[Kryptid]

When Copernicus put forward his heliocentric theory in the 16th century, it was in a sense, a solution to "an imaginary problem".

Copernicus' ideas and Dave Lev's ideas aren't even remotely comparable.

[charles1948]

Copernicus' ideas and Dave Lev's ideas aren't even remotely comparable.

Don't be too hasty in your judgement, Kryptid!    Dave's ideas may well be read by some budding young scientist,  who gets inspired by them, and goes on to create a revolutionary advance in Physics.

If that happens, you might want to forget your present-day sceptical remarks,  and claim:

"I always said it was a good idea all along!"

[Bored chemist]

Copernicus' ideas and Dave Lev's ideas aren't even remotely comparable.

Don't be too hasty in your judgement, Kryptid!    Dave's ideas may well be read by some budding young scientist,  who gets inspired by them, and goes on to create a revolutionary advance in Physics.

If that happens, you might want to forget your present-day sceptical remarks,  and claim:

"I always said it was a good idea all along!"

No.
Even if  Dave's heap of errors, misunderstandings  and self contradictions somehow inspires someone to do science (and that seems unlikely...) it will not make a difference to the fact that he was wrong all along, will it?

Do you understand that it's not a matter of " as far as we know he is wrong", but a matter of " it was mathematically proven a hundred years ago that he is wrong"?
Do you understand the difference?

[charles1948]

No.
Even if  Dave's heap of errors, misunderstandings  and self contradictions somehow inspires someone to do science (and that seems unlikely...) it will not make a difference to the fact that he was wrong all along, will it?

Do you understand that it's not a matter of " as far as we know he is wrong", but a matter of " it was mathematically proven a hundred years ago that he is wrong"?
Do you understand the difference?

Yes, I understand the difference.  But can we be sure that our "mathematics" isn't just a human invention - that doesn't necessarily apply to the way the Universe operates.

As an example:  2,000 years ago, Euclid proved that the angles of a triangle always add up to 180°.
And he was apparently right.  But he was drawing his triangles on a flat, 2-dimensional sheet of papyrus.

Whereas, the actual Universe is 3-dimensional.  Containing solid 3-dimensional objects such as spheres.
And if you draw a triangle on a sphere, don't its angles add up to more than 180°?

So Euclid's maths don't always work in the real, true, 3-D Universe.  Therefore, how can we regard maths as unchallengeable arbiters of truth?

[Bored chemist]

A century or two before Euclid did lots of stuff about planes, Pythagoras proved something about triangles.

The thing that makes us sure that maths works is that, when we applied it to 3D (and 4D) space, it still worked.

What you are saying is that , if we are wrong about essentially everything in science then Dave may possibly be right.
Yes, but he's still overwhelmingly likely to be wrong, isn't he?

So Euclid's maths don't always work in the real, true, 3-D Universe

Euclid knew this.
It's called plane geometry.
He also knew that the world is round.

There is as much  support for the flat earth as there is for Dave's view.

[Kryptid]

Don't be too hasty in your judgement, Kryptid!    Dave's ideas may well be read by some budding young scientist,  who gets inspired by them, and goes on to create a revolutionary advance in Physics.

That wouldn't make Dave's ideas correct.

If that happens, you might want to forget your present-day sceptical remarks,  and claim:

"I always said it was a good idea all along!"

No. In order for me to say that, this hypothetical young scientist you speak of would have to have ideas that are actually correct. That would exclude the ideas as presented by Dave Lev.

Therefore, how can we regard maths as unchallengeable arbiters of truth?

Euclid wasn't wrong. Euclidean geometry applies to 2 dimensions. Once you step into 3 dimensions, you are stepping outside of Euclidean geometry. His math works just fine.

[evan_au]

can we progress any further with the BBT, until we invent some as yet undiscovered form of instrument - a kind of equivalent of a telescope.  Which will enable the theory to be put to definitive observational test?

That's a good point.

