MI collisions

[Skarp] "All constituents are already in contact with no room to move."

Sounds a lot like an ocean ...

[Skarp] "Gimmy a smidgin of space wherein to move and the problem is solved."

AhHa. Now I understand why fish can't move. That always puzzled me. Thanks.

Larry

I hope yer not saying that the fact that there is motion. We then have proof that MM is correct. If so - Then it is my turn to laugh.

((
Skarp, it seems likely that english is not your native language. Never the less, I think I understand what you are trying to say.

My translation of your last post - " ... are you saying that since motion exists, MM is proved ...".

Let me know if I got it wrong.
))

===

Nothing so grandiose.

A truely large number of parts can be assembled in many ways. Some of those assembly patterns might result in a structure that has properties we would call "solid". Other assembly patterns might result in a structure with properties we would call "liquid".

There are probably a "few" other possibilites.

===

You choose to focus on one of these assembly patterns that does not match observation.

I choose to focus on one that does match.

===

NOTE - in an infinite universe we are likely to find, eventually, that there are specific volumes of space that correspond to all possible assembly patterns.

We appear to live in a region that looks more like a liquid than a solid.

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by Larry Burford</i>
<br />((
Skarp, it seems likely that english is not your native language. Never the less, I think I understand what you are trying to say.

My translation of your last post - " ... are you saying that since motion exists, MM is proved ...".

Let me know if I got it wrong.
))

===

Nothing so grandiose.

A truely large number of parts can be assembled in many ways. Some of those assembly patterns might result in a structure that has properties we would call "solid". Other assembly patterns might result in a structure with properties we would call "liquid".

There are probably a "few" other possibilites.

===

You choose to focus on one of these assembly patterns that does not match observation.

I choose to focus on one that does match.

===

NOTE - in an infinite universe we are likely to find, eventually, that there are specific volumes of space that correspond to all possible assembly patterns.

We appear to live in a region that looks more like a liquid than a solid.
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">

States of matter are relative to the state of the observer, i.e. to a gas a liquid would appear more solid. From 1 to 0 it is relative, as I understand MM there is no zero nor one (empty or full) space, so we know that these two specific volumes will not be found according to the theory.

As I understand MM, it is more complicated than that. You need to consider the effect of scale.

As we look around, we see certain volumes of space that seem very solid to us. And certain other volumes of space that seem totally empty. If MM is correct, we can go to the center of a solid region of space, move along the scale axis in the small-ward direction (without moving along any of the spatial axes), and eventually start finding that the seemingly solid object actually has parts. And between those parts there are (apparently) empty areas.

If it were possible to go to infinity on the scale axis (it is mathematically, but not physically) we would find the ultimate matter ingredients (what Dr. Van Flandern calls "substance") from which all forms (finite, physical things like galaxies and amoebas and cooperative/stubborn sub quark buttons) are built.

These ultimate matter ingredients are literally everywhere. But, according to the theory we'll never see them. What we will see, as we build bigger and better magnifying glasses, is smaller and smaller forms that are the parts of larger forms. Ad infinitum.

It is a bottomless pit. In theory.

Perhaps some day we will find an actual bottom, and that would falsify MM. But how would we know for sure that we were at the bottom? We have had experts say "this is the bottom" every time we've found a new, smaller, thing.

So far, they've always been wrong. And that keeps MM on the table.

Regards,
LB

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by Larry Burford</i>
<br />As I understand MM, it is more complicated than that. You need to consider the effect of scale.

As we look around, we see certain volumes of space that seem very solid to us. And certain other volumes of space that seem totally empty. If MM is correct, we can go to the center of a solid region of space, move along the scale axis in the small-ward direction (without moving along any of the spatial axes), and eventually start finding that the seemingly solid object actually has parts. And between those parts there are (apparently) empty areas.

If it were possible to go to infinity on the scale axis (it is mathematically, but not physically) we would find the ultimate matter ingredients (what Dr. Van Flandern calls "substance") from which all forms (finite, physical things like galaxies and amoebas and cooperative/stubborn sub quark buttons) are built.

These ultimate matter ingredients are literally everywhere. But, according to the theory we'll never see them. What we will see, as we build bigger and better magnifying glasses, is smaller and smaller forms that are the parts of larger forms. Ad infinitum.

It is a bottomless pit. In theory.

Perhaps some day we will find an actual bottom, and that would falsify MM. But how would we know for sure that we were at the bottom? We have had experts say "this is the bottom" every time we've found a new, smaller, thing.

So far, they've always been wrong. And that keeps MM on the table.

Regards,
LB
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">

I do not disagree with you that we always have to keep looking. But what is it that drives us, what are we looking for? To look for the bottom you have to theorize what the bottom or top is. You look and try to identify it, you find anomolies and realize there is more to it. Then you theorize about the next bottom, etc. etc. If there is one, this is the only way to find it. MM makes us keep looking, and when we look we must theorize in a manner that is contrary to MM, because MM itself requires it.

The MM paradox.