How exactly does space/time fabric work?

guy incognito · Oct 6, 2012

Seedling said:
One better than that, there exists an expanding light sphere that has a radius of ct. Kinda makes your theory obsolete, eh?

No. It fits perfectly with relativity as predicted. Thanks for playing.

Dr Kynes · Oct 6, 2012

guy incognito said:
You clearly don't know shit. It's not a matter of better precision measurements with gps. It's a matter of the real world consequences of relativity. When speeds are very low and differences in gravity are ignored the relativistic equations simplify to newtons equations. No matter how precise the clocks are, time itself is actually different and must be accounted for. I don't know what you aren't understanding about this.

You are using the same principals and fundamentals when you are filling cartridges. It may have higher precision than other instruments, but fundamentally it is exactly the same. Relativity is fundamentally different than Newtonian mechanics. It's the same general idea, but the equations are different. So far 100% of the evidence points to relativity fitting reality.

Which theories of einsteins do not work, or have been disproven? I also want to point out that I never said einstein was 100% correct or infallible. I said relativity is the best working model and has 100% success rate to date. If you think different bring some evidence to the table.

using einsteins models gets better calibrations you idiot. i am not denying all science or ANy science i am doubting a few theories that dont add up, and a few assumptions that seem illogical to me. one of those assumptioons is that photons have zero mass, despite the best methods available showing a mass of less than X, which is NOT zero.

did i state that electrical pulses inside a quartz crystal could not be used to keep time? did i dispute the evidence for nuclear fission? did i claim that the sun is a raging fiery chariot piloted by apollo? argue against my statements if you wish but stop inventing new statements and attributing them to me. that only makes you look illiterate.

GPS satellites use relativity calculations and models to CALIBRATE their internal clocks for better precision, the basic methods used by GPS satellites and receivers for their basic job is triangulation and radio waves. NOT einsteinian gravity lenses and space warping you fool. an old pocketwatch would NOT help the satellites do their job, and winding them all up would be a difficult proposition in orbit

regarding your comment on cartridge loading: you mean the piezo electric scales i use are based on the same principles as a balance? amazing! i guess the integrated circuit, transistors, diodes, the microprocessor and electricity were invented by archimedes too. that bastard must have been wicked smart! dipshit the calibrations of GPS internal clocks to measure the time delay of signals is NOT a change of the fundamental principles used by radio transmissions (which has been around since the late 1800's) it is simply a better way to measure the distance the signal travels by using einestein's calculations of the speed of light. why is this so hard for you to grasp?

as to which einstein theories have been disproved, just off the top of my head, einstein himself lamented his theory of a universal constant when he couldnt make the proofs work, but then he lamented his lamentation a few years later.

physicists get proven wrong regularly, and sometimes that proof gets overturned too. sometimes they even overturn themselves.

if i choose to doubt the mass of a photon is zero, even if that is inconvenient for several other theories, then so be it. your constant assertions that i said something i did not, is not only disingenuous, but annoying.

Dr Kynes · Oct 6, 2012

mindphuk said:
My guess is that you were too fucking pigheaded to actually read any of the links. When I saw this shit explained the first time, it blew my mind and here you are acting like it's part of everyday experiences for you. Oh, just more precise calculations. I regret to inform you you need to discontinue to post without actually doing the research that I first suggested way back when you started your ridiculous attempts to cover the fact that you have no idea what you are talking about. First you claim relativity isn't involved, then you wave it off as merely precision in calculating orbits or some such shit, you know like most rocket scientists do daily. When in fact, the USN has a whole unit working around the clock to keep the GPS ATOMIC CLOCKS in sync with the ones on earth, otherwise our relativistic effects of time dilation occur both because of gravity and GR but also orbital speed SR effects which can be predetermined allow them to purposely make the onboard clocks slower to compensate. Without such corrections the distances error rate would become progressively worse over time making them useless. I mean you can't ask for better real world engineering application of Einstein's theory. Burying your head in the sand by trying to downplay the requirement to apply Einstein to specifically the GPS satellites, and hoping no one notices how stupid you are continuing to sound because you failed to do the proper research has failed. EVERYONE has noticed. Everyone has stopped taking anything you say about science serious anymore. Originally, you appeared to have some chops, at least I recall some knowledge about the scientific method and what it can, as well as cannot do, but now, your babbling regression to pseudoscientific jargon and attempts at similar argument construction merely tells me my radar was off -- trying to paint rationalists as people who's lives would crash down if Einstein's theories were falsified in some regard. This one's always defeatable by pointing to the actual reaction of scientists when it appeared neutrinos violated light speed. They were calm, welcoming a chance to find a new problem to work on. Your idiotic portrayal of the true value of modern scientific consensus makes it obvious you don't have a real true understanding of the process and how that's what's revered, not the work of imperfect humans, genius although they may be.

I usually can peg a woo artist within one or two posts. The problem is when you guys act as if they shouldn't care whether they're talking to laymen or actual working scientists, you know, one that makes his or her living avoiding the sloppy thinking that many people, including some scientists, delude themselves into thinking they are being logical. A good, critical thinker shouldn't be afraid of criticism of your underlying thought processes, probably more so than when the product of that thought is argued. The only way to know if one is actually not thinking critically, is if you stop and think and go through the process, evaluate each step from the beginning. This is another conflict of being human and being a critical thinker. A human doesn't ever really want to be wrong. I hate being wrong. It makes you feel stupid sometimes. A duh, moment. We all have them and hate to admit when it happens. However, I like learning about being wrong. Some of the best stories in all of history both fact and fiction, has to do with important people being wrong.

Wow, I'm rambling, I had some edibles earlier and I am only now just noticing the effects.

so because you are so vehement in insisting that photon mass = zero then all the other scientists should stop saying the mass is "less than X" which is a non-zero number. they should simply accept your word that you did the maths, and if it aint zero then the universe will stop working, and doubting your word is also doubting the calculations of the speed of light, the existence of gravity, the uncertainty principle and planck's constant, calling Einstein's mother fat, and pushing steven hawking's wheelchair down a flight of stairs.

you colour my statements with the meaning you wish to attribute to them. the speed of light, relativity and all the other shit you claim i am doubting because i dont believe that "less than X" = zero is a figment of your own imagination.

i may not be a math whizz, but i do read a lot of scientific journaals, and they all spend half their time discussing photons AS IF they had mass, and half their time insisting they CANT have mass, and then mutter about how if they do have mass then that mass is pretty small anyhow.

so where would i get the impression that perhaps "photon mass = 0" might be in doubt?

i remember when i was in school electrons had no mass either. so i clearly must be selling something.

