Ask any physics question, I'll answer as best I can!
Other urls found in this thread:
How many niggers can dance on the head of a pin ?
one less than can dance on the end of a rope?
why can birds fly but humans can't even if they build wings that are proportionally as big as a bird's?
what is the average speed (Savg) of 17 niggers trying to steal the same bicycle that is 55 feet away? every odd number is +14 feet/sec faster than an even number. each even number is -12 feet/sec than an odd number. good luck w/ this faggot
Because our arm muscles are not strong enough proportional to our body weight. Birds have hollow bones and are very very light.
However, in a much more dense atmosphere, say Europa the moon of Jupiter, then a human could fly with arm wings.
So the first nigger runs at 14ft/sec, the second at 2, the 3rd at 16, the 4th at 4?
(17*14-8*12)/17 should be the sum of the series divided by 17
if thats not correct just sum the two series for even/odd
sum(2 + 4 + 6… 16) + sum( 14 + 16 + 18)
the first is 2*sum(n) and the second is 90 + sum(2n+2) which are both easy to do
1. are you a physicist
2. how can we create anig-grav/grav engine? How can we manipulate gravity? (>implying we understand it well) Propose ideas.
3. Alcubierre drive - yes or no. What are pros/cons? Can and when shall we have it?
Ppl are not built for zero G, we need to have gravity in space stations and spaceships.
If we're to travel on other planets/systems we need a good drive (EM is shit atm, still best than other available). We cannot speed up to lightspeed, but we should be able to warp spacetime many times faster than c. Thus Alcubierre drive.
good job. you're a special snowflake. don't let anyone tell you otherwise.
What is the speed of gorilla ejaculate?
that's not physics related, but i bet OP knows.
Are we talking African gorilla or European gorilla ?
Whichever has a bigger dick
Was Einstein right about speed of light being constant?
1) Still a student but going into a highly theoretical area, so probably more advanced than a lot of working physicists.
2) The only way we know how to manipulate gravity right now is put energy density at a points in spacetime. And you need quite a lot.
Another way of saying this is that we only know that gravity couples to energy density. A full field theory of gravity might reveal couplings to other things in a grand unified framework.
3) Probably not. It is a solution to the gravitational field equations but that doesn't mean it's physical.
Just like a white hole is also a solution which spews matter out like a black hole with time reversed.
We can actually speed up to an appreciable fraction of c. I think we could get to alpha centauri in 50 years which is a human lifespan.
Yes, but in fact Maxwell's equations predicted c as constant well before relativity. The entire mathematical framework of SR was already in place before Einstein.
The reason Einstein is associated with relativity is because General relativity is a much bigger theory.
If there were a ball of niggers in space the size of the moon, and all of them had oxygen masks, how many would be under sufficient heat and pressure to stay alive?
Why is this bullshit?
Because its literally equivalent to wrapping a loop of wire around yourself and attaching a battery.
if we went outside the universe, would we be able to do anything?
What is gravity?
what do you think about this theory?
By definition the universe is everything we can observe. We don't know anything about "outside" it
a force that interacts with energy density.
I read that dude's book. I really don't know much about inflation and cosmological stuff but from what I know VSL would solve homogeneity.
how to make free energy?
how do I maintain healthy relationships with friends and family and how do I get a girlfriend
You don't unless you have portals.
Focus on improving yourself. Make yourself great again. Self improvement is the wellspring of all things good in life
Birds have hollow bones
so if I gave my dog some bird bones he'd be pissed?
a force that interacts with energy density
I dont want this meme explanation. Youre essentially saying
this thing exists because science BAZINGA!
What IS gravity and why does it exist. Can you prove it exists outside of newton's formula being an instrumentalist tool that seems to work?
my wife has a black hole that attracts me so forcefully i've been circling it since forever. when does the event horizon intervene? will i, and she, remember what happened?
Energy density curves spacetime. Curved spacetime makes objects move.
The rubber sheet explanation is very good. You put a mass on top of it and that bends the sheet so if you roll another marble around it will orbit.
Physics doesn't prove anything, it just models the world around us. Good models allow us to predict.
Might sound like I just escaped an Amish camp but gravity, how does it work?
