lemur

First, what are "virtual photons?" Second, am I correct in thinking of a static field as something that can move and has inertia? E.g. is an electron a static field with inertia? It seems that electrons can be viewed as a medium for photon absorption/re-emission but they themselves wouldn't lose field-force by generating photons. Maybe the way to view this is that the photon is a "fold" that builds up in the EM field of the electron and simply transfers into the surrounding EM fields or gravitational field. Maybe the waves also transfer into the nuclear force fields at the center of the atom. Maybe each type of field has a different "consistency" that causes the wave to have a different effect depending on its frequency and intensity. In the sense, force-fields could modulate in "texture" to transfer wave-energy without themselves gaining or losing field-force by doing so. Still, there must be various processes by which such fields decay or are modified, such as when a neutron splits into proton and electron or the reverse, or if a particle fragments into constituent sub-particles, which I assume is possible though I understand very little about quarks, leptons, muons, etc. beyond the names. Still, are these static force-fields themselves always conserved as static fields, e.g. if they transform from one type of force into another somehow? If they never deteriorate in any process of transmutation, there would seem to be conservation of force-field in the same sense as conservation of matter. In fact, force-field conservation would seem to be the logical heir of conservation of matter insofar as matter is a superstructural effect of energetic force-field configurations. However, are all force-fields ultimately massless and move at C except when configured as matter with inertia? If so, that would seem to explain why/how matter can be disassembled into radiation, no?

I think you hit on a major point regarding modern secularism and religion when you mention compartmentalization. Modern secularism has developed a dominant "religion" of compartmentalism. Those who fail to compartmentalize are often treated as the heretics of modern life. In fact, I believe that psychiatry has elevated the maintenance of "partitions" to the highest level of sanity while demonizing those who transcend cognitive "partitions" as schizophrenics or some other terribly stigmatized label. Currently, Islam is under attack as being a total-lifestyle instead of a compartmentalized cultural practice. The assumption is that religious-practice should be compartmentalized to be validated as "religion" and that total-lifestyle practices should be banned. Ironically, secularism has evolved into a total-lifestyle of its own - apparently one that desires to eliminate all competition to its monopolization of modern individuals. Nevertheless, religion has gained popularity as modernity has developed a drive to transcend its limits. This "postmodernization" often entails revivals of spirituality/religion and other minoritarian culture that became taboo in modern culture. So, imo, religion will not only survive modernity, but postmodern revivalism will actually lead to an increasing interest in various religions and cultures, and people will develop theological insight into the common elements in otherwise distinct religious ideologies. They will also use insights from studying one type of theology to discover previously misunderstood elements of other religions. Thus, various religions will grow as their scholars gain insight from inter-disciplinary theological discourse.

That suggests to me that mass/inertia could be a function of energetic motion, the way a gyroscope exhibits resistance to directional-changes more when its wheels are spinning. However, I don't see what else constitutes light besides the energy relations between the source and recipient of emissions. Energy seems to simply jump from one electron-cloud to the next at the speed of light without anything else involved. What implied it was that you claimed that energy was a property of light independently of the emission source and receptor. Light seems, imo, to be purely an interaction between electromagnetism and gravitation. If it had some other medium than "spacetime," it would not exist as the speed-limit for everything with mass, right?

I guess I still don't get whether to think of photons as the ripples or point-particulate constituents of the ripples so is an electron a point with a static field surrounding it? Generally I think of a magnetic field as exerting force the way a solid object would (technically the solidity of objects is due to EM field-force anyway, no?). However, when such a field becomes the source of photon-emission, you would think that some of the static field would have to be lost as it is radiated away. Otherwise there's not really a conservation of force-field, is there? If a force-field, such as the gravitation surrounding a planet or the electromagnetic field surrounding an electron, is multiplying itself in emissions it radiates, then I think force-fields should be considered a special phenomenon radically distinct from matter-energy, since matter-energy obeys conservation law. Does that make sense or is it possible that force-field may in fact dissipate as they generate radiant emissions?

I'm talking about whether a force-field is a static entity or if it is a constant emission of radiation. An electron, for example, seem to be a point with static properties that can emit photons, which are radiation and therefore non-static. Is this a false distinction? Well, I do get confused about whether photons are supposed to be volumeless isolated points of energy or whether they refer to the expanding sphere of energy that emerges from a radiation source. What I was really referring to, though, was whether the electromagnetic force contained in a photon is a transplanted quantity of force from its source of emission? In other words, do force-fields evaporate by radiating themselves away in the form of mobile field-force like photons/gravitons?

