they gain mass in momentum. the cathars believed we are captured photons. on quantum scale photons exists in more than one space at a single time, like god.. soon we will be able to measure our thought-partials on a quantum scale and realize it has no mass. -explaining our perception of time during sleep when body mass is not perceived and dreams move relative to speed of light. in theory
Gravitons? Really? It appears most planets and stars have their own spin. If you have water in a bucket and swing the bucket, then the water will stay in the bucket. I thought gravity was created from the spins of these giant spheres which hold material to it. The same reason why there's wind in the air and waves in the ocean...
@FranklyLate photons exist in from of energy packets called quanta .it's due to photons we see light but light' nature is still a topic of debate it has particle nature as well as wave nature.for particles like photons we consider wave nature(acc to de brogile's principle).whereas particles like electron are brought under particle nature where E=mc^2 is brought in picture
so if i can see millions of tiny speckles of light dancing about the sky and are definately not in my eye then i am not seing things? does this explain it? because in turn i also ask how is it that where i put my concentration they swarm too, and if i rais my hand towards them and hold it there they feed into my hand in a way i cant explain like have u ever seen a tiny spark jump from say an electric lighter to ur finger when uve taken it apart well its like that without the pain almost the....
Sorry, meant to write "equipartitioning." The idea is that at different size-scales - nucleus, solar system, galaxy, cluster - a large proportion of the zero-mode gravitons being exchanged are corralled, decouped from external gravitational interactions in stages going from one scale to the next, making nucleons heavier than the sum of their quarks, giving orbits relatable to swept areas, giving dark-matter galaxy halos, clustering galaxies along stringy webs.
If gravitons also travel at the speed of light, this must mean that the greater the mass of an object the greater the frequency of gravitons travelling towards it
I suppose you're saying the greater the mass the greater the number of expected incoming gravitons arriving per some short interval of time. That presumes the total energy of the mass stays the same, I guess, along with incoming number equaling outgoing number of gravitons.
One thought I have is of an equal-opposite rule for the direction of graviton exchanges, with nucleons acting much like a cluster of graviton corner-reflectors, meaning carrier flow can be nonuniform.
@CACBCCCU Yeah, thats just my theory, with its 1 year of As level for back up :). Your theory seems quite complicated but hopefully I will be able to get my head around it.
@MoACbillielang I guessed the subject was zero-mode gravitons, but they might as well be called curved-space-ignoring quanta or anti-mainstream gravitational quanta. Fwiw, for me it's difficult to suppose they'd only go at lightspeed if their path of propagation doesn't bend like a photon's path. Anyway, it seems the effect of graviton corner-reflection between masses could make for a lack of equipartioning in the division of gravitational energy between intra-system and extra-system components.
The curvature of space-time creates a protective spherical wall around practically everything good that is worth saving, really, protecting life from harmful static-field gravity force quanta exchanges carried out in the dark alleys of the cosmological axis of evil. Safe from these gremlins, we can peacefully carry out the search for dark matter and dark energy created during the big bang, aka the immaculate cosmic baryonic acoustic stylings of One Hand Clapping, best-simulated by two hands.
Nothing is straight in general relativity; light is bent, space is bent, time is bent. You might think all the ups and downs a photon can experience in passing gravity wells would add distance vs. the flat space scene, but no. Rank-two tensors, that's the ticket. Free-space media is within grasp but only if you're a true-blue general relativity guy, the guy who gives everyone that extra dimension of freedom that dark ignorance had once hidden. Bonus: you get dark-stuff-detecting powers too.
One reason popular science gets the spin wrong is that gravitostatic gravitons are an expression of social misfittery deemed useless to extradimensionally delayed warped dizziness, and if the only way gravity can be officially corrected (a "paradigm" shift requiring chosen bozo media mogul preapproval) is through the "right" person at the "right" time. What's done in the meantime is the usual circus featuring the valiant knights of empty curvature slaying various dragons of normal dimensions.
Gravity has a spin 2 effect, all that means is that charges (gravitational charge = mass) with the same sign attract. The spin designation comes from the symmetry of the effect. In a picture showing two identical spheres each with an arow pointing at the other, 180deg rotation leaves it the same, so it's called spin 2. That means electrostatic repulsion is also a spin 2 effect, although it involves spin 1 force quanta. The point here is gravitons are probably spin 1 like all the other bosons.
Anthrophomorphic bias: the photon does NOT contain just enough energy 2 Xite the eye; the eye contains just the right morphology to Dtect photos by evolutionary designp
He's got the photons wrong. They phase change from being a wave, to being a particle, because they suddenly carry mass, the laws of inertia tell them they have to deflect, meaning they are very quickly turned back into a wave again.
To be honest, I don't think that gravity has a particle. Yes, you may be able to analogize it with the formulas, but according to general relativity, doesn't the earth move in a straight line relative to the space around it? Doesn't it orbit because of how space is stretched around the sun?
photons do have a mass ( if it helps you to visualize it), but their mass is so insignificant in comparison to other subatomic particles, so we say they do not have a mass. give yourself a try weighing a photon, i'll be more than glad to hear the results.
@RigonMetaL1 not excatly, a photon is what we call th EM SPECTRUM!!!!
i can be radiovases upto gamma radiation, if something goes the speed of light, then it has no mass, also if it has mass it can change. although you might think it does change, it on changes wavelenth, not itself. so it does not has mass
When talking about weak interaction, why does an down quark in neutron want to spontaneously emit W- bosons and ultimately cause a beta-decay (in some very rare cases)?
@mharizanov It's your opinion, but if you think about it with your idea light would seem to travel only in one direction, so you couldn't see things behind you... Stick to established stuff :D
Well not really getting heavier but just more of it with average ratio of space/matter and then its get past a maximum expansion mark where matter is more than anti matter or dark energy and contracts again. There must be a maximum and a minimum, infinite doesnt exist i dont think.
@SASNIGHTCRAWLER "average ratio of space/matter" Oh, I see. That's a bit abstract. I find absolute beginnings to be more complicated than infinity. Maybe it's because I can think of things in terms of Fourier transforms and Laplace transforms, and Lagrangians, and combing the last two is a bit like a Hamiltonian. Also from there the idea removing locality is not too complicated, but the point here is that the components, like Fourier waves, are infinite in duration, wavelength and range.
@CACBCCCU "infinite in duration, wavelength and range" - or they are fitted into rings, but that also gets quite abstract to me (seems unfalsifiable) at the largest scales. I guess if I had a point it's that all of the 1D cosine and 2D stuff I've suggested can be tested by computer simulations without too much trouble, and compared to actual galaxies. I think it would make for some great videos if someone could come up with the code and hardware for it.
@CACBCCCU Are there any physics programs to translate or work out a formula from basic to end product, equations like your simulation idea. You know throw in a few basic calculations or equations or dimensions in order to create new ones? you know translating an idea into a physics theory without getting bogged down in 10yrs of math and equation, im too old and a to do 20yrs worth of homework lol
Im not sure where you can get a program, but im sure someone i have listened to on here had help
I think there are some open-source gravity simulators available, but I stopped writing programs before the phrase "open source" was invented, so you might imagine where that puts me. I know Fortran and could write a brute-force program that I'm sure could be compiled into multiprocessor scalable modules with some accompanying speed-up, but I believe it would still be very slow, especially if limited to a small cluster. It's far easier to mentally-envision trivial examples.
@SASNIGHTCRAWLER The way I think about it for trivial cases is basically what a physics simulator would do given thousands of tiny masses and a solid flexible curved surface for the masses to frictionlessly slide over. Instead of the usual 1/r^2 well used with the "elastic-sheet" model of GR, the normalized cosine modification to 1/r^2 makes it cos(r)/r^2 and the well is surrounded by small concentric ring depressions. Matter particles would gravitate to low spots and antimatter to high spots.
@SASNIGHTCRAWLER "small concentric ring depressions" should have been "relatively shallow (compared to the core of the well itself) ring depressions." Putting more flexibility into the surface would be like increasing the masses of the particles. If the well is generated by antimatter, then it's just a matter of flipping the picture upside-down to see where the surrounding rings position the small bits of matter (and antimatter, if tiny negative-mass particles are mixed-in).
@SASNIGHTCRAWLER Giving the tiny surrounding masses a nonzero radius to reduce the gravitational slingshot potential in the system would be one simple way of keeping them on the curved frictionless surface, a speed limit would also work. Basically the matter particles should always be touching one side of the surface and the antimatter would be touching on the opposite side. No need to simulate matter-antimatter collisions, but it's an option to consider.
@SASNIGHTCRAWLER "Whats the electron/matter ratio?" Not sure what you mean.
There's a ratio expressed by the fine structure constant ~1/137 that might be what you meant, I guess.
One last thing about the trivial model I gave is that, like the gravity-well picture, it's just a 2-D slice of space. As noted before, flat rings can still arise in the 3D simulation, due to mutual attraction between particles in the ring regions, when the distance between such particles is relatively small.
@SASNIGHTCRAWLER @ 2D space works out not too badly when simulating the solar system because all the planetary orbits are roughly in the same plane. Anyway, for apparently the about the same gravitational reason that most planetary matter lies in one plane, the ring features that should emerge when the cosine factor is included are valid features.
@CACBCCCU so these virtual particles could be nothing more than bosons recieving frequency from electrons due to their hight frequency..more like a pool ball effect, where a cue ball strikes the red and stops, stransfering energy to the red or activating the energy in the red(boson) in the form of a vibrational, or frequency contact. and so on which could make sense of the speed of light.. its hard to put it into words.
