Klaynos

For all forces, the exchange particles more at or below c. That in itself is enough to limit the speed of sound.

If you're prepared to ignore the laws of physics then it doesn't matter too much. In the universe in which we live the suited is limited, significantly sub c.

A completely incompressible solid has an infinite speed of sound (it's probably arguable that it's actually c but then we're ignoring some laws of physics so why not more?).

Speed of sound is the speed that a pressure wave moves in a solid. The force exerted on the rod causes a pressure wave.

! Moderator Note This is not a very helpful reply. We try and help with our responses here. It makes it nicer and more productive for us all. Please do not reply to this modnote in the thread.

Are you familiar with dimensional analysis? ! Moderator Note (Also I'm going to move this to speculations forum, please take a moment to review the special rules in this forum)

It'd probably break our understanding of the sun's fusion reactions as well.

Google scholar is good for these kinds of searches to find published data. https://scholar.google.co.uk/scholar?hl=en&as_sdt=0,5&q=measuring+the+gravitational+constant

Why have you not done your first point here to solve your second? Wikipedia walks you through how to do this for Newtonian gravity do you should have no trouble for yours. Until you've got a reasonable value for Ti and have shown some reasonable correlation with what we can measure (orbital periods is a good start) at have nothing to discuss here. Insect it's worse than that because your single attempt at solving an orbital period problem got the wrong result, we should therefore dismiss your idea with no further comment.

The thing to try and understand is that photons are not waves nor particles but something else that has some properties of both.

I get a few emails a day at the moment from these types of journals and conferences. Really really annoying.

! Moderator Note We're not a conspiracy site. And as conspiracit go chemtrail is one of the craziest. Moved to trash don't reintroduce this.

Breeding programs have had some success. Zoos for entertainments sake I'm not a big fan of.

But we can model how massive and massless particles behave and compare that to the measurements. Those two agree to very high precision. If you disagree with this you need an equally accurate model of the observations else you're just talking crap.

I've done the experiments though. I've taught the experiments to undergraduates. We've got the experimental evidence. You have nothing. No evidence just wishful thinking and misconceptions. And to add scientist are constantly trying to prove their ideas wrong that's how you find out new stuff.

No, the answer is that the universe doesn't care what you believe. What our experiments tell us is that massive particle/waves can go through double slits, your dislike doesn't change reality.

It's not worth getting upset, it's more productive putting your energies into learning. Sure I can add "in the form energy" is meaningless. It's fine seeing it like that, but that's not what our measurementmass of the universe tell us so it's not science. Still meaningless. Learn the physics. That's not what strange said. You're over looking everything we know about the universe.

Qm waves have energy, they are not energy. Energy is a property not a thing. A qm wave/particle isn't a wave or a particle but something else that exhibits properties of both. There is no good analogy for this so we are forced into calling them waves and or particles due to our limited experiences in the macro world.

They have energy, they are not "in the form energy". To be massive you need mass, photons are massless, no matter what you want to say that's what the evidence is.

Because we have very accurate models. Because a electron is a wave doesn't mean it is energy, energy is a property. It will have energy (kinetic and potential are the simplest to talk about in this context). Em waves are massless even when measured, photons are massless. You're calling a photon mass is just a bit silly.

To put it bluntly, how would you know, you don't even know what physicists know as shown by your completely lack of knowing the relativistic total energy equation above. You're doing the equivalent of starting your own motor mechanic's garage and when someone comes in to get their oil changed your painting the windows pink and saying that's what you call an oil change. The universe is under no obligation to care what occurs to an ape descended on a small blue green planet orbiting a pretty boring star. Thinking it doesn't make it true, it doesn't even make you the first or special. Both of those things have very specific, mathematical descriptions. Energy does not fall into either of them. No it doesn't. There is no mass energy change. Wishing it to be so doesn't change the observations.

You're free to make up whatever you want. But that's just the the language of science, that's not what physicists mean when they say matter of mass. If they weren't just properties then they wouldn't be mass and energy but something else as the definitions of energy and mass are well known and understood by phycisists. Your next sentence is basically meaningless. Can you detail the mathematical model for a intermixed layer to our reality? It looks like meaningless word salad.

Energy is a property not a thing. The equation implies mass is a form of energy. Mass is also a property. Saying matter instead of mass is wrong. Sorry, p is momentum.

If you're claiming I don't understand the implications of E=mc2 then we're first going to have to discuss how you don't realise that that equation is only for particles at rest and what you should be using is this: E2=(pc)2 + m2c4 Then we can move on to talk about the implications, none of which are related to wave particle duality in they way you seem to be suggesting. Although really your post lacks any really content to properly discuss.

No. I'm saying you need to learn something about the physics you're trying to discuss. At the moment you appear to be randomly clutching at straws, if you understood a bit more you would be able to have far more meaningful conversation and not make statements which are completely off base.