Man seems to have a hard time dealing with the concept of infinite.
Numbers are infinite. You can keep adding one or subtracting one to
any number forever, you'd never reach the end or the beginning. Two
other things are infinite: the universe and time. If the universe were
not infinite, what would be beyond the border? Time is a cycle.
Different phenomena have different cycles. The cycle of man is about
70 years. Man is born, man grows, man reproduces, and man dies. And
the cycle repeats itself on and on. This cycle will end as all life
cycles end, but other bigger cycles will continue and time goes on.

Knowing that time is a cycle and this cycle repeats itself forever,
what we see of the universe today is nothing but a picture of this
cycle. If you see a picture of a man and a dog playing with a ball,
from that picture you cannot deduce what they did afterwards or what
they were doing before they played ball. We have a few pictures of the
universe showing different events, for example, the birth of a new
galaxy, a supernova, a neutron star, a black hole, a nebula, and two
pictures taken from the same galaxy a few years apart. From these
pictures we can deduce a few things: that galaxies travel in a spiral
path, that galaxies die, that galaxies are born and that there are
many events between the death and birth of a galaxy, such as a black
hole, a neutron star, and a nebula. Ordering these events with a few
pictures taken in a blink of time is the hard part. Our limited
understanding of chemistry and physics makes this task even harder.

I can take an object and cut it in half. Take that half and cut it
again and again. I can do this forever as long as I shrink along to be
able to cut it in half one more time. As I cut, I will lose the
properties that characterize this object. I cut a tree until I'm left
with a molecule. The molecule does not have the properties of the
tree, it has its own properties. I cut the molecule until I'm left
with an atom. The atom does not have the properties of the molecule,
it has its own properties. Suppose this atom happens to be a carbon
atom. I cut it in half and get two helium atoms. Helium and carbon
have distinct properties. Then I cut helium in half and get hydrogen.
Hydrogen has distinct properties. Then I apply enough energy to make
the electron and the proton unite and get a neutron. Then I cut the
neutron in half and get something I do not have a name for. And I keep
cutting and for every one of those cuts, I get a new particle with
distinct properties. I will eventually have a particle the size of a
photon with the properties of a photon. Then I cut some more and might
get what we call "heat". And cut some more until I get "sound." In
other words, what we today call energy is really a property of a
particle we do not perceive as particle. These particles are so small
that we perceive them as energy because we have no means of measuring
their mass or volume.

How does wave enter the picture? Imagine a sailboat sailing against
the wind. It has to go in zigzag to decrease the resistance imposed by
the wind itself. Look at a dolphin swimming in the ocean. It moves up
and down to decrease the resistance of water. Fish swim right to left
for the same purpose. Two waves in different planes. Look at galaxies
traveling in spirals – is it to decrease the resistance of minute
particles in space? Sounds fair. Is there true vacuum? No, there can't
be true vacuum because space is contaminated with matter. For one,
there is light traveling everywhere in space. And photons are
traveling in waves to overcome even smaller particles. And so on. The
straighter something travels (wavelength), the smaller it is and the
faster it goes as long as the media can hold it and is saturated with
it.

It is unanimous that Sir Isaac Newton was the greatest genius of
mankind but there is a lot of discussion on who would take the second
place. My vote goes for Gauss without a moment of doubt. The bell
curve tells us that everything in the universe is distributed evenly
to the left and to the right of the highest point in the curve.

The bell curve says my reasoning is correct. Let's call the most
abundant particle in the universe MAPU. I don't know the mass or
volume of mapu but I know it's at the highest point of my curve. As
particles grow in mass, they are placed to the right and as they
decrease in mass they go to the left. We know that there are more
photons in the universe than hydrogen atoms, therefore, all atoms
would be to the right and their abundance would fall as their mass
increases.

We have a problem here. If sound waves are longer than light waves,
particles of sound should travel faster than particles of light but
this is definitively not what we observe.