i dont know why you are so bitter butthurt and furious because i think photons might have mass, when the subject seems to be causing a great deal of problems for actual qualified sheepskin having physicists who's opinion actually matters.

the OP asked a question, and i layed out the theory (or if you will, hypothesis) that seems to work best in my opinion, and then you went all crazy-ape bonkers like i was taking food off your table cuz i think space doesnt bend but instead gravity moves shit. newton said gravity moves shit too, you gonna dig him up so you can kick him in the nuts? pythagorus believed the universe was made up of fire earth water and air suspended in the Aether... you gonna raise him from the dead so you can burn him at the stake?

you can tell somebody that you think they are wrong, or even that they ARE wrong without throwing a handful of shit at em.

fuck even with smok3y1 i started off debating the issue at hand (amaedinejhad and wiping israel off the map) before the shit slinging began.

question is, who put the turd in your hand?

the ballistic arc of a wad of shit is not a proof of the unified feild theory.

guy incognito · Oct 6, 2012

Dr Kynes said:
using einsteins models gets better calibrations you idiot. i am not denying all science or ANy science i am doubting a few theories that dont add up, and a few assumptions that seem illogical to me. one of those assumptioons is that photons have zero mass, despite the best methods available showing a mass of less than X, which is NOT zero.

did i state that electrical pulses inside a quartz crystal could not be used to keep time? did i dispute the evidence for nuclear fission? did i claim that the sun is a raging fiery chariot piloted by apollo? argue against my statements if you wish but stop inventing new statements and attributing them to me. that only makes you look illiterate.

GPS satellites use relativity calculations and models to CALIBRATE their internal clocks for better precision, the basic methods used by GPS satellites and receivers for their basic job is triangulation and radio waves. NOT einsteinian gravity lenses and space warping you fool. an old pocketwatch would NOT help the satellites do their job, and winding them all up would be a difficult proposition in orbit

regarding your comment on cartridge loading: you mean the piezo electric scales i use are based on the same principles as a balance? amazing! i guess the integrated circuit, transistors, diodes, the microprocessor and electricity were invented by archimedes too. that bastard must have been wicked smart! dipshit the calibrations of GPS internal clocks to measure the time delay of signals is NOT a change of the fundamental principles used by radio transmissions (which has been around since the late 1800's) it is simply a better way to measure the distance the signal travels by using einestein's calculations of the speed of light. why is this so hard for you to grasp?

as to which einstein theories have been disproved, just off the top of my head, einstein himself lamented his theory of a universal constant when he couldnt make the proofs work, but then he lamented his lamentation a few years later.

physicists get proven wrong regularly, and sometimes that proof gets overturned too. sometimes they even overturn themselves.

if i choose to doubt the mass of a photon is zero, even if that is inconvenient for several other theories, then so be it. your constant assertions that i said something i did not, is not only disingenuous, but annoying.

Do you even know what a calibration is? And what exactly are you calibrating it to? No they aren't calibrating the clocks, they are making adjustments based on the way reality works. If you use a theoretic clock that is perfectly calibrated all the time you STILL have to account for the real world effects of relativity. That is the crux of the argument. It is not a matter of precision or calibration, it is that

Theory predicts it has to be zero. Exactly zero. If you look at the equations you understand why. Just because they cannot measure it's resting mass to exactly zero with infinite precision does mean it is not so. There is still mounds of evidence pointing to the prediction being correct. Asking them to measure with infinite precision before you accept it as reality is asking a bit much. How close will be close enough? 1x10^-100? 1x10^-1000?

Yes they (a balance and a piezoelectric scale) are measuring the same force. They use different principals, but measure the exact same force. A large enough balance could be constructed and calibrated to measure the same precision as a piezoelectric scale; even while moving at large constant velocities or in areas of high gravity. Newtonian and einsteinian calculations are not always interchangeable though - hence the fundamental difference.

Sometimes physicists do get proven wrong. You seem to be implying that they all have an equal chance of being wrong which is absolutely false. Relativity is not a fringe theory. It has a lot of data to back it up, and you don't have shit to back it. All you can do is bitch and moan about them not having infinite precision, which is unrealistic.

You have absolutely no reason to doubt that the mass of a photon is zero. No evidence. No good logic. Only some intuitive belief that is must weigh something. Why? Well you don't know why, but it must.

guy incognito · Oct 6, 2012

Dr Kynes said:
i remember when i was in school electrons had no mass either. so i clearly must be selling something.

You keep stating this and I don't know why. It has never been zero.

You must have had a terrible school that didn't teach facts. Or you somehow made the assumption that since the mass is so small compared to a proton, and it's mass is neglected for nearly all practical applications, that is actually was zero. I can see someone taking chem 101, and not fully paying attention and filling in the rest with assumptions. You seem to be doing that alot. Either way it actually explains a lot about your posts if your entire scientific base of knowledge is built upon faulty principals and misinformation.

Dr Kynes · Oct 7, 2012

guy incognito said:
You keep stating this and I don't know why. It has never been zero.

You must have had a terrible school that didn't teach facts. Or you somehow made the assumption that since the mass is so small compared to a proton, and it's mass is neglected for nearly all practical applications, that is actually was zero. I can see someone taking chem 101, and not fully paying attention and filling in the rest with assumptions. You seem to be doing that alot. Either way it actually explains a lot about your posts if your entire scientific base of knowledge is built upon faulty principals and misinformation.

again you make the claim that my doubts as to the zero-ness of a photons mass somehow means einstein was full of shit and all his theories are garbage. this is what you call reductio ad absurdum.

in centuries past technological and scientific advances were made using the theories prevalent at the time.

