J.Merrill

Yes recognize it as a mistake, and I can admit that, how ever it is true that every theory has its flaws and this was my point I was trying to make. Theories are verifiable and falsifiable.

Before we start. I need to come forward and say from here forward I want to try and correct some negative out look on My topics and responses I post here. I realize I have not be choice with my words and I only want to learn, that is why I post I want others opinions. So with that being said. I don't quite understand Photons, or at least there might be some form of confusion here please read the entire thing so you have a good understanding of my perception and why I posted this. Matter is anything that occupies space (having volume) and has mass Correct? If something physically exist it has Dimensions, things with Dimension are matter? Matter is anything that takes up space correct? Matter has three main forms: solid, liquid, and gas correct? Matter can change from one form to another correct? Matter is anything that has mass and takes up space. It includes molecules, atoms, fundamental particles, and any substance that these particles make up. Matter can change form through physical and chemical changes, but through any of these changes matter is conserved. For example, water can be boiled, which turns it into a gas. But the water is not just disappearing only changing from one form to another. The same amount of matter exists before and after the change—none is created or destroyed. This concept is called the Law of Conservation of Mass. So in the anhelation resulting in two Photons, positron and an electron collide, they are annihilated and two gamma photons of equal energy are emitted. Is this not just a conversion? Do photons have mass? According to physics the answer is No, and since they have no mass are not considered matter. (something is wrong here) Do photons take up space? The answer is YES. But Photons are bosons and therefore do not really have a meaning of "personal space", (more than one can occupy the same space) Correct me if I am wrong. How ever the the accumulation of the photon's energy causes another very interesting thing to happen - the spontaneous creation of new particles" Photons of different frequencies will have the amount different - so it's not that photons "occupy space". Indeed, if you think about photons as packets with size increasing with wavelength, you'd expect lower frequency photons to "occupy" more space. In reality, it's the opposite - so lower frequencies allow you to fit more photons in the same volume. For something to occupy volume it must take up space correct? I'm just curious how this is not a direct contradiction no matter how you look at it. Photons exist, they take up space, but have no mass, matter takes up space but photons are not matter there for have no mass? So how does this even make sense. What am I missing here, or are laws of physics we define flawed?

If you would please re read the conversation. I acknowledged I was wrong in my understanding. And i thanked Migl for this insight. And I then asked a question regarding something I read, which I posted. And frog responded accordingly I said and I quote “ I see no further reason to argue this any further “ this was my acknowledgment that I miss understood things and I thanked Migl later. I don’t feel the extra insight was needed at this point but thank you too. I think I understand what you ask here, and my answer this is no. Although we couldn't completely dismiss the idea if someone could back it.

Thank you for this.

Fair enough, and I see no reason to argue this any further. But how would you Interpret this then. ”In physics and chemistry, the law of conservation of mass or principle of mass conservation states that for any system closed to all transfers of matter and energy, the mass of the system must remain constant over time, as the system's mass cannot change, so quantity can neither be added nor be removed.” This applies heavily in GR.

When a positron and an electron collide, they are annihilated and two gamma photons of equal energy are emitted. You left this bit out and that has to do with energy conservation and The Conservation of Matter. You are taking things here out of context and are not fulling understanding things. You are purposing things based on an incorrect understanding of what you read.

What are you serious? Please read this. The Conservation of Matter During Physical and Chemical Changes. Matter makes up all visible objects in the universe, and it can be neither created nor destroyed.