I agree that mass is a property of matter; but I don't get how you can say that light is a carrier of energy when it has no mass. How can you call something without mass a substance? Saying that there is something in light besides pure energy implies that there is a potentially "lighter" medium for energy that could transfer energy faster than light. My understanding is that light sets the maximum speed for energy-transfer because it has no mass and therefore accelerates instantaneously to C. What does it matter how you model universal expansion in terms of this thread's issue of whether energy is increasing, decreasing, or remaining constant? The only thing that matters is whether radiation can ever "escape" the universe, which I am presuming it can't. Where would it go that wouldn't be an extension of the universe it originated from? But to respond to your point that expansion is not motion through space but expansion of space, I've heard people say that many times but I don't think people can generally conceptualize what it means for space to expand without thinking of space as a substance, which is a flawed conception, imo. Space/time is nothing more than motion-relations between energized forms. It is not a container that exists separately from those forms, imo. Saying that it expands refers to systematic changes in multiple sets of "spatial" relations, imo. I get the feeling that many people tend to conceptualize is as a medium/substance when it is described as a "fabric" that is expanding.

In my understanding, force-fields are static entities. However, if I think of a gravitational field as radiating gravitons or an electromagnetic field radiating photons, it seems like there should be a long-term dissipation of field-force as that force gets expelled as radiation. Is this a valid thought or am I misunderstanding something fundamental?

I've never heard of electron-decay? How short is neutron life? What do they decay into, a proton and electron? When do electrons decay? What do they decay into?

Matter and energy can't be created or destroyed, only transformed into other forms. It seems that matter and energy are interchangeable to some extent, but presumably the total amount of matter-energy in a system is conserved through all transformations of one form to the other. But what about force-fields? Can gravitation, electromagnetic force, and/or the nuclear forces be converted into one another? When matter is converted to energy, for example, some gravitational potential is presumably lost with the lost mass. Is this force-field converted into electromagnetic force in the form of radiation released? If so, is it possible that field-force could exhibit a similar law to the law of conservation of matter/energy? If not, why not?

If you subscribe to the idea that the big bang contained the entire contents of energy/mass that exist as "the universe," then the total amount of mass-energy in that would seem to be finite. However, stars are converting mass into energy so if there's no process converting energy to mass, the amount of energy would be increasing while the mass of matter would be decreasing. Finally, what happens to light and other radiation as it travels beyond the most distant matter? Does it continue linearly indefinitely or does it curve back around in the direction of some other mass? Even if it continues endlessly outward, it presumably cannot "leave the universe" since its movement constitutes one front in the universe's expansion. So the universe cannot lose energy in that sense.

Could you at least attempt to explain grounds/reasoning for your assessment? Or should the holiness of your intuition or maybe your level of educational attainment be sufficient to accept your hunches at face value?

I think this is the best answer on this thread. Another example could be a chair with rubber feet. When you start pushing the chair, the initial force goes into compressing and stretching the rubber until enough force is reached to cause the rubber to slide over the surface. Once it begins to slide, it doesn't have the opportunity to anchor as strongly because the moment it starts to stick, its momentum drags it back into motion, overcoming the friction. If it slows down enough to "catch" and anchor, it requires that much more energy to overcome the sticking. I think the relative ease of gliding as an object's speed increases also has to do with air and loose particles forming a thin fluid layer that acts as lubricant. If you place a box on top of a number of perfectly round ball bearings, it glides more smoothly than if the ball bearings are hexagonal. So you're dealing with the force needed to lever oddly shaped particles of sand/dust until they start to roll at which point they bounce around between the bottom of the moving box and the surface it's gliding over.

I know that weight is a measure of force (lbs or newtons) whereas mass is acceleration-independent. I wasn't claiming otherwise and I don't know where you got that I was. It sounds like you're talking about inertia regarding resistance to changes in motion. I am interested in what relationship could be possible between inertia and mass because they don't seem the same to me, since mass causes matter to push down on the ground even when it is not in motion. I wouldn't have thought to put it that simply, but is that possible? Is it possible that particles of matter are themselves elementary units of gravitational field-force?

When you talk about "mass causing spacetime curvature," it seems to imply that spacetime exists in an un-curved form prior to or relative to its become curved due to mass as a cause. I don't think that assumption is tenable since spacetime never exists except in the presence of mass/energy, so mass doesn't cause its curvature so much as that curvature is co-present with mass. I may be overextending this reasoning, but it seems analogous to the relationship between electrons and electromagnetic fields and radiation. The electrons do not necessarily "cause" the fields/radiation. Instead, the field and radiation may just be extensions of the electron itself.

Where did you get the idea that charge decreases with gravity? I have wondered about this but I would like to know if there is some website that discusses it further. What would happen to charge as gravitation increases? Is there such a thing as conservation of force?

I don't get why people formulate questions in this way. First you discover that the property, color, could be attributed to light-wavelength or chemical properties of paint. Then, instead of simply defining color as a non-essential property, you try to re-establish essentialism by suggesting that color could somehow be due more to one constituent than another. All that does is obfuscate your initial finding that color cannot be reduced to a single essence in the first place, imo.

I don't understand this kind of political pragmatism. The issue should be whether abortion is right or wrong and whether spending to influence laws is right or wrong. Why does the moral/ethical discussion get skirted in favor of relativizing the damage?

