Good morning (here), Aqueous Id.
Billiard balls and springs is a reference to your belief that waves will not propagate across a void without a mystery medium (or mousetrap) to convey them. It's a metaphor for aether, for the out-of-the-closet aether mongers.
So you take the liberty of 'framing' as 'billiard balls and springs' the alternative consideration of a medium underlying the phenomenological space? That's your construction on it, not mine. So keep it, as it's no use to either of us. Thanks anyway, but no thanks.
And I have no 'beliefs' where science and the real universal phenomena is concerned. Unlike you et al who 'believe' in the mathematical/geometrical abstract constructs therefrom. I follow the logic from reality perspective. Anything else leads to the same stagnant situation regarding unification of abstractions into one TOE complete (which the abstraction-based efforts have failed to accomplish to this day, even after a hundred years and more of piling abstractions upon abstractions. Someone somewhere has to try something different (maybe the reality-based approach. Too radical?).
Also, using your metaphor argument, the "propagation without medium" view is based on an abstract mathematical metaphor which does not explain but merely 'label' within abstract mathematical equations/terms. They are mute as to underlying reality mechanisms which exist by inference even before any "mathematical stories" metaphors (equations) about it are created.
Hence, while I attempt to follow the reality as well as the abstractions therefrom (both are needed if we are to complete the TOE consistent), you are satisfied to present rote-learned abstract labeling systems as 'explanations'. They explain very little, else we would already have the unified and complete TOE from the professional mathematical-physicist efforts after the last century or so they have had to do it in.
That would entirely depend on their relative velocities, and the meaning of "where" under gravitational influence.
You missed the point. The masses are at the centre of a vast/extensive volume of the space
which you call "nothingness". You however fail to provide the mechanism that projects the gravity effect associated with that central mass across vast gulfs of (according to you) "nothingness".
You may have pretty abstract stories about electromagnetic radiation propagating across "nothingness",
but have you equally pretty stories about how gravity effects extends far from the central mass and across YOUR alleged vast "nothingness" distances?
That is your reality challenge, glasshopper.
You mean a directional force acting mutually and oppositely upon them.
No, the context is the central mass and its own gravity effect on surrounding space (YOUR "nothingness"). It is the gravity effect from a single source and in what way that effect is propagated/supported/manifest in YOUR surrounding "nothingness" that you are being asked to 'explain', not gravitational interactions between bodies.
Even when it's not detected the force is acting on them.
That is the point. We CAN detect the central body's gravity effect across space (your "nothingness"). The question you need to answer is how is that effect so far from the central body effected upon YOUR "nothingness"? Get that now, glasshopper?
Nature provides it, not me.
Are you saying that you KNOW what that underlying mechanism is in reality?
Or is that just an evasive answer to the challenge for you to back up your parroted learned-by-rote abstractions with real explanation of the nature and mechanism of the underlying reality from which the abstractions are made so far?
Don't be shy. If you know the mechanism (not the mere maths/geometry 'label' for it), then please share!
You're not concerned about small distances? You should be. That's where crunch time comes in, like stellar fusion. Besides, how do you suppose the actual gravity you experience every day confers your own body weight to you? The nearest mass is as close as the ground. How does spatial distance enter into the real world experience? And how then does gravity get conveyed in very dense materials, such as the core of a collapsing star? What can you infer about the distortion of space under such conditions? My real point here is, "great distances" is a subjective term.
Why the sophistry and strawman? The gravity effect can be observed to extend to great distances. Your mission, glasshopper, is and always has been in this discussion, for you to explain how YOUR learned-by-rote view of space as "nothingness" can support/effect/manifest such a gravity effect over ANY distance at all, let alone vast reaches of YOUR "nothingness".
So go to it!....if you actually DO 'believe' those abstract-math stories you repeat without substantiation which is NOT merely MORE abstract stories.
I think calling a field an effect is absurd. A particle is attended by a field. Space (as in Gauss's Law) is everywhere a differential surface subtended by a field. How is that related to cause and effect, and by what rule do you not say the field causes the particle?
What 'particle' are you on about?
