Reality is Friction

If the force of friction were not reality then it could not act on objects. Forces are reality. Interactions are reality. Mathematical equations are reality. This includes the gravitational force and the normal force which acts in the opposite direction and which is perpendicular to the force of friction.

Suppose one were to remove the two objects in order to isolate the force of friction. We would be left with nothing but empty space since friction requires the interaction of the high points created by atoms and molecules on the surfaces of the two objects. Hence contact forces could not exist without objects touching each other. For long range forces such as gravitational and electromagnetic, the field would be cause and the force would be the effect. There would be no force unless the field were present. So a long range force requires the field but not another object to act on.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

And don't forget this:
http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Friction

"When surfaces in contact move relative to each other, the friction between the two surfaces converts kinetic energy into thermal energy. This property can have dramatic consequences, as illustrated by the use of friction created by rubbing pieces of wood together to start a fire. Kinetic energy is converted to thermal energy whenever motion with friction occurs, ..."

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Crap. Friction is a real phenomenon and so therefore is the force of friction. But to conclude from that that "reality is friction" is idiotic. A ham sandwich is also real. Do we therefore say, "Reality is a ham sandwich"?

What is the point of posting this sort of junk?

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

How in the name of all that is holy is this guy allowed to post this incredibly stupid crap in the science section. I mean there is no way to even have a conversation about this unless you have had a traumatic brain injury and are also drunk.

As exchemist said this is utterly pointless.

 

Please stop this fool posting in actual science sections.
It's okay him being utterly clueless but no one should be allowed to promote crap like this.

 

What, you mean that it isn't??

I agree with exchemist.

To my eye, this 'friction is real, hence reality is friction' argument looks like it might be a textbook example of the logical fallacy of illicit conversion.

The conversion in this case is the switching of subject and predicate in a subject-predicate proposition. The fallacy is the assumption that the conversion results in a logically equivalent proposition. Exchemist's 'ham sandwich' example illustrates that isn't always the case.

http://www.fallacyfiles.org/illiconv.html

 

Spellbound, your statement that “…reality is friction…” is correct.

Your opponents do not understand physics entirely. They do not understand, as well, your ‘reflective shortening’.

It is obvious that there must be in existence a primordial medium all objects consist of. For example, it can be a ‘gas’ composed of bare (i.e. it does not produce any fields), continuous, moving and rotating pieces of space. It leads to conclusion that on the lowest level of Nature (i.e. concerning the smallest objects) interactions are only due to the direct collisions i.e. forces follow from the dynamic viscosity only. Just we can derive Nature/Reality from the dynamic-viscosity/friction only.

The Scale-Symmetric Physics shows that in definitions of all constants of interactions appears the same constant which depends only on rotations and dynamic viscosity of the fundamental pieces of space all objects consist of i.e. your sentences “If the force of friction were not reality then it could not act on objects. Forces are reality. Interactions are reality.” are correct.

So once more: Your statement “Reality is Friction” is beautiful and true. The friction of the pieces of space is the lacking fundamental force.

 

History shows that Spellbound doesn't usually participate in the discussions that stem from his OPs. Since you have contributed, I'll respond from my perspective:

You and I don't understand physics entirely either, IMHO. I'm not clear about your reference to Spellbound's "reflective shortening", which, along with your references to a "primordial medium all objects consist of", and "Scale-Symmetric Physics" seem to be taking the Spellbound OP into territory that isn't any more comfortable that the territory of the OP.

Much of what you say implies things about space that seem to come from deep within an elaborate theory; they are not stand alone concepts that people can grasp or put into some familiar context. Space for example: Does the primordial medium occupy space, or is it space. In a common context, space is geometric and 3-D space is a volume. It could be empty conceptually, or it could be occupied but not filled, or it could be completely filled. In that context what is primordial space?

And primordial? To me that sounds like something that precedes the state that our universe is now in, and therefore implies a change of state over time. I take that to mean that you are considering a beginning of time where the primordial state came into existence? If so, is that a "something form nothing" scenario?

But then you get into a discussion of scale, so maybe the reference to "primordial" is not at the beginning of the arrow of time, but instead, beyond the depths of our ability to observe?

 

Sometimes it's hard to tell the difference between truth and friction.

 

Quantum_wave, people can understand physics if it does not contain nonsensical assumptions as, for example, higher dimensions. Physics is very simple when we start from complete and correct initial conditions.

The idea of creation of Nature from nothing is nonsensical. There are possible only physical processes in which information does not disappear and vice versa. This means that a primordial medium must be eternal. Only then the laws of conservation have physical meaning.

The variety of objects does not follow from different primordial mediums. The different structures in Nature follow from phase transitions of groups of pieces of one internally-structureless (internally continuous) primordial medium (due to the phase transitions there appears the Scale-Symmetric Physics). It is obvious that such pieces can interact only due to the dynamic viscosity. Due to the dynamic viscosity, there can be pieces with different sizes.

It is obvious that we should consider 3-dimensional infinite volume in which are moving the pieces of the primordial medium i.e. the pieces of space - such should be the definition of space. Just volume is totally transparent whereas space is totally nontransparent. Physics concerns the interactions of pieces of space.

