Aethelwulf

When did you become the master of my own opinions? I can tell you right off the board that my opinions of it was completely negative when I first learned about it. (I think a bit of psychology is going on here) I can almost understand why posters like the above would absolutely hate the idea of loosing this system. It would mean all those lovely little points they have on their personal profile would no longer mean anything. .. I can almost understand this kind of attitude. I mean after all, you have put work into posts, so why not have a something a little gratifying for it?

But after that I clearly state that if there is an electromagnetic mass, then it is a ''contribution'' of some of that mass. You're hung up on something but it wasn't intended to be taken as my absolute word on something. Besides, you've quoted something I am saying that has been pretty much extracted from one of the citations I gave. Don't ask me which one. I'd need to look through them all again. Thus, I said it in the OP a few times and I will say it to you again. If mass is an electromagnetic phenomenon, then its a contribution to some of the mass of the system. Here read this, touches on many reasons why contributions of electromagnetic energy to mass is considered http://ivanik3.narod.ru/EMagnitizm/JornalPape/ParadocsCullwick/hnizdo_ajp_65_55_97.pdf

But it's not just about me. I might have been the boycott, but essentially since I have voiced my opinion, more than one other person has came forward expressing their dislike of the system.

I don't know much about thermal increases of mass, but it sounds an awful lot like a relativistic increase of mass which is often seen being down to kinetic energy. I wish to quote Taylor and Wheeler here:<br style="font-size: 13px; line-height: 16px; background-color: rgb(248, 250, 252); "><br style="font-size: 13px; line-height: 16px; background-color: rgb(248, 250, 252); ">''The concept of 'relativistic mass' is subject to misunderstanding. That's why we don't use it. First, it applies the name mass - belonging to the magnitude of a 4-vector - to a very different concept, the time component of a 4-vector. Second, it makes increase of energy of an object with velocity or momentum appear to be connected with some change in internal structure of the object. In reality, the increase of energy with velocity originates not in the object but in the geometric properties of space-time itself.'' I said that there can be contribution of mass, I have never stated that it was entirely an electromagnetic phenomenon. I think you should read up on electromagnetic theories of mass http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electromagnetic_mass Because you are distorting what i say.

Particles without an electric charge still have a magnetic charge. The neutron is electrically neutral but still possesses a magnetic charge as a magnetic moment. I don't really know what you are getting at. So while the Neutron for instance, may not have an electric charge, it is not fundamental. The stuff it is made of does.

Well you've started by asking a completely new question.

I'd expect to observe, some kind of unification to physics. If there is any kind of intellect behind the universe, it surely would be wrapped up into a set of simple equations which explains everything.

When I said come into the physics subforum and start asking questions, I didn't really have this kind of material in mind Arkiteck

Yes, exactly.

No. Go back and actually read it again. I explained how a mass which is accelerated experiences an electromagnetic inertia. You asked me how you calculated the mass with the larmor equation. See your problem here? See the problem you created me? I likely read that thinking ''what's he on about?'' More to the point, why even have em? As I explained, there is no use for them outside of someone wanting to either denounce a character or like a post because of its content. Now, on most respectable forums I have ever seen, such a reputation system is not even needed because people are adult enough to tell someone whether they appreciated a post or whether they didn't like it or disagree with something. Take pmb's case above, someone will neg you for just saying ''you're wrong.''

loooool

Outside of this thread, I have been teaching. You want to learn something, come into the physics subforum and my attentions is all yours sir. (post a few questions though, or ask for a lesson in something, if you really want to learn from me.) Concentrating on this thread and my problems with the repping points here will not give a fair or reasonable understanding of how I can help you.

You must have lost the punchline. I pretty much quoted Ecoli in his reponse to me the other night, you know, the one you have tried to defend all day. The fact is I understood you perfectly well, and nowhere in any of this have I really thought you where speaking a different language enough for me to think it was not your native tongue. Even better. As an outsider, you should respect my opinion. You know, those opinions you said everyone was allowed to have.

Yes this is true. We do indeed base our models as close to our reality will agree to them.This is indeed the way science works. However, and this is a big BUT, a theory is still a theory and a theory can never be proven with 100% accuracy. You can have mathematical proofs, which may lead to mathematical certainties. Unfortunately, most of the time in physics, these kinds of certainties are extremely rare.

Start searching ''non-locality'' and ''spooky action at a distance.'' Then search, ''quantum entanglement'' for a more direct course. I think prof. Susskind has classes on quantum entanglement as well on youtube if you are interested.