Marconi thought that radio transmissions were instantaneous. They Still Worked!
Archimedes thought that the universe was made of fire water earth and air suspended in the Aether. His Theories on Liquid Displacement And Gravity Still Worked!
Galen Of Pergamum believed that disease and injuries could be treated by balancing the humours. fevers and wounds needed the purifying power of clean water to heal. He Was Right, Just For The Wrong Reasons!

and yes, when i was in school back in the 70's. electrons had a mass of zero. all mass was held in the nucleus. and just so you know, there was no "101" classes in my school, since it was a rural public school not a college or university.

funny thing is, electrical devices from the 30's 40's and 50s still work today, despite their complete lack of sophistication and new modern quantum theory models. sailing ships still sail, despite the utter lack of new quantum theories and computer modeling. penicillin still kills bacterium, despite its utter lack of genetic science. why i hear that a candle can still light a room even if the FIRE is no longer an elemental force.

if your grandpappy is still alive why dont you ask him about how it was before airliners, and you had to take a week to go from new york to san francisco, or weeks at sea to get to europe. your conceit is that everything which is normal to you is just the way things have always been. it's called the Normalcy Bias, and it destroys more research than hockeystick graphs.

some of us are old enough to remember when a phone in your car was a NEW idea, and a phone in your pocket was just science fiction. you seem to have forgotten or more likely never considered, that technology and science have advanced at a breakneck pace in the last 40 years, and some of it my in fact be less settled than you would prefer to believe. but then your not nearly as clever as you believe, and also, youre quite a dick.

to state that the mass of electrons has never been zero is poppycock.

for centuries there werent even such things as electrons as far as science was concerned. you are =displaying not only ignorance but unwarranted self assurance. thats what we call Hubris.

guy incognito · Oct 7, 2012

Dr Kynes said:
again you make the claim that my doubts as to the zero-ness of a photons mass somehow means einstein was full of shit and all his theories are garbage. this is what you call reductio ad absurdum.

in centuries past technological and scientific advances were made using the theories prevalent at the time.

Marconi thought that radio transmissions were instantaneous. They Still Worked!
Archimedes thought that the universe was made of fire water earth and air suspended in the Aether. His Theories on Liquid Displacement And Gravity Still Worked!
Galen Of Pergamum believed that disease and injuries could be treated by balancing the humours. fevers and wounds needed the purifying power of clean water to heal. He Was Right, Just For The Wrong Reasons!

and yes, when i was in school back in the 70's. electrons had a mass of zero. all mass was held in the nucleus. and just so you know, there was no "101" classes in my school, since it was a rural public school not a college or university.

funny thing is, electrical devices from the 30's 40's and 50s still work today, despite their complete lack of sophistication and new modern quantum theory models. sailing ships still sail, despite the utter lack of new quantum theories and computer modeling. penicillin still kills bacterium, despite its utter lack of genetic science. why i hear that a candle can still light a room even if the FIRE is no longer an elemental force.

if your grandpappy is still alive why dont you ask him about how it was before airliners, and you had to take a week to go from new york to san francisco, or weeks at sea to get to europe. your conceit is that everything which is normal to you is just the way things have always been. it's called the Normalcy Bias, and it destroys more research than hockeystick graphs.

some of us are old enough to remember when a phone in your car was a NEW idea, and a phone in your pocket was just science fiction. you seem to have forgotten or more likely never considered, that technology and science have advanced at a breakneck pace in the last 40 years, and some of it my in fact be less settled than you would prefer to believe. but then your not nearly as clever as you believe, and also, youre quite a dick.

to state that the mass of electrons has never been zero is poppycock.

for centuries there werent even such things as electrons as far as science was concerned. you are =displaying not only ignorance but unwarranted self assurance. thats what we call Hubris.

And again you claim that's what they taught you. You either had a terrible school or you are a fucking liar. The electron was discovered before 1900. There were experiments done to determine the mass of the electron before 1900. The standard model was developed by the 1970's. You are absolutely wrong in claiming that electrons had no mass. Maybe they did teach you that, but they were terribly outdated and wrong.

Do you honestly not see a difference between all your examples and einstein? Did marconi draw his conclusion about transmissions being instantaneous from a ton of observational and experimental data? Or was it simply an assumption because he didn't understand how it fundamentally works? You seem to be implying that the declaration that the photon has zero rest mass is based off the same amount of knowledge that all your other examples drew their incorrect conclusions from.

This is your argument in a nutshell:

Hey remember that one caveman that thought 1 +1 =3? Well some how he managed to survive and pass on his genes. Now this einstein character is claiming 1+1=2. Humans have been wrong in the past, therefore there is an equal chance that they are wrong now, even though one character has a significant advantage in his understanding of how math works.

Dr Kynes · Oct 7, 2012

guy incognito said:
And again you claim that's what they taught you. You either had a terrible school or you are a fucking liar. The electron was discovered before 1900. There were experiments done to determine the mass of the electron before 1900. The standard model was developed by the 1970's. You are absolutely wrong in claiming that electrons had no mass. Maybe they did teach you that, but they were terribly outdated and wrong.

Do you honestly not see a difference between all your examples and einstein? Did marconi draw his conclusion about transmissions being instantaneous from a ton of observational and experimental data? Or was it simply an assumption because he didn't understand how it fundamentally works? You seem to be implying that the declaration that the photon has zero rest mass is based off the same amount of knowledge that all your other examples drew their incorrect conclusions from.

This is your argument in a nutshell:

Hey remember that one caveman that thought 1 +1 =3? Well some how he managed to survive and pass on his genes. Now this einstein character is claiming 1+1=2. Humans have been wrong in the past, therefore there is an equal chance that they are wrong now, even though one character has a significant advantage in his understanding of how math works.

but we are not talking about simple arithmetic. we are talking about fundamental forces that giovern the basic functions of the universe, and the understanding of these forces through REAL data, not theories that make assumptions which themselves are unproveable.

claiming that the inability to adequately prove a theory makes the theory unassailable is exactly as ludicrous as demanding that somebody PROVE your theory wrong or they shut the fuck up.

photons have zero mas is an untestable unprovable theory. the inability to test this assumption does not reinforce the assumption, just as the inability to prove that photons DO have mass is not evidence that photons in fact have mass.

is any of this sinking in through your magic cloak of self-confidence?

that i cannot prove a photon's mass is not in itself proof that photons are massless. the simple and observable fact that photons are attracted to gravity sources (apparently Fields now has a meaning other than an area of effect so i will refrain from discussing gravity fields) indicates that photons are susceptible to gravity's influence.

the conclusion therefore is that photons (like all other things subject to gravitational pull) have mass and thus can be attracted
OR
that gravity bends the very space around it causing the photon to be directed off course by the distortions but NOT by the gravity itself.

the second conclusion requires assumptions which are not in keeping with the science i understand and which has worked pretty well for some time.
the second conclusion actually sounds more like magical thinking than science
the warping of space by gravity is essential to preserve other theroies that will just not work right if photons have mass. assumptions can be made that support existing theories but if the assumptions are untestable then they are STILL ASSUMPTIONS no matter how elegantly they fit the supported model, or how perfectly they align with the accepted theories of the day. just like the catholic's "scientific courts" who's sole duty was squashing any theory or hypothesis that they determined might undermine the dogma of the church. the god as trinity is a similar theory embraced by catholicism to explain how they can have 3 deities but still be monotheists under the torah's ten commandments. all you have to do is shoehorn your god into 3 forms but insist that hes still just one guy. i see this same idea at work with gravity, as it is being shoehorned into a non-newtonian shape for some purposes but allowed to be a newtonian force for others.