And "field' is a mere abstraction from a collection of entities from which that mathematical abstraction has been made for convenience of staistical and other analysis treatments. Please don't conflate the abstraction/label with the physical thing/underlyingreality/mechanisms. Thanks
Anyhow, were talking ONLY of the gravity effect created by and extending from a central mass (any mass), and how that gravity effect can be effected across YOUR "nothingness" even to vast astronomical distances. No more. No less.
Please stick to the point and don't confuse yourself and everyone else with your own constructions/conflations on what is being questioned about YOUR 'beliefs' and YOUR space as "nothingness".
If by orthodox you mean right teaching, then you're momentarily on the right track, if only as a tangent to the curve. As for abstraction, you haven't explained how all statements except yours fall under that category. Nothing is more abstract than any number of things you've said, including, but not limited to:
"Right teaching?" Have no textbooks ever been updated to be more "right"? If they have, and the currently accepted theory is not yet complete, then the textbooks will be made MORE "RIGHT" once we advance from the abstractions upon abstractions which have hit a brick wall in the area of consistent unification.
Don't be so trusting of 'orthodoxy'; by its very nature that is a fluid state at present, else professional TOE would be IN those "right teaching" textbooks right now. Your naive acceptance of orthodoxy rules you out of being an 'explorer' in the unknown. Sorry about that. Never mind, there are some of us who are not so trusting, and want to test/find all the "right" stuff for ourselves, via a more 'complete' and reality-oriented TOE.
I made no 'abstractions'. You keep doing that. I depend on observable realities, matter, energy, space etc. I have not presented my complete TOE, hence whatever impression you may have got by confusing my straightforward challenges with others' perspectives is your construction, not mine. Please disabuse yourself of that misunderstanding.
Next you said:
I didn't leave it at that. I actually said
You did not respond to the content of this. The field attends the particle. The particle exists and the field subtends space. There can be no Aristotelian conveyance of billiard balls and springs to effectuate the attendant field. It emanates; it radiates. It doesn't collide with the mystery medium and set up a chain reaction. You're simply trying to divorce the particle from the field by demanding that this must be so. All along you're ignoring the intrinsic impedance of space which is no mystery as far as its magnitude. Go find out what gives free space its 376.73Ω and you'll be back on track with what the medium is. I already gave you the answer. You're just sloughed it off.
No-one questioned the observable that gravity effect diminishes as the space distance increases away from the central body. So that is a non-issue.
I am not trying to separate anything from anything.
YOU claim that space IS "nothingness". Period.
You were then asked to provide the underlying mechanism (not just your learned-by-rote labels and abstractions) for gravity effect extending from a central body across that "nothingness" which YOU say is space. So, go to it; and please don't introduce non-issues and stawmen to distract from that. Thanks.
Good confidence is preceded by requisite information and skill. Part of that includes distinguishing fact from myth and superstition. Otherwise you end up with false confidence—spelled naïveté.
That is precisely what I am asking you to do. Distinguish between abstractions and labels from the realities from whence these abstractions and labels are derived for the sake of convenience but not as actual explanations of the underlying mechanisms themselves which manifest the reality so abstracted/labeled. Get that? However USEFUL they may be, it is you that is effectively repeating myths (abstractions and labels); while I and others question YOUR views based on such 'stories' (like YOUR claim that space is "nothingness", but you won't explain HOW and WHAT manifests gravity effect across vast gulfs of that "nothingness"). See your challenge to distinguish YOUR stated 'myths' there from the reality, glasshopper?
It was a prosaic expression for a field: matter (mass, charge or dipole) [times a constant, to correct for the arbitrary choice of units] subtending space [the differential surface 1/4πr²]. As you see, no medium and no cause is relevant to the meaning of "subtend".
All that is mathematical/geometrical etc analytical abstraction/construct. All well and good; all very useful; but where are the underlying mechanisms/entities IDENTIFIED and explained in reality terms not labels/symbols?
That would be the mythical and superstitious reversal of what I said.
It's like you saying, "Maths is". Which is in effect what yu have been doing by merely repeating the learned-by-rote 'explanations' based on abstraction upon abstraction where gravity effect across YOUR "nothingness" space is concerned. You are 'projecting' your propensity to 'believe' abstractions' in lieu of actually exploring to find the underlying reality from whence all the abstractions are made. No more. No less.
No more than I would accept the superstition that requires a cause for the subtending of space by a field.
