Tags:
Wait, if potential energy is turned into observable energy when two pieces of matter are pulled together via gravity, and all matter has gravity, and there will never be more energy/matter in the universe than it started with, does that mean that all matter was once light or something?
I guess it might also be part of that whole, "Quantum particles and the like don't have gravity," thing, but still.
Not necessarily, but it does suggest a relation between the two.
E=mc^2...now you know what it means.
So, "m," had to exist on some level? (And yes, I know that light has a different formula, but work with me).
I mean, you can't have that equation with a mass of zero and expect E to be anything but zero.
...
Sure, it existed, it just didn't exist at the beginning in a specialized form in the way that we think of particles as being specialized at the moment. It existed instead in an organized, uniform form of "stuff". And since light can be thought of as a particle, it was also part of this whole uniform, organized, "stuff"
After the big bang, the energy generation needed to get to c^2 was no longer attainable (because to do that, Einstein argued, you need all the mass in the universe getting ripped open in one place, which is technically what the big bang is anyway), so either the stuff in the universe was energy, or wasn't. If it was, it stayed that way. If it wasn't, then it eventually coalesced into the particles we know and love today.
Or, that's what I gather from my own research into the matter. You may want to ask someone who is actually taking classes in it.
...I get the impression that this is way over my head.
I mean, yes, I understand the explanation and whatnot, but I don't think the proper response to a complex (Simplified to my childishly simple-minded level of understanding, yes, and limited to humanity's current level of abstract thought and objective understanding of phenomena that makes the Voynich manuscript seem as simple as Dick and Jane in comparison (I was originally going to use Nevermore as the example instead of Dick and Jane, but I'm trying to be serious here, and hyperbole would ruin it--Dick and Jane better serves as the comparison than Nevermore. The real universe is immensely more complex than our perception of it, with hidden depth and aspects of it that create a immense gape between it's true nature and what we understand of it, but we haven't simplified it that much), but complex nonetheless) theory for the origins of the universe and an understanding of how reality could possibly exist is, "...Wait, he does research on this? He...what the hell kind of job does EndOf have? Am I allowed to know this?"
"...Wait, he does research on this? He...what the hell kind of job does EndOf have? Am I allowed to know this?"
Sci-fi writer. ;)
Anyone want to help me with my Politics paper? I seem to be having issues with coming up with solutions as to what the US should do about the Middle East at the moment without telling everyone to shut the fuck up and let me take over everything in the world.
I've kind of been ignoring half of the world lately and I'm really starting to regret it in this class. Bear with me if I sound completely ignorant and childish. Believe me, I already feel that way.
I'm supposed to be writing a 3-4 page paper giving the President advice on what the US should do about Syria and Libya and where we should stand with Turkey now that they're becoming more involved with Syria. I understand what's going on through boatloads of research, but I'm not sure of how to go about fixing things from our perspective.
Any ideas or opinions to share? It's due tomorrow and anything helps. :/
The problem with the present Middle-East scenario is not so much with Turkey, Syria, and Libya; the problem has to do with a Russian military port in Tartus. At the moment, the Assad government garantees use of the port to Russia, and both Russia and China are concerned that a Rebel-lead government would side with NATO and disallow Russian power projection in that area. Because both Russia and China want Russia to continue to be able to project power in the Med., they have consistently vetoed UN security resolutions to intervene.
THEREFORE, the people that the US wants to be talking to is not so much anyone in the middle east, but in trying to work out an agreement between the Russians and the Syrian Rebels that would guarantee Russia continued use of the port. If Russia feels confident that their power projection in the area will remain intact after the revolution, then both they and China will side with everyone else in the UN security committee and allow for coalition military intervention.
As for Libya, it needs to solve its own problems. We should be defending our embassies, but we should not be running the General National Congress of Libya as a puppet government. If the government can form policies about al Qaeda on its own, then it's better for them, and it shows their people that this is what they feel without the US breathing down their necks.
Thanks, this should help a bit, at least in figuring out what I need to specifically focus on.
I guess I'm too much of an altruistic idealist to come up with answers to political questions. If it doesn't have a simple answer that comes out perfectly for all parties involved (which NEVER happens), then I can't agree to it.
So I guess I'll suggest holding a council with Syrian rebels and Russia for their continued use of the port to stop Russia's backing of Assad's government, along with pulling out of Libya as soon as their government is able to support itself, and maybe just sticking next to Turkey for support and defense if Syria goes into all-out war against them?
Turkey's a NATO member though, so arguably, if Syria declares war on Turkey, then NATO will declare war on Syria regardless of who gets the Tartus port in the end...and if Tartus doesn't end up in Russian hands by the end of it, things have the potential to get...sticky?
You may want to look into that one more.
© 2024 Created by Z. Powered by