|
Post by Merko on Feb 11, 2016 9:09:45 GMT
Excuse my inability to grasp the concepts. I have only known the RE model and I am definitely have no training in physical sciences. Maybe this will help get me to the right answer. I think the misunderstanding is over how Newton's Laws apply to the ball. I am thinking they say "the ball will continue on until acted on by any physical force." But, the physical force will be the Aether flowing right? Even though it is not a physical force per se. Is that sound closer to what you are saying?
|
|
|
Post by JRowe on Feb 11, 2016 9:11:48 GMT
The aether causes a physical force, yes. The key point is that an object on the Earth's surface has a force acting on it. When it leaps, it loses that force.
|
|
|
Post by Merko on Feb 12, 2016 18:14:22 GMT
Now I realize why I was so confused. It has now been shown that Aether purportedly causes force, but exerts no force. The Aether doesn't directly exert force, but it cause a "friction" as matter travels across it. Do I have it?
|
|
|
Post by JRowe on Feb 12, 2016 19:32:31 GMT
The sole force is exerted by matter on matter. The aether may cause relative movement (in the less defined borders between flows, there would be friction when molecules in the same object rub against one another). At the Earth's surface, the movement is towards the Earth: movement the Earth resists. Friction isn't relevant at the level we're talking about. As I've said, it's simply a matter of all matter having a downwards velocity, and the Earth needing to exert a continuous force in order to resist.
|
|
|
Post by Merko on Feb 12, 2016 21:04:23 GMT
Ok my grasp on this has weakened again. To clarify, I am most interested in the forces acting on matter that are not in contact with the surface of the Earth. I understand at that point, Earth is not exerting any forces.
In the evidence section of the overview, you say that DET predicts that there will be friction in a vacuum. My apologies, because I have just seen it now (I was paying very close attention to the Aether and Earth sections but not that section unfortunately). Will a ball in a vacuum feel friction as space moves around it or as it moves through space?
|
|
|
Post by JRowe on Feb 12, 2016 22:14:30 GMT
The friction would result from the same effect as the stars: parts of the object will move at subtly different rates to other parts. While the molecules have enough energy to stay together, friction would still result. However, the friction would strictly cause heat. That was more an illustration of a difference between models, mind you. if possible, it would falsify the RE model and provide further evidence of DET, but the sensitivity required would be great.
|
|
|
Post by Merko on Feb 17, 2016 8:27:08 GMT
Ok, I find that very interesting. I'll return to the topic, however.
I can understand what you mean when you discuss the location of matter in space in that matters existence requires a spatial location. I understand that an object stationary relative to space will "move" relative to a metaphysically "fixed" reference point when the space that the object occupies moves relative to the "fixed" point., correct?
What if space is motionless relative to the fixed point and the ball is moving relative to the both in an unchanging velocity (to begin with at least)? What, if any, changes will we observe in the ball's motion (relative to both space and the fixed point)?
If space were moving relative to the fixed point and the ball, while the ball begins with a different velocity (compared to that of space) relative to the fixed point, how might this be different if at all from the previous thought experiment?
I am just really having trouble conceiving how space's movement affects matter.
|
|
|
Post by JRowe on Feb 17, 2016 9:34:19 GMT
When the object in question is alone, there is no difference between those situations. I'm sure I've said this before. The object will move and keep moving.
The point is that the movement if space is a source of constant motion for an object. To stop an object moving, you need to stop it moving every second: unlike classical motion where you only have to stop it moving once. The reason why should be clear: aether is constantly flowing, and so constantly imparts motion.
|
|
|
Post by Merko on Feb 17, 2016 10:09:12 GMT
I just want to clarify what you are saying. I'll just list some questions I am unsure about to straighten myself out.
1. "The point is that the movement if space is a source of constant motion for an object." When you say a source of motion, you mean an object, stationary relative to flowing space, is in motion relative to a metaphysically fixed point due to the movement of space, right?
2. "To stop an object moving, you need to stop it moving every second..." Do you mean that, in order to alter the motion of an object so that it becomes stationary relative to space, a constant (as in applied "every second") force must be exerted on the object? Or do you mean that, in order to alter the motion of an object so that it becomes stationary relative to a metaphysically fixed point, a constant (as in applied "every second") force must be exerted on the object?
3. "...unlike classical motion where you only have to stop it moving once." My understanding of classical mechanics is that all motion is relative. An object never truly "stops moving." It can only obtain a zero magnitude velocity relative to another non-accelerating point. An object's inertia means it maintains its velocity in all non-inertial reference frames unless otherwise acted upon by a physical force, whether its velocity is stationary in some reference frames or not. Is this understanding incorrect?
I think my biggest problem is it seems to me that motion and motionlessness is being referenced as an absolute, non-relative state matter can have. But obviously this cannot be, as it does not agree with Newton's laws and the rest of classical mechanics. Hopefully, your answers to the above questions will help!
|
|
|
Post by JRowe on Feb 17, 2016 17:16:14 GMT
1. Precisely. I'm relying on the case you didn't understand earlier: an object in the Earth's reference frame. 2. An object stationary with respect to the Earth (or any such fixed point) is always being coaxed to move by the aether. In order to prevent that, the Earth has to constantly exert an upwards force to decelerate it. 3. I'm not interested in getting existential. I'm focused in explaining what it is we observe: that is, motion relative to us (and by extension, relative to the Earth).
|
|
|
Post by Merko on Feb 25, 2016 20:41:56 GMT
Newton's laws state that objects in any inertial reference frame will only alter their motion when acted upon by a force. This means it doesn't matter if we describe an object's motion with respect to Earth, the Aether, or literally any other non-accelerating object for we will only observe changes in the former object's motion when it is acted upon by a net outside force.
The motion of a ball or person or object launched from the Earth will be observed (from the Earth, the Aether, or any inertial reference frame) to have its motion altered from a vector pointing away to the Earth to one pointing toward the Earth. This would require a force if Newton's Laws apply.
|
|
|
Post by JRowe on Feb 25, 2016 21:10:50 GMT
I have explained this several times. We can model the lack of a force as a force, if it immediately follows the application of a force: it just depends where we take zero to be. When an object leaves the Earth's surface, that can be modelled as a force because the Earth no longer acts to decelerate.
|
|
|
Post by Merko on Feb 25, 2016 21:45:17 GMT
An initial force launches a ball from the surface of the Earth in a vacuum. After the initial acceleration of the launching force, the ball will have achieved a constant velocity within all inertial reference frames. The instant the launching forces ceases to be exerted on the ball, the velocity of the ball becomes constant. In order to alter the ball's now constant velocity, a force must be exerted. This is independent of its state, location, or motion prior to the launch.
|
|
|
Post by JRowe on Feb 25, 2016 21:58:01 GMT
Think of it like this. On the Earth's surface, a ball always has force F acting on it: always, in order to remain stationary with respect to the Earth. This is what is required to resist the flow of aether. We take this to be our zero state: this is the default. A ball is pushed off the Earth. The instant it leaves the Earth's surface, it has force -F acting on it, by where we've taken zero to be.
What part of this process do you object to?
|
|
|
Post by Merko on Feb 26, 2016 23:07:22 GMT
On the Earth's surface, the ball is observed to have a constant velocity in every inertial reference frame. Because the ball is not accelerating, there is no net force acting on the ball. If the Earth is exerting a constant force on the ball, then there must be an equal and opposite force acting on it. Correct?
Where does that force come from? We have already confirmed that it cannot be from the movement of Aether.
|
|