danny8522003

Im not one of the smart people, but what your saying makes sense.

If you search for "The Radioactive Boyscout" you'll find a thread on it, or you could click here.

I saw something about that on a TV documentry, it's known as "The Big Bump" theory. From what i can remember, it states that our Universe collised with another one in a higher dimension as darkkazier said. I found articles on it here and here.

It is difficult to define an arrow of time, especially on a subatomic level because all processes can happen both backwards and forwards yet still be within the laws of physics. This could happen in the real world too. For example, you 'could' unstir sugar from your coffee or 'unshuffle' a deck of cards, the only problem is the likelihood of this happening is so small it can be ignored. I.e. the probability of further shuffling a shuffled deck of cards and getting them in the order you started with originally is about as likely as winning the National Lottery on 9 consecutive draws! I read somewhere about the "arrow of time". It has something to do with entropy, which is a level of "orderedness", and the second law of thermodynamics. A low entropy is more "ordered" than high entropy. It is stated that the level of entropy must always increase within a system. E.g. unstirring the sugar would be an increase in entropy and would therefore violate the second law. From this the arrow of time will always point towards increasing entropy and is known as the thermodynamic arrow of time.

Im sure intelligence isnt the answer to how things are formed from energy, as Klaynos says it just follows the rules. Following the rules a certain way (I.e. having more than one choice) lead to the state the Universe is in now.

What would be the point in an advanced civilisation sterilising the Universe?

It wouldnt. But there would be less redshifts and probably some more blueshifts too.

Quite right

Ok, i just read that positive mass and negative or 'exotic' mass would repel each other. So ... I have no idea lol

Jim Al-Khalili

I wouldnt have thought so because time is not a spacial dimension. The fact we live in a 3D universe implies that the sphere we may be on has to be 4D. In the same way the surface of a ball is 2D (discount the thickness) but the ball requires 3D in order to exist...

If this thread is still answerable, i debated for a while with a friend of mine about this and came up with the following conclusion based upon his arguement. Say the star is moving at x ms-1 will emit a wavelength per second as will a second object at 2x ms-1. The first object will have a whole wave length emitted at these points. . . . . . . . . . . . -> The second at these points . . . . . . . . . . . . . -> Because the started at the same point the front end of the 2 photons will be in the same place. But because the final emitting point is in a different place it will mean the photon is more spread out and its wave length longer. The energy is all there. In this sense the space craft does not change the speed of the photon and nor does the star. But it does change the place from which it is emitted or received. Concerning e=hf the frequency is lowered. Imagine how long it takes for one wavelength to pass you from end to end. The speed is constant. The longer wavelength will take longer to pass. By inversing this (1/time) you get the frequency. This leaves the energy lower. Basically e=hf will only measure the energy of a source assuming it is relatively still.

Lol yea, this thing about singularities has always bothered me. I guess my maths skills arent up to the job of understanding it without a bit of explanation. Thanks for your help

Isnt a quasar just a name for an object that gives off very energetic radio waves? Nothing can go faster than the speed of light without using up infinite energy, which is impossible..

Ah i see - thanks for the explanation

Ingredients OF Glass: Silica Sand 60% Soda Ash 20% Limestone 15% Alumina-Silicate 4% Salt Cake 0.9% Minor Ingredients 0.1% As for sandy beaches, im guessing it is due to erosion of sandstone or are biogenic and created by coral reefs ad washed to shore. Im not an expert, just hazarding a guess...

I think i understand now, thank you BobbyJoe .

I couldnt make up my mind and so turned to my trusty friend Google and found this: Pretty self explanatory...

Could you dumb that down a bit please, it's a bit early in the morning . You mean because photons are never at rest, their rest mass is not useful in most applications?

He means the overall sphere is 3D and the surface, as you said, is 2D. I see exactly what you mean James, sounds the same sort of anology as i read elsewhere.

Well i found someone that did do the maths: http://www.jimloy.com/physics/negative.htm Surely then the negative mass of the white hole would therefore fall into the black hole like the negative mass falling to Earth? http://www.concentric.net/~pvb/negmass.html So if the black hole was Earth, then a small white hole would fall into it would it not? Please correct me if this is total pig swill ...

Ok, i didnt realise he was talking about rest mass which indeed would be 0, although the overall mass of a photon would be what i stated if it was not at rest though right? I didnt realise the full equation was that, never seen it written like that at all before. This made for interesting reading .

But we're talking about gravity not magnetism, would that matter? What im saying is that they dont interact like magnets, instead one attracts and one repels. As well, black holes have (+) mass and white holes have (-) mass, and would therefore attract?

Well, they may cause atoms to emit other particles which will then cause ionisation, but overall they arent as effective as Alpha or Beta. I found this here. Also, This was found here I have a feeling this may have something to do with Einstein's Photoelectric Equation or hf = phi + Ke. I hope someone with greater knowledge can shed further light on this? Btw, gamma rays do not have 0 mass unless they are at rest, which they never are. Therefore because they have energy they must have mass according to e=mc^2. Edit: Just found this. Edit 2: Calculated mass of a gamma photon at 1x10^20Hz to weigh 2.2x10^-22 Kg.

No, they wouldnt be heavily ionising because they have such a small mass and have no charge. The ability to ionise decreases through Alpha Beta Gamma.