Is Relativity Reality?

[ChildInAZoo]

Except that much of the case for it was non-fossil: comparative anatomy and biogeography.

That's right. There was a good CASE for it, but no evidence till the fossils.

What do you think that evidence is?

Except that constancy of the speed of sound is relative to its medium, and the speed of light in a vacuum is constant because of the geometry of space-time.

Which is arrived at using the speed of light as a constant.

Yes, but you fail to note something very important in Close's work: he assumes that we have clocks made to work using sound waves in water. In general, we do not have clocks that work through the reflection of light. As far as we can tell (and we've looked as much as we can), SR is obeyed by every type of physical process that we can describe using GR. This includes a number of nuclear decay processes that do not involve light. So it is not simply light that is governing timing.

[mistermack]

What do you think that evidence is?

Fossils

Yes, but you fail to note something very important in Close's work: he assumes that we have clocks made to work using sound waves in water. In general, we do not have clocks that work through the reflection of light. As far as we can tell (and we've looked as much as we can), SR is obeyed by every type of physical process that we can describe using GR. This includes a number of nuclear decay processes that do not involve light. So it is not simply light that is governing timing.

No, it's disturbances in electromagnetic fields, which always travel at the speed of light. As do disturbances in gravitational fields.
.

[ChildInAZoo]

What do you think that evidence is?

Fossils

Well, that quality of answer is consistent with your other work.

Yes, but you fail to note something very important in Close's work: he assumes that we have clocks made to work using sound waves in water. In general, we do not have clocks that work through the reflection of light. As far as we can tell (and we've looked as much as we can), SR is obeyed by every type of physical process that we can describe using GR. This includes a number of nuclear decay processes that do not involve light. So it is not simply light that is governing timing.

No, it's disturbances in electromagnetic fields, which always travel at the speed of light. As do disturbances in gravitational fields.

Can you explain how disturbances in electromagnetic fields determine the half-life of uranium?

[mistermack]

It boils down to what you believe matter is.
As e=mc2, I'm saying it's energy, locked up. ie, a disturbance in electromagnetic fields, locked into a loop. As we know energy can become matter, and vice versa, it's pretty obvious that matter IS energy. Don't forget energy can never be created or destroyed. When you make electrons from photons, you don't DESTROY the energy and CREATE the matter. You can't. Therefore, at the fundamental, the electron is still pure energy.
.

[colubridae]

What is it you want? An argument that you can win at last?

Ok 1 + 1 is three. Now tell me it's 2 and we can all have a nice

[lpetrich]

It boils down to what you believe matter is.
As e=mc2, I'm saying it's energy, locked up. ie, a disturbance in electromagnetic fields, locked into a loop.

E = mc2 doesn't imply any such thing.

[mistermack]

It boils down to what you believe matter is.
As e=mc2, I'm saying it's energy, locked up. ie, a disturbance in electromagnetic fields, locked into a loop.

E = mc2 doesn't imply any such thing.

It means that a particle with mass m is composed of that much energy.
What do you think that energy is doing, in a particle?
Or do you think that it doesn't exist, till it's created and emitted?
.

[newolder]

It boils down to what you believe matter is.
As e=mc2, I'm saying it's energy, locked up. ie, a disturbance in electromagnetic fields, locked into a loop.

E = mc2 doesn't imply any such thing.

It means that a particle with mass m is composed of that much energy.
What do you think that energy is doing, in a particle?
Or do you think that it doesn't exist, till it's created and emitted?
.

Are you familiar with the ideas behind Feynman diagrams?

[mistermack]

Are you familiar with the ideas behind Feynman diagrams?

Not particularly. Is it relevant to what happens to energy, when it becomes a particle?
I'm offering the opinion that it's STILL energy. Is that wrong?
.

[newolder]

Are you familiar with the ideas behind Feynman diagrams?

Not particularly. Is it relevant to what happens to energy, when it becomes a particle?

They are a useful method of communicating complex ideas. A photon is a particle of energy. There are many kinds of particle, it seems.

I'm offering the opinion that it's STILL energy. Is that wrong?
.

Is still energy like still water?

[mistermack]

They are a useful method of communicating complex ideas. A photon is a particle of energy. There are many kinds of particle, it seems.

Yes, but if e=mc2, then all of a particle is convertible to energy. So it seems likely that all particles are particles of energy. By the way, I thought a photon was a discreet massless packet of wave energy, not a particle.

I'm offering the opinion that it's STILL energy. Is that wrong?
.

"Is still energy like still water?"
Ha, no, I meant it remains energy when it becomes a particle.
.

[newolder]

Yes, but if e=mc2, then all of a particle is convertible to energy.

aka photon or other chargeless, massless, spinning, boson.

So it seems likely that all particles are particles of energy.

For massless particles of energy see Weyl's analysis. Otherwise, the prediction of most-with-a-chance theory is that the standard model of particle physics has at least 1 more member with an energy and other quantum structure determinable within current experiment. The interesting days are upon us, 1nce again, it seems.

[Farsight]

What do you think that energy is doing, in a particle?

It's "going nowhere fast". Basically it's going round a loop configuration. That's why electrons have spin angular momentum and magnetic moment. Sadly some of the guys here don't care much for scientific evidence. Have a read of Why c is the limit. IMHO the best way to think of a photon is as a pulse of "spacewarp". Apologies, I must go. I'll be back tomorrow.

[ChildInAZoo]

Should a "best" way to think about something in physics allow us to do physics experiments? How does you "best" way allow us to do a single experiment in physics.

[Farsight]

Yes.

This best way doens't allow you to do an experiment, it tells you what experiment to do. Such as to combine electron and antineutrino beams and look for positrons.