[subversion]

Originally Posted by <<>>

Yes, that's what I say, that particles exist. Whiles for Mr.Nobody, waht we call particles is jsut that, the word, the concept and what it helps us to build oru knowledge, for him it's not real. But it's obvious that they do exist, for if not matter would not exist or anything would exist.

oh yeah, I agree

[subversion]

Originally Posted by <<>>

If you want to belief this, do so. But it won't change from that, a belief. It's not my opinion, it's jus that saying that such fundamental entities which represent the words mass and matter are the same is wrong.

Allright, I'm not saying that you're wrong. I just want you to explain in very good terms to me why matter is different then mass because if you say that matter is just "rest mass" I will ask you to define for me an absolute frame of rest because nothing on planet earth and nothing that we can weigh is at rest. Everything in the universe is moving.

Originally Posted by Guille

In fact for being so fundamental, equalizing these two concepts means developing a compelte whole science which is wrong, from top to bottom. It's like saying everywhere there is science there is philosophy, so science and philosophy are the same thing

so you think science is wrong that thinks mass and matter are the same thing. Well welcome to the world of science. Science made up a term called "relativistic mass" to refer to what deleviwing is referring to. Also I just wanted to point out that science and philosophy are the same thing. In fact the first scientists were called natural philosophers. Science is really just physics at it's core, and math is the way we represent physics, and physics is just natural philosophy, or nature's philosophy if you will.

[Mr. Nobody]

hmmmm, if not for particles than nothing would exist?
I don't see particles, I see electromagnetic waves bouncing off of surfaces that are again electromagnetic bonds between atoms. An atom consists of quarks and gluons, electrons and lots of empty space. Then, what is the structure of these quarks, gluons and electrons? Nothing? You see as you follow down the rabbit hole you basically end up with lots of empty space. Empty space interrupted by propabilty waves of matter/energy doting in and out of existence to be subjected to decoherance to form stable bonds that have, are and will evolve into an ever greater manifestation of ordered matter/energy

Particles are our alphabet. Through them we can understand, communicate and verbalize, but they have no meaining outside their domain, They are the descirption, the WORD of matter/energy

[subversion]

Originally Posted by Mr. Nobody

hmmmm, if not for particles than nothing would exist?
I don't see particles, I see electromagnetic waves bouncing off of surfaces that are again electromagnetic bonds between atoms. An atom consists of quarks and gluons, electrons and lots of empty space. Then, what is the structure of these quarks, gluons and electrons? Nothing? You see as you follow down the rabbit hole you basically end up with lots of empty space. Empty space interrupted by propabilty waves of matter/energy doting in and out of existence to be subjected to decoherance to form stable bonds that have, are and will evolve into an ever greater manifestation of ordered matter/energy

Particles are our alphabet. Through them we can understand, communicate and verbalize, but they have no meaining outside their domain, They are the descirption, the WORD of matter/energy

Oh yeah, I also agree with this. But matter does really exist. Or at least it really feels like it. The illusion is perfect or what not.

[Guille]

Originally Posted by subversion

Allright, I'm not saying that you're wrong. I just want you to explain in very good terms to me why matter is different then mass because if you say that matter is just "rest mass" I will ask you to define for me an absolute frame of rest because nothing on planet earth and nothing that we can weigh is at rest. Everything in the universe is moving.

No, for me matter is neither rest mass, nor relatvisitic mass, nor any type of mass. Matter is the physical bodies of the universe (we must now also include anti-matter). That's it.

Originally Posted by subversion

so you think science is wrong that thinks mass and matter are the same thing. Well welcome to the world of science. Science made up a term called "relativistic mass" to refer to what deleviwing is referring to. Also I just wanted to point out that science and philosophy are the same thing. In fact the first scientists were called natural philosophers. Science is really just physics at it's core, and math is the way we represent physics, and physics is just natural philosophy, or nature's philosophy if you will.

