jajrussel

Curved space dictates the effect on assumed particles or fields that occupy space? Is it simply easier to say that Mass curves space rather than say that the present fields are curved and that observed effects are the result of interactions with those fields and present particles?

I'm not sure why you ask but I would initially say yes, but I assume you suggest plates because plates present a greater surface area set at a specific distance apart. Move the plates apart and that surface area changes. Your question confuses me. It seems to have a purpose. Not mine... Your system seems dependent on the surface area of both plates to complete a specific task. My question only required one object moving through space. The object has Mass, spacetime is curved. Just wondering does space have anything to do with why it keeps moving in a straight line unchanged absent an applied force. Is the object in a sense falling, but because space is massless there is no acceleration? Assuming space is massless, but then here, surface area might apply. The amount of space in contact with the object is negligible. Certainly not enough to accelerate should it one day be determined that space as a whole presents Mass So in a sense is the object simply following the geodesic created by its (the objects) Mass as it interacts with space. Like I said I was just thinking. I figure that if there is a law that explains what happens there should be a reason why it happens, the law doesn't make it happen. So clearly we were thinking differently about interaction. I was wondering where you were going. There should be plenty of things one can possibly do with conductive plates and energy. Increasing the distance between plates should effect the energy moving between the plates. I would imagine to what end would depend on why you design the system. If the transfer is dependent on the surface area of the plate and it's original location in conjunction with the other plate, moving the plate will effect the transfer but I would think the change won't be due to space so much as it has to do with position.( I am interested in knowing if my thinking is correct. With regard to the plates.) I'm fairly certain that my imagining the gravitation effect between an object and space being the geodesic reason why an object continues to move at speed in a straight line unchanged unless acted upon by a force, is probably just imagination gone terribly wrong, but it has been fun thinking about it. And I figure that if people expect me to accept geodesics then I might as well put them to good use. The saying is, no pain no gain. My problem is that thinking doesn't hurt.

When the radius is squared between two masses effecting the force over time? I suppose generally the understanding might be an exchange of some sort that effects both to some degree Maybe I am misreading it? Yes I wasn't paying complete attention These two sentences seemed to be contradicting until I read them again, but I'd already quoted them. Is it the math that makes them different? And note my reply to Strange. There seems to be some accounting in the math, but maybe I'm just looking at it wrong?

Sorry, I assumed any object of energy would have volume, I also assumed that kinetic energy would present as Mass. Yes at rest a photon has no Mass, but then I am not sure that at rest a photon exists. Actually I'm fairly certain that if an object of zero Mass has to move at c then it can only exists at c, and at c it must have Mass in the form of kinetic energy. I think I remember reading that contraction occurs from the direction the object is moving, and I assumed that that side would be more dense. I also assumed that space would be more dense where it meets the object.. With an increase in velocity the object becomes smaller. Does this not occur from a direction? If you were to measure the objects kinetic energy would that energy be the same throughout the object, or greater at the leading edge. With a photon you would only get one reading? And all of it would be kinetic? But with a solid object?

This is what I thought of after reading what you wrote Okay, so as space expands it loses density causing present Mass to increase in energy because compared to the now less dense space it now has a greater density and greater density means more energy, and as long as space continues to expand the energy density of present Mass/energy will increase by the same increment? Hmm? Does this violate energy conservation? Kinda not why I asked the original question, but that's okay because I haven't figured out exactly what sparked the original question. I was thinking math and accountability and what part space plays in Newton's laws if any.

Can it be said that space interacts with Mass/energy?

