questionposter

Why is the physics universal but not even things like time are?

Ok, I'm already agreeing with that, but I'm asking about the wave mechanics collapse form one of my previous posts. If the first wavelength of a photon hits me, don't I determine the position of the photon to be that single position that I perceived it hitting me at? But then, what happens to the rest of the photon?

Wait, that can't be right. Because what if the laboratory is moving is moving at 99.99% the speed of light away from a gamma-ray photon its trying to measure? Wouldn't the radio-wave stretch out?

Ok, but I'm saying, light is it's own counterpart, but why didn't matter occur the same way?

When did I ever say that animals don't need to develop the right appendages to do everything that we do? I mean I guess they could develop telekinetic powers, but I guess birds of hands and they can use their beaks too but it would still be harder for them to do things. Also, focus on the goal, not the competition, that's more how things survive, because as far as we know animals on a daily basis aren't thinking "oh, I gotta compete with this guy", they are more like "ok, what do I need to do to survive in the long run? Because there's not a lot of food around?" There's a big difference because in one, animals actually care enough to actually want to wipe out other species, but in the other, they are just trying to survive.

But if a photon hits you, your measuring it though right? It doesn't matter if your only measuring its wavelength or only its energy, your measuring it. Just like it doesn't matter if I'm only measuring the momentum of an electron or only the spin, I'm still measuring it and in either measurement I collapse its wave mechanics.

How could there be a system that doesn't change with the frame of reference? Is that what I was saying light was? A Lorentz thing?

Why can't matter be its own anti-counterpart? I mean matter also has sine-wave properties.

Ok, well time dilation is the visual explanation for this, so thanks.

You do need to show some intelligence, but more than that, you need to show initiative. Colleges need to know if your passion or drive is strong enough to do the work. Most people try and take care of this in high-school when they are planning for the future, but if you do volunteer work and work other jobs and maybe develope some skills from hobbies, colleges will see that despite your failed classes or poor grades. If I remember correctly, even Einstein did pretty crummy in highschool. He even flunked out of it. I don't need to know you personally to tell you these things anyway.

I think the better question is not "which one is harder", but which one do you need to spend more time with before it becomes easy? Because anything your new to will be hard, and anything you've worked with a long time will be easy, but just how long does it normally take to get use to each subject so that you can do it as naturally as breathing? For that, my vote is for physics. I mean, you could be incredibly good at math, but you still need to spend a lot of time working with equations before you can write them down without even thinking about them. There's two types of sciences: Physics and stamp collecting.

So in other words, you wouldn't measure anything greater than C because physics teach you an equation that considers that the speed of light is the limit and that's the only equation you use for velocity? I'm not saying objects actually "are" moving past the speed of light, I'm saying "appear" to be, and in that, I don't see why I need to imagine an observer in the middle when I can just observe the object moving away from me.

But, what if "so what"? "So what" to Ayn Rand logic. Survival of the fittest is not some magical force which things "have" or even have to want to abide by. It's just a consequence of how the environment happens to work right now, which means it can be changed if the environment changes.

It seems like your thinking that humans are vastly superior to animals because of some kind of intellect, but we're only 10% out of the jungle yet (which happens to be how of the brain's potential an average human uses in their life time). Just look at all the violence and selfishness in the world. That's how other animals act and that's how they think in order to survive as well. In order to overcome the animal side, you need to embrace its existence, no "intellect" excuse. People will do complex things just because of their instincts or feelings, In fact, most of what people do is because of their instincts or feelings. Other animals also go around killing things and raping their members and would probably also do things like farm other animals lives for their own needs if they have the opportunity. The the general processes of thinking that usually happens with humans is the same kind of thinking that happens in other animals, but to lesser degrees. This is because all the animals on Earth have the same base pairs of DNA and the similar DNA between all the animals which makes up their brain, makes up a similar brain structures for most animals. Even for things like coral though, their brain has similarities, but what they think is to a much lesser degree. If your not doing it because your choosing too but because your programmed to and that's accepted by the group, then when would you ever reach out to become an even better human being? Sometimes you need to do more than just a few kind acts to keep things rolling, and doing a few kind things definitely isn't going to solve all the world's problems. If you have the kind of control where you can chose to do it, then that means you've overcome your feelings so that you can do what's right despite your feelings. Even with generosity your talking about, it's naturally and usually towards humans (it may seem like a shock, but many people won't even acknowledge that animals like dogs and fish can feel pain when its scientifically proven, and besides, are you going to share a nice meal with a dog? Or are you going to go all around and do volunteer work to clean up the environment. It would be incredibly kind, but...), but that obviously isn't enough with all the animal species that are going extinct and all the environmental problems that are happening. We need to overcome mainly being kind to humans in order to care for the environment.

