reifying Newton's second law, which states nothing other than a direct or proportional mathematical relationship between Force, Mass, and Acceleration, and by implication, it appears that you are equating "mass" with matter. Here is an interesting thought, Newtonian "mass" is measurable from a very great distance, due to his gravitational "law"... oops, but I guess that is impossible... the measurer must collide with the object in order to actually have it "affect" him; now there's a dilemma... Oh well, I guess you can always say that your quantums are bumping into each other across the vast stretches of space and imparting precise imaging detail in a straight line directly from the distant star...You really need to restate your first premise as: Every effect must have a particulate cause... you seem to know this for absolute certain. You also are now clarifying that force acts upon objects, and also that the objects impart force... yep, that sure makes it clear and certain for me.

Do you ever intend to explain what you think physically happens when any two objects physically act upon/come into physical contact, touch, collide or whatever, using particles of any size you choose, from your "quantums" to planets or whatever? How close do two bodies have to be to physically affect each other? Or how far apart can they be and still be "colliding" in your view? I agree there must be an "agent" [as also Newton], I've never said otherwise -- I just want you to tell me what happens when two particles touch each other. Perhaps something having to do with fermions and bosons? Will we get an answer soon?

[mjv1121]

webolife,

I notice you have dropped entropy from your universal certainties, this despite it being the most pervasive observation of all of science.

In my opinion, the single "most pervasive observation of all of science" is motion - I am concentrating on this for now - surely you will concede that entropy is nothing without motion. Also, the definition or interpretation of entropy is a little vague - perhaps you can provide us with a complete and precise definition of "entropy".

You've also given up trying to "prove" no action at a distance via circular reasoning, and are now simply stating this premise as a fact.

Either:
- I have failed to construct the argument successfully
- or, others have failed to understand or interpret my argument
- or, the argument is not "provable"

Battling round in circles does not provide much in the way of progress, especially when there is no counter-argument presented. Following is a more detailed description of my stance on this subject - I welcome counter-arguments, if there are any.

I am referring to action without some form of physical contact. The implication, both unavoidable and intended, is that gravity and magnetism are caused by the physical contact of something : an agent. I am in effect, postulating that force, that is to say momentum transfer, requires direct physical contact at some level.
(I may posit what that agent is, although my ideas and opinions about the nature and operation of that agent may change over time and no specifics are intended at this juncture, merely the principle.)

Obviously, force fields are invisible other than by their affect. So it would seem that there are three possible positions to take with regard to force fields:
- action at a distance is impossible, so even though we cannot see anything, there must be an agent acting
- action at a distance is possible, we cannot see anything, because there is nothing there
- action at a distance may be possible, since we have no observational proof one way or the other

The third option may at first glance appear to be the safe and reasonable option. However, I consider that the first option is utterly obvious and that actually it is the only safe and reasonable stance to take. I dismiss the second option as absurd and the third option to be a failed cop-out because no "proof" is required, since the premise is logically self-evident.

Perhaps there are some who may choose to construct an argument that I am stating an unjustified belief, and by that value judgement basis they may be correct. However, since the premise ACTION AT A DISTANCE IS IMPOSSIBLE is obvious and logically self-evident, any argument against is tantamount to at best the third option, which although not as openly preposterous and the second option it is equally absurd by implication.....so there!.

Action, or force, at a distance, without a mechanical medium, is impossible.

You are now also reifying Newton's second law, which states nothing other than a direct or proportional mathematical relationship between Force, Mass, and Acceleration, and by implication, it appears that you are equating "mass" with matter.

Your apparent objection to this is, I presume, an issue with "mass". The implication being that mass is or may be an emergent property. Personally, I equate mass with matter, as I see it as the simplest answer. I would be interested in any detailed counter-arguments that can demonstrate any logical plausibility. Regardless of the nature of mass, do you feel that F=ma is unsafe, if so, why?

Here is an interesting thought, Newtonian "mass" is measurable from a very great distance, due to his gravitational "law"... oops, but I guess that is impossible... the measurer must collide with the object in order to actually have it "affect" him; now there's a dilemma...

There really is no need to be so silly, but even so I will play.

Oh well, I guess you can always say that your quantums are bumping into each other across the vast stretches of space and imparting precise imaging detail in a straight line directly from the distant star...

In this thread I am not attempting to precisely define the nature of any "quantum" aether or aethers. My aim is define the rules by which said aethers must operate without violation.
Are you then suggesting that a star can be imaged over vast distances by its "gravitational footprint"? Or are you misrepresenting my suggested operation of photons in or to further belittle my arguments.