Let's imagine there are two trains with 100 wagons linking points A
and B. Point B would be the end of the train and point A would be the
locomotive. I have to fill up the first train with elephants and the
second train with cats, and they have to enter the train from the last
wagon and only move to the next wagon when the one before is full.
Since any wagon can hold many more cats than elephants, the elephants
would get to the locomotive first. This is nothing but osmosis. The
wagons are big particles (atoms, for example), the elephants are
photons and the cats are sound particles. Any one particle can hold
much more sound particles than light particles because sound particles
are so much smaller. It would take a lot more sound particles to
create a gradient from one atom to the next to force the sound
particles move from one atom to the next. Infrasound particles are so
small that they can cross any atom, apparently easily crossing the
nucleus of atoms. They are so small that an atom may hold an
infrasound particle as easily as the planet Earth would hold an extra
hydrogen atom. This might explain why sound does not travel in space
(or at least we don't perceive it). Space is not yet saturated with
sound and might never be. Every time two sound molecules are close
enough to attract each other, they join and form a bigger particle.
Remember, these particles are not atoms. We do not know if they repel
each other. I suppose they don't. And these two bigger particles, when
close enough, form a yet bigger one. Until you get to an atom, a rock,
a comet, a planet. The time it takes for this to happen might be
inversely proportional to the size of a sound particle. That is, a too
big amount of time for us to even imagine. Trillions of eons? Maybe
more? Maybe much more? As I said earlier, we are living in a flash of
the history of the universe.

Perhaps, if man allows himself to accept the concept of infinite, he
will get the bigger picture. Maybe Einstein was on his way to getting
the bigger picture.

E=mc^2

One thing I can see in that equation is that energy is mass and mass
is energy. There is no real distinction between energy and mass, the
distinction was created by us in accordance with what we are capable
of observing due to our physical limitations. Now, what needs to be
figured out is why the speed of light is there. What's special about a
photon? When we drop a basketball and a ball of lead, both with same
size and from a very high altitude, the ball of lead arrives first -
terminal velocity is related to density and surface area (resistance).
Could the photon be the particle with the greatest terminal velocity
"falling" through space, too small to be affected by gravity to any
significant degree, and too big (inertia) to be slowed down by the
particles that make up the void until it reaches its terminal
velocity?

Dear Orcinus Orca:

"Orcinus Orca" wrote in message
om...
Man seems to have a hard time dealing with the concept of infinite.
Numbers are infinite. You can keep adding one or subtracting one to
any number forever, you'd never reach the end or the beginning. Two
other things are infinite: the universe and time. If the universe were
not infinite, what would be beyond the border?

Finite and closed has no border.

Time is a cycle.
Different phenomena have different cycles. The cycle of man is about
70 years. Man is born, man grows, man reproduces, and man dies. And
the cycle repeats itself on and on. This cycle will end as all life
cycles end, but other bigger cycles will continue and time goes on.

The same man is not born over again to live a new life in this Universe. A
*new* life may be born...

Knowing that time is a cycle and this cycle repeats itself forever,
what we see of the universe today is nothing but a picture of this
cycle. If you see a picture of a man and a dog playing with a ball,
from that picture you cannot deduce what they did afterwards or what
they were doing before they played ball. We have a few pictures of the
universe showing different events, for example, the birth of a new
galaxy, a supernova, a neutron star, a black hole, a nebula, and two
pictures taken from the same galaxy a few years apart. From these
pictures we can deduce a few things: that galaxies travel in a spiral
path, that galaxies die, that galaxies are born and that there are
many events between the death and birth of a galaxy, such as a black
hole, a neutron star, and a nebula. Ordering these events with a few
pictures taken in a blink of time is the hard part. Our limited
understanding of chemistry and physics makes this task even harder.

The fact that many such snapshots are visible helps, though.

