Tom Vose

Good question, this deserves 70 points The thermodynamic arrow refers to the very low entropy that would have needed to have existed at t=0 (or during the very first chronon of existence.) The thermodynamic arrow is referred as an explanation to why certin objects in the universe appear to work in a certain directionality, which is forward. The psychological arrow is linked to this, because we percieve a similar directionality when concerning the physical changes we seem to make sense of in a subliminal manner, however, without the psychological arrow, we must be left with a entropic arrow that has no directionality under relativity.

Hello Mooey, if you point out the parts you want references to, i will [math]try[/math] to find some, but i cannot promise anything. Good luck on your studies however.

In case people here do not know what null physics concerning the photon, it means, the following. The photon does have a non-zero 4 momentum [math]P^{\mu}[/math] and a certain non-zero 3 momentum [math]P^{i}[/math]. So the photon accordining to the special laws of relativity, moves along a null trajectory (so it experiences a zero path through time, which according yet again to relativity, has no movement through space itself.) So but in the quantum bible, of the energy [math]E[/math] and the 3-momentum this is [math]P^{\mu}P_{\mu}=0[/math], so the respective modulus of 3 momentum is [math]E^2+P^2=0[/math].

Forget two of the laws, and concentrate on the physical law of [math]F=Ma[/math]. The ability of moving object, like the earth to a stone, requires that force and acceleration are directly inverse, for a mass to move. A simple manipulation of [math]a=\frac{F}{M}[/math], shows us that the acceleration of an object, the ability to have a change in speed, is found with the force over the mass. From a relativistic picture, energy is in fact more fundamental than the matter that is under a force of movement. In fact, because [math]M[/math] normally does not remain constant, because accepting relativistic speeds, we need to differentiate the equation [math]F=Ma[/math]. But fundamentally speaking, a system to move, requires the energy content of the system, and THIS TIME, not to cause confusion, the energy spoke of here is the relativistic energy, rather than applying to our concepts rest energy.

You called me an idiot, ''darling.'' That is derogatory, and downright unpleasent. If you are not warned for it, then there is biasm here.

No it hasn't been answered, because i haven't answered it. I plan to work as an astrophysicist, so i have some very useful things to say. Which i will in a minute. There is no edge to the universe, according to a relative point of view. Ancient Roman philosopher Lucretius pointed out over 2000 years ago, that there was a paradox concerning the boundary, or edge of the universe. He states, that for there to be an edge, it would mean that the universe had something beyond it to show it was the edge. However, Albert Einstein, one of the greatest physicists that had ever lived, showed that everything that 'counts' must be contained within the expansion of space and time - thus - the edge of the universe is the boundary between nothing and everything; and it also suggests that nothing quite literally is 'nothing,' so there is no edge, and no true boundary between two things. If universe is also expanding now at an infinite rate, the ability to go find some kind of boundary is now reverted impossible, because you would have to travel an infinite amount of distance, which seems to be impossible according to laws of relativity. Our universe floats about in a conceptually-impossible void of nothing, impossible in the sense you cannot describe it in any sense which is like having no apples, to some. This nothingness is by definition, something that should not be considered at all. You can say, that if you where a tachyon travelling a little faster than the superluminal speed the universe is now receeding the distant galaxies, you will eventually reach a part of spacetime which is so heavily curved, you will come back on yourself. You will always remain in spacetime, because there is nothing according to physics which exists, other than everything contained within spacetime. Therefore, clearly said, there is no edge to the universe.

Reaper How dare you call me an idiot. I am reporting you for this. I am a real scientist -- i have dedicated many years on the study of physics, so this kind of attitude is not welcome. In fact, you do realize, that there are many scientists in the field who often disagree with each other, and most don't understand what each other are saying due to each others differential abilities to see physics from different light. Moreover, physics is not a straight cut theory, so this is another reason for many ''undefined'' subjects of conversations, so i would appreciate an apology.

There is quite a few things wrong in this post, but lets tackle one for now. The one i speak of is that time is not something which flows in one direction: In fact, it is omnidirectional, it engulfs all points in space at all time. The imaginary dimension of space (time), seems to have a forward flow according to the psychological arrow of time. This however is purely psychological and without the perception of time, there is no past and no future. This was one major effect of relativity that Einstein created. ''Only fools believe that there is a past and a future,'' Einstein once said.

ok.

