DaveC426913
Valued Senior Member
No. The term matter is confined to the things that do have mass.
Photons, gluons and gravitons are all bosons.
Can a single object exist?
- Thread starter Olga
- Start date
Photons, gluons and gravitons are all bosons.
DaveC426913
Valued Senior Member
I'm sorry but what you have is an idea, not a model. There's nothing to back it up but word salad. You're even having trouble describing basic physics concepts such as "space" and "infinite speed". You're trying to run before learning to walk.
Your time (and ours) would be better spent learning some basic physics and asking more informed questions instead of making your own assertions based on ignorance.
That's all fine - this is, after all, the Free Thoughts forum. But you have to admit there is a limit to how much the rest of us want to entertain your free thoughts.
It's not for me. Dave out.
Translation
"Sir, you can see my posts 149, 156, 166 in which I briefly described my model to James. If of course you are interested.
"
There are answers to all your questions"
________________________________________
There are just 60 posts in this thread and so I don't know where are your " posts 149, 156, 166
"
Рсздел называется "Альтернативные теории". Вопрос: "What if there is only one type of particle but its physical properties change depending on which field it is interacting with? "
Это просто моя идея, вряд ли она вам понравится.
DaveC426913
Valued Senior Member
Olga:
Can we detect this particle or "point"?
Also, how does "infinite speed" work? Nothing I know of travels at infinite speed.
What observations of space will allow us to distinguish your theory from the one that says that space is emptiness?
And what makes it turn into other particles (e.g. electrons or photons) when it collides with itself?
I am not aware of any evidence that shows that space is made of something. As I understand it, space is not a substance. It is the emptiness that objects move in. Or, to put it in simple terms, it is the thing that stops everything from being in the same place.Olga said:
I'm not sure if this is a translation problem, but are you saying that you think space is like a particle (e.g. an electron or a photon), but it is particle that somehow moves at infinite speed? Does that mean your "space particle" is everywhere at once?
Can we detect this particle or "point"?
Also, how does "infinite speed" work? Nothing I know of travels at infinite speed.
How do you know it exists, then?
It sounds like you might be thinking of something like a quantum superposition, but quantum particles are not really "everywhere and nowhere in particular at the same time". We can calculate the probability that a quantum particle will be found in a certain location, for example.
What are the observable consequences of the discreteness of your "space point"?
What observations of space will allow us to distinguish your theory from the one that says that space is emptiness?
Are you aware that the big bang theory does not suggest that the universe was compressed to infinity? It also says nothing about the universe being "stationary" at any time. (Stationary relative to what?)
The big bang theory does not say that, at some time, space turned into particles (matter etc.)
What? Are you saying that your infinitely-fast point can collide with itself? Why isn't it doing that all the time?
And what makes it turn into other particles (e.g. electrons or photons) when it collides with itself?
We describe what we can observe, certainly.
How do they do that? What's the mechanism? Do you have a mathematical description?
Джеймс, мы же говорим о первичном пространстве, из которого произошла наша Вселенная. Хотя, по сути, она локализовалась мгновенно. Т.е. сразу везде, и мы получили вакуум (который вы называете пустотой), и видимую материю. Это событие произошло единожды, почему вы считаете, что оно должно происходить постоянно? Как дальше всё развивалось я вам уже объясняла.
DaveC426913
Valued Senior Member
Thats new. We weren't talking about pre-Big Bang.
We do not know what preceded the Big Bang butvits unlikely to have been space as we know it.
The Big Bang was not an expansion in space, it was an expansion of space - i.e. there was no space before it.
This sounds like speculation rather than fact.
Do you really think you are in a position to "explain" Big Bang Cosmology to anyone - let alone James R?
Здесь просто нужно определиться с терминами. Первичное пространство, и пространство в его нынешнем виде. Ну по крайней мере в этом варианте нам не нужно придумывать никакие "костыли" типа инфляции, или ещё чего-нибудь. Ничего никуда не расширялось, а возникло сразу везде в его нынешнем размере(вернее будет сказать - безразмерности).
Нам ещё многое нужно понять, и "БВ" не предел.
Дэйв, а вы попробуйте опровергнуть эту модель. Сможете найти в ней противоречия?
DaveC426913
Valued Senior Member
It's not a model. It's still just word salad. There's nothing to refute.
You need to have the vocabulary to even express your ideas.
В русском языке идеей можно считать всё, что угодно. "Идея"- задумка. Примерно так можно определить. "Модель" - это некая конструкция, она может быть даже словесная или мысленная. Правильно называть "гипотеза" - то что ещё не доказано, и "теория" - то, что уже доказали. Любая теория начиналась с гипотезы.
Словарный запас у меня достаточный. В русском языке вообще гораздо больше слов, чем в английском, и даже в нашем алфавите больше букв, поэтому мы можем с более тонкими оттенками выражать свои мысли. Но наши фразеологические обороты будут непонятны иностранцу, поэтому я стараюсь говорить максимально просто.
DaveC426913
Valued Senior Member
We are perfectly capable of understanding any well-defined concepts you can write. The problem isn't your language; the problem is your ideas aren't informed. You're talking about things you can't even express.
Here's an example:
"What if the universe were red? And all the galaxies were blue? I don't mean thorugh your telescope; I mean in a deeper sense. Can you refute this?"
There's no model there, no hypothesis, just some words strung together. I have not expressed what "a deeper sense of red" might mean, but I've asked you to examine my idea anyway.
It's not wrong - it's not even wrong.
Please, for your sake and ours, if you are interested in this subject, do some basic reading.
Вселенная конечно же красная. А галактики конечно же синие. А тёмная энергия конечно же белая. Это русские раскрасили Вселенную в цвета своего флага, чтобы показать кто в ней хозяин. (Только это секрет!)
Post links to sources for this, even if they're in Russian. It's rather futile to promote an "alternative theory" without a website, paper, etc elaborating on such. If it's pseudoscience, then such will be futile, anyway. But doubly so if the concepts are not even articulated in a quasi-formal or counterfeit manner somewhere, that at least makes them accessible for public scrutiny.
_
Вероятно, это и есть сама Вселенная.