MasterD-LeyAmas Posted June 21, 2002 Share Posted June 21, 2002 The person asking says, "What's a yellow light mean?" The other person says, "Slow down." The person asking then says it again, only slower, and that's the joke (it's kind of a pete-repeat joke, if you know what that is). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zindell Posted June 21, 2002 Share Posted June 21, 2002 Hey he answered everything. Congrats. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BCanr2d2 Posted June 22, 2002 Share Posted June 22, 2002 Darth Seph Said: Fossil25 has got it. The time is Zero. Light can reach ne where in the universe in no time at all. However if you stand on a planet , and just say you replace a particle of light with a car ok. You watch the car take off and travel to another planet. From your vision the car will take as many years as calculated from planet to planet , eg 1000 light years between each planet. However the second that car takes off from it will take zero seconds to reach the other planet , not 1000 years. However it is a light particle not a vehichle so no take off acceleration is needed. So light from our sun can reach our neighbouring star in zero seconds. But from here on Earth we watch it take a million light years. My personal opinion on this, is that it is using flawed physics to get an answer that is theoretically possible, but practically not possible. So to ask a question that has a debatable answer such as this, and give an answer with a definitive statement is to mislead everyone that what physics theory you used is actually true. After all, a theory is only ideas about how things work, and not a definitive statement of what actually is.............. If something exists, therefore it must have a mass, no matter how miniscule, therefore no particle can travel at an infinite speed. It can approach an infinite speed, but will never reach an infinite speed. That is using an assumption that light itself is a particle, and not acting as a wave... After all, what is light, is it wave, or particle, or both, or do we not know enough about light and how it works to answer the question in any definitive way. It is like saying space is a vacuum, but then also stating light travels by particles, therefore space cannot be a vacuum for light to travel to Earth. Physics is all theories, very little of it actually practical, a lot of them flawed in some way, and always changed as we find out more about how things work. So much of physics has theories that can and do contradict each other, and using light as an example is one of the worst. There is no definitive way in which light behaves, therefore we can not use definitve answers to non-definitive facts............................ That's my $2.50 anyway.......... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
XERXES Posted June 22, 2002 Share Posted June 22, 2002 another 3 pages appearing from nowhere... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fossil25 Posted June 22, 2002 Share Posted June 22, 2002 i agree with BCanr2d2 Physics is full of crap...but i like it Those physicists are making stuff out of nothing just to fit their theories and make it look correct...like forces...and that dark matter thing. They just make some neutrinino and yay it reacts only gravitationally and with the weak nuclear force...the only particle to do something like that... and yeah man, they haven't even solved whether light is a wave or particle after wad..10 years? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Darth Seph Posted June 22, 2002 Share Posted June 22, 2002 10 years. You mean from the days of Isac Neuton. However My question is actually taken from "The Spectrum of Light" by Oliver McCarthy. Ok you proberly wont know who that is. But he is a very good physist. Your right that physic is mostly theoretical. But without these theories we wouldent even live in the world we live in today. Physic is not full of crap. It may be boring but full of crap it aint. I myself have a B at Higher physics level. And attending University to conitue study on it. Plus I have had 3 weeks Astro Physics teaching. However there is more evidence to support light is a particle than a wave. It would take 4 hours for me to write it out. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dath Maximus Posted June 22, 2002 Share Posted June 22, 2002 yeah....... im not sure if thats a good thing you know all that you make the rest of us look dumb. I took a cooking class by mistake once! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Yom Posted June 22, 2002 Share Posted June 22, 2002 1 day it is Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fossil25 Posted June 22, 2002 Share Posted June 22, 2002 nono i actually like this physics stuff... frankly speaking, if u don't mind writing it, and it's gonna be in a form that's easy to understand (without those calculus which i suck in and without background needed) then i won't mind spending 1 day reading it... all i know is they tested it..maybe against a wall....and noticed a kind of here appears here not...then reapear so looks a wave... my actual physics in school sux...got A2 for (some exam we take when we are 16, dunno what it's called there) and A2 is ok...but i'm just failing every test i take (actually for any subject) in this school we enter when we are 17 ( again it's called something else here so not sure what it's over that) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zindell Posted June 22, 2002 Share Posted June 22, 2002 Originally posted by XERXES another 3 pages appearing from nowhere... That would be My fault I have a spam problem. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Arca Jeth Posted June 22, 2002 Share Posted June 22, 2002 Originally posted by OnlyOneCanoli Bantha fodder is food for banthas, silly. Actually...bantha fodder is digested food that has already come out the bantha's a$$. Atleast that is what I heard last I dunno what you kids are calling Bantha Fodder nowadays. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MasterD-LeyAmas Posted June 22, 2002 Share Posted June 22, 2002 ...spam, spam, spam, eggs and spam, spam and bacon, spam and bacon and spam, eggs and spam and bacon and spam, spam cakes, spam biscuits, spam eggs, spam bacon, spam... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MasterD-LeyAmas Posted June 22, 2002 Share Posted June 22, 2002 BUT I DON"T LIKE SPAM!!! Hey, this guy 'ere says he doesn't like spam! DOESN'T LIKE SPAM?! Why, what's wrong wit' 'it??? ................................whoah! Sorry 'bout all that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BCanr2d2 Posted June 23, 2002 Share Posted June 23, 2002 Originally posted by Darth Seph 10 years. You mean from the days of Isac Neuton. However My question is actually taken from "The Spectrum of Light" by Oliver McCarthy. Ok you proberly wont know who that is. But he is a very good physist. Your right that physic is mostly theoretical. But without these theories we wouldent even live in the world we live in today. Physic is not full of crap. It may be boring but full of crap it aint. I myself have a B at Higher physics level. And attending University to conitue study on it. Plus I have had 3 weeks Astro Physics teaching. However there is more evidence to support light is a particle than a wave. It would take 4 hours for me to write it out. I studied physics for two years at High School, and not at an extended level, so my understanding is no where near as high as yours, but not beyond my comprehension. I was just trying to make the point of using a respected field of thought, such as physics, and stating uncertain answers as fact. You are making a theoretically correct assumption on the answer, but it also discludes the practical assumptions that need to added into your answer. One theory by itself can not provide a whole answer, you must place into real world situations, and bring in other appropriate theories to help support the answer provided. And once you use the assumption that light is a particle, then we have to also include the assumption that a particle, no matter how small, has some mass to it. Therefore the answer placed in your book removes all "real world" considerations when asking you to answer the question - Which is my main "annoyance" in physics and the way it is dealt with. They seperate theories from each other, treat them in isolation, when that is never the case. Tell me how many of the situations put up before you in your physics study tell you to ignore all other factors, ie ignore all other rules of physics? Too many I would assume. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kurgan Posted June 24, 2002 Share Posted June 24, 2002 Bantha Poodoo = "Bantha Fodder" Bantha = beast of burden, native to Tatooine, used by Sandpeople to carry their Tusken Raiders (as seen in ANH). Lives wild in herds? (ROTJ SE) Fodder = "food" as in, hay for horses So Bantha Fodder is bantha food. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kurgan Posted June 24, 2002 Share Posted June 24, 2002 why are the smerfs blue Because of the spice. It's in the air they breath, and in the food they eat... everywhere.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Yom Posted June 24, 2002 Share Posted June 24, 2002 Originally posted by Kurgan Because of the spice. It's in the air they breath, and in the food they eat... everywhere.... no sorry that is wrong i do have to say it is the shrooms they live in it is every were the they eat so much of it they are blue so there :D yom Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.