I know that the planets into orbit because of gravity, and it's what's preventing us from being flung into space. But what is giving gravity the energy to pull massive objects such as the sun, all the way down to insects? Does gravity gain the force to pull planets in orbit because of fuck you? Can it run out? If not, what the fuck is it?
this. if there's a gravity particle, how does it work?
being married to a negress
Why does gravity keep water droplets falling toward earth but lets birds fly? Checkmate pseudoscientist
Do black holes stay in one place? What if a black hole intercepted another black hole?
How do gas fridges work? I reckon making things cold by using a flame is witchcraft.
there's some spirit itt.
how come Holla Forums still revolves around it's owner's void, when the jimsun emits so much gas? don't farts make space-time wince?
The heat evaporates a solution of ammonia and water. The ammonia is condensed and mixed with the hydrogen gas. The reaction between these two is endothermic, so it absorbs heat from the fridge. Wash rinse repeat nigga
a solution of ammonia and water
That's also the reason why, if your fridge breaks down, it's pretty fucking dangerous.
Is that real or a rewrite?
If real… sauce?
If a rewrite… also sauce?
You get a girlfriend by maintaining healthy relationships with friends and family. You maintain healthy relationships with friends and family by getting a girlfriend.
How does I quantum gravity?
Virtual Gravitons don't have a working theory yet.
But basically, my dick holds the universe together.
What if your girlfriend is family?
if your fridge breaks down, it's pretty fucking dangerous.
not nearly as dangerous as black holes, user. if one of those gets broken down, all hell can break loose onto your sheets. e=mc2 and the end of bed as we know it.
also, ur mom is a 4 dimentional meme. she warps.
If the 1st three dimensions are space, and the 4th dimension is time, what the HELL is the 5th dimension? I can't figure it out for the life of me.
See Its like curving a rubber sheet. any mass density curves it.
Posted too early.
The graviton exists when you quantize general relativity. Unfortunately our theories are unrenormalizable which basically means they blow up if you calculate more than just the basic interactions.
A unified theory will rectify this.
Black holes have the same dynamics as any other massive object for the most part. Merging black holes is what we detected at LIGO thus confirming gravitational waves and GR.
Quantize the metric. As I mentioned before it works only for the most basic interactions before blowing up.
there is 1 dimension of time and 3 of space. They are not exactly equivalent. Hypersurfaces are what you should look at.
Do you think the em drive will spur physicists to reassess things previously written off as bollocks?
Probably not because it is still almost certainly bollocks.
Is fire a gas?
If you heated wood in vacuum enough would it melt?
An alternative way of thinking of time is as a spacial dimension which can only be observed one "slice" at a time.
Kinda like .gif related,where you see one 2-dimensional slice at a given frame. Except in this case it's 3 dimensions being observed. The frame you're looking at is the present, the previous frames are the past, and the next frames are the future. You are a 4-dimensional structure consisting of your 3D "self" and all positions it (and all of its constituent parts) ever was and ever will be.
A 5th dimension could be the path "time" takes as it diverges (if that's something time does).
One way of picturing that is by drawing a line to represent time, then drawing branches off that line to simulate a point where timelines diverge. This gives you a flat, treelike structure. 1 line=1 dimension, a flat surface=2. You could theoretically expand this to 6 dimensions if you there is a second "way" time can diverge at varying degrees to form a 3D "time tree"
this is not to be confused with the 6D space referenced in the Paoli exclusion principal, which consists of a fermion's 3D position as well as its velocity which is also thought of as 3-dimensional.
Lol u can see the xray of that dudes dick
It's a plasma which is basically free positive and negative ions.
Yes it wood!
I'll quantize your mom's metric with muh dick.
But if we didn't start the fire, who did?
Can niggers do science?
If you put a diamond in a vacuum and froze it, would it turn back into coal?
If not how can I turn diamonds back into carbon?
off by 1
The infinite universe isn't expanding.
The universe has an edge and matter is shrinking.
Galaxies don't move away from each other.
They are merely shrinking.
Prove me wrong faggot.
Pro tip: You can't.
niggers of course
1/10 for making me reply - put more effort into your bait in the future.
