someguy

no the amount of energy is not relative. an object is energy. at the end of the day everything in the universe is energy. there's stuff that doesn't exist.. nothing.. (but there is no nothing because if there were then it would be something) and then there's energy. most energy is in fact motion. E=mc^2 means that a small quantity of matter is a huge amount of energy, if you look at what matter is made up of most of it is motion. when you move an object you are adding energy to it, thus making it more massive. there is a set quantity of energy in the universe and any type of energy is a fraction of that energy. it is a set quantifiable thing not relative to anything else. it doesn't matter whether or not the pool balls are moving slowly or not, the point is if one is moving and the other is not then it is different and identifiable regardless of your frame of reference. just because we don't have tools precise enough to notice the difference in mass for objects moving so slowly compared to each other doesn't matter. things don't really change when you move faster they just become more noticeable. I'm pretty sure this is the answer you are looking for, it took me a while of thinking about it, your question really had me confused. but i think this is it. the more you learn about relativity the more it will be intuitive. I'm pretty certain you don't have that intuitive understanding of relativity yet since you seem to believe it may be flawed in some way and that you can find the flaw. but that's ok it will help you learn. it can be refined for sure added to something else. but it's your skepticism will help you get that intuitive understanding of it, questions like the one you asked. nothing starts off intuitive. even things you seem to have known intuitively your whole life were lifetime achievements of discovery for someone else. weird huh? intuition is learned, even though it pretty much means knowledge without learning. intuition really means in my opinion to have well learned. if you are still stumped think about why and ask the question to what is stumping you. my point was exactly that before 1904 they couldn't solve this problem, we are after 1904 now and the problem is solved. traveling at the speed of light is impossible because the faster you move the more massive you become therefore the more energy you need to increase your speed the faster you are going. remember matter is energy motion is energy everything is energy. when you increase the speed of something you're not making more matter but you're adding more of the ingredients matter is made of. if you grid this out in a graph or just imagine what one would be like then you would notice that there would be an imaginary line your curve could never touch. that speed where the imaginary line is also the speed at which light travels.

your question is interesting. I agree that this is somewhat fundamental and i can't believe that einstein couldn't answer you appropriately i'm not sure if i really found the best explanation let me know what you guys think. but i know for certain that if you qualify the universe as infinite mass, for the sake of argument, i do not require an infinite amount of energy to move even though from my reference frame an infinite amount of mass is moved.... I think the answer may be like this. If you look at the twin paradox, you could say that the spaceship was stationary and therefore when you arrive back on earth the people on earth should have aged much less than you since it was the earth that was moving in relation to you in the spaceship if we chose the spaceship as the reference frame and changed nothing else. as your velocity increases your mass increases, energy is all that of which the world is made of, by adding velocity to an object your are changing the object. this independent of any frame of reference. when you add energy to a pool ball the pool ball is different. that's why the twin paradox can work because independently from any frame of reference the spaceship is moving closer to the speed of light, the spaceship acquired the extra energy used to propel itself faster through time, not the planet earth. in your pool ball experiment the 5 ball never changed state. it never acquired any extra energy. the cue ball transferred energy from itself to the 1 ball. this is a fact independent of any frame of reference. so nothing is really contradicted though it seems like it is. therefore you are confused because you can say that the energy of one ball caused two balls to move. but only one ball is ever moving and you can know this because if we assume that all the balls were of equal mass, when moving at equal speeds, then one ball in this case will always be more massive than the other two, and that's the one moving, regardless of your frame of reference. so then i think that your problem may be a Newtonian problem, that is in fact fixed by relativity, rather than a problem with relativity.

well as i understand it if you managed to move at the speed of light you would arrive instantaneously at your destination from your perspective. so then i guess it would follow that if you could move faster than light it wouldn't just seem like you arrived somewhere before you left. from your perspective that would need to have actually happened to you. so then you would have reverse aged... but if you are aging backwards whose flying your spaceship? how are you gonna stop it again? even your computer would be reverse aging. i don't know how you'd do this even for moving only at the speed of light. the main thing is though, that you can't go the speed of light or faster so imagining what it would be like is sort of a moot point. it's the same kind of impossible like wondering what it would be like to move slower than stopped. there isn't any technology or knowledge that will help you to do that.