Well then how come physicists slap you over the head when you say "energy is converted into matter" instead of "mass"?

So your saying that because I move further away at a greater speed, the number of wave crests of photons that hits me decreases. That makes sense, but then, what's the actual shape of a photon? Both gamma rays and radio waves are the same substance, but why does a gamma ray tend to act like a particle and act over a short distance when its just the same material as a radio waves which can effect things in a greater distance? If I send out a gamma ray, its not going to hit every cell phone, its only going to be tightly bound into mostly a single position and probably going to travel, so why can't a photon be as long as a radio wave but still have a higher wavelength? If I have a pool of water exactly 10 feet by 10 feet, I can make tighter waves resembling gamma-rays or longer waves resembling radio waves, but the dimensions of the pool stay the same which means a radio wave would effect the same amount of area as a gamma ray inside the pool and the waves travel across the same length. Why doesn't it work that way with photons? Is it because of the uncertainty principal? The uncertainty principal makes higher energy light particles tend to be measured in a more tight region? Or is it because by adding wave-length, your using up more surface area of the photon per wavelength? Because a photon is also a particle too, so actually I think that surface area shrinkage thing makes sense too. When a photon has more energy, it has more vibrations in its waving particle surface, so more of its surface area is used up in those vibrations, like this: Its sort of like coiling a piece of paper. Your adding more potential energy into a piece of paper, but by doing so your making it coil, and the more energy you put into it, the more it coils reducing the size between coils since the energy uses up more surface area to coil. So when you move fast away form light like near the speed of light, fewer wave crests hit you per second, although there's still something wrong, because once you measure any part of a photon, doesn't its wave mechanics collapse? So no more wave crests would keep hitting you? But then, what would happen to the wave crests that are suppose to be hitting everything else? Would this mean all we need to do to avoid the devastation of a nuclear bomb is to have one single giant sheet move away from the nuclear blast at nearly the speed of light when it happens so that it perceives the gamma-rays as radio-waves and then collapses their wave mechanics making it seem like the only thing that ever happened was an outburst of intense radio waves? But then, what happened to all the rest of the energy that was in the rests of the wave crests of the gamma ray once I measured it as a radio wave? Does it suddenly not exist because of the collapsing wave mechanics?

Well energy can be converted into mass, but whenever that happens, matter seems to appear. Why can't energy just turn into "mass" particles? Why does matter always have to be associated when energy turns into mass? What about just free mass from energy?

Because the adaptations of evolution are random. Things randomly evolve to have random genetic variations and some times those come in handy. This is not happened to the zebra by chance at a large enough scale to match ours. But, there's also dolphins and ravens which are pretty intelligent and have that sort of "dome-y" part of their head that sort of curves at a lesser degree near the bottom to make that slight egg shape. Our capacity for intelligence as far as science is concerned happened by chance. There happened to be a gene that happened to be mutated as to generate more neurons per square milometer than others, and that gene was passed down since it helped in surviving. I imagine that a skull was also randomly developed to match that type of brain growth so that the brain could grow optimally.

I want to ask: If generosity is an instinctive and something you just "evolve" to have it instead of choosing to do it, is someone really a good person? Or are they just following their instincts? That is, if generosity is in fact somehow genetic kindness instead of something you choose to follow. It seems like it defeats the purpose of having generosity if its instinctual because kindness is suppose to be a trait that is involved with humans being better than just animals, so if its just something your programmed to do, its not really transcending the animal part.

They probably get forced outward, or, I don't know exactly how it would work because the neutrinos aren't really added in the mixture, but maybe the protons could combine with some electrons to form some of the neutrons too. An electron "can" be forced into the nucleus, its just that you need energy to push an electron past the ground state for some reason.

Why does the angle at which photons leave at determine whether or not they interfere with each other in such an exact way as to perfectly match a wave peak with a wave trough?

How does a rainbow show that photons are canceling themselves out? Are you saying they hit the lens, then the lens refracts the light, so the light interferes with itself? But if it interfered with itself, wouldn't not reach the interior of the camera? Wouldn't it already be cancelled out? Also, do you mean a laser with a mirror?

But can't energy just be a form of matter? What if particles are actually tiny vibrating strands of matter rather than energy?

So then matter and energy CAN be created or destroyed, because when you destroy mass, you create energy, and when you destroy energy, you create mass.

But if an electron jumps down exactly one energy level, can't there only be a specific amount of energy in a photon no matter who is observing it? Also, since nothing is completely stationary, we can't even say with 100% accuracy what the energy of a photon actually is? Also, why does the frequency "have" to drop? And also, your saying that the same photon can hit two different objects simultaneously as a radio wave and gamma wave at the same time? So how do we ever know what a photon actually is since we are always moving and everything else is always moving?