Thunderbolts Forum

'13-12-19, 17:28 viscount aero	Re: the absurd implied density of moons kills gravity marengo wrote: viscount aero wrote: Ok and in the field the propagation is at c; I read that. It's just that isn't what action at a distance typically implies. It implies an instantaneous influence across distances. There is no propagation. So what, in your opinion, does 'action at a distance imply'? In my opinion it simply means that one body causes an action on a second separated body. You always have to complicate things. Why? I just told you what it implies. Did you read my post? I'm not complicating anything. I'm delivering a message by what action at a distance has traditionally and historically meant. Have you ever heard of Isaac Newton or "spooky action"? This is non-local and violates c.
'13-12-20, 13:30 marengo	Re: the absurd implied density of moons kills gravity viscount aero wrote: I just told you what it implies. Did you read my post? I'm not complicating anything. I'm delivering a message by what action at a distance has traditionally and historically meant. Have you ever heard of Isaac Newton or "spooky action"? This is non-local and violates c. The so called "spooky action" is entirely different from the action at a distance caused by the electric and the gravitational effects. Once again you are in a muddle.
'13-12-20, 19:13 viscount aero	Re: the absurd implied density of moons kills gravity marengo wrote: viscount aero wrote: I just told you what it implies. Did you read my post? I'm not complicating anything. I'm delivering a message by what action at a distance has traditionally and historically meant. Have you ever heard of Isaac Newton or "spooky action"? This is non-local and violates c. The so called "spooky action" is entirely different from the action at a distance caused by the electric and the gravitational effects. Once again you are in a muddle. Newton first proposed the idea to my knowledge and it originated about gravitation. Regardless of what application of it being discussed, it violates c (which is why Einstein disliked it and called it "spooky.") My original point is that it violates c and that there is no propagation in "action at a distance" as it is instantaneous regardless of distance. I typically dislike WIki but the definition is simple: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Action_at_a_distance In physics, action at a distance is the nonlocal interaction of objects that are separated in space. This term was used most often in the context of early theories of gravity and electromagnetism to describe how an object responds to the influence of distant objects. More generally "action at a distance" describes the failure of early atomistic and mechanistic theories which sought to reduce all physical interaction to collision. The exploration and resolution of this problematic phenomenon led to significant developments in physics, from the concept of a field, to descriptions of quantum entanglement and the mediator particles of the standard model.[1]
'13-12-30, 11:28 marengo	Re: the absurd implied density of moons kills gravity viscount aero wrote: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Action_at_a_distance In physics, action at a distance is the nonlocal interaction of objects that are separated in space. This term was used most often in the context of early theories of gravity and electromagnetism to describe how an object responds to the influence of distant objects. More generally "action at a distance" describes the failure of early atomistic and mechanistic theories which sought to reduce all physical interaction to collision. The exploration and resolution of this problematic phenomenon led to significant developments in physics, from the concept of a field, to descriptions of quantum entanglement and the mediator particles of the standard model.[1] The above is sensible and correct. Bodies accelerate according to the gradient of the potential field at their location. The field is previously established by a source body possibly many, many years earlier. Changes to the field are propagated at the speed of light. That is very simple, isn't it?
'13-12-30, 18:20 viscount aero	Re: the absurd implied density of moons kills gravity marengo wrote: viscount aero wrote: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Action_at_a_distance In physics, action at a distance is the nonlocal interaction of objects that are separated in space. This term was used most often in the context of early theories of gravity and electromagnetism to describe how an object responds to the influence of distant objects. More generally "action at a distance" describes the failure of early atomistic and mechanistic theories which sought to reduce all physical interaction to collision. The exploration and resolution of this problematic phenomenon led to significant developments in physics, from the concept of a field, to descriptions of quantum entanglement and the mediator particles of the standard model.[1] The above is sensible and correct. Bodies accelerate according to the gradient of the potential field at their location. The field is previously established by a source body possibly many, many years earlier. Changes to the field are propagated at the speed of light. That is very simple, isn't it? Yes it's what I was saying the whole time. But when I said it you were contrary. But now that Wiki says it you suddenly agree with it. Ok
'13-12-30, 19:29 Sparky	Re: the absurd implied density of moons kills gravity quantum entanglement Hum Bug!