gravity effects mass in predictable ways. thats why scales work, tides operate with regularity, and buildings dont fall down (unless you hit them with a jet liner)
overturning this gravitational attraction theory (which so far has an excellent track record for reliability) in favour of a new space warping solution does not seem to be based on observation, but rather the desire to not have gaps in other theory's proofs.
the warping of space can explain why photons (presuming they are massless) are redirected (but not attracted, cuz that would be impossible right?) by gravity, but it causes other questions, like why are the seas attracted to the moon causing tides, despite the greater pull of gravity from earth? if it were simply a distortion field around the gravity source, the greater distortions of earth's gravity would not allow the seas to rise towards the moon's much weaker and distant space warping "force", or why the distortion directs the passing photons TOWARDS the gravity source. most wave distortion patterns can draw a thing in, or push them away depending on which side of the wave the object sits, but then gravity is not a wave. sometimes. or is it?

given that photons are in fact apparently attracted towards gravity sources it would seem to be logical that they are subject to gravity's attraction, yet everything else that we know of that is attracted by gravity has mass.

attracted by gravity + delivers a force on impact + has a measurable velocity + the ability to do work + perceptibility despite our sensory limitations + interacts with matter + subject to electromagnetic forces + produced/released by chemical and electromagnetic reactions in matter (ie fire, phosphorescence, incandescence etc...) = probably pretty damned close to being matter, which is to say, mass or a very mass-like property someplace within it's mysteries

newton showed that force = mass X velocity squared. photons have a velocity, deliver a force, and therefore since velocity is the multiplier of mass to determine force the object with velocity should have a mass of some sort. since 0 x anything is still 0. ten quadrillion times zero still equals zero, so conversely the non zero sum of a photon's force on impact presumably requires a non zero number as the basis for multiplication due to velocity.

mindphuk · Oct 7, 2012

Dr Kynes said:
using einsteins models gets better calibrations you idiot. i am not denying all science or ANy science i am doubting a few theories that dont add up, and a few assumptions that seem illogical to me. one of those assumptioons is that photons have zero mass, despite the best methods available showing a mass of less than X, which is NOT zero.

I'm am idiot because you can't understand basic physics?

did i state that electrical pulses inside a quartz crystal could not be used to keep time? did i dispute the evidence for nuclear fission? did i claim that the sun is a raging fiery chariot piloted by apollo? argue against my statements if you wish but stop inventing new statements and attributing them to me. that only makes you look illiterate.

No, you know damn well what you stated. I did not make them up as I quoted you multiple times. You claimed the GPS system does not depend on relativity. Then you backtracked wen you were shown wrong yet still will not admit to making any mistakes. Talk about arrogant, delusional behavior.

GPS satellites use relativity calculations and models to CALIBRATE their internal clocks for better precision,

No. Once again you seem to not understand in spite of BEGGING you to do some research. GPS uses relativity so that GPS can actually work without drifting off into ever increasing errors, errors induced by TIME DILATION predicted by Einstein's theories. These are not adjustments made to create higher precision, resolving down to 1 meter instead of 10, these are adjustments made because the fucking clocks are ticking at different rates.

the basic methods used by GPS satellites and receivers for their basic job is triangulation and radio waves. NOT einsteinian gravity lenses and space warping you fool. an old pocketwatch would NOT help the satellites do their job, and winding them all up would be a difficult proposition in orbit

How can a satellite triangulate if the clock onboard is not in sync with the earth based ones? How do we keep the clocks in sync, we use relativity because the clocks in space are experiencing less warping of space than the earth based ones, so yes, it does have to do with space warping, you gigantic fool.

regarding your comment on cartridge loading: you mean the piezo electric scales i use are based on the same principles as a balance? amazing! i guess the integrated circuit, transistors, diodes, the microprocessor and electricity were invented by archimedes too. that bastard must have been wicked smart! dipshit the calibrations of GPS internal clocks to measure the time delay of signals is NOT a change of the fundamental principles used by radio transmissions (which has been around since the late 1800's) it is simply a better way to measure the distance the signal travels by using einestein's calculations of the speed of light. why is this so hard for you to grasp?

It's not hard for me to grasp but apparently it is for you because you keep making up new strawmen based on what you BELIEVE is the case rather than read up and understand that you are wrong.

mindphuk · Oct 7, 2012

Dr Kynes said:
so because you are so vehement in insisting that photon mass = zero then all the other scientists should stop saying the mass is "less than X" which is a non-zero number.

Why are you so vehemently disregarding the explanations that there is a difference between the theoretical rest mass of a photon and the real-world experiments, which, by their very nature, can only give us an upper limit.

they should simply accept your word that you did the maths, and if it aint zero then the universe will stop working,

It's not my word, it's the basic understanding of all of physics. No, the universe will continue to work, but no in exactly the same way we are seeing it.

you colour my statements with the meaning you wish to attribute to them. the speed of light, relativity and all the other shit you claim i am doubting because i dont believe that "less than X" = zero is a figment of your own imagination.

You have not given any substantial reason to accept your premise that a photon has rest mass, except because you think so. So yes, you are doubting for the sake of doubt, mostly because of your lack of understanding of the theories and implications of what would be observable if you were right.

i may not be a math whizz, but i do read a lot of scientific journaals, and they all spend half their time discussing photons AS IF they had mass, and half their time insisting they CANT have mass, and then mutter about how if they do have mass then that mass is pretty small anyhow.

Liar.

so where would i get the impression that perhaps "photon mass = 0" might be in doubt?

From your mistaken conclusions you reached when reading about theories that you don't understand.

i remember when i was in school electrons had no mass either. so i clearly must be selling something.

Your misremembering of what you were taught in school does not make me confident your memory about journal articles are accurate either.

i dont know why you are so bitter butthurt and furious because i think photons might have mass, when the subject seems to be causing a great deal of problems for actual qualified sheepskin having physicists who's opinion actually matters.

You're the one that keeps bringing this shit up. You responded to my post that mainly dealt with your inability to admit you were wrong regarding the connection between GPS and relativity. Your response had nothing to do with my post yet you now are trying to paint me as feeling hurt? teh stupid it burns!!!!!!

the OP asked a question, and i layed out the theory (or if you will, hypothesis) that seems to work best in my opinion, and then you went all crazy-ape bonkers like i was taking food off your table cuz i think space doesnt bend but instead gravity moves shit. newton said gravity moves shit too, you gonna dig him up so you can kick him in the nuts? pythagorus believed the universe was made up of fire earth water and air suspended in the Aether... you gonna raise him from the dead so you can burn him at the stake?

