[Guille]

Originally Posted by Nobody G = E / c^2.

This is like saying that mass is equal to gravity, which is absurd for then there should be no acceleration in gravity (and that would mean that the value of gravity is constant and equal everywhere and everytime) and that a force is equal to a type of energy, which also impplies there is no distance, and thus no space. So for you, the universe must have no space, it's a point, and gravity is constant within the whole point. It seems that this describes the conditions in the begining (pre big bang) state of the universe. But not the universe of today.

[HIGGSBOSONS]

Sorry Guille I Did'nt Pick Your Point

[Guille]

Originally Posted by HIGGSBOSONS Sorry Guille I Did'nt Pick Your Point

I'm not ideal at explaining physics, but I'll try easier now. A photon is energy and carries a certain amount of energy, which is not variable. It's 'proper' speed is 300,00km/s in vacuum. In mediums, the speed is less always than the proper speed, and it's value depends on the density of particles in it. If light goes through a very dense medium, it's speed lowers down. The energy it carries is the same, but there is more resistance to it as there is a bigger density of particles. When light goes from the very dense medium into a less dense medium, it goes faster. The energy it carries is still the same as always, but as there is less resistance from particles (for there is less density of particles), then it rises it's speed. But not that it accelerate.

[Nobody]

Guille,

I don't accept big bang and inflationary theories, nor any illusory concepts of time and space for an absolute state. It is not only absurd, to imagine there is a Universe contained by a place that doesn't exist, but is impossible for the same reason.

Yeah, I would equate gravity with mass and/or energy. Both gravity and energy are proportionate/relative to mass. If we think outside of the Newtonian and Einsteinian box of rest-mass concepts and consider all mass to be relativistic, we can directly link gravity to electromagnetism and the strong force. The more massive the object, the more "rest" energy it has, and this is exactly proportionate to Gc^2.

Further, in an infinite Universe, any and every point any and everywhere is the centre of the Universe. Taking a step to the left or right doesn't take you a step closer to the edge of an infinite Universe, and reducing Planck's constant increases Einstein's constant accordingly. So reducing h to zero makes c infinite, in a true vacuum; and at this point, any virtual particles will contain infinite energy/mass for which forms the basis for all temporal quantum interactions.

[Guille]

Originally Posted by Nobody I don't accept big bang and inflationary theories, nor any illusory concepts of time and space for an absolute state. It is not only absurd, to imagine there is a Universe contained by a place that doesn't exist, but is impossible for the same reason.

A dimension is absolute by definition (dimension is a scale to measure, and a scale to measure must be constant, and if it is a neccesary scale to measure (like space-time), it is absolute). You don't give any reason why it is absurd, nor why you call 'any illusory concepts' to my logical and empirical view of space and time.

Originally Posted by Nobody Yeah, I would equate gravity with mass and/or energy. Both gravity and energy are proportionate/relative to mass. If we think outside of the Newtonian and Einsteinian box of rest-mass concepts and consider all mass to be relativistic, we can directly link gravity to electromagnetism and the strong force. The more massive the object, the more "rest" energy it has, and this is exactly proportionate to Gc^2.

Energy is relative or proportionate to mass? I don't think so. Mass is a type of energy just as any other. And the ammount of a type of energy determines the values of the other energies in their aspects. If an object has certain mass it will gain certain kinetic energy if impulsed by any force. But that doesn't makeall energy be relative to mass. All energy is relative to all energy, as all totalities are relative to it's parts (and this is now a metaphysical law, not only limitted to the physical world). And I remember you that you are equation a force with an energy, which are very very different concepts (or 'entities). Energy is a force at a distance, therefore in your universe there is no distance, therefore no space, and therefore it is a singularity.

[Nobody]

First, don’t get me wrong, Guille, I’m not implying there is anything wrong with your logic or the logic of science when it pertains to relativity or empirical effects. I only suggest returning to first philosophy to answer what is outside the Universe instead of focusing on increasingly more complex notions of the workings within the Universe based on the increase of new observations. For me, the former has shed quite a bit of light on some of the empirical evidence found through photonic experiments.

The SLAC experiment I included in the theory of nothing thread tells me that photonic interactions are directly related to the creation of fermions. I conclude that energy is proportionate to mass based on the fact that massless carriers transmit the difference between the measurement of massive particles prior to and after interactions. That the energy stored in massive objects is directly responsible for and proportionate to the gravitational force.

Newtonian and Einsteinian physics don’t account for the relationship between gravity and electromagnetism at the quantum level, whereby large-scale gravity and electromagnetism can be equated to the strong and weak forces. They are all essentially the same force functioning in different ways at different scales. Gravity is considered weakest because its carrier has to travel a much greater distance - the greater the distance, the weaker the effect; but in reality, the disproportionate force is responsible for holding particles together at the quantum level.

As for dimensions being absolute, I could only consider them relatively absolute because they seem to be relative to an observer making a measurement. They can’t be considered absolute in and of themselves, and are also dependant upon each other in order to exist. So, I say illusory because I view all movement through "space/time" as incremental replications of various concentrations of infinite mass over an infinite number of non-dimensional points. All of which are in their own right absolute and can be considered the centre of the Universe - all movement is relative to illusory concepts of time based on one point being differentiated from other points which only gives a "sense" of motion. Literal motion is impossible because there is no literal place to go to.

[michellemfry]

Photon traveling to a place to liberate the energy there, at least that was the story when it was a metal. But what of photon versus photon? What is to be taken here? Two photons competing for the right to liberate the energy. If it is the compact disk, how does that work, does anyone know? Albert would be so blown away.

[AntonioLao]

Originally Posted by michellemfry But what of photon versus photon? What is to be taken here? Two photons competing for the right to liberate the energy.

When a photon looks at its own reflection in the mirror it wonders which is the true reality. Then I saw the movie Lake House, nowI understand both object and reflection are real just merely separated in time.

[HIGGSBOSONS]

Newton Observe The Spliting Of White Light Into Different Colors From Red To Voilate But How He Find That Red Has Less Energy And Voilate Has High Energy

[harmonygirl]

This might be an elementary question, but what happens to light when beams cross?