|
Post by JRowe on Feb 6, 2016 12:05:27 GMT
The Earth exerts more than a jumping force on the person. It does so very second of every day: it exerts the force that keeps us moving up with respect to the aether (point A). The force that must be applied (fig 4) is in fact the lack of a force (which can easily be modelled as a force itself, just with a flipped sign). When someone jumps off the Earth's surface, they lose that force, and no longer have the acceleration required to resist the flow of aether.
|
|
|
Post by Merko on Feb 6, 2016 22:20:53 GMT
Ah, so it this force applied by flow of Aether that is really getting me.
When I think about a person standing on the surface of the Earth in the Round Earth Model, the Earth exerts a force on the person pointing upward. This, the normal force, is equal and opposite to the force of gravity acting on the person. Because the two forces are of equal but opposite magnitude, the person experiences no change in motion. If either of the two forces were increased or decreased relative to the other, the person would begin to accelerate.
When I think about the Dual Earth Model, I so far understand there is a normal force of the Earth acting on the person, but there is no force to oppose it. The flow of Aether cannot apply a force to the person because as you have clearly stated:
Is the Aether Flow Force fundamentally different than all other physical forces? Does it interact with the person differently than the (I assume the DEM uses the same forces as in other models) forces of electromagnetism or the nuclear forces?
|
|
|
Post by JRowe on Feb 6, 2016 23:58:57 GMT
It takes a force to prevent motion: it's the deceleration from a certain velocity, to zero. The aether doesn't exert a force, but it can carry matter and that matter exerts a force. The force at the Earth's surface is just a contact force. With an aether-based reference frame, something on the Earth's surface is essentially moving towards a a fixed wall. There's clearly a force at the point of contact. You've got the downwards force as the person moves towards the Earth's surface, and the upwards force that keeps them in place as the Earth is fixed.
|
|
|
Post by Merko on Feb 7, 2016 1:08:37 GMT
In order to ensure I am understandings your statements correctly, I will try to elucidate them for myself.
When you say that it takes a force to prevent motion, I assume you mean that it takes a force to alter the velocity of an object (object is made of matter). Without any force, an object will always and forever maintain that velocity within any non-inertial (non-accelerating) reference frame. This law holds independent of the object's velocity: it does not matter if the object is stationary or moving (in any non-inertial reference frame), the law still holds.
I do not know what to make of the statement, "it's the deceleration from a certain velocity to zero." Does "it" refer to the Aether Force or to forces in general? I assume it does not mean forces in general, because forces simply alter velocity (they can certainly alter a velocity to a relative zero magnitude, but that is simply a single case and not a generalized law). If "it" refers to the Aether Force, do you mean that it always causes a deceleration to a zero velocity?
Next you state that the Aether itself does not exert force, but that the matter stationary to the Aether (by virtue of their relative zero velocity to the Aether, they can be said to unmoving relative to the Aether and thus carried by it or flowing with it) is exerting force instead. Would this be air? Or something else? What matter in the Earth's atmosphere is pushing down on us?
What I troubled by when I am imagining, from the clarification, that it is matter pushing objects down to the Earth's surface, is the behavior of lighter-than-air everyday things, such as balloons. If the flow of matter carried along by the Aether causes the downward force, then the magnitude of the downward force must be proportional to the surface area of an object oriented toward the flow of downward matter. In other words, the more matter that is able to contact the top surface of the balloon, the stronger the downward force on the balloon will be. Yet, we see more dense objects with smaller surface areas fail to float away from Earth.
It also brings me to a thought experiment: if the downward force of matter being carried by the Aether is what cause objects to "fall" to Earth, could one then construct a box that is impermeable to all matter with a ball placed inside and thus observe the ball floating around the box. protected from the downward force?
In addition, you mention that with an Aether-based reference frame, something on the Earth's surface is essentially moving toward a fixed wall. I do not understand this. I am ucncear on what the fixed wall is. At first glance, I assumed the fixed wall is Earth. However, I immediately realized that it could not be. Because relative to the Aether moving down into the Earth, both the Earth and an object on the surface are moving with the same velocity. Neither the Earth nor an object on the surface of the Earth is moving toward or away from the other when viewed from the reference frame of the Aether. Perhaps you are able to clarify?
|
|
|
Post by JRowe on Feb 7, 2016 10:34:52 GMT
The contact force at the Earth's surface is what decelerates a person's velocity (due to the aether) to zero. Air does push down on us, but the matter I referred to was the object on question. the aether is making that have a downwards velocity: which is immediately interrupted by the Earth.
On lighter-than-air objects, they're kept up by the force of air. It's similar to what happens at the Earth's surface: there is something underneath them that can exert enough of a force to resist the aether's flow.
It is the flow of aether that causes things to be carried down, not matter. However, the only possible force would be due to matter (the object being carried, and anything it touches).
On the final point, I was referring to the instant of contact. The Earth is fixed and unmoving, while an object that moves with the aether would move towards it.
|
|
|
Post by Merko on Feb 7, 2016 12:30:21 GMT
I cannot help but see apparent contradictions with Newton's Laws. Aether is simply space, correct? Newton's Laws state than an object's velocity, relative to any non-inertial reference frame, will be altered if and only if it is acted upon by a force. I understand this to mean an object will travel through space uninterrupted. It matters not what the metaphysical "motion" of space or the object is. In fact, when defining all motion from the reference frame of the Aether and space, it is senseless to even mention metaphysical motion because the only relevant motion is that of the object relative to Aether! Yet, a person who has jumped from the surface of the Earth, thus achieving a velocity relative to the Aether and space, has their velocity completely altered by no physical means!
