Discussion in 'Astronomy, Exobiology, & Cosmology' started by Goldtop, Aug 3, 2018.
Typo, that should have said "mass" rather than "gravity".
Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.
Of course I do, that's why I mentioned the hierarchical orderings from chaos to mathematical physics.
In a Deterministic (mathematical) universe, physically mathematical chronological events are always preceded by "potentially implied realities" and this is IMO, the fundamental conceptual state of the deterministic fabric of spacetime.
Space -> The condition of a singularity with certain physical characteristics and potentials in an ever expanding environment of mathematical permissions and restrictions, only the implied "conditions" with the greatest potential becoming the expressed physical reality we experience.
I know this is not hard physics but more philosophical perspective on the collective function.
Yes, that makes a lot more sense. Thanks for clarifying!
You say that you believe that space is more than merely a condition, and then you go on to define space as only a condition. Which is it? Why are you contradicting yourself in your own post?
im not sure i agree or dissagree with everything you have said but it is like going on holiday reading what you have written
soo many seem to have so much of nothing to say with so many words that have little meaning.
Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
i probably need to be more selective in what threads i read lol
Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
The video says about 1% came from the Higgs. I said that it was about 2%. You said that it all came from the Higgs. Let's not nit pick here.
Are you now claiming the average person weighs about 2 kilograms?
Where did I made that claim? Please link me to it.
I'm not nitpicking; I was asking for clarifications to a statement that you later admitted was indeed incorrect.
Yes, because I have given you the various qualifying definitions, where "condition" is a shared generic term for many states of expressions (conditions). It is a generic term for all forms of physical and/or meta-physical states of being.
Being is a condition,....a logical pattern!....from Chaos to QM......Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
Ah, so you do believe that space is merely a condition, but where a condition is defined to (be able to) include physical aspects. Got it!
Type I conditional ->
Yes, that is a definition of the Type 1 conditional sentence. But I'll let you get back on-topic.
I'm a bit confused.
The source of gravity is mass and energy. That's what appears in Einstein's field equations.
The source of mass, on the other hand, is the Higgs field.
The strong force really contributes nothing to either of these things. I think you're probably referring to the fact that when quarks are bound together by the strong force to make something like a proton, the observed rest mass/energy of the proton is mostly due to the gluons and stuff that are bouncing around between the quarks doing the binding. There's energy associated with the field.
However, the reason why quarks, and the things that are made of them, have any mass at all is due to the Higgs interaction.
And that is a conditional statement and its true, as far as we know and predicted it to be.....Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
I was always intrigued by David Bohm's notion of a pseudo-intelligent mathematical ordering, a computational essence and ability, to spacetime.
He called it "Insight Intelligence", i.e. the universal "constants", the few "common mathematical denominators", the "inherent energetic potentials" of/in all things in relationship to each other.
I like that perspective. So, in my way I try to make sense of it.....Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
IMSC, the Aether was a "something" required for light to travel through in that it was thought light needed a medium to travel, that it couldn't travel through space.
My inquiries are more along the lines of why there is a barrier to the speed of light based on permittivity and permeability and whether or not space is quanitized, and if indeed space has something to do with the existence of gravity.
I only an interested spectator of phsysics - I stopped at A-level! I picture it as akin to the mass of a rocket moving near the speed of light. In such a situation the mass the rocket would be enormous, but almost all of its mass would be the consequences of its motion with only a small contribution from its 'rest mass'.
The mass of a neutron or proton is mostly the m=e/c2 equivalent of the energy of its quarks and only a little bit is down to the matter of its quarks.
Relativistic mass isn't really mass; that's a common misconception, but I see what you're getting at.
Quarks and gluons, don't forget the gluons!
So I guess you agree with me that either Seattle is wrong with his 2% figure, or that your video is wrong with its 21 grams claim?
I think the video says 1% - my mathematical inability and ignorance of physics means I have no idea what figures are accurate -I have only a vague idea about what real experts know!
I guess we'll have to wait for Seattle to post the source(s) for his claim; perhaps that will shed more light on the issue.
First they are not really a barrier, you could say they dictate the speed of light. Light cannot go faster than c in a vacuum but it also cannot go slower than c.
Secondly, that is like asking why does mass warp space. The answer to both questions is because that is way they work.
I do not believe that is settled.
That is a strange question. The warping of space is gravity so of course space has something to do with it!
Separate names with a comma.