How is that a bait?
Well you are not wrong in the sense that there is a theory that the universe will expand to a point(whatever that is) until it has expanded as much as it can, then it will start shrinking toward a single point and then big bang 2.0
My theory is that the Universe has a fixed size and that the matter is shrinking relative to it.
How do you disprove that, unless you observed the universe from the outside, if such outside even exist.
By that logic how do you disprove that im not fucking your mum right now m8
There are things we cannot observe but can make good inferences of. To some schools of thought there is no way to prove a universe is doing anything. 'science' isnt a be all end all. There are many philosophies of science
That is my point. Science makes up theories that can never fully be proven.
Science is just another cult who rejects god.
Thats not necessarily true. You might like Popper's theory of science if thats how you feel. Essentially science proves nothing-it can only disprove beliefs that we held before.
And now we've gone into full troll mode I see.
Better question, how do you prove the universe has a fixed size and the matter is shrinking relative to it?
How does a magnet work.
What is a field in principle. Do not use particles, fields are not particles.
If light is a particle-wave duality then why is it the only particle-wave duality.
There is no gravity in the center of the earth. How come?
What's the difference between a lump of iron and a magnetized lump of iron?
Not OP but I can take some of these easier ones
Right now there's a whole fuckton of stuff between you and the core that's pulling you down. As you get closer to the center, there's less stuff to pull you in that direction, meaning a decrease in gravity.
It's not accurate to say there's no gravity, just less because it's mitigated by being right in the middle everything.
One is magnetized and the other isn't
It's all just me. Logically, if your reasoning is accurate, then gravity should be pulling you away from the core the closer you get to the core. That isn't the case.
Also, no, that's not what I'm asking. I'm asking what change is there between a magnet and a lump of iron. I know the answer to it, I just want to see if you QM idiots could answer it.
To my understanding, that is the case. It's just extraordinarily weak since there's roughly the same amount of stuff pulling you in every direction. They more or less cancel out.
Why do planets form spheres then?
Video is retarded.
Stellarparallax proves we move around the sun.
So do the incomplete phases of venus.
The only way that pseudoscience from that video could survive with these observations is if he wants to claim we live in a tychonic-like system. It doesn't seem that we do though.
Think about the fact that driving in a car things close by seem to be moving MUCH faster than things far away. Put that on an astronomical scale of shit so far away that the light from that star is many years old, it just moves such a negligible amount that we cannot detect it with current instruments it seems.
Because however gravity works, it seems to be that it would pull itself together making a shape which is the same distance from the center in every direction. Remember that the earth isnt a single density all the way through, it is extremely dense iron at the core.
A sphere is an illogical shape no matter how you look at it (if your reasoning is true).
Because that's the shape that gravity naturally forms. Cubes, prisms, or whatever, don't work on that scale because all that stuff is being pulled to the center.
Your next question will be why galaxies aren't spherical, and that's because they spin and centrifugal force flattens them out. Galaxies aren't a giant solid mass so all the stars and shit can move around more freely.
Your next question will be about gas giants, and you can see centrifugal force at work there too. Because they're gaseous, they have a much more pronounced bulge at the equator because of their spin.
If spheroids are illogical, than what is the logical shape?
tfw flat earthers shit up your physics thread
A logical conclusion would be a bunch of asteroids that would never form a sphere. If an asteroid gets too big it would destroy itself. Your statement that gravity is pulling itself to the center while also pulling itself away from the center is stupid. It's the same reason why there is no magnetism in the center of a magnet. Gravity is incoherent dielectricity (dielectricity being inertia). Dielectricity is Ether. Magnetism is the field of dielectricity.
This isn't really a physics related question, but I'll go ahead anyway.
What is your advice for the typical student faggot that understands things easily but is too "lazy" or not disciplined enough.
Starting to study physics and struggling because of this.
bonus: what do you say to people who believe in bullshit pseudscience (astrology for example)?
Before you ask why I don't say dielectricity is literally ether I should explain that dielectricity is a modality of ether.
Truly the worst of feels
What do you mean by ether? The only two things that come to mind when discussing ether is Aristotle's concept of the heaven's composition and the proposed medium in which light waves were said to move through.
