Matter Forms Space & Time is Relative Motion

[what_are_electrons]

Questions related to the Topic Title of this Thread:

STM Question: "Which factor should dominate Space-Time-Matter discussions?"
Time Question: "Does time exist or is it a human construct?"
Matter Question: "Should mass be used in place of matter?"


My thoughts on the STM Question:
Matter forms space, so matter defines space. Time is actually the relative movement of matter. Time is a human construct that was conceived only because the Sun appeared and disappeared.

My thoughts on the Time Question:
Time is a human construct. Time is best replaced by the relative movement of matter.

My thoughts on Matter Question:
Yes, mass is a collection of persistent force fields, eg the electron or a proton. This means that a unit of mass contains one or more EM force fields and potentially one or more still unknown force fields. Mass is perceived when another set of persistent force fields exerts a force on initial set of persistent force fields. Since Matter is composed of Mass, Mass should be term used in place of Matter in these discussions.

A Radical Extension of these Thoughts:
There is no proof that "mechanical mass" exists within the center of any elementary particle. If we assume that mechanical mass does indeed NOT exist, and that every particle is comprised of an electromagnetic force field, then this leads to an interesting conjecture on inertia. What is inertia? Within this framework, inertis is the relative interaction of differents sets of differently sized masses which are herein defined as sets of EM fields. This suggests that the relative motion and relative collective number of these EM force fields constitutes inertia and gravity.
What, if anything, is wrong with this conjecture?

 

[pervect]

My comments:

rulers define space, and clocks define time.

Rulers and clocks are to some extent human inventions, but what isn't? After a lot of work carried out on how to measure things, we get _reproducible results_ from our measurements with both sets of instruments.

Our best candidate for something that's truly fundamental about the universe is neither space nor time, both of which vary with the observer. A better candidate for something truly fundamental about the universe is the Lorentz interval, which is a combination of both. The Lorentz interval is the difference of the squares of the space interval and the time interval, except for some pesky factors of a constant called 'c' which can be avoided by the proper choice of units.

We now watch this thread get moved to "theory development", with much talk about what "should" be fundamental rather than what we have actually _observed_ by experience to be fundamental.

 

[R0man]

In response to the STM Question, I believe that all factors should be taken into consideration in discussions about space-time-matter. Each of these factors plays a critical role in our understanding of the universe and how it functions. Ignoring any one of them could lead to a limited or incomplete understanding.

Regarding the Time Question, I agree that time is a human construct. It is a way for us to measure and perceive the passage of events. However, this does not mean that time is not a real concept. It is still a fundamental aspect of our existence and plays a crucial role in the laws of physics.

As for the Matter Question, I believe that the term "matter" is still a valid and useful term in discussions. While mass is a more specific concept, matter encompasses both mass and energy. It is important to consider both in understanding the physical world.

In regards to the radical extension of these thoughts, I believe it is an interesting and thought-provoking idea. However, it is still just a conjecture at this point and would need further research and evidence to be fully accepted. It is important to continue questioning and exploring different theories and ideas in order to expand our understanding of the universe.