Science a GoGo's Home Page Forums General Discussion Physics Forum Is the physical world real?

The measured value implies that it is measured directly or indirectly, and not derived theoretically from other constants.

The value of G is correct up to four significant digits only, where as the value of electrostatic constant has been determined to a very great accuracy. Why? The value of G is not found to be consistent after that; ie, the 'measurement' does not give the same value for G.

I spoke about the G, the force constant, and not the force. Has the G for the force between two bodies, inside a space station or on the moon, measured at any time? I think there has not been any instance of such an experiment (I may be wrong). However, the G between bodies on earth has been measured, and has been found to be not consistent after four significant digits.

Finiter, do you, anywhere, define reality?

Yes, I have defined reality earlier in my post. However, I will repeat it.

The reality can be defined as follows: "Every object (including light) in the universe is three-dimensional; the mass of the object, the space occupied by it, and the period of time that it remains 'at a particular position/ in any particular form' is greater than zero". That is, the values of mass, space and time cannot be negative.

Sorry, lapse of memory; I blame my age.

BTW; your definition seems to imply that you hold that photons have mass. Is that the case?

Yes. Based on my theory, photons have mass and have internal structures.

Are you talking about invariant mass, or some more esoteric form of mass?

I am talking about the mass in the normal sense, ie, the mass represents the amount of matter in it. In my view, the photons are made up of fundamental particles of matter, each photon containing the required number of particles. The energy that a photon possesses is kinetic energy due to its motion at the speed 'c'.

I believe "mass in the normal sense" is invariant mass, which is the same as rest mass.

Does your theory include stationary photons?

No, because the fundamental particle always remains in motion at the speed 'c'. Photons are made up of fundamental particles and have no internal energy, and so these move at the speed 'c'.

Are you saying that everything is in motion unless energy is used to stop that motion; or that everything is in constant motion, and cannot be stopped?

Everything is in constant motion; there may be energy transfer between bodies, but there is limit to that. So no body can be stopped.

What imposes the limit, and what is the limit?

Normally, a body should posses its natural energy, (mc^2)/2. Any change in its energy will create a potential state in the body. That is, the body resists the change, and so it becomes impossible to increase/reduce the energy further.

Half of the natural energy remains inside the atoms as potential energy. The rest remains partly as vibrations etc, of atoms/molecules, and the rest as speed of the body. The maximum speed that a body (made up of atoms/molecules) can attain is 0.6c (based on my model). However, I cannot arrive at a minimum speed from my model. It may be noted that we are now moving at a speed close to 0.33c as per my model.

Presumably - in your model - this doesn't apply to bodies made up of sub-atomic particles.

Yes. Sub atomic particles have only 2 levels for the energy to remain: one is the internal potential energy, the other its speed, and so can move faster. Whereas, in masses of atoms, there are 4 levels: internal energy of subatomic particles, the kinetic energy of electrons in atoms, the vibrational energies of atoms/molecules in that mass, and finally the speed of that mass.

I'm still a bit unclear about your concept of speed. Would I be right in thinking that your theory involves absolute speed, as distinct from relative speed?

If this is so, how do you define absolute speed?

You are right. As the space is absolute and serves as a static background, the speeds are absolute. The individual speed of Earth is 30Km/s, ie, it covers 30Km of absolute space in one second. However, the galaxy- cluster to which Earth belongs carries the Earth along with it at a speed of nearly one-third of the speed of light. In my model, the clusters are spiraling outwards from the centre of the universe, and not revolving around the centre.

You can visualize yourself as moving in a boat in the dark with no clue to the direction, the speedometer just tells you that you are moving at a certain speed. Similarly the Earth, Moon and Sun have their individual speeds, the only indication of their absolute motion is their gravitational constants, which are proportional to their individual speeds (as per my theory).

"spiraling outwards" suggests they are "revolving around the centre", but travelling away from it at the same time. Is this because space is expanding, or are the galaxies moving closer to the outer edge of the Universe?

They are not revolving around the 'centre of the universe'. They move outwards along helical(spring like)paths, the radius of the helix increasing as they move outwards. They are actually moving in absolute space, and the space is not expanding. It is this motion that causes the expansion of the universe. In this type of motion the distances between clusters are uniform (proportional to their masses), and so the universe is always 'uniform on a large scale'.

Apart from the "spiraling", how does this differ from Donald Hamilton's "Falling Galaxies" theory? http://novan.com/cosmol.htm