You really need to restate your first premise as: Every effect must have a particulate cause... you seem to know this for absolute certain

Well, now that you mention it, it should probably be stated as the first and most obvious thing that we know: existence is particulate. As to whether, particle fields of a given size scale behave as randomly individual particles or as waves or as Newton's Cradles pressure fields is not necessary to stipulate. Advocates of fluids, of which I sense you are one (correct me if am wrong) will have a hard time building the fluid without particles - again I would be interested in hearing a counter-argument, if one exists.

You also are now clarifying that force acts upon objects, and also that the objects impart force... yep, that sure makes it clear and certain for me.

Do you ever intend to explain what you think physically happens when any two objects physically act upon/come into physical contact, touch, collide or whatever, using particles of any size you choose, from your "quantums" to planets or whatever?

You may recall from a previous response that I am attempting to re-evaluate my theory of quantum interaction. In my picture of the aether(s), there are particles that act as elastic spheres with "billiard table" interactions. It seems obvious to me, perhaps you will disagree, that atoms do not touch, therefore the actual physical contact if a function of another agent or agents. You will clearly see my agenda here, in that I consider it necessary that for anything to change, for an effect to occur, there has to be a cause and that cause must, at some level obey the laws (firm and immutable) of motion. I welcome detailed explanation of any alternatives or counter-arguments.

It has been my original intention that through friendly discourse we may quickly summarise the laws of motion and then proceed to expand the list. Apparently I was optimistic in this regard.

How close do two bodies have to be to physically affect each other?

At a fundamental level collision must be by actual physical contact.

Or how far apart can they be and still be "colliding" in your view?

At greater levels of size, the collision will be mediated (although not by the nonsensical manner of consensus quantum theory) by the intervening aether(s).

I agree there must be an "agent" [as also Newton], I've never said otherwise -- I just want you to tell me what happens when two particles touch each other.

There is no choice in this matter - they must obey the laws of motion.

Perhaps something having to do with fermions and bosons?

What in your opinion are fermions and bosons?

Will we get an answer soon?

See above.

[tayga]

Basically, to argue for action at a distance is to say that an object may act upon another object from a distance without any agent or mechanical medium of any sort whatsoever (not even at some deep quantum dimensional level).

(My highlight)

I concur completely. But how does this necessarily imply collision?

I like your new list, up to a point (point 8, in fact). To my mind there is no hidden assumption in any of the points 1-8.

9 and 10 still contain this collision concept which doesn't appear justified. If everything physical were immersed, for want of a better word, in a medium capable of conveying force nothing ever need touch anything else to exchange momentum.

An analogy would be something like a viscous coupling where two solid turbines communicate angular momentum via a liquid medium. Here, the viscous fluid would be the medium referred to in the paragraph above. Obviously the analogy can't be extended too far since considerations of shear limit the efficiency of the viscous coupling. The medium in my model would have to be 100% efficient.

[mjv1121]

tayga,

If everything physical were immersed, for want of a better word, in a medium capable of conveying force nothing ever need touch anything else to exchange momentum.

Yes it would - everything physical "immersed" in said medium (or agent or aether) would need to physically touch, that is be in collision with, the medium by which force is conveyed, which by definition is also physical : force is conveyed by collision.

(If you are objecting to the word "collision" it is merely a word - and in these terms, collision encompasses all direct contact, e.g. a gentle constant push is also a collision.)

What we know with absolute, self-evident certainty:

1) All effects must have a cause.
2) Anything that can affect the physical universe 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).
3) Everything that has or can have motion is physical (this is the natural implication of 2)
4) A body will remain at rest or in uniform motion unless acted upon by an external force.
5) All actions have an equal and opposite reaction.
6) Momentum cannot be created or destroyed, it can only be transferred.
7) 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.
8) Action at a distance is impossible. This is in an absolute sense as opposed to a mediated sense.
9) Momentum can only be transferred by contact, that is, by collision.
10) Force can only be generated by collision. This might also be stated as force is the act of collision.
11) Fundamentally all existence is particulate.
12) The universe is infinite. That is, whether or not, space is occupied by physical bodies.

Michael

[Goldminer]

What we [Michael and his mouse] know with absolute, self-evident certainty:

5) All actions have an equal and opposite reaction. Michael

Except gravity, which seems to be a preexisting acceleration. Matter in free-fall acceleration experience no inertial reaction unless an additional acceleration is applied.

.

[mjv1121]

Goldminer,

Michael: All actions have an equal and opposite reaction.

