Recent content by Dragongod

i don't understand how a circle can be animated expand in 2d but its circumference can only expand in 1d. I always thought that anything that is on paper (2d) can only be 2d. how is it possible for something (the circle) in a purely 2d realm to exist in a 1d realm (the circumference).

say basically in the standard model glouns make up the basic unit of all mass meaning nothing comprises glouns.?

thanx for the formulas but what i am trying to get at is that these formulas are based on assumptions. None of the theories have actually been "observed" such as Minkowski space. Its completely based on space-time, a term Einstein coined but didn't actually prove.

very true. This too: Also its nearly accepted that gravity exist and gravity is defined as the force of attraction between everthing. Electrons and protons attract each other because of their opposing signs but according to current science gravity can attract eveything. If this is true, then WTF...

Loren Booda is that in response to me cause if it is i don't understand what you mean. also when i say matter i don't just mean electrons and protons. I mean all matter i.e. including photons and whateva else.

HAHAH if you say so. but that formula you posted in no way shows that fields can exist without particles.

lol its funny, and logically yes it is possible. If that point never moves it still exist in a spot within the system or universe or whateva. Therefore, from your reference point, whateva it may be, you can locate it whereva it exist relative to you. But this doesn't fit in with reality because...

LOL they are not massless. Photons are said to have relativistic mass for some reason that i don't remember but its mass nonetheless. Glouns do have mass they are the particles that generate the force to keep leptons and quarks "stable." And as for gravitons, as far as i know, nobody really...

If people would just accept my theory about "how it all happened" no one would have anymore questions. My theory is: if "nothing" can't exist than "something" always has to. That "something" would have to be matter and energy. That eliminates the possibility of people asking "well, where did...

E^2 = m^2*c^2 + [p]^2*c^2? does this translate to Energy squared equals mass squared multiplied by the speed of light squared plus (momentum) squared multiplied by the speed of light squared. If it does then all its really saying is that energy equals mass and momentum. Therefore it would be...

If Space Is Actually All Matter Then Wouldn't That Mean The Universe Is Opaque (completely Solid). ?

I agree with you completely. :)

I Agree with everything you say. Physics has many flaws with these areas and unifying the different branches of physics as well. To say spacetime expands using the definition that space is the absense of matter and energy automatically leads to a contradication. How can "nothing" bend or curve...

but also as far as i know in relativistic physics "empty space" is the absense of matter and energy. Which by the way makes no sense to me. I don't see how its possible for "nothing" to exist. By definition "nothing" can't exist.

wait so what you are saying is that i can't use mathematics to represent reality. That seems to be the prevailing argument here and if that's true why do we as a society study math. i am not trying to sound mocking. :) i just don't understand why not. I mean according to your example if there...