You're forgetting that the forces pulling itself away from the center are insignificant because they're cancelled out by the forces pulling in the opposite direction. The force that really effects things is the pull from the surface to the center because that has all the weight behind it.
Also keep in mind planets are all molten and shit when they're forming so they're plenty malleable. They also take a ludicrous amount of time to form so it's not difficult to see how they form spheroids
Stellarparallax proves we move around the sun
Really? Can it be observed, tested or falsified? No, which makes it religious faith just like everything else in your failed model. Notice you refute NONE of the main points: that Polaris is unmoving and can be seen from well below the equator, that this has been the case throughout the history of navigation and recorded history. Instead you rely on an appeal to ignorance: that stellar parallax exists, no you can't see it for yourself goys but take my word for it. You shills are already being consigned to the trash heap of medieval superstition.
Aristotle didn't have a good understanding of metaphysics. Nikola Tesla calls the Ether the mediator. It mediates everything that happens in the universe. Light is field perturbations, it is not a particle nor is a wave (and definitely not a particle-wave duality). When people speak about light they speak about a wave, the first question that comes to mind is a wave of what. The answer they usually come up with is a wave of electromagnetism. I ask how does electromagnetism move. Another question I ask is how can light be a particle. A flashlight does not emit light, and it definitely doesn't emit particles. Of course, what light truly is is field perturbations. One could look at light and see a particle and a wave, the wave is truly the pulse of the field and the wave is a creation of that field. Really, light is just a pinch in the Ether.
You've got it wrong, anything that cannot be confirmed through scientific method - ie testable, repeatable and falsifiable - is "pseudoscience". Modern astronomy fits this bill 100%.
Even ancient Greeks knew the earth was round.
the wave is truly the pulse of the field and the wave is a creation of that field
Sorry, I meant the particle is the pulse of the field and the wave is a creation of the field.
How would you explain the motion of the planets about the sun?
Incoherent inertia due to a massive amount of matter grouping together. I say incoherent inertia because like incoherent light it is not acting as one thing. Coherent inertia would be much stronger, it would make up the difference between a magnet (coherent) and a lump of iron (incoherent). The earth is constantly accelerating towards the sun but never moving closer. Why does a ball not instantly fall when you throw it?
Of course, a magnet is not coherent inertia. It is coherent matter, only allowed due to the permeability of an object. Iron just happens to have high permeability. Inertia is not the same thing as magnetism. Magnetism is sort of a loop, gravity is more or less straight (nothing in the universe is truly straight). The center of the diagram is the plain of inertia. It's blue.
But user you CAN see stellar parallax. The Ptolemaic system of the universe believed stars were stationary in a sphere around the Earth, but with modern telescopes you CAN see stellar parallax. The reason you wouldnt be able to see it for the north star is that due to it being directly above us(compared to say on the same plane as our orbit) the angle of parallax would be much smaller and you likely would not see it DUE TO THE FACT that it happens to be an interesting coincidence that it is a star lined up with our northern pole.
Protip: the "north star" as we know it has changed throughout history. The Romans used a different star as their north star. The north star is just whatever star happens to be pointed at by our northern pole(which does change direction ever so slightly over thousands of years)
You have yet to address the phases of venus I see. To explain it to you, Venus appears much larger when it is a crescent(once again you can observe this yourself with simple telescope) and it appears much smaller when it is full. This seems to make sense of the fact that Venus is orbiting around the sun, and when it is a crescent it is closer and therefor bigger as it is between Earth and the sun. When it is full it is on the complete other side of the sun.
If we do have a flat Earth one can only assume other planets are flat disks as well(correct me if I'm wrong on current meme theory) then it doesnt seem to make much sense as to how this happens. Or even how the moon would have phases for that matter.
The scientific method is only one aspect of science. Let me reiterate that there is no such thing as "one science" it is NOT a uniform idea and it is NOT one size fits all. There are MANY theories and philosophies of science. You sound like a redditor who says that science is their religion
Some posited the earth was curved since ships seemed to disappear over the horizon, but that was only because telescopes hadn't been invented yet.