@CACBCCCU virtual particles or virtual electrons could be dark matter, it could make sense as dark matter can be acounted for so to speak as it has no mass.
@SASNIGHTCRAWLER I doubt that virtual particles could be dark matter. They're always close to matter or gamma rays, and unless you're talking about Hawking radiation, they're short-lived.
@SASNIGHTCRAWLER "the ratio between electrons and other matter particles"
Not sure what the ratio of protons to neutrons is, but there are supposed to be equal number of protons and electrons. Might set the proton/neutron ratio a bit above 2:1, in which case the number you're asking for is probably close to 1/1.5. It is probably not too difficult to research to come up with a better number, that might help you to think about what interests you there.
@CACBCCCU any money on it, that anti matter is the result of virtual particles being drawn towards grivitational fields and interacting with the matter only to then dissipate due to no real mass
@SASNIGHTCRAWLER I'm not suggesting a simulation where the gravitational field should necessarily be strong enough to possibly create particles, I havent really considered how the particles and anti-particles that could surround a massive particle could actually be created, I'd simply just assume the particles are there as part of the initial conditions of the simulation.
@CACBCCCU Im not sugesting the gravitational field would create the particles..what im saying is...if a boson field is whats in reality space, and the light or energy transferes frequency from one boson to another rather than shooting through space at c,the gravity could effct the direction of the light boson propagation effect and draws the angle of the boson with live energy towards it..if a virtual particle is nothing only a boson mirroring a further away electrons frequency through the field
@SASNIGHTCRAWLER I've considered interactions between photons and gravitons, even the idea that photons are like a collection of gravitons, but it's all guesswork. I suppose graviton paths don't bend like light, but it's not clear what is going on between the two types of bosons. Anyway, I'm running up against a time-crunch now, and maybe there's not much else to add here.
I don't know, but the Dirac sea is supposed to form a 4D curved space or an intensity curve in 3D space, which is also like a time-slice of 3+1D brane. I tend to prefer the intensity curve viewpoint because then gravitons don't need to jump off the brane, or even bend visibly like light does, to take the straightest path in space. There are clues that neutrino bursts could be FTL, and if gravitons were to provide a photon medium it seems they'd have to be FTL too.
@CACBCCCU Im sure they either got their ideas translated into a workable theory or something like that. I will have a look and ask about for you, im sure they can or have programs of that nature, most of these Dr guys have them to explain with graphics to their followers what they calculate looks like in action.
@SASNIGHTCRAWLER a photon is massless and has no 'size'. Well, it sort of has a 'size', but not in the way we usually think. Think about all bosons, we can put as many of them in a single space with the same direction and polarization as we want, which is what lasers are. So in the sense that one would think about 'size', asking a size is a bit absurd. It's weird. Google 'size of a photon' and just open like 5 tabs on the top 5 answers and read all about it.
@sidelingscroll Hi, and thanks for the reply. im fully aware they are without size so to speak, thats why i said what i said m8. Im thinking of a theory similar to the unified field theory, where neutral bosons fill space and chain react or domino effect the frequency from one to another," RATHERS THAN TRAVEL THROUGH IT" maintaining c constant and enabling propagation of the said frequency :)
@sidelingscroll This could also give rise to the virtual particle effects where electrons come and go, as electrons vibrate i think dueto the high gama frequencies they are made of, this vibration effect could be nothing only a bosonic energy ghost so to speak from other electrons in other places, as their high frequency is just being thrown through the boson field. :)
@CACBCCCU dark matter could be ghost or virtual electrons, reproduced in a boson field, and dark energy is the neutral boson field....read my comments on this page, my head exploded today, due to last nights convo..lol
Hi, us lot not so gifted with IQ's of 160, yet can awe and be truly inspired by what we consider how much LOL in ordinary life in Sunshine makes our ghetto's so pretty, London's crazy goings on. I just wish I could be there in CERN, Geneve not here. Respect!
Three quarks, with proton as up-down-up and neutron as down-up-down, where the middle quark is formed by electric charge repulsion between the two outer quarks and is limited in size by the color charge balance. It'sa quantized balance that is tightly (energetically) held between strong and electromagnetic forces, I suppose the tightness being well-expressed by the smallness of the effective charge size ratios quark-to-nucleon.
@CACBCCCU Hi may i send you a message regarding light boson magnetic attractions, toward electrons with a lower orbit due to a higher electrostatic ? Your friend lock is on you see. Thanks.
If you could bring antimatter into it you'd have my interest. The stuff apparently has negative mass but not negative intertia. Apparently it should bend light the opposite way that matter bends it. Seems that would not have a major effect on antimatter interactions with light, because gravity doesn't change the picture much until the amount of mass or anti-mass becomes extremely large, although I'm not entirely sure of that.
@CACBCCCU It has negative mass i would think because it isnt matter, light bosons seem to be attracted to matter or electrostatic effects, Maybe Dark energy is the key, non waving bosons in a higgs type field, and dark matter is rather an effect like gravity than an opposite to matter.
@SASNIGHTCRAWLER Seems a lot of what is called dark energy is antimatter. Also, I use cosine factor modification to G, with a minimum wavelength close to 10^21 meters, which is about the diameter of Hoag's ring. The factor allow regions of matter and antimatter to coexist under the organization of a dense core dominating the galactic gravitational potential picture.
The cosine factor I use to modify G is cos[(2pi)(r)(Fpp(g))/(diameter(p))(Fpp(e))], where diameter(p) = proton diameter = ~10^-15 meters, and Fpp(e)/Fpp(g) = ratio of electromagnetic force to gravity force between two close protons = ~10^36. This is a variation on Dirac's large numbers hypothesis, so maybe it is no surprise antimatter comes into the picture when using it.
@CACBCCCU Hi im not a Diracs follower so to speak, but your trying to say that the difference between you and Diracs numbers are showing anomalies pointing to the anti matter, by comparing the ration of EMF and gravity forces of two protons in your numbers?
@SASNIGHTCRAWLER As far as comparing this idea to the often-cited number (10^42?) for force ratio for electrons, all I can say is electrons are too fuzzy to give a single structure alone, their mass is ~1/1836th the proton, they do not dominate the space around themselves much except as exclusionary fermions. The nucleus dominates the gravity/inertia picture for the atom. The protons center the nucleus and so they're preferable to consider when looking at stability in the big picture.
@SASNIGHTCRAWLER Long-story-short, I picked the proton because 10^36 fit Hoag's galaxy best. It's about the same size as the Milky-Way, which isapparently just a variation on what Hoag's galaxy shows. Andromeda is apparently a variation on double rings. Most anomalously large galaxies are probably interpreted based on negative lensing manifestations that produce vastly overestimated sizes. That's my theory at the moment, anyway.
@CACBCCCU You could be onto something there with negative lensing minifestations. So your scaling with particles, i think i see where you are going with this
You could call it scaling with particles, but no one else seems to be trying it. It's like the inverse-square flux concept has become incorrect when gravity appears, much like gravitons themselves, and so one is stuck with axions and caustic circles or some such stuff. This is when general relativity becomes a religion of sorts. I'm mostly just saying gravitons must be low-energy bosons and so must have a physically-appreciable long-scale phase. I keep it 1D, but 2D's basic.
@CACBCCCU Well all i can say regarding gravitons, is that if they do exist they are like you said low energy forms of boson, or mearly an electrostatic orbit effect between the particle and the other bosons floating about, but like WSM you could call a particle a kind of boson, only it has mass, and the magetic atraction of light bosons creates the diverting and weaving action when near planets or matter with a high gravity?
@SASNIGHTCRAWLER I'm not trying to represent static gravity as an electrostatic sort of thing, just as a wave with the presumption it should be a long wave. It's not really unifying the forces, but maybe it does imply that rolling gravity up into extra dimensions to balance electromagnetism and other forces could just be a naive thing driven by math and not phenomenology, although the math is in some mysterious way appealing it seems gravity is best analyzed and verified at the low-energy end.
@CACBCCCU I have had arguments about gravity over and over, its like politics and religion....ive tried to explain gravity as a dimension,which is a regulator to c. hense time dilation effects etc..in think gravity is nothing only a particle interaction created by velocity,increasing electrostatic effects, creating lower electron orbits and attracting light bosons in a magnetic or static way creating the effect of time dilation, yet giving rise to relative c with slower particle interaction,time
@SASNIGHTCRAWLER Regular static gravity is 1D positive (or negative, the choice is arbitrary) in the sense that the force is always toward the gravity source and so opposite of propagation direction, a cosine factor keeps it 1D but with both positive and negative values. Adding a lateral sine factor would make the force 2D in that sense, but the end result is always the 3D case, rings would condense at the cosine-formed radius by mutual gravity between masses where the distance is not so great.
@SASNIGHTCRAWLER All modern accelerators might use superconductive magnets as far as I know, although regular magnets have improved a lot. In any event the constructional details are not of much interest to me, although I guess being an electrical engineer it would be an area I could navigate without getting mystified by it, that is also why it doesn't interest me nearly as much as gravity, antimatter and galaxies.
@CACBCCCU consider i am right about gravity no matter how insane it may sound, as an engineer and a physicist think of a tube created from YBCO and cool it to 0. now while at 0 propel an atom through it, would it gain mass or would the tube reduce the electrostatic or control or maintain, even increase the electron orbit. Now would a light pulse travel through the tube at the same speed of (c) compared with the time a light pulse travels outside the tube? im trying to stabilize or reduce mass
@SASNIGHTCRAWLER I was referring to ring accelerators, FWIW. The YBCO stuff seems interesting. I tend to see inertia as arising from an interaction between positive and negative charges and both types of baryons, conventional and antimatter would have both charges, due to their anti-quarks, but merely reversed in sign, not in inertial effect. By the equivalence principle intertia should indicate mass. Seems mass and inertia come from the amount and spacing of the component quark charges.
