looking for complex answers to simple questions

well, i cant explain much of it, but i think i can explain gravity...


on the ISS(international space station), astronauts can induce a form of gravity by making the station spin a certain way, really fucking fast..


ok, the reason for gravity is that the earth is so big, and so dense, that it pulls wayyyy smaller objects directly to the center, thus the apple from the tree( newtons' law of gravity, look it up and read it)


later man!!

 

Hi bizzletwister10

funny thing you ask this because i came across a good example of the human eye recently here's the excerpt....

 

here you go man... simple, 1 word answer....

evolution.


social nature required emotion... emotion is incentive...

life required senses in order to interact with everything else,.. it is intrinsic to life... awareness

 

Street living in one of the most dangerous cities in the country...did not affect my education in the least.

 

>>>How exactly does gravity work? In detail.


I'd reword the OP, you're looking for the opposite, simple answers to complex questions.

Imagine that space time is like a flat blanket. You take an object and place it in the middle of the blanket and the blanket will dip and curve towards the object. Any object you place on the blanket near it will automatically roll towards the first object because of the curvature it makes. Now imagine that same idea working in three dimensions. A planet/moon etc., curves space time (making it act just like a blanket), causing any nearby object to move towards it. Each planet creates its own curvature, which interacts with other curvatures, causing 'attraction'.

>>>Also, what defines a dimension?

Viable planes of reality. A realitiy with more dimensions than ours may, for example, provide a quicker route from A to B other than a straight line.

>>>How can one prove that images in mirrors and realities in video games aren't dimensions entirely?

Mirrors: A reflected image doesn't have any independent existence from the things that create that reflection.

Computer games: a computer game is simply a numerical representation of a 3D world that can be shown to have been created, right down to the reactions of the people within it and the objects it contains. It has no reality in which it takes place, it's purely a computerised image that has no actual dimensions. It can't be independent of the computer it's viewed upon, as without it it would cease to exist. Nothing (apart from the odd bug) can appear within that world without someone somewhere programming it in.
They don't think for themselvs unless programmed to, and even then the programmer gives them a choice of moves to randomly draw on.

Neither games nor reflections have any reality of their own.

MelT

 

No. There are underlying similarities in the way that things react, but there is no common law that can govern them all; one reason being that at least some of reality is purely random.

We hear a sonic boom because the sound creates a pressure wave in the air that reaches our ears. Once there it makes a little drum-like skin and hairs upon it vibrate, and this vibration is then turned into electrical impulses and the sound is heard by us. We might say that we see an interpretation of reality via our brains rather than what is actually there. We see very little of the full reach of any object's true existence.

Very broadly speaking, a law is something which is a a fixed, reproducible effect.

Elements interact the way they do because of things like their atomic composition and electric charge. Combining two chemicals for example might result in the creation of a third chemical, because the first two have interacted and say, knocked an electron, or a hydrogen atom from the original 2 chemical's composition. Chemicals swap, lose, share atomic particles on a regular basis.

MelT

 

A law is a theory that works ALL the time...at least for all the tests done on it.

He explained it above...it has to do with electrons and shells. There are so many electrons in each shell...the share or give up electrons to bond.

I think light travels through a medium...Higgs field some call it...others called it the aether. Just like sound...it can only go so fast moving through this field.

The reason (IMO) we don't have a "unified field theory" is because there is much that is too small for us to detect, that affects things around us. That's why they have to add "fudge factors" to the models to get them to work.

Of course...I could be full of shit...but that's what I think.

 

I'll answer the easy one first

The difference between sound and light, is that the former needs a medium to travel through, wheras the latter don't. Unless you want to nitpick about the fabric of space ofcourse.

Sound are displacement of existing matter to carry the wave. EM radiation, a part of which is visible light, bring along their own particles to carry the wave, photons of varying energy states.

Which is why you see light in a vaccum, but can not hear sound.

 

Light/EM radiation is very much affected by gravity. Photons have mass, and their trajectory from the source will be influenced by gravity-wells it encounters.

 

so basically, to an extent, everything exists outside itself? i have heard this example, and it is great, but it doesnt really explain gravity. if an object automattically projects an invisible force, there must be some sort of connection between all things, like a substance that cannot be observed.

It really does explain gravity. You're thinking of gravity like a force to be projected, when really it's a product of the curvature of space-time, not something that emanates from the earth. It makes things fall in, not be pulled in.

