jajrussel

It is a segment with a mass value of zero... I squared c because is what the theorem required. The point being to get to a place where addition and subtraction can be used to determine a value. After the line value is determined we then need to return to the root value of each line. c is a constant; I am not sure if c^2 is a constant except in the sense of its relationship to c. Its value will always be the square of c. c is also invariant so I am accepting that regardless what the value of the horizontal or the vertical line is the type of triangle I have is always the same; A right triangle... So it can be said it is a segment of a right triangle, with a mass value of 0. The problem that I arrive at here is that the diagonal can be no greater than c, and the horizontal line which is velocity can be no greater than c, but the vertical can seemingly be infinite in value. To me this seems like a problem because I am not sure of how I can label the mass unit except to say that it is equal to 1/c. As I think about this it does not seem to be any different than accepting a relationship of c to an infinite distance. So in terms of mass there can be a view of infinite mass, but how does the unit value of 1/c relate to mass? Again, my ignorance here is limiting.

Note - The triangle is only a diagram so any line can have any value except that in this case I said the diagonal has a value of c (the speed of light). The other line values therefore follow the rules of the Theorem. I believe this is where I may have confused you; see the red text. I am sorry. In actuality all three lines follow the rules of the Theorem. My intent was to say that the root value of the diagonal is c. Making this statement would leave the other two line values open for determination. If either the horizontal or the vertical is also equal to c then the line not given a stated value will be = 0 The diagonal is always the greater value, so simple math is all that is required to calculate the unknown line value. The Pythagorean Theorem allows one to calculate the diagonal if the horizontal and vertical is known, so if the diagonal is stated, and the horizontal is stated, then Pythagorean method allows one to discover the unknown line value. You asked; If the diagonal is c then why do you calculate the diagonal again stating : This becomes c squared for the diagonal. = 89875517873681764 m/s Again I may have been confusing, for this I am sorry. When I stated the diagonal is c I should have been more clear by noting that c is the diagonals root value when using the Pythagorean method. You stated; You' re not trying to add apples and oranges, you are multiplying apples by oranges, I think physicists do that all the time. I believe that you have made this incorrect assumption because I have not made it clear to you that I am using the Pythagorean Method. There is an order of operation. There is a time to multiply, and there is a time to add, or subtract. When I was speaking of apples and oranges it was time to add, or subtract. Perhaps you should make it clear to me why knowing the value of an angle is necessary when using the Pythagorean Method for calculating a diagonal.