ya but do we really want cyborgs? at first i hated the idea just because it seemed unnatural but then i thought that it could be the best thing for mankind since we could achieve a whole new collective enlightenment by enhancing our minds and connecting them directly, but then i thought that the first thing this technology will be used for is warfare, well maybe not the first, the first would be for handicapped the second for warfare. and i don't like that idea much at all. but man i would love to be hooked up directly to whole orchestra or something, the cyborg musical instrument would be virtually limitless at least all the way until that last 90% of your brain is used up or whatever percentage it is that's not being used.

ya... i guess it would. well.. we could send a whole bunch of dead plants up there to rot or alot of fertilizer of some sort.. but i guess the problem is that anything we bring over there we don't have here anymore.

Blue cristal--> Some times just few individuals ( pioneers ) can even start a new species through accidental geographical separation after hundreds or thousands generations. Sayonara--> I take it you meant a new population, rather than a new species. This is actually very rare in higher animals, because they almost invariably have a less tolerant generational viability threshold than things like moss and asexual organisms. well then my bad i guess. i saw this on your post and i thought you were saying that it is rare for higher animals to evolve because of a change in their geographical location. And so i posted that i thought that this and an arms race between species are the only factors i can think of that cause the evolution of higher animals. If my post seemed out of context then either i misunderstood your post or I wrote mine badly or something.

I think basically the god thing would need to be changed from god created life to god created energy. which is somewhat the same thing but different. if you believe in god this technically would not contradict the bible so much as updating the terms in order to accommodate our increased knowledge of the universe.

I can't say for certain that that time has meaning for photons or not, but since i've heard this from other sources i strongly believe it does. the faster you move, from your perspective, the less time it takes you to move from point a to point b (differently from an observer. i mean it in the relativity sense not the Newtonian one). at some point you should be able to arrive at point b from point a instantaneously (from your perspective), that would seem to need to be the limit of speed since you couldn't possibly get there faster than instantly. But arriving somewhere in an instant would seem to be an impossible feat. so then this speed would need to be impossible for you to reach. It would make sense that this speed would be the speed of light since it is the speed limit of matter, and if light moves at this speed then it would be able to arrive to point b in an instant, from its perspective, not a stationary observer. I know that was a far cry from proof but I find it sort of makes time not having meaning for light make more sense, it settles with me better. maybe the point where you can arrive instantly is beyond the speed of light but i find it's sort of more tidy if it coincides with the speed of light.

I would have to disagree with this statement. change of environment is a large factor of why all creatures evolve or how they evolve. there's environment and other animals changing like an arms race. humans even evolved because of environment. but probably not from moving very quickly to a completely new environment, but moving to one that is sufficiently the same so that they don't die out in the first couple of generations and yet is different enough to value different genetic traits. I agree with you, but could it be possible if for example, just for the sake of argument, that the planet was flooded, birds could fly to higher ground some creatures could climb to safer ground and those that could swim could swim. there may be one scenario that is ideal for many very different traits that can all compensate in their own way. that's why i think it would be helpful to know all the traits of the creatures that survived in their KT period state. if there were many volcanoes in this period then maybe also swimming animals could survive even being cold blooded by finding refuge in waters warmed by volcanic activity, and birds fly to volcanic zones while being able to stay above the hot lava.

mass distorting space time is like a weight in a trampoline wherever the weight is the environment around it is distorted if it moves the space around it reverts back to its original state. if not planets could not orbit consistently. well.. they could be running in a groove but for that groove to establish in the first place would be impossible and when foreign bodies like comets and asteroids fly through the solar system it would affect the planets as they move through that part of space, maybe only slightly, but over time planets would end up colliding with each other because there would be a minor adjustment every time they move through that part of space.

let's ship all of our excess CO2 to mars and then plant a bunch of plants there (genetically altered to live there) and have them convert it to O2. i don't much like the idea of living underground though. I'm not sure if it's really such a good idea to mess with the mass of mars either because then you might mess up the whole solar system. mars is about 1/3 the gravity of earth.. how much more would it need to be to be usable? How much more can it increase before putting mars on a messy trajectory? that gets me wondering too... we all know that the earth could be hit by a deadly asteroid.. but what are the changes that an asteroid indirectly destroys us by colliding with another small planet? I guess the bigger the planet the bigger the asteroid needs to be to really cause some raucous, which is kinda good cause the bigger ones are the easiest to hit. I guess the chances must be pretty remote since i think our solar system has been pretty much the same for quite a while. anybody know how long has it been pretty stable for? are we due?