@CACBCCCU exactly, as matter shoots through the field of anti matter, it gains inertia or mass from the anti matter field or dark energy boson field. energy we know is one charge, it splits due to spin..neg poss ...but it is just direction the current of energy travels, so if we call rthe energy we use + energy, what is - energy? and the - enrgy would be split also due to its momentum or spin etc?
@CACBCCCU so you think the interactions of the quarks give the particle its mass? but again a particle containing or made of quarks isnt realy a particle is it? its in effect a tiny atom if you look at it, and as is gains velocity the orbits may reduce and again increase overal mass???
@SASNIGHTCRAWLER I wish I knew exactly how mass arises, that's the big question for particle physics. Many people look at the vacuum as a dirac sea of virtual particles and antiparticles and the Higgs is I guess supposed to be buried deep down inside the electron/positron pairs, I'd like to think electron mass arises by charge-binding to the dirac sea and nuclei, or soemthing like that, but that's probably all wrong. I must admit it'sover my head at some point, but I still bump into it.
@CACBCCCU I think its to do with the vacuum itself..but is the vacuum increasing pressure due to expansion do you think? and if so when it increases even though it may not be noticable,does it levels off by transforming dark matter into live matter enabling the planks constant and as a result of this fluctuation effect, by virtual particles are being emitted? I wonder if a very high vacuum experiment testing for an increase in vitual particle at the centre of the vacuum could be done?
I don't know what's really happening with expansion. That's an interesting idea but I could take it to mean that everything is gradually getting heavier, although maybe it's not what you meant. Actually I don't put a limit on the size or duration of the universe, on purely philosophical grounds, and doing so doesn't seem to rule out something like the big-bang or a wide range of variation in vacuum characteristics, which is I guess like what you're talking about.
@CACBCCCU would the centre of the vacuum increase more in pressure than outer edges and is there a part of the universe we know of that contains huge galaxy numbers, ie point of inflation maybe?
@SASNIGHTCRAWLER Inflation has the "false vacuum leader" concept, which implies the idea of a huge object spitting out protogalaxies, and expansion certainly wouldn't hurt in spreading them out, the idea of expansion when the vacuum between protogalaxies is quite hot seems most plausible. I suppose a homogenous steady-state universe at some unknown large scale/level of resolution, so an accelerating expansion to the horizon might only represent half of a small part of the picture anyway.
@CACBCCCU this could also explain that light (c)is indeed regulated by the energy of the matter it is interacting with, by modifying the matter one could modify the rate (c) can travel, creating a dimensional seperation. This could also explain that bosons do in fact carry energy and are particle like in nature and are effected like matter particles even though they have no mass. If you understand what i mean that is?
@CACBCCCU I was trying to create some sort of link between frequency waves of gamma, xray etc, with particles, or in other words, high energy photons creating sub atomic black holes surrounded by the frequency that created them, in effect creating a sub atomic event horizon, and the energy in the electron transferes over to the other in the form of a polar jet effect. then levels off to background energy levels again ie. 100KeV
@SASNIGHTCRAWLER Just wanted to clarify one thing - The radius of Hoag's ring would supposedly correspond to one wave-cycle of the core-generated cosine-corrected steady-state gravity field that is presumed here to dominate the gravitational picture. That calls for a proton radius that's about half the most recent figure, however the most recent figure for proton size is probably not based on assuming an ultra-cold environment and the direct measurement regime is highly nonlinear-interactive.
@SASNIGHTCRAWLER Arts galaxy? You mean the Sombrero galaxy? Yes, that's NGC 4594. An interesting coincidence - antimatter traps often use a "sombrero" containment method, which also complicates finding out via google if anyone else is also suggesting the galaxy core there is antimatter. Without the cosine factor, the rings have collisional explanations but I'm sceptical of them, they seem too transient to have such finely-developed geometrically-appealing examples so relatively close-by.
@SASNIGHTCRAWLER Square root 100KeV gamma? Sorry, that seems like something I would've tried when I was younger and now the canonical QED regime is not of much interest anymore. Not sure about square rooting that either.
@CACBCCCU i was looking at it when i was looking at energy waves without bosons, the numbers were quite similar, i was looking at the frequency wave sizes and lengths in comparison to particle sizes
@CACBCCCU I think dark energy if it exists, is a field of neutral bosons, and energy litteraly passes through each boson, or triggers the boson infront of it by its frequency and so on. But we dont know what energy is, we only have a idea of what it could be and we are looking for its flat mate..lol
As far as my equating of positive charge to having an antimatter quality goes, I guess it is just exploiting CT symmetry and opening up a perspective for seeing possible violations. FWIW, I think there's evidence in the ring diameter of NGC 4594 that the core is antimatter and the ring is matter. The ring diameter of NGC 4594 is half the ring diameter for Hoag's galaxy, which I suppose has a matter core and a matter ring.
Matter defines space by consensus, local space tells local bits of matter how to move locally, up to a point. That's the non-holographic perspective. The holographic perspective says mass is befined locally, at least up to a point, but is information-dominated, and is also defined by, in this sense, as being a part of the universe effectively viewable as existing inside a black hole, all the boundaries are black holes and definitional at highest energies IMO probably a gravito-strong framework .
Seems like the next goal is to create an electro-strong boson (not a Higgs) which could have a gravito-strong boson sibling that I guess is like a gravito-strongino, and maybe a weak-strong sibling, a strong-weakino.
I suppose gravitons exchange over shorter distances (>>10^21 meters) by tunneling, because they are such low-energy quanta with long intrinsic wavelengths 10^21 meters or more. I suppose this tunneling occurs irrespective of the curvature of space-time, tunneling only has a starting point and an end point with different conditions on both ends, and yet the exchange of gravitons cannot be said to violate causality as gravitons are basically only involved in expressing mass.
loool! When I searched for photons to find the answer to the question I have I got this in my search I was like, "Whatever I'll just check out that one guy I subscribed toa while back who's really good at physics and has amazing videos... but first I'll check this one out." and this was the guy I was thinking about!
Sorry to be a semi-heretic, but I don't think light necessarily takes the shortest path when it is lensed gravitationally. Suppose a gravitational lens is transparent or ring-shaped (e.g. a wormhole), then most of the light from the source of the ring light can pass through the center, and that path should be the fastest.
Also, not to be pedantic, but the effect of gravitons is supposed, on a macroscopic scale, to be indistinguishable in effect from curved space, and GR-QM don't mix.
the sad thing is we cant apply einstein relativity to the quantum level ..
our best guess is gravitons are somehow linked to the space time concept ...maybe the bending of space time is just a different density of gravitons in that area ....
that would explain why photons are affected by gravity without having mass...
@KulakxFilms also when the universe was younger and smaller with same energy in smaller volume supposedly light speed is/was faster(Discover magazine)
If a photon has no mass, could someone tell me why light gets curved when passing near any object of sufficient mass (not just a black hole, see Gravity Probe B) ?
A photon doesnt move in a curved path because of gravitational force ACTING ON it. The photon is just moving along the geometry laid out before it, taking the shortest path between two points. However, as John Wheeler famously said, "Matter [by virtue of its generating gravity] tells space how to curve, and space tells matter how to move." The shape of space is determined by the curved gravitational field so that the shortest distance between two points is a curve.
So you're saying that the effect of gravity on the space-time tissue (the famous put-a--heavy-marble-on-a-tissue-and-this-is-gravity) is affecting the photon, rather than gravity affecting directly the photon ? That would make sense.
Gravity bends space and time, which is what light travels through. It is also the bending of space and time that we perceive as acceleration. Same thing that makes satellite clocks tick faster than earth clocks also makes one side of the light wave slow down just enough to bend its path. It isn't the mass of the bodies attracting; it's a dent created by the existence of mass in space-time itself.
Gravity can not travel with the speed of light. If you have a mass M in location X, and X is a distance from earth. And you have a mass N in a location Y, witch is a different distance from earth. N = M in every way possible, but their weight, would be different based on the location relative to earth.
If M and N changed places in an instant. Their weight relative to the earth would also change in an instant. The difference in weight relative to the earth would not wait for the light.
Imagine the Sun is instantly replaced by a large black hole, we wouldn't see the difference until 8 minutes later because the Sun is about 8 light minutes away from us, if your hypothesis were correct we would experience an intense gravitational pull (aka weight) 8 minutes before we see the Sun turn into a black hole properly, which doesn't make sense and is against General Relativity predictions.
Gravity is part and parcel of the source. If the sun were to disappear, the sun's gravity would go with it. We would see the change 8.3 minutes later, but the planet would keep going in straight line out of it's orbit right away.
If we replace the sun with a black hole, we would be pulled into it, but not see the change at once. We would see it earlier though, since not even light can escape the gratiry of a black hole
How does this prove gravity can't travel with the speed of light. Also what do you mean "difference in weight relative to the earth"? and why would N and M's weight change if N=M? Would it make more sense to say that the gravitational pull of the earth on N at point X is the same as the pull on M at point X because N=M?
But you would to it another way. If you have a big ball (ie the sun) and a little ball (ie earth), and the big ball explode. You will also have a change in gravity before you can see it
So then you don't have to move faster then light to make a difference in gravity faster than light. Get the point?
". If you have a big ball (ie the sun) and a little ball (ie earth), and the big ball explode. You will also have a change in gravity before you can see it"
No, you wouldn't.
