Iwonderaboutthings

Yes I can visualize this somewhat. But not sure to visualize this as a Flat Shell...Meaning Mass Energy.. So then, masses of all types shapes, and forms, "Particles Included" In "some way" can be described by the concept of Newton Shell Theorem? I am thinking this because I read much on " point mass" " point charges" black holes " points in space" surface charges and etc, until now I think I understand what they are...

Seems like I need some materials I will practice the " math formula here" and practice till I get it right, and pay " more attention" to them exponent more than anything else..Since you have typed in the answers to the math here above, it will make life easier thanks! I make it habit to do things 1000 times over till I get it right, no joking either. You say: in reality white LED is emitting UV photon that is later absorbed by fluorescent material and emitted in full visible spectrum." If you may can you explain this a little more, it has me very interested... full visible spectrum? you mean colors right?

amount of mass that contributes gravity to your position.... HOW???????? You can be as technical as you want....if you wish... Yes actually I do..

I assume that " observations" that predict physical behavior, "must include the physical properties of light " meaning that you must be able to see something in order to predict anything, see the results with your eyes, and so fourth.. In this video here it says: If you are inside a mass object, "shell" in the interior and shine " a flash light" in any direction, you will feel the force of gravity that is proportional to your own weight.. Universal Gravitation -- Shell Theorem What does that flash light have to do with the person "seeing the wall's interior shell" and their weight"? It would appear then, that pure observation alone is not really the only option?? You say, We do not (yet) know any places where GR does not agree with reality. Does this include, frequency information? residual Images, virtual Images?? Are these considered, "reality" in terms of " nature and the physical world around us." When I say, virtual Images I mean what humans see through "well" an--->observation... Mirrors,Telescopes, Red shifts for examples.. Was that even correct to compare?

I bet it does...... I am now ready for pre-calculus and pre-algebra...should not take too long....I hope...

In a sense I was..... oooooooooooh no your not trust me.. more rigorous<-------GOOD POINT! you say "energy physics this is experimental data beyond the standard model is missing" why? you say previous models. why does my model need to be like others?? I thought new technology was that " new " Its worth asking these questions.. YOU JUST NAILED SOMETHING INCREDIBLE!!!!!!!! here you said this: That is why any theory that claims to show that relativity is wrong, for example, must be itself be wrong. My mind now is buzzing with questions.. is it because the math involved? how nice of you to remember

etymological, what difference does it make?? One thing I have observed very well, is the naming convention in the science community that suggest to discredit or disregard other cultures, beliefs and etc as to adding their "contributions to the standard model" as scientist. All discoveries in one way or another started off by someone whom just looked and observed questioned and pondered, they had no titles that I am aware of and maybe never knew " then" that their discoveries made a good dollar for fortune five groups today. Either that discovery was something accepted, not accepted, kept secret, or what ever the case, no one can possible say that "Science Today" is a 100% legit and correct method that does not somehow depict the forms of. Ancient Sumeria Ancient Egypt Africa Arabia Asia, and other " exotic cultures" whom considered scientist but denounced by etymological conditions. I don't even know how to pronounce that word... What on earth does this random rant have to do with anything?? Nothing really, its just an observation worth pondering on..... think about it.. ..

There must be a link between socks and chickens? Yes there actually is... But then what defines 1??? What is relative to 1?? Everything? How can you divide chickens and socks and get a meaningful answer?? Oh by the way, socks come in two pairs at least conventionally.. can easily vanish?.............Umm, ok, where does it go?? This is not fair, science does not believe in magic... where does it go?? I hear that light also takes the shortest path to travel, something I heard in Snell's Law: Snell’s law and light traveling along the shortest path http://web.cs.du.edu/~carlara/thesis/CarlosLaraThesis.pdf I just read some articles on the ecliptic plane and celestial planes of planets, and cannot help to ask, if pi ratio describes I guess a perfect circle, then how does the " warping of space and time" apply to the use of pi ratios as per cosmology is concerned? Meaning that not all things are perfect circles, this is why I wonder if pi ratio is merely " time" independent, because it's used as a perfect circle and a precise way in describing time inside cycles. Now as per the meter is concerned......Nature, from what I know is not a perfect circle but is time dependent ? Michio Kaku said that neutrinos traveled faster then c by 60 seconds, or something to that nature, looking at it now, is that the same as 1 second of arc? Or 1 frequency? They did use GPS for the reading, he stated this as well. He did say twice the problem is circular.

