Two Surfaces NEVER Touch, Including Your Finger Tips & Keyboard

most viewed right now
 126
Birdman broke af - about to lose his mansion due to $12 Million Dollar Loan
68 comments
@hiphop
most viewed right now
 83
Damn!! Is all I can say
47 comments
@thotsdimesetc
most viewed right now
 64
Video inside Was there ever a bigger weed carrier than SliffStar
38 comments
@hiphop
most viewed right now
 57
Image(s) inside trust a big butt and smile
11 comments
@thotsdimesetc

section   (0 bx goons and 1 bystanders) Share this on Twitter   Share this on Facebook
 

Props Slaps
 12-10-2009, 11:46 AM         #41
CHRONICLE  OP
space
space
space
$n/a | Props total:  
 kidbrosweets said:
How are they idiots?

You're the one supporting this nonsense. You can not honestly say that two surfaces never touch. When you jump into a pool you are touching the water, otherwise you wouldnt get wet. What do we all hae an invisible imaginary bubble that blocks our skin from any object?

You're the idiot..
You're an idiot that understands nothing about basic science.

And yes, there is "a bubble" of sorts, its called the electric field.

If you read the OP instead of talking s**t, you'd understand.


Last edited by CHRONICLE; 12-10-2009 at 11:47 AM..
 8 years ago '05        #42
youngvito18 8 heat pts
space
avatar space
space
$13,791 | Props total: 4740 4740
heres a question....if we really never touch anything, then how come we can feel when an object is wet???? technically we never touched it but you know when something feels wet
 12-10-2009, 02:25 PM         #43
CHRONICLE  OP
space
space
space
$n/a | Props total:  
 youngvito18 said:
heres a question....if we really never touch anything, then how come we can feel when an object is wet???? technically we never touched it but you know when something feels wet
All of sensory perception is in the mind, look up Law of Specific Nerve Energies.

But yeah, the stimuli stimulates your nerves, because when you place two electric fields near each other, they also distort each other, that distortion is registered on the nerves.

Of course wetness from water is more dynamic than what I described, but the idea is the same.
 12-10-2009, 03:53 PM         #44
JerseyLegend  OP
space
space
space
$n/a | Props total:  
 CHRONICLE said:
All of sensory perception is in the mind, look up Law of Specific Nerve Energies.

But yeah, the stimuli stimulates your nerves, because when you place two electric fields near each other, they also distort each other, that distortion is registered on the nerves.

Of course wetness from water is more dynamic than what I described, but the idea is the same.
For the two idiots ^^^

and I already gave my f**king take on the water question on the first page
 SHaolin_Bees said:
If you had a strong enough microscope, you could see bumps on any and every surface, regardless of how smooth you really think it is. If you dip your hands in water, the same principle applies that there will still be a thin layer between the water and your hands. Due to the fact that the surface of your arm not being truly smooth, the water molecules separate because it is a relatively weak molecule which probably explains why when you dip your hands in water, the water is not covering your entire hand like a glove.
 12-10-2009, 06:35 PM         #45
Alexein Aner  OP
space
space
space
$n/a | Props total:  
mwen comprend bagay la te fait etudes nen universiter mais le mamam bam baton li fai mal.
 12-10-2009, 07:30 PM         #46
CHRONICLE  OP
space
space
space
$n/a | Props total:  
 Chimere said:
mwen comprend bagay la te fait etudes nen universiter mais le mamam bam baton li fai mal.
Lol, vous fumez trop.
 12-10-2009, 07:43 PM         #47
CaSeOneR305  OP
space
space
space
$n/a | Props total:  
 CHRONICLE said:
Lol, vous fumez trop.
Lol, I don't speak this language, but in spanish smoke=fumar...so I'm guessing you're asking if he smokes weed?

Anyways, on topic:

I was a little skeptical at first as I read this thread, as I had many similar questions. I decided to do a little research and found some information that better explains the concept, particularly this website:



I now realize it's probable, maybe some of you idiots should research and think, before attacking people's claims. This is f**king crazy though by the way.

