MI collisions

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by EBTX</i>
<br />what does "influence" mean to you?<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">It means "to have an effect on". Everything that exists is composed, and we presently recognize only two general forms of components: particles and waves. Either can influence material bodies by collision.

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">To me it means affected by "fields".<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">Fine. We might even agree. But you have offered no physical definition of "field", only a mathematical one. So your concept of "field" remains physically undefined. And physical entities are normally left undefined so that they can perform magical things; i.e., do something that a real, tangible entity could not.

Provide a physical definition of "field". Then we'll see where we stand.

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Does it mean to you ... affected by collisions which do not actually occur? Are you proffering a theory of "quasi-collision"?<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">I have twice corrected this misstatement. Please note: Real collisions do occur. They simply do not involve real contact, only apparent contact when instruments available are insufficient to examine the details of what is really happening at smaller scales.

Real collisions are like what happens when two galaxies collide, where no component stars ever touch. I use stars and galaxies as examples because we exist on a scale at which we <i>can</i> see the details of what is really happening during such collisions. And it involves no contact.

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">The entire disagreement here is basically the continuous vs the discontinuous. You do not accept the physicality of any type of continuous field.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">Once again, not true. Oceans and aether are examples of continuous fields. Here, "continuous" means "no gaps, holes, or breaks". It does not imply some sort of magical quality or property.

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">You require that it be possible to examine it and discover some sort of discreet constituents in order for it to be "real".<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">Is a "field" real and tangible? If not, how does it interact with real, tangible bodies? But if a field is real and tangible, how did it form unless it is composed of smaller entities that assembled? How does it act without the ability to deform? How does it convey energy or momentum? And most importantly, if it has no gaps, holes, or breaks, and is also uncomposed, then it is a rigid solid by definition, so how can anything move through it?

When examined in detail, your vision seems to require miracle after miracle -- things that are not physically possible. Hold a microscope up to your field and tell me what you see.

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">To me, the difference between a continuous field and a set of discontinuous particles is the same as the difference between the real numbers and their subset, the integers.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">So in which category is the ocean? And why does it matter?

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Why is a great, big, continuous block of rubber with logitudinal and transverse waves in it less real than a bunch of floating, colliding bricks? I have no trouble at all accepting both as "real". Both are useful geometric constructs (useful in terms of "explanation").<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">I see nothing "less real" about the block of rubber than the bricks. Both are composed, enabling them to elastically deform and exhibit properties such as waves.

Note that real rubber is known to be composed. So even your example works for me. What doesn't work is your mental image of MM, which is somehow continually imputing impossible properties to material entities such as "no collisions" and "only discontinuous states allowed". The whole idea here is to get rid of such impossibilities at all levels, not to substitute new ones at smaller scales that are "just out of sight" and therefore a concern only to the next generation of thinkers. -|Tom|-

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Let's look at one of those examples: two galaxies colliding. Because galaxies are mostly empty space occupied by the occasional star, colliding galaxies rarely involve any real star collisions or contact.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">
{two galaxies colliding} There are no collisions in MM (your words), and no other means given for one galaxy to effect onother.
{galaxies are mostly empty space} There is no empty space in MM.
{occupied by the occasional star} No occupation is possible in a universe that didn't arrive. I.E. It's always been and it's got no vacancies.

I will follow the MM to the T.
You tend to gum up the works when using terminology that has no meaning in MM.

How about this?

A field has parts but the parts are not re-orderable.
Your MIs have parts but they are re-orderable.

By "re-orderable" I mean ...
You can take a part and push it somewhere else and it won't go back to where it was ... after you let go of it.

If the parts are not re-orderable, they will snap back like a rubber band when you let go (this is the field).

Why is this "miraculous"?

The essence of a miracle is "no physical explanation".

As your suggestion now stands, it seems like all you have done is tack some non-functional parts onto your otherwise non-material, monolithic field idea.

But keep trying. Keep thinking. Why do the parts snap back?


Regards,
LB

Tom

perhaps i'm missing something here but back to the accelerator,how then do we get quarks etc.from this action? if no contact is physically(solid)made,then what do you suggest is happening?

supplemental;

when a hockey puck hits a stick,glass etc. there is a sound(and a distinct sound),also a baseball hits a bat there is a sound(a distinct sound) there too,what then is causing the sound, if not physical contact(solid contact). if there is an regression to infinity of no actual contact of things,what then is the essence of sound?

for is not the essence of sound, solid contact? at least here?