And the Big Bang Theory was hotly contested until someone invented a new kind of instrument, in 1964 - a large horn antenna originally used to bounce radio signals off the then-new artificial satellites in Earth orbit.
- They discovered the Cosmic Microwave Background Radiation (CMBR)
- This was strong evidence for the Big Bang, and the competing theories pretty much fizzled out at that point
- Penzias & Wilson received the Nobel Prize in 1978 for this work

See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Discovery_of_cosmic_microwave_background_radiation#History

[Dave Lev (OP)]

Quote from: Dave Lev on 10/01/2021 10:02:55
3. QM - Based on QM there is a need for a minimal size for any particle.

No
For example, there's no observed lower boundary to the size of an electron.

Sorry, even electron must have some minimal physical property.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Compton_wavelength#Reduced_Compton_wavelength
"The Compton wavelength is a quantum mechanical property of a particle."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum
"In physics, a quantum (plural quanta) is the minimum amount of any physical entity (physical property) involved in an interaction."
https://drrafaelferreira.com.br/vszq22/9tnp2d5.php?ef7478=who-invented-quantum-mechanics
"According to Planck, quantities of energy could be thought of as divided into "elements" whose size (E) would be proportional to their frequency (ν): where h is Planck's constant."
So, what is the real meaning of physical property? How can we discuss about physical property while we ignore the size of that physical property?
We clearly see that any quanta of energy must have some physical property or minimal size as also stated by Planck.
Therefore, any particle which have quanta of energy and physical property, must have some minimal size.
Hence, how any scientist could accept the idea that in the size of proton we can fit the whole Energy/mass/particles of our current entire Universe (even if it is infinite)?
Therefore,, the BBT assumption that all the particles of our entire Universe were already embedded at the early universe while its size was only at the size of proton is absolutely imagination.

Quote from: Dave Lev on Yesterday at 10:02:55
So, why during the BBT, both particle pair have got the positive BBT energy, while today the new particle pair around a SMBH must get ZERO energy (as the positive energy of one particle should be identical to the negative energy of the other one)?

The answer was "we don't know" and the answer is still "we don't know".

As you clearly don't know, then how do you know that what you know or don't know is correct or incorrect?
Actually, I think that you know.
You know that the assumption that ONLY the BBT energy could be transformed into new particle pair is one more imagination.
You can't explain why today energy can't have mass and be transformed into real new positive particles pair, while based on the BBT imagination, that process was feasible only for 10^-38 of a sec after the bang.
Therefore, you claim "we don't know" in order to bypass that key contradiction in the BBT.

Do you see why I keep saying you should learn science?

Sorry, as you don't know, it's better for you to learn some real science instead of just BBT "science".

Can you please offer article to support this understanding?

You can't offer any real Article to support your ideas as the BBT is a direct contradiction for real science.

can we progress any further with the BBT, until we invent some as yet undiscovered form of instrument - a kind of equivalent of a telescope.  Which will enable the theory to be put to definitive observational test?

That's a good point.

And the Big Bang Theory was hotly contested until someone invented a new kind of instrument, in 1964 - a large horn antenna originally used to bounce radio signals off the then-new artificial satellites in Earth orbit.
- They discovered the Cosmic Microwave Background Radiation (CMBR)
- This was strong evidence for the Big Bang, and the competing theories pretty much fizzled out at that point
- Penzias & Wilson received the Nobel Prize in 1978 for this work

See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Discovery_of_cosmic_microwave_background_radiation#History

Sorry, our BBT scientists don't understand the real meaning of the BBR in the CMBR.
They estimate that this BBR radiation had been generated ONLY at the recombination Era which took place for about 60M years. This time duration is relatively brief time frame with reference to the BBT total age of the Universe.
That estimation is one more imagination as there is no way to hold that kind of brief radiation (60 MY) that moves at the speed of light in a finite universe space for 13.4 BY or even for the infinity time. 
Please also be aware that based on the expansion theory it is feasible that some galaxies are moving away from each other faster than the speed of light. So, theoretically, they could move faster than that CMBR. Therefore, there is no way for them to get the same radiation from all directions.

Don't be too hasty in your judgement, Kryptid!    Dave's ideas may well be read by some budding young scientist,  who gets inspired by them, and goes on to create a revolutionary advance in Physics.
If that happens, you might want to forget your present-day sceptical remarks,  and claim:
"I always said it was a good idea all along!"

