JohnStu

Hi all I'm Denise, a 14 year old from Singapore. I've decided to start exposing myself to more advanced Sciences and I was thinking of starting by reading scientific journals/magazines.. I've been reading Yale Scientific Magazine, but I was thinking if anyone had any suggestions for me to subscribe to a monthly magazine/journal. I'm more of a biology student, but I wouldn't mind physics at all since I just want exposure to deeper Sciences. So please recommend me some journals/magazines! Thank you

Scientific American

Popular Science

the idea of ether is a bit arificial. Positive, negative are human ideas.

Fission works not because it is fission, but because it uses enriched radioactive elements for fission.

Fusion on the other hand uses stable atoms.

you change the distance value, that's it

very nice that is something I also been working on. I explain the 1/d^2 ratio using conservation of momentum of elastic collisions. But I also think that is not really explaining since the momentum of elastic collisions was kind've derived from F=Gm1m2/d^2 formula and the kinetic energy potential energy idea

I was thinking since it has positive gravity, dark energy collects itself into dark matter, so i guess it has it own set of rules... I wonder what could the rules be? Maybe it has no forces at all... That would be interesting.... Imagine a big chunk of matter with no forces except positive gravity=) But does it need to collapse into it self? I think that is debatable... If the positive gravity has a distinct formulae dark matter doesn't need to collapse into itself. Sounds to me it could be a closed ecosystem

Yes, very likely if you do not use the Big Bang model. Big Bang model suggests that every matter came from a single tiny point, this makes weird substances impossible to occur without some kind've extra dimension explaination.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nothing

wikipedia definition of nothing for the linguistically impaired

 

I have been thinking (yes, I know its not a good idea)

and I came up with this

 

1. currently there is a universe

2. it started at the big bang (or something along the lines)

3. it had to start from something

4. that something had to come from something

5. that something had to come from something

6. that something had to come from something

7. that something had to come from something

8. (infinite regression)

9. that something had to come from nothing

 

so the million dollar question is what is nothing

 

*I just thought this was a valid thing to post here since no one has asked this simple question

**I know it is by no means a simple question to answer, prior apologies to anyone who has their mind bent into a pretzel due to this

***yes, I know this is a current question in physics that has yet to be properly answered

 

 

Good thoughts there; crispy and clear.

If in order for nothing to be defined, one must use something, then nothing is also something; a form of something.

In further detail, nothing is void of something.

In order to truly define it, meaning to not use something to define it, I do not think it is possible.

Is it possible that dark energy is the result of antimatter and matter interaction? Like electricity and magnetism, dark energy would by the byproduct of both antimatter and matter with it's 4 forces

 

stupid question, forget about it....

yes it is possible. Much of the info about antimatter and dark matter is speculations

There's not much argument that the Big Bang was 13.7 B/years ago. However, some think that the universe is infinate. How can this be? I think I understand that expansion accounts for a huge universe, but infinate is impossible, isn't it?. Please help!

the cup is a cup, but some call it a tool, others may call it a creation

so this argument about 13.7billion years ago or it was there forever is really a battle of preference than actual reasoning

My personal stance on this is the universe is infinite, even if Big Bang did happen. I could simply include the period before the Big Bang as part of the infinite age of the universe and viola

Before I go any farther, I just want to make it clear that I am NOT a creationist, I NEVER have been a creationist, and I NEVER will be a creationist. I despise creationism. I know and believe that the Earth is ~4.2 billion years old.

 

Okay, to my point. I was watching an episode of the Atheist Experience the other day, and some moronic creationist caller started saying that he believes that the fact that the moon has so little dust on its surface 'proves' that the Earth is less than 10 000 years old. Obviously this is complete nonsense, but I confess that I was slightly taken aback, because it seems like a fairly valid argument when taken at face value. Can someone explain why there ISN'T considerably more dust on the lunar surface than there is? I mean, it should have been accumulating for billions of years, after all. Even if it were at a rate of less than a nanometre/decade, there should have still been at least a few feet of it, not the 3/4 inches that there actually is.