I can take an object and cut it in half. Take that half and cut it
again and again. I can do this forever as long as I shrink along to be
able to cut it in half one more time. As I cut, I will lose the
properties that characterize this object. I cut a tree until I'm left
with a molecule. The molecule does not have the properties of the
tree, it has its own properties. I cut the molecule until I'm left
with an atom. The atom does not have the properties of the molecule,
it has its own properties. Suppose this atom happens to be a carbon
atom. I cut it in half and get two helium atoms.

You are missing some protons. Two lithiums, or three heliums.

Helium and carbon
have distinct properties. Then I cut helium in half and get hydrogen.
Hydrogen has distinct properties. Then I apply enough energy to make
the electron and the proton unite and get a neutron.

You are missing the required neutrino. Without, it they do *not* make a
neutron.

Then I cut the
neutron in half and get something I do not have a name for.

Up and down quarks.

And I keep
cutting and for every one of those cuts, I get a new particle with
distinct properties. I will eventually have a particle the size of a
photon with the properties of a photon.

A photon is of *zero* size (to within our ability to measure). A photon
has no charge, yet the quarsk fo which the neutron and proton are composed
have charge. You had to cut unequally to end up with a photon.

Then I cut some more and might
get what we call "heat".

This is kinetic energy associated with a macroscopic body. There is no
*heat* at the subquark level.

And cut some more until I get "sound."

And this is a pressure wave in a fluid medium... certainly *not* a particle
in-and-of itself.

In
other words, what we today call energy is really a property of a
particle we do not perceive as particle. These particles are so small
that we perceive them as energy because we have no means of measuring
their mass or volume.

Energy is associated with particles. We can detect no energy until
particles are involved.

How does wave enter the picture?

It presents a simple mathematical model, glossing over discrete particle
interactions.

Imagine a sailboat sailing against
the wind. It has to go in zigzag to decrease the resistance imposed by
the wind itself. Look at a dolphin swimming in the ocean. It moves up
and down to decrease the resistance of water. Fish swim right to left
for the same purpose. Two waves in different planes. Look at galaxies
traveling in spirals - is it to decrease the resistance of minute
particles in space? Sounds fair.

They are orbiting.

Is there true vacuum? No, there can't
be true vacuum because space is contaminated with matter.

Even more contamination is the all-pervasive light.

For one,
there is light traveling everywhere in space. And photons are
traveling in waves to overcome even smaller particles.

Not waves. Groups perhaps. Each is travelling its separate trajectory,
ignorant of its companion photons.

And so on. The
straighter something travels (wavelength), the smaller it is and the
faster it goes as long as the media can hold it and is saturated with
it.

No media. Speed of light is not a function of wavelength, at least in a
vacuum containing only other photons.

It is unanimous that Sir Isaac Newton was the greatest genius of
mankind but there is a lot of discussion on who would take the second
place.

There was no debate. "Greatest" is meaningless. Could Newton have done
his thing if the Church had not gained a sense of humor. Could Newton's
genius have shown without Gutenberg? Gallileo, Pythagoras, all provided
shoudlers to Newton's giant.

My vote goes for Gauss without a moment of doubt. The bell
curve tells us that everything in the universe is distributed evenly
to the left and to the right of the highest point in the curve.

Gauss provided yet another method of paving over individual results, to
look for long term trends.

The bell curve says my reasoning is correct.

This would say that you were about 6 sigma to the left then.

Let's call the most
abundant particle in the universe MAPU. I don't know the mass or
volume of mapu but I know it's at the highest point of my curve. As
particles grow in mass, they are placed to the right and as they
decrease in mass they go to the left. We know that there are more
photons in the universe than hydrogen atoms, therefore, all atoms
would be to the right and their abundance would fall as their mass
increases.

Photons are off at infinity then, since they have no mass.

We have a problem here. If sound waves are longer than light waves,
particles of sound should travel faster than particles of light but
this is definitively not what we observe.

