[N0B0DY]

I'm sure that RP would have a "field" day with the both of us, Cosvis. I can concede with a few things, but a few others are itching my brain.

The speed of light is based solely on empirical and theoretical limits, and the zero rest mass is suggested to be opposite what you have stated. The photon is alleged to have zero rest mass because no massive body can traverse at the velocity of light; E=mc^2 equates mass/energy, not matter and energy. Which is the reason I propose that matter is synonymous with absolute space; and photons don't have to have gravitational mass to propagate along the space frame warped by the cumulative gravitational mass of massive particles, or the gravitational mass of the heavenly bodies if you prefer.

The rest I would concede and stand corrected.

[cosvis]

Hi Nobody and all

You are right Nobody when you say: "The photon is alleged to have zero rest mass because no massive body contraverse at the velocity of light." (Einstein theory) I made a mistake; photons have zero rest mass because they are continuously travelling at the speed of light. I call the gravitational mass of a photon virtual mass which is identical to its kinetic mass, because a photon does exhibits both kinetic and gravitational effects on other masses.

You also said; "E = m c^2 equates mass / energy, not matter and energy." You than proposed a theory, if I understand you properly, that matter is the element that gives space to an object. My question then is what is the difference between mass and matter?

I looked up the term "matter" in "The Hutchinson Dictionary of Science". It states this: "matter in physics, anything that has mass and can be detected and measured. All matter is made up of atoms, which in turn are made up of elementary particles;...The history of science and philosophy is largely taken up with accounts of theories of matter, ranging from the hard 'atoms' of Democritus to the 'waves' of modern quantum theory."

In my theory, a quantum particle has virtual mass, and according to the Hutchinson's description of matter, it can also be regarded as matter because it can be detected and measured. I am attracted to the quantum theory that quantum consists of waves. It has a kinetic energy in the form of a kinetic wave and gravitational potential energy in the form of a gravitational wave. The kinetic energy gives the quantum particle its constant speed and the gravitational potential energy gives the quantum particle a constant gravitational pull or attraction. Since a quantum particle is a quantity of energy of a Planck constant, and since it can not loose any energy nor gain any energy it is a constant particle.

Yours Cosvis.

[N0B0DY]

Yes, I agree with the last paragraph, Cosvis. That is a very helpful way to explain it imo.

Yet, I don't define virtual the way you have defined it, but it's a small issue with regards to our differences. The bigger issue is equating matter and mass, which I define as being absolute space without motion on the one hand, and relative spaces in relative motion on the other. The dictionary definitions don't account for what matter is exactly made of, and therefore equate it with observable forms of mass.

Mass is matter/space in motion, but matter is not mass.

[cosvis]

Hi Nobody and all,

It is a difficulty to exactly to see the distinction you make between mass and matter. You say Mass is matter / space in motion. But matter is not mass. Scientists talk in terms of inertial mass, gravitational mass and relativistic mass; but they also talk about relativity matter. Thus you might be right when you say that the terms mass and matter are not identical, they have different meanings, but I am not sure of the different meanings.

The term space gives us three dimensional phenomena of the physical universe. In Newtonians view they were describing a universl physical phenomena that extended into three mutually perpendicular directions. In Einsteinian physics, space and time are combined into a four-dimensional continuum.

Do you think, Nobody, we could say that the terms mass and space describe different aspects of matter in different situations. In this way the terms matter and mass are not identical and each has its own proper function when it comes to talking about physical reality?

Yours Cosvis.

[N0B0DY]

Precisely, Cosvis. The einsteinian fourth dimension is the variable factor of mass that produces the relative measurements of newtonian space which never moves; it is equal to the motion of light(positive energy, negative mass), and gravity(positive mass. negative energy).

If I remember correctly, I think it was Aristotle or Leibniz who propose a fundamental substance consisting solely of motion; that the substance is motion itself. So I equate that submission with the concept of mass that is extracted within observable limits. It is comparable to the EM spectrum, where the dark ends are representative of gravity and the white center representative of light; matter would be the equivalent of no EM waves at all - the net energy of the universe at every point is zero.

[dleviwing]

Matter is the ENTITY; mass and energy are dimensions of measurement. We cannot know what matter is; we can only define what attributes matter has. If you say that mass and matter are synonymous you are claiming that the attribute is the entity. Motion is also an attribute of matter. Leibniz stated it was the only essential attribute of matter; it’s not.
The one attribute of the human being that can alleviate the confusion between mass and matter is called: THINKING.

[N0B0DY]

Agreed, Dave. With thinking in mind, some would go as far as to suggest brane waves are synonymous to brain waves.

Comparative to EMR's and mass' time taken to travel from planck A to planck B, matter finds "itself" in both instances, and this simplifies for me that matter which has absolute density is certainly different than mass which has variable densities.

Point taken about Leibniz. I agree there is more than one attribute that can be attributed to matter.

[cosvis]

Hi Nobody, David and all.

I think David is right when he said that Matter is the Entity, and mass, energy and motion are aspects or qualities of Matter. We can not have Mattter without mass and we cannot have mass with out energy because according to Einstein mass is energy. Certainly we can have Matter that is at rest which has no motion, but we can also have Matter that has motion and we call that Matter, relativity mass. If we can have Matter that has motion than we can regard a quantum particle also Matter because it is mass in motion with the only difference that it has zero rest mass.

I liked the comment of David that to eliminate the confusion between Matter and mass is thinking! That is why it is good to share our ideas, we will have greater brain power.

Yours Cosvis.

[N0B0DY]

Of course we can think what we want, Cosvis, but the relevant terms seem to be getting fuzzier.

There is relativistic mass, not matter, which is not in use any longer; there is rest mass, not matter, in a relative rest frame; quantum mechanics applies to discete measures of both mass and energy, again not matter.

Though I agree with you that we cannot have matter. The mystery, to get our heads around, is that there can be no existence without motion and the absolute universe can't move. This is the reason Einstein suggested that mass/energy/space/time/motion are persistent illusions, because the real matter of the universe is unreal. It's all spirit!

[dleviwing]

Originally Posted by N0B0DY

This is the reason Einstein suggested that mass/energy/space/time/motion are persistent illusions, because the real matter of the universe is unreal. It's all spirit!

Nobody;
I am not familiar with such a suggested concept from Einstein; do you have a link that states his views of this?

If you read my blog you will see that I view mass and energy as measures of the motion state of matter.