[dleviwing]

Sub;
Why what???
If you mean why only particles the answer is that the concept of absolute zero temperature is based on the degree of freedom of movement of particles and atomic structures.
At the velocity of "c" the degree of freedom is effectively zero and thus the temperature is "Absolute Zero".

If you are referring to the solidity part of my post, then I can only say that the velocity of light is not the ultimate motion quantity (Absolute Motion) for uniform motion. If the object acquired a quantity of total uniform motion (angular + linear) equivalent to about 6*10^11c, then it would be an "Absolute Solid "; commonly called a singularity. Its mass would be infinity and its density would also be infinity. This matter would not have any interactions with what we call normal matter and would pass through even a black hole as if it where not even there.

Sufficient quantities of two objects of matter in this state motion, may form a universe if they collide.
Regards;
Dave

[subversion]

Yes, I was asking why about both things, but I'm not sure that your answer addresses my question. If At the velocity of "c" the degree of freedom is effectively zero and thus the temperature is "Absolute Zero" applies to particles why won't it apply to an object?

Secondly, how did you arrive at this figure of six times ten to the negative eleventh times the speed of light? You say at this speed an object's mass would be infinite, well if you take an object's momentum to be a direct relationship to its mass, then an object actually reaches infinite mass at the speed of light, not later.

kudos, subversion

[dleviwing]

Sub;
There are people who have concepts that infer energy is an object. My comment applies only to objects of real physical substance or structure.

There is no NEGATIVE sign in the value I stated. This value represents the expansion rate of the Big Bang in the first few microseconds as described by Quantum theory.

If you do research into electron spin, you will find many science papers that predict the electron has an angular velocity of about 10^15 meters per second. I tend to lean toward this view as correct.

Infinite mass at the speed of light is only a factor of the mathematics of "Relativity" not QM.

[subversion]

Originally Posted by dleviwing Sub; There are people who have concepts that infer energy is an object.

by people you mean Einstein and company? Are you suggesting that we don't take the equation E=mc^2 at face value?

Originally Posted by dleviwing Infinite mass at the speed of light is only a factor of the mathematics of "Relativity" not QM.

so "QM" and Relativity (notice I switched the quotations) have a major discrepancy in this case, in which case you tend to favor QM?

[dleviwing]

Originally Posted by subversion by people you mean Einstein and company? Are you suggesting that we don't take the equation E=mc^2 at face value?

Sub;
Are you saying that you are willing to accept it at face value without knowing what it is really expressing.

What does E=mc^2 mean to you??? Follow the theme of this thread and evaluate the terms of the equation. To me it simply states that one form of energy measure, "mc^2", equates to another form of energy measure "E" (radiant energy). It only states that you can convert potential energy to radiant energy or visa versa. Do you see anything more than this?

You have the skill to see through the academic dogma, why do you feel a need to present it to me?

Are you interpreting the "m" as meaning a quantity of matter? It is the measure of the inertia property of matter and too often improperly interpreted as the physical measure of quantity. There are no physics terms that represent a true measure of the quantity of a fundamental substance of matter. This is the greatest promoted error in modern science text.

so "QM" and Relativity (notice I switched the quotations) have a major discrepancy in this case, in which case you tend to favor QM?

I favor QM only in the sense that it accounts for uniform motion and wave functions not accounted for in the mathematics of Relativity.

[dleviwing]

Hi Graybeard;
Can you explain the image a little more? I'm not sure what you're trying to show.
Is this a mirror image, or does Left and Right reverse south of the equator?

[Graybeard]

Sorry Dave ... i did try to load an image according to the method sub explained ... it worked fine ... i thought i had deleted it again .. the image i had in mind is no longer acceptable since i read your post #14

This quantity of motion is still present in every structure of matter.

