Strange

My understanding of tensors is insufficient to comment. But I would have thought that the fact they appear in different positions in the stress-energy tensor would imply that only energy can be "aggregated" as relativistic mass. But I'm not sure. (And the concept of relativistic mass seems to have gone out of favour with some people.)

How does it show they must both exist? And how can they be the same thing? Using my definitions of "universal" and "absolute" that you appear to agree with, it is logically impossible for them to be the same thing.

They are components of the stress-energy tensor that contribute to the curvature of space time. (And writing that makes me realise I mean stress not strain. As you say, it is late.) I think there are some (extreme) contexts where the pressure component can be the dominant effect.

Ah, I forgot about the rotation. Would I be right without that? That sounds like a yes. I'll wait for tomorrow!

Energy? Momentum flow? Strain?

So, if you want to take these practical effects into account, then I guess you need to use a different (more realistic) definition of "up". I don't know, but would it be correct to assume that would be a vector from the centre of mass through the surface? Or would it be (equivalently?) the surface normal of the geoid? As it is not clear why Steve started with the definition of "up" or how it relates to his three planes, I don't know if this extra level of realism/accuracy helps or not. As far as I can tell, you are defining direction in terms of (ie. relative to) three (arbitrary?) planes. What practical consequences come from this approach? what problems does it help solve? I would be grateful if you would remove my name from this. Thank you.

Maybe not. One possible answer to the question "why does mass cause spacetime curvature?" could be: "that is the definition of mass." And as space-time is continuous and the curvature is not quantised, that suggests that there is no quanta of mass.

Although, in the case of a sphere I hope you agree that they are always up. Are these independent? In Euclidean space, yes. You haven't explained how this new coordinate system defines an "absolute up". While true, I'm not sure that level of practical detail is relevant to the more general principle. It is probably more useful to consider what "up" means on the surface of a perfect sphere of uniform density.

You have gone full crackpot: “scientists don’t know anything but I have the answer!!1!!!” You are not really cut out for science. It doesn’t have official stories or final answers.

The question didn't specify matter. But as it is electrons that give matter most of its volume and solidity, because they are fermions, I would say they are matter particles.

Why? The electron is about 1/4 the mass. And neutrinos lighter still.

Mass and volume are independent. Why would observing an object change the mass?

Volume is not mass.

I have no idea what that means. I thought the subject of the thread was your model. I did. It is really good. I can only assume you don't know what frequency means. To put it as simply as possible, time (and therefore frequency) is along the horizontal and amplitude (or signal strength) is the vertical axis. I have annotated a frame from the animation with the frequency of one of the input waves (green) and the resulting wave (red). You can see that the frequency is the same for both. The frame is near the point of maximum constructive interference so I have also highlighted the amplitudes so you can see that the amplitude of the resulting signal is twice the amplitude of the input. That is amplitude (signal strength, volume) not frequency. I can't imagine why. Unless it would have meant posting hundreds of hours of video with no explanation.

As you haven't defined your terms, I can't be sure. But I assume by "absolute up" you mean a direction that anyone, anywhere in the universe would consider to be up. This is very obviously not the same as what you call "universal up", which appears to be the concept generally known as "up". This is obviously different at every point on Earth (because the surface normal is different at every point). For example, the surface normal (i.e. "up") at the equator is at right angle to the one at the poles. Let me know if I have misunderstood the terms you are using. That will be interesting.

Probably, based on what we currently know.

Beginning: we don't if there was one. If there was, we don't know what it was. In between the universe cooled down and expanded. The end: What you see around you now. That is why we get electric shocks: because they are so angry!

You can call it "the official story" if you want. Most people would call it the best supported, and most widely accepted, theory at the moment. There is no "official" body that decides this is the right one.

There is no "official story". But we know that universe is expanding from an early hot dense state. Before that, we don't know. The universe may have existed for ever. We don't know. There is no evidence and theory we can apply to that early state of the universe.

It can be described that way. But it makes explaining interference MUCH more complicated. It is much better to stick to the model of classical waves. Or whatever your secret model is, that you refuse to explain. It is well established that waves interfere. This thread is for you to present your alternative model. The nice animation shows no change in frequency. It only shows the constructive and destructive interference that you claim doesn't exist. It also uses sine waves that you claim are not relevant to radio waves. So I am not sure how that animation supports your case. It is perfectly fair. Anyone can read the standard explanation in any school textbook. And perform simple experiments to confirm it. (There is a nice one for measuring the speed of light using a chocolate bar and a microwave oven!) On the other hand, you claim to have an alternative explanation but refuse to say what it is. Reported for soapboxing. I'm beginning to wonder if you even understand what that animation shows. Do you know the difference between amplitude and frequency? The original source of the animation is here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wave_interference That might help clear up your confusion.

THERE IS NO EVIDENCE FOR THIS. Why are you unable to accept that you are getting hung up about something for which there is no evidence.

He is talking about your radio signals, not photons. If you want to talk about photons, then I suppose you could say "Because it has one frequency it must be a sine wave". Mathematics can describe both the effects or the causes. But feel free to explain in words 1. Why radio waves are not sines, and what form they are 2. How a higher frequency is created by the addition of two radio waves Nope. Your claim, your burden of proof.

You should be able to save the file as PDF and upload that, it would be better than Word (not everyone can read Word documents). You might be able to copy and paste the text here and get he equations, I don't know. Or you could use LaTeX to write the equations here directly (which may be a useful skill later in life if you are studying science or math). Somehow I am not surprised. And good for you for being imaginative and interested in science. You might get some "tough" responses from people here, but that is the way science is: new ideas are heavily criticised. But people will be challenging the idea, not attacking you. (I will stay out of this thread as I have already responded as a Moderator...)

It doesn't. Why do you think it does? You are free to sing a song, do a mime or paint a picture. As long as you ALSO explain it here. Preferably using mathematics. You are spending more effort making excuses than providing the mathematics and evidence for your idea See the nice animation of constructive and destructive interference that you provided to debunk your own idea. I have gone through the thread and I don't see anywhere that you have explained in text or mathematics: 1. What the form of light waves is, if it is not a sine wave 2. Why light waves in this form do not interfere with one another (even though we can see them doing it). 3. Why the frequency should change when two different light sources interact. Feel free to either copy and paste the answers here or link to the post where you provided the answers.

So by "enforced" you mean the consistent behaviour described by the law exists? That is kind of obvious; if the universe did not behave consistently like that then we would not be able to formulate laws to describe it. So your "enforced" question is really: "why does the universe behave consistently?" There are several possible answers to this, already. Mainly from philosophy. For example, the anthropic principle says that if the universe did not behave consistently then matter could not exist in a form that allowed life and so we could not be here to ask the question. There are variations on this, like the concept that there could be multiple universes that have different properties - including some not behaving in a consistent ways that could be described by laws. We obviously live in one that is consistent. Then there is the suggestion that the universe could have been through multiple iterations "evolving" towards one that is more consistent in its behaviour. And that allows us to be here to ask the question. So, the question (in a sensible form) has been asked and many answers attempted. Your vague idea does not answer the question. It just pushes the question back to "why do your cells behave consistently".