I realized that I was being redundant with the quotes but could not figure it how to make the above quote box go away. Below( seriouslydisabled, has a good point) actually one of the most rational objections to religion that I've read. Yet, there appears to be a conundrum. Let's again play at substation in the last two sentences below let's strike out the words God and replace them with the word humanity, or society, we can't rationaly blame a God. It's just as irrational to make up a Satan to blame. We did it. We do it. It's not pretty, but it has always been us. The picture painted is reality. As the OP I could have asked any question, but I didn't? Because I was searching for rational. Note - you could as easily substituted the word sex in a discussion of the rationality of overpopulation, but that, like murder that would be somewhat off topic. There has been offered opinion that religion is the result cognitive construction occurring in the brain that results in the belief in religion/s. I suppose the same thing could be said about natural selection. I believe it was inow who linked in the video in answer to my OP, it was a great video. As a non-believer who is interested in a rational explanation for religion it is certainly better than an irrational argument that religion isn't rational because it isn't science. One may as well be arguing that if it isn't physics it isn't science. Then do away with all discussions on those grounds. Walking isn't rational at first. Falling down is painful, yet we learn to walk How do you teach a child that if he it she wants to get out from under the oppressor, that is the kitchen table, then they need to crawl out from under the table before they stand up? Note - removing all tables from the house wasn't considered rational by anyone other than me. Religions do not make sense when you consider that they exist and the world is the way it is, but removing all tables from the house is not likely to be an acceptable analogy. Like a child protesting it ain't fair, neither the argument nor the protests ever ends. We can at least try to understand why religion exist and stop ruling out any argument that there is a possible rational reason why it does... Tell them it's hardwired into their brain and they will respond that it was God's intent. So quit telling them. Let them keep banging their heads under the table. But science should at least accept that there is a reason we act the way we do.

I will try to remember. I've been thinking it might be faulty memory. In part it probably is. In part it might be my inabiltyy to distinguish fake science from real science. I'm beginning to realize that just about everything is for sell, and that I should probably get off the band wagon until every little thing stops being trendy and ending up in my news feeds. About the photons, why not?

I'm not sure if this is the right section of the forum but what causes memory problems and at what age is it normal for problems to occur?

I watched a video today I think hosted by Sean Carroll where he spoke of a new particle model featuring supper symmetry and the intent of using higher energies when they again start up the accelerator in effort to find the new particles. I was watching YouTube on my TV and the cable app essentially manages to show videos but beyond that isn't exactly easy to use, but I think it was an RI video an shouldn't be that hard to find if a search of that channel is conducted. Which is much easier to do from tablet. I may have misunderstood but I got the impression that proving supper symmetry would go a long way toward supporting string theory. I'll see if I can find it. Okay the video was actually put out in 2013 and I don't remember any mention of any of the things he hoped for so I'm the one learning the lesson here. Sorry. It was a cool video even if out dated. Watching the last ten minutes of the video then reading the Forbes article might help ease into acceptance? Once again I'm embarrassed...

Hmm? Note - when I say Hmm? the translation from science speak to a language I understand is, Say! What? With my best Time Allen imatation... Basically, the part I didn't understand didn't translate with the quote. The part that follows pion creation: ( didn't translate with the quote )which when translated to my language is an example of, shock and awe, followed by a statement I can understand because it is easy to Google, but I imagine if I attempt to enter the what I assume is math Google will pretty much play dumb, kind of like it does wherever I ask it a question about Google, so you could give me a hint by telling me does p= pion because that is the subject, or is p going to = momentum, because that is what it usually means and I should have never left the kinematic path to venture on the quantum path?Actually, I'm so far it of my league I'm not even sure that my attempt at humor will be recognizable? Lol...I will try to figure it out, but note I tend to make assumptions. And note the last time I attempted to translate something you wrote, similar, Google did in fact play dumb, but it's all good I enjoyed the challenge until I got tired and feel asleep. Okay now I'm confused because it did translate with the quote, again I'm out of my league and actually this isn't the first time something I thought didn't quote actually did leaving me confused as to why it didn't show up until after posting. I forgot and hopefully it won't happen again, but it won't be because I understand what's being said, but because I decide to just concentrate on what I do understand. Never mentioning the parts I don't.

Kind of, in real life there are aspects of life such as my personality to which I am clueless. Online I am virtually, clueless...

I'm starting to feel a relationship of entanglement because I think of a question and by the bing, by the bang there is a video. Okay maybe it isn't always so instant, but the video I'm watching now is about fields I was asking questions about fields, not too long ago and he seems to be answering every question I had then some I didn't ask, so maybe they use SFN to come up with ideas of what they are going to talk about, and since I'm writing this while listening I'm going to have to watch it again. Sometimes, I watch a video first then, confused ask questions. Half listening I'm fairly certain that this explanations is so good that when I actually start to pay attention I might not have any questions at the end, which may actually be depressing after getting over the shock of understanding...