I am having difficulty with the terms you use ... the above quote in particular

Let me explain how i see the 'speed of light'

The way i understand it is:

1.. The Universe has a speed limit (acceleration may be the better word here?)
2.. The 'speed limit' is a mixture of mass & acceleration. (matter & motion ??)
3.. Nothing that started at less than or equal to this speed can exceed it.
4.. All things defined in point 3 travel at this speed limit .. only the 'mixture' varies

4.. for 'Light' (a photon) this speed limit is reached by (Mass = 0) x (300,000klm/sec)
5.. for 'Me' (a human) this speed limit is reached by (Mass > 0) x (speed < 300,000/sec)

For me, these two things are the same.... that is, the more mass, the less speed and the less mass the more speed ...... But the SUM TOTAL of the mix is always the same

What i am trying to figure out (one, among many things... your posts have given me lots of headaches) is this, is your quote saying, more succinctly, the same thing as me ???

Also are my different 'fuel mixes' the same as your uniform & random motion.

Also, if this is too complex for a post, perhaps you can direct me to a site, or book, that will bring me up to speed.

just before the "Big Bang" that caused the chaos of wave function vibration of this matter to expand

To complicate things further, the way you used the term 'big-bang. Do you follow the model that there was a massive explosion or acceleration that has been slowing down ever since, or the later 'inflation' model. I have trouble with the big-bang model as it can't account for the current temperature of the Universe (+2 K)

Much appreciated ..... GREG

[dleviwing]

Hi Greg;
I don't know if I can answer all your queries in a single post, but I'll try.
Many of us on TOEquest, realized that the interpretations of our gauge theories (Relativity & QM) where quite absurd and where becoming a borderline religion. Some of us, like yourself, have developed concepts that help us deal with the nonsense. Unfortunately some of what has been viewed as nonsense is only misunderstanding of the science terminology. Other problems arise when science facts are misquoted and passed on without being corrected. (Your 5 statements show you are victim of some of this)

The concept that the speed of light has been proven to be a constant or a speed limit is false. This speed limit has already been experimentally broken.

The CONSTANT is the number obtained as a result of the "MEASUREMENT" of the speed of light in a vacuum. This is by a defined method of performing the measurement. This fact allows our mathematics to be corrected to a universal value that we can obtain regardless of our state of motion in the universe (time frame reference/Relativity).

Radiant energy is not made up of particles of light moving through space. The PHOTON is a measure of the increment quantity of energy (part of the wave) that is said to be absorbed or emitted by matter. In my concept, this is shown to be a misleading concept. What is referred to as absorbed and emitted energy is actually only an increment change of the distribution of motion.

My concept is, in some ways, similar to your concept of fixed quantities that the sum-total is constant. In my concept I view motion as an "Absolute". For example: if you are in an airplane traveling at 500 mph, ignoring all other motions on the plane, your total quantity of motion is the same as the plane. Only your quantity of matter is different than the plane. The universe functions in the same way. All physical systems within the universe have "Absolute Motion". The motion of any of these systems is distributed as UNIFORM MOTION (example: velocity and spin) and RANDOM MOTION (chaotic wave functions)

Now lets look a radiant energy. You stated the mass of light is "0.0". This should be view as the "Rest Mass" is zero. Radiant energy has what is referred to as "Relative Mass". This is sometimes called "Planck's Mass". Einstein's equation was derived by the assumption that light had zero rest mass and thus the momentum part of the energy equation for particles was canceled. This leaves only the part of the equation E=mc^2.

Now what do the numbers that represent "m" really mean. If you have read much of Richard Feynman's work, you will find that this has always been somewhat of a mystery. This is one of the things that gave me goose bumps when I realized that mass is in reality the measure of the quantity of "Uniform Motion" of a physical system; Thus "potential energy".

The "Big Bang"? The evidence indicates the expansion theory is the greatest probability. My argument is with the singularity concept. I view the BB as a collision of to objects with absolute linear velocity (perfect solids at 0 degrees K). The linear uniform motion was then converted to randomized chaotic wave function (ultra HOT stuff) and started to expand.(the boiling universe of quantum foam) The rest pretty much follows the standard model.

Sorry for your headache. Hope you have more aspirin!

