J.Merrill

7 hours ago, zapatos said:

Again, NO. That is incorrect.

I guess I figured that after you "REFUSED" to discuss conflicting ideas with me you weren't really interested.

LOL! You're killing me Smalls!

This was an intentional wrong claim. 

Like the others  here on this forum.

I know what dark matter is and what dark energy is.

This was a personal experiment set in place to trigger the same response I have been getting from the beginning to help prove my point in my last post here.

I'm doing a social experiment for school!

Some peoples social skills are really poor  in My Honest opinion.

Again rather than explain I had a small mix up between the two constructs A (Dark Matter) and B(Dark Energy)

You are instead resorting to just saying wrong and then reverted to name calling once more.

ad hominem!

A reaction directed against a person rather than the position they are maintaining.

Rather than attack the user, attack the topic and be helpful!

I really hope none of you are teachers because I wonder if you have ever considered how other feel when you intentionally insult one asking questions and comparing what they know to what they don't understand. 

I really enjoyed this social experiment. And it helps Me with my assignment so thank you all for being who you really are!!!!

I can only wander though.  If results might have changed if anyone here knew it was for a social experiment. 

What you do and how you act when you think no one is looking, determines the type of person you are.

This is my last post here, and I have enough to right my paper!

3 hours ago, Phi for All said:

You've demonstrated zero capacity for enlightenment. Even now, it's obvious you can't even be bothered to look up who Fred Hoyle was. It might make you feel better to stick to the pop-sci descriptions you've read about, but it makes it difficult to discuss the actual science with you.

I have demonstrated zero capacity for enlightenment lol!

Okay you act like a child that has to resort to personal insults to make your arguments some how logical.

You have demonstrated zero understanding of what it is I asked in the first place as well as so many other people on here wrapped up in their opinions. 

Half the people that responded to me asking for a better understanding of photons, chose to insult me instead.

So rather than point me in the right direction and revert my attention to what actually is, some of you reply with other questions that test my logical thinking.

Rather than just tell me why it is not the case, and give me an example of what is in fact a more appropriate way to interpret things, that I just don't understand fully.

And I clearly listed why I didn't understand it, I was clear to also mention I am aware what I'm questioning and why.

It is a result of a limited understanding in the first place. And I Had one person that gave a good explanation, the rest just bathed in the ability for themselves to directly insult me. As one said to me " Sound like religious guilt"  as to assume I have Religious thoughts that cloud my judgment. 

HOW PATHETIC. I will take my limited Knowledge and what I know I don't understand and get a meaning full answer from people that don't take pride in downgrading others.

And some one dared to say I was narcissistic!!!! BAHUMBUG 

I learned a few different things  here thanks to a few people those individuals know who you are!  So thank you for that! But I will now exercise my right to leave.

Okay how about this could you enlighten me on the BB.

Because any text book and or article I have read about the BB, specifically describes it as an explosion in in return is the reason behind the expansion the universe. 

Some just refer to it as a point that began to expand and is continuing to do so, but when asked the reasoning behind it they describe it as an explosion that took place?. 

For example this one I just typed in What is The Big Bang Theory.

And there are many results that come up and none of them discredit the idea of an explosion that took place, as a matter of speaking this explosion is the reasoning behind the rapidly expanding universe according to what i read. And the idea behind the presence of dark matter is the reason why the expansion is accelerating. 

https://www.exploratorium.edu/origins/cern/ideas/bang.html

4 hours ago, Phi for All said:

BBT isn't about the beginning of the universe. It doesn't even encompass the beginning of time as we know it. 

Fred Hoyle was a mathematician and astronomer, not an astrophysicist, and NOT a supporter of BB theory. He supported the steady state model, and came up with the name "Big Bang" as mockery of the theory, because like you he thought it was about an explosion rather than a rapid expansion.

