How exactly does space/time fabric work?

Dr Kynes said:

thats where the math becomes irrational. thats where, from the perspective of a non-mathelete it starts looking like voodoo.

Click to expand...

You don't understand it so it must be voodoo.

1+1+=2 and other equation gone wild

guy incognito said:

Orly?



That sounds exactly like you are saying they are ignoring valid data and arbitrarily assigning a value of zero so as to not disrupt several current theories.

Click to expand...

no, i said it dont believe it and it looks like shoehorning the theory to squeeze in data that doesnt fit.

i am not a lwayer trying to coinvince you that youre wrong, im saying show me what you mean when you say gravity warps space instead of newtons attraction,

demonstrate for me the evidence you say proves photns have no mass, cuz i actually do want to know, but the same mathematical model that i slogged through before (and either failed to understand or was unconvinced by them) and saying "well if photons have mass then these other theories are wrong, and these other theories seem to work so abracadabra, photons have no mass!" just doesnt make me see that you are right.

further, insisting that i must just be horribly horribly dumb to not see it, is akin to a pentecostal saying i my current lack of wealth is because my faith is not strong enough, and i didnt buy enough magic prayer hankies.

i see evidence in the form of theories that work with massless photns, that would have troubles if photons had mass. likewise, the tansmutation of the eucharist from cracker to christ works great if papal infallibility is assumed, but if not, then i gotta wonder why i dont taste any 2000 year old jew in the sacramental grubstake.

if the assignment of a photon as zero mass is NOT an assumption based on the feasability of other theories, then what gives the assumption it's evidence?

photons do work, photons come out of matter under the influence of the most banal forces, like fire, photons are readily observable (which is not a claim i have ever heard being made about any other massless particle)photons have a velocity, photons deliver a force when they hit matter, photons can be effected by gravity (or space warping, mindphuk has got me on the curvature thing, that shit's math seems to work, even if it takes me a long ass time to do the sums) and all this does point in the other direction, since i cant think of a single particle that is at all effected by matter. or in ANY way altered by gravity (including the wierd lensing effect) and no other particle i am familiar with is at all effected by ordinary lenses either.

so all these facts which seem to be contra to the zero mass status of photons, when weighed against the awesomely reliable newtonian models which have stood the test of time make me think photons have mass. minphuk has me waffling in my certainty that photons have mass, but theres still some stinkers out there that make me unsure, particularly when compared to other massless particles like neutrinos which seem completely oblivious to matter, gravity and last i heard even space warping.

i like my forces to be egalitarian. if they effect mass then they can effect ALL mass, if they effect the massless particles, then they should effect ALL massless particles. anything else would seem arbitrary, and nothjing in the universe seems arbitrary except humans.

edit for clarification, based on cannibus intoxication:

the incorrect inference is that they are ignoring data in some sort of conspiracy. the data is not ignored, it is shoehorned, squeezed, folded spindled and mutilated to make it fit, but nobody in academia is claiming photons dont do work, or interact with matter. the information is simply folded into the math, and left to sit there.

nobody can seem to explain why photons are different from other massless particles, in that they totally interact with matter, do work, and easily observed.
thats the question im focussing on, because its a big one to me.

i also wonder why gravity is described as a field, a wave, a warping of space, and a force. the only thing i havent heard about gravity is that its a particle.

youre not gonna tell me gravity is a particle are you?

cuz if so, i seriously would be much happier with the "Its Magic" theory.

guy incognito said:

You don't understand it so it must be voodoo.

