[dleviwing]

Hi David Maes;
Basically I am attempting to point out the many misconceptions of our science terminology. Stating that matter is energy or mass is one of the major ones that tend to annoy me to no end. It is the whole point of my thread "Dimensions and Entities".

When we talk about energy as if it were its own entity, it is usually referring to specific states or interactions of structured matter (particles) and unstructured matter (EM waves, ether). The greatest problem in today's physics is that we are being lead to believe that reality includes mysterious dimensions and even sometimes supernatural phenomena. Some of this is simply misconception of basic terminology and some is done deliberately to bring mystery to science publications to increase sales.

As far as M-theory (11 dimension string theory) is concerned, I am opposed to it very strongly. It is just another BS interpretation that holds no more reality than QM or Relativity. Until these mathematical gauge theories can be interpreted to a pure classical reality, these theories will only be useful equations to advance our technology.

Believe me Dave, I am only attempting to bring an end to the confusion and complexity created by the P squared interpretations of the mathematics.

Many like yourself have strong passion of their knowledge and beliefs and view my statement as personal. The passion is very admirable but I find emotions to be a strong obstacle to overcome when searching for truth. I've been called "a cold S-O-B" many times though it really is not true. Unfortunately we all have been influence by this trait of human nature at one time or another.

Even thought we have some differences, I consider you one of the free thinkers here on ToeQuest. Too bad we can't join up in a good pub and have some good talks over a few ales.

[David Maes]

Originally Posted by dleviwing As far as M-theory (11 dimension string theory) is concerned, I am opposed to it very strongly.

i'm sorry Dave, i seem to have missjudged you.

[Mohan.C]

I really don't understand why people misinterpret the basic concepts. Like matter, mass and energy. Mass is just the measure of inertia of an object. Like I keep a bag of coke on earth it is at rest I need to push it to make it move. The resistance the object puts against me to make it move is Mass. Say 60 Kgs. I keep the same bag on the moon. I don't need that lot of force to make it move. But the matter has not been altered. On moon it's say 20 kgs. The mass of the object is different.

And I agree with the title. And I am happy I have understood it.

[subversion]

Mohan;
Actually this isn't quite correct. The mass of an object is no different whether it is on the moon or on the Earth. What you are thinking of is weight, which has to do with the force of gravity, which is different on the moon than on the Earth. The only thing which changes mass is speed and other curvatures of space-time. There is no difference between mass and matter, but mass and weight are two different things. Imagine this, if mass is a measure of matter, then matter must also be a measure of mass. For example, inches are a measure of distance, and distance is a measure of inches. If mass is a measurement that describes how much matter something has, then matter must be a measurement describing how much mass something has. Gravity does not distinguish between mass and matter, therefore they are the same thing, according to gravity. Right?

[dleviwing]

Mohan;
Sub is right when it comes to saying you are referring to weight and not mass. He is however wrong on his example of matter and mass being synonymous. Inches are a measure of distance, however distance is NOT a measure of inches; it is measured in inches.

Sub; it is the propagation of false and misinformation like that, that produces the confusion. If you don't know the facts, don't post the BS.

[David Maes]

Ok i'm going to state something which i consider to be a simple truth.

Everything related to what we call 'nature' is about balance or equilibrium.
It's always like that... whether we are talking about matter and energy, about economy, psychology, sociology, chemistry...

This might sound a little paradoxical, but even what we experience as time and space or part of a balance or equilibrium. Relativity has not been introduced by some nutty professor who was so intelligent he could say things nobody could proof to be wrong. No, it has been introduced because it was the only way to make science evolve. (Without it we might just not be chatting right now).

The reason why many people still don't believe in relativity is because it's conflicting with our intuitions and our experiences. But these are just funded by relativistic laws. Time is stretching? Space is stretching? These things really happen. Relativity has been widely proven. It's an illusion to think absolute space and time have meaning, only relative time and space have meaning, and we call it timespace.

First we had Newtonian laws which brought us closer to reality. After this Einstein brought us even more close. But we still don't have a TOE.

If we want to discover a new physics, then i think it's just gonna have to be some new mechanism of balance or equilibrium which doesn't say 'relativity is wrong', but which will only give it a better and deeper meaning.

I mean... is Newton wrong?? No, we can still use Newtonian laws very well. But Newtonian laws have just been improved for superfast motions and gravity for conditions of high concentration of mass (or, what i consider to be the same, energy). Gravity is just a consequence of the change of curvature of space, which is caused by the presence of matter.

So if there would be contradictions concerning relativity, then this is shouting for a new kind of balanced mechanism.

Nature is balance, that's all it is.

We have to learn to know and handdle this balance to survive and use it to bring it in agreement with our needs.

Matter and energy are a discription of the same thing, and that's balance.