Gosh, have you counted how many posts you have, and how many of them contain incorrect information? Your signal to noise ratio isn't good. You make a LOT of assertions that are wrong, and then seem to move on to the next before acknowledging your mistakes. 

 

Who besides you mentions Fred Hoyle? 

3 hours ago, zapatos said:

If you are going to continue to lecture to those here it would help if what you said was correct. The beginning of the BB was most certainly NOT an explosion.

I am not lecturing anyone, and have only used Deductive reasoning to make an argument valid in my favor, and to dismiss common knowledge as if it doesn't exist is quite baffling to me. 

The universe began, scientists believe, with every speck of its energy jammed into a very tiny point. This extremely dense point exploded with unimaginable force, creating matter and propelling it outward to make the billions of galaxies of our vast universe. Astrophysicists dubbed this titanic explosion the Big Bang

This is how it is explained. So the explanation is wrong then by default ? That does not make any sense at all. 

So out side of this what is the beginning of the BB do you propose. 

3 hours ago, Bufofrog said:

It is much more than a possibility, it is a theory that matches observation.

This is like me saying, photons are conscious of being observed because of how they behave in the double slit experiment when being observed, ( aka the duality problem) that has not been explained and completely understood. 

So that theory matches observations. 

See the problem here?

3 hours ago, zapatos said:

Another sign you are blissfully unaware. The neg reps are not  for having "a different opinion".

Well shoot I must be wrong again HAHAHA . I must be blissfully unaware of what I'm typing! Please.

I encourage that you read the start of this forum, I was quite honest with myself in limited knowledge I process and I was inadvertently attacked when asking for an explanation, simply because one assumed my questions were aggressive. What kind of world is this.

6 hours ago, zapatos said:

The fact that you think the BB was an event that ended over 13 billion years ago shows a serious lack of understanding on your part. It would behoove you to cease dictating what is and is not up for discussion when you are missing so much basic information. It is making you look foolish.

Have you ever thought that the BB was multiple events that will happen and one will continue to happen , assuming our observations are correct and correspond with it in theory. Oh wait that is the BB

We are currently in  universe we believe to be expanding based on observations.

But the beginning of the BB was an explosion  resulting in the first bit of expansion. 

This extremely dense point exploded with unimaginable force, creating matter and propelling it outward to make the billions of galaxies of our vast universe. Astrophysicists dubbed this titanic explosion the Big Bang.

So yes there was an event that took place, it had a beginning the fact that the universe is still expanding is a direct result of that event.  

Ad hominem at its finest, direct insults just wont cut.

6 hours ago, Eise said:

Well, my fingers are burning to show how wrong you are. But when you do not want to discuss on a discussion forum, I am wondering what you are doing here. Giving arguments is the alpha and omega of philosophy, and the alpha and tau of science (and the tau and the omega of science is experiment and observation).

In this context we are assuming observations we link with knowledge we have acquired over time, we believe to be right further verifies assumptions we make.

Sure we do this all the time that's part of science and its fun!

Some times limited knowledge of what we think we know vs what we actually know conflict.

Where would physics be today if we still held so tightly to gravity only affecting things with mass.

Fg= m¹*m²/r² Newton proposed this and it worked!!! Until we discovered EVIDENCE it was a limited source of information's. What we accepted and thought we understood, based on what works is in my opinion what's wrong with science in the sense we just assume we are right.

OOOPS back to the drawing board said Einstein because light is affected by gravity.

There are things we can prove in science. And there are things we just assume we understand but we use knowledge we think we fully understand to have a clasp on things.

Discussions can be had on a forum with out its turning into some egotistical ad hominin  barrage of insults directly to an individual. And with out seeming extremely aggressive in text Context matters. If we want to have a meaningful disagreement, that's fine but when anyone resorts to name calling of classifying one as something. That is not worth my time.

7 hours ago, mistermack said:

You are using some very odd logic around the word "falsified".