Except gravity, which seems to be a pre-existing acceleration. Matter in free-fall acceleration experience no inertial reaction unless an additional acceleration is applied.

If we choose to obey the laws of motion, then we are inevitably drawn to the conclusion that force fields have a material cause - which might most generically be referred to as an aether. The precise nature and operation of the aether is for these purposes unimportant. It is only important that the aether operate on "matter" (i.e. brute/gross/bulk matter = atomic matter = electrons and protons) in such a way that the laws of motion are not violated. From this we can see that a gravitational effect is the outcome of the interaction of the aether and matter. So matter in free-fall is accelerated by a reaction from the aether (equal and opposite). However you wish to visualise the gravitational aether, you can see that the gravitational acceleration is a result of the "collisional dynamics" of the interaction betwixt the aether and matter.

From this we can surmise that inertia is also caused by "collisional dynamics" from the aether. At rest or in uniform motion (and assuming no gravity field) there is no change of collisional dynamics, but an acceleration (i.e. a increase or decrease in velocity or a change of direction) will bring with it a change of collisional dynamics which will be in opposition (equal and opposite) to the to the rate of acceleration, and is referred to as inertia.

Considering now that the aether is also the "inertial field", we can view gravitational free-fall slightly differently. Although free-falling matter is accelerating, it is being accelerated by the inertial field. So, in this situation, the acceleration provided by the gravitational effect takes the place of a uniform motion (in the non-gravitational scenario) and now any attempt to move in vector opposition to the gravitational acceleration results in an inertial effect (which will be equal and opposite to the inertial field).

Of course, you may choose to reject the concept that gravity has an aethereal basis, but you should at least see that this explanation is plausible. If, on the other hand, gravity has some other cause, then perhaps you would be correct - are you able to suggest another cause? and if so how would that cause avoid the laws of motion?

Michael

[tayga]

(If you are objecting to the word "collision" it is merely a word - and in these terms, collision encompasses all direct contact, e.g. a gentle constant push is also a collision.)

Then I have been misunderstanding you all along. May I suggest that collision is a very bad choice of words where 'contact' would suffice?

Here's a definition from an online dictionary:

collision Physics an event in which two or more bodies or particles come together with a resulting change of direction and, normally, energy

http://encyclopedia2.thefreedictionary.com/collision

Implicit in the standard definition of collision is that the bodies were not in contact before they collided. I think, if you're going to invent new definitions for words, you should define them before you use them. If you don't do this, people will mistake you for a lawyer

[mjv1121]

tayga,

This sounds about right to me:

Collision : an event in which two or more bodies or particles come together with a resulting change of direction and, possibly, a transfer of momentum.

The thing about "collision" is that it implies both motion and contact that is probably fleeting, or at least not necessarily permanent. Contact is insufficient, it would need to be "makes contact" and then "breaks contact". However, I would agree that "collision" may also imply a violent instantaneousness. In my opinion that it likely the case, but is not necessarily always the case.

"Collision2 works fine for me "contact", with or without an adjectival qualifier, may work better for you - mileage varies. Attempting to compile at list, often calls for some degree of brevity, which can lead to misunderstanding.

Michael

[mjv1121]

" = Shift+2

[Goldminer]

Although free-falling matter is accelerating, it is being accelerated by the inertial field. So, in this situation, the acceleration provided by the gravitational effect takes the place of a uniform motion (in the non-gravitational scenario) and now any attempt to move in vector opposition to the gravitational acceleration results in an inertial effect (which will be equal and opposite to the inertial field).

Let's face it, my friend, at the juncture of knowledge about gravity and the aether we know nothing for certain except that things fall down. If someone says jump, and you jump, you can't ask how far on the way up, and expect to do anything about it. IMHO, your attempt at explaining where the reaction is to gravitation-caused-acceleration is lame. Ripping a hole in your pocket is not the reaction as to why your coins fall out.

Of course, you may choose to reject the concept that gravity has an aethereal basis, but you should at least see that this explanation is plausible. If, on the other hand, gravity has some other cause, then perhaps you would be correct - are you able to suggest another cause? and if so how would that cause avoid the laws of motion? Michael

Whatever makes you think that I reject "the concept that gravity has an aethereal basis?" I imagine (just as you imagine, as opposed to "know" in your theory) that gravity is aspect of what matter does to the aether. I just include electric, magnetic, and gravity as all related aspects that use vibration of the aether to "act at a distance." You glossed right over all the features of EMR that cannot be explained with a particle viewpoint. I expect that LaFreniere's approach is closer to reality than yours. But don't cry, I was wrong once, long ago.