Sure a I would not disagree with this. In the simplest form of expression, it is described as follows. Inertia is a measure of how difficult it is to change the velocity of an object by applying a force, and is usually expressed in terms of mass. The greater the inertia of an object for example the more mass an object has , the more difficult it is to change its velocity. Mass is different from weight though the two terms are often used interchangeably. A more rigorous form and explanation. The MOI moment of inertia which is the amount of force needed to change the object's rotational velocity/rate. One could conclude that the greater the mass of the object and the larger distance from the axis, this would have a greater affect on the MOI? The POI product of inertia of any object is 0 so long as the object is indeed symmetrical and the coordinate axis is also an axis of symmetry. In any case that the POI is not = to 0 the coordinate system can be adjust by rotating it until it is 0 in this case the new coordinates are referred to as the Principle axes. Correct Me here if I am wrong please. Lets make a small problem for this, lets hypothetically consider our first point mass m ( Base Ball ) which is rotating perfectly Parallel to the ground bellow it, at the distance of X from our given fixed pivot point. The MOI would be the point mass, our base Ball and this is a product of the mass and the Distance X2. I = mx2 If by chance there is more than one point object all rotating around the same pivot point but at different distances from the pivot. Then the total MOI of the system is the Sum of each individual MOI. In this case I = mi . xi 2 What if the object is something like a bat or large pole. This purposes a much more difficult problem to solve. However we could try to slice the long pole or bat into large sections each with its own incremental mass (dm) assuming each being located at a distance X from out pivot point. If we knew how the dm varied with each position we could just add them individually to obtain the total inertia of the bat or pole. I = | x2.dm How ever not every one knows how to calculate the Mass Distribution Function dm, for any given baseball bat right off the top of their head and I'm not really sure i want to get into that here as its not needed. I have a grasp and understand as you do on how this works or at least I assume you do as well. Maybe it is the context at which I choose to express things that throws people off? For if I don't know or am unsure I can ask a question. But I do believe at this point even through the hectic topic this has formed into I have somewhat argued the same point as others, across a few topics including this one. It is never my intentions to come off as some strange individual who knows nothing at all. But it is in my nature as in most people here, to only keep questioning. Back to you for your response! Excuse any grammatic errors I am very tired here and it is late at this point will be off to sleep soon enough.

I am not sure I follow, all forms of matter have mass? There are 3 physical states, Solid Liquid and Gas, all of which are matter, and can warp time and as a direct result be influenced by gravity. How do you think stars form? When temperatures are adequate things begin to take shape.

Gravity is not a force, all though the term Force follows gravity around through miss understanding. I am insinuating that Mass Causes a gradient in time. And this Curvature of time is Gravity.

If theories could only be Verified and never falsified they would not be theories would they. So yes with every.

Theories are theories because they can be verified and falsified. And we don't just verify and falsify based on being skeptic alone. We back these verifications or falsifications with Math that is either directly inline with laws of physics we set in place. As my suggestion of removing matter like the sun in my explanation. The Big Bang is one of many theories with many obvious violations and unverified answers to problems. The Big Bang It violates the first law of thermodynamics, which says you can't create or destroy matter or energy. The first long-lived matter particles of any kind were protons and you guessed it neutrons. And together they make up the atomic nucleus. These came into existence around of 0.0001 a second after the Big Bang, Before that there was really no material in any familiar sense. Why do you think people purpose alternative explanations to the origins of the universe? Because they can for one and for two they have reason to believe based on knowledge that it was flawed in some way. And these flaws derived from questioning things. How do you think relativity was born. I'm not listing all theories and the flaws but they all have them and the flaws either mean 2+2 =5 or in other words violates things we presume are not true or have evidence of.

Every theory violates physical laws, and they are only laws because we say they are. The big bang is full of things that point in the right direction but creditably fall apart at the source. It's like asking to describe the universe before the big bang. You can't represent physically what it is, a singularity is infinitely small, it has no Dimension so describing it as a simple dot does not do anything. Because a dot has a physical length and width. The only reason we say energy can only be transformed and transferred , never destroyed is because we say so. 1.) Law of Thermodynamics, Energy can be changed from one form to another, but cannot be created or destroyed, the total amount of energy and matter in the universe remains constant, merely changing from one from to another. Why? Because we said so, and built a foundation around this.

Matter is the presence of energy, called "rest energy" What distinguishes the matter - energy from other forms of energy is that all "Matter" Has inertia and is subject to the force of gravity, when at rest and as well as when in motion. About a 4D model.... hmm no, you can't make a 4D model but only a 3D representation of 4D space and it's still not as it would be in a real 4Dimensional world. There are many forms like Tetrahedron or a 24 cell. A Hyper Sphere or maybe a tesseract. All of these we can only under stand 3 Dimensionally.

I'm not entirely sure how people take things so literal, the question I am proposing still stands and is still unanswered.

Massless particle are purely energy. "It's sufficient for a particle to have energy to have meaningful sense of existence" Says Flip Tanedo, is an assistant professor of physics at the University of California, Riverside. Word for word, I wish I had a way to Definitively credit this with proof.

To explain gravity like this is to try and explain gravity with gravity that does not work. Your tether is gravity and to lose the tether is to lose gravity and that makes not sense at all. If you jump into the air, your head is moving through time slightly faster than your feet. This time gradient results in motion, not towards the source of gravity but along the curvature of space time. Time causes gravity. Gravity is not a force, it is an effect of spacetime curvature. The effect is know as "Gravitational Time Dilation" It is predicted by Einstein's theory of General Reactivity and has been verified with Multiple experiments. Yes and thank you!

