[jajrussel]

Space

Is there any given area of space that is not occupied?

I have tried to think of space as if it may not be occupied, but I ran into problems with the thought. I imagine a given area of space were a portion the space is occupied by a photon. I then ask what portion of the given area of space could the photon be were its inverse square relation to another object not apply to the photon?

The fact that I can not find any portion of the given area where the photon is not affected by gravity doesn’t necessarily mean that more than one object can occupy the same area of space; what it does seem to imply is that space seems to insist on being occupied; if not by the photon, then by the gravity field, and perhaps a lot of other things we suspect, but can not identify.

The notion behind space/time doesn’t seem such a hard thought to accept, at least for me, if I assume that that space is always occupied by something physical even if I can not identify the physics of the occupier, because something physical can bend and warp as a system. Exactly why this should effect time is a question that one might be able to rationally answer.

Uses of time are based on mechanics. The mechanics of a system would change as the system changes, so the mechanics of the system used to track time would be affected if the system that it is a part of changes. The mechanism would speed up or slow down, and one could rationally compare the change as on observer. At point A the clock tracks time at a specific rate, while at point B another similar clock tracks time at another specific rate. It is a matter of mechanics.

Why one would expect both clocks to keep time at the same rate, if the mechanics of the system it is a part of changes; Well, that should be the question.

A logical conclusion would be that space is always occupied; being occupied, the occupier can bend and warp, and that this bending or warping should affect any mechanism used for tracking time.

This post has been edited by jajrussel: 22 January 2012 - 09:12 PM

[jajrussel]

It occurred to me too late to make the correction that the photons mass is not relevant, its direction is being dictated by the field that it is passing through. It is not empty bent space that dictates the photons direction; work is being done. There is force acting on the photon and field forces that effect its direction; presumably in a way that does not add mass to the photon. The amount of work can be measured by comparing the curve to a straight line. If there is drag in the form of mass if will show up in the curve. The curved transit will take just that much longer than it should, and the effect will be as if an object of 0 mass is displaying mass through interaction, or maybe it could be interpreted as time warping.

If anything that I have written up to this point does not sound insane, it probably does now. I don’t want to get off of the original subject of the thread, but I am having another seemingly insane thought that seems to fit within the subject; slightly. It would start with the question of why an object of 0 mass would display any energy at all. It would seem that one of the multipliers is missing. It would seem to have to gain, or display energy through interaction, or we would seem to be have to say, not just that 0 mass equals C, but that it also equals infinite distance. Which might be exactly what they do say...

[jajrussel]

I owe apologies; I am sorry.

[jajrussel]

Work is measured in changes:

A change of position
A change of time
A change of temperature
A change of energy

I have likely forgotten a few. There is a relationship that exists among all of them to include the ones that my, blank for the moment; mind refuses to let me see, maybe for good reason. I tend to have difficulty seeing them as separate entities due to their relationships.

It is difficult to even frame the questions that come to mind, pretty much for the same reasons. I have problems accepting that something of substance, but with zero mass should move; and not only move, but to move at the speed of light in continues display of energy that it shouldn’t seem to have, and yes it could simply be my inability to understand what is at work here, but I can’t get past the thought that if something has zero mass, any display of energy can not be attributed to it, specifically.

I can accept that it can move if it has substance. I can accept that it can have substance without mass; though this is a little harder to accept, and I am not sure that I should.

How do you move something that seemingly doesn’t have the energy to move on its own?

If it exists, and it does seem to exist, you push it, pull it, or carry it. One of the thoughts that I am having is really a question of what if. What if the speed of light or C is more directly related to what is pushing, pulling, or carrying the particle?

If this could be the case; then as a massless particle it would not have a direct gravitational connection to something that has mass, but the energy pushing, pulling, or carrying it would. If there is an interaction between the massless particle and the carrier; as in having substance the particle can be carried, then particle will go were it is carried.

At this point I chose to use the word carried, because I was getting tired of typing push, pulled, or carried, and feel that carried is the more reasonable word.

In following the thought; there is an interaction between the particle and the carrier that I can not explain except by saying that because the particle has substance it can interact. The interaction would appear to be in the form of drag, but to say that this is the case would seem to say that C is the result of work being done, which would seem to imply that that as a speed limit, the speed limit need only apply to a particle that has a value equal to zero mass.

If something of substance could have a mass value less than zero it could go faster, but I can’t see how except by saying that by presenting less drag it is easier to carry, which would not be imposable if the carrier moves faster than C, which it would seem to have to do if the speed of light is the result of work being done.

At this point, it may be time to simply let the thought die, but I want to explore it a little further. Most of the thought is based on things I have read about. I am simply tweaking the mechanics a little bit, well maybe more than a little bit.

I tend to think in packets, as in I tend to have difficulty following a straight path in a thought. So, at this point I would like to interject another thought somewhat related, that I had earlier.

Tachyons

Shooting from the hip – If something is moving faster than light why would we expect to see it at all? It’s interaction with light would seemingly only be observable if the interaction were contained to a certain space long enough for an observable reflection. I don’t necessarily mean as I would physically observe myself in mirror, because there are other means of observation, but the principles would be similar. I don’t see all that reflects in a mirror; I only see what I can see.

If we use a scale that allows negative mass it would seem that we would have to overlay the scale with descriptive that tells us what we should expect to find depending on where we end up on the scale.

It would seem the problem may be that we are making our scale similar to a mirror, but is a mirror always a mirror? We expect only what is reflected to have real value, but if something is passing through the mirror, then we are in effect applying the mirror as a filter; saying that filter has a value of zero.

It would seem, that if we insist that 0 mass = C, and we insist that all ideas about matter be based on 0 mass = C, then no thought of anything moving faster than C should ever make any sense anywhere, but in our imaginations.

However:
If C were simply a positive number on a scale that does not contain negative numbers, or even a zero, it would seem that we might open up a part of the universe that we refuse to acknowledge as real, but for this reason or that reason have to acknowledge as real in order to make the math work, and it might be worth the effort for someone to explore the thought. I may be oversimplifying here, but just keep moving the 0 to the left while leaving C where it is.

I’m just thinking here… What is better, our reality or our imagination? Our imagination can become real; it has often enough, but all this, at one time imaginary, stuff around me is real. Not a single piece of any of it is made out of something that is not real, but this is just a point of view. As a matter of observation, I could say that because of the physical structure of what the things are made of, that most of what surrounds me is made up of that which is real and that which is not real, giving value to that which is matter and to that which is space.

If it is absolutely true that something of zero mass has to move at C, and if we assume that everything real falls on a scale of 0 mass or greater, then nothing is passing through the mirror; all the answers are in the reflection, and I don’t see how that we can allow for a tachyon to exist, but saying that the tachyon can not exist seems a little too much like playing at God.