MI collisions

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by north</i>
<br />so your saying that vibration because of collision (within a certain scale) can move forward and backwards in our scale and time?<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">I don't know what you are asking where the answer is not obvious. We both (I assume) know what a vibration is, and its relation to time and scale. What can I tell you that is not already obvious?

I've started to conclude that we must have incompatible images of what scale means. Why don't we substitute "mass" for "scale"? That might make things clearer. Then the logarithm of mass or matter content is the fifth dimension that runs from minus infinity to plus infinity. And you can readily see that it makes no sense to ask if a vibration moves forward and backwards in mass.

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">your right i miss understood your "negative scale" earlier.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">I'm happy we resolved at least that one point. It's a start.

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">the problem is the proximity of infinity of scale. is it 1mm or 100,000mm from our reality of scale. for the closer to our scale the more of the effect other scales will have. therefore the wavelength of the vibration will be detectable, therefore will interfer with our scale.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">Other scales (or read "other masses") need not have any effect at all on a vibration. The vibration exists on a single scale (in a single mass), and need not be influenced by any other scale (mass).

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">vibration is a relative thing Tom you can't just dismiss it out of hand, because you think so, prove it with out a doubt. but Tom the equivalent of (cause-effect) must exist, otherwise really why not?<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">Cause-effect exists for any single scale (mass). Some other scale (mass) may or may not influence the original scale (mass). There is no necessity of such an influence. So if a vibration is confined to a single mass (scale), then what other cause-effect could there possibly be?

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">also are you saying there is no sound at all on either side of our scale? is this not a relative perspective?<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">See my next comment.

<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 />Suppose that our scale is "1.000 meter". Then he (? says/asks ?) can a vibration at the "0.999 meter" scale (? be detected/influence ?) things at our scale.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">Leaving aside units issues, I think I get the point. So if we substitute "mass" for "scale", then does a smaller mass influence a larger one? The same would be true for vibrations. A smaller vibration might influence a larger one, but because the two vibrations have independent existence (assuming there are two), there is no need for them to affect one another. A single vibration can exist only at a single scale, or in a single mass. -|Tom|-

[tvf] "I'm happy we resolved at least that one point. It's a start."

Hmmm. I won't be astonished if we realize, a few days from now, that this understanding is a misunderstanding. But there is always hope.

===

Hmmm again. North, you say the word "proximity" as if it is a picture and therefore worth a thousand words. It isn't.

You also said something like "the closer some scale is to ours, the more it will influence our scale". Have you considered the possibility that the dividing line between "our scale" and "any other scale" is somewhat arbitrary?

"Our scale" covers (IMO) a range of sizes that is somewhat different in different contexts.

* For normal day to day things, "our scale" (IMO) covers the range of sizes from things like grains of sand, or maybe dust motes on the small end to things like sky scrapers, cities and lakes on the big end.

* When I put on my cosmologist's hat, however, I tend to think of "our scale" as covering things from atoms and ions on the small end to stars and planets on the big end.

===

If this is not at least close to what you are getting at by the word "proximity", then I don't have a clue what you are talking about.

Have you considered translating your posts into english?

LB

<i>Originally posted by Larry Burford</i>
<br />[tvf] "I'm happy we resolved at least that one point. It's a start."

Hmmm. I won't be astonished if we realize, a few days from now, that this understanding is a misunderstanding. But there is always hope.

===

Hmmm again. North, you say the word "proximity" as if it is a picture and therefore worth a thousand words. It isn't.

You also said something like "the closer some scale is to ours, the more it will influence our scale". Have you considered the possibility that the dividing line between "our scale" and "any other scale" is somewhat arbitrary?
____________________________________________________________________

sure but the point is this,sound is a proximity reaction(which depends on "bouncing off a structure") with a medium,the further the proximity and/or structure the less likely sound is produced.

---

"Our scale" covers (IMO) a range of sizes that is somewhat different in different contexts.

* For normal day to day things, "our scale" (IMO) covers the range of sizes from things like grains of sand, or maybe dust motes on the small end to things like sky scrapers, cities and lakes on the big end.

* When I put on my cosmologist's hat, however, I tend to think of "our scale" as covering things from atoms and ions on the small end to stars and planets on the big end.

===

If this is not at least close to what you are getting at by the word "proximity", then I don't have a clue what you are talking about.

Have you considered translating your posts into english?

LB

---

i'm talking about the atomic scale here.