I have thought of something that has become somewhat of a puzzle game for me. How I got to this thought is not that important, but involved some frustration with the fact that the square root of 2 is what it is. It was somewhat disconcerting that the answer is not 1, when the thought I was following needed an answer of 1. Then I saw a triangle that represented the Pythagorean Theorem. Then something that Michel 123456 wrote in a thread some time ago came to mind; “The diagonal is the distance”. I looked the thread up to see what he was talking about, and it does seem to me that his diagram applies to the thought I was having; well somewhat. Not quite... Maybe... The thing is that if I allowed that the diagonal is the distance using a triangle it seemed to have solved my problem, but not really after I thought it through. Still, the concept seemed interesting enough and in truth at this moment I can not actually remember what the original thought was accept as I have stated. I needed an answer of 1. It no longer seems to be a game, but an obsession. I would try to use the Pythagorean Theorem to apply a view and see what I could come up with. Trying to play by the rules of the Theorem I needed values squared, and the very first application I tried turned out seeming to not need the squaring of values. This would require an addendum to the rules of the Theorem that says if the value of any line is zero then squaring is not needed. I say that the diagonal is equal to c Note - The triangle is only a diagram so any line can have any value except that in this case I said the diagonal has a value of c (the speed of light). The other line values therefore follow the rules of the Theorem. So if the diagonal is equal to c, and if the horizontal is equal to c, then the vertical ends up with a value of zero, so squaring doesn't seem to be necessary if one of the lines ends up with a value of zero. The diagonal is c the speed of light. The horizontal is velocity which is said to be c. The vertical is mass which can only be zero. This agrees with science and as a diagram seemed to be cool. Except for the fact that if I don’t allow that the triangle is only a diagram the end result would in this case become a straight line, which in itself my say something interesting. Now to plug in different numbers. The diagonal is c. The horizontal is, half c This becomes c squared for the diagonal. = 89875517873681764 m/s And ((c/2) squared) for the horizontal. = 22468879468420441 m/s The result for the vertical becomes 67406638255365099. What? Mass value? The root value of the vertical comes out to be 259627884.2023044. Again what? It seems that I may be trying to add apples and oranges. Am I trying to add apples and oranges? If the answer is yes is there a way to convert the vertical value to m/s using an equation? I do not see anything wrong with using an equation to represent a line so long as the equations value is what it is supposed to be following the Theorem. I am not nearly qualified to do this, but was thinking along the lines of inertia. An object's mass value is related to its velocity which means that its mass should be able to be stated in terms of m/s. I could be saying this wrong so I will try again. Gravitational force can be given in terms of m/s, and this reasoning seems to imply that an objects velocity should give it inertial force that might be able to be expressed in m/s. My reasoning is not always true, so I could be wrong, and if I am, this becomes a question. Is the reasoning wrong? And if it is, does it affect what I am trying to do here? Of course it would also be nice to know why? Actually, I am starting to have second thoughts about the apples and oranges thing. I am thinking that the root value of each line has to be legit, which leads me to think that in this instance the root value has to represent mass. The diagram has to express a thought, and the thought is that (0 mass equals c, so a positive mass results in a velocity of less than c). Therefore the root value of the line has to be in line with the thought, it has to be legit. This means that when the root value is squared the resulting value which may be expressed as an equation has to be legit in that the physics of the equation has to be legitimate, and the same equation has to apply in every instance. This means that if there is a need for the equation to change for different mass values, then the allowance for the change has to be written into the equation. You can not use one equation for one mass value, and then a different equation for a different mass value. Anyway, this is a puzzle game that seems to have become an obsession for me, and I am not really happy with the fact that I am not qualified to play my own game. The game does not have to be the way I have stated. The diagonal could be time, the horizontal distance, with the vertical being velocity. It may be necessary for clarity to invert the scales of any of the lines, but remember the triangle is just a diagram. The goal is to use values or equations for the diagonal, horizontal or the vertical lines that when finished follows the Theorem. I also tried to make a time dilation statement by saying the vertical line is time, the diagonal is the speed of light, and the horizontal line is a spaceship traveling at whatever velocity. This seemed pretty straight forward until I started thinking about it. Actually, this may have been the original reason I started on a thought that seems to be turning out to be insanity. I wanted to show somehow that if the speed of light was invariant then time should also be invariant. The Pythagorean Theorem didn't come into play in this thought. All I wanted was a triangle shaped diagram. It sort of, kind of worked. The faster I went the bigger the triangle became. For me time never changed. Everything stretched out. The faster I went the bigger the diagonal and the vertical lines became in proportion to my speed. Since c is invariant regardless of how fast I was moving I could not find a time dilation. Time for me was invariant. The clock kept ticking at the same pace. An observer however, would see the triangle getting bigger and bigger and use this as an excuse to play around with time. Which seems irrational to me, because my observation results with me very near to c, and time just keeps right on ticking one second at a time. Maybe if I can go c then I would see what everyone is talking about. I realize that physics says that so long as I have mass I am not going to reach c, so I seem to have a conundrum. A riddle that I can not solve no matter what spin I put on the word play. I also realize that if time is ticking steadily away for me one second at a time without regard to how fast I am going if I managed to reach c and time stops, well that is a pretty wicked time curve for me, because I have gone from a steady ticking clock to a dead stop at an instant. This would seem to mean to me that I went from going really very fast to a dead stop in and instant. To me it would be much more rational for the observer to assume that he is delusional, that his calculations are flawed, and that maybe somehow I could show it to him. Then I saw the diagram representing the Pythagorean Theorem, then remembered Michel 123456 saying the diagonal is the distance, then rationalized that time had to be the diagonal, which plays into his diagram, and that velocity and distance are subsets of time represented by the horizontal, and vertical lines. Then I realized that I personally am not that clever. I can not do it. On realizing that I can not do it I started thinking of other ways I might use the Theorem, and the original thought got lost in the quagmire. I am beginning to have a better understanding of physics, but I really am not that clever. It has become an obsessive game for me. It seems to me that the Pythagorean Theorem should be the perfect vessel for presenting the thought, but I can not seem to get past just figuring out the rules. It may be something simple. It may end up being as complex as using more triangles to represent each line of the triangle, and more triangles representing each line of those triangles. With each following the rules of the Theorem. It may be impossible to do, but I suspect it is just simply too difficult for me to reason through and that someone in the forum if they become interested enough can do it, and likely without all the extra triangles. I apologize for this being somewhat wordy. I started out just trying to present a puzzle. Then I started remembering, and the more I wrote the more I remembered. I could try to make the whole presentation more concise, but I am afraid that if I do I will become frustrated, and too caught up in showing my own ignorance, then click select all, and hit the delete button.

Still, the equation seems to suggest that a specific energy value is equal to a specific mass value. If this is what it suggest then anything that has a energy value would seem to need to have a mass value. Is this not what it is saying?

It does seem to be an energy equation, but more of a energy/mass equation, or more seemingly precise a conversion equation. It is still puzzling. I understand the concept mass to energy and energy to mass, and that light is the visible form of electromagnetic energy, and that lights velocity is c. But why c in the equation? How do you convert something that has a mass value of zero into some that has mass, or reverse the question, how do you convert something that has mass into something that has no mass, and still have conservation?

