steevey

As far as I know, light only has mass in the sense that is has relative mass, i.e. at any moment, if it suddenly turned into matter, it would have a specific amount of mass it would turn into under the relationship E=mc^2

If your lightning rod could consistently draw in lightning and the energy from the lightning could be stored such as in chemical bonds which could later be used up to release that energy (sort of like with coal or the process of photosynthesis), then you could probably use energy to make electricity from those bonds in that way for a duration of time longer than a few seconds, but I doubt that kind of equipment is on the shelves for just anyone to buy. Cause the problem with using electricity from lightning, is it usually is too powerful and damages stuff causing a short circuit, or as always its only energy being supplied for a few seconds or less. That's why we have solid pieces of matter which later release electrical energy, since there's already enough energy in that system which can be supplied for more than a few seconds.

Astronomers don't know for a fact that space itself is expanding, only the the speeds at which galaxies are traveling away from each other are accelerating. On top of all that, if space itself was expanding, and all matter is all on the same plane that is space, all matter would be on the expanding plane with the same amount of force moving all matter. If you and another object are free-falling at the same height, since the force of gravity is the same, the atoms in you and the object are all falling at the same speed or are effected by the same amount of force at the same moment, so you are both going the same speed.

Nothing is ever created out of thin air, and the reason NASA would have purposely not shown something is because there wasn't enough evidence to support it. And jets aren't a contradiction because they wouldn't have passed through the event horizon of the black hole before they were shot outward so they can still travel below the speed of light and escape. On top of that, accretion disks are in fact observed in numerous quasars using a variety of difference wavelengths, and can even be seen in forming solar systems (I think in the orion or crab nebula) or around forming stars and sometimes projecting matter outwards in the form of jets. They might be called "haro-herbig" objects or something similar to that http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Herbig%E2%80%93Haro_object. I also don't see what the sun having a hotter corona has to do with NASA conspiracy, even they believe it exists and one of the explanations in mainstream science for temperature differences in the sun is already magnetic lines fluctuation.

A photon is a photon, it has no inherent charge that makes it anti or normal.

So in other words, the process of energy equaling or becoming energy takes time which is why time is needed, but the fact that the relationship is true is regardless of time since that relationship is always there? I mean I could be standing near a black hole which is said to slow down time and yet the same amount of mass on Earth would equal the same amount of energy there as it did by the black hole.

But in quantum mechanics, the determination of entanglement as well as the entangled properties responding to one another occur instantaneously, or in other words, infinite speed, which is faster than light for some reason. Although, there's probably some way to explain it in relativity. When things pop in and out of existence, are they actually traveling distance, or are they just appearing as a single point where their wave is existing throughout space infinitely?

Distance is physical, since there is physical distance separating objects, but time, I don't get why only an assortment of batteries and wires should be able to see time unless time is just a periodic measurement than humans created. And I guess a force like gravity is described in terms of time but only when calculating the speed of a free-falling object. If I'm standing on the ground, I'm not going anywhere so theres no need to calculate my acceleration over time. Can you give me an example of where the unites cancel out?

But in that cause you'd have time in multiple expressions of an equation of which you solve for time, which physicists say you can't define time since it isn't physical so no field work can be done on it or if it is space itself, there is no physical evidence or proof for anything that comprises the fabric of spacetime. Also, I think energy is just the ability to do work, and since mass is equal to energy at any moment regardless of what time it is anywhere, I don't see why time should matter. Even if your by a block hole where time is said to be slowed down, mass still has a specific amount of energy its equal to.

Someone is trying to tell me that when I use c in E=mc^2 that I am using time because c is light going 186,000 miles per second. However, I said its just a value equivalent to 186,000^2, and there isn't even a such speed as 300,000,000miles/s, so could someone clear this up? Does time have to pass in order for the relationship of E=mc^2 to be true? Do you need to travel at the speed of light or whatever using time in that would be?

