bored_teen

Wouldn't the weight of yellow equal the weight of a single photon of light at the frequency that we perceive as said color? If so, it would be zero, as a photon is light, and light is the only form of matter we are aware of that has no mass, and therefore no weight. So am I right in saying that yellow weighs nothing?

Black holes suck in enormous amounts of energy; not even light can escape the pull. What happens to the energy once the black hole collapses? Due to the Law of Conservation of Energy, it can't simply disappear, so where does it go?

you and i, heck, MANKIND might not be able to measure that. but just because we can't doesn't void the possibility. we'd only be breaking the laws of physics if we were able to measure it; we aren't able to measure it, which means we can't tell the future. it doesn't mean that the future isn't preordained. also, how would we break the laws of physics if we could measure that? do you mean because of Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle? EDIT: if a mod sees this, would they please change the thread title to "Quantum Preordainment"? please and thank you.

well, let's assume that we fully understand the location of each particle in the universe, and each particle's relationship to other particles. knowing all this would allow us to predict the future. if we can predict the future, it must already be set, correct? also, i meant preordainment, not preordination. i'm pretty sure preordination isn't a word.

Has anybody heard of a theory about quantum preordination? I have some ideas, but I'm not entirely sure that they're new. I remember thinking about String Theory before I ever knew it was an established idea, and I want to make sure this isn't the case this time around. Actually, come to think of it, is preordination even a word? The spell check says it's not, but I never liked spell check. If it's not a word, substitute predestination.

would negative distance occur in a theoretical situation where the length of a straight line between two points is greater than that of a non-straight line?

but they're different galaxies, right? what it seems everyone keeps telling me (even after i asked this same question) is that i'd see the same thing.

i'm just not getting this. what i see in front of me is more or less the same thing as behind me? how can that be?

they aren't? huh. i'll check out the difference on Wikipedia. so, does our universe contain antimatter?

so i'd see nothing?

i don't necessarily agree with the idea of ID giving way to evolution. i'm Christian, so i'm going to use the Bible for my reasoning. basically, the Bible says God created everything over a period of six days, with man being the last creation. God created Man from the dirt. although, in the Bible, it gives us examples of time dilation between Heaven and Earth, so it might have been six days in Heaven, not on Earth. if that's the case, then the order of Creation suggests that God could have used evolution as the process for creating everything.

do you think da Vinci's experiments on corpses during the Renaissance was considered grim?

maybe have a powerful electromagnet remove the oxidized particles during baking?

but they will be different galaxies, right? i understand the idea that you're going to see a smattering of galaxies no matter how you turn, because there are just so many. but i would still be seeing different galaxies than are "behind" me.

so what would be the overall effect as viewed by both parties? in this case, let's assume i'm observing you, and you're going faster than lightspeed. what would i see? what would you experience?

that basically ended up to be my question. originally, i thought it was a parallel universe composed of antimatter. but, as our universe contains antimatter/dark matter, then i was wondering what it would be. my new guess is that it's exactly like our universe, containing both kinds of matter, but with everything opposite. like we'd be made of antimatter in the negaverse, with positive matter taking the place of dark matter in our universe. am i right?

1. insane_alien 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. i've been registered for one year (today), but really can only count 1 day for this. in this past day, insane_alien has explained quite a lot to me. thanks, dude!

i should hope so. what you're saying is that i'll see the same objects in different places?

i think i finally get it now. basically, there's a certain amount of energy in the reaction. once the environment can cool more than the reaction can heat, no more fire.

MIT is renowned for all kinds of engineering...

i'm not sure i understand what you mean. what would the difference be when comparing our universe to an antiverse/negaverse?

actually, since i have more mass, wouldn't the atom be attracted to me? but it would still be different? i can turn around on my street and see basically the same stuff: grass, trees, houses, sidewalk, cars, etc., but it's not the same as before.

ok, so oxygen by itself can't be fuel. anyway, i still don't seem to be getting all of this. what i've understood that has been said is that flash frozen fire will be extinguished because it gets cold. fire is basically superheated gas, so cooling it would put it out. but, because the reaction has already started, wouldn't the reaction on the fuel heat more gas? or, would it not be able to heat more gas, because the environment has a greater capacity to cool the gas than the current reaction has to heat the gas? and, since the oxygen is frozen, would the fire even be able to burn the frozen oxygen? if i'm right about the environment having a greater cooling capacity, would originally having put enough energy into the reaction before it was frozen to give the reaction a greater heating capacity than the flash-frozen environment has cooling capacity enable the reaction to continue after being frozen, or would it instead just not freeze?

because i'm talking about freezing fire in pure oxygen, i need to understand some other things. first of all, liquid oxygen is highly flammable. does it act as the fuel source? if so, if you froze it and it was still on fire somehow, wouldn't the fire just melt the oxygen?

so if i have fuel, and i've put in the required amount of energy, why can't i freeze fire in pure oxygen? unless, as the climate gets colder, more energy is needed to start a flame, and thus cooling the fuel which is on fire increases the amount of energy i need to start a fire, so when the amount of energy needed exceeds the amount i've put in it goes out? if that is true, then could you flash freeze fire in oxygen if you had 1. a stick that a) retained the dimensions of a normal stick, but b) provided infinite fuel 2. an infinite source of constant energy to provide for the fire?