But user you CAN see stellar parallax
Uh huh. Sure are a lot of those in modern astronomy.
Romans used a different star as their north star
More appeals to ignorance. The Romans had a different North Star that remained stationary over the North Pole as all other stars rotated around it. No really, take my word for it.
Do you believe this phenomenon is caused by reflected sunlight? How about the moon? Is the moon repeating the same 8 phases every month - regardless of the sun's position - due to reflected sunlight?
The scientific method is only one aspect of science
Ha. Nice apologizing for religious faith. If anyone needs to go back to reddit it's you, with the rest of the self unaware zealots.
Go outside at night and pick a non-north meme star. Note its location. Go outside at night 180 days later. Look at the same star. How queer it appears that it moved relative to other things inthe sky!
yaddaydadda coincidences never happen
Kepler put together a ratio of platonic solids that predicted planetary distance at a decent level of accuracy. This surely must prove that God did have a blueprint for the universe! Me on the other hand think this happens to be a curious coincidence.
the universe is unchanging throughout history
This is just silly senpai. There is no reason to think that in as a chaotic a universe we live in that things stay stationary relative to eachother.
Yes? Unless you mean to tell me the moon and venus both generate their own light?
The Romans actually didn't have a pole star. Like the Greeks, their indicator for north was in the space inbetween a couple constellations. Look up Pytheas
Look at the same star. How queer it appears that it moved relative to other things inthe sky
This isn't parallax. Try this: paint a bunch of stars on your ceiling. Pick one and notice where it resides among the others. Walk to the other side of the room and look at it again. Did those stars on the ceiling change? No, as evidenced by the fact that walking back to your original position "resets" them.
unless you mean to tell me the moon and venus both generate their own light?
I don't need to tell you, it's quite obvious with the unaided eye. The phases never reverse or alter in any way relative to the sun's position. Also convex surfaces do not and cannot reflect light in that way.
Cultures have been navigating using Polaris since before the romans or greeks.
Parallax won't affect stars painted on your ceiling because they're literally on a 2D plane. Also, in your scenario, they still would not appear to be moving relative to each other. Real stars do.
It is parallax when one star is closer than the other. Do the same meme you just described in your room but suspend a ball from the ceiling and focus on the ball. Youll see its moved in reference to its background
No they didn't, or they simply weren't using it as the pole star. Before Polaris they used Thuban, then when that moved away there wasn't a pole star for a thousand or so years. It was in the 16th century that Polaris became viable for navigation. Remember Pytheas. He described the pole as a void.
In another thousand years Polaris will have moved on and we'll have a new pole star. It's a consequence of precession.
No it wood not. Maybe the cellulose would but oxidation by O2 is not the only chemical reaction that takes plase
Sure we can. The universe isn't shrinking by the very definition of size. Size is always relative so you cannot describe the size of the universe with anything except things inside it.
also, in your scenario, they still would not appear to be moving relative to each other. Real stars do.
"Appear" being the key word. If they were actually moving away from each other they wouldn't return to their original positions.
Before Polaris they used Thuban
You mean the same Thuban that revolves around Polaris - so named for it's unmoving position above the North Pole - just like every other star in every other constellation? Funny how that unfalsifiable "fact" was come up with in only the last 50 years.
then when that moved away there wasn't a pole star for a thousand or so years.
can't wait to see the sauce on this. I'm sure you have one right?
It was in the 16th century that Polaris became viable for navigation.
Wew lad. See: Vikings, Persians and ancient Egyptians.
why can you not determine both the position and momentum of an electron?
i understand that the particle itself is said to be "entirely probability" and either one has to be found using a waveform, but if the required waveform of each is used, the other results as 0.
i just don't understand how an object that does in fact have mass, however tiny, can be "entirely probability". like, it is actually moving and it is actually in a point in space. is the math just not there to find both or what?
If you direct your attention to the lovely diagram here in a heliocentric orbit the stars will appear to move back to where they originally were after completing one orbit around the sun.
Wanna know the real difference between pseudoscience and science? Science finds new things to show evidence that makes a theory stronger, or comes accross evidence providing a new theory.
Pseudoscientist flat memers just find excuses as to why empirical observations and logic doesn't apply to their universe.