Would spectroscopy defy the illusion or support it?

I was thinking that reasons photons or other particles would be attracted to other masses would be gravitational or because they are simply in the way. Thermally a photon should be very hot compared to most things, but having an effective mass of zero it is moving very fast and anything that would attract it would have to effect a change in the photons direction or be in the path of the photon. A thermal difference is not likely to do this. I would think that particles that are moving much slower would still have a better chance of being attracted gravitationally, or because of a difference in charge, or again the cooler mass might just be in its path. Again the particles original direction would have to be overcome, and space is a lot cooler, but again a thermal difference is not likely to do this. This whole thought is speculation; my goal here is to think of ways to make the thought work. To ask why there seem to be certain anomalies, and how can they be explained? So, what I am wondering is; If space can be manipulated by gravity, if gravity is a curvature of space and not necessarily an attractive force then perhaps there are other means to manipulate space, perhaps thermally. Just maybe, a thermal difference can cause a ripple in gravitationally curved space at points where the gravitational curve might be weaker than the thermal curve. With the change in curvature causing acceleration. When you consider the distribution of matter in a galaxy the acceleration would not necessarily be outward along the axis. The distance up or down is a lot shorter. The thermal difference up or down would be greater. In those directions gravity would be weaker. How to explain this better? It doesn't necessarily overcome the gravitational curve that exist between the object and the galaxy center. It just changes the curvature of space in the direction the object is moving enough to cause acceleration. If that direction is ever so slightly outward it would move outward, but the distribution of matter in a galaxy is such that at times there are occasions where it would move inward, but from a distance we would probably only notice that it is moving faster than it should be. I also wonder; what if the thought was applied to the Big Bang / Sudden Expansion? What would the thermal curve look like at the beginning? What would happen if we took a gallon of core plasma from the sun and suddenly dropped it in the deepest coldest region of space? Would it simply just freeze solid, or would it explode? I'm guessing that the temperature difference would rip it apart in a big hurry. There wouldn't be enough gravity to hold it together. The guess is definitely an uneducated one. Is the whole thought a bit far fetched? Maybe? Okay, probably; so now I would like to know why dark matter does not make heat?

Question 1: If the universe is expanding at an accelerating rate wouldn't that mean that times is changing at the same rate of acceleration? Question 2: How do we know that universal expansion isn't a thermal event? I am assuming here that unless something acts to interfere something hot should move toward something cold. I am also assuming that the greater the difference, the greater the acceleration. That though gravity or some other force insists that an object move in one direction, thermal difference may effect to change that direction, and might actually contribute to an increase in acceleration. If you apply this thought to a solar system an increase in acceleration of the outer planets might not be that noticeable in part due to the age and distribution of the system. If you apply this thought to a galaxy, in a sense layer a thermal field over a gravitational field. Things further from the center of the galaxy might just be moving faster than they should be moving due to gravity alone. Think of it like a big storm suspended in space. With the storm as a whole moving on a thermal current layered within a gravitational field that becomes less influential the further things move apart. The less influence gravity has on the system the greater the thermal influence has. Things speed up because nothing is acting to slow things down. So long as the galaxy remained hot it would continue to move and accelerate toward the cold. Considering that the system is suspended in space all thermal equilibrium would do would be to stop the acceleration, there would be no reason for it to slow down. Just a thought.... And a question. I had another thought; should a galaxy ever reach thermal equilibrium it still has gravity so what is coming behind it should act to slow it down, and it should act to speed up what is coming up behind it, but I can not see it stopping or reversing direction.

So, if something at rest has a total energy of mc^2; then i need to ask... What does it mean to be at rest? Wouldn't something being at rest be at rest, as in it's relation to being part of a system, and wouldn't it's total energy be effected by its interaction with parts of the system that cause it to be viewed as, at rest? And wouldn't the size of the system it is interacting with contribute to its total energy? I thought that c implied a vacuum therefore no interaction? If there is no interaction how can it be viewed as at rest? I confess, I was thinking that mc^2 had to do with momentum.

I have question; What exactly does E=MC^2 mean? I thought I had a basic understanding, but the more I learn, well questions just seem to appear out of nowhere. It seems to be nothing more than the formula for momentum, where energy takes the place for momentum. Then there is the understanding that nothing with mass can move at C which would make E an imaginary value. The squaring of C implies that there should be a reason for squaring. So it seems we should have (M+M)C^2 with the result still being an imaginary value. And one more question; if anything with a mass of zero has to move at C, it would seem to make sense that anything with a mass greater than zero would have to move also. This is not exactly worded like a question, but it is a question.