Thanks charles1948
Do appreciate your support!
Please be aware that my theory is based on Einstein theory with some modifications.
Einstein had told us that the BBT is incorrect.
He had stated that new particle should be created at the Universe while galaxies are expanding from each other.
He also had rejected the idea that the space itself is expanding.
Unfortunately, those BBT scientists which are using Einstein formulas for the BBT, reject his theory. 
However, I'm positively sure that one day, sooner or later, all the scientists would understand that the BBT is useless and Einstein was fully correct in his messages/theory.

[Bored chemist]

How can we discuss about physical property while we ignore the size of that physical property?

It's not a problem: size = 0

It's only you who is choosing to ignore the size.

Therefore, any particle which have quanta of energy and physical property, must have some minimal size.

Non sequitur.

You have not demonstrated that claim.

Therefore,, the BBT assumption that all the particles of our entire Universe were already embedded at the early universe while its size was only at the size of proton is absolutely imagination.

No
You seem to have already forgotten that I explained how particles could be produced.
Please try to pay attention.

As you clearly don't know, then how do you know that what you know or don't know is correct or incorrect?

There's a rock in my garden, I can barely shift it.
I don't know how it got there.
But I can say that it wasn't dropped there by a pigeon, because that would be impossible,

Sometimes, you don't need a better explanation to know that the given explanation is wrong.

You can't explain why today energy can't have mass

I can, and I have, but you keep ignoring it.

Therefore, you claim "we don't know" in order to bypass that key contradiction in the BBT.

There is no real contradiction; it's just that you keep refusing to understand it.

Sorry, as you don't know, it's better for you to learn some real science instead of just .

There's no such thing as BBT "science".
If you knew science, you would know that.

Sorry, our BBT scientists don't understand the real meaning of the BBR in the CMBR.

Yes we do.
You refuse to understand it, even when it is explained to you.

there is no way to hold that kind of brief radiation (60 MY) that moves at the speed of light in a finite universe space for 13.4 BY

Yes there is.
There's a way for it to happen. We have explained it to you.
You don't listen.

Therefore, there is no way for them to get the same radiation from all directions.

And yet, when you look, it is there.

Please be aware that my theory is based on Einstein theory with some modifications.

It is possible that Charles only knows one thing about Einstein's work- his famous equation
E=mc²
That shows that mass and energy are equivalent- they both bend spacetime in the same way.
Energy has mass (and mass has energy).
So the one thing which everybody knows about Einstein's work is that he proved that energy has mass.


And then we have Dave saying "

energy can't have mass

but claiming that his ideas are

based on Einstein theory

It doesn't take much understanding of physics to see that Dave is wrong.

[Dave Lev (OP)]

Quote from: Dave Lev on Yesterday at 17:30:05
How can we discuss about physical property while we ignore the size of that physical property?

It's not a problem: size = 0

How can you ignore all the data which I have offered:

Sorry, even electron must have some minimal physical property.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Compton_wavelength#Reduced_Compton_wavelength
"The Compton wavelength is a quantum mechanical property of a particle."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum
"In physics, a quantum (plural quanta) is the minimum amount of any physical entity (physical property) involved in an interaction."
https://drrafaelferreira.com.br/vszq22/9tnp2d5.php?ef7478=who-invented-quantum-mechanics
"According to Planck, quantities of energy could be thought of as divided into "elements" whose size (E) would be proportional to their frequency (ν): where h is Planck's constant."
So, what is the real meaning of physical property? How can we discuss about physical property while we ignore the size of that physical property?
We clearly see that any quanta of energy must have some physical property or minimal size as also stated by Planck.
Therefore, any particle which have quanta of energy and physical property, must have some minimal size.
Hence, how any scientist could accept the idea that in the size of proton we can fit the whole Energy/mass/particles of our current entire Universe (even if it is infinite)?
Therefore, the BBT assumption that all the particles of our entire Universe were already embedded at the early universe while its size was only at the size of proton is absolutely imagination.