Polaris actually revolved around Thuban during its time as pole star. Then when Polaris took its place Thuban revolved around Polaris. That's the thing about being the pole star, everything seems to revolve around it because it sits right on the pole. In a thousand years it'll be in the constellation Cepheus and Polaris and Thuban will revolve around it.
I'll give you that Polaris has been used for navigation before it became pole star due to its proximity to the pole, but it didn't show accurate north until the 16th century. Remember Pytheas. The pole was devoid of stars in 320 BC
If you believe in quantum physics you should also believe in parallel universes.
So there must be at least one parallel universe out there where the earth is flat.
Just a heads up: This is the universe where the earth is flat but scientists didn't figure it out yet.
heliocentric orbit the stars will appear to move back to where they originally were after completing one orbit around the sun
implying they don't move back during the supposed orbit
Funny how they're all still visible while the earth is supposedly on the other side of the sun too, huh? Funny how the lunar phases don't reverse either.
Pseudoscientist flat memers just find excuses as to why empirical observations and logic doesn't apply to their universe
You haven't provided a single piece of empirical evidence so far. Do you even know the definition? You're describing your own pseudoscience. I can prove through time lapse photography Polaris is stationary and that the constellations revolve around it. Your rebuttal is baseless claims like "there was no North Star for 1,000 years". When called on it you simply abandon the argument and shift goalposts. Keep bullshitting all you want but you're not fooling anybody.
Unfalsifiable, untestable and zero evidence, just like every spherecuck argument. You also conveniently ignore how a tilted, wobbling ball orbiting around a sun which itself is supposedly orbiting the galaxy at hundreds of thousands of mph would have an unmoving pole star perched directly over it in the same spot. Observation, scientific experiment and common sense are your biggest enemies, which is why you avoid them at all costs.
It's not unmoving. It does move, has moved, and is moving. Remember Pytheas. The pole was devoid of stars 2000 years ago but in the 16th century a star was sitting on the pole that was then name Polaris because of it. Was Pytheas just lying to get everyone to buy into his round Earth conspiracy? Even the video you posted shows Polaris making a small circle, clearly demonstrating that it's revolving just like everything else in the sky.
Now I'm curious, how does the flat Earth model explain the apparent retrograde motion of Mars?
Funny, the only "discovery" I can find attributed to him is midnight sun in the arctic region which happens to be a fairly major FE proof.
retrograde motion of mars
The paths of wandering stars is indeed curious, always has been. No doubt why the greeks and romans made gods out of them. I could direct you to Tycho Brahe of course but that would be descriptive, not explanative. The honest answer is I don't know, hence the inevitability of a religious alternative (people will always prefer make believe knowledge to an honest I don't know). Scientism says it's because of gravity. What is gravity? That which explains heliocentrism. How do we heliocentrism is real? Gravity. The logic is pure tautology based on nothing but conjecture and faith yet people will defend it with all the certainty of a muslim defending the quran since it's what they've been taught their entire life. I want real answers to such questions (what are stars, what shape is earth etc) hence my passion for the subject.
how much energy is needed to create black hole that could destroy earth in less than a millennium?
how do we know that the speed of light doesn't change over time?
I can never work out whether people like you are trolls or not. I'm all for scientific debate, but you're the kind of person who will never be happy with whatever the official explanation is. You're either someone who is extremely scientifically knowledgeable and is toying with people who are less so, or you're just a retarded conspiracy monger who has no desire to ever be told any truth other than his own.
I'll just leave these here:
For inquiring minds who want to know…
btw, the aether is solid. Lerner explains it perfectly in his fantastic book, "The Big Bang Never Happened". A worthwhile read.
Cosmologists of today are little more than religionists. They have a lot of faith in their theories, and they make sure that all their observations, which are not many fit their precious beliefs and faith paradigms.
…I AM DISAPPOINT
The Ayy LMAOs are proud of your work and wish to say:
protip: physicists h8 it!
Not OP here.
One of many links you could find:
There's loads of good shit out there about inconsistencies in the measurements of the speed of light, besides some interesting theories about the speed of light slowing down.
Do some research of your own.