 

Again, I have absolutely no doubt of the age of the Earth. This is simply something that I found interesting.

Sand dust particles? Sands are created from stones washed by water if you didn't know. Since moon did not have much water for long durations the sands did not form.

Hmm, then I would be Spongebob

Purely out of interest, does anyone here know what this equation- extracted from an episode of The Big Bang Theory- is about? (other than nuclear physics).

 

It gets sheldon cooper (despite being fictional) stuck, and he's meant to be genius. From that, and that alone, I'm assuming it's something pretty complex?

it is gibberish written for the show, no way the time sign makes sense with the diagram. I knew it within 5 seconds of looking at the photo

there are many ways to explain it, I put the forces into these two:

- the fast-enough spinning causes the center of its mass to remain very close to the center

- the constant change of ground surface does not give enough time for it to tip to one side

Yups, and they are doing so.

Asking what is matter is like asking the definition of a randomly chosen word.

The definition of the chosen word can only be explained by a definition that will require a different defintion to define if asked.

So really, we don't know nor we will never know? Knowing is a stupid thing anyways in the eye of the universe. ha!

I've seen that video at least 7 times and I've read his book.

Yes, I think he is on the right path.

If we zoom in a cake, we see weird looking landscapes. Then we zoom in more, we "see" organic molecules. Then we zoom in more, oh, look an electron. Then we zoom in more, we might "see" nucleus of an electron?

Which state a proton and a neutron exist in the nucleus of the deuterium ? Simply attached or another state? Are original shapes of particles maintained in the nucleus?

I had written a paper mentioning these questions. No one has been able to know.

So this Higgs field is supposed to give mass to particles by interacting with them.

 

The way I see it (I'm a layman!) this implies that mass is very similar to kinetic energy. And this, in turn, implies that all particles are moving relative to the higgs field at constant speed.

 

Am I saying something super wrong until now? LOL

 

So, what if gravity is just a distortion on the higgs field caused by particles passing trough it?

 

Like air.

Exactly in the way that you put to sheets of paper parallel to each other and by blowing in the middle you reduce the air pressure between the sheets of paper and cause them to appear attracted together, two particles moving trough the higgs field parallel to each other would cause the "higgs pressure" to be less between the particles and the higgs field would push the particles together creating gravity.

 

Is this totally ridiculous?

The universe is rediculous. It continues to shock me. First it was the speed of light, then knowing Einstein's relativity. The more I dig into astronomy and fundamental physics, the more I feel like I am just carbon, hydrogen, oxygen, nitrogen and others.

what exactly happens during a neutron-neutron,proton-neutron and neutron proton collision??

nothing spectacular. The high energy enough collisions in the lab do create fascinating stuff though.

Daily, protons hit other protons in interstellar space

You mean matter dissapearing, because mass could "dissapear and reappear" as energy.

The universe cannot be an open nor a closed system. One can create a closed or an open system within the universe.

Define time travel. Do u mean others around thou go back in time or just urself go back in time or youself plus the surrounding go back in time?

doesn't look similar to me. Lots of things look alike if one looks at it with blurry vision.

This thread got me wondering. What's with all of the rotation? Is it conservation of angular momentum and the singularity was spinning?

Rotation? Galaxies are not all spiral. The epliptical galaxies are not rotating like a disk.

Correct me if I am wrong, but I think these rocky and metallic meteors are the results of collisions between massive asteroids. They are the fragments that explode outward. So these heavy meteors were originally inside giant asteroids that collided and broke up into pieces, and metallic meteors came from the cores of these giant exploded asteroids. Otherwise, small meteors would be puff balls that easily break up into dust. The puff ball first generation meteors accumulate to form giant asteroids. They never are hard like rock or metal until after they are melted inside giant asteroids. This means the asteroid belt is most composed of broken fragments of ancient giant asteroids. Right?

Hmm, not mostly, just few of them were once part of a bigger asteroid. Most of them are just chunks of rocks that never fell into a nearby big object such as a planet