According To Physics. Thumbs for Original Content and more "According To's".. ACCORDING TO PHYSICS If you drop a bowling ball and a feather at the sam physics science according to Crazy facts fun theories
Click to expand

According To Physics

According To Physics. Thumbs for Original Content and more "According To's".. ACCORDING TO PHYSICS If you drop a bowling ball and a feather at the sam

Thumbs for Original Content and more "According To's".

If you drop a bowling ball and a feather at the same
time, from the same height, the bowling ball and
feather will hit the ground at the same time.
Assuming there is no air resistance.
Black Holes are not actually. . I Black, Sure, they are
very dark. But they give off a glow Giving off light
across the whole spectrum, including, visible light.
There is no past, present, or future. Times frames are
All the matter that makes up the human ram could fit
in a sugar cube,
Events; in the future can affect what happened in the
p est.
Its possible there is only ene elctric in the entire
  • Recommend tagsx
Views: 44398
Favorited: 128
Submitted: 07/10/2012
Share On Facebook
Add to favorites Subscribe to hybridtroll submit to reddit


What do you think? Give us your opinion. Anonymous comments allowed.
User avatar #108 - xxvenomxx (07/11/2012) [-]
"Says there isn't past present or future."

"Events in the future can effect the past"
User avatar #741 to #108 - xxvenomxx (07/12/2012) [-]
This made my day ;)
User avatar #750 to #741 - megatheman (09/28/2013) [-]
Well, i can count that up on today's list of fails.
User avatar #751 to #750 - xxvenomxx (09/29/2013) [-]
***** hush
#207 - GoReMoTe (07/11/2012) [-]
-->not Original Content
-->data/research/ ******* SOURCES not listed
-->outright thumbwhoring
-->cereal guy for no reason at all

I wouldn't be surprised if this was posted Stumbleupon or Reddit first. Go **** yourself, OP.
#274 - trollmetoday (07/11/2012) [-]
"Thumb for original content"

Implying all of these facts/theories were made up entirely by you.
#596 - vraptor (07/11/2012) [-]
Oh. I didn't know you came up with all of these theories, OP. No wonder it's oc, my bad.
#625 to #596 - potatotown (07/11/2012) [-]
dem ms paint skills of mine
#752 to #625 - anon (03/07/2014) [-]
**anonymous rolls 6,586**

Hao tu flag?
#538 - aresthedragon (07/11/2012) [-]
black holes do not give off light their gravitational pull is so strong not even light can escape
#541 to #538 - uberdamian (07/11/2012) [-]
indeed, the gravitational pull actually pulls in light :) thats why it has a glow
User avatar #549 to #541 - aresthedragon (07/11/2012) [-]
however light cannot escape to reach our eyes
User avatar #619 to #538 - quantumlegend (07/11/2012) [-]
Not entirely false.
Black holes emit black body radiation known as hawking radiation due to quantum events (uncertainty principle).
But it is outside the visible spectrum, so color has nothing to do with it.
#692 to #538 - anon (07/11/2012) [-]
false,black holes emit hawking's radiation
#546 to #538 - monstarach (07/11/2012) [-]
Yes and no, some stuff is pulled in so hard that it gravitates around the black hole, and gets destroyed near the rim, causing some waves, very rarely in the visible region, to be emitted by the black hole.
#469 - therealredhood (07/11/2012) [-]
I think OP got these "facts" from his black hole
#603 - anon (07/11/2012) [-]
Your argument is invalid.
#138 - semisane (07/11/2012) [-]
According to some random "facts" I found that don't have any scientific evidence*
According to some random "facts" I found that don't have any scientific evidence*
User avatar #649 to #138 - sonzai (07/11/2012) [-]
"well actually, well i heard that, thats true, false, youre wrong, hes right"
You guys don't know anything for sure so shut up
#666 to #649 - anon (07/11/2012) [-]
maybe you are the one who doesnt understand anything, up there there is a rational discussion were a consensus was reached for almost every point
User avatar #640 - orangebedroom (07/11/2012) [-]
"original content"
how bout
"im in ninth grade and my physics teacher said a bunch of stuff to make us think the class was gonna be fun."
#644 to #640 - zclawz (07/11/2012) [-]
Comment Picture
#281 - obnoxygen (07/11/2012) [-]
User avatar #298 to #281 - frolacosta (07/11/2012) [-]
You need to think of time as a spacial dimension instead of a line like most people perceive it.
Time is basically infinite layers of 3D space stacked onto one and other. We pass through these layers as things change, it's what we call time.
#696 to #298 - anon (07/11/2012) [-]
4D, but if events of the future could altere the past then the universe should be 5D at least
User avatar #734 to #696 - frolacosta (07/11/2012) [-]
The universe is at least 10D. That's a whole other story completely.