And about time itself? The direction we experience when we drop a stone in water and look at the motion of the water?

Time is just a resulting experience we have, which results from some kind of mechanism of equilibrium which is just hidden underneath of it.

Nature doesn't care about egoism or altruism; it's just balance.

[Lloyd Gillespie]

Originally Posted by David Maes Ok i'm going to state something which i consider to be a simple truth. Relativity has not been introduced by some nutty professor who was so intelligent he could say things nobody could proof to be wrong. No, it has been introduced because it was the only way to make science evolve. (Without it we might just not be chatting right now). The reason why many people still don't believe in relativity is because it's conflicting with our intuitions and our experiences. But these are just funded by relativistic laws. Time is stretching? Space is stretching? These things really happen. Relativity has been widely proven. It's an illusion to think absolute space and time have meaning, only relative time and space have meaning, and we call it timespace.

Hey David, explain why Einstein's theories can't see behind, or before the Big Bang. Something is short-circuited here or there, and it's not me... BTW, don't give me post big bang answers, as the era before the big bang is the land, of "The law of no law", as John Wheeler stated. It will take a classical Newtonian answer to explain this truthfully - SRT and GRT are useless on the other side of light... And, thought can never be relative to itself and be real; it's always absolute to itself, to be epistemologically real... Absolute space and time do have true meaning, i.e., anything truly scientific must be based on absolutes, which is no more than reducing thought to its unreducible base element of subject being discussed... Then you can go forward with true deffinitions and solid foundations... We have no other way of understanding the world; all else is confusion... Most all relativity is post-modern subjectivity...the real world is objective...cognize instead of abstract...you'll have better luck...

And Sub, mass is the potential energy of the velocity of matter...is...always has been...always will be...the absolute truth... E does =MC^2

regards

[Mohan.C]

dleviwing;
Can I say that sub's atomic particles have high energy, but much less matter. Does that mean they have more mass?

[dleviwing]

DavidMaes;
Of all the activities in applied physics today, 95% is pure classical physics. The other 5% is divided between Relativity and QM. I think classical Newtonian physics is well ahead of all others. Until Relativity and QM mathematics can be interpreted in a pure classical form, we will continue to hear the nonsense of time dilation and space warps. Mathematics can prove the Earth as center of the solar system, but better science proved this wrong and better science will prove the interpretations of Relativity and QM wrong. Listen to your intuitions, they're quite likely trying to tell you something.

Relativity has been widely proven.

Absolutely FALSE. The math works, the interpretations don't. There are other more rational interpretations of the numbers.

[dipayankar]

I liked the way you explained things. Probably you have a teaching profession. However lets look at when you said that was Newton wrong???

Gravity as defined by Newton is a force that acts between two masses, the more contemporary definition of Gravity is a curvature in space time... For the same term there are two definitions. That too drastically different.

If it is due to curvature in space time??? How can it also be related to interaction between masses??

Originally Posted by David Maes Ok i'm going to state something which i consider to be a simple truth. Everything related to what we call 'nature' is about balance or equilibrium. It's always like that... whether we are talking about matter and energy, about economy, psychology, sociology, chemistry... This might sound a little paradoxical, but even what we experience as time and space or part of a balance or equilibrium. Relativity has not been introduced by some nutty professor who was so intelligent he could say things nobody could proof to be wrong. No, it has been introduced because it was the only way to make science evolve. (Without it we might just not be chatting right now). The reason why many people still don't believe in relativity is because it's conflicting with our intuitions and our experiences. But these are just funded by relativistic laws. Time is stretching? Space is stretching? These things really happen. Relativity has been widely proven. It's an illusion to think absolute space and time have meaning, only relative time and space have meaning, and we call it timespace. First we had Newtonian laws which brought us closer to reality. After this Einstein brought us even more close. But we still don't have a TOE. If we want to discover a new physics, then i think it's just gonna have to be some new mechanism of balance or equilibrium which doesn't say 'relativity is wrong', but which will only give it a better and deeper meaning. I mean... is Newton wrong?? No, we can still use Newtonian laws very well. But Newtonian laws have just been improved for superfast motions and gravity for conditions of high concentration of mass (or, what i consider to be the same, energy). Gravity is just a consequence of the change of curvature of space, which is caused by the presence of matter. So if there would be contradictions concerning relativity, then this is shouting for a new kind of balanced mechanism. Nature is balance, that's all it is. We have to learn to know and handdle this balance to survive and use it to bring it in agreement with our needs. Matter and energy are a discription of the same thing, and that's balance. And about time itself? The direction we experience when we drop a stone in water and look at the motion of the water? Time is just a resulting experience we have, which results from some kind of mechanism of equilibrium which is just hidden underneath of it. Nature doesn't care about egoism or altruism; it's just balance.