"So then you don't have to move faster then light to make a difference in gravity faster than light."
YOU don't have to move FTL, but the information about gravity does.
"Get the point? "
Yes, you're not familiar with the observations made about this aspect of physics, so you're just guessing what would happen.
Hmmm... gravity is NOT a force (Einstein)... it is a consequence of the curved geometry of space-time. Yet scientists are searching for the 'graviton'... a particle (gauge boson) that carries the 'force' of gravity... a 'force' that does NOT exist.
When Newton discovered gravity, it was presumed that its mechanism was an invisible force, analogous to magnetic force... but Einstein revealed this to be an illusion.
Should we not regard the graviton as a VIRTUAL particle, rather than actual?
1. We don't really understand gravity well enough to be sure Einstein was 100% right. There are problems with his theory reconciling with quantum mechanics, so it would appear further work needs to be done to fix it.
2. You seem to misunderstand the concept of a virtual particle. The photons that mediate the EM force ARE virtual particles. The are virtual because we don't actually see them. In most cases their existence is implied.
1. Understood. But a 'real' graviton would imply that Newton was right, and gravity is a force... something which seems to be ruled-out by experiment. But since Einstein's 'geometric effects' create the ILLUSION of a force... AND the (non-relativistic) mathematics of the ILLUSION of a force provide the same answers as the mathematics of an actual force... (continued... )
... it stands to reason that if the ILLUSION holds at quantum levels, then the ILLUSION of wave/particle duality should ALSO hold at the quantum level. This would require a particle that does not actually exist... a virtual particle... the graviton.
If Einstein was right, and the 'force' is an illusion created by the geometry of space-time, then the 'graviton' is LESS 'real' than if gravity is an actual force... not that it should be counted as 'real' in the first place.
Seriously, it's kind of silly for you to be speculating about quantum theory without anything but logic to back you up. Logic doesn't really hold at that level.
This is kind of off topic, but like mentioned by many before me, when scientists refer to "God", most of the time it is as a metaphor for the laws of physics, and occationally to some kind of undefined deity, but practicly NEVER to a Theistic God (a deity with a personality that actively interacts with the wold and cares what humans do or think). You will also be hard pressed to find a physicist that believes in astrology, ghosts, or supernatural creatures.
I wonder if we identify the graviton, would it be possible to artificially generate them in some way. If we could then we would be able to make artificial gravity for space travel.
I was wondering about that myself--after watching the new star trek movie :P Would be a mazing though, to be able to generate and harness gravitons and use them to create an artificial gravity field.
@lazyperfectionist1 i know it bothers you in many religions they contradict with science they even limit thier thinking as thinking to them is a sin but that have nothing to do with god. stop joining the heard of atheists and others just because you are scared of what they might think of you think on your own form your own ideas think freely
@lazyperfectionist1 it may be one of the reasons .and i believe in god not because of "belief" and "trust" no, i like to think for myself so i figured it out so i KNOW he exists. what if it needs higher intellegence to figure it. and im not talking about the large base of people who believe so as not be different or because they trust monks or whatever they are called, im talking about the crème on the top. the maybe 4% who really think for themselves
@lazyperfectionist1 what if you are intellegent but still have blind spots you cant see that it takes bigger head. ever thought that maybe there is 4th medium , 5th or ∞, or that we are a closed system with our own set of rules. and that everything in the universe is made out of this energy. but maybe there is other building material other than our known energy. sorry i usually dont talk much who loves thier error i let them live with it
@marobra00 I might point out that you haven't answered my question. What is it that leads you to believe that I am an atheist just because I am "following the crowd?"
@lazyperfectionist1 ok why? because hmm athiesm is not rational or logical choice its a huuuuge gamble like pascal's wager theory says so if you did not reach to athiesm by logic and reason so it must be by just following.
great video thanks
sprattysy 6 days ago
they gain mass in momentum. the cathars believed we are captured photons. on quantum scale photons exists in more than one space at a single time, like god.. soon we will be able to measure our thought-partials on a quantum scale and realize it has no mass. -explaining our perception of time during sleep when body mass is not perceived and dreams move relative to speed of light. in theory
littleAlex44 6 days ago
This is a great video
osclarkos 1 week ago
brilliant video
prchecker 1 week ago
really informative and interesting
ericajjful 2 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Gravitons? Really? It appears most planets and stars have their own spin. If you have water in a bucket and swing the bucket, then the water will stay in the bucket. I thought gravity was created from the spins of these giant spheres which hold material to it. The same reason why there's wind in the air and waves in the ocean...
devilskullsixtysix 3 weeks ago
Comment removed
devilskullsixtysix 3 weeks ago
Pardon me. If photons have no mass but they are capable of having energy then how does this work?
e=mc^2. If mass = zero then energy must equal zero.
Is there another energy out there which has zero mass but can 'interact' with mass?
FranklyLate 1 month ago
@FranklyLate photons exist in from of energy packets called quanta .it's due to photons we see light but light' nature is still a topic of debate it has particle nature as well as wave nature.for particles like photons we consider wave nature(acc to de brogile's principle).whereas particles like electron are brought under particle nature where E=mc^2 is brought in picture
Engine098 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
HELP! ME PLEASE
READ MY 2 COMMENTS BELOW
jc666jc 2 months ago
...opposite and they hover above the finger tips and shoot into them its mind blowing...
jc666jc 2 months ago
so if i can see millions of tiny speckles of light dancing about the sky and are definately not in my eye then i am not seing things? does this explain it? because in turn i also ask how is it that where i put my concentration they swarm too, and if i rais my hand towards them and hold it there they feed into my hand in a way i cant explain like have u ever seen a tiny spark jump from say an electric lighter to ur finger when uve taken it apart well its like that without the pain almost the....
jc666jc 2 months ago
Sorry, meant to write "equipartitioning." The idea is that at different size-scales - nucleus, solar system, galaxy, cluster - a large proportion of the zero-mode gravitons being exchanged are corralled, decouped from external gravitational interactions in stages going from one scale to the next, making nucleons heavier than the sum of their quarks, giving orbits relatable to swept areas, giving dark-matter galaxy halos, clustering galaxies along stringy webs.
CACBCCCU 3 months ago
10 people are retarded
CyberFenix000 4 months ago
If gravitons also travel at the speed of light, this must mean that the greater the mass of an object the greater the frequency of gravitons travelling towards it
MoACbillielang 5 months ago
@MoACbillielang Most radio waves travel at the speed of light. Maybe LIGOS has better explanations for that.
youme1414 4 months ago
@MoACbillielang
I suppose you're saying the greater the mass the greater the number of expected incoming gravitons arriving per some short interval of time. That presumes the total energy of the mass stays the same, I guess, along with incoming number equaling outgoing number of gravitons.
One thought I have is of an equal-opposite rule for the direction of graviton exchanges, with nucleons acting much like a cluster of graviton corner-reflectors, meaning carrier flow can be nonuniform.
CACBCCCU 3 months ago
@CACBCCCU Yeah, thats just my theory, with its 1 year of As level for back up :). Your theory seems quite complicated but hopefully I will be able to get my head around it.
MoACbillielang 3 months ago
@MoACbillielang I guessed the subject was zero-mode gravitons, but they might as well be called curved-space-ignoring quanta or anti-mainstream gravitational quanta. Fwiw, for me it's difficult to suppose they'd only go at lightspeed if their path of propagation doesn't bend like a photon's path. Anyway, it seems the effect of graviton corner-reflection between masses could make for a lack of equipartioning in the division of gravitational energy between intra-system and extra-system components.
CACBCCCU 3 months ago
STANDARD MODEL OF BULL SHIT, EVEN A PHOTON HAS A MASS.. BLOW IT OUT OF YOUR ASS.
binarysun1234 5 months ago
The curvature of space-time creates a protective spherical wall around practically everything good that is worth saving, really, protecting life from harmful static-field gravity force quanta exchanges carried out in the dark alleys of the cosmological axis of evil. Safe from these gremlins, we can peacefully carry out the search for dark matter and dark energy created during the big bang, aka the immaculate cosmic baryonic acoustic stylings of One Hand Clapping, best-simulated by two hands.
CACBCCCU 5 months ago
Nothing is straight in general relativity; light is bent, space is bent, time is bent. You might think all the ups and downs a photon can experience in passing gravity wells would add distance vs. the flat space scene, but no. Rank-two tensors, that's the ticket. Free-space media is within grasp but only if you're a true-blue general relativity guy, the guy who gives everyone that extra dimension of freedom that dark ignorance had once hidden. Bonus: you get dark-stuff-detecting powers too.
CACBCCCU 5 months ago
One reason popular science gets the spin wrong is that gravitostatic gravitons are an expression of social misfittery deemed useless to extradimensionally delayed warped dizziness, and if the only way gravity can be officially corrected (a "paradigm" shift requiring chosen bozo media mogul preapproval) is through the "right" person at the "right" time. What's done in the meantime is the usual circus featuring the valiant knights of empty curvature slaying various dragons of normal dimensions.
CACBCCCU 5 months ago
Gravity has a spin 2 effect, all that means is that charges (gravitational charge = mass) with the same sign attract. The spin designation comes from the symmetry of the effect. In a picture showing two identical spheres each with an arow pointing at the other, 180deg rotation leaves it the same, so it's called spin 2. That means electrostatic repulsion is also a spin 2 effect, although it involves spin 1 force quanta. The point here is gravitons are probably spin 1 like all the other bosons.