If you say you have a theory, that one plus one equals two, then although it appears correct, it is capable of being falsified. If someone can prove that one plus one equals three, then they have falsified the theory. The phrase "capable of being falsifed" does not mean "false" as you are arguing. It just means, if it were to be false, there is a theoretical possibility of proving that. Even if that method is not availabe at the present.

And unfasifiable means that a theory, by it's very nature, can never be shown to be false.

So falsifiable/unfalsifiable doesn't equate to right/wrong. It's about whether there is a theoretical MEANS available to show if it's right or wrong.

There is not odd logic here and if people want to -rep someone with a different opinion that's fine I really don't care.

A theory can never be proven, but must be "testable" through observation or experimentation. And despite some notable problems, BB Theory has remained largely consistent with the observations.

As I stated we are only observing  things that lead us to accept the BB as a possibility.

Scientist observer and search for more evidence to further help explain the origins of out universe all the time. We as humans use methods around us we have devolved over time to conduct these test. (science).

So when one comes up with a very well mapped out theory like the BB. They are tieing together loose ends with things we believe to understand how it works. 

Isaac Newton was a prime example of this.

Newton's law of gravitation, statement that any particle of matter in the universe attracts any other with a force varying directly as the product of the masses and inversely as the square of the distance between them.

So  then here came Albert Einstein and said nope gravity is not a force that affects only things with mass.

And gravitational lensing was a prime example on how this was FALSE.

And the Fact Black Holes have an effect on light.

He theorized that can warp, bend it, push , or pull it space. Gravity was just a natural outcome of a mass's existence in space (Einstein had, with his 1905 Special Theory of Relativity, added time as a fourth dimension to space, calling the result space-time.

So its not that Einstein proved newtons math equaled an impossible number in the context of 2+2 =5.

But rather implied, if the math is wrong here and you cant correct the mistake and still verify the theory. Then its like claiming 2+2 = 5. And that's False.

12 hours ago, zapatos said:

Who in the hell put you in charge?

Of course it is. What exactly do you think the BB is?

 

The BB does not go back to t=0.

If the BB could only be proved and not falsified it would not be a theory.

Theories are verifiable and falsifiable, that is why they are theories. 

If they get proven to be Factual well then that means they cant be falsified. It is called the BB THEORY for a reason.

Again this can't be argued. And I refuse to argue over it. Its a meaningless discussion.

No one put me In charge but you clearly miss the underlining Theory part.

7 hours ago, zapatos said:

What do you mean you can't "prove" the BB. We observe it happening. We named it the BB. It is happening right now. 

No this is not accurate at all.  We are observing conditions that lead us to believe the big bang is a possible origin of the Universe. 

The statement we can prove the BB is false. 

It is yet another answer to things we have limited knowledge to. This cannot be argued I'm sorry.

We could say the entire universe is spinning on a disc trapped inside a sphere, and things that were in the center slowly gravitate outward, things closer to the the edge move faster than the center. 

We can do experiments with objects and spin, to confirm some of these effects. But just because it works and observations match part of the assumptions doesn't mean anything. 

7 hours ago, swansont said:

 

I thought we were to leave religion out of it.

 

I actually don't mind, talking about it in this kind of context, but is some one is going to try insult me with it saying " this sounds like some religious guilt"  Id prefer not to use it in that context, but nothing I said was offensive here. 

If some people on this forum really want to just simplify reply's down to ad hominem. It truly shows the extent of their own capability to have a meaningful debate or casual conversation. 

3 hours ago, swansont said:

Which phenomenon?

Any phenomenon or event.

You can apply this to anything.

(I.E) The mathematical construct of numbers would not be a thing if humans did not occur.

The birth of human children could not occur with out them either. Even if we some how started growing full sized people in giant glass jars. This cant occur with out humans. 

