Consider the usual elementary textbook "scientific explanation" of the motion of the balls in the above example following their collision.
For example, to many in the seventeenth century, Newton's account of gravitation, involving action at a distance with no underlying explanation, seemed a poor account, in that respect at least, when compared, for example, to Ptolemy's explanation of the motion of the planets in terms of contiguous crystalline spheres or to Descartes' explanation in terms of vortices.
Most spectacularly, it is the form of reasoning that seems to be involved in the great leaps of imagination that have taken place in the history of scientific thought, as when Isaac Newton (1642 1727) proposed the theory of universal gravitation as an explanation of the motions of planets, projectiles, and tides.
Introducing the interaction of bubbles, the size of bubbles will change in the process of collision and broken, so the results can give a good explanation to the motion of different size bubbles, and the phenomena of bubbles coalescence, bounce and breakup actually exist.
To teach it in a class on religious beliefs is acceptable but to teach it in a science course would be akin to advocating ghosts as a possible explanation for the motion of objects in a physics course!
1215 1279) discussed three alternative explanations of the motions of the celestial spheres, rejecting the views that celestial bodies are animated and are moved by their own spirits or souls, or that the celestial bodies are moved by angelic spirits, which govern and move them.
De Broglie's idea of an electron with the properties of a wave offered an explanation of the restricted motion.
Granted that medieval astronomy did not have a good explanation of planetary motion; with the advent of the scientific revolution, it found one – at least in Spinoza's opinion.
This requirement of mutual contact between mover and moved holds for most cases of locomotion, hence the need for the complicated machinery in the explanation of projectile motion in Physics 8.10.
The explanation of Brownian motion by Einstein in 1905, as the effect of statistical mechanical fluctuations, made them appear directly observable and open to exploitation.
The explanation of the correlation among the motions of its parts is not a common cause explanation, but the fact that in 'equilibrium' the myriad connections between its parts make it act as a unit.