EDIT: Just saw it was the same site threadstarter posted, LOL disregard.


Last edited by CaSeOneR305; 12-10-2009 at 07:46 PM..
 12-10-2009, 08:00 PM         #48
CHRONICLE  OP
space
space
space
$n/a | Props total:  
 CaSeOneR305 said:
Lol, I don't speak this language, but in spanish smoke=fumar...so I'm guessing you're asking if he smokes weed?
I told him he smokes too much.
 12-14-2009, 05:40 PM         #49
Spliffee  OP
space
space
space
$n/a | Props total:  
It's true that the electromagnetism repels, but in this sense we ARE that electromagnetism too, so yeah things touch...
So when I place my fingers on this keyboard, the keyboard consist of it's electromagnetic field too, and it touches DIRECTLY my fingers electromagnetic field (which are part of my fingers) so no matter how reductionist you want to get: touch is real.
 8 years ago '05        #50
DaSmoothiest 
space
avatar space
space
$394 | Props total: 16 16
Well dam! So what about when I be penetrating some pus*y
 12-19-2009, 10:20 AM         #51
CHRONICLE  OP
space
space
space
$n/a | Props total:  
 Spliffee said:
It's true that the electromagnetism repels, but in this sense we ARE that electromagnetism too, so yeah things touch...
So when I place my fingers on this keyboard, the keyboard consist of it's electromagnetic field too, and it touches DIRECTLY my fingers electromagnetic field (which are part of my fingers) so no matter how reductionist you want to get: touch is real.
No, there's a reason electromagnetism is called action-at-distance rather than a contact force, because it doesn't contact.

Its just a.ssumed that the relative distortion is actually touch, but if you respect the actual meaning of the word touch, then no, things don't touch each other, unless its absorption, fission, etc.
 12-19-2009, 11:44 AM         #52
Spliffee  OP
space
space
space
$n/a | Props total:  
 CHRONICLE said:
No, there's a reason electromagnetism is called action-at-distance rather than a contact force, because it doesn't contact.

Its just a.ssumed that the relative distortion is actually touch, but if you respect the actual meaning of the word touch, then no, things don't touch each other, unless its absorption, fission, etc.
No my statements are correct, I promise you.
The electromagnetic field is a field, which is in contact with the electromagnetic field of whatever object you "touch", it's what causes repulsion.
It's no "spooky action at distance", this is NORMAL action at distance.

If you want to argue that the electromagnetic force isn't really a part of "you", that's fine, but to me that makes no sense.

But if you want to deny that the electromagnetic force touches in each object,causing the repulsion, you'd have to revise all of physics...:P

The reason it's hard to visuaize what I'm explaining is because we can't see the electromagnetic force as a normal object, it's invisible to the eye, but if you could imagine that field as a color, youd see what I'm trying to explain


Last edited by Spliffee; 12-19-2009 at 11:49 AM..
 12-19-2009, 12:03 PM         #53
CHRONICLE  OP
space
space
space
$n/a | Props total:  
 Spliffee said:
No my statements are correct, I promise you.
The electromagnetic field is a field, which is in contact with the electromagnetic field of whatever object you "touch", it's what causes repulsion.
It's no "spooky action at distance", this is NORMAL action at distance.

If you want to argue that the electromagnetic force isn't really a part of "you", that's fine, but to me that makes no sense.

But if you want to deny that the electromagnetic force touches in each object,causing the repulsion, you'd have to revise all of physics...:P

The reason it's hard to visuaize what I'm explaining is because we can't see the electromagnetic force as a normal object, it's invisible to the eye, but if you could imagine that field as a color, youd see what I'm trying to explain
I see what you're saying and can visualize it well, I don't agree with it.

If two charge objects' fields interact with each other, they are not in contact, they simply exert a repulsive/attractive force.

Fields distorting each other doesn't equate to contact.