.

[mjv1121]

Goldminer,

IMHO, your attempt at explaining where the reaction is to gravitation-caused-acceleration is lame.

This seems to imply that you entirely missed the point of what I said.

I just include electric, magnetic, and gravity as all related aspects that use vibration of the aether to "act at a distance."

And then here you concede that you completely agree with me.

I wish you would make up you mind.

I expect that LaFreniere's approach is closer to reality than yours.

I notice that this approach explains gravity by the same method as myself, but with a radically different aethereal framework. It seems his "mass" is entirely inertial, i.e. it emerges from resistance to the aether.

I will admit that my review was only cursory, but I did not notice any explanation of the single most important question that this form of theoretical approach must answer: how do the aether particles communicate to "vibrate" together as waves. It seems to me that this would only be possible by some additional sub-level aether or aethers. Is this problem answered or even mentioned?

Michael

[Goldminer]

IMHO, your attempt at explaining where the reaction is to gravitation-caused-acceleration is lame.

This seems to imply that you entirely missed the point of what I said.

Which means to me that you didn't make your point.

I just include electric, magnetic, and gravity as all related aspects that use vibration of the aether to "act at a distance."

And then here you concede that you completely agree with me. I wish you would make up you mind.

So, likewise, I wish you would make up your's. A while back you stated that the aether had to do only with gravity, now you agree with me, more or less. IMHO, the photon is an artifact of the waves induced into the aether interacting with the standing waves of matter; at emission and reception. IMHO, the aether when stimulated can vibrate matter that it engulfs; thereby inducing electric and magnetic fields back into the aether. When vibrating in the EMR mode, the waves in the aether exhibit no physical mass, and leave the emitting mass at c. When vibrating in the soliton mode, which by the way is exceedingly stable, the properties of exclusion, gravity, charge, etc. appear.

I expect that LaFreniere's approach is closer to reality than yours.

I notice that this approach explains gravity by the same method as myself, but with a radically different aethereal framework. It seems his "mass" is entirely inertial, i.e. it emerges from resistance to the aether.

I imagine that the aether is incorporated into the solitons that form the "particles" that act as "matter," rather than emerging from resistance to the aether. Keep in mind that some properties of the aether are "known."

I will admit that my review was only cursory, but I did not notice any explanation of the single most important question that this form of theoretical approach must answer: how do the aether particles communicate to "vibrate" together as waves? It seems to me that this would only be possible by some additional sub-level aether or aethers. Is this problem answered or even mentioned? Michael

God only knows . . . I don't claim to be that knowledgeable . . . yet. Heaven help the rest of us if either of us do obtain such knowledge! I see no reason for "sub levels." You may be willing to stoop lower than I.

.

[webolife]

I would be content to bottom line my argument with:

For every effect there is a cause.

That we don't know anything else for sure is the reason that for over 2000 years there has been an ongoing debate in humankind about what is the fundamental natural reality and how this universe works... called science.

MJV's a priori assumption is motion without primary cause, which he says MUST be ignored.
I can buy that as an assumption, but not as "certain knowledge" since there is such a simple logical alternative.

My a priori assumption is that the "self-evident" holding force of the universe caused the original motions that are MJV's primary concern, and I choose to accept that science is self-limiting in its inability to extrapolate beyond this place to that fundamental cause.

That science is thus self-limiting means that MJV's list of certainties is not "safe". Whenever MJV says "motion or acceleration", I will say "caused by what", and MJV will say, "by moving objects colliding", which avoids my question. When I ask, "what physically happens when two objects come into contact", MJV will repeatedly simply say that it is self-evident that they touch, without admitting or exploring the possibility that at some level there simply are not any smaller particles [eg. his "quantums"] to mediate the contact, and that the action of "touch" occurs across a unit of space. Once this elementary/fundamental/ultimate non-mediated contact distance is accepted, an explanation for it [eg. an electric force of some kind] becomes an action at a distance, and by implication of the fractality [scalability] of the universe, it becomes possible to visualize and discuss the actions we observe to happen across larger distances of the universe in a unified field theory. Whether or not this is acceptable to MJV or anyone else is of course their choice, so the list must be understood to be:
What few things MJV will accept as being certain in his view of the universe, ie. MJV's immutable core beliefs.

We all have assumptions/beliefs that form the supports of our "knowledge", and scientists who are are willing to admit them are more honest than those who refuse to accept the foundational aspect of a belief system in their own scientific pursuit. My argument here will be finished when MJV's list of beliefs is thus presented.