jajrussel

I was just repeating what is said about mass-less particles. Parroting isn't specifying a condition, but now that I think about it if I understand your point. To say that a mass-less particle moves at C. is an oxymoron, but not of my creation. Now for the sake of consideration does a photon gain mass through acceleration? Wait! It has been pointed out and partially accepted by me that a photon does not accelerate. See Stranges initial responses.... Now is it correct to say that kinetic energy does not add mass to the photon. If the photon does gain mass in the form of kinetic energy would it be correct to say that the Photon needs to present mass at C. in order to be called a photon? Would it be correct to say that a Photon displays mass anytime it interacts with something else. I was trying to use relativity to justify for my own sake of clarity Stranges statement that Photons do not accelerate when from my perspective it appears that they do when using the full meaning of the word accelerate. As in, I don't mean to just speedup.

basically aren't you saying I would have to invent a whole new way of looking at things, since there is no way the maths can change? What I would need to do is come up with new ways of application? Okay, maybe this is not what you are saying, but it might be easier for someone like me to do. note: some of your quote seems to have disappeared. I'm assuming that the part that disappeared does not transfer well when quoted.

Doesn't this allow that the photon is not changing direction even tough we see its path as curved? Doesn't relativity allow this phenomenon to show us the shape of the space the photon exist in from our perspective which allows movement, and direction to be noted? Isn't it kind of like the ripple in a field that defines the existence of a particle? My reference says the photon is moving. Can I apply the same intellect to the observed curve as is applied to the ripple in a field and conclude that perhaps it shows the shape of the space the Photon exist in? Your very correct statement, though prompting me to much thought, does not seem to allow any movement for a photon from my perspective, so how do i define what I see from my perspective if I limit the definition to the photons perspective? Oh, after a re-read I do see that you say that the the photon is only moving relative to another object with mass. Which I assume can be me as the observer... Hmm? Okay scratch all the perplexing corners of what I thought you were saying I had to be painted into... New question, Why is "with mass" in bold? Is there anything that does not display mass? Truly, I am not trying to be argumentative. I am just trying to understand why you made this statement.

I don't remember ever knowing that. Now I'm tying to figure out why I've never heard that the source of gravity is energy momentum? I am admitting to being a senile old man. Well, at least senile, but I would think that being senile I would not realize that I am confused... but, I do? No I haven't seen this. Thanks I'll check it out....

This reminds me of a question I had a while back when watching a video. Is the particle an excitation of a field ? Or, is the excitation more like evidence of the particles existence? Then you mention the Higgs field. Was a quantum field renamed to honer Higgs, or does the existence of the Higgs boson give rise to the fact that there must then also be a Higgs field? I'm trying to understand exactly as possible what defines a field. Excluding the term gravitational field how many different fields are there? One for every particle, or does a particle need a specific characteristic before a field presents as a property of the particle? These are the kind of questions you can not ask a book, and are apparently the kind of questions the ones writing the book would never think to present and answer. I also see now, that toward the paragraph end you have fields interacting rather than particles?

I like this question It keeps sparking thought that seems to allude me the moment I start to think about it. Eventually It will hold still long enough for me to look t it.

So, the object of intent is to accelerate, not move. So accelerate = Apples, while move = Oranges? Question? A photon never changes direction? Perhaps, from a relative point of view what we observe as a curved path is a change in the shape of space which we can see by observing the photons path? I see I have two new replies, which I should read before I go any further.

Clockwise, counter clockwise in space seems to be a matter of position, so I am assuming that all things turn in the same direction in space, and that this direction is determined by the objects surroundings. An object rotates clockwise, or counter clockwise depending on my position, Therefore I'm in a sense seeing a mirror image of the forces acting on the object. Since the direction of rotation seems to be dependent on my position. I seem to need a more accurate definition of the direction of rotation. Down seems to be the best I can think of at the moment. Is there a better definition?

Doesn't it seem controversial, or t least odd to say that an object of zero mass moves at c. To then turn around and say that to move an object you have to give it mass in the form of energy? The thoughts seems backwards? Maybe it is the scale that seems backwards? Its like saying less is more, unless you want more, then you have to add more. Does moving the object give it some negative value on a scale I am not considering? Is it because an object of zero mass is completely at odds with something that has mass to the point that they are so different that my sudden late night thought is like comparing space to a light particle then saying that because space has zero mass it should move at c? Still, it seems odd?