CACBCCCU 5 months ago
Anthrophomorphic bias: the photon does NOT contain just enough energy 2 Xite the eye; the eye contains just the right morphology to Dtect photos by evolutionary designp
kitakatz 5 months ago
He's got the photons wrong. They phase change from being a wave, to being a particle, because they suddenly carry mass, the laws of inertia tell them they have to deflect, meaning they are very quickly turned back into a wave again.
sivadfa 5 months ago
To be honest, I don't think that gravity has a particle. Yes, you may be able to analogize it with the formulas, but according to general relativity, doesn't the earth move in a straight line relative to the space around it? Doesn't it orbit because of how space is stretched around the sun?
TimJSwan89 5 months ago
but everything has a mass
tmlstraveller 6 months ago
amazing
tmlstraveller 6 months ago
I came here from 60 symbols
3croN 6 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
GRAVITONS & PHOTONS DO NOT EXIST. Check out my channel for more information.
ASoberMind 7 months ago
Photons are a massless particle so he's right when he says they have no mass.
laoistom 7 months ago
0:16 Photons and everything in univers have mass !
RigonMetaL1 8 months ago
@RigonMetaL1
photons do have a mass ( if it helps you to visualize it), but their mass is so insignificant in comparison to other subatomic particles, so we say they do not have a mass. give yourself a try weighing a photon, i'll be more than glad to hear the results.
ZeroDimenZion 7 months ago
@ZeroDimenZion Their mass is very littel but they have mass.
RigonMetaL1 7 months ago
@RigonMetaL1 not excatly, a photon is what we call th EM SPECTRUM!!!!
i can be radiovases upto gamma radiation, if something goes the speed of light, then it has no mass, also if it has mass it can change. although you might think it does change, it on changes wavelenth, not itself. so it does not has mass
pivotcrave 6 months ago
When talking about weak interaction, why does an down quark in neutron want to spontaneously emit W- bosons and ultimately cause a beta-decay (in some very rare cases)?
tomo25252 8 months ago
There must be a tiny 5D black hole at the centre of a proton.meaning one hadron = 1 quanta of gravity, there is no graviton..you read it here first.
PAUL7575000 8 months ago
i think light doesn't travel. we move thru the time dimension and light stays still in it, just vibrating at its frequency.
mharizanov 9 months ago
@mharizanov It's your opinion, but if you think about it with your idea light would seem to travel only in one direction, so you couldn't see things behind you... Stick to established stuff :D
thomasjamesfoster96 9 months ago
what is a boson?
monkee5991 10 months ago
@monkee5991 exchange particles :)
likewhoami 9 months ago
@monkee5991
They exchange the 4 forces of nature (EM, gravity, strong nuclear, weak nuclear) by the (photon, graviton, gluon, W+/W-/Z0 respectively).
mdma4life 9 months ago
Well not really getting heavier but just more of it with average ratio of space/matter and then its get past a maximum expansion mark where matter is more than anti matter or dark energy and contracts again. There must be a maximum and a minimum, infinite doesnt exist i dont think.
SASNIGHTCRAWLER 1 year ago
@SASNIGHTCRAWLER "average ratio of space/matter" Oh, I see. That's a bit abstract. I find absolute beginnings to be more complicated than infinity. Maybe it's because I can think of things in terms of Fourier transforms and Laplace transforms, and Lagrangians, and combing the last two is a bit like a Hamiltonian. Also from there the idea removing locality is not too complicated, but the point here is that the components, like Fourier waves, are infinite in duration, wavelength and range.
CACBCCCU 1 year ago
@CACBCCCU "infinite in duration, wavelength and range" - or they are fitted into rings, but that also gets quite abstract to me (seems unfalsifiable) at the largest scales. I guess if I had a point it's that all of the 1D cosine and 2D stuff I've suggested can be tested by computer simulations without too much trouble, and compared to actual galaxies. I think it would make for some great videos if someone could come up with the code and hardware for it.
CACBCCCU 1 year ago
@CACBCCCU Are there any physics programs to translate or work out a formula from basic to end product, equations like your simulation idea. You know throw in a few basic calculations or equations or dimensions in order to create new ones? you know translating an idea into a physics theory without getting bogged down in 10yrs of math and equation, im too old and a to do 20yrs worth of homework lol
Im not sure where you can get a program, but im sure someone i have listened to on here had help
SASNIGHTCRAWLER 1 year ago
@SASNIGHTCRAWLER
I think there are some open-source gravity simulators available, but I stopped writing programs before the phrase "open source" was invented, so you might imagine where that puts me. I know Fortran and could write a brute-force program that I'm sure could be compiled into multiprocessor scalable modules with some accompanying speed-up, but I believe it would still be very slow, especially if limited to a small cluster. It's far easier to mentally-envision trivial examples.
CACBCCCU 1 year ago
@SASNIGHTCRAWLER The way I think about it for trivial cases is basically what a physics simulator would do given thousands of tiny masses and a solid flexible curved surface for the masses to frictionlessly slide over. Instead of the usual 1/r^2 well used with the "elastic-sheet" model of GR, the normalized cosine modification to 1/r^2 makes it cos(r)/r^2 and the well is surrounded by small concentric ring depressions. Matter particles would gravitate to low spots and antimatter to high spots.
CACBCCCU 1 year ago
@SASNIGHTCRAWLER "small concentric ring depressions" should have been "relatively shallow (compared to the core of the well itself) ring depressions." Putting more flexibility into the surface would be like increasing the masses of the particles. If the well is generated by antimatter, then it's just a matter of flipping the picture upside-down to see where the surrounding rings position the small bits of matter (and antimatter, if tiny negative-mass particles are mixed-in).
CACBCCCU 1 year ago
@CACBCCCU where is the anti matter showing up, is it ringing around mass?
SASNIGHTCRAWLER 1 year ago
@SASNIGHTCRAWLER Giving the tiny surrounding masses a nonzero radius to reduce the gravitational slingshot potential in the system would be one simple way of keeping them on the curved frictionless surface, a speed limit would also work. Basically the matter particles should always be touching one side of the surface and the antimatter would be touching on the opposite side. No need to simulate matter-antimatter collisions, but it's an option to consider.
CACBCCCU 1 year ago
@CACBCCCU Whats the electron/matter ratio?
SASNIGHTCRAWLER 1 year ago
@SASNIGHTCRAWLER "Whats the electron/matter ratio?" Not sure what you mean.
There's a ratio expressed by the fine structure constant ~1/137 that might be what you meant, I guess.
One last thing about the trivial model I gave is that, like the gravity-well picture, it's just a 2-D slice of space. As noted before, flat rings can still arise in the 3D simulation, due to mutual attraction between particles in the ring regions, when the distance between such particles is relatively small.
CACBCCCU 1 year ago
@CACBCCCU yes 2d isnt really any good is it...yes the ratio between electrons and other matter particles.
SASNIGHTCRAWLER 1 year ago
@SASNIGHTCRAWLER @ 2D space works out not too badly when simulating the solar system because all the planetary orbits are roughly in the same plane. Anyway, for apparently the about the same gravitational reason that most planetary matter lies in one plane, the ring features that should emerge when the cosine factor is included are valid features.
CACBCCCU 1 year ago
@CACBCCCU so these virtual particles could be nothing more than bosons recieving frequency from electrons due to their hight frequency..more like a pool ball effect, where a cue ball strikes the red and stops, stransfering energy to the red or activating the energy in the red(boson) in the form of a vibrational, or frequency contact. and so on which could make sense of the speed of light.. its hard to put it into words.
SASNIGHTCRAWLER 1 year ago
@CACBCCCU I can see it, but i cant say it, in more ways than one. lol
SASNIGHTCRAWLER 1 year ago
@CACBCCCU virtual particles or virtual electrons could be dark matter, it could make sense as dark matter can be acounted for so to speak as it has no mass.
SASNIGHTCRAWLER 1 year ago
@SASNIGHTCRAWLER I doubt that virtual particles could be dark matter. They're always close to matter or gamma rays, and unless you're talking about Hawking radiation, they're short-lived.
CACBCCCU 1 year ago
@CACBCCCU "They're always close to matter" should be "They're always close to matter, and to antimatter, but with reversed polarity"
CACBCCCU 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@SASNIGHTCRAWLER "the ratio between electrons and other matter particles"
Not sure what the ratio of protons to neutrons is, but there are supposed to be equal number of protons and electrons. Might set the proton/neutron ratio a bit above 2:1, in which case the number you're asking for is probably close to 1/1.5. It is probably not too difficult to research to come up with a better number, that might help you to think about what interests you there.
CACBCCCU 1 year ago
@CACBCCCU any money on it, that anti matter is the result of virtual particles being drawn towards grivitational fields and interacting with the matter only to then dissipate due to no real mass
SASNIGHTCRAWLER 1 year ago
@SASNIGHTCRAWLER I'm not suggesting a simulation where the gravitational field should necessarily be strong enough to possibly create particles, I havent really considered how the particles and anti-particles that could surround a massive particle could actually be created, I'd simply just assume the particles are there as part of the initial conditions of the simulation.
CACBCCCU 1 year ago
@CACBCCCU Im not sugesting the gravitational field would create the particles..what im saying is...if a boson field is whats in reality space, and the light or energy transferes frequency from one boson to another rather than shooting through space at c,the gravity could effct the direction of the light boson propagation effect and draws the angle of the boson with live energy towards it..if a virtual particle is nothing only a boson mirroring a further away electrons frequency through the field
SASNIGHTCRAWLER 1 year ago
@SASNIGHTCRAWLER I've considered interactions between photons and gravitons, even the idea that photons are like a collection of gravitons, but it's all guesswork. I suppose graviton paths don't bend like light, but it's not clear what is going on between the two types of bosons. Anyway, I'm running up against a time-crunch now, and maybe there's not much else to add here.
