Learn Hypnosis.Hellskull said:There is no valid answer for this one:
"How does Hellskull get a girlfriend without paying/killing/threatening anyone?"
How do you know so much about swallows?Lukeje said:I don't know that!happysock said:African or European?Lukeje said:What... is the air-speed velocity of an unladen swallow?
*Aaaaaaaaaaaargh!*
They have rest-mass... and they also have momentum.traski999 said:No they do not. For something to attain the speed of light while having mass it would require an infinite amount of energy because the mass of the object reaches infinity. Photons act as a particle and a wave but are mass-less.Berethond said:Untrue, photons do have mass. That's where the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle comes in, you cannot know the location and velocity of a sub-atomic particle at the same time. That's because one or the other changes when hit by a photon.traski999 said:Nothing only light can move at the speed of light (ironic no?) and light has no mass... it'd pass right through.GHMonkey said:What happens when two object going light speed collide?
The Momentum of the photon is attained by the equation p=(h/2pi)k which has nothing to do with mass at all. Further the photons "rest-mass" is derived from the equation E=mc^2 which if you take the energy of a singe photon and divide it by the speed of light in a vacuum squared (approximately 9 x 10^16 m/s) it is going to be such a small number that it is irrelevant.Lukeje said:They have rest-mass... and they also have momentum.traski999 said:No they do not. For something to attain the speed of light while having mass it would require an infinite amount of energy because the mass of the object reaches infinity. Photons act as a particle and a wave but are mass-less.Berethond said:Untrue, photons do have mass. That's where the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle comes in, you cannot know the location and velocity of a sub-atomic particle at the same time. That's because one or the other changes when hit by a photon.traski999 said:Nothing only light can move at the speed of light (ironic no?) and light has no mass... it'd pass right through.GHMonkey said:What happens when two object going light speed collide?
how?TheNumber1Zero said:Learn Hypnosis.Hellskull said:There is no valid answer for this one:
"How does Hellskull get a girlfriend without paying/killing/threatening anyone?"
<a href=http://www.time.com/time/health/article/0,8599,1808049,00.html>50 grandroflmaoftw1 said:What is the value of a human life?
you search for fish fossils.Dart DeathClaw said:How I mine for fish?
I never claimed the rest-mass of a photon had anything to do with the momentum. The two points are unrelated. In the first instance you claimed that photons have no mass. This is incorrect because they have rest-mass (their mass if they were to "stand-still"; this is of course forbidden quantum mechanically). The second point was that two photons would simply "pass through" each other; if you model them as corpuscles then this is obviously false if they have momentum. Of course, if they both have the same energy then the two photons "bouncing-off" each other would appear exactly the same as the two photons passing through each other. It should be noted that the corpuscle approximation is not at all correct; at closest approach the two wavefunctions would overlap and you would get a superimposition of the two photons. Thus it could be said that the two photons neither really "collide" nor "pass-through each other", just that some quantum mechanical weirdness goes on.traski999 said:The Momentum of the photon is attained by the equation p=(h/2pi)k which has nothing to do with mass at all. Further the photons "rest-mass" is derived from the equation E=mc^2 which if you take the energy of a singe photon and divide it by the speed of light in a vacuum squared (approximately 9 x 10^16 m/s) it is going to be such a small number that it is irrelevant.Lukeje said:They have rest-mass... and they also have momentum.traski999 said:No they do not. For something to attain the speed of light while having mass it would require an infinite amount of energy because the mass of the object reaches infinity. Photons act as a particle and a wave but are mass-less.Berethond said:Untrue, photons do have mass. That's where the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle comes in, you cannot know the location and velocity of a sub-atomic particle at the same time. That's because one or the other changes when hit by a photon.traski999 said:Nothing only light can move at the speed of light (ironic no?) and light has no mass... it'd pass right through.GHMonkey said:What happens when two object going light speed collide?
Hmmm... you have valid points. I concede the victory to you good sir. This has been fun though =D.Lukeje said:I never claimed the rest-mass of a photon had anything to do with the momentum. The two points are unrelated. In the first instance you claimed that photons have no mass. This is incorrect because they have rest-mass (their mass if they were to "stand-still"; this is of course forbidden quantum mechanically). The second point was that two photons would simply "pass through" each other; if you model them as corpuscles then this is obviously false if they have momentum. Of course, if they both have the same energy then the two photons "bouncing-off" each other would appear exactly the same as the two photons passing through each other. It should be noted that the corpuscle approximation is not at all correct; at closest approach the two wavefunctions would overlap and you would get a superimposition of the two photons. Thus it could be said that the two photons neither really "collide" nor "pass-through each other", just that some quantum mechanical weirdness goes on.traski999 said:The Momentum of the photon is attained by the equation p=(h/2pi)k which has nothing to do with mass at all. Further the photons "rest-mass" is derived from the equation E=mc^2 which if you take the energy of a singe photon and divide it by the speed of light in a vacuum squared (approximately 9 x 10^16 m/s) it is going to be such a small number that it is irrelevant.Lukeje said:They have rest-mass... and they also have momentum.traski999 said:No they do not. For something to attain the speed of light while having mass it would require an infinite amount of energy because the mass of the object reaches infinity. Photons act as a particle and a wave but are mass-less.Berethond said:Untrue, photons do have mass. That's where the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle comes in, you cannot know the location and velocity of a sub-atomic particle at the same time. That's because one or the other changes when hit by a photon.traski999 said:Nothing only light can move at the speed of light (ironic no?) and light has no mass... it'd pass right through.GHMonkey said:What happens when two object going light speed collide?
Neither they're both disgustingOneHP said:Easy, both.notoriouslynx said:Soup or salad?
Jedamethis said:Retaliation: Does your mother know that your gay?Hallow said:Have you beaten your wife recently?
what kind, an African or a European swallow?Lukeje said:What... is the air-speed velocity of an unladen swallow?
you mine for fish in wet with poleDart DeathClaw said:How I mine for fish?
Actually, Deep thought the computer that came up with the answer was proven wrong. Because the question was asked wrong.Da pyro man 999 said:Befor you ask the most obvious one, the meaning to life is 42(hitch hickers guide to the galaxy)come up with one.
The bullet would just drop in front of you.Yuriatayde said:Or in short, it's like a magnet, and blah blah blah (he asked for how it works, not math stating how well it works, no points for over-complicating in an effort to make yourself seem smarter)effilctar said:if you mean what is responsible for gravity: gravitonsHyperactiveman said:How does gravity work? (NOT meaning "what does it do?")
if you mean how are we pulled towards something by gravity: it's like being magnetically attracted except instead of having a greater magnetic field strength, the object has a greater mass which gives it a greater gravitational field strength. g=GM/(r^2) where G is the gravitational constant, M is the mass of the object and r^2 is the mean radius of the object squared.
It's currently unexplainable, all we know is that it DOES, and it does at a rate of blah blah blah. What he's asking for, (and me for that matter) is an explanation of how object X can pull on object Y with absolutely nothing connecting them in any way.
[edit] Disregard; I overlooked the "Gravitons", although that's hardly an explanation and I still discard your answer.
OT: If you have a gun that shoots bullets at exactly 2000km/h, and you were on a platform moving you exactly 2000km/h, and you fired the gun backwards... What would happen?