It's a very novice answer Klaynos provided. Its the kind of answer you get taught in college without the implications of General Relativity. Energy is indeed the ability to do work, but on the fundamental level, it is a distortion in the spacetime fabric. Energy is spacetime, in fact, all of spacetime has a density of energy which is often referred to as either or/and, the Zero-Point Energy Field and the Cosmological Constant. This energy engulfs the background tempeartures of the universe, so it also has very close connections to the microwave background, with a temperature close to 2.73 K in all directions. There is an error however in some places with a 1000th part, but because the difference is never usually bigger, we tend to say this energy is homogeneous, and practically smooth. On the Planck scale of things, (the smallest fundamental units of spacetime) - such as the smallest space theory can deal with [math]10^{-33}[/math] and the smallest time [math]10^{-44}[/math], we find energy bubbling from the fabric itself. It has often been interpreted that spacetime itself is a physical vacuum, and the energy that bubbles in it, is just different forms of space and time itself; which is based on a current conversation i am having in a different subforum right now. Equivalantly, energy is distortions, is curvature, is acceleration.

Even when people say this, it often leaves the non-scientist to believe they are practically ghosts with no real qualities whatsoever. Whilst this is partially true, i want to note that virtual photons still have real effects in the world, such as the stability of the hydrogen atom.

Klaynos, i will get to you in a minute. After some extensive searching, i have found a PhD physicist who knows this truth i speak of, in his 1985 book, ''Parallel Universes,'' a Dr Fred Alan Wolf informs the reader that spacetime and matter and energy are codependant according to the laws of relativity, and this backs my claim up 100% and does radically effect the conversation currently being made here. Physical as being tangible: made from physical matter, made from solid material with texture. Now i have found a source after looking for one on request, and ok -- maybe not automatically on request, but nonetheless, it has been done now, will you retract my infraction please?

I receieved an apology from Truedeity. The nature of the apology is not important, howsoever, the conversation between us i feel is important to help me understand the true nature of this forum. The reply went a bit like this: ''That's truely ok. I accept your apology -- i just want you to be more aware of what others might be saying here. But that may derogatory, because right now i am having my own displeasure with people here continuously asking me to back up the scientific claims here i make with some kind of evidence, and this gets tiring. It's impossible to qoute everything one ever learns in this place. If it was possible, one would need a record of everthing one reads, and that for me is an impossible task. Sometimes, one requires a little respect from others in what they say, instead of so little trust in what they say... for i can tell a lot of people a great deal of things here in this forum, but i cannot detail citations for everything. Does this mean that i should just remain quiet, even if i know something that would be of interest? What a boring place this would be if we are reserved only to discuss what we can cite, and not the little things we learn over the years independant of sources of citations. '' And seriously -- i am confused. Is this place really only reserved to statements that must be backed by citations, because i know quite a bit about physics, and most of it i probably can't citate?

Actually, he never specified what conservation he was implying, until just now. In fact, the reason why photons are tend to be created from annihilation is because of no conservation in quantum number.

Yes, seems fine to me

Ajb, yes, i thought it was universally-known that the relativistic mass changes. It's just that i did not specify that, as i thought i didn't need to.

Photons are indeed conserved... in what sense do you mean? In the annihilation process, the conservation laws state that: Conservation of charge. The net charge before and after is zero. Conservation of linear momentum and total energy. This forbids the creation of a single gamma ray. Conservation of angular momentum. Properties of the photon are therefore conserved. However, it is debatable whether certain information about photons are indeed lost in absorption. It would not agree however, very well, with physics if information about it is completely lost.

Don't patronize me. I can't possibly citate everything i ever come to mention. Some things are just general knowledge to me. Let's try and go about this another way shall we? Do you deny that spacetime is physical?

I am serious with my words, not that i would ever derail any situation here. Only those who are in doubt of relativity could ever doubt me. Oh give it up. I am sick of people giving me chores. Here is one for you lot, go to ''ask an astrophysicist,'' and find out for yourself.

Again, total inertia and simply inertia must have different units. An error arises though under [math]M=I[/math] with [math]I_t=M[/math]

God give me strength

Yes, as i thought... these are the units i use. These are the units consistent with the theory... It has different units to singular [math]I[/math]... Again, total inertia and simply inertia must have different units.

yes, M=F/a does not necesserily change, under this math. However, it can with a change in momentum. The relativistic mass changes, i agree. Would this solve this arguement?

I do... would you show me where i have errored then?

They have different values, of course. Inertia, and your total inertia therefore, must be given different values, and these are the values that make sense to the mind. Why do you think one is simply inertia, and the other the total?