So then I guess, its up to the scientist " team" etc, whom are " a little" better at noticing things than others? Whom have "courageous attitudes" archaeologist for example, I hear at times live a somewhat risky life due to traveling in foreign countries on an exploration... Another example: QM at times can make you question " reality." Are these some forms of mental barrier that would otherwise stop these " new discoveries" and new theories from surfacing to the world of science? From what I gather, the physical world around us has all that we need to do just that.. Circumstances such as computing power for example...I can understand this.... So then based " on our limited tools" I'm guessing, science discoveries gets held back... How then could we figure out " How far to take the observation?" I hear new discoveries should not conflict with the current ones, why? I thought a new discovery was just that, something new,, construction of models sounds like a "blue print" then you build this blue print with " the available materials" we currently have... Then you test this. If it holds up to the " predicted theory" then it is accepted??? I really hope thats it... I think now I am understanding why math would be essential. Is this why computers and CGI is so useful?????? How does the Albert Einstein equations " predict" the existence of a black hole? How does the math make you visualize this? When you say: x/y/z Are you referring to how we "perceive reality" in space or how we observe it in time.. There is a catch there.. When I say time, I mean as per space time, minowski etc, when I say perceive reality, I mean with what we either accept or don't accept about it... ​x/y/z really confused me for a bit...

I see... Ok, here is something off The Internet: Science refers to a system of acquiring knowledge. This system uses observation and experimentation to describe and explain natural phenomena. Link: http://www.sciencemadesimple.com/science-definition.html They make it sound like you just look at something and " just explain it to people" Where does all the fun stuff come in?? Predictions? Inventions? New Technology??

science is about predicting physical behavior? Say, how would a planet's atmosphere be affected if it had no more heat source, like a sun for example.. Or say, if all the water on planet "a" rose to a level of 0.0006 nano meters, how would that effect orbital periods of its moons.. Or, if water reached 1/2 of its boiling point and you placed " some substance" in it how would that substance's atomic structure behave and or respond, if the water's boiling maximum was instantaneous?? These are just examples...

ok thanks..

Thanks for "explaining it correctly" wish I knew this ahead of time... Your 1st link reminds me of those 3d texture maps , normal maps and displacement maps, used in 3d game creation all dependent on light photons and 3d rendering. These are only dependent on the UV Coordinates, XY, the texture is then warped on the 3d model in 3d space. Is this a good way to in-visualize this...

Don't you guys have busy lives?? This is the reason why I make some questions sorta random not connected, not logical.I even feel bad sometimes wasting people's time here. Time is $$ you know.. I know some here must be teachers, professionals and etc. So i try to speed up the conversation for you to have more time for others with better technical science skills so eventually I will be able to be at that level. On the other hand, NOW the cylinder example I think nailed it! It says a lot to me without words, I think I will invest more time on cylinders... I'm one of those pop science people by the way, it makes the weird things in science "flat universe" less of an anxiety "flat universe" Does this mean earth is flat too?????????????? If so, then is that why they say time travel is possible?

I am confusing now what is constant, not sure if it is the speed of light or varying accelerations on other planets, the whole thing looks to be unclear. What "now " is driving all galaxies away from each other? Is it the same force? "NOW" They say the Universe is Flat???? WHAT?????? A new study confirms that the cosmological constant is the best fit for dark energy, and offers the most precise and accurate estimate yet of its value, researchers said. The finding comes from a measurement of the universe's geometry that suggests our universe is flat, rather than spherical or curved. Link: Einstein's 'Biggest Blunder' Turns Out to Be Right http://www.space.com/9593-einstein-biggest-blunder-turns.html I think I need to hear that " here" universe is flat---------> yes? no? But pi ratio can be used as volume---------> yes? no? I'm sorry to ask this and excuse me for saying, but I cannot help it.. Is the internet a good place to read about science? or is this all propaganda, and marketing scheme? For instance all that Maya 2012, " nonsense " really had people scared for their lives... I really wish, someone would stop this nonsense, and start placing articles that are 100% true.. It confuses people whom want to learn and waste the time of professionals having to re-explain things over and over again, in turn they become frustrated, its true. I get the feeling this is "ALL A BIG JOKE " and feel super awful and sad about that. Thats just my opinion... I think the meaning, or what I should have said was this: mass and energy (two sides of the same coin) bend space-time with their gravitational force. Link: http://www.space.com/9593-einstein-biggest-blunder-turns.html' Einstein's 'Biggest Blunder' Turns Out to Be Right But that link, kinda got me sick to my stomach, flat universe? Don't get me wrong I can handle many things about phenomena,its just the internet seems to be a big joke lately, its a big mess especially topics in science, they confuses me and others I know personally... Meteors falling to earth, Maya End Date, etc etc,......I am sure you can imagine... This is why, I'd rather hear things here...

what describes the inverse of those circular paths though?

I will definitely do this, thanks! I don't ever remember being on the internet so long, I really want to learn as much I can, but do it correctly..Thanks everyone for the time.. OH! http://qinf.fisica.unimi.it/~paris/FisBio/m101.pdf actually has numbers in it too, THANKS! ok thanks...I will also give Wikipedia a look on acceleration for other planets.

