Oh, I thought it did and that was why I mentioned fusion. Oh well. Carry on.
Yes, I am paying attention
I agree so far.
I’m confused here. If the wave is the oscillation, then why does the underlying material oscillate independently from the wave?
Confused again. I know that a wave with higher frequency has more energy because of your last statement, but your 1st statement says both waves have the same energy (X). As far as I know, all EM waves travel at the same speed, but the higher frequency means more movement per distance and hence more energy is required to maintain that frequency. In other words, the wave won’t slow, but the frequency will. That’s how visible light turns into infrared when meeting an object. Visible light has a higher F and infrared has a lower F, but both travel at c.
I’ve considered Planck units too, but then I read they aren’t rules really. An answer here says, “Planck length is more numerology than physics at this point” physics.stackexchange.com/quest … r-is-it-th
It could be. I previously speculated that c is the speed a particle can travel because adding more energy will actually slow it down because the extra energy turns to matter. In other words, c is the tipping point where photons start turning to mass as more energy is added. I think that is similar to what you’re saying about the minimum wavelength (another tipping point where if we try to go smaller, it turns to mass).
I agree.
I had to read it a few times, but it seems plausible. Mass is saturated energy that can no longer travel as the wave it once was. That does make some sense.
Do you mean particle as a tangible thing or a packet of energy?
How about this: The leading edge of the wave encounters all of the resistance to motion leaving the trailing edge to “squish” up against the front of the wave. All that compression produces a boundary layer.
Well, the reason I ask is that while sitting around a campfire, a guy told me the heat varied by r^4. I don’t know if he was full of bull or not. I could be remembering wrong as well… maybe it was r^3. Anyway, just thought I’d ask.
Ok, if you account for both the sun and the earth, then why would you expect to see a loss of force of gravity from the sun? Earlier you said gravity can’t be a force because, for example, the presence of the earth does not reduce the force by the sun on jupiter. In other words the force by the sun seems to be in unlimited supply, which should indicate that it’s not a real force, but something else. To that I said something like “Yeah but the earth donates the gravity that is takes from the sun, netting no reduction from the sun.”