Earlier, I presented a hypothetical of an object in a vacuum. I asked if the object, after achieving a velocity relative to the Aether due to an initial force, would indefinitely maintain its velocity until acted upon again by a force. If I remember correctly and am not misrepresenting your answer, you agreed it would continue indefinitely. Either objects have inertia, and will continue traveling through space until acted upon by force or they will not. The person jumping from the Earth's surface is not acted upon by any outside force after drag has done its deed. Yet the person falls to Earth. An object in a vacuum, must then not be able to travel indefinitely through space. If space itself creates a non-physical "friction," then an object in a complete vacuum will be seen to alter its motion near magically.
Hopefully you can help me reconcile these problems.
|
|
|
Post by JRowe on Feb 7, 2016 16:02:20 GMT
If you treat an object on the ground as having no forces acting on it, then when it leaps there is necessarily a new force acting on it. Really that's just down to where we take the zero to be, to model the interaction of forces, but it's an illustration. An object on the ground has a force acting on it, because it has its velocity altered: it should be moving with the aether, but instead the Earth pushes it against that flow. The deceleration required is a force. An object jumping from the surface of the Earth is immediately victim to the lack of a force. It's easy to model that as a force itself, as mentioned just now.
|
|
|
Post by Merko on Feb 8, 2016 7:36:25 GMT
An object that is sitting stationary relative to the Earth, and has been stationary, is not having it velocity altered. Let's say it became stationary 5 seconds ago. Then, for the past 5 seconds, it has had the same velocity relative to every single non-inertial reference possible. It has neither accelerated nor decelerated. Because there has been no change in the objects velocity, there is no net force acting on the object. What this means, is either: A) there are no forces on the object, or B) the force of the Earth is opposed by an equal and opposite force exerted by Aether. Which is it?
And I understand the concept of fictitious forces such as centripetal forces or Euler forces. Is the Aether Force similar to these?
And again I'd like to repeat my previous example of a ball in a vacuum, as it was not addressed. A ball is stationary relative to the Aether. An outside force accelerates the ball to a new constant velocity relative to the Aether. Assuming the ball doesn't encounter any electromagnetic, strong, or weak forces, will the ball continue on with its current velocity relative to the Aether indefinitely? Or will slow to become stationary relative to the Aether?
|
|
|
Post by JRowe on Feb 8, 2016 11:06:33 GMT
An object sitting on the Earth's surface is, every second, having its velocity reduced to zero. The point where it exists is moving down, and pulling the object down with it. Thinking of the movement in terms of conventional velocity is usually useful for modelling, but the problem with doing so in this case is that it's constant. Normally if you run into a wall, your velocity stops: that can't be the case here, as should be clear from the model. The downwards motion is constant. It doesn't stop.
I think you're treating aether as a typical fluid, in motion and pushing something along. Then when that something hits the grate, it just takes a constant force to give said object a constant velocity. The problem is aether occupies points within the object as well. There comes a point where analogy fails and you just need to grasp the model itself. Perhaps it'll be easier to think of the aether simply as a set of coordinate points being shifted. If an object's coordinates move, then that object moves: and it takes a force to decelerate it, every time. The reason an object on the Earth's surface doesn't move, is because the Earth consistently applies that force.
I've addressed the ball situation multiple times. That's just Newton's first law, and it's perfectly true. The problem is we're not dealing with a situation lacking external forces.
|
|
|
Post by Merko on Feb 9, 2016 11:19:10 GMT
What external forces are there in this situation? The Aether?
|
|
|
Post by JRowe on Feb 9, 2016 12:33:59 GMT
Yes and no. As I said, the aether cannot directly exert a force as it has no mass: but it makes other masses move (from the reference frame of the Earth) and so those masses exert a force.
|
|
|
Post by Merko on Feb 9, 2016 12:44:34 GMT
What is the difference between the ball in a vacuum and the person on Earth that is relevant to the different behaviors of the objects in question (ball travels along relative to the Aether, person stops and become stationary relative to Aether)?
|
|
|
Post by JRowe on Feb 9, 2016 18:40:56 GMT
The person begins with a force acting on them.
|
|
|
Post by Merko on Feb 9, 2016 20:14:21 GMT
Unfortunately your tersely-worded response has not developed my understanding. What force is that and why does it lead to the person falling to earth while the ball travels indefinitely?
|
|
|
Post by JRowe on Feb 9, 2016 21:51:48 GMT
I have explained all of this multiple times and I am getting very tired of repeating myself. You have to understand, I've been a member of several forums, and my usual experience is that people rarely put much effort to understand any more than the basics: then they repeat the same question multiple times and never acknowledge the answer. I have been giving you the benefit of the doubt so far, but I am not interested in constantly repeating myself. I have explained both the force and why a person falls several times over the course of this thread. if you are not going to explain why you believe the answers are not enough, I do not see where we can go. On multiple occasions I have explained what force acts on a person at the Earth's surface, and it is both obvious and explained why this renders the situation completely different to the forceless case.
|
|