Re:Why Understanding Space Is So Hard (2016)
by colordrops on Monday January 22, 2018 @01:01AM
(#16202234)
I don't understand why the bucket example implies absolute space. When looked at from a reductionist perspective, each atom is still travelling inertially with respect to other atoms, but they are constantly changing direction based on mutual forces applied to each other. The fact that from a macroscopic perspective they appear to be "spinning" doesn't mean that "spinning" is actually a fundamental and inherent form of motion relative to some static background.
[ Parent
| on HN ]
Re:Why Understanding Space Is So Hard (2016)
by ithkuil on Monday January 22, 2018 @03:36AM
(#16202852)
But they are not changing position nor velocities with respect to each other while rotating, they are changing positions and velocities against other frames of references.
Re:Why Understanding Space Is So Hard (2016)
by colordrops on Monday January 22, 2018 @11:35AM
(#16205652)
They are though. Structures are not rigid, but more elastic. They only appear rigid and monolithic from a macroscopic perspective. One atom moves relative to another , and then exerts electromagnetic force on another which then moves a bit itself, and when all are seen together they appear to be a single unit that is spinning, but that is an illusion.