CACBCCCU 1 year ago
@CACBCCCU Well its all good fun and all part of the mystery. Who knows, we may not even exist lol
SASNIGHTCRAWLER 1 year ago
@SASNIGHTCRAWLER
I don't know, but the Dirac sea is supposed to form a 4D curved space or an intensity curve in 3D space, which is also like a time-slice of 3+1D brane. I tend to prefer the intensity curve viewpoint because then gravitons don't need to jump off the brane, or even bend visibly like light does, to take the straightest path in space. There are clues that neutrino bursts could be FTL, and if gravitons were to provide a photon medium it seems they'd have to be FTL too.
CACBCCCU 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@CACBCCCU do you understand what im saying?
SASNIGHTCRAWLER 1 year ago
@CACBCCCU Im sure they either got their ideas translated into a workable theory or something like that. I will have a look and ask about for you, im sure they can or have programs of that nature, most of these Dr guys have them to explain with graphics to their followers what they calculate looks like in action.
SASNIGHTCRAWLER 1 year ago
@CACBCCCU Hi, have they got a size for the photon/boson?
SASNIGHTCRAWLER 1 year ago
@SASNIGHTCRAWLER a photon is massless and has no 'size'. Well, it sort of has a 'size', but not in the way we usually think. Think about all bosons, we can put as many of them in a single space with the same direction and polarization as we want, which is what lasers are. So in the sense that one would think about 'size', asking a size is a bit absurd. It's weird. Google 'size of a photon' and just open like 5 tabs on the top 5 answers and read all about it.
sidelingscroll 1 year ago
@sidelingscroll Hi, and thanks for the reply. im fully aware they are without size so to speak, thats why i said what i said m8. Im thinking of a theory similar to the unified field theory, where neutral bosons fill space and chain react or domino effect the frequency from one to another," RATHERS THAN TRAVEL THROUGH IT" maintaining c constant and enabling propagation of the said frequency :)
SASNIGHTCRAWLER 1 year ago
@sidelingscroll This could also give rise to the virtual particle effects where electrons come and go, as electrons vibrate i think dueto the high gama frequencies they are made of, this vibration effect could be nothing only a bosonic energy ghost so to speak from other electrons in other places, as their high frequency is just being thrown through the boson field. :)
SASNIGHTCRAWLER 1 year ago
@CACBCCCU dark matter could be ghost or virtual electrons, reproduced in a boson field, and dark energy is the neutral boson field....read my comments on this page, my head exploded today, due to last nights convo..lol
SASNIGHTCRAWLER 1 year ago
Hi, us lot not so gifted with IQ's of 160, yet can awe and be truly inspired by what we consider how much LOL in ordinary life in Sunshine makes our ghetto's so pretty, London's crazy goings on. I just wish I could be there in CERN, Geneve not here. Respect!
Kentish85Town 1 year ago
Three quarks, with proton as up-down-up and neutron as down-up-down, where the middle quark is formed by electric charge repulsion between the two outer quarks and is limited in size by the color charge balance. It'sa quantized balance that is tightly (energetically) held between strong and electromagnetic forces, I suppose the tightness being well-expressed by the smallness of the effective charge size ratios quark-to-nucleon.
CACBCCCU 1 year ago
@CACBCCCU Hi may i send you a message regarding light boson magnetic attractions, toward electrons with a lower orbit due to a higher electrostatic ? Your friend lock is on you see. Thanks.
SASNIGHTCRAWLER 1 year ago
@SASNIGHTCRAWLER I'm not taking private messages at the moment.
If you could bring antimatter into it you'd have my interest. The stuff apparently has negative mass but not negative intertia. Apparently it should bend light the opposite way that matter bends it. Seems that would not have a major effect on antimatter interactions with light, because gravity doesn't change the picture much until the amount of mass or anti-mass becomes extremely large, although I'm not entirely sure of that.
CACBCCCU 1 year ago
@CACBCCCU It has negative mass i would think because it isnt matter, light bosons seem to be attracted to matter or electrostatic effects, Maybe Dark energy is the key, non waving bosons in a higgs type field, and dark matter is rather an effect like gravity than an opposite to matter.
SASNIGHTCRAWLER 1 year ago
@SASNIGHTCRAWLER Seems a lot of what is called dark energy is antimatter. Also, I use cosine factor modification to G, with a minimum wavelength close to 10^21 meters, which is about the diameter of Hoag's ring. The factor allow regions of matter and antimatter to coexist under the organization of a dense core dominating the galactic gravitational potential picture.
CACBCCCU 1 year ago
@SASNIGHTCRAWLER
The cosine factor I use to modify G is cos[(2pi)(r)(Fpp(g))/(diameter(p))(Fpp(e))], where diameter(p) = proton diameter = ~10^-15 meters, and Fpp(e)/Fpp(g) = ratio of electromagnetic force to gravity force between two close protons = ~10^36. This is a variation on Dirac's large numbers hypothesis, so maybe it is no surprise antimatter comes into the picture when using it.
CACBCCCU 1 year ago
@CACBCCCU Hi im not a Diracs follower so to speak, but your trying to say that the difference between you and Diracs numbers are showing anomalies pointing to the anti matter, by comparing the ration of EMF and gravity forces of two protons in your numbers?
SASNIGHTCRAWLER 1 year ago
@CACBCCCU You may be just the person i need lol
SASNIGHTCRAWLER 1 year ago
@SASNIGHTCRAWLER As far as comparing this idea to the often-cited number (10^42?) for force ratio for electrons, all I can say is electrons are too fuzzy to give a single structure alone, their mass is ~1/1836th the proton, they do not dominate the space around themselves much except as exclusionary fermions. The nucleus dominates the gravity/inertia picture for the atom. The protons center the nucleus and so they're preferable to consider when looking at stability in the big picture.
CACBCCCU 1 year ago
@SASNIGHTCRAWLER Long-story-short, I picked the proton because 10^36 fit Hoag's galaxy best. It's about the same size as the Milky-Way, which isapparently just a variation on what Hoag's galaxy shows. Andromeda is apparently a variation on double rings. Most anomalously large galaxies are probably interpreted based on negative lensing manifestations that produce vastly overestimated sizes. That's my theory at the moment, anyway.
CACBCCCU 1 year ago
@CACBCCCU You could be onto something there with negative lensing minifestations. So your scaling with particles, i think i see where you are going with this
SASNIGHTCRAWLER 1 year ago
@SASNIGHTCRAWLER
You could call it scaling with particles, but no one else seems to be trying it. It's like the inverse-square flux concept has become incorrect when gravity appears, much like gravitons themselves, and so one is stuck with axions and caustic circles or some such stuff. This is when general relativity becomes a religion of sorts. I'm mostly just saying gravitons must be low-energy bosons and so must have a physically-appreciable long-scale phase. I keep it 1D, but 2D's basic.
CACBCCCU 1 year ago
@CACBCCCU Well all i can say regarding gravitons, is that if they do exist they are like you said low energy forms of boson, or mearly an electrostatic orbit effect between the particle and the other bosons floating about, but like WSM you could call a particle a kind of boson, only it has mass, and the magetic atraction of light bosons creates the diverting and weaving action when near planets or matter with a high gravity?
SASNIGHTCRAWLER 1 year ago
@SASNIGHTCRAWLER I'm not trying to represent static gravity as an electrostatic sort of thing, just as a wave with the presumption it should be a long wave. It's not really unifying the forces, but maybe it does imply that rolling gravity up into extra dimensions to balance electromagnetism and other forces could just be a naive thing driven by math and not phenomenology, although the math is in some mysterious way appealing it seems gravity is best analyzed and verified at the low-energy end.
CACBCCCU 1 year ago
@CACBCCCU I have had arguments about gravity over and over, its like politics and religion....ive tried to explain gravity as a dimension,which is a regulator to c. hense time dilation effects etc..in think gravity is nothing only a particle interaction created by velocity,increasing electrostatic effects, creating lower electron orbits and attracting light bosons in a magnetic or static way creating the effect of time dilation, yet giving rise to relative c with slower particle interaction,time
SASNIGHTCRAWLER 1 year ago
@SASNIGHTCRAWLER Regular static gravity is 1D positive (or negative, the choice is arbitrary) in the sense that the force is always toward the gravity source and so opposite of propagation direction, a cosine factor keeps it 1D but with both positive and negative values. Adding a lateral sine factor would make the force 2D in that sense, but the end result is always the 3D case, rings would condense at the cosine-formed radius by mutual gravity between masses where the distance is not so great.
CACBCCCU 1 year ago
@CACBCCCU Are there any superconductors in the LHC?
SASNIGHTCRAWLER 1 year ago
@SASNIGHTCRAWLER All modern accelerators might use superconductive magnets as far as I know, although regular magnets have improved a lot. In any event the constructional details are not of much interest to me, although I guess being an electrical engineer it would be an area I could navigate without getting mystified by it, that is also why it doesn't interest me nearly as much as gravity, antimatter and galaxies.
CACBCCCU 1 year ago
@CACBCCCU consider i am right about gravity no matter how insane it may sound, as an engineer and a physicist think of a tube created from YBCO and cool it to 0. now while at 0 propel an atom through it, would it gain mass or would the tube reduce the electrostatic or control or maintain, even increase the electron orbit. Now would a light pulse travel through the tube at the same speed of (c) compared with the time a light pulse travels outside the tube? im trying to stabilize or reduce mass
SASNIGHTCRAWLER 1 year ago
@SASNIGHTCRAWLER I was referring to ring accelerators, FWIW. The YBCO stuff seems interesting. I tend to see inertia as arising from an interaction between positive and negative charges and both types of baryons, conventional and antimatter would have both charges, due to their anti-quarks, but merely reversed in sign, not in inertial effect. By the equivalence principle intertia should indicate mass. Seems mass and inertia come from the amount and spacing of the component quark charges.
