Blog powered by Typepad

« 'Little Willy' dribbles in my comments box | Main | Julian Simon wins again - from the grave »

Thursday, 18 February 2010


Feed You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.

Oh thank you. I was JUST about thinking of getting to bed. Now I satnd virtually NO chance of sleep before tonights shift begins.

Sorry, 'FT', but my loss is, er, your gain!

"action at a distance" is what it's called, your first worry. WKPD has an article on it.

Yes, 'DM', I know that phrase which more or less sums up the mystery. I read the Wiki essay and I'm now going to bed with a headache - as well as sore feet!

Newton often said that the "why" of gravity was beyond the science of physics. He simply gave the mathematical principles behind all moving bodies. He cautioned others not to act like they accepted some notion like "action at a distance."

I know nothing about this, but my understanding is that in Relativity, the problem is gotten rid of. Notions of "anti-gravity" material can no longer be used in serious SF, since gravity is not an attraction anyway. Your analogy of two ships in thick water sounds like a good one to me, only it's space that is being rippled up. Again, this is fourth hand stuff for me.

Good post, BTW.

Since we are talking about deep stuff, here's a question that came to me early on, and every now and then it gets lodged in my brain and I can't get rid of it. I tell it to others, and some dismiss it, and some get rattled like I do. Here it is: Why is there something instead of nothing? Shouldn't it all just be a great empty void?

Dom, this is me getting rid of P.I.S.S. not asking for more!

Of course, the difference between water and space is that the former is contiguous where-as the latter, whilst not exactly a vacuum, is close to it. Perhaps the answer lies in 'field theory', yet another scientific concept I have difficulty with.

The comments to this entry are closed.