eurekajo

I am trying to research vomiting on google, however the websites lack helpful data. For instance, if a human is vomitting yellow, they call it bile reflux. But this doesn't make sense, because if the patient has cramping, and yet the online symptoms of bile reflux doesn't say anything about cramping, then it is probably not bile reflux. First of all, lets say a patient has normal vomitting, but then vomitting bile, and cramps, well is it norovirus or the stomach flu, or is it maybe something else? Because lets say the first vomit doesnt smell like regular vomit, but a bit like rotten eggs or feces.

I'll believe it when I see it. So far all I see are some space shuttles exploding, Apollo 13 and gasoline automobiles. When we live in a utopia where we can teleport, travel the speed of light, and play internet games with no lag I will give the godhood medal to them. Science hasn't uncovered the mysteries of the universe, says its still looking for answers to the hidden secrets. Until they find all these hidden secrets, I remain a skeptic. Like, I'll hire a scientist on my team of inventors, to make computers or new tech. But I'm not gonna have much faith on their ability to answer philosophical questions or give me reliable answers about the fate of the universe. Not yet anyway. Like Newton for instance. I'd hire him to build me a car. But his equations are not compatible with higher truths of the universe, or at least, so it seems. The equations only work within their applied boundaries. Same probably applies to modern science. I've heard Steven Hawking actually go back and denounce some of his own old views and theories. Can science explain how my consciousness ended up in my body, in the xyz coordinates of my brain? No. But there has to be some reason why. My brain has specific spatial coordinates. I don't see how I answered my own question. But lets use the energy equation since I didn't use it before. E=0.5*m*v*v. If light has no mass, then it has no energy. Yet, science says the energy of 1 photon is E 3.78 e-19 J. Therefore a photon has mass. But let's say you say, Newton is wrong, his equations don't matter. Check the Einstein equation. The Einstein equation says this. E²=(mc²)²+(pc)². Google says, "Besides being important for calculations on everything from celestial mechanics to rocketry, it's also important proof why anything with mass can't travel at the speed of light". How does it prove this? 3.78e-19*3.78e-19=(m*299,792,458*299,792,458)*(m*299,792,458*299,792,458)+(m*299,792,458*299,792,458)*(m*299,792,458*299,792,458) Notice how in his equation, (mc²)² and (pc)² comes out to the same thing when applied to light. In any case, in order for his equation to be correct, you need the photon to have mass. P=m*v. I know what special relativity says about mass, it says if you have mass you can't go the speed of light. But in terms of the universe, that seems a bit strange mathematically don't you think? Isn't odd how all things in the universe are clamped to an arbitrary speed? Almost feels like it could be a computer simulation, where speeds are limited to a max constraint, or max float. Have you ever wondered why, all things in the universe cannot exceed a certain speed? Light is always moving, so it is impossible to measure it's rest mass. As to the reason light is always moving, I am not entirely sure. My guess is that, light has so little mass that when it touches any object, it immediately ricochets at a high speed. To be honest this makes more sense to me than just saying a massless particle. Now I have a few questions. Why does light slow down based on the medium it is in? Also, why does light have 100% elasticity to where it does not lose velocity during richochet. Most bewildering is the idea that light is a particle. Because it seems to me, that light is simply a ripple of space, tearing through space. This would explain that why it bounces off something, it just loses it's frequency, eventually flat lining into nothing. But apparently it is a particle, which basically tosses that theory out the window What kind of particle? Electron or ion? It doesn't look like one particle to me. It looks like several. This implies that reality is actually juxtaposed of several different dimensions competing for the airspace of our consciousness. I said it was about acceleration. But the rest sounds like circular logic to me.

I woke up this morning with light staring in my eyes. And I thought about the vastness of the universe, and how light is so much faster than human beings. It seemed unfair to me. But then I realized that it's not about fair or unfair, but the coldness of the physics. Light doesn't have morality, it just obeys the physics laws. It doesn't choose what speed to go, it just goes whatever speed it goes. And that was when I started thinking about this. So this morning I googled whether light is massless particle, google tells me light is a massless particle but I don't believe it. If light had no mass, how would a laser have knock back force? Here is a conversation I found on google. If a photon has momentum, then it has mass. The momentum equation is momentum=m*v. If a photon has no mass, then it has no momentum. Here is an article from math.ucr.edu http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/ParticleAndNuclear/photon_mass.html The article seems illogical and doesn't make sense to me. Again, if a photon has a very, very small amount of momentum, then it's momentum is equal to m*c. This means it has a very, very tiny amount of mass. But not a non-zero amount of mass. Also, I view how the universe works as slightly different from most physicists. The way I view it, the heavier the object is, the harder it is to accelerate it. But this applies to everything, it's totally uniform. Light doesn't go infinitely fast because it has mass slowing it down. Anything with mass cannot go infinitely fast. The idea that something could go infinitely fast, would mean that it would have no mass, and thus would not exist, at least not in our human carnal frame of reference.

Thanks guys, makes sense to me now.

Nobody really knows.

I mean, I understand that if I am on the outside edge of a door, it is easier to push the door. But I don't truly deeply understand this in terms of its relationship to the P=f*v equation or f=m*a, because the mass of the gears seems actually irrelevant to the equation, people often just consider them as zero mass and focus on the final movement of the load. I mean, I was the type of student that got an A+ on my high school physics final after only studying for one day. I think I am not understanding this because I am missing a crucial piece of information. If you could just explain what I'm not getting, or send me a video, I think I could probably understand what I'm thinking incorrectly in 5 minutes or less.

The purpose of consciousness, is to make us suffer.

Hello. I want to clarify something. I understand Real physics, like as an Engineer and Mechanic. For example, I understand how to Build a car with the correct gear ratios, I understand what the drivetrain does as well. The math of the equations I also understand, the math is very easy for me. What I don't understand is the theory, or philosophy of the equations. In real life, I know that a small gear rotating fast, will give a large, slow gear much strength. But I don't truly understand why it does, it seems like magic to me. When I look at the equations I just get more confused about this. What I'm trying to figure out is what is the equation to determine the final force? If I'm operating 2 gears, what is the amount of force that the final gear gives? For instance, P=f*v. But the larger gear has less velocity, therefore less power? The equation doesn't make sense. Force=mass*acceleration. The larger gear is being accelerated with less speed, the equation doesn't make sense. It seems like the force is a virtual idea, that has nothing to do with the gears themselves. For instance, if the small gear is made of steel, rotating 100 times a second, and the large gear is made of strong plastic, rotating 10 times a second, according to the equation the small gear will have more force, even though it doesn't. Thus I must be understanding it incorrectly. What I'm trying to figure out is what is the equation to determine the final force. If I'm operating 2 gears, and I give gearA 10N of torque, what is the amount of force that the final gear gives, if the final gear has half the radius of the original gear.