EquisDeXD

Ok, so if I stack two metals, that somehow generates electricity? But where does the energy to generate that electricity come from? And how wouldn't I run out of it? Do I really just have to rub them together and the contact tension would generate it?

So the length between any two objects "decreases" while the frame rate of events slows down the match that? Wouldn't that have no effect if they cancel out? And how does the speed of light being constant "make" that happen? Isn't it hte other way around? Doesn't the speed of light have to be constant becasuse of the length and dilation effect?

I don't exactly understand linear regression and "linearizing a graph". It seems like anti-science, my sci-professor for a class made me linearize every graph because "we don't have enough information to determine that it's a parabola (or inverse square or w/e)" even though all the points PERFECTLY fit on a parabolic function. THAT'S WHY YOU DO MORE TESTING!!! Why on EARTH wouldn't you throw out other possibilities for equations just because you like linear graphs more and then not even test to make sure? That seems to go against what science itself is!!! Without extensive knowledge, people think that you can just add speeds of objects to get the relative speed of either object to the other object which is completely wrong because there's another equation that makes more sense if you consider that nothing goes past the speed of light which I think is some kind of hyperbola or inverse equation which shows that the relative speed levels off as either object approaches the speed of light.

Reincarnation is a nice thought, but I really don't see any evidence for a soul, much less how it somehow automatically transfers to some organism and like...takes over its brain to become to new consciousness? Er...idk, it's not completely logical. And then determinism. If everything's determined what's doing the determining? And what evidence do we have for it's existence? It's not to say that Buddhism doesn't have any good lessons in it though.

What's wrong with having morality just because you want to? You don't mean anything to the universe, you can't because the universe isn't a living thing and therefore lacks the capacity to assign meaning, and your going to die anyway, what does it matter if your selfish anyway? I think because of that you can have secular morality, or really any morality you want.

I don't see any ultimate thing that determines meaning, you create your own reality of meaning, anything can have any meaning you want it to, it's just an arbitrary label.

Doesn't it depend on how you define reality? There are different aspects of reality that are analogous (time), and there are different aspects that are quantized (atoms), I don't think you can say the whole of reality is one or the other, can you?

I don't know if it belongs in philosophy or speculations, it's a series of what I hope are cohesive logical correlations, which isn't science, but it's not really something I just make up either, they are the dentition of words. Essentially, it works like this: The universe contains everything, therefore before the universe there could only have been nothing. If there is nothing, there is no thing to limit what can exist. Since there is nothing limiting what can exist, anything that has a probability to exist can exist, therefore the reason everything exists is because it has the probability to exist, because if it has 0 probability of existing it would exist, and before the universe (or at least matter and energy) was (were) created because there was no thing to limit the probability of any particular matter to being 0 or less. Matter and energy and everything else exists simply because it has the probability to exist, and if it didn't, then it wouldn't exist. I guess though, there is still more of a question of how probability was existent before the universe was created, but that would imply that probability is not a physical thing that requires existence? If it doesn't have any aspect of a physical manifestation, it isn't a "thing" is it? So perhaps that's why probability could have existed. That would technically mean imagination could have existed, but with our current evidence imagination can only come from things that exist. I guess if there was no thing before the universe, then there was no thing to limit the existence of probability, it answers itself!

So I guess they would both measure the same result since the location is a "function" of the probability wave?

There are 5 different people in the same vicinity who all know that each other person is observing them. Each person has a different color marked on their forehead which they do not know the color of but that every other person can see. If any person sees three blue marks, they are to stand up. And, if anyone knows the color on their forehead, they raise they're hand. The person who raises their hand first wins the prize. The people cannot intentionally communicate which each other in any way and the person running the test does not communicate with any person in any way. Shortly after the timer starts, 3 people stand up, but shortly after that, one person raises their hand. How does this person know which color they have? Just remember what Einstein is famous for.

I like the riddle, but I think Einstein could have done better because this riddle wasn't about thinking outside the box it was just about grueling testing and just testing different possibilities until you exhausted all the wrong ones.

The axiom is that what we observe is reality, but there's no way to prove that wrong because we can only observe what we can observe.

So I have one particle in a state of superposition, and two observers measure it simultaneously (somehow), would they both observe the same location?

ow exactly did modern electricity become available? Let's say I was stuck on an island which contained every naturally occurring element. How could I make modern lighting from scratch?

As I understand it, as an object approaches the speed of light, time relative to the near-luminal object is said to slow down, but at a speed near the speed of light, the speed of light must still be the speed of light to any observer! As I understand it, somehow for some random reason, the relative distance between two objects increases the more you travel near the speed of light as to cause light to always be measures as traveling at the speed of light. What exactly causes this distance increase? The kinetic energy to accelerate something to near the speed of light has relative mass and therefore distorts the local fabric of space in such a way that 4 dimensional model light travels more distance before getting to the observer? Is there a more illustrated view of this?

I don't get this theory, is there suppose to be some kind of exchange of kinetic energy between matter and the fabric of space that would cause a net force? I don't think that happens, I think gravity is suppose to be some kind of Higg's Boson field or some kind of virtual particle field.

I think a wave function represents not anything physical, but rather just the probabilities of finding a particle in various energy states. An electron cloud itself, I guess could be the superposition of an electron. Though, I do have a problem that needs some explaining. Since a wave function extends indefinitely which means the superposition of a particle can occupy multiple locations in that infinite domain, why don't chemical reactions happen from miles away?

Someone was trying to tell me time isn't real, or it's fake because we made up the word time and just because "it's not the same time everywhere", but how does time being relative mean time doesn't exist? How could time be relative if it didn't exist? I'm trying to explain that time is as physical as any other dimension, but I can't seem to come up with anything specific. You can break time down into an infinite amount of possible intervals, but there will always be a finite counting of those intervals, is there some term of that? Is there some mathematical property that says "no matter how small an arbitrary interval is, there is always a finite value of them between any two time coordinates"? I guess there's the fabric of space, but we "made up the rules for physics", so...

So I know there's a specific way to derive the probability of something in an infinite set with some kind of arbitrary label of 0. Normally it would seem like the chances of picking any element in an infinite set would be 1/infinity, but you can't divide something by infinity, so how does probability and permutation get around that? I mean there's infinite area of matter to occupy, but if it had 0 chance of existing in a particular location, how could all this be here? Or like with the domain of a function that extends indefinitely but that models probability as y values being more likely at certain x values, like a probability bell curve, how is this modeled? What else could you say besides "1/infinity"? How isn't it 1/infinity? Is it 3/infinity in places of higher probability? That doesn't seem to make sense.