So in other words, no one knows?

I didn't mean it in that context, I meant it as its just stating the relationship is there, but not explaining why its there. Like E=mc^2, but why does E=mc^2?

Why does the uncertainty principle act the way it does? It's just a principle, it doesn't actually describe why something more determined causes something else to be less determined.

Actually, I have done something like this at a college where I observed the wave effects of photons on a special back panel after the process has taken place. But they are accurate in stating that tracking it would change the pattern This is where the "weird" comes in. Whenever you observe a particle, its inherit wave properties seemingly disappear, leaving you with what acts as a single point in space. So when you observe a wave particle, it acts like just a normal, non-wave particle, which changes the pattern to be just two slits. This process is also called "determining" or "wave-function collapse". When you observe a particle, it becomes determined, so it seemingly can take only one path if its determined to only be a single particle occupying a single point in space. When it's not a particle, but a wave, its position isn't determined, so it exists as a culmination of multiple possibilities at once.

I think they measure the size of blackholes solely on where their event horizon is, or how big its mass is which will translate to a certain size for an event horizon.

Actually, as far as biology knows, thats exactly how consciousness happens, but its just on a very complex level. Life is different that just inanimate objects, but its still composed of just random lifeless matter. Although I suppose that there would have to be some kind of property of living things that is also a property of inanimate matter in order to build off of inanimate matter and still get consciousness. Perhaps even matter has some small type of consciousness or property which magnifies with complexity.

I'm assuming we are all human beings, but who are composed of matter.

Sort of Energy is matter, and matter has mass. So as far as I know, photons themselves don't have mass, but they have specific amounts of matter they can be converted into, which will give you some specific amount of mass at any point in time, since the relationship of E=mc^2 isn't known to ever not be true between matter and energy.

Well your more precisely confining the measurement of energy when you move from something like 33 degrees to .00000000000000001 degrees. It's the same way that I more precisely confine the specific area in which light travels through, therefore making its direction less determined (which has been done).

Wait, gamma rays can't be seen with optical telescopes, that's partly why they are gamma-rays. They are wavelengths with a high enough energy to be out of our vision. Super-nova's naturally produce gamma-rays too, there doesn't need to be a quark-gluon thing, its just usually the electromagnetic resistance of the collapsing core sent out in the form of shock waves through the gas, which also heats up and emits a lot of energy. And I don't think that generally a star heats up the gas so much that the quarks and gluons are free, I mean, your talking trillions of degrees to overcome the strong force like that, and not all the energy in a supernova is thermal energy.

The general idea is that stars begin to form when gas collapses from a shock wave. The resulting mass gradually draws more and more dust in. So I suppose it's mostly a matter of luck, and I guess if the gas isn't dense enough, its less likely to be a star forming region.

Photons have relative mass, meaning they have mass because they are equivalent to matter which has mass. In other words, a specific amount of energy is can be a specific amount of matter.

You exist because that's how it happened. Your consciousness is the ability to measure the environment and yourself, so from that I'm not really sure where you draw the line between an actual consciousness and a machine. Probably because your consciousness effects atoms at the atomic level.

Cloning has already been done, but also, it could be possible for other atoms to have the same states and positions relative to itself that another configuration of atoms could have. It would be no more different that two apples on a tree. They are both apples, but in both the atoms occupy different exact positions. But otherwise, the reason is because we just don't know how. It would take an enormously complex machine to re-arrange all the atoms to a suitable state and jump-start the cell cycle and all its processes again without damaging any of them. There's also the fact that you need all the materials too, which is hard to make for a body. We don't even know how the simplest of life forms came about being.

The uncertainty doesn't cause the higher energies, its the result of lower energies because your determining the energy more. I can get how under the uncertainty principle that it will inherently have a less determined position, but I don't see how it gets the energy to have a less determined position to carry it to the next energy level. So two bosons can occupy the same space? Like two electrons can have all of the same properties?