It kinda requires a central point initially to remain simple. Two different observers measure at the same time. The only difference in measure is direction L/R, up or down. Another thread sparked the thought. I was trying to think of an event where two different people could take a measure at the same time that was of the same event where the only difference in measure is direction regardless the distance between the event being observed. One is the mirror image of the other.

I'll try to clarify. A and B are equal. Initial act results in A going left, while B goes right. It's now been clarified that the event starts for both at the same time. So, in a sense there is an exchange of information between A and B at the initial time of the act. It seems to me that the first law says that no further exchange of information is needed between A and B. Is this correct?

For every action there is an opposite and equal action. Do both occur at the same time? If we observe the effect left right, up down, etc at exactly the same time in a vacuum (meaning all directions all resistance being equal) is there any reason why our measurements should differ by anything other than direction? If there is an initial need for an exchange of information. I'm assuming there is initially. The first law seems to indicate that only the initial need for an information exchange is needed without regard to the final distance when measured. So if two people measure the effect years later at exactly the same time the only difference in their measure should be direction. So if we compare notes, it would seem to me that there are certain measures that c have no effect on. Does the first law server the need for information exchange?

I have watched a few videos and read a couple of articles and this thread? Maybe I'm missing something two particles are said to be entangled. One will always be spin up while the other is spin down. They move of a distance arbitrary. We try to measure their spin as close to the same time as is possible and find that if the one we measure is spin up the other is spin down, and vice versa. Whatam I missing? What makes it spooky? What action is actually happening? Is it that there should have been sufficient particle interactions they they shouldn't still at the time of measure have different spins? I obviously don't know enough about the subject. If spins are constantly changing they don't mention that fact in what I've read or watched. It might seem spooky if they do change, but it might also suggest more? Like a rhythm of interaction. This learning piecemeal is a little difficult because I keep getting distracted. Is there an article or video that explains why it's spooky? Right now it is like my name is Joe and my friend's name is Bob and no matter where we are whenever someone ask my name is Joe then compare data with others, yep his name it turns out is Bob. Now if we made a pact to switch names Everytime someone asked our name it might be kinda spooky if two researchers find that when one responds Joe their notes showed that at the exact same time the other responded Bob. Yep this might be spooky, or at the least extremely odd. Nothing I've read, or watched so far has suggested why something spooky is happening. The biggest mystery to me seems to be why is it spooky? Where exactly is this action at a distance?

I'm paraphrasing and trying to get it right I was reading an article on particle duality that said everything basically exist as both solid and wave. They spoke of a basketball and that the wave footprint was roughly a negative 34 power, so it is way too small to see and is pretty much why basketballs don't flow around things. They also showed a drawing and talked about the double slot experiment, and electron sizes etc. Then a thought occurred. If I think the procces sort of in reverse and imagined the basket ball as a dense medium would that wave footprint be roughly the size something would have to be to possibly pass freely through the basketball? Using the same math to get a reversed situation?

I misread this, I thought you had indicated I had gotten off point, so I got on point a little more than I should have. My eyes saw, is this, rather than, it's this. You were making a statement. I thought you were asking a question. ...

After reading this post I would I would assume that if CPR was not accessed by NICE then they are assuming that CPR is not in need of assessment because in general it will likely be tried until it becomes evident it isn't working then the patient moves into a classification where it should be denied according to guide lines. You are right.

Being American this is the first I've heard of it. After a quick read it seems a reasonable attempt to be reasonable. However, a doctor refusing treatment based simply on cost seems like an attempt to end around the QALY system. There comes a point where repeated CPR to an octogenarian becomes pointless and possibly cruel, but I would hope that without a DNR at least one or two tries would be allowed. I'll have to follow the link. I find it hard to believe that an octogenarian who was reasonably active before an event would be denied CPR based on their age.

It could also be argued that the patient paid into the system as designed by the system and is intituled to due consideration much more so than the decision to withhold treatment based on cost. The cost has already been considered, and the patient duely charged. The doctors responsibility is to the patient, and the Hippocratic Oath. Not, to the financers. The actual Healthcare providers lose money because the financers don't want to hold up their end, and note it is not the financers money. That money is placed in trust, and in truth they defy the responsibilities of that trust by refusing to make that money available to the provider. A doctor refusing treatment based on financial cost is acting unethically. The doctor should change jobs if his or her first concern isn't for the patient. If the patient wants to sign A DNR it's no longer a question of ethics, and the doctors can do what they do best without the fear of being second guessed by the state or the insurers.

