Re: Matter, energy, space, and direction.
From: AllYou! (idaman_at_conversent.net)
Date: 01/13/05
- Next message: Harry: "Re: Einstein's math and physical objects"
- Previous message: Harry: "Lorentz on special relativity"
- In reply to: PD: "Re: Matter, energy, space, and direction."
- Next in thread: PD: "Re: Matter, energy, space, and direction."
- Reply: PD: "Re: Matter, energy, space, and direction."
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Date: Thu, 13 Jan 2005 11:42:40 -0500
"PD" <pdraper@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1105632525.131437.46960@c13g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
> AllYou! wrote:
> > "beda pietanza" <beda-pietanza@libero.it> wrote in message
> > news:HqhFd.1286$fs6.24230@twister2.libero.it...
> > >
> > > "AllYou!" <idaman@conversent.net> ha scritto nel messaggio
> > > news:8YKdncAAR-i6injcRVn-2A@conversent.net...
> >
> > [snip]
> >
> > > > > How can a coordinate system have any effect on a moving
> object???
> > > > > if the coordinate system exist only in the head of human??
> > > >
> > > > That's my point......it can't.
> > >
> > > so we agree
> > >
> > > >
> > > > > how can the object compute its trajectory??
> > > >
> > > > with data.
> > >
> > > That is strange of you, since the object cannot be affected by a
> coordinate
> > > system why it has the capability to use data that in order to be
> obtained
> > > implies coordinate systems ????
> >
> > Maybe to you. The data to which I refer has only to do with that
> which physically
> > affected the object at some other point in it's past. If the object
> is struck by another,
> > its momentum will have changed and possibly its density and boundary.
> This new quantity
> > of these properties are now the data which the object uses to
> calculate what to do next.
> > None of it has anything to do with coordinate systems. It is only
> humans which need these
> > things in order to perform calculations.
>
> OK, suppose I have the following experiment, which you can verify.
>
> I have an air-hockey table with two pucks on it. (Actually an
> air-track, the version that constrains the pucks to travel in one
> dimension.) The pucks have got magnets glued to them arranged so that
> like poles on each puck are closest to each other. I establish the
> boundary of each puck with my finger. One I leave at rest on the track,
> the other I give a push towards the other. What I observe is that
> momentum begins to be transferred to the second puck before the first
> puck arrives to contact it -- or said more plainly, the second one
> starts to move as the first one approaches. In fact, the two pucks
> never come in contact. Some time after the second puck begins to move
> the first puck makes its closest approach to the second puck, but still
> does not touch it. A little while after this event, the first puck is
> at rest, and the second one is moving away at the same speed the first
> puck had originally.
>
> Questions for you:
> Determine whether a collision in your sense of the word took place.
In my sense of the word, no, but I'm not hung up on that.
> If it did, at what moment (time-slice, whatever) did the collision
> occur?
Again, you're confusing definitions with what actually happens. Define collision any way
that makes sense within the whole body of science. It really doesn't matter in this
context. Whatever event you wish to call collision, it happens. I suspect that we use
the term collision to differentiate it from mere influence. If anything that influences
anything else is a collision, that I guess everything is in a permanent state of
collision. However, if we're only talking about the event wherein one object tries to
penetrate the boundary of another, then that would seem to make more sense in terms of
narrowing the definition.
As far as my argument goes, I've said all along that objects make calculations based upon
the data they carry with them and that which influences them. Where one ends and the
other begins is arbitrary WRT this argument.
Yes, we now must define boundary, but I think that's also possible in terms of
distinguishing one object from another instead of simply considering all mass to be one
giant object.
> If it did not, account for the change in the momenta observed.
Influence by the interaction of the objects properties and the properties of another
object. All part of the calculation.
> If the boundaries of the pucks changed, at what moment did they change
> and where were the new boundaries of the pucks?
You are introducing the notion of time in the question you expect me to answer without
that notion. That's disingenuous. The fact remains that only man needs to answer such a
question and so may (although in the case of time, I suggest that he does not) need to use
the concept of time to do so. but the universe need not answer such questions. the
quantification of these events may (or I suggest may not) require the use of the notion of
time. But the occurrence of the actual event did not.
> Answer all of the preceding, accounting for the behavior, without
> recourse to any reference to space or time, which are artificial
> constructs and have no bearing on underlying reality.
I did above. However, *my* ability to answer all of the questions, or that of any human,
without the artificial constructs of space and time is not the point. You seem hopelessly
confused between the quantification of events (man), the recording of events (man), the
prediction of events (man) all on the one hand, and the occurrence of those events
(nature) on the other.
We may or may not need these abstractions of time and space to perfectly describe what
you've asked. They may or may not only be required to make communication more efficient.
They may or may not be required at all. But all that does is illustrate why we use the
tools, which is what I've said all along. However, it does nothing, absolutely nothing,
to demonstrate the physicality of those constructs.
- Next message: Harry: "Re: Einstein's math and physical objects"
- Previous message: Harry: "Lorentz on special relativity"
- In reply to: PD: "Re: Matter, energy, space, and direction."
- Next in thread: PD: "Re: Matter, energy, space, and direction."
- Reply: PD: "Re: Matter, energy, space, and direction."
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Relevant Pages
|