Click to expand...

yes. if i told you that a pinch of fresh graveyard dirt, two dead bees and the bones of a rattlesnake in a gris gris bag would protect you from bullets, if you believed it you would be believing in voodoo.

likewise, simply accepting somebody else's word on a statement that seems completely irrational (like 0 mass x a velocity of C squared equals an effective mass of anything other than zero) is fundamentally irrational, and that kind of faith whether based on your trust in the pappalooau's communion with the spirits, mathematics which run counter to the fundamental mathematical laws that have served me well since i was knee high, or a christian's magic book are all irrational faith based beliefs.

thus voodoo.

if i professed certainty in something i did not actually believe, for any reason other than pussy i would be a liar. (the pussy exception is super important)

since the math presented makes assertions that are at odds with everything i understand about math, i have to have doubts.

both my father and my younger sister are quantum physics majors/graduates

this is fun to watch

Samwell Seed Well said:

both my father and my younger sister are quantum physics majors/graduates

this is fun to watch

Click to expand...

dude, i really really want to know why photons are different from othe rmassless particles, have so much involvement with ordinary matter and basically do all the same shit one would expect from a particle with mass, but are still labeled massless.

give Pops Seedwell a doobie and have him explain that shit.

but no more math homey. im all mathed out.

plus i just put my boots back on so i cant count past 10 any more tonight. well, 11. but i gotta open another browser tab to use that variable.

seeing as all our science is based on how particles react in gravity

and the theory's or relativity and quantum physics have not been mashed up yet

id say it is entirely possible and provable that atoms without force being exerted on them have no mass

since there are forces always at work, like the connection s between dark matter and regular matter . . . id say best to learn and accept every study until a quantifiable theory that links the two comes up

absence of a mathematical connection doesnt mean the values do not hold true

mass is a effect of gravity, space IS warped by gravity that's how we plot distances in space with Inferred laser and shit, and black holes . .the warp of light in space from a black hole has been recorded and studied for a while, it is fact but we can not prove why it is true yet, not being able to describe what is recorded and seen is not absence of validity

being able to link gravity to the study or small particles will be a bigger break through then the atom itself imho

keep your mind open try not to latch on to current theory's so much

how many subatomic particles did we know about 20 years ago

best to keep an open mind and fill it with possibly relevant information before, citing results as a show of right or wrong(at lose for words at the moment so bare with me) is pointless unless you believe it to be possibly true . . other wise you are not applying the scientific method . . . if you think protons have no mass, id think you would prove it to yourself, by learning then present your case as to why vs, have others prove it to you


does your amp go to eleven Dr, mine only goes to ten

do you have any formal training in Quantum Physics?

Samwell Seed Well said:

seeing as all our science is based on how particles react in gravity

and the theory's or relativity and quantum physics have not been mashed up yet

id say it is entirely possible and provable that atoms without force being exerted on them have no mass

since there are forces always at work, like the connection s between dark matter and regular matter . . . id say best to learn and accept every study until a quantifiable theory that links the two comes up

absence of a mathematical connection doesnt mean the values do not hold true

mass is a effect of gravity, space IS warped by gravity that's how we plot distances in space with Inferred laser and shit, and black holes . .the warp of light in space from a black hole has been recorded and studied for a while, it is fact but we can not prove why it is true yet, not being able to describe what is recorded and seen is not absence of validity

being able to link gravity to the study or small particles will be a bigger break through then the atom itself imho

keep your mind open try not to latch on to current theory's so much

how many subatomic particles did we know about 20 years ago

best to keep an open mind and fill it with possibly relevant information before, citing results as a show of right or wrong(at lose for words at the moment so bare with me) is pointless unless you believe it to be possibly true . . other wise you are not applying the scientific method . . . if you think protons have no mass, id think you would prove it to yourself, by learning then present your case as to why vs, have others prove it to you


does your amp go to eleven Dr, mine only goes to ten

do you have any formal training in Quantum Physics?