Sorry, I can't comprehend you. Maybe It is only 21:00 hours at night, or maybe english isn't your native language, or maybe you are just plain and simple, incomprehensible.

I'd agree with that, but God isn't something without predictions. I could easily argue that our equations describing the universe will result in some kind of analogue of something or someone behind its creation, just as much as recently, we found binary error correction codes in supersymmetry. It's all very premature to think that a God, in my eyes, is completely unthinkable.

The way you made it sound, is that I was talking for the sake of it without any real science. With that aside, what I really mean is I would have appreciated your continuation in that thread than rather ignoring me because I asked you what you meant. Then banish it. The negative rep has no other cause than to try and denounce someone. If someone has a problem with your posts, I'd expect them to just call you out regardless of anyone negatively reppin them.

That's fine, no probs with that in my eyes

''Ah I think I finally see what you're saying. '' Good. Then maybe we will be able to move forward. I was close to asking a mod to close this thread. Listen you are a smart man. I've seen your posts in the mathematics area, which tells me you are quite adept to the rigor of mathematics. My area is mathematics as well but I traditionally deal with the physical nature of science. Your point here: ''In probability theory, absence of evidence IS evidence (though not proof) of absence.'' Is a good point but in a sense I have given you the required conditions why we cannot observe God. I likened it to the unobservable ''parallel universes'' which many top-leading physicists today want us to believe in. In quantum mechanics, an observable is something we can measure often given with a Hermitian Matrix. I won't go through the math, I will assume off-hand you know what that is. There are some things in science which cannot be described as ''observables'' - things we can directly measure. Indeed, many things inside this universe cannot be measured, like the beginning of time for instance. (Time can't be observed, its not an observable, here I just mean the physical things that come along with the very first instant we call Big Bang.) Not being able to observe something should not mean a lack of evidence, in physics, as we understand theoretical models. A really good example would be string theory. Many scientists will argue today that string theory isn't even a science because it cannot be falsified. But you know, there are plenty scientists, (some of the top scientists in current mainstream today) who will argue blue in the face that there is string theory nature to the universe. Do we say their lack of evidence is evidence against? The answer is no, and the reason why is because one day we expect to have the kind of technology that will provide these answers. We have just came out of the dark ages and into the revolution of technology. On the scale of intelligence, we are just young and in the scale of testing theories, loads of possibilities are being opened. Maybe one day, we will have some kind of solution in our equations which might involve the idea that there could be ''something'' or ''someone'' behind creation. A good example of such revelations, was that a computer code (a binary code which was an error correcting code, the kind you have which works your computer screen) was found embedded within the supersymmetry equations of string theory. That's the kind of revelation I am talking about. I can't give you all the answers you have wanted in this thread, but I am certain not to be naive enough to say a God is improbable, especially with a lack of evdidnce. Ironically, the post above while you where posting this, actually speaks about ''the non-science of unfalsifiable theories.'' My point in the post above, is that theories of this nature are waiting until the technology or scientific breakthrough makes them at least measurable or falsifiable.

''And some of the greatest minds of mathematics believed in Allah. So what? Belief is evidence of nothing, so why does it matter what some of the greatest minds in science believed?'' You must have missed the OP about rejecting traditional theories of God... That's ok, most of my words fall on deaf ears anyway.

Well go back to your example in one of my firsts posts here. You basically said I gave a long speach about something, then I said I wasn't sure about a comment and you ignored me. I would have much preferred, (if me and you) had gone through any misunderstandings. I appreciate any support off anyone. That doesn't give you the excuse to be condescending though about one of my better posts (just my own opinion). How does it help you... is it because, it will influence you in the future who you will listen to? If so, this is my point all along. I am one of the people here at this forum who can actually talk about science. Having a negative rep then, will influence you greatly against any teaching I might give you? If its not that, can you tell me how it helps you. Then explain how it really helps anyone?

I can't say I have heard of this. It sounds like a gravitational distortion but equally feels like entanglement.

I was aware of this, which is why I think a new distinction needs to be made. A photon does not contain an intrinsic gravitational charge for instance, but it still can warp spacetimes surrounding it. But of course, I see your point.

Because as I said, just because you can't observe God does not make it improbable. That's a cop-out. As for what I believe I have clearly told you what that is - is that a God is not outside of the realms of possibilities. Some of the greatest minds in science believed in God.