questionposter

So your saying that if I stood in one place and watched both of them move away from each other, I wouldn't measure the velocity to be greater than C, but what if I was one of the objects moving away form the other object? Would I not measure the photon to be traveling at faster than C if I knew my speed and knew the speed of light? Or is that what your saying by separation speed, as in if I was one of the objects observing this phenomena, I would observe the velocity to appear greater than C?

I thought gluons were only theory, but are gluons actually real observable particles that I can observe with a particle collider I build myself? Do I actually have to start worrying about those stupid extra dimentions of folding? Wikipedia says they were proven to exist some time ago, but I even talked to real physicists since that time and they only talked about them in the context of theory, not a proven thing. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gluon Look on the right where it says "discovered"

But I mean, say I'm biking down the street. I don't give a **** what anyone else thinks they see me doing, I'm burning .1 calories every leg stroke, even though to some frame of reference I could be going faster therefore making it look like I am having a higher amount of energy therefore making it seem like I put more energy into a leg stroke in order to go that speed than I myself actually measure. Or maybe, is it that every object has a frame of reference that is equal to 0 distance of itself? Also I notice it says I'm a quark, but aren't there smaller things than quarks? Like neutrinos or gluons or something?

I can see it mathematically, but I can't see how it occurs in reality. Plus, what about things that "could" travel past the speed of light by accelerating the fabric of space rather than particles using kinetic energy? Light is the limit of classical speed, but why is it the limit of what we can "see"? Is it because no matter what a photon couldn't actually ever give us information that it looks to be traveling faster than light because the limit is light? And if so, I don't completely understand that.

What if matter and energy appeared because they existed by having the potential to exist? I don't know how it works exactly, but sometimes when I see a diagram of the big bang, the first thing in the line is "quantum fluctuations", and in the quantum level, aren't things really indetirmined and chaotic? And isn't what scientists predicted the big bang to be the result of this super small singularity-like thing? Given its not science because its not testable, but its an educated guess. So I guess the universe, like those hawking radiation particles, were created out of the nothingness of space from improbability.

I don't know if this has been done already because I don't know what to search for in the find, but, why wouldn't a photon appear to be traveling at 1.5 times the speed of light if you were moving in the exact opposite direction at exactly half the speed of light? Doesn't that defy a principal of relativity?

Is there a frame of reference that is an object itself? Because to something like a bullet, it would only contain a specific amount of energy no matter who was observing it form where, yet speed and energy seem to always be relative. To a bullet, doesn't it have to have a specific amount of energy to travel at a specific speed that its traveling to from another frame of reference.

Can you actually measure the specific energy of something? And if so, how exactly? Because I heard somewhere that energy is relative. Also about photons, I know about the red and blue shift, but how does that effect a photons energy? Can't photons only have specific energy in order to exist? But, the blue shift states I as I approach an object, the wavelength of light becomes more condensed, and I can calculate the energy based on wavelength, so doesn't that mean energy is purely relative and nothing has a specific defined amount of energy? But then, if I am traveling at 10 kilometers per hour exactly, don't I have to have a specific amount of energy to do that? Also, don't electrons have to have a specific amount of energy in order to be in a specific energy level?

Well that's not what I was getting at exactly. The spin of an electron is purely mathematical because an electron isn't actually spinning, its just a mathematical tool to help find its wave function, like the number 2. The number 2 is just a symbol to help us calculate patterns, its not an existent thing. There can be a value of 2, but 2 itself is just a concept. Is that what energy is as far as we know?

So as far as we know, is energy only a purely mathematical consequence of our math, or is it a real thing that exists in reality? Or at the very least, is it a real phenomena?

Well can you say or can some expert agree that it is in fact a physical thing? And if so, how in what senses? Like what are the best educated guesses?

I don't know what energy is exactly. I mean I can get how it would just be like this mathematical tool or result, but I just don't see that. Saying that seems like saying time doesn't exist, which exists, just not in the same spacial dimensions we can perceive. And then to confuse things even more, scientists, even though its not technically science even with all the mathematics, predict the existence of strings, which are suppose to be vibrating strands of energy, which means energy its a physical tangible thing in the same sense as a rock. I don't really know how to think of it. AND THEN, there's even photons, which are somehow pure "EM force", which I've heard described as pure energy AND pure momentum AND pure EM radiation.