Click to expand...

photons, not protons. protons got buttloads of mass, its the photons that move shit when they hit an object but are labeled massless.

i got a couple amps one is a tube amp form the 50's and it doesnt have any graduation markings at all, so it goes to OVER 9000!, another is an old 20 watt practice amp from the 70's and it is only marked between 0 and 5. another is a pioneer from the 80's and it reads up to 20, and i got a johnson from the 60's that goes from zero to ten.

my bass amp is binary. i ripped off all the knobs. it goes only from off to awesome! cant play bass at any level other than seismic disturbance or youre a poser.

i got no training in anything except agriculture, welding auto repair, mechanical jury rigging, and hillbillyism.

but i recently got my PHD.

checkem.

epic mis read failure lol, on my part . . .

nice amps, i assume you play, which is yuor favorite

i have a 3 channel reciever for home steroes from 72 that is all tubes . . .man is the sound incredibly sharp/percise and loud, i can shake a house with the JBL white speakers that came with it

"It is not known absolutely for sure that photons do not have mass. However, there is an experimental upper limit on what that mass could be; and it's pretty darn small.

Additionally, if photons had mass, there should be a third possible polarization for light, and electrostatic potentials should fall off as .

To understand the statement that even light can't escape from a black hole, you have to understand a little bit about how general relativity describes gravity.

General relativity says that the presence of mass (or energy or momentum or pressure, etc.) actually bends the fabric of space and time. When the path of a particle is affected by gravity it happens, not because the particle is feeling a force, but because the particle is travelling along what is effectively a straight line path on a curved surface. When you think about it this way, it seems natural that even light should be affected.

A black hole is simply the case where space and time are so bent that every single straight line path that exists leads to one single place. (Of course, to be exact, we should say that every path that exists inside the event horizon leads to one single place. Outside the event horizon, there are paths that don't lead into the black hole.)"

sumed up my black hole example much better then I can at this time, i have limited education and vocabulary for a real decision , but what i lack in knowledge i make up in comprehension . . . .like i said earlier mathematics and physics is in my blood

what did you get your PHD in ?

i never wanted a formal education, both my parents have 3 each, PHD's, and well i never thought it added up to much other then a fun JOB, and well i have a lot of fun doing many things . . . . .i also have a welding degree(AA), and an auto mechanics degree(AA), . . .agricultural might be next . . . .weird, or maybe not

red green mofo

Samwell Seed Well said:

what did you get your PHD in ?

i never wanted a formal education, both my parents have 3 each, PHD's, and well i never thought it added up to much other then a fun JOB, and well i have a lot of fun doing many things . . . . .i also have a welding degree(AA), and an auto mechanics degree(AA), . . .agricultural might be next . . . .weird, or maybe not

red green mofo

Click to expand...

dude youre high as fuck. i posted a picture of my PHD.
its a Post Hole Digger.

why yes i am high


what does this have to do with the mass of photons

black holes . . it will get ya

Dr Kynes said:

so all these facts which seem to be contra to the zero mass status of photons, when weighed against the awesomely reliable newtonian models which have stood the test of time make me think photons have mass.

Click to expand...

the newtonian model is not reliable. It appears to be reliable at slow relativistic speeds and high mass. So it applies to planets, people, cars, baseballs, bullets, and anything larger than a quantum level, and anything that is traveling at a small fraction of the speed of light (which is retardedly fast - at 50,000 mph you are still slow enough to not be concerned with relativity for practical purposes).

At the speed of light though newtonian equations do not work. If they did we would never have needed a more refined theory like relativity. We would have simply stuck with newton if his equations worked.

Dr Kynes said:

yes. if i told you that a pinch of fresh graveyard dirt, two dead bees and the bones of a rattlesnake in a gris gris bag would protect you from bullets, if you believed it you would be believing in voodoo.

Click to expand...

Unless it actually worked. The proof is in the pudding, and just because I don't understand the pudding or how the pudding operates doesn't negate the fact that it works.

but pudding is testable, repeatable and can be explained with a theory that does not require the assumption of a protective spirit from the netherworld, or sympathetic magic based on principles that has absolutely no logical basis.

quantum theory is better than voodoo, more logical than christianity, and more reliable than crossing your fingers and hoping shit tiuns out ok, but theres still so many holes, and it sounds so much like traditional home remedies, some of which totally do work, but the users and proponents cannot explain why. they just say, trust me, this shit totally works... and leave me hangin.