Maybe make some measurements.
Surely personal observations still have value in Physics! Oh Wait!…Not so much?
It's all filamentary, dear Watson!
You are right that these things are theories and not the truth. But just because they are theories does NOT mean they are wrong. If you read the works of Ptolemy, Brahe, Kepler, and Copernicus, they all had very good empirical evidence to support their theories
For instance, in Ptolemy's time it was a philosophical fact that planets moved in perfect circles. So his system of the universe (the first six planets, the sun, and the stars in a giant sphere) involved the use of epicycles. This system was modified by Copernicus to place the sun in the center of the universe due to the fact that it made predictions match the empirical observation better.
Right now we basically use Keplers revolutionary idea of elliptical orbits. Once again this is a theory no scientist worth his salt says this is the truth. It just so happens that our current theory of the universe has the most accurate mathematical predictive power in the location of planets. Until you can provide anything of substance other than Xdxdxdxd Theory religion *tiptip* Flat memes! Then you could stop being such a poor troll.
A perfect example of how stupid most scientists have always been. Gotta make dem observations fit da theories, right?
You are right tho. We may as well surrender fully to the Flat Earth Theory now. It is so obviously correct! And it's a newer theory, so it must be correct. We're going back and believing in ancient theories like the planets revolving around the sun; ancient theories that only ignorant folks from the Sumerian, Akkadian, Babylonian, Egyptian and Indus Valley civilizations believed in! How ignorant they were! Relying on actual observations, when it is obvious that mental masturbations are FAR more important!
Light isn't a speed. It does not does move. Light inducts.
re-asking come on guys
How do you measure mass in space?
Are greg egan's books on this shit gud, or just pseudoscience?
Do electrons freeze at absolute 0?
I know there's a star that's surrounded by ice, because the water is in such a crystaline structure that lets it stay solid even at high temperature. How, and why do crystals act that way? Could we recreate it on earth?
he doesn't know who fagoli is
did you know time is a concept of the human mind? if so, how does one crack through them-self into infinite timelines?
Electrons are not particles. In fact, electrons don't even exist.
I suggest this book to anyone who is interested.
care to elaborate?
what, are they just little blips of negatively charged energy? i was under the impression they actually do have a tiny tiny mass and make up a tiny tiny tiny amount of the space in an atom.
Electrons are the destruction, or resistance of electricity. They don't exist. Please read . You should have a much, much better understanding of it after. Be careful, the words might be too advanced for you. Took me a solid month just to get past the language barrier.
Just to explain it simply, there is no rest mass of an electron. Electrons have such an impossibly low amount of mass that either: an electron is a bubble or an electron is a very, very, very small particle. It's not likely that an electron is a small particle (AC generators simply wont make sense if they were). We're left with a bubble that expands and compresses. This is also impossible because even the slightest change of electrical current would cause the bubble to burst.
if both of those are impossible, then what could they be? is the blunt answer that we simply don't understand them well enough to explicitly determine what their nature is except for negatively charged?
i will check it out for sure, looks really interesting. but good lord those reviews are all over the place. it seems everyone either thinks this guy is a long-winded visionary or a complete retard. is the field this divided over everything?
We know the universe came from the big bang.
What i want to know is, where do the forces of physics come from?
we know the universe came from the big bang.
Just how, exactly?
Did the AYY LMAOs tell you?
There is no such thing as a negative charge in nature. There is charge and discharge. You don't call the water inside a cup one thing and the act of pouring out the water another. Like I've said, electrons are the destruction/resistance of electricity. They are not real, they are not actually a thing. They're bumps in the flow of electricity.
electrons don't even exist.
But they can kill me if there's enough pressure behind them. How can something that doesn't exist, affect me? Keep in mind, I'm not trying to argue their existence, I'm just throwing the question out there. How does that which does not exist yet can still be felt and used, exist?
Jesus Christ physics scares me. More specifically: Quantum Physics.
You can feel a shadow but a shadow isn't real. You can feel space but space isn't real. You can feel time but time isn't real. Time is a measure of magnitude, space is a qualifier for something else, and a shadow is the absence (obstruction) of light.
Mots keep delleting this. Hurry, save this.