If my understanding of what they are saying in some of the videos I've been watching the result and hope of collision is new particles. How does that work? Is it just two particles colliding, or is it more like a multi-car pileup? They speak if creation then nearly instant annihilation. Why so quick? What supports the new particles that drops of so quickly?

With length contraction is there a change in density? If there is would that in part/maybe in whole account for the increase in mass. Then it leads to other questions like if we slow something down that is moving really fast like a particle does it get bigger?, or maybe change identities completely, because it changes energy levels,and can we expect a particle to be contracted and more dense on the side of the direction it is moving. Do photons increase in volume when passing through water? If it doesn't, any thoughts on why?

Which if I remember correctly Einstein described as steam of particles... And I cannot remember the rest of the statement, something about the color? Hmm? I'll have to look it up. Does the heat come from just particle interaction? Which in atmosphere might not sound so strange to me because there are a lot of particles to interact with but in space would sound strange to me because if particles alone act as carrier the space in between should be cold so I would expect if there is duality the wave would in part carry some of the energy, which might make for a more even distribution, or which might be a completely erroneous thought on my part, because maybe I am completely wrong in my understanding of particle, wave duality. But I'm not really sure either way, unless someone who does know tells me where my thinking is wrong or at least points me in the right direction. It is embarrassing, but usually it would never occur to me that my understanding is completely wrong, maybe partially, but not completely, unless someone tells me the whole of how I'm wrong. Embarrassing it might be, but I then gain a chance to not to continue to be wrong by looking at what I thought from a more correct perspective. Then? Who knows? I'll still might question, but maybe they'll be better questions, or I'll realize I'm so wrong that I'll go research, which actually acts as a break from thinking for me. Actually I usually go research regardless then if I'm just having trouble explaining the thought I can try using a found reference for example, provided I find what I'm looking for. Then sometimes I just realize it is time to stop, "sometimes".

Thanks, but now what about all the things I seem to be able to invision/imagine with space being pliable and subject to density due to intense gravity? Here I was trying to devise a way to divide space/nothing into really tiny energy packets that are the result of accumulative overlapping energy field peaks which acts as virtual particles, well maybe not so much space/nothing as much as space/field energy that presents as a wave, that can peak through interaction forming a virtual particle that so long as it exist can act like a particle. Hmm, the wind kind of got taken out of that sail. Maybe.... Maybe not... Now I'm wondering how heat energy is transfered across space from one object to effect another object? Does the heat transfer rely entirely on the particle? I guess I'll need to read up.... on how it works. For some reason I keep thinking that there should be some kind of grey area around the particle That interacts before the particle. Kind of like an imagined force field that interacts with other grey areas that would behave more fluid like than the particle is allow to behave. Unless of course many grey areas overlap and enough energy peaks to present as a virtual particle. I see that Swansant has posted. I would like to read it before I post this, but the last time I tried that everything disappeared, surely I could go see his post then decide to edit on the fly, but no. It feels like I've been typing forever. Id rather post it even if it is nonsense, then change my tune later if it needs a changing... thank you...

as in the shape of space changes and the photon follows the path change. Actually I prefer to think that gravity is a force acting between two objects rather than the curved space thing, but my understanding is that the shape of space is changed. Actually I can't seem to understand why space has to curve when two interacting forces seemed to work fine. Wasn't there some problem with Mercuries orbit that I can't remember? Yes, but they always have the outer edge of the universe expanding away from the observer faster than than light so effectively you can not measure the speed of light from that distant object. My understanding is that the particle itself pretty much has to hit the sensor? Which is why even with the best of sensors we can only observe but so far? What between 13.8 an 14 Billion Light Year"s https://phys.org/news/2019-04-researchers-develop-way-to-control.html It could be that I have overexaggerated what it seems to say, but initially all I read was the one liner introduction. Generally the screen itself acts as a sensor. We see lines and spaces, lines and spaces. The lines usually represent reflected light? Possibly, emitted like on the observer side of a TV screen, or a prism? But there is absolutely no way overlapping waves can peak, then reflect, refract, or be absorbed then cause a photon emission that can be observed? Note the rather long last sentence is actually a question... And I followed the link to make sure it went to the article... it did, but I had a difficult time getting back to SFN. It kept trying to reload the article page.