I hope that at least you agree that particles have physical property.
So, let's start to understand what's the difference between Matter vs Particle?
https://wikidiff.com/particle/matter
"As nouns the difference between matter and particle is that matter is substance, material while particle is a very small piece of matter, a fragment; especially, the smallest possible part of something."
Hence - "particle is a very small piece of matter"

Now let's try to understand what's the meaning of "physical Properties of Matter".
https://packscience.weebly.com/chapter-2---physical-properties-of-matter.html
Matter is anything that takes up space and has mass. Everything is made of matter.  All matter has properties that allow us to describe.
Therefore - matter is anything that takes up space and has mass.
As you specifically claim that energy has mass, then this mass must take space.
Hence, even if we discuss on a particle which is a very small piece of matter, that particle which has mass must take space.
It might be very tiny space as the mass in that particle is very tiny, but it can't be absolutely zero.

It is possible that Charles only knows one thing about Einstein's work- his famous equation
E=mc2
That shows that mass and energy are equivalent- they both bend spacetime in the same way.
Energy has mass (and mass has energy).
So the one thing which everybody knows about Einstein's work is that he proved that energy has mass.

NO!!!
It's better for you to learn some science:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hadron
"Massless virtual gluons compose the numerical majority of particles inside hadrons. The strength of the strong force gluons which bind the quarks together has sufficient energy (E) to have resonances composed of massive (m) quarks (E > mc2) .
So, gluons by itself is mass less energy.
However, once that energy is locked in hadron and the strong force of the gluons binds the quarks together then, and only then - we can claim that it:  "has sufficient energy (E) to have resonances composed of massive (m) quarks (E > mc2)"

Therefore, energy as a gluons is massless energy as long as it isn't integrated part in hadron.
Einstein had told us that the energy of Particle or Hardon is E=mc^2.
However, he didn't claim that energy has mass and he also didn't claim that energy means particles.
We also know that there are some particles which are mass and some other which are mass less, while all have energy.
It is amazing that you offer an electron & photon as examples for particles in order to prove that there is mass in energy, while they both are mass less particles.,

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Massless_particle
In particle physics, a massless particle is an elementary particle whose invariant mass is zero.
Therefore, this is another evidence why energy doesn't mean mass.

Hence, the order should be as follow:
Energy by itself is just energy without any sort of mass - for example free gluons.
We also know that free gluons by itself isn't a particle.
Therefore, there is a need for special structure to set a mass particle as Hadron.
Once the gluons is locked in a hardon its energy means 99% of the mass in that particle.
So, the same energy can be mass or mass less depends on the structure that it is located.

Conclusion - Energy by itself has no mass and any matter or particle must take up some minimal space in order to carry mass.
You specifically used an example of electron or photon that are mass less particles in order to show that it doesn't need space, while from the other hand you do understand the mass particles are needed to support the BBT.

So, you twist the science law and you twist Einstien formula inorder to support the imagination that "pure" BBT energy means mass and the entire mass/energy of our current Universe could take up space which is less than proton size.

Your imagination is clearly incorrect and it's better for you to set the BBT in the garbage.
The sooner is better.

[Bored chemist]

How can you ignore all the data which I have offered:

You have not offered any evidence.
You have quoted lots of stuff from wiki.
But I am a scientist; I already know that stuff and, unlike you, I UNDERSTAND it.
So I understand that it does not actually  support your claim.

Do you see that telling me something which I already know will probably not change my mind?

So, for example

In particle physics, a massless particle is an elementary particle whose invariant mass is zero.

You have missed the fact that there are two sorts of mass- which is odd because you were going on about it earlier.
A massless particle has zero "rest mass " or "invariant mass".
But it still has relativistic mass.
The gluon is an example of such a particle.

If you understood the stuff you keep quoting you would realise that it doesn't mean what you want it to.

And that's why I say you should learn science.
One way in which you could do this would be to pay attention to the replies you get here.

For example, here's where I already explained this to you

So we know that energy- in the form photons- has mass.

It is nonsense to try to say otherwise.

It is particularly stupid to try to say that photons don't habe mass after you posted that they  do.