I'm not sure you understand what I stated, did you even read all of it or simply take things out of context and claim I don't understand? Gravity is the curvature of the universe, caused by massive bodies, which determines the path that an Object Travels. That curvature is dynamic, it is moving as Celestial bodies move through Space and Time Spacetime. It was Einstein's view of the world , that changed the view of gravity to the understanding that is the direct result of Curved spacetime caused by Mass. To argue this as you have quoted me, is to argue Einstein.

You can only hold your breath for so long, until you pass out. Then your brain will automatically start your bodies breathing process again, this is why passing out under water causes the person to inhale water and drowned. If this is autopilot, sure I can agree, but you don't toggle that manually. And you surely are not conscious of it if you passed out. So there for is not a part of consciousness, as that requires a form of awareness which requires you to be awake in this particular context. I must make a correction with a small portion of poor word choice. Life can exist with out intelligence. Trees are alive but are not intelligent. Trees do not have nervous systems but they can still feel what's going on, and experience something analogous to pain. Because when a tree is cut down or trimmed, it sends electrical signals like wounded Human tissue. I would start to agree that experience is a part of consciousness. If a person is born with no sense of taste, touch, sight, or hearing. They are left Smell , they can be conscious of things in the form of smell. Even if they lack the knowledge and the ability to apply the knowledge to Identify what it is they smell. And its not like they can be told what it is, they are deaf and they cant see they are blind. Trees can't see either or hear, but cant rely on other forms of sense to experience things around them, thus trees are conscious but not intelligent. If some one was born with no sense of anything. Not Vision, Taste, Touch, Smell, Hearing. How could they possibly be conscious? They can't feel emotion either as this requires thought, and being conscious of thoughts. What could they think about if they could not physically feel. If they could not Taste or Touch or Hear. Even if they could move they would not be aware of doing so they lack the natural neurological reactions in the brain to identify these changes. So is this person conscious in the context of awake? Well Yes, but are they conscious of being awake, No are they conscious of being alive, and do they have an understanding of anything. They are Living rocks. They just exist. This is consciousness, and this is why AI in the form of Self aware and Like humans but only smarter in every way. Just is not possible.

Physics a branch of science related to the study of basic or complex laws of nature and their manifestations , related to different natural occurring phenomena. For Physics to even be what it is you must question explanations in their own right of answers, until you have a definitive proof and no questions are left. Philosophy is simply the Science of Science. It can also be considered the "fundamental science" It is the question WHY? That we have arrived at any conclusion we can't just not include philosophy from science.

I disagree, physics derived from questioning things just like this, and to just shove aside questions like these in the physics community only shows the lack of answers. If questions to unanswered problems is philosophy then what do we really understand, if every thing just creates another problem that cant be answered.

This does not explain anything, the question is why all of this happens in the first place. Why does Mass have an affect on Spacetime which causes Gravity. Newton described Gravity as Action from a distance. His Fg = m1 *m2 /r2 was later proven to be flawed even though it worked on everything, except it contradicted its self when it came down to light. This was later replaced by space time curvature by Einstein And that gravitation isn't determined by mass and position directly, but by the curvature of space, which itself is determined by the full suite of matter and energy throughout the Universe. If the Sun were to just immediately blink from existence, disappearing from the Universe, we wouldn't know for some time. Earth wouldn't Immediately fly off in a straight line; it would continue orbiting the Sun's previous location for another 8 minutes and 20 seconds. In this we can conclude its not mass that determines gravitation, but rather the curvature of space. And that is determined by the sum of all matter and energy in it. So taking away the sun, this would cause space to go from being curved to being flat, but that transformation isn't an instantaneous. Because spacetime is a fabric, that kind of instant transition would have to occur in a form of snapping motion, which would send very large ripple/ gravitation waves through out the universe propagating outward like ripples in a pond. Because this transition is slow . This mean there is another force or phenomenon at work here. Yes I agree with this it is not my intentions here to disregard and discredit this.

The fabric of space is space time you didn't really argue anything here. Its the fact that mass causes warped spacetime, and this in return causes gravity.

The existence of matter tells space how to curve, and curved space tells matter how to move. This is layman's terms to basic principle Behind Einstein's Genius thinking and is the heart of Relativity. Einstein's successfully linked for the first time, the phenomenon of gravity with that of spacetime and relativity. If mass exist anywhere in the Universe ,spacetime around it will curve. But depending on a few variables can affect how much. But if you take away the mass causing this Warped Spacetime, what causes the "Curved Fabric of Space" return to its previous state, into its unbent position?

Yes I agree.