Yes, I covered that one already...I am now fully understood on G and g, and I am very thankful! But this now makes no more sense now in relation to speeds faster than c, and how " now " the speed of light is involved as a frequency in that computer animation. Why? Because pi ratio is used a lot in general relativity and other quantum formulas, " IN SIDE" the quantum world... This is not fair! But it makes you think,,, after that post, I have been thinking a-lot about computer simulations. Don't forget about fps,frames per seconds and formats like in 3d animations. Its assumed as visual perception only. Don't forget, an animation can have many other elements within it moving faster than 30 frames per second as well. How would post #34, or that link, account for the discrepancies? That may have not sounded right, I don't normally hear people talking about this.. In other words, if I took a movie of a falling object, then placed it in OpenOffice , but it had objects in it, like " a butterfly flying" in the back ground" or a fly passing by, " yes I know "wait" , or all of a sudden a rock fell through my sealing.. Within the domain of the entire "animation" and all "random objects" moving at different speeds but still at a perceived 30 frames per second. -------->would 9.8 m/s/s still be a valid case for the entire animation and all the "elements in it moving??" I think I would have to scroll back and fourth within the domain of the animation's length, time, and period, in order to derive anything " useful out of it." This is why I am trying to mix frequencies and time, from what I know, I shouldn't. why?????????? Its weird! Its like 9.8 m/s/s " KNOWS" where the bottom of the camera's lens is. Or better yet, it appears g is basically a flat hyper space = 0 A flat reality... Minkowski spac http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Minkowski_space I am not a believer in this by the way... I don't read anything about this, I don't know how to explain it any other ways.. However, here is something to consider... They did not have computers back in the days of Issac Newton, nor did they have the space shuttle to test his formula..We just used them and call it a day... I should learn Séances, so I can ask Newton personally! Michio Kaku: What If Einstein Is Wrong? This video concerns this:: Within the domain of the entire "animation" and all "random objects" moving at different speeds but still at a perceived 30 frames per second. would 9.8 still be a valid case?? Is the the animation is 1/2 missing????? Faster-than-light neutrino anomaly http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Faster-than-light_neutrino_anomaly Neutrino 'faster than light' scientist resigns http://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-17560379 There is also object to this: Neutrinos don't outpace light, but they do shape-shift http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn21899-neutrinos-dont-outpace-light-but-they-do-shapeshift.html

quality? and magnitude? This strikes some curiosity.. What is quality? Magnitude When I think of magnitude, it reminds me of pointing vectors, manifolds, space time, relativity, the quantum subjects... Is that correct? Mass energy equivalence I think... I never knew all this,, thanks, I guess now it makes sense. 'g'. I've found it just confuses people. It certainly does with me..

When you say " provides the force" I am concluding that this force, is no difference that the one here on earth as 9.8 m/s/s for other planets.. That they have an acceleration much like g here on earth, but that their values vary,, Again: The force of acceleration is the same as planet earth's as 9.8 m /s /s but only has different values on other worlds. Is it wrong to question: Who or what calculated 9.8 m /s /s on earth in the first place.. In other words if you can calculate the force of acceleration on other worlds, and have different values. Where did 9.8 m /s/s come from?? Something to that nature thanks.. I think I have just realized, that the acceleration of g here on earth, is no difference than on other planets, accept that the "values" vary...I hope I am interpreting this correctly... So that F=ma, would be. F= "mass of the planet" * [ the acceleration of the planet] My example for earth then: F=ma F= "earth's mass" * [ 9.8 m/s/s]??????? Was it Issac Newton that found 9.8 m/s/s ??? And we just go by that??? You know online information even in books are not so clear..

G [m1]*[m2]/r^2 Got it... So, this equation gives you the " acceleration of " g " But on another planet then right? Just an example here.. earth = g 9.8 m/s/s venus = g 7.5 m/s/s mars = g 12.7 m/s/s

How do we find their acceleration, as we do on earth for g? is it only the moons????????? Our moon goes in reverse... Other moons of other planets go in reverse to?

Does that really matter when dealing with a simple circumference though? I've seen pi used like this: 3.14*8=25.12 " some" circumference just that number as 3.14, the rest really doesn't matter I guess. Things like this image also don't make sense, pi ratio seems to have vertual ways of use. it must square at some point, when I say point I mean the center of what ever the circumference belongs too.. To add, imaginary units, have been said to follow a pi ratio circular path: one is real the other is imaginary making the complete calculation 1/2 true. Then which one is " real "?????? Sorry, you can't have one without the other... Can you??? WOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOE You just threw me back like " UM " millions of years.. I thought that gravity on the moon was UM, had no such relation to the acceleration g on earth. Are you saying that 9.8 meters per second g on earth is the same on other planets too??? Or " references other planets?

I don't understand " What"? what wont be close to each other??? pi and the other pi like pi (1) and pi (2) ?? Out of phase like this?

Yes.., I confuse all the zeros and the dot....... I assume that to be the 10ths place, but then I hear its called the radix dot, in floating point variables in round off errors...