Quote from: Dave Lev on 28/12/2020 16:12:52
E=((Mrest c^2)^2+(pc)^2)√≡Mequivalent c^2
Mequivalent=(Mrest^2+(p/c)^2)√

The Mequivalent is the mass that enables particle production.
Why are you now saying that it doesn't exist?

Why don't you pay attention?

The rest of your post was also nonsense.

[Dave Lev (OP)]

Quote from: Dave Lev on Yesterday at 05:15:45
In particle physics, a massless particle is an elementary particle whose invariant mass is zero.

You have missed the fact that there are two sorts of mass- which is odd because you were going on about it earlier.
A massless particle has zero "rest mass " or "invariant mass".
But it still has relativistic mass.

No, I didn't miss any fact.
I fully agree with your explanation about the rest mass and relativistic mass.
So, a mass less particle with a rest mass of Zero, would get a relativistic mass only due to its velocity with reference to its local space time.
However, based on the BBT, the matter doesn't move with reference to the local space time.
Our BBT scientists told us that during the inflation the matter moves with the expanding space at 50 Billion times the speed of light while the matter actually stays at rest.
Therefore, the matter isn't violating the relativity law as it is practically moving with its space-time at 50 Billions times the speed of light. .
Hence in one hand - in order to overcome the relativity law, based on the BBT, any matter should be at rest with reference to it's the local space time.
However, in the other hand, in order to get the relativistic mass, the matter must move in almost the speed of light with reference to its local space time.
That is one more key contradiction in the BBT story.
You can't tell us one story in order to overcome the one problem (relativity) while on the other hand you tell us the opposite story in order to overcome other problem (relativistic mass) .
This doesn't represent a real science. At the maximum it is a science fiction.

The gluon is an example of such a particle.
If you understood the stuff you keep quoting you would realise that it doesn't mean what you want it to.
And that's why I say you should learn science.
One way in which you could do this would be to pay attention to the replies you get here.

A gluon in rest with reference to its local space time has zero mass. Therefore, based on the BBT fiction, even if it is drifted at 50 Billion times the speed due to the inflation in space it won't get any sort of relativistic mass.
Therefore:
"If you understood the stuff you keep quoting you would realize that it doesn't mean what you want it to.
And that's why I say you should learn science.
One way in which you could do this would be to pay attention to the replies you get here"

Why don't you pay attention?
The rest of your post was also nonsense.

Why don't you pay attention?
It's time for you to stop your nonsense and set your lovely BBT in the garbage!

[Bored chemist]

However, based on the BBT, the matter doesn't move with reference to the local space time.

No, because that would breach the uncertainty principle.
Please learn science.

Our BBT scientists told us that during the inflation the matter moves with the expanding space at 50 Billion times the speed of light while the matter actually stays at rest.

No
The movement within space time is called the peculiar velocity.
Please learn physics

A gluon in rest with reference to its local space time has zero mass.

But, since nothing was at rest, that's irrelevant.
Please learn physics.

And that's why I say you should learn science.
One way in which you could do this would be to pay attention to the replies you get here.

Why don't you pay attention?

I do.
But I pay attention to people who know what they are talking about, and you are not on that list.

If you want me to pay you any heed, you need to learn some science.

[Dave Lev (OP)]

No
The movement within space time is called the peculiar velocity.
Please learn physics

No
We focus on the first moment after the Big Bang.
Acording to the BBT story 10^-43 Seconds after the Big Bang (at the Planck Era) the SPACE size of the whole early universe was at the Proton size:
http://www.earlyearthcentral.com/early_universe_page.html
The Planck Era (Big Bang To 10^-43 Seconds)
"The universe was a tiny hot gaseous soup (a plasma) consisting of packets of "primal" particles at extremely high energies. The universe was smaller than the size of a proton."
It is also stated very clearly that"
"During this phase physicists believe matter and energy were not separated as they are currently."
Therefore, as there is no separation in the energy/matter, there is no any sort of quantized energy in that proton size space.
That by itself kills your imagination about quantized energy:

We know that all energy is quantized so what you should say is
""Quantized energy" has mass, while  " any other sort of energy" does not exist."