Time is just one of the many dimensional spaces in our universe.
User avatar #166 - rainbowshurrburt (07/11/2012) [-]
There is no past present or future, but something in the future can affect the past?
#169 to #166 - kraetyz (07/11/2012) [-]
Relative future.
#455 - anon (07/11/2012) [-]
1 is mundane

2 is poorly stated: Black holes themselves don't give off anything except potentially Hawking radiation (which is still theoretical also inversely proportional to size - so a decent sized black-hole most certainly isn't going to emit anything detectable from Earth). Since this is essentially black-body radiation, it does technically give "off light across the whole spectrum", but the intensity asymptotically approaches 0 outside the main peak for the associated temperature of the body. Astronomers use accretion disk emissions and gravitational effects to observe black holes.

3 borders on ******** : while there is certainly no universal past/present/future, they are still perfectly accurate descriptors for any particular frame of reference that you might choose.

4 is silly: While technically true, you were just describing black holes, which, as far as we know, are point masses. If you were alluding to the empty space in atoms, there are much better examples.

5 is outright ******** : according to all mainstream theories (see causality)

6 is dumb: It was a silly speculation when it was presented ages ago and it doesn't fit with any of the current theories. A much more interesting remark would have been that our universe is potentially made up of a single membrane (see string theory)

How you got so many thumbs for this drivel is beyond me.
#521 to #455 - anon (07/11/2012) [-]
First comment that didn't seem like utter ******** . Well done.
#222 - trollinandhatin (07/11/2012) [-]
If only you didn't misspell "electron."
If only you didn't misspell "electron."
#231 to #222 - hybridtroll (07/11/2012) [-]
User avatar #582 - ruinsage (07/11/2012) [-]
yes, this is actually rather basis physics
Im assuming that this is based on Hawkings theory that black holes radiates heat. That is only matter circulating outside the event horizon, as photons created inside that cant escape the immense gravity, making the black hole itself very, very, black
there is past, present and future, according to the special theory of relativity, it simply depends on our system of reference.
All the matter in the universe could fit inside a single atom.
According to the theory of relativity, effect cannot precede cause.
As the fastest moving particle is the foton, an electron cannot move faster than that, which it would need in order to be everywhere at once.
#612 to #582 - lemonyllama (07/11/2012) [-]
You spelt photon wrong *facepalm* But other than that this is pretty much all correct. Bravo, sir.
User avatar #627 to #582 - drewhamster (07/11/2012) [-]
But, have you ever been as far as even considered go want to do look more like?
User avatar #653 to #582 - quantumlegend (07/11/2012) [-]
billybee is correct
The uncertainty principle says that electrons are both particles and waves. The circular wave represents the likelihood of the particle being in a certain spot, and is extremely concentrated in its very center, so the electron has a near perfect chance of being there. However, it is possible for the electron to be anywhere else on that wave, just a highly small chance.
Now that doesn't exactly relate to the single electron theory. That theory states that all matter is a single electron popping in and out of our frame of existence or universe at unfathomable speeds.
Also, Hawking radiation is not exactly that. By quantum vacuum fluctuations a particle and its antiparticle can appear right next to each other out of nothing and come right back together to annihilate. However, if one of those pops up inside the event horizon, it can be pulled in while the other escapes. To preserve thermodynamics and total energy for the matter that escaped, the one that fell in must have had a negative energy, which reduces the total mass of the black hole.
User avatar #731 to #582 - hybridboxll (07/11/2012) [-]
(Regarding #5) But the theory of relativity stops working when it tries to describe the very small. Effect can, **************** , precede the cause.