In a way you're asking how far can the influences of any planet extend. We know of gravity, which extends at a roughly inversely proportionate distance from the body that creates the energy well, and we also know that there is a certain amount of plasma charge that extends between planets too. But really, the only shared commonality in a scientific way that everything shares and is within is space-time. It is in a sense a 'thing', and is affected by light and gravity and connects all things.

I understand what you're getting at, you're trying to find a commonality that could be an ultimate thing that connects us all or that we're all within. There are quite old theories that we exist within an unseen 'ether', but thus far it has never been proven. If you do a google on aether/ether theory you'll get a number of interesting hits.

and is gravity instant or does it travel at a speed?

It doesn't travel, it's instant. Think of it as topology, that space-time has created a hill that you fall down.

what if you were on the other side of the mirror? wouldnt it appear that nothing exists independently from the image? to me it sounds like on either side of the mirror is just a field of possibility.

There is no 'other side', only our side reflected in the glass. Light from your face reaches the reflective surface of the mirror and is bounced back into your eyes, there is no plane of existence within that to enter. If you were the reflective surface itself, you would still be in our reality.

and same for video games. it obviously functions with law just like our world. im not saying a video game is a dimension entirely, but how can it be proven not to be? maybe our world is just as random.

A computer game only functions with the laws that we put into it,it has no gravity, no physics of its own, no dimensions or spatial depth, neither on screen nor in the computer itself. It's produced by a series of commands and calculations within processors. If we could enter into one of them we wouldn't see a world, we'd just see tiny 'gates' opening and closing as electrons pass through them. If we were the electrons themselves we would see a flow of charge. There's no reality within any of it where a world or reality could exist, all of it is illusion, most of it visual.

"They don't think for themselvs unless programmed to, and even then the programmer gives them a choice of moves to randomly draw on."

well this could definitely apply to our world as well, in every aspect.

Now we're getting into the murky world of free-will (you might give that a google too). There is no evidence that we're programmed, we can put most of our reactions to stimuli and events down to previous experience (anchors). There's no evidence either of our reality being purely a computer program; we have spatial depth where computer programmes don't, we have real time passing, we have testable events that produce independent reactions. It would impossible for any computer of any size to say, create a super-nova and vast temperatures within itself. An advanced computer could create something that certainly looks and acts like one, but it wouldn't be able to have the actual effects of the real event. When an explosion goes off in a computer game it's sound and vision, but no real effects. There is no world that it's happening within.


and what about dual-existance (i think thats what it is called.) when two objects can transfer information instantly from any distance. this would also support that there must be some sort of actual fabric to time and space.

You're talking about quantum entanglement (another good one to google). There are various theories concerning how it works, and it seems that when the particles are separated they still share the sub-dimension of space time they emerged from. But a fabric to space time - in a way, yes. Space time isn't empty of all matter, it contains a variety of temperatures and it has constant quantum movement creating and destroying particles every moment within it. As I said above, it reacts to light and gravity too, so in a sense is a thing, but really it's the result of many things, space-time isn't actually an object, and what space-time emerges from isn't either. Think of it more like a field of potential and randomness, not a medium in its own right.

MelT


On the other hand, quantum mechanics has been highly successful in producing correct experimental predictions, and the strong correlations predicted by the theory of quantum entanglement have now in fact been observed.[citation needed] One apparent way to explain found correlations in line with the predictions of quantum entanglement is an approach known as "local hidden variable theory", in which unknown, shared, local parameters would cause the correlations. However, in 1964 John Stewart Bell derived an upper limit, known as Bell's inequality, on the strength of correlations for any theory obeying "local realism". Quantum entanglement can lead to stronger correlations that violate this limit, so that quantum entanglement is experimentally distinguishable from a broad class of local hidden-variable theories.[citation needed] Results of subsequent experiments have overwhelmingly supported quantum mechanics. However, there may be experimental problems, known as "loopholes", that affect the validity of these experimental findings. High-efficiency and high-visibility experiments are now in progress[specify] that should confirm or invalidate the existence of those loopholes. For more information, see the article on experimental tests of Bell's inequality.
Observations pertaining to entangled states appear to conflict with the property of relativity that information cannot be transferred faster than the speed of light. Although two entangled systems appear to interact across large spatial separations, the current state of belief is that no useful information can be transmitted in this way, meaning that causality cannot be violated through entanglement. This is the statement of the no-communication theorem.
Even if information cannot be transmitted through entanglement alone, it is believed[who?] that it is possible to transmit information using a set of entangled states used in conjunction with a classical information channel. This process is known as quantum teleportation. Despite its name, quantum teleportation may still not permit information to be transmitted faster than light, because a classical information channel is required to complete the process.
In addition experiments are underway to see if entanglement is the result of retrocausality.[4][5]