The pieces of space collide. Local unit of time we can define as the mean time between the collisions. It leads to conclusion that the interior of the pieces of space in timeless. Timeless as well is volume free from pieces of space. We can say about time only in relation to colliding pieces of space.

Our Cosmos was created due to collision of very big pieces of space. They cracked into very small pieces of space and next there appeared the scale-symmetric phase transitions. The arrow of time follows from the fact that at the beginning of the inflation there was the perfect order of the small pieces of space. Next, due to the dynamic viscosity and phase transitions and new interactions, the distribution of the free and bound small pieces of space is more and more disordered i.e. with time the entropy increases.

We cannot observe the bare pieces of space directly but some extension to the General Relativity leads to them. Moreover, such scenario leads to hundreds of theoretical results consistent with experimental data and to the origin of physical constants.

 

Reality is also opposite, adjacent and hypotenuse.

 

Thanks SK. Though we speak in different terms, I can apply a loose form of interpretation to your post and get to ideas that are consistent with my own model. You didn't mention waves or wave energy or gravitational wave energy traversing the medium of space, but perhaps the primordial pieces of space at the small end of the scale might correspond to my concept of waves at the foundational level; at a scale smaller than we have the ability to observe.

I invoke the three infinites, space, time and energy, and refer to big bangs as common events across the potentially infinite landscape of the greater universe, saying that everything is composed of wave energy. Within a common big bang arena, particles form from dense state wave energy in the aftermath of the collapse/bounce of a big crunch, and the big crunches from from the intersection and overlap of expanding, galaxy filled, big bang arenas ("parent" arenas).

Particles are complex patterns of standing gravitational waves. The density of the wave energy within a particle space is extremely high relative to the surrounding space, and the velocity of gravitational waves is proportional the local wave energy density. Therefore, gravitational waves slow down when they enter a particle space, and thus particles "contain" time delayed wave energy.

Within particles, continual wave intersections form high density spots, which immediately expand into waves that then intersect again and again with the particle, until the energy from earlier directional inflow flows out of the particle space spherically. The mass of a particle corresponds to the number of high density spots at any instant in time.

It is a dynamic environment with inflowing and out flowing gravitational wave energy, and particles move in the direction of the highest net directional inflowing gravitational wave energy because their internal high density spots are refreshed more plentifully from the highest wave energy direction. The gravitational wave energy out flow from particles is spherical, and those spherical out flowing gravitational waves become the directional inflowing gravitational wave energy that determines how distant particles and objects move through the medium of space.

 

In mainstream theories and alternative models presented in this Section there are many wrong assumptions and interpretations. They follow from the fact that authors of them do not start from complete set of initial conditions and some of them are incorrect. There appear also ideas without needed calculations (just pure science fiction) to show that theoretical results lead to experimental data.

The biggest nonsense is assumption that there can be in existence vibrations in true nothingness. It follows from the assumption that photons are massless. It is incorrectly assumed that due to the famous formula E = mcc, Nature can transform the Principle-of-Equivalence matter (i.e. physical volumes) into pure (i.e. massless) energies. Just such interpretation of the correct Einstein formula is nonsensical. Just physical volumes cannot transform into pure motions and vice versa. The correct interpretation you can find in my posts. I should not write it once more.

It is obvious that there is the upper limit for speed for the Principle-of-Equivalence matter and it is the c. But it does not concern the geometry of spacetime! In the Ricci tensor can appear superluminal objects as well. On the other hand, in the Ricci tensor for weak gravitational waves, there appears the d’Alembertian so the c as well. It is the mistake.
Can you see that for decades we cannot detect gravitational waves or gravitons or gravitational-wave B-modes in the CMB? Just the scale-symmetric physics shows that gravitational waves are not in existence - we never will detect them. Their existence follows from wrong assumption. Of course, the General Relativity as a whole is correct but we can see that the incomplete initial conditions lead to wrong interpretations.

Can you see as well that for decades we cannot unify gravity with the Standard Model? Of course, there appear some “unifications” but such theories are still useless. The scale-symmetric physics shows that unification of gravity with the three other interactions (i.e. electromagnetism, weak and strong) within the same methods is impossible. It follows from the fact that properties of gravitational fields differ very much from properties of the other fields.

 

We are left with 2 posibilities at this point.
1. Spellbound is in a straight jacket somewhere typing out these 'ideas' with his nose.
2. Spellbound is drinking a brew and laughing his ass off at this thread.

 

I'll give you credit for your appropriate humor. Truthfully, friction rubs me the wrong way.

 

Lol. Maybe I was being overly simple but I'll try to explain myself. When we resolve a force like friction into its x and y components, we make use of trigonometry to find the value of the vectors. The opposite side of the triangle has a relationship to the adjacent side as well as the hypotenuse. Each side can be broken up and called reality itself otherwise we could not make sense of it and proceed to solve it. The free body diagram may only be on paper but it is still real and consists of the language of mathematics just as much as the physical objects they explain do.

 

So you are saying number 1 is the correct answer?

Friction is not reality - friction is just real. Just like force, pressure, volume or a tarsier are all real but none are the definition of reality

 

Reality is real. Friction is real. Therefore, friction is reality and reality friction.

 

Reality is real. My balls are real. Therefore, my balls are reality and reality is my balls.

Your confusion is real. Therefore reality is your confusion.

You should stop posting... REALLY!