3 hours ago, Bufofrog said:

What is that suppose to show, besides b does not equal b?

lol did you read the post I responded too, it makes more sense if you do. 

it was a counter argument to 2 + 2 can = 5

But that equation is misleading as a and b are both = 1+1 or just 2, and the equation is 

a+b = (a+b) +1 

this is the same as saying (2+2)+1

simplified is (4) + 1 = 5

4 hours ago, studiot said:

Even that is not so cut and dried it is not arguable.

Without the output, in regenerative feedback, the phenomenon could not occur.

🙂

5 hours ago, swansont said:

You are misrepresenting this, though. Cause and effect is a thing, but that means the cause must precede the effect. It doesn't mean you can't study the effect if you don't know the cause, and it doesn't mean that there are no uncaused things. 

Knowing the cause makes for a more complete model, but models are built in physics without having "a full unlimited knowledge" of what's going on; I think it's safe to say that all models in physics are made without this full unlimited knowledge.

Sure I can study things with out knowing the cause, and I can even come up with conclusions based on things that exist now with out knowing the cause. But I certainly can't know the origin of these are true with out the Input. I can only speculate and try to understand with a Reasonable Explanation . But any one can explain something with observations they have made. And their explanation is only limited by their understanding. Religion and science both offer explanations for why life and the universe exist. Science relies on testable empirical evidence and observation. Religion relies on subjective belief in a creator.

Before science was widely excepted as a method of approach to explain things, we had religion for what ever that is worth, because it was the best explanation we had for things we didn't fully understand at the time.

Cause and Effect.

People noticed things around them, and they thought of an origin based on observations and things they had limited knowledge about and that origin was a creator. 

Do we still not do that till this very day? But in this case it's science that is the method instead of religion.

We are in attempt to understand things around us that we have a very limited understanding of still, although we gather and acquire knowledge  based on things we see and we used methods to replicate these conclusions in order to test for the same result. And in doing so have a valid Idea that something exist. This is why its impossible to Prove and Disprove somethings, so eventually those things start being looked at as unreliable source of explanation. Like religion why? Because there are things Religion does not explain, but that doesn't make it not true. Just like I cant prove or disprove the big bang, but that doesn't make it not true either.

What is true and will always be true is we will never know.

So I think at this point we are in agreeance, in one form or another. 

3 hours ago, sethoflagos said:

Then how would light manage to traverse deep space where it's interactions with matter particles are exceedingly rare?

Are you proposing the resurrection of the luminiferous aether?

Well waves are disturbances traveling through a medium, so if the medium does not exist and the Propagation of the waves do, then what is it that allows this?

Maybe a step toward proving the existence of dark matter perhaps?

6 hours ago, studiot said:

Not necessarily.

There are 3 axioms of addition

Just for simplicity I will stick with whole numbers (integers)

1) Closure :  If a, b and c are whole numbers and a + b = c then c is a whole number.

2) Commutation  a + b = b + a

3) Association   (a + b) + c = a + (b + c)

None of these define the operation + (that is what I must do when presented with a form a + b

Suppose I define that operation to be a + b = (a + b) + 1 ?

Then 2 + 2 = 5

It is easy to show that this operation satisfies all 3 of the axioms of addition.

When you solve for one or more variable you need to remember they are placeholders for whole numbers in this case

ill solve for B

b = b +1 

or 1+1

So the same applies for   A 

a = a + 1 

1+1

so a+b = (2 + 2) + 1 or 2+2+1 = 5

A set of axioms should be consistent; it should be impossible to derive a contradiction from the axioms. A set of axioms should also be non-redundant; an assertion that can be deduced from other axioms need not be regarded as an axiom.

In other words no mater what 2 + 2 should always = 4

This is not 2 + 2 = 5 

But it was a good example of simple Algebra 

3 hours ago, sethoflagos said:

Good!

Now compare and contrast with your assertion in the OP

So why are you assigning a physical size to photons?

Forget the transmission medium, that's irrelevant to the topic.

Both light and sound propagate outward as expanding spherical disturbances in their respective fields.

