gebreab

Thanks for the reply, I was trying to get a different picture of the universe. I have always seen it as static, or not moving. But now I am thinking everything is moving at blinding speeds right? So maybe the default speed of things is to go really fast, like the speed of light. And all the things that we see, like planets stars, are just a few things that happen to be traveling slower than the norm, perhaps because we gained mass or something, maybe in the higgs field, the new theory they are talking about.

Thanks! I know its more complicated than this, but can i look at the speed of light as if it is a default speed, but something happened to particles with mass that slow them down? Thanks for the patience and helpful answers, I appreciate it.

OK thanks. I got another question! If a particle has to have 0 mass to go speed of light, does he have to have a certain energy? Is it a set value? Can it be 0. If energy doesn't give speed than what does? Thanks for any insight

Imagine two particles going the speed of light. Would this mean they have equal energy? Will they have to have a mass of 0? Also does mass come from the fact that a particle has slowed down slower than the speed of light? Does its energy level matter? If one particle is traveling speed of light, and particle 2 is traveling 1\2 speed of light, does particle 2 have 1\2 the energy? In the end my question is does the energy and speed determine mass. Is this in proportion? Is speed proportional to energy? Does being heavy and low energy have to mean you go slow through space? If a particle slows to half speed of light, does it lose half its energy? Does it gain in mass in proportion? Thank you just wondering what mass and energy really are.

interesting question man. great aswer to! were going to find a way to make renewable energy i bet!

ok thaks for the help

Hi i was just wondering if it was possible as far as we know today, if it is scientifically possible to create more energy than we put it. IN theory is it possible to have a machine in the future that produces more energy than we put in. So basically will we solve energy problems in the future. Thanks for any help. hope this is the right section to ask!

ok, I mean like really up close. yes that makes it clearer in my head, thanks mate.

Ohh ok I see. I just can't wrap my head around the idea that if we built a super telescope and we could see the light rays literally leaving the surface of a star, how that in fact is years ago and we are looking at old light? I understand how we are looking at old light using our eyes, but its hard to understand that concept if we were actually looking at a surface of a star that is alive and flares are coming off and we can see its activity up close, but in truth we are looking at a stars activity millions of years in the past? thats really trippy. like if we observe a volcano erupt on a planet ten billion light years away, we are looking at something that happend ten billion years ago? because the light is just carrying information to our eyes but we cant see the new information because we are on earth. Ok I think i get it. Thanks for the discussion and help!

but why do we have to traval if we can just see it? is it because we are seeing the light rays on the telescope glass, not actually on the star???

Hi so I had a question about telescopes. I was thinking about humans mapping the universe, and I thought about how maybe in the future we will be able to look through telescopes and see every corner of the universe or at least the milky way galaxy. So a question came up because I know that if you look at a star thats far away with your naked eye, you are looking at old light or something. So I had a question about what if you had a powerful telescope that looked upon the surface of a distance star, like really up close, would there still be this time delay? or would we be looking at live action star footage? we could ask the same question about the sun. if we look upon the surface of the sun now, are we still looking at 8 minute old sun rays? Thanks for any help and for taking the time to read my question!!

hey thanks for helping me figure this out. I will definitely check out that Berkley website, i still have a lot of questions!

Hi I am new, I just had a question on my mind, and after searching google for a while I couldn't find an answer. I was hoping someone on this forum might be able to help. edit: before you read, i dont mean this to be anti-religion or anti-science, i am not implying anything by my question! So, the question I have is about random mutation. I just don't really understand how a gene can randomly mutate and have new traits? or alleles? however it works?? so what has always bothered me is the idea that at one point in our history on earth there were lots of creatures, but none of them had bones. so what i dont get is how through natural selection and random mutation did we end up with bones? my brother always says over time... but what i mean is, how can even the first step toward bones take place? was bones already available in dna but not used? was bones created? i guess the core of my misunderstanding is that how can a mutation in coding(i think) create something that has never existed before? how does it have the knowledge? or how can the code be so powerful that it can create what has never existed? Does this mean that the code or dna can create anything? if it can create bones and muscles and all this stuff then does that mean it can really create anything givin the time? and how can it do this? where does its knowlege come from? or how does the power in the code, mixing the a t g c up exist? do scientist know if dna already had this blueprint already stored up? like potential energy? waiting to be expressed? or did longer codes and more time end up with more creations of complex things. I hope someone can discuss with me because I like the idea of evolution, it makes sense to me. but there are some things that i cant really make sense of. Please lend me your thoughts, Thanks!