Therefore, before you claim that: "we know that..." its better for you to learn the BBT story.
In any case, as that energy was locked at the Planck Era at a universe space of a proton size, there is no way for any imaginary "quantized energy" (That clearly were not there) to move outside the space of the whole early universe.
Hence, all the imaginary "quantized energies" could only move with the expansion of the space itself.
Therefore, they all have to be at rest with peculiar velocity = Zero, while their Recessional velocity is directly due to the total Universe proton size space expansion.
Hence:
1. At the Planck era there was no "quantized energy".
2. If there was any "quantized energy" - its peculiar velocity was clearly zero.
3. Without peculiar velocity, it couldn't has any real mass.
4. Without real mass there is no way to start the particle pair process.

I could stop at this point.

Never, the less, let's assume that somehow "quantized energies" (or "mass less particles") could exist at a early universe proton size and some of them could even have a peculiar velocity which is different from all the other Recessional velocity.
However in order to gain a real mass their peculiar velocity should be very high or even close to the speed of light. We will call them: "mass particles"
As some of those mass particles might be very close to the edge of the proton, what would be the outcome as they bang the edge of the Universe space while their peculiar velocity is close to the speed of light?
Please - don't tell me that the edge of the proton size is also moving at the speed of light due to the Recessional velocity as in this case - the peculiar velocity will have to be zero and they would be considered as "mass less particles"

Hence, if the "mass particles" have peculiar velocity (which must be different from the Recessional velocity)- some of those mass particles have to bang the edge of the early universe.
Therefore, the question is as follow:
Can those "mass particles" that have high peculiar velocity break the edge of the early universe and move outside to the aria without space or they should bang inwards?
If they can move outwards - then the idea of no space outside the early universe is just a fiction. Also, as they move outside from all the other mass less particles at their peculiar velocity, they won't have any more impact on all the other left over "mass less particles" which have zero/low peculiar velocity.
If they bang inwards - they have to move at ultra high peculiar velocity (at almost the speed of light) with reference to the other "mass less particles"

However, in order to set the particle pair production - a nearby mass should be located.
So, how a mass less particle that should be considered as a mass particale (as a photon) that is moving at the speed of light with reference to other mass less particles could be considered for them as "nearby mass"?
Without "nearby mass", there is no pair production process.

Sorry - the BBT story is totally wrong.
Please learn some physics and improve your knowledge in the BBT story before you share your nonsense with us.

From now on, I will totally ignore any nonsense that you might highlight without backup it with relevant article!!!

[Bored chemist]

Therefore, as there is no separation in the energy/matter, there is no any sort of quantized energy in that proton size space.

Please try to keep up with points which have already been addressed.

Not necessarily "at" that moment, it could have been slightly later when the universe had expanded a bit.
So the "it's not big enough" argument isn't valid. It's a straw man.

its peculiar velocity was clearly zero.

Please try to keep up with points which have already been addressed.

No, because that would breach the uncertainty principle.
Please learn science.

I could stop at this point.

You should have stopped some time ago.

However in order to gain a real mass their peculiar velocity should be very high or even close to the speed of light.

That's not how relativity works.
Even the smallest velocity (or other form of energy) is enough to increase the mass above zero.

Also, it was very hot, anything would be traveling at very high speeds anyway.

Can those "mass particles" that have high peculiar velocity break the edge of the early universe and move outside to the aria without space or they should bang inwards?

You are the one who invented them. You get to decide what their properties are. But remember they are entirely a figment of your imagination.
You can have them unicorn shaped if you like, but they can't be used to prove or refute anything, because you just made them up.

Rather than writing fairy stories, you should study science (and also try to remember what has already been pointed out to you)

[Dave Lev (OP)]

Quote from: Dave Lev on Today at 07:42:58
However in order to gain a real mass their peculiar velocity should be very high or even close to the speed of light.

That's not how relativity works.
Even the smallest velocity (or other form of energy) is enough to increase the mass above zero.

