SweetScientist

Thanks for the link.

That is an awesome thing to comprehend, thanks.

Thanks for the reply, I was referring moreso to when I read on the internet and people give wavelengths to things like tennis balls and actual macroscopic matter. Even though we can't see the wavelike properties(another thing I don't know why) they still have a "wavelength". Does this wavelength no longer exists if said particle has 0 momentum?

From what I understand the wavelength of an object is given by: Planks constant/Momentum. Does this mean that when stationary(relatively) that particles have no wavelength and are therefore not waves? If so, why does a particle need to be moving to have a wavelike character? I have the feeling there is a simple answer but I would be grateful if it's cleared up, thanks.

I'm not going to pretend I'm an expert because I'm not but... Newtonian gravity works for the most part in everyday life and macroscopic ideas and even larger ideas. However it is not totally accurate, proven by the error in the predicted orbits for the planet Mercury. Said error was eliminated with the introduction of general relativity. Newtonian gravity makes complete sense and in our lives is a great model to work things on, however it needed some adjustments to make it fully accurate. It gets even less reliable when you go into the details of faster and more powerful objects as was iterated by elfmotat.

That is something that is strange about Physics, things that seem simple enough don't really make sense with the model we have created in our heads through experience. One example of a similar idea that got me is if a man was going to shoot a cat, aimed at the cat along a horizontal plane then fired, and the cat dropped off the tree to try and dodge the bullet, and did fall adequately enough outside the horizontal plane the bullet still hit it. Once someone explains to you that the horizontal and vertical velocity are independent then it all begins to make sense though.

I'm still learning the ropes of Physics but I really enjoy it and I remember being fascinated by light moving at "C" no matter what reference frame you measure it in. I know this is pretty basic stuff but, what are your perhaps more complicated aspects you found the most interesting or unbelievable? The double slit experiment is another one for me, that stuff was alien to me when I first researched it a little. Also, even though I don't post much at all here, it's fun to lurk and learn from you guys as I assume a lot of people do.

Makes me wonder as well. It's not even as if it's hard to prove at all. Took me a 20 second calculation to disprove the statement.

I've bought a book called "50 Physics Ideas You Really Need to Know." In the section on Kepler's laws it states this. "A planet in orbit twice as far away from the sun as the earth would take 8 times longer to go around." Is this correct? I did a little calculation using the equation and it didn't work out. I then looked across other websites which stated it was indeed 4 times as far way would induce an 8x increase in time. My calculations also rung true with this. (I used square root semi major axis of the ellipse cubed.) Is the book wrong or am I misinterpreting it?

Thanks for the help guys! Gotta love that about Physics. Thought this would be a really simple problem but there's a whole lot of cool stuff involved. Learned a few new things! So since the velocity is changing (ie: the direction component) it is deemed as acceleration. Even if the speed component is constant? Interesting stuff. I must point out I'm relatively(lol) inexperienced on the physics front so I apologize if this is a bit simpleton.

Hi guys thanks for reading. I was looking at Newtons Laws and an analogy popped up about the motorcycle ball of death. (The large ball that people on motorcycles travel around.) Ok, since Newtons first law states an object will move in a straight line unless acted on by an unbalanced force. Since this track is curved, an unbalanced force will need to act on the motorcycle to make it turn. Does this mean the engine has to apply the constant unbalanced force and continually accelerate for this stunt to work? Thanks for any help guys.