The nature of force

It would seem the latest exchange of post is just another example of the inability to lay down Meta Model. As I have said before - The Meta Model is undefinable by it's very nature. No complete understanding is possible {{EVER}}. No proof is possible for or against.

The only problem I have is densities seem to define a finitness that althought infinately divisible, does imply limitations. It seems that since some areas are less dense than others on one scale makes finite possible. A ball moving at 1000 mph back and forth between two points a meter apart, try and stick your hand threw it, it may hurt. The same ball moving at the speed of light would be a solid wall to your hand, and it probable would not hurt at all. There is no necessity for anything to exist between the two points except space.

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by tvanflandern</i>
<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">For truly inelastic collisions there is obviously no rebound (like for elastic collisions) because the relative speed of the two particles is zero after the 'collision'.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">
And what happened to the pre-collision momentum of the particles? <hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">
This question only makes sense in Classical Mechanics to which inelastic collisions do not belong.
I can only see two possibilities here:
1) a resonant quantum mechanical system (e.g. an atom) absorbs all the pre-collisional kinetic energy of the approaching particle in its reference frame (i.e. both would move together with the original velocity of the atom).
2) the kinetic energy is absorbed in the center of mass reference frame (i.e. both would move with the velocity of the latter), but this would mean again that you would be borrowing a principle from Classical Mechanics because the concept of a center of mass is obviously linked to momentum conservation. It would also present conceptual problems to treat the absorption of light by the atom (as shown on my page www.physicsmyths.org.uk/photons.htm , the concept of a momentum can not be applied to light).

---

www.physicsmyths.org.uk
www.plasmaphysics.org.uk

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by Skarp</i>
<br />As I have said before - The Meta Model is undefinable by it's very nature.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">You reveal that you have not read it. It is the best-defined of the five major cosmologies because it is the only one that starts from first principles.

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">No proof is possible for or against.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">One of us is confused. I thought this discussion was about comparing how different models explain certain phenomena such as the nature of force. That has nothing to do with testing models, which is done on the basis of predictions. MM makes many of those, and a failure of any one of them falsifies the model.

Or were you just expressing your frustration with trying to follow this rather technical discussion? -|Tom|-

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by Thomas</i>
<br />This question only makes sense in Classical Mechanics to which inelastic collisions do not belong.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">One of the things that I dislike about QM is answering common sense questions with "that question does not make sense in QM".

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">I can only see two possibilities here:
1) a resonant quantum mechanical system (e.g. an atom) absorbs all the pre-collisional kinetic energy of the approaching particle in its reference frame (i.e. both would move together with the original velocity of the atom).<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">If two neutrons collide, how would they decide which had the "original velocity"?

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">the concept of a momentum can not be applied to light).<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">How can a non-standing wave fail to have momentum? Even water and sound waves have momentum. And how does light manage to push staellites and asteroids around if it has no momentum? -|Tom|-

How do you have momentum without mass if it is a product of velocity and mass?