CACBCCCU 1 year ago
@CACBCCCU exactly, as matter shoots through the field of anti matter, it gains inertia or mass from the anti matter field or dark energy boson field. energy we know is one charge, it splits due to spin..neg poss ...but it is just direction the current of energy travels, so if we call rthe energy we use + energy, what is - energy? and the - enrgy would be split also due to its momentum or spin etc?
SASNIGHTCRAWLER 1 year ago
@CACBCCCU Your thinking like an engineer, earth ground(Anti-matter), and positive fires up the motor(matter-energy)
SASNIGHTCRAWLER 1 year ago
@CACBCCCU touch the live on the body of a car and it sparks :)
SASNIGHTCRAWLER 1 year ago
@CACBCCCU so you think the interactions of the quarks give the particle its mass? but again a particle containing or made of quarks isnt realy a particle is it? its in effect a tiny atom if you look at it, and as is gains velocity the orbits may reduce and again increase overal mass???
SASNIGHTCRAWLER 1 year ago
@SASNIGHTCRAWLER I wish I knew exactly how mass arises, that's the big question for particle physics. Many people look at the vacuum as a dirac sea of virtual particles and antiparticles and the Higgs is I guess supposed to be buried deep down inside the electron/positron pairs, I'd like to think electron mass arises by charge-binding to the dirac sea and nuclei, or soemthing like that, but that's probably all wrong. I must admit it'sover my head at some point, but I still bump into it.
CACBCCCU 1 year ago
@CACBCCCU I think its to do with the vacuum itself..but is the vacuum increasing pressure due to expansion do you think? and if so when it increases even though it may not be noticable,does it levels off by transforming dark matter into live matter enabling the planks constant and as a result of this fluctuation effect, by virtual particles are being emitted? I wonder if a very high vacuum experiment testing for an increase in vitual particle at the centre of the vacuum could be done?
SASNIGHTCRAWLER 1 year ago
@SASNIGHTCRAWLER
I don't know what's really happening with expansion. That's an interesting idea but I could take it to mean that everything is gradually getting heavier, although maybe it's not what you meant. Actually I don't put a limit on the size or duration of the universe, on purely philosophical grounds, and doing so doesn't seem to rule out something like the big-bang or a wide range of variation in vacuum characteristics, which is I guess like what you're talking about.
CACBCCCU 1 year ago
@CACBCCCU would the centre of the vacuum increase more in pressure than outer edges and is there a part of the universe we know of that contains huge galaxy numbers, ie point of inflation maybe?
SASNIGHTCRAWLER 1 year ago
@SASNIGHTCRAWLER Inflation has the "false vacuum leader" concept, which implies the idea of a huge object spitting out protogalaxies, and expansion certainly wouldn't hurt in spreading them out, the idea of expansion when the vacuum between protogalaxies is quite hot seems most plausible. I suppose a homogenous steady-state universe at some unknown large scale/level of resolution, so an accelerating expansion to the horizon might only represent half of a small part of the picture anyway.
CACBCCCU 1 year ago
@CACBCCCU this could also explain that light (c)is indeed regulated by the energy of the matter it is interacting with, by modifying the matter one could modify the rate (c) can travel, creating a dimensional seperation. This could also explain that bosons do in fact carry energy and are particle like in nature and are effected like matter particles even though they have no mass. If you understand what i mean that is?
SASNIGHTCRAWLER 1 year ago
@CACBCCCU I was trying to create some sort of link between frequency waves of gamma, xray etc, with particles, or in other words, high energy photons creating sub atomic black holes surrounded by the frequency that created them, in effect creating a sub atomic event horizon, and the energy in the electron transferes over to the other in the form of a polar jet effect. then levels off to background energy levels again ie. 100KeV
SASNIGHTCRAWLER 1 year ago
@SASNIGHTCRAWLER Just wanted to clarify one thing - The radius of Hoag's ring would supposedly correspond to one wave-cycle of the core-generated cosine-corrected steady-state gravity field that is presumed here to dominate the gravitational picture. That calls for a proton radius that's about half the most recent figure, however the most recent figure for proton size is probably not based on assuming an ultra-cold environment and the direct measurement regime is highly nonlinear-interactive.
CACBCCCU 1 year ago
@CACBCCCU well thats just showing off that is lol They still dont know how Arts Galexy was formed do they,
do this...square root 100KeV of gamma and compare the charge number of the elctron
SASNIGHTCRAWLER 1 year ago
@SASNIGHTCRAWLER Arts galaxy? You mean the Sombrero galaxy? Yes, that's NGC 4594. An interesting coincidence - antimatter traps often use a "sombrero" containment method, which also complicates finding out via google if anyone else is also suggesting the galaxy core there is antimatter. Without the cosine factor, the rings have collisional explanations but I'm sceptical of them, they seem too transient to have such finely-developed geometrically-appealing examples so relatively close-by.
CACBCCCU 1 year ago
@SASNIGHTCRAWLER Square root 100KeV gamma? Sorry, that seems like something I would've tried when I was younger and now the canonical QED regime is not of much interest anymore. Not sure about square rooting that either.
CACBCCCU 1 year ago
@CACBCCCU i was looking at it when i was looking at energy waves without bosons, the numbers were quite similar, i was looking at the frequency wave sizes and lengths in comparison to particle sizes
SASNIGHTCRAWLER 1 year ago
@CACBCCCU I think dark energy if it exists, is a field of neutral bosons, and energy litteraly passes through each boson, or triggers the boson infront of it by its frequency and so on. But we dont know what energy is, we only have a idea of what it could be and we are looking for its flat mate..lol
SASNIGHTCRAWLER 1 year ago
@SASNIGHTCRAWLER
As far as my equating of positive charge to having an antimatter quality goes, I guess it is just exploiting CT symmetry and opening up a perspective for seeing possible violations. FWIW, I think there's evidence in the ring diameter of NGC 4594 that the core is antimatter and the ring is matter. The ring diameter of NGC 4594 is half the ring diameter for Hoag's galaxy, which I suppose has a matter core and a matter ring.
CACBCCCU 1 year ago
Matter defines space by consensus, local space tells local bits of matter how to move locally, up to a point. That's the non-holographic perspective. The holographic perspective says mass is befined locally, at least up to a point, but is information-dominated, and is also defined by, in this sense, as being a part of the universe effectively viewable as existing inside a black hole, all the boundaries are black holes and definitional at highest energies IMO probably a gravito-strong framework .
CACBCCCU 1 year ago
Seems like the next goal is to create an electro-strong boson (not a Higgs) which could have a gravito-strong boson sibling that I guess is like a gravito-strongino, and maybe a weak-strong sibling, a strong-weakino.
But what do I know?
CACBCCCU 1 year ago
Maybe photons should be called electromagnetic-gravity bosons.
CACBCCCU 1 year ago
Would there be a problem with calling neutrinos "gravito-weak bosons" and still calling all the W and Z particles "electro-weak bosons"?
CACBCCCU 1 year ago
I suppose gravitons exchange over shorter distances (>>10^21 meters) by tunneling, because they are such low-energy quanta with long intrinsic wavelengths 10^21 meters or more. I suppose this tunneling occurs irrespective of the curvature of space-time, tunneling only has a starting point and an end point with different conditions on both ends, and yet the exchange of gravitons cannot be said to violate causality as gravitons are basically only involved in expressing mass.
CACBCCCU 1 year ago
loool! When I searched for photons to find the answer to the question I have I got this in my search I was like, "Whatever I'll just check out that one guy I subscribed toa while back who's really good at physics and has amazing videos... but first I'll check this one out." and this was the guy I was thinking about!
TheAlexander356 1 year ago
is time quantized?
messakg123 1 year ago
@messakg123 google Chronon. theorists have proposed a quantum length of time.
FuzzyConstant 1 year ago
Im Re-watchin' this w./ my dinner good post!
ravensunmoondove 1 year ago
This is good !
CaBiTandLeTs1 1 year ago
Sorry to be a semi-heretic, but I don't think light necessarily takes the shortest path when it is lensed gravitationally. Suppose a gravitational lens is transparent or ring-shaped (e.g. a wormhole), then most of the light from the source of the ring light can pass through the center, and that path should be the fastest.
Also, not to be pedantic, but the effect of gravitons is supposed, on a macroscopic scale, to be indistinguishable in effect from curved space, and GR-QM don't mix.
CACBCCCU 1 year ago
is time constant?
Torcika 1 year ago
@Torcika Yes. Unless you find a way to travel at the speed of light.
PianoPlayingMonkey 1 year ago
the sad thing is we cant apply einstein relativity to the quantum level ..
our best guess is gravitons are somehow linked to the space time concept ...maybe the bending of space time is just a different density of gravitons in that area ....
that would explain why photons are affected by gravity without having mass...
sidewaysfcs0718 2 years ago
video ist gut und die tips auf FrauenMeister . com sind gut für kerle ^^
sekriouzano 2 years ago
i heard of a theroy about thier being different speeds of lights, we only know one because we can only see one speed, wierd i know
KulakxFilms 2 years ago
@KulakxFilms also when the universe was younger and smaller with same energy in smaller volume supposedly light speed is/was faster(Discover magazine)
jpthecreaton 2 years ago
thats impossible ...its called a constant for a good reason
heat is just a measure of how much particles are vibrating in a body ...or "bumping" against each other
the photons that are exchanged between them have nothing to do with their individual speed ..wich is always c/.
sidewaysfcs0718 2 years ago
If a photon has no mass, could someone tell me why light gets curved when passing near any object of sufficient mass (not just a black hole, see Gravity Probe B) ?