Why don't you stop your nonsense or at least backup it by real article?
Do you think that you know science better than Flip Tanedo, assistant professor of physics at the University of California, Riverside:
https://www.symmetrymagazine.org/article/massless-particles-cant-be-stopped
"Massless particles are purely energy. “It’s sufficient for a particle to have energy to have a meaningful sense of existence,” says Flip Tanedo, assistant professor of physics at the University of California, Riverside."
"Photons and gluons, two force-carrying particles, are fundamental, so they don’t host the internal tug-of-war of a composite particle. They are also unaffected by the Higgs field. Indeed, they seem to be without mass."
"The two particles physicists know to be (at least approximately) massless—photons and gluons—are both force-carrying particles, also known as gauge bosons. Photons are associated with the electromagnetic force, and gluons are associated with the strong force. (The graviton, a gauge boson associated with gravity, is also expected be massless, but its existence hasn’t been confirmed yet.)"

It is also stated the massless particles always travel at the speed of light.:
"These massless particles have some unique properties. They are completely stable, so unlike some particles, they do not lose their energy decaying into pairs of less massive particles.
Because all their energy is kinetic, they always travel at the speed of light. And thanks to special relativity, “things traveling at the speed of light don't actually age,” Tanedo says. “So a photon is actually not aging relative to us. It’s timeless, in that sense.”

So, how can you claim that "smallest velocity (or other form of energy) is enough to increase the mass above zero" while Massless particles MUST move at the speed of light?
Please learn some physics and then give a call.

Quote from: Dave Lev on Today at 07:42:58
Therefore, as there is no separation in the energy/matter, there is no any sort of quantized energy in that proton size space.

Please try to keep up with points which have already been addressed.

Please address and backup your points by real article.
Otherwise, there is no meaning for your nonsense points.

As I have stated - I will totally ignore any point without backup article.

[Bored chemist]

As I have stated - I will totally ignore any point without backup article.

Why the obsession with articles?
Do you understand that I can write an article and post it on the web?

Anyway, it's not that I am saying anything controversial- it's all well known science.

So, as i keep pointing out, the problem is that you don't understand science.

You seem to have missed your own point.
The particles that have zero rest mass are not the ones that I was talking about because they are already travelling at C.

So they don't feature in

However in order to gain a real mass their peculiar velocity should be very high or even close to the speed of light.

I apologise for failing to state the obvious clearly enough for you to understand it.
So, for the benefit of the slow learners...

That's not how relativity works.
Even the smallest velocity (or other form of energy) is enough to increase the relativistic mass above zero.

[Bored chemist]

As I have stated - I will totally ignore any point without backup article.

If everyone did that , nobody would ever respond to your posts, would they...?

[Dave Lev (OP)]

it's not that I am saying anything controversial- it's all well known science.

You are constantly highlight points that are Cleary incorrect just in order to show that my messages are wrong.
I have just proved that you have a fatal error with regards to the speed of light of massless particles and you even do not apologize on that.
Now you try to twist the story:

The particles that have zero rest mass are not the ones that I was talking about because they are already travelling at C.

Sorry - there are no other massless particles that could move at low velocity. It was clearly stated in the article.
So you keep on with the same negative approach.
I actually do believe that you have deep knowledge in science and I am positively sure that you knew that massless particles can't move at a low velocity.
I also believe that you know that my messages are correct, but you keep on with your objections as the BBT is more important to you than real science.
Therefore, it is very clear to me by now that in order to disqualify my messages against the BBT you are ready to lie.
Hence, I can't believe you anymore and I ask you to backup your lies with real articles.

Quote from: Dave Lev on Today at 13:48:07
As I have stated - I will totally ignore any point without backup article.

If everyone did that , nobody would ever respond to your posts, would they...?

No.
Nobody in this forum has used any sort of lie in order to disqualify my understanding.
Unfortunately, you keep on with your lies.
Therefore, I have no intention to accept those lies any more.
Shame on you!

[Bored chemist]

You are constantly highlight points that are Cleary incorrect just in order to show that my messages are wrong.

Stop saying things that are clearly incorrect.
Then I won't be able to highlight them and show that your messages are wrong.