Another tactic of the psuedoscientist, to portray anyone that attempts to correct your errors or counters your bullshit hypotheses with actual science, as someone that is acting unreasonable, i.e. 'crazy-ape bonkers.

you can tell somebody that you think they are wrong, or even that they ARE wrong without throwing a handful of shit at em.

I agree. So if you believe that, then why were you the first one to start throwing shit?

Dr Kynes · Oct 7, 2012

mindphuk said:
I'm am idiot because you can't understand basic physics?

No, you know damn well what you stated. I did not make them up as I quoted you multiple times. You claimed the GPS system does not depend on relativity. Then you backtracked wen you were shown wrong yet still will not admit to making any mistakes. Talk about arrogant, delusional behavior.
No. Once again you seem to not understand in spite of BEGGING you to do some research. GPS uses relativity so that GPS can actually work without drifting off into ever increasing errors, errors induced by TIME DILATION predicted by Einstein's theories. These are not adjustments made to create higher precision, resolving down to 1 meter instead of 10, these are adjustments made because the fucking clocks are ticking at different rates.
How can a satellite triangulate if the clock onboard is not in sync with the earth based ones? How do we keep the clocks in sync, we use relativity because the clocks in space are experiencing less warping of space than the earth based ones, so yes, it does have to do with space warping, you gigantic fool.
It's not hard for me to grasp but apparently it is for you because you keep making up new strawmen based on what you BELIEVE is the case rather than read up and understand that you are wrong.

mindphuk, bubbalah. i have made every attempt to avoid ad hominem attacks against you, that ad hominem was directed at guy incognito, this thread's fecal bombadier in primus.

bravely throwing yourself in the path of my incoming shit-rocket may be heroic, but it is ultimately misguided.

i admire your expertise in mathematics, which is admittedly superior to my own, but taking offense over jabs and japes directed at guy incognito is hardly sensible. if i said his momma was fat, would that piss you off as well?

the thorny issue i keep coming back to is force equals mass times velocity squared. if photons had zero mass they would be unable to deliver force on impact no matter how high the velocity, yet they do. they are attracted (apparently) by gravity, they can be created/released by fire, incandescence and phosphorescence, and have a measurable velocity. all of this fairly insists that they must either have mass, or some other property which is as yet unexplained. the assertion that gravity warps space just sounds too much like a hypothesis in search of evidence, rather than evidence in search of an explanation.

i may not explain my position with the elegance of a mathematical equation, or have sheepskins to display on my wall but these questions make me think. and i personally never take a question as a threat to my beliefs theories or even my superstitions.

if you feel i have insulted you personally i apologize for that, i value your opinion, i just still cant accept the ideas youre espousing as fact, since my own reasoning insists that theres something at work here which does not fit.

to my mind even the tidal foreces indicate that gravity is an attracting force, not a distortion (wave? field? force? i dont even know how one would describe this proposed mechanism)since the opposing attraction of the moon's gravity would partially neutralize the effect of the earths attractant force on the oceans where the moon passes overhead. if it were a spacial distortion the oceans would not necessarily rise in response to the moon's position in orbit, but instead we would see an interference pattern or eddies if it were waves, or a depression if it were, as shown in the two dimensional models (despite the three dimensional nature of space) a compression of space around the mass, as similar forces which overlap but do not interfere often increase their combined effect, like two bowling balls on a trampoline invariable roll together which is the impression i get from the two dimensional simplified models i have seen in an attempt to grasp this slippery concept.

i still come back to gravity as an attracting force, not a space distorting/compressing/warping force with the warping acting as an intermediary, causing the change in the course of passing objects and photons.

and as i keep coming back to gravity attracting, this invariably leads me to the conclusion that photons are subject to gravity's attraction, which in turn implies that photons have mass, since mass is the primary trait in common for all OTHER things subject to gravity's force.

the space warping just seems to be a stop-gap measure to explain a phenomenon without kicking over the apple cart of accepted theories which otherwise work pretty good, like relativity.

also, GPS satellites DO triangulate to determine position. the adjustments to their internal clocks and the clocks themselves may be based on much more sophisticated science and technology than a gunner's transit or a sextant but both those devices do a similar job in similar ways. i am not now, nor do i ever knowingly defy the fairly well proven theories of relativity (both general and temporal) nor do i deny the existence of subatomic particles,, nuclear fission or the hiesenberg uncertainty principle. that would be foolish as they are pretty well established.

my main puzzlement is photons having zero mass, since the main argument seems to be that having mass would fuck with the math in other established theories, and space warping by gravity which seems to be deus ex machina to explain the photon's otherwise problematic reaction to gravity based on it's presumed massless state, which again seems to be mainly asserted to keep the math in order in other theories.

im totally trying to make sense and not use too many literary or pop cultural references and metaphors. plus it's sunday and i really should be fucking high as a kite by now.

guy incognito · Oct 7, 2012

Dr Kynes said:
but we are not talking about simple arithmetic. we are talking about fundamental forces that giovern the basic functions of the universe, and the understanding of these forces through REAL data, not theories that make assumptions which themselves are unproveable.

claiming that the inability to adequately prove a theory makes the theory unassailable is exactly as ludicrous as demanding that somebody PROVE your theory wrong or they shut the fuck up.

photons have zero mas is an untestable unprovable theory. the inability to test this assumption does not reinforce the assumption, just as the inability to prove that photons DO have mass is not evidence that photons in fact have mass.

is any of this sinking in through your magic cloak of self-confidence?

that i cannot prove a photon's mass is not in itself proof that photons are massless. the simple and observable fact that photons are attracted to gravity sources (apparently Fields now has a meaning other than an area of effect so i will refrain from discussing gravity fields) indicates that photons are susceptible to gravity's influence.

the conclusion therefore is that photons (like all other things subject to gravitational pull) have mass and thus can be attracted
OR
that gravity bends the very space around it causing the photon to be directed off course by the distortions but NOT by the gravity itself.

the second conclusion requires assumptions which are not in keeping with the science i understand and which has worked pretty well for some time.
the second conclusion actually sounds more like magical thinking than science
the warping of space by gravity is essential to preserve other theroies that will just not work right if photons have mass. assumptions can be made that support existing theories but if the assumptions are untestable then they are STILL ASSUMPTIONS no matter how elegantly they fit the supported model, or how perfectly they align with the accepted theories of the day. just like the catholic's "scientific courts" who's sole duty was squashing any theory or hypothesis that they determined might undermine the dogma of the church. the god as trinity is a similar theory embraced by catholicism to explain how they can have 3 deities but still be monotheists under the torah's ten commandments. all you have to do is shoehorn your god into 3 forms but insist that hes still just one guy. i see this same idea at work with gravity, as it is being shoehorned into a non-newtonian shape for some purposes but allowed to be a newtonian force for others.