No protective spirit required, and no magic, just math.

E[SUP]2[/SUP] = m[SUP]2[/SUP]c[SUP]4[/SUP] + p[SUP]2[/SUP]c[SUP]2

[/SUP]
When an object is at rest its momentum is zero (p=0) and the equation reduces to E = mc[SUP]2[/SUP]
When an object has no mass (m=0) the equation reduces to E = pc

Now the same equation can apply to particles with mass as well as "particles" of light. The equation works beautifully.

If the photon did in fact have mass then the equation would not hold, which doesn't appear to be the case. Coulomb's law would also not work. Neither would quantum electrodynamics. The fact that all these theories work so elegantly is evidence that the mass of the photon is in fact zero. It's not a matter of conveniently ignoring or shoehorning any data, they just work, and they appear to be how the universe actually functions as far as we can tell.

I have confidence that future measurements of the mass of the photon will lower the upper limit ever closer to zero. The values of the upper limit are already low enough to rule out the alternate theories you have proposed for how the universe works.

did that just happen

guy incognito said:

No protective spirit required, and no magic, just math.

E[SUP]2[/SUP] = m[SUP]2[/SUP]c[SUP]4[/SUP] + p[SUP]2[/SUP]c[SUP]2

[/SUP]
When an object is at rest its momentum is zero (p=0) and the equation reduces to E = mc[SUP]2[/SUP]
When an object has no mass (m=0) the equation reduces to E = pc

Now the same equation can apply to particles with mass as well as "particles" of light. The equation works beautifully.

If the photon did in fact have mass then the equation would not hold, which doesn't appear to be the case. Coulomb's law would also not work. Neither would quantum electrodynamics. The fact that all these theories work so elegantly is evidence that the mass of the photon is in fact zero. It's not a matter of conveniently ignoring or shoehorning any data, they just work, and they appear to be how the universe actually functions as far as we can tell.

I have confidence that future measurements of the mass of the photon will lower the upper limit ever closer to zero. The values of the upper limit are already low enough to rule out the alternate theories you have proposed for how the universe works.

Click to expand...

Good post.

guy incognito said:

E[SUP]2[/SUP] = m[SUP]2[/SUP]c[SUP]4[/SUP] + p[SUP]2[/SUP]c[SUP]2

[/SUP]
When an object is at rest its momentum is zero (p=0) and the equation reduces to E = mc[SUP]2[/SUP]
When an object has no mass (m=0) the equation reduces to E = pc

Click to expand...

You keep talking about an object being at rest, but you fail to explain what exactly you mean by that. At rest compared to what? There is one object in space and we want to know the momentum of the object. You assume the velocity of the object is zero, so how could you ever have a momentum greater than zero if the velocity of the object is always zero?

p=mv

If the velocity is always zero then the momentum is always zero. If the "object has no mass" (which is absolutely ridiculous to say that an OBJECT has no mass) then the mass is zero AND the velocity is zero, and it goes without saying that the momentum is zero.


...and since p=mv, the equation you referred to when the object has a zero mass, E=pc, can be stated as E=mvc. Zero mass times zero velocity times the speed of light equals zero energy.

Samwell Seed Well said:

its physics dude, and basic physics at that

an object not having a force exerted on it will not have mass, e.i your wieght on mars in different then your weight on earth because of gravity, which is a force

Click to expand...

That is not true. We have mass, which remains semi-constant (except for when we take big shits ).
Objects which do not have a force acting on them are said to be at rest, and have no momentum; they can still have mass. i.e (me in the middle of space, with only a very very weak force of gravity working on me).

F = ma.

No F = No A. NOT No F = no M
very rarely do we speak about massless objects