0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
Quote from: GoCCalling someone wrong would suggest one knows what is correct. That too is incorrect. There are things which are 100% correct by definition such as what energy is. In the present case the box thought he could define energy to the way he thought it was and in that case he's just plain wrong. Definitions are not up for change in any new theory.Although energy can't strictly be defined it can be adequately described so that there's little or no uncertainty in what it is. Also what is known is the current theories which are extremely accurate in that they predict and describe nature to something like 10 decimal places.Are you confining energy into your understanding?
In physics, energy is a property of objects which can be transferred to other objects or converted into different forms, but cannot be created or destroyed.
Quote from: GoCIf you have an interpretation of gluons different from aether of thebox it just becomes a wizzing contest.I don't discuss such things. I have no interest at all whether someone believes there is an aether or not. That's there problem, not mine.
By the way: to make sure what I said about protons I contacted an acquaintance of mine, a nuclear physicists at Stanford, and he confirmed for me that protons do not change their proper mass and can neither absorb or emit photons. Those are experimental facts.
Quote from: GoCLets physically describe the gluon. Any takers?What's so hard about that? It's off topic for this thread and as such I won't go there.
Quote from: PmbPhy on Today at 07:52:36Quote from: chiralSPOImaginary numbers don't "exist." That's incorrect. They most certainly do exist. They came into existence the moment they were first defined. Ask any mathematician, such as myself. I mean that they do not exist as physical entities (which is also true of any other numbers, all of which are concepts).
Photons are invisible because they are in the speed of light reference. These two things are connected invisible and speed of light both being seen the same in all inertial references. Matter cannot move at †he speed of light and therefore cannot see energy directly. At the speed of light the universe appears as a point-instant; all things in the inertial universe appear to occur at the same time and place. What we see, is by affect, connected to the second aspect of energy; inertial wavelength and frequency; bridge to inertial. Say we go back in time to time zero before the BB. Next, say we only have extreme energy photons, but before they begin to split into matter and anti-matter. There is no inertial material yet in existence for this energy to make itself known. It appears invisible in any reference, since there is nothing yet for it to interact with and make itself known. From inertial reference the universe appears void, since we cant see C and all photons appear invisible until they can interact to produce affect. When these photons finally begins to split into matter and antimatter, then energy becomes visible, because it now has inertial based material to make itself known by affect. Matter and anti-matter can't move C, so inertial interaction makes the second leg of energy appear as a bridge between C and less than C; inertial. It is the appearance of matter/antimatter that will "let there be light"; becomes affect becomes possible; a bridge is formed so energy as we know it, appears.
That's incorrect. They most certainly do exist. They came into existence the moment they were first defined. Ask any mathematician, such as myself.
Your a mathematician and you do not even understand what Maths is?
Maths is a language no different from English, that describes processes and actions. Numbers do not exist , numbers never came into existence that would should suggest materialised. Numbers are virtual representations.
Can a pure circle exist in a three dimension world?
Quote from: GoC on 30/09/2015 15:06:28Can a pure circle exist in a three dimension world?A circle is only a circle because we define it as a circle, if we had defined a circle a square then it would be square, but neither would be relative to shapeless space, only matter can have form.
A circle is only a circle because we define it as a circle, if we had defined a circle a square then it would be square, but neither would be relative to shapeless space, only matter can have form.
On the second issue of time verses timing What is your definition of time?
Some can look at a point and understand the Universe. Others can look at the universe and not understand the point. You point me to the universe to understand a circle. I find no pure circles in the universe.The most distance that can be covered in a second is ~300,000 km's. That is a constant in our Universe. We can only measure the speed of light in a vacuum in any frame to be ~300,000 km's/s. So when our clock tick rate changes so does our measurements for distance. So when a clock's tick rate is slower by 10% then the measured distance has to be 330,000 km's. That is a curve in two dimensions but a sphere (dilation) in three dimensions. This suggests dilated measurements for a slower tick rate. So the distance for the photon remains constant in space but the measurement becomes longer with dilation. Does the energy in a tick change or does the distance the electron period duration has to travel for the tick rate change?