Personally i hate that. before western poisoning i find that the asian, though still flawed in some areas like foot binding and stuff, was far superior to western culture. I hate europeen culture for what they did to them, all because of their greed. but I don't think all asian countries prefer western and idolize it though i would say that they are more divided to western accepting and western non-accepting. If i had things my way we would revert to a system of government resembling that of china in the qing dynasty before cixi screwed it up. but still making minor changes one of which is to prevent women like cixi from doing what she did. the western world is poisoning their minds and i hate that. and now we are figuring out the western way is ruining the planet... nice. but ya i think wealth and technology is a big influence people are easily tricked into finding it prestigious, it is human nature to love toys and trinkets. older china did a better job of emphasizing the importance of better things, namely knowledge and education. being a teacher was one of the most prestigious positions apart from high government officials and for example in korea the word for "sir" prestigious title, polite title to give to a stranger is teacher. here if you have alot of stuff you're admired. and now the world has too much stuff. we are corrupt foreigners.

granted species are made of individuals and one individual will influence the genetic profile of his population, but this would take a whole lot of time and requires other factors. human beings are born with genetic mutations all the time but without other forces at play (reasons for them to die or not die due to these mutations) this has not and will not change the species as a whole. I don't know if i would say that individual pioneers really 'start' a new species. granted if they get geographically separated a new specie could emerge but how can you say who started it? maybe no mutations took place from the pioneers and only further generations later. would you still say the pioneers started it in that case? what if the natural conditions slowly changed over time and the species adapted? who started that one? is it really different if your environment changes around you or if you move to a different environment? what if it was both? before technology changing environment was probably pretty much as gradual as if the environment slowly changed around you. it may take generations to travel somewhere where the environment is significantly different. it's like the chicken and the egg... literally. it would be a slow process requiring a community and the resulting specie would be a mix of the whole gene pool intermixing over generations. not really individuals one individual can't change specie so then necessarily it needs to be specie dynamics. maybe this is what you meant, and if so then i think you were both right. back to the dinosaurs how fast did it take for these species to go extinct? it wasn't just small creatures that survived it wasn't just birds that survived, it wasn't just creatures with fur, i think there must be something else we are missing. a quick reproductive cycle is a good one but going on size is not really conclusive parrots live as long as we do and turtles live a really long time and they're old. maybe i'm wrong but i don't think we could really know at what rate the species that died reproduced more frequently than the others. crocodiles live for like 40-50 years. but really what matters is how often they "give birth" and from what i can tell most animals do that once a year birds or otherwise, insects tend to do it. crocodiles and turtes don't really seem well suited to withstand the cold, and apparently creatures everywhere went extinct, if animals developed ways or resisting cold by evolution, they would have needed to live where it gets cold. birds migrate though, so maybe that has something to do with it, maybe the animals that migrate were slightly more adapted to cold and so they managed to survive. but crocodiles don't migrate and don't seem well adapted for cold either.

so photons can't annihilate?

shock quartz around the entire planet? i'm not exactly sure what you mean, how does the current theory explain how the quartz got shocked? what i find strange about the theory that an asteroid caused all this raucus is that the crater looks round on the earth tody, doesn't it? but the earth at this period in history was much different. even in that specific part http://www.scotese.com/images/066.jpg maybe the ability to climb trees or fly or swim was crucial to survival and all land animals that couldn't do this drowned. or couldn't eat the food in the trees that poked out of the water or ice and their usual food that grew closer to the ground was covered. but still you would think that if food was the problem the carnivores may have have lasted the longest apart maybe for small animals because they would still have food until all the other creatures died and even then they could start eating themselves. what's the leading suspected cause of death of the dinosaurs we've found so far?

