buket80 said:
Any opinion about the video I sent?
The video makes valid points. Both Moriarty's and Brady's (i.e., the man behind the camera) imputs are important here.
I'd summarize it as follows:
1. The everyday definition of contact, as vague as it is, can be thought of as: 'I can't put anything in-between two touching objects', or maybe something like 'solids are making continuous whole'
2. This definition can't be applied to microscopic objects even in principle.
3. There is a very precise definition of contact used in physics.
4. Whenever you hear 'there's no contact, it's actually repulsion', it is meant to convey that the first definition can't be applied to microscopic scales and the actual interaction is similar to that of e.g. magnets repelling.
5. But you should keep in mind that it's just a rough analogy, intended for the very narrow goal specified above, and the actual interactions are more complicated. I'd compare it to the case of teaching people about the Bohr's model of an atom: it's patently wrong, and if one's serious about physics, it needs to be unlearned at some point. However, if you don't know anything about how atoms are made, it's a nice, handy, easy to digest visualisation that conveys some valid points.