i found it whilst surfing a physics forum.. (sorry)
and i quote:
the big erode
forget i said string theory.
matter in the universe follows the pattern that when force is applied to it, depending on the gentleness of the interaction, the objects will lose a bit of their mass, the force an object is able to apply next time is always less than what it can apply now, the asteroid will blow up and the earth will shoot earth in the air that incidentally will eventually come back, but the earth did lose the mass for a little bit.
so if we determine the mass of fundamental particles only by their interactions with other particles, and this decrease in mass is slow enough that we dont have sensitive enough tools to observe it since the first particle accelerator, then there is no reason not to believe the theory.
except
next answer
well i sure dont know, but i would say it seems reasonable that just by the friction of the impact between massive objects, some particles are going to chip off, is it possible for there to be an immeasurably small subatomic mass->energy chip-off? it would have to be immeasruable since we havent measured any shrinking obviously.
and then, while i dont know anything, i would say that it just doesnt make sense that waves cant get bigger if every interaction they go through is done with bigger particles. i mean amplitude and frequency both seem like they ought to be bigger, whatever confines a 'red' wave to whatever hertz in the reactions, it seems like if all that changed, there isnt any reason why the wave would stay the same. do you have a more intricate reason besides vocab?
ROTFLMAOWQPCOOME