I'm not talking about any spooky action at a distance (Even though there's no real distinction between the two, its just coincidental that Einstein refered to entanglement as spooky), I'm talking about the two basic forms of force interaction, action-at-distance (a-a-d) and contact. Gravitational force is also a-a-d.

Touch means that two things contact directly, the force that a thing exerts isn't the it. The field of an object isn't an extension of that object, since it doesn't have the properties of that object.

If the atoms aren't touching, then they don't touch.
 12-19-2009, 01:35 PM         #54
Spliffee  OP
space
space
space
$n/a | Props total:  
 CHRONICLE said:
I see what you're saying and can visualize it well, I don't agree with it.

If two charge objects' fields interact with each other, they are not in contact, they simply exert a repulsive/attractive force.

Fields distorting each other doesn't equate to contact.

I'm not talking about any spooky action at a distance (Even though there's no real distinction between the two, its just coincidental that Einstein refered to entanglement as spooky), I'm talking about the two basic forms of force interaction, action-at-distance (a-a-d) and contact. Gravitational force is also a-a-d.
It isn't just coincidential that Einstein refered to entanglement as spooky, he died 40 years later still denying it's existence.
With entanglement you have things affecting eachother regardless of repulsion, I can have a spin up particle on earth and you go to the other side of the universe and you'll have a spin up particle...
That's completely different from this.

Touch means that two things contact directly, the force that a thing exerts isn't the it. The field of an object isn't an extension of that object, since it doesn't have the properties of that object.

If the atoms aren't touching, then they don't touch.
No, but that's what I'm saying.
Since the field is caused by the object (object being me in this case) and the other object(being my keyboard as I type this) it is actually an extension of both and those do directly touch.
In a sense that electromagnetic repulsion IS exactly that, a property of the object.
Cuz what else causes the electromagnetic repulsion? your electrons.
Since atoms get broken down to quarks, and quarks will get even futher reduced, I wouldn't be so quick to say that your electromagnetic field isn't "part of you", because philosophically it is, unles you want to reject the whole notion of atoms too when they get further thumbed down.
Then you end up "not existing", which would be rather paradoxial;P
 12-19-2009, 01:55 PM         #55
CHRONICLE  OP
space
space
space
$n/a | Props total:  
I think you're misinterpreting my argument.

The electrical field is a property, but it isn't actually a part of an object in the sense that its contains the same set of properties.

e.g.

If we a.ssume 2 red ball has an electrical field (like charged) as an inherent property, when those fields interact, the balls don't contact. What you're suggesting is that a property can be representative of an object.

The electric field is an entity, but the electric field of another entity isn't the entity or part of that entity (surficially), so you can't argue that touch is achieved when they touch, since touch is about surficial interaction, and not interaction of properties.

Property doesn't equate to "part of", especially when you consider the existence of emergent properties.
 12-19-2009, 01:56 PM         #56
CHRONICLE  OP
space
space
space
$n/a | Props total:  
It isn't just coincidential that Einstein refered to entanglement as spooky, he died 40 years later still denying it's existence.
With entanglement you have things affecting eachother regardless of repulsion, I can have a spin up particle on earth and you go to the other side of the universe and you'll have a spin up particle...
That's completely different from this.
Yeah, that's a-a-d, Einstein noted that it was a spooky manifestation of an a-a-d event/
 12-19-2009, 02:25 PM         #57
Spliffee  OP
space
space
space
$n/a | Props total:  
 CHRONICLE said:
I think you're misinterpreting my argument.

The electrical field is a property, but it isn't actually a part of an object in the sense that its contains the same set of properties.

e.g.

If we a.ssume 2 red ball has an electrical field (like charged) as an inherent property, when those fields interact, the balls don't contact. What you're suggesting is that a property can be representative of an object.

The electric field is an entity, but the electric field of another entity isn't the entity or part of that entity (surficially), so you can't argue that touch is achieved when they touch, since touch is about surficial interaction, and not interaction of properties.

Property doesn't equate to "part of", especially when you consider the existence of emergent properties.