but also things like crocodiles survived, and they aren't particularly small like birds. i think wondering why only birds survived is not necessarily the most helpful thing to finding out why birds survived. perhaps the most helpful thing would be to have basically a list of all creatures that survived and where they lived on a period map. there must be some common characteristics among the creatures that survived, perhaps in ability, or mobility rather than physical characteristics. Birds weren't the only things to survive so strictly size and feathers would perhaps account for the birds but then how come other creatures survived? there may be different reasons why some creatures survived and others not but i would guess it is slightly more likely that all the creatures that survived had a common attribute that allowed for their survival.

Isn't it possible then that dark matter would actually be anti-matter? and the reason it is dark is because as you say the anti photons are destroyed upon contact with regular matter?

i've kinda thought something like that before.. but not all of it. I was thinking that it could be that matter never really formed until it was possible for matter and anti-matter to be produced far enough from each other so that they did not interfere with each other.. which almost goes without saying because if they annihilate each other they couldn't really form near each other. So, if they formed far away from each other like this then wouldn't it be possible that in actuality some of the galaxies and stuff we are seeing consist entirely of anti-matter? do we have a way of testing that? What's the range of those charges? do they grow in size as the matter accumulates? how far would you need to be in order to be out of range of a anti-galaxy? Is it possible to have a large enough buffer between matter and anti-matter so that there is no annihilation radiation? ...what's annihilation radiation? I was also wondering, how come it is believed that there must be equal quantities of matter and anti matter in the universe?

Oh, that makes sense. What are the common attributes of the creatures that ended up dying because of KT? Is there some sort of website you know of that shows images of most creatures that died and most that survived? What materials were found in the layer of earth that makes KT visible? what was the earth shaped like in that period? I guess it's probably impossible or very difficult to accurately know what the climate was in all areas of the earth in those days since the climate is not strictly influenced by latitude, but has anyone ever constructed a climate model for that period?

by that logic we must all be insane since all of our senses are creations caused by our mind rather than realities of the world around us. the universe has no color heat is nothing more than motion of molecules sound nothing more than vibrations and smell is a fabrication, or mistranslation also. it would also mean that if you make a mistake and think you are somewhere you aren't then you are insane, and when you watch tv and you think it looks like the people on the screen are moving you're insane. insanity is a dubious concept it doesn't really mean anything except like mental disorder but these things are still not yet completely understood since psychology is still in its infancy. but at any rate if we are going to use a word like insanity i think you must make a distinction between insanity and illusion. We are all subject to illusions and so if illusion and insanity is the same we are all insane and so then insane means nothing. believing you are napoleon bonaparte would be an indication of insanity but the cause matters. If we lived in a universe where it was possible to spontaneously change who you are then this would not be insanity right? because your mind is still functioning as intended in that case and is simply realizing that you are now somebody else. if you thought you were napoleon in the reality we exist in then you would be considered insane not because you are subject to illusion at that moment but because in order to suffer such an illusion something would need to be wrong with your brain. So though i hate the word insane if i had to use it i would define it as a physical abnormality of the human brain.

how close to being like a modern bird is the most bird like dinosaur that they found so far from before KT? I know some dinosaurs had feathers but i thought they were all still pretty big. i'm guessing they could fly.. because you guys make a good point that feathers insulate well, you think feathers evolved as insulation or as flying tools? did the feathery dinosaurs come from where it was winter sometimes? I know they pretty recently found gigantoraptor http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2007/06/070613-giant-dinosaur.html but they think that it only had feathers on the arms and tail... i guess then they must be used more for flying than for warmth. but could such a huge thing really fly? is it possible that there was some limited areas where pretty much all the animals could have survived, but many species didn't live there and couldn't make it there so they all died out? (they probably didn't even know to look for it even when conditions for them got really bad) but flying animals could cover more ground more quickly and are programmed to migrate when temperature changes (at least i think they only base it on temperature). but still birds can live through a winter no sweat, some of them anyways. or did they find pre KT fossils and post KT fossils in the "same" earth?

