That's the crux of the problem.....
No problem to me .
That's the crux of the problem.....
river said ; ↑ Particles travel within the wave . With density . It is what gives mass to a wave .
W4U said; ↑ That's the crux of the problem.....
Lol, nor to me....river said; No problem to me .
Waves involve the transport of energy without the transport of matter.
https://www.physicsclassroom.com/class/waves/Lesson-1/What-is-a-WaveIn conclusion, a wave can be described as a disturbance that travels through a medium, transporting energy from one location (its source) to another location without transporting matter.
https://www.quora.com/Does-energy-have-mass-or-light-as-in-light-beam-have-massMass, is that part of the total energy that is the energy resides within an object as seen in its own reference frame. So no, energy does not necessarily have mass, though all mass is energy. The reason is by arbitrary definition, though a definition that is extremely useful when doing physics.
Lol, nor to me....
However, should we take this as an authoritative description of a "wave"? ;
https://www.physicsclassroom.com/class/waves/Lesson-1/What-is-a-Wave
I'm sure you can see the apparent contradiction. How to resolve this dilemma?
Waves involve the transport of energy without the transport of matter.
In conclusion, a wave can be described as a disturbance that travels through a medium, transporting energy from one location (its source) to another location without transporting matter.
https://www.physicsclassroom.com/class/waves/Lesson-1/What-is-a-Wave
I'm sure you can see the apparent contradiction. How to resolve this dilemma?
Seems the question is if "energy has mass?
Sort off .
Yet affects matter ...
Sort off .
Yet affects matter ...
Hence the wave has physical properties .
WHY DOES TIME EXIST?
In Philochrony time is the regular periodic duration divisible into equal intervals. Duration is the continuous and sequential occurrence of phenomena delimited by a beginning and an end.
The existence of time is based on periodic phenomena, which occur every certain period or its phases are all repeated permanently and regularly. To deny time is to deny the existence of periodic phenomena. The ticking of clocks is an example of a periodic phenomenon. You cannot deny the existence of time simply because neither the past nor the future is real.
KRONOS SYSTEM
Duration, time and eternity.
Eternity is the existence of something with no beginning or end.
Time is a subset of duration. Eternity is not subject to time.
I leave these three questions to ponder:
1- Does eternity exist?
2- Is eternity a purely religious concept?
3- Is matter eternal?
Asexperia said: ↑:
I agree that time is a subset (measurement) of "duration".
I also agree that prior to the universe there existed a "timeless" (immeasurable) eternity.
IOW, the duration of any action as measured in increments of time. Note that time itself is not a physical thing.To your first statement;
And duration is based on a physical objects internal properties and movements . Movement . And interactions with other physical objects .
Correct. Duration is a relative measurement of "Something", but is immeasurable of "Nothing".To your second statement ; " Nothing " in otherwords .
IOW, the duration of any action as measured in increments of time. Note that time itself is not a physical thing. Correct. Duration is a relative measurement of "Something", but is immeasurable of "Nothing".
That's why we started to "keep time" from the "beginning" of the Universe, not before.
I have....Break .....and brake . Write4U . Think . Think more about what your saying here .
I have....
Can you be more specific?
IOW, the duration of any action as measured in increments of time. Note that time itself is not a physical thing. Correct. Duration is a relative measurement of "Something", but is immeasurable of "Nothing".
That's why we started to "keep time" from the "beginning" of the Universe, not before.
Write4U said: ↑
IOW, the duration of any action as measured in increments of time. Note that time itself is not a physical thing. Correct. Duration is a relative measurement of "Something", but is immeasurable of "Nothing".
That's why we started to "keep time" from the "beginning" of the Universe, not before.
There is no measurable time before the beginning. The condition before the BB might have been a quantum instant or of infinite duration. It makes no difference. It is not accessible to our observation.None of this makes any sense .