gravity effects mass in predictable ways. thats why scales work, tides operate with regularity, and buildings dont fall down (unless you hit them with a jet liner)
overturning this gravitational attraction theory (which so far has an excellent track record for reliability) in favour of a new space warping solution does not seem to be based on observation, but rather the desire to not have gaps in other theory's proofs.
the warping of space can explain why photons (presuming they are massless) are redirected (but not attracted, cuz that would be impossible right?) by gravity, but it causes other questions, like why are the seas attracted to the moon causing tides, despite the greater pull of gravity from earth? if it were simply a distortion field around the gravity source, the greater distortions of earth's gravity would not allow the seas to rise towards the moon's much weaker and distant space warping "force", or why the distortion directs the passing photons TOWARDS the gravity source. most wave distortion patterns can draw a thing in, or push them away depending on which side of the wave the object sits, but then gravity is not a wave. sometimes. or is it?

given that photons are in fact apparently attracted towards gravity sources it would seem to be logical that they are subject to gravity's attraction, yet everything else that we know of that is attracted by gravity has mass.

attracted by gravity + delivers a force on impact + has a measurable velocity + the ability to do work + perceptibility despite our sensory limitations + interacts with matter + subject to electromagnetic forces + produced/released by chemical and electromagnetic reactions in matter (ie fire, phosphorescence, incandescence etc...) = probably pretty damned close to being matter, which is to say, mass or a very mass-like property someplace within it's mysteries

newton showed that force = mass X velocity squared. photons have a velocity, deliver a force, and therefore since velocity is the multiplier of mass to determine force the object with velocity should have a mass of some sort. since 0 x anything is still 0. ten quadrillion times zero still equals zero, so conversely the non zero sum of a photon's force on impact presumably requires a non zero number as the basis for multiplication due to velocity.

Wow. You are really showcasing your ignorance.

Dr Kynes · Oct 8, 2012

guy incognito said:
Wow. You are really showcasing your ignorance.

pictures with words on them always get the point across.

especially since youre a gigantic yeasty twat.

guy incognito · Oct 8, 2012

I've already stated my point about a million times with text words. You need to go study basic science again, you missed a lot during your first pass. Specifically you need to read up on relativity.

mindphuk · Oct 8, 2012

Dr Kynes said:
the thorny issue i keep coming back to is force equals mass times velocity squared. if photons had zero mass they would be unable to deliver force on impact no matter how high the velocity, yet they do. they are attracted (apparently) by gravity, they can be created/released by fire, incandescence and phosphorescence, and have a measurable velocity. all of this fairly insists that they must either have mass, or some other property which is as yet unexplained. the assertion that gravity warps space just sounds too much like a hypothesis in search of evidence, rather than evidence in search of an explanation.

You HAVEN'T brought up f=mv as a reason to doubt photons have zero mass. This is the first time I have seen you mention it although I addressed it in an earlier thread. Photons have momentum and inertia. This again is basic stuff. Disagreeing with it is fine if you first have some comprehension of relativity. However, since you are using your inadequate understanding of relativity to discount relativity, and you don't seem to bother doing any research, your circular arguments are getting quite annoying and I will no longer answer them but link to webpages that do. Maybe you can learn how to answer these questions for yourself in the future.

http://au.answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20100521204409AAk1lkq
http://physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=511175

I keep wondering why you insist on bringing up the topic of photon mass when we are discussing GPS system and the requirement of correcting for time dilation, a relativistic effect. To me, it seems you want to brush it up under the rug, forget that you made a grievous error because it appears you are unwilling to admit mistakes. If I told you I only needed geometry for precision, you would rightly say I was wrong, that geometry is required to calculate the triangulation results. You said relativity was not required for GPS. That may have been true when GPS systems were ground based, but being in a moving satellite, at a distance where earth's gravity is not affecting it the same as here on earth, then relativity is a required component.

Dr Kynes · Oct 8, 2012

mindphuk said:
You HAVEN'T brought up f=mv as a reason to doubt photons have zero mass. This is the first time I have seen you mention it although I addressed it in an earlier thread. Photons have momentum and inertia. This again is basic stuff. Disagreeing with it is fine if you first have some comprehension of relativity. However, since you are using your inadequate understanding of relativity to discount relativity, and you don't seem to bother doing any research, your circular arguments are getting quite annoying and I will no longer answer them but link to webpages that do. Maybe you can learn how to answer these questions for yourself in the future.

http://au.answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20100521204409AAk1lkq
http://physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=511175

I keep wondering why you insist on bringing up the topic of photon mass when we are discussing GPS system and the requirement of correcting for time dilation, a relativistic effect. To me, it seems you want to brush it up under the rug, forget that you made a grievous error because it appears you are unwilling to admit mistakes. If I told you I only needed geometry for precision, you would rightly say I was wrong, that geometry is required to calculate the triangulation results. You said relativity was not required for GPS. That may have been true when GPS systems were ground based, but being in a moving satellite, at a distance where earth's gravity is not affecting it the same as here on earth, then relativity is a required component.

GPS systems are one of Guy Incognito's stalking horses.

the entire thing revolves around whether space (and time) are warped by gravity or (as in my view as well as newtons) gravity is an attracting force that draws mass together.

thats where it started. thats where it remains.
the photon's status as massive or massless is a key point, since if it is massless then gravity cannot attract it, thus implying that spoace actually does get warped by gravity and that warping causes the problematic reaction of photons when they pass by a gravity source.
IF photons are in fact massless then the space warping can explain the course alteration of otherwise straight line moving photons.
IF photons have mass then gravity does not have to warp space to divert them since newtonian physics explains that in principle (if not in scale or scope)
HOWEVER
massless photons should have zero newtonian force. they do in fact have a force, even if it's newtonianness is in dispute..
massless photons should also be impervious to gravity unless the space actually does get warped, but then that still leaves gravity working on the massles SPACE to do the warpinfg to in turn alter the photon's course by proxy through the intermediary of the warped space. yet gravity (which previously was a force that acted win conjunction with mass) must now be assumed to interact with SPACE which is also presumably massless, just to explain why gravity interacts with the also massless photon. you see where this could rapidly become circular ?

photons are created/released when you pass a current through a filament (incandescence)
photons are created/released when you use electrical current to excite some gasses (flourescence)
photons are created/released when certain chemicals interact (phosphorescence)
photons are created/released when you burn things with good old fashioned caveman style fire.