AlphaKiloFive 2 years ago
A photon doesnt move in a curved path because of gravitational force ACTING ON it. The photon is just moving along the geometry laid out before it, taking the shortest path between two points. However, as John Wheeler famously said, "Matter [by virtue of its generating gravity] tells space how to curve, and space tells matter how to move." The shape of space is determined by the curved gravitational field so that the shortest distance between two points is a curve.
verstengenericks 2 years ago 10
So you're saying that the effect of gravity on the space-time tissue (the famous put-a--heavy-marble-on-a-tissue-and-this-is-gravity) is affecting the photon, rather than gravity affecting directly the photon ? That would make sense.
AlphaKiloFive 2 years ago
we still need a quantum theory of gravity to fully explain this
the best quantum gravity theoy we have , string theory
says gravity is an exchange of gravitons just like gauge theory , but this is linked to the fabric of the universe itself ...
until we unify we cant give a 100% correct asnwer
yes photons follow a patch , but at the same time massive object still act upon photons with a force ...
sidewaysfcs0718 2 years ago
@verstengenericks - Brilliant comment, thank you.
MarvelsofaLifetime 1 year ago
Gravity bends space and time, which is what light travels through. It is also the bending of space and time that we perceive as acceleration. Same thing that makes satellite clocks tick faster than earth clocks also makes one side of the light wave slow down just enough to bend its path. It isn't the mass of the bodies attracting; it's a dent created by the existence of mass in space-time itself.
sillygames 2 years ago
Gravity bends space/time in which photons exists. This is why light is bent by gravity.
WhapSumi 2 years ago
hat einer bock bissl zu quatschn ihr werdets warscheinlich nicht bereuen ^^
libbiswwety 2 years ago
Ich weiss nicht was bock, bissl, quatschn, und bereuen bedeuten.
SuperMagnetizer 2 years ago
Gravity can not travel with the speed of light. If you have a mass M in location X, and X is a distance from earth. And you have a mass N in a location Y, witch is a different distance from earth. N = M in every way possible, but their weight, would be different based on the location relative to earth.
If M and N changed places in an instant. Their weight relative to the earth would also change in an instant. The difference in weight relative to the earth would not wait for the light.
sawman85 2 years ago
@sawman85
Yes it would wait.
Imagine the Sun is instantly replaced by a large black hole, we wouldn't see the difference until 8 minutes later because the Sun is about 8 light minutes away from us, if your hypothesis were correct we would experience an intense gravitational pull (aka weight) 8 minutes before we see the Sun turn into a black hole properly, which doesn't make sense and is against General Relativity predictions.
rgzdev 2 years ago
Gravity is part and parcel of the source. If the sun were to disappear, the sun's gravity would go with it. We would see the change 8.3 minutes later, but the planet would keep going in straight line out of it's orbit right away.
If we replace the sun with a black hole, we would be pulled into it, but not see the change at once. We would see it earlier though, since not even light can escape the gratiry of a black hole
sawman85 2 years ago
"Gravity is part and parcel of the source."
Like it's light, or the solar wind then.
" If the sun were to disappear, the sun's gravity would go with it."
Yes, it would. 93,000,000 miles away. The effects of the disappearance would propagate at a velocity of c or below.
m3141592 2 years ago
How does this prove gravity can't travel with the speed of light. Also what do you mean "difference in weight relative to the earth"? and why would N and M's weight change if N=M? Would it make more sense to say that the gravitational pull of the earth on N at point X is the same as the pull on M at point X because N=M?
meatwork999 2 years ago
sea level M = N = 100kg
M location X = 50kg
N location Y = 25kg
relative weight to earth
sawman85 2 years ago
"If M and N changed places in an instant"
So now all you have to do is show that masses can move infinitely faster than light.
m3141592 2 years ago
well.. it was just an example to make a point.
But you would to it another way. If you have a big ball (ie the sun) and a little ball (ie earth), and the big ball explode. You will also have a change in gravity before you can see it
So then you don't have to move faster then light to make a difference in gravity faster than light. Get the point?
sawman85 2 years ago
". If you have a big ball (ie the sun) and a little ball (ie earth), and the big ball explode. You will also have a change in gravity before you can see it"
No, you wouldn't.
"So then you don't have to move faster then light to make a difference in gravity faster than light."
YOU don't have to move FTL, but the information about gravity does.
"Get the point? "
Yes, you're not familiar with the observations made about this aspect of physics, so you're just guessing what would happen.
m3141592 2 years ago
So does gravity works as a kind of a weak nuclear force between large-mass objects (carried by gravitons)?
AllPyrotechnics 2 years ago
Hmmm... gravity is NOT a force (Einstein)... it is a consequence of the curved geometry of space-time. Yet scientists are searching for the 'graviton'... a particle (gauge boson) that carries the 'force' of gravity... a 'force' that does NOT exist.
When Newton discovered gravity, it was presumed that its mechanism was an invisible force, analogous to magnetic force... but Einstein revealed this to be an illusion.
Should we not regard the graviton as a VIRTUAL particle, rather than actual?
DuckPhup 2 years ago
Their are a couple problems with your argument.
1. We don't really understand gravity well enough to be sure Einstein was 100% right. There are problems with his theory reconciling with quantum mechanics, so it would appear further work needs to be done to fix it.
2. You seem to misunderstand the concept of a virtual particle. The photons that mediate the EM force ARE virtual particles. The are virtual because we don't actually see them. In most cases their existence is implied.
scndchron714 2 years ago
1. Understood. But a 'real' graviton would imply that Newton was right, and gravity is a force... something which seems to be ruled-out by experiment. But since Einstein's 'geometric effects' create the ILLUSION of a force... AND the (non-relativistic) mathematics of the ILLUSION of a force provide the same answers as the mathematics of an actual force... (continued... )
DuckPhup 2 years ago
(1. - continued... )
... it stands to reason that if the ILLUSION holds at quantum levels, then the ILLUSION of wave/particle duality should ALSO hold at the quantum level. This would require a particle that does not actually exist... a virtual particle... the graviton.
If Einstein was right, and the 'force' is an illusion created by the geometry of space-time, then the 'graviton' is LESS 'real' than if gravity is an actual force... not that it should be counted as 'real' in the first place.
DuckPhup 2 years ago
Seriously, it's kind of silly for you to be speculating about quantum theory without anything but logic to back you up. Logic doesn't really hold at that level.
purplefuzzythings 2 years ago
This is kind of off topic, but like mentioned by many before me, when scientists refer to "God", most of the time it is as a metaphor for the laws of physics, and occationally to some kind of undefined deity, but practicly NEVER to a Theistic God (a deity with a personality that actively interacts with the wold and cares what humans do or think). You will also be hard pressed to find a physicist that believes in astrology, ghosts, or supernatural creatures.
gulllars 2 years ago 7
well this is all theroy no one can examin this. yet..
easyben21 2 years ago
Comment removed
vince19811981 2 years ago
@vince19811981
Do you also see gravity as a cute theory too?
Not wanting to "jump the gun", but it's possible you need to go and learn exactly what THEORY actually means. It doesn't mean guess, or hunch btw.
martiangrundy 2 years ago
I wonder if we identify the graviton, would it be possible to artificially generate them in some way. If we could then we would be able to make artificial gravity for space travel.
wakeangel2001 2 years ago
I was wondering about that myself--after watching the new star trek movie :P Would be a mazing though, to be able to generate and harness gravitons and use them to create an artificial gravity field.
Swidhelm 2 years ago
Just out of curiosity? whats wrong with being a Atheist?
sparty007 2 years ago
Well how are you supposed to know right from wrong without a bully imaginary friend in the sky threatening everyone different from you?
lazyperfectionist1 2 years ago 16
@lazyperfectionist1 i know it bothers you in many religions they contradict with science they even limit thier thinking as thinking to them is a sin but that have nothing to do with god. stop joining the heard of atheists and others just because you are scared of what they might think of you think on your own form your own ideas think freely
marobra00 1 year ago
@marobra00 What leads you to believe that this is what makes me an atheist?
lazyperfectionist1 1 year ago
@lazyperfectionist1 it may be one of the reasons .and i believe in god not because of "belief" and "trust" no, i like to think for myself so i figured it out so i KNOW he exists. what if it needs higher intellegence to figure it. and im not talking about the large base of people who believe so as not be different or because they trust monks or whatever they are called, im talking about the crème on the top. the maybe 4% who really think for themselves
marobra00 1 year ago
@lazyperfectionist1 what if you are intellegent but still have blind spots you cant see that it takes bigger head. ever thought that maybe there is 4th medium , 5th or ∞, or that we are a closed system with our own set of rules. and that everything in the universe is made out of this energy. but maybe there is other building material other than our known energy. sorry i usually dont talk much who loves thier error i let them live with it
marobra00 1 year ago
@marobra00 I might point out that you haven't answered my question. What is it that leads you to believe that I am an atheist just because I am "following the crowd?"
lazyperfectionist1 1 year ago
@lazyperfectionist1 ok why? because hmm athiesm is not rational or logical choice its a huuuuge gamble like pascal's wager theory says so if you did not reach to athiesm by logic and reason so it must be by just following.
marobra00 1 year ago