I see you, are right, I did wax philosophical, about an ethics question. I'm sorry. I did drift. The need to substation life becomes an ethics question the moment the state assumes the responsibility to end life against the wishes of a patient. In the original post position the doctor acts an an agent of the state assuming the responsibility of life and death. If the cost to sustain life is considered to high by the state, then it is the state that is the Achilles heel. The original post ties the doctors decision to cost. It is unethical for the doctor to refuse treatment based on cost as an agent of the state. Therefore, it is never reasonable for a doctor to sign a DNR based on the cost to the state. The conversation did drift toward a private system. The same could be applied to a private insurance system it is generally the private insurer assuming the responsibility given to the doctor in the original post, and is still unethical.

I would hope that if they just needed to keep me alive long enough to heal, then keep me alive. If it becomes apparent that I'm not going to heal, or I'm simply dying of old age then let me die. Preferably painlessly, without convulsions, or spasm. If it's doctors making the decision, I shouldn't have to sign a do not resuscitate form. It's the in order to save money decision that is unethical whether private or national Healthcare System.

What you are asking for here has pretty much been done in Wikipedia enter "time" in Wikipedia's search box to find the article. My favorite is the operational definition. Though I also like Leibniz, and Kants view. If you want to read older threads about time on this forum you could try a search there are nearly 5000 references to the word time. Using the relevancy filter might help. There was a rather lengthy conversation quite a while back about time which was pretty much genius. If you have a theory and you really want a challenging discussion. It would probably be best to state your theory in the speculation section. Pretty much all you have done here is dangle bait. My opinion is that you might want to read a few conversations where the conversation was started with bait in order to get a feel for how the conversation will likely go. I like conversations about time and look forward to reading your theory, but as it has been pointed out it's not like this particular subject hasn't been done ad nauseam, so most might prefer for you to just say what your theory is so that they can see that you seriously want to present a theory. I know enough about time to ask questions and give an opinion so I'll pretty much just be reading, and hoping to learn. Wish you luck.

Where is the wizards hat emoji when you need it? There is something about the phrase (ad nauseum) that causes me to want to point and wiggle my finger at something that is annoying me while forcefully saying "Ad Nauseum!" Maybe I saw it in a Harry Potter movie? I don't know? But, it is hard to take the phrase seriously when I read it now that that mental picture has come to mind. But I swear if anyone I've shared a thread with starts to feel slightly sick to their stomach. It's not me... For those reading this who's imagination is not as innocent as mine... That would be my pointing finger. The one located next to my thumb...

Thank you. I tried to up vote your post in thanks, but I either don't understand how it works or it isn't working on my end. Had a similar problem yesterday. I'm almost afraid that mentioning it will result in another room change, so I will eventually search it out through the proper channels when I get tired if trying to up vote with apparent null results. Once again I thank you.

we've changed rooms? I kinda left my note in the other room. It has a little to do with this subject on it, but I understand the bookkeeping analogy, so I should be able to follow along...

I have probably spent too much time thinking what is time. Time is movement, time is change, etc. It can move into metaphysics. Generally there are enough purist who will put you back in the keep it real track for good reason. With the understanding of space time, and a few years of thought I have come to think of time as a portion of space. I could present a clock face with a ticking second hand, and point out that each second can represent one sector of a sixty sector circle in an attempt to show what I mean by saying I see time as a portion of space. I could then suggest that we take the area of each sector and use the area as a number of divisions between 0 and 1, until we get all the way around the circle. Then point out once again how each new sector is again a portion of the whole we call spacetime, but that might be way over complicating. Time is real, and is more than just the concept that I had thought it was. Philosophy, just complicates the thought, by giving us something to argue about that isn't math. I've remembered something else. The meter has been associated with time by being said to be equal to 1 over c. So, in a sense, maybe s/s, or s^2 does seem to fit nicely within the like units frame. Though maybe not by SI definition. Since in the future the value of c might change it might be better to be more specific with 1/299792458 but it would probably be better to just go ahead and redefine the meter to match the change. It's been shown that space and time as a joint venture works pretty well. I actually probably understood it at one-time, but I have gotten to the point where I have to write myself a note before moving from one room to another, or chance winding up in the other room completely at a loss. So, this is what I think time is for now. I see that Swansont has replied. It's time to go see if I messed up my explanation of the free fall equation.