not the cat's existence but the existence of its senses. though technically the cat i don't believe is aware of itself and therefore the cat doesn't know what it's like to be a cat but if you pick another self aware animal or a human being with some extra senses than to fully understand that sense you need to experience it. simply knowing how the brain functions is not enough.

well i can't say for certain what is wrong about science today but obviously if it is to progress some of it must be wrong or rather imprecise. I can show you what was wrong yesterday and yesterday you would have told me that science must be right also? if you think science as it is known today is already right then ya you are wasting your time in this failed enterprise called science you should just read the books already written because in that case no new ones will ever be published and you'll never figure out anything new. by your post i take it that you believe that science simply builds upon itself without ever looking back whereas in actuality every once in a while what was previously "known" must be erased and something revolutionary installed and this is called a paradigm shift and if you look at the history of science this occurred a whole bunch of times. you don't think it will ever happen again? and you don't have to be such an ass.... or do you.

I know this was not originally sayonara's statement.. but i just wanted to point out that this would mean that you would have hated einstein. But i feel you, and i know what you mean, but i don't quite share your hatred unless that same person is just being stubborn and unreasonable (and hopefully that person isn't me because probably if einstein would have spoken to me of his theories he would have needed alot of patience with me). though i also support your vigorous refuting. Because one thing is certain, science is wrong (or rather, imprecise) and will continue to be wrong forever, no matter how smart people were and how hard they worked at it. And the only way they will ever get proven wrong is by a skeptic who refuted the best and most brilliant that worked on it all their lives. if not we would still be using the books plato wrote, perhaps the most brilliant man alive at the time who spent all his life on science. I don't know.. i kind of like a fresh point of view even if it is easily refuted, sometimes it can jump start some other idea that is not so easily refuted. lol. stupid dimensions.

this video seems flawed to me, it assumes we have freedom of choice, and therefore many different possible outcomes of history that actually end up existing. the problem with this is that it requires that our choices are not physical in origin and that there must be something else, something non-physical, like a soul, that makes decisions. However all other things to my knowledge follow strictly certain rules of nature that physics continuously tries to discover. having multiple possible outcomes of reality (dependent on the existence of a specie with freedom of choice also) means that there are exceptions of this rule. and it also seems to me that in that case in order for that 5th dimension to exist the universe requires a being capable of making choices and which is not bound by the natural laws of physics. I can't believe that human beings (or other such species) are quite that important to the fundamental state of the universe. So, though i don't believe in fate, I do believe that there can only be one possible outcome of the universe which will be determined in the end by the laws of physics in some "random" way, and therefore the 5th dimension couldn't possibly be a collection of different scenarios of events that have all played out, 4 dimensions already is that. what else i find weird about the video is that it begins speaking about a dimensionless point, an imaginary point. and then it grows the point into other dimensions and then says that everything in the universe is just like that point. but how can everything be nothing? it doesn't seem logical to equate the infinite universe, being infinite in size, and then turning around and speaking of the same object as being infinitely small, so small in fact that it is imaginary? or even having limits at all, allowing it to be stretched or connected into a line or even to be viewed as a finite point. but this i can accept a little more as being a crude representation of these dimensions whereas the 5th dimension part i can't see how that could be possible. If there is one i feel it needs to be something different, but we may never perceive it and only perceive how it affects our ambient space. maybe the video is too simplified and is missing out important information or something, but it seems to me like it must be misinterpreting the 5th dimension, and further ones, and i'm far from being an expert in string theory but I have a feeling that this view of dimensions could be changed and reinterpreted differently without conflicting or changing anything about string theory. do you think so? still it was a cool video to watch thanks for the link. granted. so then, do you think it can be possible for a 2 dimensional object to exist in our 4 dimensions? or must it be in its own lesser ambient space? (and therefore by being a subcategory type thing part of our 4). then instead of searching for lesser dimensional "objects" we would need to be searching for lesser dimensional ambient spaces and still we're stuck wondering instead if those things can exist rather than the objects inside them. I can live with the fact that i may never be able to conceive or perceive higher dimensions like you said in your post, but i've got to believe that i could perceive "objects" of lesser dimension, no?.