At this level, they have no meaningful physical size, but they carry a certain amount of energy that extends over a certain sphere of influence.

Where apparent conflicts begin is when we consider the transfer of an individual packet of light energy between an emitting particle and an absorbing particle.

How does a specific accurately directed packet of energy 'condense' from a diffuse spherical wave?

This is one of the central mysteries of quantum mechanics.

The quantum world is a strange one and most of its workings seem to play out not in our observable material universe, but in a complex space we can never directly observe. 

All we can say with any certainty is that the transfer is observed to occur. The image we see maybe of an emitter firing a 'billiard ball' of energy at an absorber. But is this really a full and true reflection of actual events? I wouldn't put money on it.

 

 

"I said if you think" and photons are often described this way, containing both particle and wave like behaviors. And I am not arguing that , I am concluding light can not be possible with out the Physical presence of something much like sound. We cant Directly observe photons, they are theoretical constructs that reveal to us matter they interact with. Like your screen for example. What is  registered there is a direct result  of an interaction of the electromagnetic field or ( "PHOTONS" ) on Matter. 

3 hours ago, Phi for All said:

Your answer to your question is correct, but the last sentence is off by a little. You can't have a bottle of height or weight, but NOT "just like" you can't have a bottle of sound. Height and weight are measurements in this instance, but sound is always an event. Like lightning or fire, sound requires the right conditions before it happens, and when the conditions are right, it's practically inevitable.

Okay I can agree to this, but these conditions are matter, so my I'm stuck to my original answer. That for something to exist in the least sense. There must be a physical presence of something, even if we are not aware of what it is. Because if there is Nothing then existence is 0. You could not even begin to describe nothing, because that requires knowledge of what it is and that's impossible but definition.

3 hours ago, studiot said:

I hate to contradict such a learned soul but of course you can put sound in a bottle or even the Albert Hall.

I agree there is no transmitted sound in a vacuum, but objects like the vacuum bottle wall can still vibrate so I also agree that sound require matter.

But of course the Albert Hall does not contain a vacuum.

So all my courses about architectural acoustics and the measurments I made of reverberation times tell me that sound can exist in a container for a very long time.

Far longer than the existence of many sub atomic matter particles.

The decay is exponential so mathematically at least a sound never actually dies away completely.

This last sentence shows what you might deem 'a flaw in the theory' and others would simply say it is going beyond the bounds of applicability.

I like this a lot actually I enjoyed this perspective thoroughly so thank you! 

But sound is what we hear as a result of conditions being met. Sure you can put conditions in that bottle and the bottle exist so do the other conditions so the Vibrations we call sound can exist if the right events take place.

But  we don't really fill a room with sound all though you can describe this as such, just like you cant run like the wind.

But you can fill a room with conditions that when met with certain events, produce sound. 

And the sound is vibrations traveling through any one of many mediums and back to our ears.

Air and objects in the room, and the walls them self's are these mediums.

I think this has turned more philosophical at this point.

2 hours ago, studiot said:

2 hours ago, studiot said:

The question is did you read what you actually wrote and I quoted ?

I ask this because not only did you ask questions, but you answered them as well also saying that physics is wrong.

Asking questions is really good and should be welcomed by all good teachers.

 

 

 I don't ever remember saying physics is wrong.

 I asked what I missed and what it was i didn't quite understand. 

 I never challenged anything that's just how you took it.

But lets assume I made that claim indefinably that physics is wrong, or at least the part we are talking about here.

When is that something that's hasn't happened before? There have been plenty of mistakes made in the past that were corrected, and giving us a better understand of the world around us.

There are things in this world that are stupid to question now because we have proof, like the earth is not flat. And the sun does not orbit the earth but rather we orbit the sun.

 

 

 

3 hours ago, sethoflagos said:

Your post evaded answering my question by introducing diversionary anthropocentric observer dependent contingencies. Ideas like these (Schrodinger's Cat is a typical example) strike me as being solipsistic, which I see as leading the unwary towards... well, I've already told you where I believe that bus terminates. No more than a friendly warning.

