energy efficiency

[GestaltO]

ah touche my friend. very good point. i like you so far lol.

Your statement is correct however if we go back to my initial thoughts that everything is energy and atoms don't actually exist as we perceive them (in another thread) then us seeing only photons is void for my theory.

Also i find a particle that has no mass to be odd, how can something exist if it has no mass unless it is pure energy, and if it is pure energy interpreted by our brains then this again backs up my theory that atoms/particles do not have a physical presence in the current understanding of what we deem as physical.

but your black cat detector analagy is an absolutely perfect representation of what i am getting at.

[allcanadian]

@GestaltO

Also i find a particle that has no mass to be odd, how can something exist if it has no mass unless it is pure energy, and if it is pure energy interpreted by our brains then this again backs up my theory that atoms/particles do not have a physical presence in the current understanding of what we deem as physical.

I think most of our issues concerning matter and energy revolve around how we percieve things and how we apply our knowledge. As you say it seems odd that a particle could have no mass as this does not fit into the reality we know. We could call it pure energy or we could define the conditions necessary for a massless particle. It is well know that a mass on earth has the property of weight that can be measured but this does not apply in space. The properties of the mass have changed because the conditions surrounding the mass have changed. In space a mass may not have what we consider as weight but the mass still has the property of inertia or the tendency to resist changes in velocity thus this property of inertia would seem to be a consistent property of every mass. This may very well be the problem, in that we assume the property of inertia is constant in every mass because we have been given no reason to believe otherwise. However there has been speculation that many inventors have produced fields which counteract the property of inertia in which case inertia may vry well be nothing more than a condition and not a property of mass. If this is true then a massless particle could exist not because it has no mass but because the property of inertia has been removed or counteracted in some way giving the appearance of a massless condition. I think we should keep an open mind but more important we should be precise in our thoughts, If we believe something is impossible we should justify why we think this under every possible condition we could imagine. A good example is the wright brothers airplane where nobel winning physicists wrote papers proving by calculation that this "airplane" could never fly ---- it was impossible. But the reality of the situation should have been obvious, a bird "can" fly so must an airplane but only when the conditions surrounding the flight of an airplane become similar to that of a bird. In this case it was nothing more that the geometry of the wing and the power to weight ratio, I find it simply amazing that at that time there were many highly educated people having an opinion on the airplane and almost all of them were completely wrong in which case we can say there knowledge and education meant absolutely nothing because the fact remains that there opinion was flawed.

[GestaltO]

nice response. an a bumblebee would be a great example. according to scientists, laws of physics and gravity the bumble bee should not be able to fly. And an interesting one i read is that a ducks quack doesn't echo without explanation.

"We could call it pure energy or we could define the conditions necessary for a massless particle"
in defining conditions rather than the thing itself we are going back to what i will now dub "black-cat syndrome" though, are we not?

"It is well know that a mass on earth has the property of weight that can be measured but this does not apply in space"

who says it doesn't apply in space? Even is this is the case that does not explain the photons within the planet or once they reach the planet. space theories unfortunatly will almost certainly remain only theories for many many many years to come. we are told space is a vacuum which is inconsistent since we have (apparantly) observed nebulas, and stars themseleves are mainly gas. It is also inconsistent with the speed of light being a certain value within a vacuum, if it were a true vacuum then surely photons would have no terminal velocity due to it having apparantly no mass and no resistance even if it did have mass which would mean the speed of anything in space given enough time would be infinite?!

please nobody take the way i word things as an attack i just like to question everything and anything....even myself and my own theories, if i come up with something more plausible.

the bottom line is if i were the original person who discovered the "photon" then we would all be being taught that  a photon is not a particle, it is just energy and the same goes for atoms, and we would have different instruments that would be bias toward my theories in time proving them to be true...until something better comes along.

believe nothing, question everything 

[allcanadian]

@GestaltO

"We could call it pure energy or we could define the conditions necessary for a massless particle"
in defining conditions rather than the thing itself we are going back to what i will now dub "black-cat syndrome" though, are we not?

I tend to believe the "wave theory" more so than other theories in which case there are no "things" only conditions of energy which give the appearance that something is there.

"It is well know that a mass on earth has the property of weight that can be measured but this does not apply in space"
who says it doesn't apply in space? Even is this is the case that does not explain the photons within the planet or once they reach the planet. space theories unfortunatly will almost certainly remain only theories for many many many years to come.

I was under the impression that "weight" was a condition of mass due to gravity because in space things would appear to be weightless. Concerning photons, as I subscribe to the wave theory I do not think they exist as matter but only as an energy wave, a wave travelling on something giving the appearance of motion and substance in which case what we consider as a "photon" could be anywhere depending on the conditions present. This would seem to be true regarding the transmission of light through space, that is the fact you cannot see light in space until it comes into contact with matter. As well it is documented that Nicola Tesla could produce light effects in any given space at large distances which would lead me to believe that light is a condition of a given space and not "something" that has travelled anywhere.

[GestaltO]

great stuff, your thinking is not much different than my own aside from terminology used and a few minor details. don't even get me started on gravity i had a crazy notion on that one last night but i imagine it would just leave me open to no end of flaming so i'm not going to bother with that one lol