Well it gets very philosophical, because as we agree it is a property, and yes it's a EMERGENT property, but so is emotions I would still call them part of my mind, because what causes them is always in my brain ready to create the emotion(s).
Same with electromagnetic repulsion, remember law of energy conservation, it's always part of the atoms from the get go.

So in the same sense our minds has the property of creating emotions in our experience, the atoms has the property of creating a electromagnetic field that touch other atoms electromagnetic fields...

Since all I am is a collection of atom, and these atoms possess a electromagnetic field which DO directl touch other object's electromagnetic field, I would say that suffice for the definition of TOUCH.

Since I'm into quantum mechanics, I wouldn't know how to view a atom which doesn't have that electromagnetic field, so I would say that the electromagnetic field is just as much a part of what makes up a atom as the nucleus.
However this is very subjective to your own philosophy.

It's kind of like the fact that in 2 years EVERY atomin your body has been replaced, so are you really you after 1-2 years?
It all gets down to philosophy at this point, what is enough to satisfy your personal requirements for these concepts.


Einstein didn't call it spooky because of it's A-D-D nature, but it's nonlocal nature, how it could affect something 10 000 times faster than the speed of light put his whole view of the universe into WTF? Because of his special theory of relatvity...
Now the models are different, in the Realist interpretation of QM a pilot wave travels in abstract 6 dimensional hilbert space and are the cause of these "mysterious" observations.
However that's another topic...
 12-19-2009, 02:39 PM         #58
CHRONICLE  OP
space
space
space
$n/a | Props total:  
I don't think it satisfies my concept of touch, but the argument changes based on which concept of touch is used.

Yeah, Einstein called it spooky because of the entangled nature.
 12-19-2009, 02:44 PM         #59
CHRONICLE  OP
space
space
space
$n/a | Props total:  
 Gattsau said:
Ok so what about lifting a object? Is your field holding onto that object? How do you explain the need for muscles to lift heavier objects?

This is all interesting s**t.
Posted via Mobile Device
There's a few aspects about human strength which are interesting, the same standard still applies, nothing directly touches.

Its argued that the amount of gray matter on muscles has a significant relation to muscle strength, and explains why chimps are stronger than humans. More gray matter means finer/acute coordination of muscles, less means poor control and coordination and potential strain.

According to the theory, the nerve cells on our muscles places a limit on how much can be used.
 12-19-2009, 02:51 PM         #60
Spliffee  OP
space
space
space
$n/a | Props total:  
Gattsu you also got to remember that, the fact that the only thing of you and the object that touches is your electromagnetic field doesn't change anything else you know about how the classical world operates.
Home      
  
 

 






most viewed right now
 35
Image(s) inside Is it just me or did Kanye West dress poorly during the College Dropou..
67 comments
1 day ago
@gear
most viewed right now
 19
Image(s) inside Bx, can she be saved? Or is she Too Far Gone?
109 comments
1 day ago
@thotsdimesetc
most viewed right now
 18
Steph Kegels
131 comments
1 day ago
@thotsdimesetc
most viewed right now
 9
So this nigga YBN Nahmir really a fraud nigga?
76 comments
2 days ago
@hiphop
most viewed right now
 9
Image(s) inside Dec 15 - Matt Damon Is Sharing All His Bad Opinions on Sexual Misconduct
49 comments
1 day ago
@news
most viewed right now
 9
Image(s) inside Joe Budden coming out of retirement in 2018 over amigos beef? “Enough ..
107 comments
2 days ago
@hiphop
most viewed right now
 7
Image(s) inside XXXTentacles facing 77 years in jail :niggaomg:
207 comments
2 days ago
@hiphop
most viewed right now
 6
Video inside US DEPARMENT OF DEFENSE RELEASES NAVY JET ENCOUNTER WITH UFO VIDEO :mjd..
72 comments
1 day ago
@wild'ish
back to top
register contact Follow BX @ Twitter Follow BX @ Facebook search BX privacy