So no, I wasn't insulting you. 

However, even if the ears are deaf, the bottle is still full of sound. 

You seem to be equating the physical size of a particle with the sphere of influence it may exert on a field.

What would you say was the physical size of a soprano's high C?

Is it the size of a large concert hall? ... The sound of a strong soprano can certainly fill one.

Or is it just the air molecules inside the Albert Hall jiggling around in a slightly more ordered pattern than normal?

And I did answer, you just didn't catch it there is no physical size to a HIGH C note.

Just like there is no Physical size of height, these only apply to the observer.

Sound can exist if one is def, but you cant put sound in a bottle, its not a thing like that. It can not exist with out matter.

sound originates from matter or occur as a result of the interactions and movements of matter. 

So if there is no matter there is no sound.

3 hours ago, Phi for All said:

Well, I'll repeat myself, but now you don't get to whine about others not reading what you wrote

And then I went on and on about how science is looking for the best supported explanations. It was just a couple posts ago.

No one is whining at all about anything, but you can have respect for other people. Its a little disrespectful how you talk to me don't you think? Aside from that. 

 I understand this completely, but you are trying to replace Answer with a another word but that word you chose is "Answer".

An explanation is not the same as a proposition, or an argument, or list of propositions; it is an answer.

If one thinks they found an explanation that fits all, then why would there need to be any reason to continue to question?  You would have the full explanation you would have the answer.  

But we can't ever have the full "Explanation" Its not possible, that requires a full Explanation from beginning to End. We can only understand a limited amount, and that is even questioned still. 

3 hours ago, Phi for All said:

Well, I'll repeat myself, but now you don't get to whine about others not reading what you wrote

And then I went on and on about how science is looking for the best supported explanations. It was just a couple posts ago.

Science its self doesn't question physically in this context. 

But People question things and using a Method call science we are able to answer things. Maybe I am more clear here.

What is Water made of?

Because people questioned that, and through the method of science, an explanation was given, it was the answer. 

3 hours ago, Phi for All said:

I don't understand your position on this at all. Are you saying that because we don't know what happened before the BB, we don't know anything?! 

LOL I never said this, it seems people don't read things as they are wrote but instead try to assume what one meant. 

You have even proved my point, we are limited to things we know. And always will be, but how can we accurately compare any model to anything if we don't have a full unlimited knowledge of how it all started and why.

Cause and Effect is a thing.

And what do you mean science isn't looking for answers? I cant disagree more if you ask a question then you want a what?

And science questions things that as you stated, religion doesn't explain. 

Science is always questioning and the questions derive from Uncertainty or Problems. There will never be a SOLID theory with Fool proof answers. There is always a meaning full question out side of just why.

Curiosity is what motivated Einstein, he was passionately curious. He questioned everything that he found answers too and made mistakes along the way.

3 hours ago, studiot said:

 

So what was this then, if not My Version v Physics ?

or this

 

 

As a matter of intrest I suggest you should be careful distinguishing between c, which is indeed a constant,  and 'the speed of light' which varies according to the environment.

Nice one Phi.

Its become very clear that you have not read the entire post, it was questions I was hoping to get answers to so I may have a better understanding of what it is I'm learning about currently. And you somehow took it as a challenge, guess students that ask teachers to explain things because they compare and contrast and something doesn't add up. I guess they just aggressively challenge.

In this context how can one learn?

If you don't ask questions how can you be certain you understand what it is you are learning about. 

3 hours ago, Sensei said:

Do you know the reference system in which the photon is at rest?

 

Relativity tell us that the speed of light in a vacuum is the same in all reference frames.

In a reference frame in which a photon would be at rest, the vacuum speed of light would be zero.

Its a direct contradiction , thus we then conclude that in the context of the theory there is no reference frame in which a photon is at rest.