Have fun;
Dave

[subversion]

First of all, let me answer Graybeard’s questions

1. correct, the speed of light is considered to be the universal speed limit
2. no, the limit does not apply to mass or acceleration, it only pretains to speed
3. correct, nothing can exceed C
4. no, the only thing which travels at C is light
5. basically you've got it sort of backwards. More speed is more mass, not less mass, because more speed means more kinetic energy. In order for the kinetic energy E of an object to stay equal to MC^2 you can see that the mass M of the object must become greater if we consider the speed of light C to be constant. So E=MC^2 means that an object's speed will add to it's energy which means it will also add to it's mass for the equation to stay equal. As the object approaches the speed of light it's relative mass becomes infinite, which makes it infinitely difficult to push, which is why pushing an object to the speed of light becomes infinitely difficult, or in other words, impossible. Hope that clears it up.

Now as for your questions Dave.

Originally Posted by dleviwing Are you saying that you are willing to accept it at face value without knowing what it is really expressing. What does E=mc^2 mean to you???

To accept it at face value IS to know what it is expressing. E=MC^2 means that mass and energy are equivocatable, which is to say that they avoid making an explicit statement about what they are, but that they can be correlated in our minds. This means that according to the mathematics we don't know what is mass and what is energy. This means that fundamentally they must be identical. I don't feel that this is dogma; this is experimentally sound at least.

Originally Posted by dleviwing There are no physics terms that represent a true measure of the quantity of a fundamental substance of matter.

sure there is, gravity tells us what is mass and what is not. If gravity says that an object has relativistic mass, then we would be foolish to second guess gravity!

I agree with you on certain points, dleviwing, such as certain aspects of your concept of absolute motion, and would be interested in working together accept that I feel we are still in completely different veins. You like QM, whereas I think QM is a case where science has stopped thinking ahead, and instead has resorted to making ad hoc, make-shift theories to explain odd experimental results after the fact. What the cunundrum of the TOE makes glaringly obvious is that nature isn't just going to give us the answer. It's not like we'll do a clumsy atom smashing experiment one day and boom, the Higgs boson or whatever will come and do a dance for us and tell us everything we need to know. That's not how it works; theory and forethought MUST preceed and guide experimentation. We have everything we need to know to develop the theory of everything, so we don't need to do more experiments until we develop the theory. I think Relativity, unlike QM, was an intelligent theory because it was first and foremost a thought experiment, which was only later proved experimentally. QM is the exact opposite, thus by correlation it is a stupid theory, completely lacking insight to begin with. Insight will be the key to the TOE, and Relativity is a good starting point, but we have to accept it at face value first.

best regards, subversion

[dleviwing]

"This means that according to the mathematics we don't know what is mass and what is energy. This means that fundamentally they must be identical. I don't feel that this is dogma; this is experimentally sound at least."

Sub;
My point exactly! We "Don't Know" the difference mathematically or perceptually.
My concept vividly shows that mass is the uniform motion quantity and energy is the wave function (randomized motion) quantity of a fundamental physical entity (matter). Neither term (E nor m) denotes a true quantity of a fundamental physical entity of matter.
Your statement seems a bit contradictive when you say "you know" in one sentence and then say we "don't know in the next".

It appears that you have formed an opinion of QM based on the absurd claims of some scientist and authors. These people tend to say QM supports their view since QM includes the uncertainty principle. This is an abuse of the true QM theory. If you ignore these obvious absurdities based on uncertainty and maintain your focus on the probability function, the theory and the math are functional in the micro world for obtaining experimental data. QM is based on Planck's concepts, not on Hysenburg's. Understand that I do NOT accept all of QM as useful or correct. I only say I know WHY the math works.

I agree with you on the soundness of "Relativity"; however Relativity fails to enter the realm of the microcosm and thus is virtually useless in particle physics.

gravity tells us what is mass and what is not. If gravity says that an object has relativistic mass, then we would be foolish to second guess gravity!

This is a false statement. Gravity tells us nothing about physical quantities anymore than the term "mass" does.

Step outside the box and be in awe of the vistas of reality. (dleviwing 2005)

I walked in your shoes 40 years ago. I hope it don't take you 40 years to walk in mine.

I enjoy the responses on this thread, they are forcing me to find a better way of communicating my views.
Thanks;
Dave