Good arguments. For science, matter is not the same entity as mass. They might be though mutual identities, as you can always know that if there is matter this is the identity that there is mass and vice versa. Bu thtey are not the same entity. Mass is the weight of something in relation to no defined gravity. Matter is what something is, it's the particles, the atoms, molecules.

About science and philosophy... You probably agree with me that throughout history humans ahve made many errors. For example, we should ahve called the electrons to have the positive charge for electricity, as it would be easier. Another example is that the Germans believed that the americans would have the D-Day in a port in the south of England, but no: it happened in the coast of Normandy. Well just the same, it is an error in human terminology to ahve historically called physics natural philosophy. I mean, the term is correct, but not apprpoiate. I know that physics is the basis of all science and that physics is the application of mathematics to the philosophy of nature. However, this doesn't mean that science is philosophy. It means that science is ultimatelly reduced to the philosophy of nature. But this is not a complete sentence. We miss something: science is ultiamtelly reduced to the scientific method, experiments, mathematics added to the philosophy of nature. But I can tell you that a philosopher is not a scientist nor does he ahve scientific authority, and vice versa.

[subversion]

Originally Posted by <<>>

No, for me matter is neither rest mass, nor relatvisitic mass, nor any type of mass. Matter is the physical bodies of the universe (we must now also include anti-matter). That's it.

matter is mass though, always, because all matter is effected by gravity right? Therefore it is impossible to have matter and not mass so the two are really the same thing right?

Originally Posted by Guille

Good arguments. For science, matter is not the same entity as mass. They might be though mutual identities, as you can always know that if there is matter this is the identity that there is mass and vice versa. Bu thtey are not the same entity. Mass is the weight of something in relation to no defined gravity. Matter is what something is, it's the particles, the atoms, molecules.

if matter is what something is and mass is not then it directly implies that you can have something that is (matter) without having mass which is in contradiction to what you said that if you have mass you have matter and visa versa. Guille, don't you see that if two things are mutually inclusive they are the same thing? Providing a seperate definition for matter as if matter doesn't have mass is completely unecessary. Don't you agree?

Originally Posted by Guille

About science and philosophy... You probably agree with me that throughout history humans ahve made many errors. For example, we should ahve called the electrons to have the positive charge for electricity, as it would be easier. Another example is that the Germans believed that the americans would have the D-Day in a port in the south of England, but no: it happened in the coast of Normandy. Well just the same, it is an error in human terminology to ahve historically called physics natural philosophy. I mean, the term is correct, but not apprpoiate. I know that physics is the basis of all science and that physics is the application of mathematics to the philosophy of nature. However, this doesn't mean that science is philosophy. It means that science is ultimatelly reduced to the philosophy of nature. But this is not a complete sentence. We miss something: science is ultiamtelly reduced to the scientific method, experiments, mathematics added to the philosophy of nature. But I can tell you that a philosopher is not a scientist nor does he ahve scientific authority, and vice versa.

the TOE knows no difference between any mode of thought, because the TOE is the ultimate mode of thought. Therefore the TOE does not distinguish between science or philosophy. I thought you agreed with this by coining your term philensciensophia?

anyway, good discussion

[harmonygirl]

but at different intensities of gravity the mass would change but the matter wouldn't, right? So then arent' they different?

[AntonioLao]

Originally Posted by harmonygirl

but at different intensities of gravity the mass would change but the matter wouldn't, right?

Mass can change by speed as described in the relativistic mass equation of special relativity. But if the gravitational intensity increases it only means that you are getting closer to the source of the inverse square law of force.

[mkirkpatrick]

Just a brief reply,I am back from India after a months travelling around that
wonderful country,came home to find my computer full of bugs,will have to wait a few days to get repaired,have missed you all on the quest,thought is the prime mover of all reality.energy,matter, are all the same and are inter-changable,will be back online soonm.
best regards michael have had to type this fast from work.

[subversion]

Originally Posted by harmonygirl

but at different intensities of gravity the mass would change but the matter wouldn't, right? So then arent' they different?

it's the weight that changes, which means the amount of gravitational force for a given amount of mass. The matter stays the same.