Frames of reference are for the observer, and time moves relative to them and there frame of reference. 

I think I got that right, I left some things out in more specific details.

3 hours ago, sethoflagos said:

I put quite a bit of thought into asking you a question that I thought might help you break free of a misleading mental picture (trap) that I was also (and occasionally still am) prone to falling into.

It is a bit disappointing therefore that instead of answering my question after due consideration, you treated me to a spontaneous party political broadcast on behalf of the solipsist party. Good luck with that one. Planet Narcissus can be a pretty lonely place to inhabit.

Excuse me? Nothing that I said was remotely Narcissistic. 

Let me ask you something, can you have a bottle of sound?

The answer is no. 

Just like you can't have a bottle of height or weight. 

There needs to be physical things present for us to apply them to reality. 

Nothing about this is Narcissistic, and you completely misused it to directly insult me on a personal level. I thought we were past these things, when having a meaningful discussion.

3 hours ago, sethoflagos said:

Narcissus

Narcissus- this is a flower.....

* Narcissist

And its mental condition in which people have an inflated sense of their own importance, a deep need for excessive attention and admiration, troubled relationships, and a lack of empathy for others. 

Example: If My best friend tells me her mom just died, and I say OMG my mom died last year. And I start crying over it and take the much needed attention from My friend and place the center of attention on me that is a Narcissist.

3 hours ago, Phi for All said:

 

Flawed because it was developed by man

Yes and this is not any thing to do with religion you can leave that comment out please. 

Humans are not perfect, like theories are limited , so are humans understanding of things, there are no answers for Some things we observe. Like the reason why Photons behave more like partials rather then waves when being observed.

Or what was before the big bang.

Where did it come from.

These are just questions that are shoved aside and not even considered. And in my personal belief if we cant explain these things then our understanding of what we believe to be true is certainly limited more than what we want to admit.

If I wrote 2 + 2 = 4 

The equation is true, I can apply this equation in physical form too, Two Fish + Two Fish = Four Fish. 

But if I said it was 5 wouldn't that be a flaw?

So if we apply the same concept to theories and our results give us " 2 + 2 = 5 " then its not limitation its a flaw. 

But I do agree with a lot of what you said, you made a good point.

3 hours ago, Phi for All said:

This isn't true either. It's not a flaw if a theory is used outside it's area of applicability. If you want to understand gravity better, you don't use Special Relativity, but that's not a flaw with SR.

its not true that theories have flaws? 

All theories have flaws because they are developed by man. Due to this fact, all theories are constantly reevaluated whenever new information is discovered.

3 hours ago, sethoflagos said:

You seem to be equating the physical size of a particle with the sphere of influence it may exert on a field.

What would you say was the physical size of a soprano's high C?

Is it the size of a large concert hall? ... The sound of a strong soprano can certainly fill one.

Or is it just the air molecules inside the Albert Hall jiggling around in a slightly more ordered pattern than normal?

 

Vibrations need something to be heard Sound is a direct  result of vibration that propagates as an acoustic wave, through a transmission medium like air, or water, and even solids like my desk. So if forms of matter did not exist sound cant be heard? But the next questions arises if there is nothing to vibrate do the sound waves still exist?

I would say no.

But I am acknowledging existence of anything requires something physical to be present.

3 hours ago, studiot said:

I'm glad you added this bit at the end.

Otherwise your opening post could be taken as yet another attempt to challenge conventional wisdom in quite an aggressive way.

 

I would agree with this had I not added this bit in the start.

I don't quite understand Photons, or at least there might be some form of confusion here please read the entire thing so you  have a good understanding of my perception and why I posted this.

I clearly stated I didn't understand, and there was obvious confusion. Like I said I only want to learn, asking questions should not be taken aggressively i see no reason to suggest I was challenging anything.

But on that note, questioning conventional wisdom is yet another reason why we have brilliant theories like GR.