[Lloyd Gillespie]

David, if matter is everything in a void, then does that mean spirit/mind is matter?

regards

Originally Posted by dleviwing

Unlike time and space, matter does not have an intuitive axiomatic concept or definition.

Matter is something that occupies space and can be perceived by one or more senses; a physical body or the universe as a whole. In physics it is an entity displaying gravitation and inertia when at rest as well as when in motion.

This definition implies an intuitive understanding of our universe and infers that matter cannot exist without displaying gravitation and inertia at some condition of rest and motion. Let's provide an absolute definition for matter and state that "Matter is the fundamental substance of the universe". This doesn't seem to invoke awe and amazement, but it does invoke a vision of something that everything is made of and this is the only physical stuff of the universe. As such we must redefine our notions of mass and energy.

Absolute Matter is the fundamental substance of which all physical entities acquire form and existence. Only the Void exists as a separate entity within an infinite cosmos.

To assign physical properties to a phenomena under this definition, you need to define the physical (physics) mechanics of actions and interaction of matter. This demands cause-and-effect, as opposed to only using empirical data of measurements in producing a mathematical equation to allow us to predict events and motions of material objects. This basically was science before the proliferation and the abuse of Relativity by media and pseudo science.

It would be to the advantage of science to develop equations without also requiring the creation of a new science to interpret them. This was the practice set down by both Relativity and Quantum theory; Do we now allow this process to repeat itself again with "String Theory"? Let's keep the math and get rid of the bizarre interpretations of the mathematical terms.

[dleviwing]

Originally Posted by Lloyd Gillespie

David, if matter is everything in a void, then does that mean spirit/mind is matter?

If they exist, they are matter or interactions of matter.

[David Maes]

Until now i think nothing has really disproved theory of relativity.

i don't think relativity is a TOE. But as long as there is no real proof of the falsity of it, i accept it.

Scientists believe it will get disproved once (and they're hunting for that...)

But on the other hand the theory gave us a lot of evolution in science; and that's something no-one will ever be able to disprove.

If you think you found something wrong about it... prove it.

Oh... here another thing to chew on...

In 1971, some scientists let fly along cesium-atomic clocks for about 40 hours in commercial aircrafts. After calculation of some subtile factors which have to do with gravity-effects, special relativity claims that the total amount of passed time of the moving atomic clocks would be a hundred of milliards of a second less than the total amount of passed time of the atomic clocks which were standing still on earth. This is exactly what has been found.

Now, i don't think when something will be found, they will just say 'everything about relativity is wrong' (just like electro-magnetism of Maxwell is not completely wrong).

i think just saying something is wrong is to extreme; just like saying relativity would be a TOE also.

But on this moment (haven't really seen any evidence which disproved it), i'm sorry, but i follow it.

You have to look at historical evolution of science. i think people will find better (and closer theories). But at this moment i consider it to be a fact.
Undoubtly other facts will appear in the future, and give us a better insight in reality (it might even be things which we cannot even imagen on this moment)...

But being interest in this stuff, i follow proof as much as my laymanness allows me. (and i didn't really saw any proof of relativity being wrong (yet)).

[dipayankar]

I really want to find out the connection between Rest Mass and Energy....

Originally Posted by dleviwing

DavidMaes;
An increase in mass does not necessarily mean an increase in the physical quantity of a substance. You really need to understand mass and energy in their physical sence.

[dleviwing]

This link will provide you all with free downloads of a Freshman collage level set of physics text books. It is too difficult to do one-on-one tutoring of simple physics here on ToeQuest.
http://lightandmatter.com/area1.html

David Maes; Relativity is still a theory and NOT a proven fact. Don’t believe the hype of the relativists. If it were fact, QM would be required to use it. There are no unique experiments that only Relativity can explain. Time dilation is only a function of our physical clocks and not the measure of absolute time. We do not have any device capable of measuring “absolute time”. That is why every moving frame of reference must correct time using the speed of light as a constant. The math works; the interpretations don’t.

[dipayankar]

Hey thanks for the link...

[dipayankar]

With all these experiments about light being able to travel faster than light itself, it could be possible to send information in an EM form which would travel faster than light. In case this is so, then we need to probably relook at the Special theory of relativity and then explore ways of transmission of EM over voids at a speed faster than light...

[David Maes]

Originally Posted by dleviwing

I think you may be confusing EM waves with solar wind. Not the same thing.

You're right Dave, tails of comets are being carried outward by solar wind.

Originally Posted by dipayankar

I really want to find out the connection between Rest Mass and Energy....

i haven't read the site about faster than light yet... (haven't had enough time yet to do so...) but is this proven??

Isn't it experimentally confirmed that the mass of a particle increases when its kinetic energy increases by measurements for electrons which were accelerated by large differences in potential??

Interpreting the last info of mass increase, i would interprete the following...

By the fact that mass and energy are the same, i think with nuclear reactions it might be not right to say that mass is being converted into energy, or even that matter is being distroyed. it might be better to say:
restmass is a particular concentrated form of energy; you could call it 'bottled' energy.

i give you an example of a reaction...

1 ---7 --------4
H + Li gives 2 He
1 ---3 --------2

With this reaction some of this 'bottled' energy is liberated in the form of kinetic energy of small particles. This is being delivered to the environs, which becomes warmer owing to this. As the molecules of the environs acquire kinetic energy, so they acquire mass. So with a nuclear explosion concentrated rest-mass(-energy) is being converted into
the thermal mass(-energy) of the environs. There hasn't took place a total change-over in mass and nor a total change-over in energy; mass-energy remains the same.

E = mc² has been tested quantitatively.

When one uses mass-spectrography for the example i gave, then you find with 2He there is a loss of restmass.

When one calculates the mass of atoms out of the observed energys of nuclear processes, then you get very accurate atomic weights. When you compare the atomic weights you calculated this way with the weights you acquired by using mass-spectrography, then the correspondence is in such a way, that one hardly could desire a better proof for the equivalence of matter and energy.

i believe you're right when you say, there can't be mass without energy and there can't be energy without mass.

[dipayankar]

The news about faster than light speed by light is posted in this website itself..

Originally Posted by David Maes

i haven't read the site about faster than light yet... (haven't had enough time yet to do so...) but is this proven??

[David Maes]

What's also on this website now is one of the best proofs of E = mc².

E = mc² is a fundamental law in physics; fundamental means E = mc² (mass-energy) is everywhere; it's a part of everything.

If you are asking whether E = mc² is the TOE, then i don't think myself it is.

i consider fundamental laws of nature (like E = mc²), more to be like the top of a mountain in the mountain-landscape of physical reality; which is full of icy glaciers with tricky cracs and steep mountain-sides. But i consider E = mc² to be more like a huge mountain-top.

On this moment we don't really know the complete landscape, we only have mountains, which give us a splendid view when you are on top of them; but we don't see the complete landscape.

i'm on the relativity top now, enjoying its splendid view. And i'm only now starting to realize how beautiful the view is.

Relativity is a fundamental law of nature; if things truely can go faster than light; and if there truely are exceptions to relativity, then there have to be made adjustments to get closer to the complete landscape of physical reality... so we could find a new mountain-top which gives us an even better view...

i think the better view will not prove that the view of the relativity mountain-top will be a complete optical illusion. Just like the view of the relativity mountain didn't show us, that the view of the Newton mountain was a complete optical illusion. No! It will only be a better view...

Even when a better view will be proven, relativity will always remain a very important mountain-top in the landscape of physical reality.

So i'm not here to say that relativity is the TOE (it was never really my purpose by the way); i'm just pointing to a mountain with a very splendid view.