I'll copy and paste a comment I wrote as a response to someone else on the same topic:

"It was first observed during the Double-Slit Experiment. ( You need to login to view this link

You take a laser and illuminate a thin plate with two slits; since the laser is a stream of particles going in one direction, you'd expect to see two lines: one for each slit. But that isn't the case, you end up having a pattern of interference, as if the particles had turned into waves, cancelling each other out at some points and increasing their intensity at others.

This is called the wave-particle duality. Now comes the "freaky" part. If you interfere with the experiment and try to measure the waves, you end up with the expected two lines of particles. It no longer behaves like a wave.

So scientist decided to try and "trick" the particles and catch them red-handed; so they decided to take the measurements not on the slits, but after the laser beam had passed through them. Much to everyone's surprise; they again observed both lines at the end of the experiment. What does this mean? That the moment the waves reached the detectors they "went back in time" and changed the choice they made in the past of behaving like waves back to behaving like particles.

DISCLAIMER: I know inanimate objects can't be caught, have choices, etc, but it's always simpler to anthropomorphize them when it comes to explaining things."

tl;dr effect does precede cause sometimes.
User avatar #593 to #582 - billybeee (07/11/2012) [-]
photons are the fastest because they have no mass. electrons do have mass, which is why they don't travel at the speed of light.

there is some theories or ideas though that there could be only one electron in the whole universe, that appears and reappears infinite times throughout the universe every second
User avatar #594 to #593 - ruinsage (07/11/2012) [-]
nothing can move faster than the speed of light, regardless of mass. When approaching the speed of light, time slows down, countering the acceleration needed to speed up past the speed of light.
User avatar #604 to #594 - aerialz (07/11/2012) [-]
Its more that the mass of any object increases, meaning the amount of energy to increase the speed eventually becomes infinite
User avatar #610 to #604 - ruinsage (07/11/2012) [-]
Both are true, but even with infinite energy you could not accelerate beyond the speed of light.
User avatar #614 to #610 - aerialz (07/11/2012) [-]
But my main point is that the time dilation does not affect the acceleration
User avatar #615 to #614 - ruinsage (07/11/2012) [-]
It does, there is no doubt about that.
User avatar #623 to #615 - aerialz (07/11/2012) [-]
How, explain it to me?
#654 to #623 - ruinsage has deleted their comment [-]
User avatar #656 to #654 - ruinsage (07/11/2012) [-]
Imagine that you stand on the moon, and watch a rocket move past you at near the speed of light. in the from of that rocket, a bullet is being fired at near the speed of light. Normally you would think that this would equal that the bullet would move at nearly twice the speed of light. This does not happen, because time dilation means that what is happening inside the spaceship is happening in super slow-motion, from your point of view. Therefore the bullet, from your point of view, only moves away from the spaceship very slowly, although an observer inside the spaceship watches it move away at near the speed of light.

Long story short, acceleration equals speed pr. time. When time is extended, acceleration is diminished. As you approaches the speed of light, time becomes near-infinite, and so acceleration becomes almost zero.
User avatar #662 to #656 - aerialz (07/11/2012) [-]
But you are the observer inside of the spaceship when you are accelerating past the speed of light, so why does this mean that you can't surpass it, considering that you have a truly infinite source of energy
User avatar #664 to #662 - aerialz (07/11/2012) [-]
In this case, a=v/t is according to the time inside of the spaceship, which appears to be advancing at a normal pace, so the chance in velocity is normal, and also, proportional to the force applied and the increasing mass of the ship
User avatar #682 to #664 - ruinsage (07/11/2012) [-]
when you reach the speed of light, time stops. This happens because time dilation follows this equation:

gamma=1/sqrt(1-(v^2/c^2)). As v approaches c, the Lorentz factor (gamma) approaches infinite. So when you move at the speed of light, your time in infinitely longer than the rest of the universe. So a second for you last forever for the rest of the universe.
User avatar #687 to #682 - aerialz (07/11/2012) [-]
Then, assume a universe that has an infinite amount of time, and tell me that time is the limiting factor
User avatar #694 to #687 - ruinsage (07/11/2012) [-]
what is infinite times zero?

still zero

this is college physics, if you don't get it from what i already told you, you are not gonna get it.
User avatar #732 to #694 - hybridboxll (07/11/2012) [-]
Infinite is NOT a number.