The idea of space/time being curved is strange. If light follows a curved path as the shortest possible path between two points, how can it possibly be recognized as curved except when it noticeably diverges from another path? However, since mass seems to be transparently detectable, we assume that we can know which areas of space are relatively mass-free and therefore prone to straighter light-trajectories. But why should it be assumed that light follows curved trajectories but not gravitation? So to sum up, if light appears direct no matter how curved its path might be, how do you know when and how much space is curved? And why would you assumed light's path follows curved spacetime, but gravity proceeds in straight lines away from matter/mass instead of itself radiating according to curved space/time?

I meant that I haven't heard any in popular political discourse even though I regular hear people insist that it is a good idea to "return to the gold standard." As for having an energy-standard for currency, this is an interesting idea. How much energy do you think 1 USD should translate into? How would exchange-rates between different currencies fluctuate if they were all tied to an objective measure like the joule/btu/kwh?

I believe that microwaves affect water and water is a by-product of combustion. What would the effect of microwave agitation on newly formed water particles at flame-temperature? Could the microwaves just be scattering the reaction as it occurs?

Reading this thread turned out to be much more in formative than I expected. I hereby raise my glass to you all! (i.e. glass of clear water)

Why do people need currency to be linked to gold to use gold for their savings? Why can't they just buy gold and keep it in a safe or safety deposit box? If USD were tied to gold and the government wanted to print money, they would just use some other currency. If they were forbidden from coining currency not based on gold, they would just prescribe economic activities and exchange networks for people who were excluded from existing economic networks. What I don't get is why people are always raising this issue of a gold-standard but never fully explain what it would really change about the way the economy functions.

I agree with you that that the dogmatic and cryptic aspects of theology can seem like a shortcoming. The problem is that ethics/morality is such a powerfully interest-driven discourse, that it really helps to have institutionalized stories and characters with well-known mythologies for reference. The story of Christ is so handy, for example, because it would be darned difficult to explain how an individual could rebel against his church and the state/government while being more dedicated and more holy/truthful than those who were ranked above him in hierarchical/authoritarian terms. How do you explain the concept that someone can be a priest above all priests and a king above all kings just by being a child of God? People continue to struggle with making sense of this because they just can't break with the cognitive habits of defining people in terms of worldly status. So it helps to have stories like this that people can chew on until they're 90 years old on their death-bed when the light of comprehension finally comes on. Which errors are you referring to exactly? If you don't have a method to arrive at answers, how can you claim there are errors or not? Also, are you aware the the bible was written long before there was a distinction between fiction and non-fiction literature? The style of the writing doesn't alter the insight that was expressed in it. BTW, many of the ideas have been interpreted and expressed in other ways throughout history. One of my favorites is Thomas A Kempis's "Imitation of Christ," which was one of the first printed books and was a best-seller in the 15th or 16th century. It's easy to read and available online. It's written mostly in the form of literal descriptions of how to live, though there's also some poetically-expressed wisdom, I think.

It's nice to think so, but there's a good chance that the class divisions that have evolved along lines of racial identity will persist if occupational integration does not occur at all levels. The fact is that people tend to learn various cultural competencies from their parents and others they are exposed to. Middle-class kids tend to get socialized into forms of culture that make them more comfortable and self-confident in middle-class forms of education and work, especially higher education. Working-class culture tends to emphasize not trying to be "better than you are," which leads people to self-segregate and avoid investing in educational achievement that is viewed as a waste of time and money and diversion from the inevitable task of securing employment in some type of service job or other working-class business. If you have any desire to disrupt the reproduction of racialized class stratification, you have to either change class relations, change the relationship between class and racial identity, or both. Otherwise culture tends to reproduce itself and only change in superficial ways. What exactly would you expect to occur as time passes? Would you expect middle-class kids to grow up to become working class and vice versa? Would you expect class division to decrease on its own so that more professionals start cleaning their own offices and dwellings, providing their own food service, and engaging in their fair share of public infrastructure maintenance? If people aren't doing those things today, why would they suddenly start tomorrow or the next day?

You don't seem to have an everyday familiarity with how intimidation and repression work. Imagine you have a very threatening boss who intimidates employees consistently to the point that many of them take his/her side to avoid getting on his/her bad side. Now, let's say you decide to stand up to your boss because he's wrong about something but everyone knows he's just going to become more abusive if confronted. Well, when you start confronting him and the abuse increases, at least some and maybe many of your colleagues are going to start harassing you to get you to back off. Why? Because they would rather keep the peace with a bully than stand up to him/her and risk escalation of conflict. This is why, imo, Bush said that you're either on the side of terrorism or against it; i.e. because keeping the peace with terror-based regimes requires repressing challenges to those regimes. These are authorities who are more concerned with maintaining their own territorial dominance than responding reasonably to democratic challenges to their power.