Is this based on your goofy "heat" and "sound" definitions? Light and
sound can have similar wavelengths. They each tend to travel at their
characterisitc speed, and seldom is this speed a function of wavelength.

Let's imagine there are two trains with 100 wagons linking points A
and B. Point B would be the end of the train and point A would be the
locomotive. I have to fill up the first train with elephants and the
second train with cats, and they have to enter the train from the last
wagon and only move to the next wagon when the one before is full.
Since any wagon can hold many more cats than elephants, the elephants
would get to the locomotive first.

Depends on how often you put cats and elephants in, respectively. Also the
size of each train.

This is nothing but osmosis.

Osmosis does not require that each "car" be full, before an "animal" can
move to the next car.

The
wagons are big particles (atoms, for example), the elephants are
photons and the cats are sound particles.

"Sound" particles don't exist, except in your imagination. So you could
never fill the first car. Photons have no volume, so that car never fills
either.

Any one particle can hold
much more sound particles than light particles because sound particles
are so much smaller.

Boy I'll say!

It would take a lot more sound particles to
create a gradient from one atom to the next to force the sound
particles move from one atom to the next. Infrasound particles are so
small that they can cross any atom, apparently easily crossing the
nucleus of atoms.

Dang, you are so *way* off base. Please study some on sound, won't you?

They are so small that an atom may hold an
infrasound particle as easily as the planet Earth would hold an extra
hydrogen atom.

No. Sound is molecular motion, and is periodic. Air is compressed and
rarified periodically. If this sycle repeats fast enough, but not too
fast, it is sound. If it is too slow, it becomes part of the daily cycle
of air pressure. If it is too fast, a shock is created, consuming the
sound energy into heat (or it is lost in random molecule motion).

This might explain why sound does not travel in space
(or at least we don't perceive it).

That's right. Few molecules, very low pressure, so rarification is all
there is. Less than the sound of one hand clapping.

Space is not yet saturated with
sound and might never be. Every time two sound molecules are close
enough to attract each other, they join and form a bigger particle.

The CMBR.

Remember, these particles are not atoms. We do not know if they repel
each other. I suppose they don't. And these two bigger particles, when
close enough, form a yet bigger one. Until you get to an atom, a rock,
a comet, a planet. The time it takes for this to happen might be
inversely proportional to the size of a sound particle. That is, a too
big amount of time for us to even imagine. Trillions of eons? Maybe
more? Maybe much more? As I said earlier, we are living in a flash of
the history of the universe.

You haven't said this yet. Maybe we haven't gotten to this point in your
"cycle".

Perhaps, if man allows himself to accept the concept of infinite, he
will get the bigger picture. Maybe Einstein was on his way to getting
the bigger picture.

E=mc^2

One thing I can see in that equation is that energy is mass and mass
is energy. There is no real distinction between energy and mass, the
distinction was created by us in accordance with what we are capable
of observing due to our physical limitations.

Energy can be resolved into mass and momentum. Mass can only be resolved
into mass.

Now, what needs to be
figured out is why the speed of light is there. What's special about a
photon?

Without them, we'd be in the dark. Much as you are about "sound".

When we drop a basketball and a ball of lead, both with same
size and from a very high altitude, the ball of lead arrives first -
terminal velocity is related to density and surface area (resistance).

Not in a vacuum.

Could the photon be the particle with the greatest terminal velocity
"falling" through space, too small to be affected by gravity to any
significant degree,

Affected to the *least* degree, yes. But affected by "gravity"
nevertheless.

and too big (inertia) to be slowed down by the
particles that make up the void until it reaches its terminal
velocity?

A medium through which light is passing slows light below c. Sometimes
this slowing is a function of the medium, the wavelength of the light, and
sometimes just a function of the medium's density.

Go back to class. You've lost so much...

David A. Smith

Go back to class. You've lost so much...

David A. Smith

Thank you very much for your reply. I´m not a physicist, just a
philosopher. Also, I apologize for what I said about splitting carbon.
That was gross.