I was thinking about something I read about massive dark matter causing light to bend/gravitational lensing. How do we know that the wave effect is absolutely related to the particle? As in not related to space itself? Say, interacting with a particle? A space that can bend/be effected by mass etc. Appearances can be deceiving? How does light flow backwards? Apparently another trendy unbelievable scientific Discovery, but then I remembered something I read or heard about the expanding universe where with a little imagination maybe you don't actually have to create the situation then have some writer declare it a scientific Discovery? Hmm? Like the universe headed one way while a photon is headed the opposite way through a dense medium, if you can imagine a universe moving faster than light? I guess you could (still) say that nothing moves faster than light in a vacuum, assuming that space is nothing, and if I understand that what they mean by an expanding universe? If they actually mean space itself, which I believe they do because they usually emphasize the term space, and spacial expansion with hand gestures, so we know that Keppler didn't actually mean that objects at the edge weren't/aren't actually exceeding the speed limit because it is space itself that is expanding,so the speed limit isn't actually getting broken? Anyway, what did they do that determines absolutely particle duality? Or is it that we simply see two things and assume a relationship of particle duality?

Thank you for offering the video I'm going to watch it Note I looked up some examples of the term hardwired that at a glance seem to fit my original question by example of use. https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2014/04/140417191620.htm https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2018/09/180918090849.htm https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2017/02/170221101016.htm An excellent video, once again thank..

After thinking about it in not sure your objection to the term hardwired is fair, because I'm fairly certain that you know I didn't mean it in the the ways of the objection. Still, I can see why someone might not like the term when talking about human beings and the question as I originally asked it. There are primates that display characteristics that are completely different than the character of other primates that is distinct to their species. Is it something they learn from the family? If you raised some of them separately then combine them at a later date to others or their species also raised separately would those distinct characteristics emerge? If I raise from the egg ducks while also raising from the egg chickens then release them in a large enough domain with a small pool so each can avoid the other won't the ducks act like ducks while the chickens act like chickens would it be alright to refer to those characteristics as hard wired? Thousands of years is a long time for the belief of God's to just simply be passed from family to child through imitation over such a wide diverse area as Earth. Yes not everyone believes in Gods, but the diversity of nature should allow that some of us don't believe. Proclivity is still a good word, but still points to the reason why I originally asked the question, and might point better to the desire to build pyramids rather than what appears to be a distinct human character. The belief in Gods.

Your right I transsistioned without even thinking about. I meant and should have said religions. I will have to learn to talk about that time period using generalities so that no one group might take offense. I can see why my attempt at humor might have been taken the wrong way. Thank you for bringing it to my attention. Ah, I can see why the term hard wired might be considered a bad choice of words now. I had not thought of it that way.

Okay, I stopped being rational when I started ranting. I stepped outside my own goal, by allowing passion to become my motivation, which is what religionist do ..

Agreed, but what does humanity offer? I live in a place where it seems the financial needs of a few outweigh the needs of the many. Society could easily replace the need for any religion by filling the needs that some of the religions do manage to meet. But it is not economically feasible. Better to let God worry about the poor and homeless. All you have to do is look around to see how good a job he is doing. With preachers owning mansions because they claim to be worth it, and what the hell they didn't steal it, and besides they do spend it... On themselves, and that is good for the economy... While our politicians talk about what they want to do, but never do. Because politics is so fickle that only the losers expect the winner to keep their campaign promises, and what the hey until they actually win they don't ever have to worry about their own promises, because, well, they lost, so beating down the winner is so much more important than introducing bills that would help people. Sorry, inow I am not ranting at you, but I am ranting, so I will stop now.

I think the principle of faith is in the desired outcome which is generally for good. Paul is said to have written that what you know in your heart and all scripture is good for dividing the truth. His words were the rational of the day. They were accepted by thousands. It may sound irrational today, but at the time it took, and those of us who would disagree today are still outnumbered. I read about a little island nation today that used irrational reasoning to take some of the shine off of religion. If that kind of irrational reasoning keeps on what is seen as the shakles of indoctrination will fall away from within. Kingdoms rise up, kingdoms fall. History seems to work that way.