these facts (presuming they are still facts) indicate that photons come from matter (including the electrons protons and neutrons) or are a constituent of matter

photons have a measurable velocity.
photons DO interact with gravity.
photons deliver a force on impact with matter.

these facts (presuming they are still facts) also imply a relationship between photons and ordinary matter.

empty space is by definition Untestable! and anything untestable is suspect in the world i live in.
empty space has no mass
empty space has not force
empty space does not DO anything since objects (photons and ordinary matter) pass through it without being disturbed, pushed off course or altered in any way that we can observe.

this indicates to me that empty space is neutral on the subject of physics and is simply the area in which physical laws and events take place.

the borders of space and it's limitlessness are immaterial for this discussion. let us instead imagine an area of the intergalactic void far enough removed from all available sources of gravity mass and energy as to prevent the interference with our discussion.

an object passing through this area will maintain a straight course. no deviations. if we introduce a mass with sufficient gravity (such as a neutron star) into this region, our object will have it's course altered by this gravity, to whit, it will be attracted to the gravity source.

let us presume the object does not become trapped in the gravity of our imaginary star, and passes beyond the area of it's influence. the object will now continue on a straight course which will presumably be the last heading it was on when it passed beyond the gravitational influence of our star.

if we then REMOVE this star from this region of the void (i dunno how, maybe magic? just go with it), a second object moving on the same original course as the first will pass through the same area. since the gravity of the neutron star is no longer influencing this region, the second object will logically continue on it's original heading with no alteration in course or speed.

if however we assume that gravity warps space, the warping of space would presumably remain even if the neutron star is no longer present to do the warping, since presumably things which are warped would be unable to UN-warp without another force to do the un-warping. thus in that circumstance the second object would follow the same altered course as the first object due to the curvature of the now-warped space previously influenced by a currently absent mass.

unless space is elastic.

this still leaves the question, if the warping of space is the real force of gravity, how does gravity interact with the massless void, and how does the massless void interact with an object which otherwise passes through unimpeded.

even if i disregard the unexplained interaction of matter and space (warped or un-warped) there still remains the matter of the distortions.

areas of space which a massive object has passed through would most likely have distortions marking the passing of every object that has gone before, causing measurable distortion, (metaphor incoming) like the wake of a passing boat on a still pond. and without the gravity of the earth (or other source) to settle the waves these distortions would be fairly permanent until overwritten by a more powerful mass's passing.

the entire idea of warping space as the real force of gravity seems to be based on the desire to explain how gravity can influence objects with, and without mass, with an eye towards explaining away the interaction between photons and gravity just so other theories can keep their photons mass free.

the sources you offered had plenty of math, but they never overcame the greatest difficulty, NOTHING.

if photons have no mass, all the velocity in the universe should be unable to give them the ability to do work, since a billion times nothing is still nothing.
if a region of space is empty of mass, how can gravity warp this nothing.
if gravity can warp nothing (?) how does this nothing then effect mass?
even if warped nothing DOES effect mass, how does it also effect massless photons?
if photons have no mass, why does an electrical current eject them from a filament which has mass, by the passing of electrons which also have mass?
if photons have no mass, why does fire, fluorescence and phosphorescence set them in motion, these are interactions of matter, and matter is still made of particles with mass.

zero is still nothing, and nothing is not subject to variation, alteration or even math until something is added to make zero into a non-zero figure which can be subjected to testing experimentation and observation.

zero lacks the ability to change a sum, and nothing lacks the ability to effect the outcome of any test.

assuming that nothing is involved in any phenomena is a leap of faith i am unwilling to make.

guy incognito · Oct 8, 2012

Dr Kynes said:
GPS systems are one of Guy Incognito's stalking horses.

I think you misundertand the meaning of a stalking horse.

the entire thing revolves around whether space (and time) are warped by gravity or (as in my view as well as newtons) gravity is an attracting force that draws mass together.

thats where it started. thats where it remains.
the photon's status as massive or massless is a key point, since if it is massless then gravity cannot attract it, thus implying that spoace actually does get warped by gravity and that warping causes the problematic reaction of photons when they pass by a gravity source.
IF photons are in fact massless then the space warping can explain the course alteration of otherwise straight line moving photons.
IF photons have mass then gravity does not have to warp space to divert them since newtonian physics explains that in principle (if not in scale or scope)

Newtonian physics do not explain it. This is why it was superseded by relativity.

HOWEVER
massless photons should have zero newtonian force. they do in fact have a force, even if it's newtonianness is in dispute..
massless photons should also be impervious to gravity unless the space actually does get warped, but then that still leaves gravity working on the massles SPACE to do the warpinfg to in turn alter the photon's course by proxy through the intermediary of the warped space. yet gravity (which previously was a force that acted win conjunction with mass) must now be assumed to interact with SPACE which is also presumably massless, just to explain why gravity interacts with the also massless photon. you see where this could rapidly become circular ?

Newtonian physics is wrong. It does not work on a small scale or at high velocities. A photon embodies both extremes.

photons are created/released when you pass a current through a filament (incandescence)
photons are created/released when you use electrical current to excite some gasses (flourescence)
photons are created/released when certain chemicals interact (phosphorescence)
photons are created/released when you burn things with good old fashioned caveman style fire.

these facts (presuming they are still facts) indicate that photons come from matter (including the electrons protons and neutrons) or are a constituent of matter

E=mc^2 <-- The famous equation.

photons have a measurable velocity.
photons DO interact with gravity.
photons deliver a force on impact with matter.

these facts (presuming they are still facts) also imply a relationship between photons and ordinary matter.

empty space is by definition Untestable! and anything untestable is suspect in the world i live in.
empty space has no mass
empty space has not force
empty space does not DO anything since objects (photons and ordinary matter) pass through it without being disturbed, pushed off course or altered in any way that we can observe.

this indicates to me that empty space is neutral on the subject of physics and is simply the area in which physical laws and events take place.

the borders of space and it's limitlessness are immaterial for this discussion. let us instead imagine an area of the intergalactic void far enough removed from all available sources of gravity mass and energy as to prevent the interference with our discussion.

an object passing through this area will maintain a straight course. no deviations. if we introduce a mass with sufficient gravity (such as a neutron star) into this region, our object will have it's course altered by this gravity, to whit, it will be attracted to the gravity source.

let us presume the object does not become trapped in the gravity of our imaginary star, and passes beyond the area of it's influence. the object will now continue on a straight course which will presumably be the last heading it was on when it passed beyond the gravitational influence of our star.