Work is measured in changes: A change of position A change of time A change of temperature A change of energy I have likely forgotten a few. There is a relationship that exists among all of them to include the ones that my, blank for the moment; mind refuses to let me see, maybe for good reason. I tend to have difficulty seeing them as separate entities due to their relationships. It is difficult to even frame the questions that come to mind, pretty much for the same reasons. I have problems accepting that something of substance, but with zero mass should move; and not only move, but to move at the speed of light in continues display of energy that it shouldn’t seem to have, and yes it could simply be my inability to understand what is at work here, but I can’t get past the thought that if something has zero mass, any display of energy can not be attributed to it, specifically. I can accept that it can move if it has substance. I can accept that it can have substance without mass; though this is a little harder to accept, and I am not sure that I should. How do you move something that seemingly doesn’t have the energy to move on its own? If it exists, and it does seem to exist, you push it, pull it, or carry it. One of the thoughts that I am having is really a question of what if. What if the speed of light or C is more directly related to what is pushing, pulling, or carrying the particle? If this could be the case; then as a massless particle it would not have a direct gravitational connection to something that has mass, but the energy pushing, pulling, or carrying it would. If there is an interaction between the massless particle and the carrier; as in having substance the particle can be carried, then particle will go were it is carried. At this point I chose to use the word carried, because I was getting tired of typing push, pulled, or carried, and feel that carried is the more reasonable word. In following the thought; there is an interaction between the particle and the carrier that I can not explain except by saying that because the particle has substance it can interact. The interaction would appear to be in the form of drag, but to say that this is the case would seem to say that C is the result of work being done, which would seem to imply that that as a speed limit, the speed limit need only apply to a particle that has a value equal to zero mass. If something of substance could have a mass value less than zero it could go faster, but I can’t see how except by saying that by presenting less drag it is easier to carry, which would not be imposable if the carrier moves faster than C, which it would seem to have to do if the speed of light is the result of work being done. At this point, it may be time to simply let the thought die, but I want to explore it a little further. Most of the thought is based on things I have read about. I am simply tweaking the mechanics a little bit, well maybe more than a little bit. I tend to think in packets, as in I tend to have difficulty following a straight path in a thought. So, at this point I would like to interject another thought somewhat related, that I had earlier. Tachyons Shooting from the hip – If something is moving faster than light why would we expect to see it at all? It’s interaction with light would seemingly only be observable if the interaction were contained to a certain space long enough for an observable reflection. I don’t necessarily mean as I would physically observe myself in mirror, because there are other means of observation, but the principles would be similar. I don’t see all that reflects in a mirror; I only see what I can see. If we use a scale that allows negative mass it would seem that we would have to overlay the scale with descriptive that tells us what we should expect to find depending on where we end up on the scale. It would seem the problem may be that we are making our scale similar to a mirror, but is a mirror always a mirror? We expect only what is reflected to have real value, but if something is passing through the mirror, then we are in effect applying the mirror as a filter; saying that filter has a value of zero. It would seem, that if we insist that 0 mass = C, and we insist that all ideas about matter be based on 0 mass = C, then no thought of anything moving faster than C should ever make any sense anywhere, but in our imaginations. However: If C were simply a positive number on a scale that does not contain negative numbers, or even a zero, it would seem that we might open up a part of the universe that we refuse to acknowledge as real, but for this reason or that reason have to acknowledge as real in order to make the math work, and it might be worth the effort for someone to explore the thought. I may be oversimplifying here, but just keep moving the 0 to the left while leaving C where it is. I’m just thinking here… What is better, our reality or our imagination? Our imagination can become real; it has often enough, but all this, at one time imaginary, stuff around me is real. Not a single piece of any of it is made out of something that is not real, but this is just a point of view. As a matter of observation, I could say that because of the physical structure of what the things are made of, that most of what surrounds me is made up of that which is real and that which is not real, giving value to that which is matter and to that which is space. If it is absolutely true that something of zero mass has to move at C, and if we assume that everything real falls on a scale of 0 mass or greater, then nothing is passing through the mirror; all the answers are in the reflection, and I don’t see how that we can allow for a tachyon to exist, but saying that the tachyon can not exist seems a little too much like playing at God.

I owe apologies; I am sorry.

It occurred to me too late to make the correction that the photons mass is not relevant, its direction is being dictated by the field that it is passing through. It is not empty bent space that dictates the photons direction; work is being done. There is force acting on the photon and field forces that effect its direction; presumably in a way that does not add mass to the photon. The amount of work can be measured by comparing the curve to a straight line. If there is drag in the form of mass if will show up in the curve. The curved transit will take just that much longer than it should, and the effect will be as if an object of 0 mass is displaying mass through interaction, or maybe it could be interpreted as time warping. If anything that I have written up to this point does not sound insane, it probably does now. I don’t want to get off of the original subject of the thread, but I am having another seemingly insane thought that seems to fit within the subject; slightly. It would start with the question of why an object of 0 mass would display any energy at all. It would seem that one of the multipliers is missing. It would seem to have to gain, or display energy through interaction, or we would seem to be have to say, not just that 0 mass equals C, but that it also equals infinite distance. Which might be exactly what they do say...