Can you see the flaws in your example/argument there? I'll point them out for you....
IF as YOU claim that space is "nothingness", and since "field' is a convenient analytical/mathematical abstraction from physical observables/behaviour to begin with, then all you are doing there is arguing from "nothingness" which you have NOT explained how it supports gravity effect. And to make it worse, you seem to think that YOUR "field' and "nothingness" are not mere abstract 'myths' which you still have not distinguished from the underlying real phenomena.
You seem not to have an open mind on this aspect because you 'believe' implicitly (I may say naively) in abstract 'myths' and 'labels' and will NOT for a moment countenance the exploration efforts for identifying the reality underlying those myths/labels. Not a very 'searching' attitude, to be content with (convenient and useful, yes) labels and myths when the whole of the reality is out there to be discovered by open and objective minds which do not accept herd mentality as a reason NOT to LOOK for themselves. You don't have to come along for the ride. If you are OK with the status quo, then please don't let me or any other explorer disturb your contentment. And good luck to you.
I think I've quite clearly said that space is the absence of matter. I've further clarified that it's all differentiable surfaces subtended by any particle, charge or dipole. Do you need an explanation of what a surface is? As for clues, I've given you several, but you haven't picked them up, which leads me to believe you don't understand why they are significant. I gave you an opportunity to compare and contrast the nature of phononic energy transmission vs radiation simply starting with the intrinsic impedance of free space. I asked you to relate this to the density and stiffness of air in the Aristotelian chain reaction of rock-throwers (billiard balls and springs) of acoustic waves vs EM waves. I've given you the bonus clue that the intrinsic impedance of free space is 376.73Ω. That not only says what space "is" but also "why". You just haven't caught on yet.
I bolded that bit.
No, not quite correct. It is the 'vacuum' that is in scientific convention defined as 'an absence of matter'. There is energy 'flux/dynamics' both real and 'virtual'. Space is according to YOU "nothingness".
The rest of your mathematical arguments are irrelevant to the issue of a mass which affects space (YOUR "nothingness") to great distances, but YOU have NOT YET provided the actual mechanism in reality which effects such gravity effect in "nothingness" at vast reaches. Concentrate on the issue and your need to explain what was asked in the context of YOUR earlier claim that 'space is nothingness'. Until you can do that, all your learned-by-rote abstractions 'explanations' are just that, labels and abstractions, and not real explanations. Thanks.
No, you simply haven't understood that I'm trying to get you to think. I'm still waiting for your analysis of the acoustic vs EM wave question. As for force, as long as we limit this to gravitation and the EM force, I think you should be able to abstract that the force attends the field just as the field attends the particle. Your concern over path loss (note: not attenuation) can be addressed by going back to the difference between the terms attend and subtend. One of the advantages of abstraction is that it marries language and ideas, in direct opposition to your troubled divorce of the two.
None of that addresses or removes the fact that 'field' is a MATHEMATICAL abstract/construct, and NOT the real thing it has been abstracted to purportedly 'explain' but doesn't in reality. That is what you miss still. All the rest of that is a non-issue and is beside the point and still your 'abstractions'. OK?
Unlike you, I've advanced actual facts and principles, and I've posed an elementary problem leading to a derivation of ideas. I've also established a couple of definitions. I've now quantified the free space impedance I had only qualified earlier to give you a nudge. I've also brought cited a couple of experts, one of whom was the child prodigy James Clerk Maxwell.
All that does not treat what is the underlying reality/entities which your 'treatments' derive 'abstractly'. Can you please see that and stop inundating with 'facts' which are in the end 'abstraction' derived, not the reality itself? Thanks.
Word salad on the other hand is the random assemblage of snips and shreds of verbiage which fails to produce any of that. Abstract or not, if the text is nonsense, it collapses under its own "nothingness". When you get around to visiting my table, you'll notice there's some hearty fare to be had. Bon appetit.
OK. Your 'hearty fare' is of the like of YOUR space "nothingness' that purports to support/manifest gravity effects far removed from the central mass across vast gulfs of "nothingness". How hearty is the fact that you have provided nothing but non-issues, abstractions and abstraction-derived 'facts' which do not identify or even acknowledge the entities/mechanisms of the underlying reality from which all the convenient/useful mathematical etc abstractions/constructs are themselves made?