You can't go around multiplying it times zero and getting a number. 0*infinity is called an "indeterminate form"

You need to login to view this link
User avatar #735 to #732 - ruinsage (07/11/2012) [-]
I was trying to explain relativity theory to someone who didn't understand it
User avatar #737 to #735 - hybridboxll (07/12/2012) [-]
My bad; I didn't take the time to read the whole conversation.
User avatar #697 to #694 - aerialz (07/11/2012) [-]
I guess I will have to concede to you there, but will you not thumb down all my comments
User avatar #702 to #697 - ruinsage (07/11/2012) [-]
not me
User avatar #669 to #594 - quantumlegend (07/11/2012) [-]
The electron in this theory does not move in space. It pops in and out of existence, at least by our frame of reference (the universe). Uncertainty principle. I think i typed a paragraph down there.
User avatar #658 to #594 - quantumlegend (07/11/2012) [-]
It's kind of ironic, because nothing itself (space) can in fact move faster than light.
User avatar #659 to #658 - ruinsage (07/11/2012) [-]
do you mean the aether?
User avatar #663 to #659 - quantumlegend (07/11/2012) [-]
No, just space. Space can expand at faster than the speed of light. But since it's literally nothing, it doesn't even matter.
User avatar #605 to #593 - billybeee (07/11/2012) [-]
Its not moving. Its disappearing and then reappearing somewhere else.
User avatar #631 to #605 - darkjustifier (07/11/2012) [-]
Which shows that the Universe in a whole is moving.
User avatar #552 - ednakrababbal (07/11/2012) [-]
so, assuming i take a pic of my **** and upload it. according to your logic fj should thumb it as it's original content?
#418 - anon (07/11/2012) [-]
Number 3: That are no past, present and future. and Number 5: that the future can change the past are contradictions.
#337 - shabooty **User deleted account** has deleted their comment [-]
#388 to #337 - ftppftw (07/11/2012) [-]
Time is relative. If you are close to a large mass time will move slower for you than compared to the rest of the universe, however it will appear to be the same. If you are moving at a very high speed time also slows down for you compared to the rest of the universe. Therefore doing either of these acts time on Earth would pass much faster while you are away, and when you come back you would essentially be in the future.
User avatar #365 to #337 - kamehamehanurd (07/11/2012) [-]
Time travel is somewhat possible if we are ever able to reach light speed. If I travel at light speed for a year. Then I come back, everything else would have aged a lot more than a year. Not sure exactly how much.
User avatar #378 to #337 - joshlol (07/11/2012) [-]
I remember reading a book when I was about 10 called "How to build a time machine" and it explained the concept of 2 twins, one of which going into space and travelling at the speed of light for 26 years or so and then returning to Earth only to find he was much older than his twin brother. I found it really interesting at the time and obviously the author of the book explained it in a lot more depth than me, I'm certainly no writer and it's been a good 9 years since reading the book, I still have it actually.
User avatar #380 to #378 - joshlol (07/11/2012) [-]
Sorry I meant that the brother that had been into space at light speed was younger, not older.
#162 - jordni **User deleted account** has deleted their comment [-]
User avatar #175 to #162 - ninjanub (07/11/2012) [-]
To 'see' a black hole, we look at a cloud of dust, and look in center to see the void of light/dust/matter, or as Jordni states, the black.
#646 - anon (07/11/2012) [-]
**If there is no past present or future, how does what happen in the future affect the past?   
Pic somewhat related: 			****		 logic
**If there is no past present or future, how does what happen in the future affect the past?
Pic somewhat related: **** logic
User avatar #599 - Mawxter (07/11/2012) [-]
Whenever someone asks for thumbs, they get a red one. Stop being a whore.
Leave a comment
 Friends (0)