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
Upload
Login or register

According To Physics

Click to block a category:GamingPoliticsNewsComicsAnimeOther
 
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".

ACCORDING TO PHYSICS
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
relative.
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
universe.
THUMBS
FOR
ORIGINAL
CONTENT
...
+1368
Views: 44827 Submitted: 07/10/2012
Hide Comments
Leave a comment Refresh Comments (698)
[ 698 comments ]
> hey anon, wanna give your opinion?
asd
User avatar #108 - xxvenomxx
Reply +183 123456789123345869
(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
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(07/12/2012) [-]
This made my day ;)
User avatar #750 to #741 - megatheman
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(09/28/2013) [-]
Well, i can count that up on today's list of fails.
User avatar #751 to #750 - xxvenomxx
Reply +1 123456789123345869
(09/29/2013) [-]
***** hush
#138 - semisane
Reply +66 123456789123345869
(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
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(07/11/2012) [-]
Everyone
"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 id: 4499fb10
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(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
#274 - trollmetoday
Reply +42 123456789123345869
(07/11/2012) [-]
"Thumb for original content"

Implying all of these facts/theories were made up entirely by you.
#538 - aresthedragon
Reply +33 123456789123345869
(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
Reply -7 123456789123345869
(07/11/2012) [-]
indeed, the gravitational pull actually pulls in light :) thats why it has a glow
User avatar #549 to #541 - aresthedragon
Reply +2 123456789123345869
(07/11/2012) [-]
however light cannot escape to reach our eyes
User avatar #619 to #538 - quantumlegend
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(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 id: 4499fb10
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(07/11/2012) [-]
false,black holes emit hawking's radiation
#546 to #538 - monstarach
Reply +2 123456789123345869
(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.
#207 - GoReMoTe
Reply +30 123456789123345869
(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.
#596 - vraptor
Reply +20 123456789123345869
(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
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(07/11/2012) [-]
dem ms paint skills of mine
#752 to #625 - anon id: 8ce30710
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(03/07/2014) [-]
**anonymous rolls 6,586**

Hao tu flag?
#281 - obnoxygen
Reply +20 123456789123345869
(07/11/2012) [-]
What.
User avatar #298 to #281 - frolacosta
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(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 id: 4499fb10
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(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
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(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 #582 - ruinsage
Reply +15 123456789123345869
(07/11/2012) [-]
1
yes, this is actually rather basis physics
2
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
3
there is past, present and future, according to the special theory of relativity, it simply depends on our system of reference.
4
All the matter in the universe could fit inside a single atom.
5
According to the theory of relativity, effect cannot precede cause.
6
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.
User avatar #593 to #582 - billybeee
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(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
Reply +2 123456789123345869
(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 #669 to #594 - quantumlegend
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(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
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(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
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(07/11/2012) [-]
do you mean the aether?
User avatar #663 to #659 - quantumlegend
Reply +1 123456789123345869
(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 #604 to #594 - aerialz
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(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
Reply +1 123456789123345869
(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
Reply -1 123456789123345869
(07/11/2012) [-]
But my main point is that the time dilation does not affect the acceleration
User avatar #615 to #614 - ruinsage
Reply +1 123456789123345869
(07/11/2012) [-]
It does, there is no doubt about that.
User avatar #623 to #615 - aerialz
Reply -1 123456789123345869
(07/11/2012) [-]
How, explain it to me?
#654 to #623 - ruinsage
0 123456789123345869
has deleted their comment [-]
User avatar #656 to #654 - ruinsage
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(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
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(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
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(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
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(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
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(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
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(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
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(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
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(07/11/2012) [-]
I was trying to explain relativity theory to someone who didn't understand it
User avatar #737 to #735 - hybridboxll
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(07/12/2012) [-]
My bad; I didn't take the time to read the whole conversation.
User avatar #697 to #694 - aerialz
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(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
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(07/11/2012) [-]
not me
User avatar #605 to #593 - billybeee
Reply +1 123456789123345869
(07/11/2012) [-]
Its not moving. Its disappearing and then reappearing somewhere else.
User avatar #631 to #605 - darkjustifier
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(07/11/2012) [-]
Which shows that the Universe in a whole is moving.
#612 to #582 - lemonyllama
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(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
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(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
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(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
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(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.
#469 - therealredhood
Reply +15 123456789123345869
(07/11/2012) [-]
I think OP got these "facts" from his black hole
#124 - iluvas
Reply +5 123456789123345869
(07/11/2012) [-]
What if black holes are just mass of concentrated energy that does not allow light to escape, after all gravity can bend light... What if our universe is a black hole.. that would explain why space is dark.... mfw i live in a black hole
#144 to #124 - waffies
Reply +11 123456789123345869
(07/11/2012) [-]
MFW i live in a black hole