 

This question is way too broad and gonna be hard to cover; when i read this question i immediatley thought of the collsion theory of reactions rates which states; that for a reaction to occur, molecules, atoms or ions must collide. we can increase in the rate of reactions by adding higher concentrations, heat, catalyst, and enzymes that act as catalyst for specific biochemical reactions in living systems.

with that being said imagine the different phases of elements (ie solids liquids gases) generally solids react very slow with one another and can take years for reactions to be even noticable [without catalyst]. liquids alllow molecules and atoms to move about freely and collsions and reaction rates increase. this is also true with gases atoms and molecules are allowed to move more freely and reaction rates are again increase. we can increase reaction rates even further by decreasing/adding pressure (i forgot which one) to form more products.

now this is more chemical kinetics and has to do with the rate of the reacrtions but it covers a very important part/point i wanna make; Collsions must occur in order for chemical reactions to proceed, but they do not guarantee that a reaction will occur.

the reason for this being that a colliding molecules must have the proper orientation relative to one another and have sufficent energy to react. If colliding molecules have impropoer oreintations, they do not react even though they may possess sufficient energy.

for a reaction to occur, some covalent bonds must be broken so that others can be formed. this can occur only if the molecules collide with enough kinetic energy to overcome the potential energy stabilization of the bonds.

i can go further into transtion state energy and activation energy but perhaps your question was aimed more towards the octet rule which states that atoms tend to gain, lose or share electrons so as to have eight electrons in their outer electron shell. giving them the same electron configuration as a noble gas. this is easy rule to learn and i imagine google is fillied with many examples....

pastafarian

 

Ah, but gravity do "travel" at lightspeed. The weak force of gravity is carried by the elusive graviton according to quantum field theory.

As such, the gravity forcefield, radiates from the origin just like EM radiation do. Any change in the mass of the origin, will permeate throughout the field at the speed of light.

 

Point taken, but thus far we haven't been able to find a graviton and it's something that not all physicists agree on (as you can gather I'm a non-believer. The interaction between matter and gravity is meditated by gravitons, if they exist, but it isn't created by them, that still requires the curvature of space time. So, in essence gravity isn't created, but is an existent anywhere such a curvature exists, therefore gravity is instantaneous, gravitons aren't - but yes, I see what you mean.

Where were you when I was trying to explain thermodynamics to my Mum?!??!


MelT

 

Then you are subscribing to Newtonian physics, which are not entirely correct. Einsteins' relativity and the newer quantum field theory both tell of a universe where gravity is not instantanious, but rather radiates as any other energy-wave, and bound by the same limitations, the speed of light.

The two competing theories on this, are in disagreement on means, not ends. According to Einstein mass curves space-time with no extra particles needed. Just an inherent property of the universe. Quantum field theory on the other hand, require that all forces are transmitted by particles, including gravity.

The observable effect is much the same though, and in either case, gravity is limited by the speed of light.

To explain better:

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O-p8yZYxNGc&hl=un]YouTube - Gravity - From Newton to Einstein - The Elegant Universe[/ame]

Probably out drinking beer

 

Could some one just summarize all of existence for me? I've got to get to work...

Oh, wait, I think I just summarized it for myself!


High, Ho, High, Ho, it's off to work I go...

Sorry to interrupt, I was just so happy to see you all this morning!

Bye-Bye!

 

>>Then you are subscribing to Newtonian physics, which are not entirely correct. Einsteins' relativity and the newer quantum field theory both tell of a universe where gravity is not instantanious, but rather radiates as any other energy-wave, and bound by the same limitations, the speed of light.

TBH, I'm not a fan of Newtonian physics, and subscribe to most aspects of QM, I just don't think QM is right in this case . We're near finding out one way or another I think and I wouldn't be suprised if I'm wrong, but I feel that QM is slightly off on this and I don't know why.

Good vid though

MelT