Yes, it will be altered exactly as much as the equations of relativity predict. This has been tested numerous times. Newtonian equations (even if you plug in the upper limit for mass) do not work.

if we then REMOVE this star from this region of the void (i dunno how, maybe magic? just go with it), a second object moving on the same original course as the first will pass through the same area. since the gravity of the neutron star is no longer influencing this region, the second object will logically continue on it's original heading with no alteration in course or speed.

if however we assume that gravity warps space, the warping of space would presumably remain even if the neutron star is no longer present to do the warping, since presumably things which are warped would be unable to UN-warp without another force to do the un-warping. thus in that circumstance the second object would follow the same altered course as the first object due to the curvature of the now-warped space previously influenced by a currently absent mass.

Why do you assume the warping would remain? That is not true, space will go back to it's normal shape once the mass is removed. The gravitational waves will propagate at the speed of light.

unless space is elastic.

this still leaves the question, if the warping of space is the real force of gravity, how does gravity interact with the massless void, and how does the massless void interact with an object which otherwise passes through unimpeded.

even if i disregard the unexplained interaction of matter and space (warped or un-warped) there still remains the matter of the distortions.

areas of space which a massive object has passed through would most likely have distortions marking the passing of every object that has gone before, causing measurable distortion, (metaphor incoming) like the wake of a passing boat on a still pond. and without the gravity of the earth (or other source) to settle the waves these distortions would be fairly permanent until overwritten by a more powerful mass's passing.

the entire idea of warping space as the real force of gravity seems to be based on the desire to explain how gravity can influence objects with, and without mass, with an eye towards explaining away the interaction between photons and gravity just so other theories can keep their photons mass free.

the sources you offered had plenty of math, but they never overcame the greatest difficulty, NOTHING.

if photons have no mass, all the velocity in the universe should be unable to give them the ability to do work, since a billion times nothing is still nothing.
if a region of space is empty of mass, how can gravity warp this nothing.
if gravity can warp nothing (?) how does this nothing then effect mass?
even if warped nothing DOES effect mass, how does it also effect massless photons?
if photons have no mass, why does an electrical current eject them from a filament which has mass, by the passing of electrons which also have mass?
if photons have no mass, why does fire, fluorescence and phosphorescence set them in motion, these are interactions of matter, and matter is still made of particles with mass.

You are still using newtonian equations, which I have stated multiple times through out the thread are not accurate. They give an extremely good approximation for large masses and the slow speeds we encounter, but not for small or fast objects. For that you must use relativity. This link should explain:

http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/ParticleAndNuclear/photon_mass.html

zero is still nothing, and nothing is not subject to variation, alteration or even math until something is added to make zero into a non-zero figure which can be subjected to testing experimentation and observation.

zero lacks the ability to change a sum, and nothing lacks the ability to effect the outcome of any test.

assuming that nothing is involved in any phenomena is a leap of faith i am unwilling to make.

You also seem to be implying that everyone that accepts relativity and that photons have zero mass is ignoring perfectly valid data so as to not disrupt any of their preconceived notions, and that is absolutely incorrect. No one is ignoring data and evidence other than you. 100% of the data we have confirms relativity.

Dr Kynes · Oct 8, 2012

guy incognito said:
You also seem to be implying that everyone that accepts relativity and that photons have zero mass is ignoring perfectly valid data so as to not disrupt any of their preconceived notions, and that is absolutely incorrect. No one is ignoring data and evidence other than you. 100% of the data we have confirms relativity.

i imply nothing of the sort, you have inferred it, but that inference is in error.

what i am also not implying, but am instead stating outright and in no uncertain terms, is that zero has not function in any mathematic equation. you caqn add all the zero functions to an math problem in whatever form you wish and the solution will always be exactly the same as the same equation with those zero functions removed .

1+1 - 0 + 0 - 0 + 0 - 0 x0 /0 + 0 = 2

0x 3005 to the 17th power is still zero.

further, adding spin to 0 still leaves you with zero, zero in motion is the same as zero at rest. in fact im pretty sure 0,0,0, and 0are equivalent to a normal everyday black times new roman zero in a two point font.

thats where the math becomes irrational. thats where, from the perspective of a non-mathelete it starts looking like voodoo.

many have tried and all have failed thus far to explain to me why zero is nothing,, except when it needs to be something to make the math work. then it can be multiplied, divided, squared, and even approximated with a mathematixcal sum which relies on a number which is in fact NOT zero.

very much like the catholic transubstantiation of the sacrament. crackers and cheap wine do not become human flesh and blood because the guy in the robes says it does, and a zero sum cannot be multiplied divided or factored with exponents without returning a value of exactly zero.

lets make this easy.

just tell me it's magic. good old fashioned thaumaturgy. just like Merlin used to make.

but not Harry Potter type shit. That stuff doesnt make any sense, magically speaking.

cannabineer · Oct 8, 2012

True mathematical nothing is [null set]. Zero is a unique point on the scalar of numbers It has properties where [null set] has none. cn

guy incognito · Oct 8, 2012

guy incognito said:
You also seem to be implying that everyone that accepts relativity and that photons have zero mass is ignoring perfectly valid data so as to not disrupt any of their preconceived notions, and that is absolutely incorrect. No one is ignoring data and evidence other than you. 100% of the data we have confirms relativity.

Dr Kynes said:
i imply nothing of the sort, you have inferred it, but that inference is in error.

Orly?

Dr Kynes said:
likewise your insistence that theres no "strong arming" why does it offend you if i allow myself to presume that photons have a mass. and you cant even say i am wrong if i accept that that mass is UDER the upper limit placed on that mass by every scientific authority available.

"so close to zero that we cant say for sure it's not some infinitesimally small number, but we can say for sure it is less than 1 times negative 10 the the 18th electron volts divided by c squared." is still not zero. and if it's not zero then it could be somewhere between zero and the limit. or it could be zero, with photons having some property that acts like mass so convincingly that at times it can seem like mass, even if it is some as yet undiscovered force.

your insistence that it is simply ZERO is arbitrary, and according to all data available unproven.

can you hear me up there on your high horse? IF photons do have mass then it is almost certainly under the limit currently established, but if they have any mass at all then many current theories are wrong. that is why one simple farmhand asking questions makes you so infuriated. you fear your house may be made of straw and ill huff and puff and blow it down? or my disbelief of your communications will destabilize the universe causing the big bang to reverse? i had no idea i had such power.

That sounds exactly like you are saying they are ignoring valid data and arbitrarily assigning a value of zero so as to not disrupt several current theories.

How exactly does space/time fabric work?

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Ursus marijanus

Well-Known Member