So the best way I can put the mass problem, the fact that modern science still doesn't know what mass is, is by inertia examples. But you say the goddamn higgs gives particles masses. Well, really it is more of an in between the higgs field and particles, and intruding another field seems fishy. Even if the higgs is responsible for that getting mass mechanism, the actually values are not found for what masses should be. If a body is going, it will keep going, that is newtons thing. So the body is just cruizing and that's all thee is to it, no shifts or turns, the ultimate gas millage. I mean it might as well as be still, which is the other part of the statement. It could even be still with all of space moving by it, but that was Newtons problem, that he said there was one space. He wanted to have a frame where a body could go, and for concerns be weightless, but if something were to happen to it, some force, then you had to get out of this free ride mindset and say that the object has to have a mass so that its force can be solved when it contacts another force and a resolution of resultant direction and speed can be calculated. Sure, it works for pool balls and such, but really, it is saying, here is something which has no properties that are associated with weight or mass, and yet when it is hit, it has mass. Where did it come from? The view which is chosen should not be able to impart a mass to an object, and a view ought to view mass, if it really is a valid concept and not an idle invention, the same way in both landings. The moving space idea just sounds odd. Can you imagine a moving wall? of space and not feel a little ludicrous?

Drop space. With time as a numbering system of events, or Lee's time in basic sketch, there would be only a numbering and then a a quality of these numbers. At each event, there would be a level of some kind which would be different for bodies at different times. But say there is some energy, then there could be a base for information to be about. Info would describe a certain amount of energy, or information is written on this energy as it goes from event to event. Without interaction with other bodies, the energy wouldn't change so much and the data would remain the same quantity, which would go along with a velocity of a certain value. So the body would keep drifting. But when there is another encounter with some heavy object, a dynamics could be proposed for how the introduction of mass facilitates a difference in the quality of how much info corresponds to such and such an energy. Done like this,mass is simply a correlation proportional with how much information is written energetically from point to point, with greater speed associated with less data, or more mass with less conveyed between the points. Even though this is likely bogus, trying to find out how mass comes upin physics is important in physics today.

Mass is Energy & vice versa is true as shown by EMC2 BY Eeistin. But miracle is there in photons with no mass but ultimate speed but as its true its Fate is not known. How without higgs photon behave like particle nature??

The thing about the equivalency, is that it says so much mass is worth such a figure of energy by the square of the velocity of light, but this does not say anything about how much energy that value is in terms of how much excitation it may have on the metric or spacetime. So true, yes, but maybe not the whole story. Could this equation be just a part of another, or will it always stand alone? I guess that it is a supplement to another equation. It is too fundamental not to be useful as more than a concrete truth. Photons are tricky when it comes to weighing them in hand. Even if you are a ten o'clock automatic with equations, you may have think twice.

From what I can tell under the physical characteristics http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Photon the math is set up so that the energy and frequency of light particles does not depend on the mass, or that the mass equaling 0 does not mess with the equations for frequency or momentum. I can't tell if this is artificial though! I expect that it is just so that the view can be maintained and the theory be useful for the calculations need for light quanta. Ideals are often used in physics, like the friction-less plane every high school kid is familiar with, which also helped Galileo come to his laws of motion. Ideally, the speed of light could be a limit even if photons do have mass and velocity so reduced. Then, it could be that gravitational waves travel faster than light itself, which would implicate a very minute excitation in the photon as the wave went past it. It would be like a little tick or earthquake line in the frequency or something. How crazy would it be if that is what the quantum turn out to be, quite outlandish, right! hahah But anywho, this would mean that the gravity from some potential well would be interacting with the photon, and since the photon is tied into the electromagnetic, then that as well. But this is within the realm of classical gr I think, so if it was thought of, perhaps it wasn't so interpreted. Greater excitations near gravity field.... I am getting off topic on my own post! yikes! I don't know about the Higgs and the photon. Why are particles separate, and does the Higgs mechanism do anything with the photon? Or, if the higgs does not bash with a photon, and the particles are characterized b a higgs interaction, why is a photon a particle, is this your question? As I understand it, the higgs is sort of like a carrier particle which when interacting lets the other particle participate and be changed by the higgs field, this encounter being such that the mass is given to the product particle outgoing. So maybe the photon still interacts with the higgs particle but is dumb to the field, by some particle law.


But without the higgs entirely, hmm. The nature of separate particles might be a trend or scale based on mass. Particles with larger masses would experience less information and information is just the amount of communication between two points possible. With less info present, and more mass, then the noise from grav. waves exciting particles may be more or less based on the effect that a grav. wave has with regard to the properties of the particle, like heaviness of frequency of emission. Mass then would be the limiting factor or resistance to the movement of one signal to another point. Everything could be light, with the ideal, c, being the most conducive state for this data transfer. When there is more conducive situations, then, greater mass occurs.

You dare to question the Great Man

"The important thing is not to stop questioning. Curiosity has its own reason for existing. One cannot help but be in awe when he contemplates the mysteries of eternity, of life, of the marvelous structure of reality. It is enough if one tries merely to comprehend a little of this mystery every day. Never lose a holy curiosity."

He also said in his later years that in progress in physics will take a certain amount of speculative thinking and daring.

I didn't really say anything against it. But I don't think the truth of a statement is reduced because it is a building block of another idea that works. To incorporate an old idea into a new scheme that works is the highest grace that can befall an idea.

My last reply was just a little joke,
But I agree with you. I would love to be as bright as the great man.
I'm always a little envious and fascinated by someone with brains.
We have some professors in Uni and I just stand and stare at them, they must think I'm a little strange.

Two strings, one open and one closed.
The open string is attached to another dimension.
Thus gravity.

After a while, you may see the same thing applies to their talks that modern science is saying about the universe, that it is all a vibration of energy. Go to school if you are interested, but a uni. education or not, the ideas that lift science up again won't be paid research under anybodies eye who is already in the academia. I wish sometimes that I could have known or experienced some part of His life, sorta breathed in the same air he exhaled, but at other times, perhaps his life was not the best. I like to think that he tried to make the best of situations, like even the divorce he went through, or his initial difficulty in finding a university post. I am not against academics, but I think that a farm that uses all natural methods, no tilling or killing, and that has its science down is a better soil for the mind than any other venue. Very few farms like this exist, but they do the world a favor. Most college campuses are new and most building material is toxic, like contaminated with heavy metals. Plus, there is a lot of contact with plastic and usually they have bad water. I also heard that most spirit memorabilia is also dangerous because it is made cheaply. Plus the typical student diet, not that all people eat like that, but some do, is not conducive to a healthy brain. So when I think of college, I don't think of a learning environment, or one that lets a body thrive to its fullest. Look around a bit, just beneath the softness that youth in years has, there are very stressed people who are destroying their like of learning, and even innate intelligence, in the name of getting a degree and a job. I think it is unfortunate at best that most but not all are giving up the full capability that their minds can attain to for a 4 year long job fair and social scene. I seriously doubt Einstein would have made it through college in the U.S. This is based on a statement he made himself about how he would have likely flunked out if he had be enrolled in American higher education. Still, no one can doubt the strength of his intuitive mind, a brain that could ask original questions and then deliver the answer to his own paradoxes and thought experiments too!