Space Is there any given area of space that is not occupied? I have tried to think of space as if it may not be occupied, but I ran into problems with the thought. I imagine a given area of space were a portion the space is occupied by a photon. I then ask what portion of the given area of space could the photon be were its inverse square relation to another object not apply to the photon? The fact that I can not find any portion of the given area where the photon is not affected by gravity doesn’t necessarily mean that more than one object can occupy the same area of space; what it does seem to imply is that space seems to insist on being occupied; if not by the photon, then by the gravity field, and perhaps a lot of other things we suspect, but can not identify. The notion behind space/time doesn’t seem such a hard thought to accept, at least for me, if I assume that that space is always occupied by something physical even if I can not identify the physics of the occupier, because something physical can bend and warp as a system. Exactly why this should effect time is a question that one might be able to rationally answer. Uses of time are based on mechanics. The mechanics of a system would change as the system changes, so the mechanics of the system used to track time would be affected if the system that it is a part of changes. The mechanism would speed up or slow down, and one could rationally compare the change as on observer. At point A the clock tracks time at a specific rate, while at point B another similar clock tracks time at another specific rate. It is a matter of mechanics. Why one would expect both clocks to keep time at the same rate, if the mechanics of the system it is a part of changes; Well, that should be the question. A logical conclusion would be that space is always occupied; being occupied, the occupier can bend and warp, and that this bending or warping should affect any mechanism used for tracking time.

Copied from ajb @ SFN (A massless particle must travel at the speed of light. Giving a particle mass acts a bit like a "drag force" slowing the particle down to a speed strictly less than the speed of light.) I hadn’t thought this way. What happens if there is something that moves faster than the speed of light? If 0 mass = C what happens to the scale? I have to admit that my mind is clouding up here a bit. Thoughts and questions keep pushing to the front. If a 0 mass particle has to move at C then it would seem that this Higgs particle would have to move at C or have mass. If we consider that any matter particle displays a field we could assume that as the Higgs particle passes through the field it slows down in passing and the display of the matter particle having mass occurs, but the thought that the Higgs particle is moving through a matter particle field is awkward, because if the matter particle field is the result of its mass. Well, it seems awkward… If we consider that the matter particle alone, receives drag, hmm how to say it? Well it would seem that the amount of drag is its mass, because if not for the interaction with the Higgs field the mass particle would display 0 mass and have to travel at C, or we consider the possibility that the matter particle has a root specific minimum mass, not allowing it to travel at C and that the Higgs field adds a specific amount of mass to this minimum, the amount added being due to the matter particulate. With this consideration accelerating the matter particle would add mass; but even if the Higgs field were the sole reason for the amount of displayed mass accelerating the matter particle should add mass because the initial mass displayed by the Higgs field’s effect on the matter particle exist as drag, and by accelerating we are in a sense squaring that drag. There seems little fun in going with the; adds to existing mass thought. My understanding would be that if a matter particle has a root mass value without the Higgs field then the matter particle can never be accelerated beyond anything but less than C; but, if the mass displayed is the direct result of the Higgs field, then consider; turn the Higgs field off and everything without regard to what it is moves a C. Thank you for your input ajb. At this point I am kind of shooting from the Hip, and I am sure that it shows. I will research the Higgs-Kibble mechanism. I am sure that understanding its point will be a great help in my thinking once the dust of understanding settles