I'll leave you to digest your hearty fare while I and others get on with the exploration of the underlying reality which WILL explain all the abstractions while explaining that reality itself. Hard work, but someone had to do it if we are to get on in making a complete and consistent TOE based on reality not 'myths' and labels/symbols.
How is intrinsic impedance a rote label? It's just a fact. You shouldn't fear facts. If you hear a lot of scientists repeating the same facts, does it say something about rote or does it say something about truth? Repeating truth over and over again can't be reduced to being "of no real consequence " or without "the slightest clue or understanding of that whereof you speak". That's just cynicism. It frequently accompanies superstition whenever science disproves a belief. Aether had an Aristotelian orgin in cause and effect based on the (false) assumption that EM waves might require a medium simply because acoustic waves do. Disproof of that superstition by the scientific method first attempted by Michelson-Morley has left us with a handful of cynics. You're just howling at the moon in sympathetic vibration with them. There isn't an actual tangible rationale for doing so. It’s just a vibe.
Not at issue. However, while we're at it, how is your "nothingness" consistent with that "inherent impedance" etc etc of space if it is as you claimed, "nothingness"?
Can you have (in your stories) inherent impedance, permittivity etc for "nothingness"?
While the 'vacuum', which is replete with energy both real and virtual may have intrinsic collective properties/behaviour/dynamics,
can you explain where that 'inherent property' you mentioned came from and how it can manifest (like gravity effect) across a space which you say is "nothingness"?
So far you haven't engaged me in the science I put forward. You've just demanded that the subtending of space by the fields attending particles has to follow Aristotle's Prime Mover abstraction. I guess that was science in 300 BCE, but how it hardly counts as a serious answer to my posts.
I've engaged on the relevant issues, and ignored the non-issues and strawmen which do not absolve you from explaining the actual question put to you when you claim that there is no medium because space is "nothingness". The expectation of a universal medium was there long before your 'learned-by-rote' abstraction-based 'explanations' did away with that original reality-based expectation. That 'doing away' was a mathematical convenience which has NOT YET answered what it is which is being so conveniently abstracted and so expediently 'done away with' without putting actual real explanations in its place as to the entities/mechanisms which manifest those REAL effects (gravity etc) across YOUR supposedly "nothingness" space.
If you like, I'll reformulate my science question to further stake my claim about delivering the goods. The acoustic impedance of air at 25°C is about 409 N•s/m³. The intrinsic impedance of free space is 376.73Ω. Consider an acoustic wave traveling at the velocity of sound, 346 m/s, vs the velocity of the EM wave in free space at 2.99E8 m/s. Explain the relationship between impedance and velocity for each. Resolve the impedance of each to their duals for inductance (L) and capacitance (C), and explain by comparison and contrast the following law for each:
$$c\quad =\quad \frac { 1 }{ \sqrt { LC } } $$
where
c here is the generalized velocity for either type of wave. Explain how L and C arise in air and in free space, relating the physical or "ethereal" constitution of each medium to the establishment of its corresponding fixed* impedance.
(constant. Obviously in air this at a given temp and pressure.)
Again I ask for a consistent logical answer to the question:
IF space (in my TOE reality perspective, energy-space) is just "nothingness" as YOU say, then how can it have ANY "intrinsic properties" at all?
See?
You can't have it both ways. EITHER you admit that there IS a fundamental (not the ordinary kind of higher order differentiation of that fundamental one) 'medium' which HAS such intrinsic properties....OR.....you have YOUR "nothingness" which CANNOT logically be argued to HAVE ANY 'inherent' properties at all. You have to pick which one makes most sense as reality and not 'myth'. Choose.
I choose my TOE's objectively arrived at energy-space UNIVERSAL MEDIUM which manifests all the higher order features/properties/effects etc which YOU and your "nothingness" and other abstractions have not even begun to identify and explain where and how they arise and manifest across space.
I'll let you read all about it when it's published. Until then, I am sorry but I cannot spend any more time on non-issues and straw men and abstractions masquerading as 'explanations' for underlying reality entities/mechanisms like gravity etc across a supposed "nothingness" as claimed by your 'myth/math understandings'.
So goodbye and good luck!
RealityCheck.