I think you got it backwards. Light has no measurable invarient mass (AKA proper mass, intrinsic mass, rest mass).
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Invariant_mass
But it has gravitational mass and inertial mass.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mass#Definitions_of_mass...
Light doesn't have mass in the classical sense. Nothing with mass can travel the speed of light. Light has (or rather, is) energy. That's why it's effected by gravity.
You could just admit to not having a citation rather than resort to condescending remarks.
It's definitely central to every other bodily function.
You need to prove your otherwise empty claims. You also still never answered to the other parts of my post even though you said you would.
Whatever it is you think you are, if you're falling towards Earth, you're moving with space, not through it. In that sense, Gravity isn't a force.
If the soul exists and is a form of energy, it's effected by gravity. Which would kind of suck. I'm picturing every disembodied soul falling towards...
Anything with energy is subject to gravity since mass and energy are equivalent.
And yeah, I would say gravity, more fundamentally speaking, isn't a force. A force is something that accelerates you through space. When you're being pulled by gravity, you're not being pulled through space. You're...
It can be described as a force, in the same way that the repelling magnetic force of an object can be described as "solid". As a side note, energy, like light, also has gravity.
The distribution of dark matter in the Universe isn't uniform. It's in random patches. So if a human were to, hypothetically, travel somewhere where dark matter isn't present, they possibly wouldn't have any inside them.
Is this all you're gonna reply to now? I asked you rather important questions.
I agree that humanity needs a higher level of maturity to handle the responsibility of ever growing technology. I disagree (rather, I'm unconvinced) spirituality is needed for this.
I would need to see some...
Sure, I guess.
Perhaps. And perhaps unicorns exist too. We can go all day with conjecture.
Key word here being "most". The ones that can't are still systems.
We call this an isolated system in physics. Inseparable parts are still parts.
The Universe is a lot of things. A system...
I already told you that I understand the view of seeing the Universe (and the ocean) as one thing. But that it's still self-interacting and non-uniform and can also be described as a system. There was no reason for you to call me [brain] deaf. A simple 'yes' or 'no' to my question would have...
Sure, I guess.
Well this is the first time I'm seeing you lose your composer towards me. So much for finding inner peace and happiness and whatnot.
I'm interpreting this slander as a sign of lack of compassion. Yeah, I'm totally deaf. That impedes my ability to read a post on a forum.
I...
I think the only thing that could be called an impersonal view is mathematics. The realization of mathematical proofs doesn't rely on perception or the physical senses. It's utterly abstract.
When I say systems, I'm not talking about man made systems with a purpose. Most systems don't have a purpose, but they still have a set of functions. A functions, to put it simply, is what something does. The Universe does things. It has activity. Therefore, it has functions. The solar system is...
And those "features", "outcroppings" and "manifestations" are interactive and interconnected with each other, which was the original point to begin with. Them being inseparable (which is an assumption in the end) doesn't conflict with this notion. That's what a system is.
There are systems out...