The Higgs Particle One of the first things I thought when I heard of the Higgs particle was; why call it the God particle? With out actually looking for the answer there it was in a Wiki article. Being somewhat religious the name God particle tended to tweak my sensibilities. Upon finding out that the name came from the censorship of a very much somewhat irreverent term from an article, about the particle, well lets just say that my sensibilities’ also have a humorous side. Still, I prefer the name Higgs particle. I spend most of my time doing things I would prefer not to have to do. I would prefer to spend most of my time thinking about things that interest me, but people seem to think that my time is better spent not thinking at all. My sanity means nothing to them, so I seek some kind of balance on my own, and the result is that I am always late for a party that I haven’t actually haven’t been invited to, and usually find that by the time I join the conversation what seems to be the subject is not actually the subject, and the fact that I totally lack in charisma or charm does not make up for my ignorance. For this reason I tend to prefer non-technical explanations of the sciences to start with. My mind tends to fill in the technical blanks, not always rightly so. It is just the way my mind works. I don’t need to actually know why an apple falls to know that under the right conditions an apple will fall. Change the conditions and the apple does not fall, but the why is always so intriguing; and more often than not, complicated. The first thing I remember hearing about the Higgs particle; it was being called a Higgs boson, said to be a particulate of a Higgs field which was said to permeate the entire universe, interacting with matter to give it mass. The intriguing part was that the interaction was related to the matter particulate. The said amount of interaction depended on what it (the Higgs particle) was interacting with. My mind was off to the races… Well before I had a chance to absorb the rest of what they were saying. It seemed like another Aether theory, and I tend to like Aether theories, though I have to admit that like them or not I often tend to loose sight of where they are going on technicalities. Upon hearing of this Higgs field the thoughts that came to mind were somewhat simple, seemingly, amazingly simple. I also, tend to like simple thoughts though they have a habit of twisting in on themselves, becoming somewhat difficult to unravel when one thinks about them too long. I also tend to get bored easily, even with my own thoughts so, I wanted to know more about what they were saying about the Higgs particle, and they started to ruin the thought talking about drag, sticky glue, and the possibility of the Higgs Boson becoming something else. Why? What was wrong with the thought that the only effect that a Higgs particle has on a matter particulate is that the matter particulate displays mass? The amount of mass dependent on what the matter particulate actually is. I can see saying that the effect tends to display drag. The more massive a particle the harder it is going to be to move, but what does this have to do with the Higgs field. A singularity is certainly massive, yet black holes move rather easily through space. I am sure they experience drag, but is the drag directly related to the Higgs field, wouldn’t it be more directly related to gravity? This clumping thought of Higgs particles sticking to matter, slowing it down; how would this result in an increase of mass? I would think that you might want to speed it up, increase the interaction with Higgs particles to gain more mass, but we already have kinetic reasoning for that increase in mass. Now, as to the question of a Higgs particle turning into something else, why? Why is it, that when we are looking for something so remotely different from matter we expect it to have matter properties? It would seem that all we would need is for the Higgs field to exist as an interacting medium. I thing is what it is because it exist in this medium. The relationship of how the thing reacts to another thing depends on what the other thing is within the same medium. Certainly the thing would display certain properties due to its interaction to its medium, but then it becomes a matter of how these things react to each other. The field its self may only allow for what they are. How they react to each other is more a matter of what they are. We try to figure out how things work by smashing them together. This tends to limit our field of view, but smashing them together is the only way we can figure out how to get them apart. Enormous amounts of energy spent to smash very small things into even smaller things. Okay, now how do we get these even smaller things to come apart? It would seem that we have reached a point of continued smashing and continued speculation. It is only when you define specifically what you are looking for that you can say with any certainty that something does or does not exist. In the meantime you can continue smashing and continue to examine the results in amazed wonder. I certainly feel that a field exists. That accelerating a particle certainly gives it more mass, but the potential energy was and has always been there. It is not something that accumulates along the ride. That it has always been there is the intriguing part. Where did it come from? This is what I thought they were talking about when I first heard of the Higgs boson and the part it played in the Higgs field. Now I am not so sure. Maybe they are looking for a God particle, and what makes them thing that as they accelerate a matter particle that the Higgs particle is along for the ride? It would seem that existing as a field; it would be what the matter particle is being accelerated through. Being that the acceleration of the matter particles was allowed I would not expect the field to put up much resistance when the particles collide. The only interaction that I would be looking for would between the two particles. That that result would be a direct correlation to each particle mass would be why certain results would be expected, and why certain results would not be expected. If we see something we don’t expect we ask why? It would seem to me that what they want to know at CERN is if the Higgs field exist can we force it’s particulates to react to a high energy field. Can we actually grasp the universe and rip it apart?

Time There is a lot thought given to Time. Sometimes the expression, the Theory of Time, is used as if there is a given theory that is accepted, and that when one talks about time the understanding of the one being talked to should be a given; Which rarely occurs. Even when there are basic acceptances of what time is the words used to express a thought about time are so easy to disagree with. Sometimes the thought gets buried in clarification. All we remember of the thought is the disagreements. This makes talking about time, and some thoughts tightly tied to time very difficult. The result being that a lot of thinking about just how to express an idea is given to the idea. Then after figuring out exactly how we want to express ourselves we find that the expression disagrees, or sheds a new light on another aspect generally given to be accepted about the thought. Time seems to flow, so it is easy to say that time flows; only to have someone else disagree, and maybe rightly so. Is time flowing or is the universe flowing? When we give something a time value; is the value related to time or is the time values relationship to the object? Remove the object from the thought and what happens to the time value? It seems to me that there has to be a correlation, so that when we say that time flows it is a given that the meaning is; something is moving. Synchronization is a human thought, but it is a thought that comes from observation. In my thought on information lag we could easily substitute a medium that takes a photon exactly one second to pass through for each point on the line. It doesn’t matter what the medium is, or what its dimensions are so long as it takes exactly one second for the photon to pass through the medium. Now, regardless where the photon is on the line it is in sync. Time isn’t doing anything strange or weird, nor is the universe. The mechanics can always be explained, and generally in a straight forward way. If we are lacking the lack is in our understanding of the mechanics. We may have difficulty describing an observations relation to time, but we can probably be pretty certain that the observation is in sync with the universe.

Information lags. The current thought of information lag as I understand it is that information can only travel so fast. This means that if I had a second hand on a watch that was one light second long; labeled the center point A, and the outer end point B, what would happen is that as each second ticked by for point A, point B would always be one second behind. The second hand would be slightly curved. Reason then dictates that regardless how long or short the second hand is, the same slight curve will always be there. This has given me a thought on how to express time as a wave oscillation; though I have to admit that I am not sure that wave oscillation is the correct term. It is just that the term wave oscillation is what came to mind as I was having the thought. The thought involves three or more points on a plain, or three or more points on a straight line; depending on how you want to view the thought. The straight line might be easier. The points are labeled A, B, C, and so on. Each point is exactly one light second distant. At the word go, A starts its engine and sends a signal to B to start its engine. The process of starting the engine and sending the signal takes one second; the signal takes another second to reach B who repeats the process sending the signal to C, and so on. The process of starting the engine and sending the signal goes below the line, and is presented to be information lag through a congested medium. The signal itself goes above the line and is presented to be information lag through a vacuum medium. Remember the slight curve in the second hand at this point… In values of time each point on the line is exactly the same as the distance between each point. If I expressed the thought correctly the wave becomes clear, and brings to mind more thoughts dealing with space and time.

The goal is to make sense of chaos. There is always something in a statement that does not make sense when you think about the statement. The more I think about it the less sense it makes, then the more I think about it the more sense it makes. We talk about the vast vacuum of space. The word vast implies distance. Then we think about the molecular structure of a piece of wood, and define vast distances between the atoms that make the piece of wood. Yes, I can go smaller than the atom. I can think about it some more; and I probably will but do I need to? I have already thought of another question, or is it really a question? It is hard to tell sometimes. Everything is made up of matter? Yes or no? If the answer is yes, then can I say that vacuum does not exist? It seems to make more sense to say that everything is made up of matter and vacuum. It does not make sense to say that stars form in a vacuum because by saying vacuum I am indicating that no matter is present. The second sentence is wrong because the presence of vacuum is necessary. There has to be a ratio of matter to vacuum per unit volume. Too much matter and we have a portion of a black hole rather than a star. Too much vacuum, then there is not enough matter to form a star. Trying to examine the volume sample without considering the part it plays within a system is senseless because the system that it is a part of influences how it behaves as a sample. I do think that I was wrong in saying that space is a property of both vacuum and matter. The inverse of the thought would be more in line with current thoughts. Vacuum and matter are properties of Space. Trying to think of space as a property of vacuum and matter tends to lend credence to the thought that time might act differently to one or the other independently. One might calculate variations in time between two volumes of space, but the change from one volume to another is a smooth flow. There are no gaps. Both volumes are a part of the same universe. You can’t get there from here without moving through some portion of the system; that is the universe. Some might not be inclined to agree. I think I understand the thoughts of multiple universes, but if they exist there are still transitions and there is no reason to think that if I moved from one universe to another that I would notice any difference in the flow of time. An observer might start chatting me up about the amazing time variations I just went through, but I would probably just scratch my head and wonder what the observer was talking about. For that matter, you might be scratching your head now. In truth I am thinking about the universe, and not just how stars form. I am trying to make the thoughts clear, and am trying to make sense of the thoughts. I think that it is too easy to forget that what we are thinking sometimes doesn’t make sense, because we are too focused on our intent. We are not looking to understand. We are looking to prove, and in doing so limit our ability to reason. Yes, I do tend to go here all too often, only to find that I haven’t got a clue. The universe is chaos. I shouldn’t wonder that there are things I don’t understand. The truth is I am glad. What would I do if I didn’t need to think? Every thought would make sense, so then what would I do? Probably I would ask myself why…

Thank You. It does read much easier. I have had another thought. With the newer talk of dark energy, and dark matter. If dark matter exist as particles could anti-dark matter particles exist, and if so would anti-dark matter / dark matter annihilation account for a spreading universe? Okay, I googled it, so maybe not...

One could look at the universe and say that stars form in a vacuum. One could think about the universe and say that is completely impossible for stars to form in a vacuum. After thinking about it I am becoming certain that both statements are wrong. Thinking about science is still a new thing for me; the trying to make sense of it all. I was having trouble figuring out what space is. I seemed to have some sort of grasp on the thought, but the problem there was that I was thinking of the universe as being made of matter and space. The problem with the thought is that matter occupies space, and another part of the problem was that I was viewing space and vacuum as if they were one in the same. It would be better for me to say that the universe is made up of vacuum and matter and that space is a property of each. Now I can say that stars form in space, and that they are made up of vacuum and matter. We tend to see gravity as needing space for the numbers to work. The problem here is that we have two distant objects, yet we could place a third object between the two distant objects and the gravity keeps on working even though our space between the two is occupied by matter. If I think of space as being a property of vacuum and matter then gravity is going to work in either condition. The thought is going toward the universe having just two primary ingredients. One would be matter; the other would be vacuum. Now I can have a sample volume of space occupied by vacuum and matter. How that space behaves depends on the ratio of matter to vacuum within the given volume, and the space that surrounds it, which is also made up of matter and vacuum from which we could take other equal sample volumes and find various ratios of matter to vacuum within each sample. One sample might be a black hole, another might be a star, another might be a planet, and another might be a seemingly unoccupied volume. Then one should expect matter to behave differently to some degree within each volume. The fact that I used massive objects to define the samples would incline one to assume that the samples have to be large, but they do not, they could have a diameter of one centimeter, or they could be incredibly smaller. What they would have to do is remain where they are to some degree assuming that each is moving to begin with. If I could move an incredibly small sample from a black hole to seemingly unoccupied space the result might be catastrophic for me considering that I was handling a very large amount of matter no longer constrained by the confines that made it a part of a black hole namely gravity. (Some may have problems with this thought, but I am talking about a part of a black hole and not the whole. Anyway it is the sample that matters.) In a sense I am talking about densities. Each volume would have a different density, or ratio of matter to vacuum. The result being that we should expect matter to behave very differently within each volume. I am not done with the thought here, but I do have to stop for a while… I hope to some degree I am making sense.

My thinking tends to get very fuzzy very fast. Some of it has to do with a lack of understanding; well most of it has to do with a lack of understanding. Really, I am trying to work on that. The concept of a photon having zero rest mass is difficult to understand. What is happening when it goes from rest to c? Does it have mass at c? If it has mass at c can I assume that between zero and c it also has mass; and if it does how can it be said that anything that has mass can not be accelerated to c? Do they mean that at its starting point its rest mass has to be zero and that at any point beyond its starting point mass is acceptable and said mass can be accelerated to c because its rest mass was zero?

I remember reading one time, and I can not cite it, because I can not remember where or when I read it, but the line of reasoning was that quantum physics was a continuum of classical physics. The reasoning being that some things were difficult to accept in the classical view therefore a quantum view was necessary, but the end reasoning was that quantum physics would fall apart if classical physics were not maintained as the foundation. I remember thinking that writer was likely a purist grudgingly admitting as humbly as possible the need for fuzzy thinking. I tend to see the uncertainty principle as a mechanical problem. You can’t see something in its natural state if every time you shine a light on it you disturb its natural state. Assumption becomes necessary. To be used only when needed. If Fg works, or there is a mechanical reason why it doesn’t work you stick to classical thought. Quantum physics should only explain how the fuzzy part fits into the classical part, and not attempt to explain the whole.

I am trying to organize my thoughts on what you have written and to include what others have written and sometimes it is difficult, because I am not always exactly sure of the meanings of what I have read. It seems to me that if something is following a curved path then there is a constant change of direction. Free fall would have to exist in its purist sense before the path would be straight. The concept of curved space surrounding two body masses does not seem to allow a straight path to initially exist, but in its purist sense a straight path would be created between two body masses as the opposing curves cancelled each other out. In a single body of mass space seems to curve inward toward the center of mass. Without mass, space would then in the purist sense be flat, so any resulting curvature of space is the effect of present mass. Some seem to want to associate gravity to the curve, the greater the curve the greater the accelerated-momentum. Yet, remove the mass and there is no curve, so it seems to me that by attributing accelerated-momentum to curved space they are in a sense saying that space prefers to be flat, and that accelerated-momentum is the result of space trying to be flat. It also seems to me that the final result of an evaporating black hole would be flat space. So, maybe they are right. Only one single piece of matter regardless it size would result in curved space. Gravity would exist. The curved space is the sign of its existence. I had thought that two pieces of matter would be needed for gravity to exist. The two pieces of matter thought doesn’t seem to make much sense anymore, but at the time I wasn’t looking at curved space as proof that gravity existed, I was looking at Fg. So is gravity, curved space trying to be flat? I probably shouldn’t add this final thought, since the question already seems a bit foolish; but I can’t seem to stop thinking. It would seem to me that if gravity were space trying to be flat; then space would expand at a rate equal to its effort.

What is time? The most precise non-philosophic answer might be any instance of position. An instance is equal to 1, not 1+, not 1-; plus or minus indicates another instance of position. There doesn’t seem to be a need to define it further. What we pretty much do is state what constitutes a change of position then confuse the statement of position change with time. Quantum thought might conclude that any unit system of position change is actually a packet of time; given stated dimension. Subsequently it could be infinitely divided, or expanded; given new dimension. When we compare point A to point B we are comparing one instance of position to another instance of position. The comparison can be thought of as a singular definition, but it can always be broken down into packets of dimension; to be defined by the observer. So, any observation is dimensional, meaning at minimum 1+, or 1-, and this doesn’t fit my definition. So we are not observing time; but rather packets of time that have been given stated dimension.